Kennedy on the non-warpath
: Though Hub Blog disagrees with a lot of what Ted Kennedy said yesterday (here's the Globe's version
and the Herald's
), one can’t help but respect the guy. OK, so Hub Blog is a typical Bostonian with a sentimental attachment to old Ted. Still, Kennedy at least spoke from the gut on Iraq, unlike Tom Daschle, who can’t say anything without peering at his Congressional polling data first. Kennedy, some of whose concerns are shared by many Americans
, is now one of the main leaders of the Democratic opposition that, until this past week, has been terrified to rear its head. Republicans have been challenging Democrats to stand up and state exactly what they’re thinking. Well, Kennedy did just that yesterday, whether your agree with him or not.
With that out of the way, here’s a quick observation: Reflecting the misgivings of others, Kennedy is all over the map in terms of contradictions: Is he against the war or just against the timing of the war? He’s for UN involvement, but what if the UN continues to balk at confronting Saddam, as it has over the past ten years? He says a war could be very, very bloody (and he’s right, especially about a desperate Saddam resorting to the use of weapons of mass destruction if pushed into a corner), but he indicated he’s willing to wage war as a “last resort” -- so that begs the question: Is the bloody/non-bloody nature of the war really relevant to the argument?
All in all, Kennedy’s words reflect the gut-level, often contradictory, reservations of a lot of people about the necessity of immediate war with Iraq. Those reservations, some of which Hub Blog shares, are at least now out in the open, as opposed to the wimpy, muffled, coughing responses of other Dems.
Postscript: Courtesy of Mickey Kaus
, here's Peggy Noonan's
own reservations about war with Iraq.