Saturday, February 08, 2003
Kennedy on the war: As a public service, I throw this chunk of raw meat out to the blogosphere -- an op-ed piece by Ted Kennedy on the coming war with Iraq. ...
... My own views on Kennedy’s op-ed: Clearly, Kennedy, whose position on Iraq hasn’t gotten the same local attention and scrutiny as John Kerry’s non-stand stand on Iraq, has a flat-out antiwar position, which includes, as one columnist has noted, constantly moving the goal posts. Maybe Kennedy’s gotten a relative pass because he’s, well, Teddy and we’ve learned to expect this from him. My position is more in line with H.D.S. Greenway’s op-ed yesterday, in which he expressed regret about when, how and why we got to this point, but that we’re now nevertheless at this point -- and we had better deal with it sooner rather than later. I’d add that the future of the U.N. is now at stake. Some are willing to say ‘good riddance’ to the U.N. I’m not one of them. If the U.N. keeps issuing threats and ultimatums at Saddam and then does nothing, the U.N. is nothing. It’s over. It will have lost all credibility. And that will be a tragedy. The U.N. has to stand firm on this. ... About the only thing I agree with in Kennedy’s op-ed is the administration’s somewhat loose talk of possibly using nukes. Know some of that talk is necessary for deterrence reasons; George H.W. Bush’s administration sent similar signals to Saddam in Gulf War I, but ... saw the “McLaughlin Group” last night and the consensus of most of the panel, both conservatives and liberals, seemed to be, to varying degrees, that: A.) Nukes won’t/shouldn’t be used and B.) They agreed with Kennedy on that issue. There’s just a sense -- again -- that the current administration’s rhetoric has gotten out of hand.
Postscript: Howie Carr is one of the few local pundits who has already feasted on Kennedy’s Iraq position. Example: “More and more, Ted sounds like his old man, circa 1939, when he was sending cables to FDR from London counseling appeasement of Adolf Hitler, complimenting Neville Chamberlain on the bang-up job he was doing selling out the Czechs.” ... However, this column is perhaps a classic example of why one should cite Howie with extreme care. Notice all the personal attacks and digs at Kennedy. (I mean, making fun of a 70-year-old guy’s shaking hand?) The last two lines are incredible. Why the racial reference? Why? In a way, this Howie column itself is also a chunk of raw meat thrown out to the blogosphere. ...
Update - 9:30 a.m. - NYT columnist Bill Keller, a wary warmongering baby-boom liberal, has just joined the 'The I-Can't-Believe-I'm-a-Hawk Club.' I'm not a member of his Vietnam-era club, nor do I consider myself a liberal. But there are a lot of moderates, moderate conservatives and even some conservatives who agree with many of the same points in Keller's piece.
... My own views on Kennedy’s op-ed: Clearly, Kennedy, whose position on Iraq hasn’t gotten the same local attention and scrutiny as John Kerry’s non-stand stand on Iraq, has a flat-out antiwar position, which includes, as one columnist has noted, constantly moving the goal posts. Maybe Kennedy’s gotten a relative pass because he’s, well, Teddy and we’ve learned to expect this from him. My position is more in line with H.D.S. Greenway’s op-ed yesterday, in which he expressed regret about when, how and why we got to this point, but that we’re now nevertheless at this point -- and we had better deal with it sooner rather than later. I’d add that the future of the U.N. is now at stake. Some are willing to say ‘good riddance’ to the U.N. I’m not one of them. If the U.N. keeps issuing threats and ultimatums at Saddam and then does nothing, the U.N. is nothing. It’s over. It will have lost all credibility. And that will be a tragedy. The U.N. has to stand firm on this. ... About the only thing I agree with in Kennedy’s op-ed is the administration’s somewhat loose talk of possibly using nukes. Know some of that talk is necessary for deterrence reasons; George H.W. Bush’s administration sent similar signals to Saddam in Gulf War I, but ... saw the “McLaughlin Group” last night and the consensus of most of the panel, both conservatives and liberals, seemed to be, to varying degrees, that: A.) Nukes won’t/shouldn’t be used and B.) They agreed with Kennedy on that issue. There’s just a sense -- again -- that the current administration’s rhetoric has gotten out of hand.
Postscript: Howie Carr is one of the few local pundits who has already feasted on Kennedy’s Iraq position. Example: “More and more, Ted sounds like his old man, circa 1939, when he was sending cables to FDR from London counseling appeasement of Adolf Hitler, complimenting Neville Chamberlain on the bang-up job he was doing selling out the Czechs.” ... However, this column is perhaps a classic example of why one should cite Howie with extreme care. Notice all the personal attacks and digs at Kennedy. (I mean, making fun of a 70-year-old guy’s shaking hand?) The last two lines are incredible. Why the racial reference? Why? In a way, this Howie column itself is also a chunk of raw meat thrown out to the blogosphere. ...
Update - 9:30 a.m. - NYT columnist Bill Keller, a wary warmongering baby-boom liberal, has just joined the 'The I-Can't-Believe-I'm-a-Hawk Club.' I'm not a member of his Vietnam-era club, nor do I consider myself a liberal. But there are a lot of moderates, moderate conservatives and even some conservatives who agree with many of the same points in Keller's piece.
