Kennedy's remarks about war motivations hit a new low

suntimes.com ^ | October 18, 2003 | THOMAS ROESER

[jmstein7]

Is Sen. Edward Kennedy the Joe McCarthy of today? Yes, but -- But in my estimation, the comparison does a disservice to McCarthy. McCarthy insisted more communists than Alger Hiss had infiltrated the government but couldn't effectively prove it. We now know in retrospect that there was the basic undercurrent of truth in the Wisconsin senator's charges.

But last month, by ignoring the written and spoken record, Kennedy trashed the truth in attacking President Bush on the issue of Iraq. On Sept. 18, the senator said: ''There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. The whole thing was a fraud.'' Later he said, ''The tragedy is that our troops are paying with their lives because their commander in chief let them down.''

Only one member of Congress called Kennedy's statement what it was. ''Ted Kennedy has accused the president of treason,'' said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), ''and no Democratic leader has had the guts to speak their mind about the accusation.''

When McCarthy said communist infiltrators had permeated the FDR and Truman administrations, his charge was regarded as dirty pool, but subsequent disclosures of the Venona documents -- secret USSR cables dating back to the 1940s that our government intercepted -- show beyond a shadow of doubt the existence of a network of spies.

McCarthy was assailed and later censured because his enemies declared he embroidered the truth. But while the essence of what he maintained was later justified by Venona, ''he added little to our knowledge'' but ''did force public discussion of the issue -- something that the left did not appreciate,'' wrote two espionage experts, Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel in The Venona Secrets.

McCarthy was pilloried; not so Kennedy. The fact that no major Democratic candidate for president, including Howard Dean, Bush's most caustic critic, endorses the Kennedy statement, tells how far off-base Kennedy is. The fact that liberals fear to question him tells much about their lack of courage. And that no Republican senator has lashed back at him is an outrage.

Kennedy ignored the written record. Bush said clearly there was no imminent threat but made his case despite it. ''Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent,'' he said Jan. 28. ''Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.''

In 50 years of writing about, and participating in, politics, I have not seen the equal of what Kennedy said about Bush.

One can disagree with the pretext of the war in Iraq; I questioned it but now that we're involved, support victory there and believe this president has shown courage and has taken great risks with his own popularity to achieve what is right. Kennedy, by insisting that Bush manufactured a crisis and pursued it for partisan ends, has trespassed even the minimum standards of public debate. If he has evidence that Bush invented the war, he should produce it. If he has not -- and clearly he has not -- Kennedy should be the subject of a Senate investigation and should be censured, if not expelled.

Censure all but ended McCarthy's career. No probe or censure is likely for Kennedy -- but his derogatory statement stands in contrast to the example of his brother.

''Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans,'' I heard JFK say on a cold inaugural afternoon. How sad that by implying the president is a traitor, Edward Kennedy has allowed his torch to fall.

[Qwinn]

Saudi Arabia: Chances of internal reform: Actually considerable. It was judged that alternate forms of pressure (including Iraq itself) could create significant change there. This has proven in retrospect to be correct. They are now holding elections - an astounding event. Also, the biggest beef Saudis had with us was our troops stationed on their soil. Those troops were there to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam at the Saudi monarch's request - no other reason. Those troops have now been relocated.

North Korea: Chances of internal reform: Nil. Thanks to Herr Klinton, they've had a decade to make nukes, plus they have the largest (or very close to it) standing army in the world, and Seoul within a couple of miles for their taking. Almost any move to deal with NK would mean the loss of SK. Plus, NK is supported directly by China. In other words, it would be a thousand times more problematic than Iraq.

Iraq: Chances of internal reform: Nil. Showed clear signs of soon becoming another NK. Countries willing to -directly- back Saddam - AT THIS TIME, none. Countries indirectly helping Saddam - numerous, under the guise of the Oil For Food debacle. Don't attack, and watch U.S. reputation continue to deteriorate ANYWAY as every Lefty organization on the planet continued to pin starvation on Iraq as a result of the U.S.'s embargo, not Saddam.
Wisdom of allowing that status quo to remain - in the negatives.

People who try to paint foreign policy with a "one-size-fits-all" standard annoy me.

Qwinn

[Calvin Locke]

... some of the media ...

D@mn! I forgot to set the vcr to tape Couric ripping the swimmer a new one. Anybody else see it?

Umm, she did use her piercing wit and analysis to defend logic and truth, didn't she?

[Calvin Locke]

I wonder how Kennedy thinks he's helping the country ....

The same way his father did by vocally supporting Hitler while Ambassador to England.

[cwb]

Shh! That's supposed to be a secret:)

[niteowl77]

Seeing so much resort to libertarian and/or populist phraseology, I can do little more than consider you to be one of the two - or at least someone who plays one on TV - therefore no arguments I can make are likely to change you (those particular viewpoints often coincide with critically high self-justification levels). Perhaps you are a liberal (in the pejorative sense) trolling on a Saturday, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

Be that as it may, I'll cut to the chase and say that for whatever reasons you may enumerate, you have a sufficiently dark vision of George Bush to place him in moral equivalency with William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, and that makes it impossible for me to take you seriously any more than I now take Patrick J. Buchanan.

Good day.

[Go Gordon]

I was just moved by a FReeper that equated patriotism with a blind devotion to the president's policies. That is dangerous.

Maybe the Freeper that motivated you, actually understands that we are at war with Muslim fundamentalists. Maybe that Freeper understands that the fight is better fought on their soil, not ours. Maybe that Freeper has more information than you do, regarding the links between Saddam and terrorists groups - INCLUDING Al Quaeda.

Maybe that Freeper does enough homework and reading to know that Biological weapons materials have already been found in Iraq, and 20 previously undisclosed bio laboratories were uncovered. Maybe that Freeper also knows that there are over 130 munitions sites around Iraq, some as large as 50 square miles and that Saddam used to store his chemical munitions together with conventional munitions, oftentimes without clearly marking them. Oh, BTW, we've only inspected 10 of the 130+ sites.

Maybe that Freeper also knows of the connections between known Al Quaeda members and the fact that Osama Bin Laden visited Iraq and met with Iraqui officials in 1998 - after the inspectors were kicked out. Maybe that Freeper knows what Salmon Pak is, and how it was used to train terrorists in hijackings.

I could go on and on, but what may be more helpful for everyone, is to hear what YOUR solution would have been over the last 2 years. DIssent is fine, but what should have been done? Whats your solution? Or are you just a whinning Monday morning quarterback? Besides, this think isn't over yet. Syria and Iran will be dealt with in the future. As for Saudi Arabia, are you really suggesting that we wipe out their entire population? Is that part of what your solution would have been over the last two years? I'm very interested to hear your response.

Respectfully....GG

[Go Gordon]

Great post (#51)

BTW - And just who is going to explain to those families why we didn't act when we had the chance?

Wasn't Bush blamed for 9/11 by the RATS - What did he know and when did he know it accustations.

[OldFriend]

Kennedy and Albright singing from the same hymnbook.

It's the McAuliff version, circa 2000

[cwb]

Thanks. And yes Bush was blamed. That's what makes these libs such hypocrites: They wanted him to act preemptively "before" 9/11, and yet obstruct him from doing just that after 9/11. Can you imagine their outrage had we begun profiling Arab men between the ages of 18-35 or took the war to Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11? The so-called intelligence "chatter" surronding 9/11 was much less specific than everything we knew about Saddam. Just look at their reactions to these policies after the attack...as they still blamed Bush. Liberals have positioned themselves purely as obstructionists and oppurtunists to take advantage of any circumstance.

[Go Gordon]

Good point. According to liberals, Bush should have pre-emptively taken out Osama and the Taliban before 9/11. He shouldn't have gone after Iraq after 9/11, but he should pre-emptively take care of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons. I'm still confused over what the liberals want the US to do with Syria and Iran. My guesss, is that they will wait for Bush to do something, then condemn the action. If Bush does nothing before the next election, they'll complain that he should have done something. Typical partisan liberal wackiness.

[JustPiper]

Bump!

[ImpBill]

Censure the guy that just got the Bush (SR) award for excellence in public service?

[InterceptPoint]

As I pointed out on another thread:

Listen to bin Laden and listen to Kennedy. Can you tell the difference?

[Maria S]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I really think Hillary Clinton is feeding Teddy those lines. They both know he can pretty well say anything and get away with it...he'll be re-elected by the Mass. voters as long as he keeps running (sometimes I DO wonder about people in NY and Mass.!), he does have stature in the Senate, and the liberal media WILL continue to report his words. Seems like she's found a reasonably useful mouthpiece through Kennedy!

[StriperSniper]

Seems like she's found a reasonably useful mouthpiece through Kennedy!

Well she sure wore out little Tommy Dashole, I'm concerned about him. ;-)

[Temple Owl]

But don't forget, he was the inventer of the waitress sandwich. He should get credit for that. I suggest the much coveted Mary Jo Kopecne award.