No one disputes that America has lasting and important interests in the Persian Gulf, or that Iraq poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.

How can we best achieve this objective in a way that minimizes the risks to our country? How can we ignore the danger to our young men and women in uniform, to our ally Israel, to regional stability, the international community, and victory against terrorism? (Ted Kennedy, 9/27/2002)

I will not dispute that these paragraphs were part of a broader anti war speech that Kennedy made. Teddy continued on, discussing the need for more inspections, which still did not work after this speech he made. On one hand, Kennedy was correct. It would have been great had those inspectors been allowed to do their jobs, rather then having to go to war. Yet, Saddam continued to play his games, and we can see why the United Nations, along with several countries, were so reticent to force the issue of continued, hard nosed, inclusive, inspections.

Once again, history shows Kennedy on the wrong side of the debate. Did we really want to go to war? I would say that most folks, left and right, would say "No," including me. But, it is human nature, and history, to fight when necessary. You have to back up what you say, and, sometimes, that means fighting.

Some countries have learned, such as Pakistan, Lybia, and Quatar. Will Kennedy support allowing Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons?

General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, testified before the Armed Services Committee on September 23 that Iran has had closer ties to terrorism than Iraq. Iran has a nuclear weapons development program, and it already has a missile that can reach Israel.

He is saying that he agrees with Clark that Iran is a more dangerous threat. Will he now pontificate against the danger that Iran poses? Only time will tell.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “”

  1. Kennedy will talk tough when the politics suits him. He just doesn’t want to take any real action. Recall that this guy voted against the Gulf War. Anyone think that Saddam would not be in Kuwait to this day if we had followed his advice then?

  2. If Kennedy was in charge, Saddam would have taken over the coastal regions of Saudi Arabia, getting most of the oil. Would probably still be in “discussions.”

Pirate's Cove