We are constantly surprised, although shouldn't be given our experience, by the entirely irresponsible mindset of many liberals in our country.  Take for instance that great paragon of intelligence and leadership, Ted Kennedy.  Today he has been quoted as saying,
 

"I do not accept the idea that trying other alternatives is either futile or perilous, that the risks of waiting are greater than the risk of war..."
- Senator Ted Kennedy, Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, 9/27/02, quoted by Fox News Online.

The problem with Kennedy's statement, if it hasn't jumped out at you yet, is the phrase "...that the risks of waiting are greather than the risk of war."  You have to read the sentence to see that he is prefacing it with "I don't accept the idea..." in other words he is saying two things, the second, inanely stupid  part being "I don't accept the idea that the risks of waiting are greater than the risk of war."

He didn't even qualify the statement with any sort of timeframe.  I am reminded of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's comment before Congress recently, "...waiting for a smoking gun is problematic...if the gun is smoking than it has already gone off...we can't wait that long."

The argument of how long to wait has some rational to it. "When is it too late, or is now too soon?" is an appropriate question to ask, although, as Secretary of State Colin Powell also said before Congress recently, "...world intelligence agencies have missed on their analysis of nuclear weapons readiness of emerging nations by at least 2 years in every case."  He also pointed out that we were over three years off on Iraq before the Gulf War, only being dramatically surprised by our findings once we were on the ground.

And we remind you that those estimate were based upon the centrifuge program we thought had been in existence for only a few years.  Iraq has had a continuing centrifuge program for a decade now, hiding 95% of all its centrifuge experimental facilites from U.N. inspectors up until 1998.  In four years, it is clear that Saddam is well on his way to creating enough material to fuel the one nuclear weapon he needs to dramatically and irrecoverably change the strategic balance in the Middle East.  Dr. Hamzi, the former director of Saddam's nuclear program, clearly points out that Iraq has not only completed their centrifuge research, they are now into building the means to produce.

So it appears that Mr. Ted, in his failure to accept the obvious -- we have already waited far too long -- that he and his compadres are more than happy to roll the dice with American lives.  When the mushroom cloud goes off over Tel Aviv, or over a container ship in New York Harbor, only then will Ted and his friends say, "Tsk, Tsk, we should have done something about this..."

This kind of thinking, the "we have time to play the Iraqi shell game" approach to national security is why liberals should never be at the helm of this ship of state.  Think of the rhetoric in 1998 of the Clinton administration and Puff Daschel's emotional plea to the Senate Floor.  Then look at the military response authorized by the brave Clinton administration against Iraq. A couple of Tomahawks.  Like shooting a bull with a BB gun.  Big deal.  Weak, ineffective as it was useless.  The action so vehemently asked for by Puff Daschel and the President was laughed at by Iraq.  Nothing changed.

In fact, Iraq has not changed their rhetoric or their actions since then, opting to face down the paper tiger that they believe the U.S. represents.   Four years of liberal B.S., four years of Kofi Annan's weak pleas for change, and four years of European waffling have had no effect.  No action at all until George W. Bush made it clear he was serious before the U.N. and backed it with the clear impetus to U.S. military action if Iraq did not comply.  Suddenly Iraq is practically begging for new inspections.

The danger is that taking Mr. Ted's approach will kill many thousands of Americans.  His is the "don't bother to use force" concept of diplomacy, cuz no action is better than using military force.  Sit on your hands and hope someone who has clearly demonstrated nothing but force will move him off the dime.

This kind of thinking will, undoubtedly, kill many more Americans. One could point to a decade of this weak minded approach to an increasingly violent world as being a root cause of our government being asleep at the switch, and thus has already killed many thousands on one infamous day in September last year. It is like hearing someone say, "Never gain...well maybe...sorta, I'm not so sure...ahhh there isn't anything we can do, so let's just sit this one out..." An incredible approach to national security.

The major problem with this pacifist approach is that you continually negotiate and embrace the ideals of diplomacy -- appeasing the violent dictator until he shoves his bat up where the sun doesn't shine.  Then once he's got your attention, he proceeds to go after your family.  That is not acceptable, is irresponsible, and so far from the duty that Mr. Ted swore as his oath as a Senator, that we think it is an impeachable offense.

Except, we don't believe Mr. Ted really believes in sitting back waiting for a mushroom cloud to appear over some place of U.S. interest.  We do believe he IS happy to play politics with the issue of War with Iraq -- and in fact, that too is probably okay. It is a big issue and extremely political.  More power to debate on the subject.  Debate is great.  But let's get some real issues out there.  Spouting forth with baby talk is not useful.  No one can believe waiting and appeasing is the answer, do they?

Yes, let's discuss when it is appropriate.  How long do we have?  What is our margin of error historically?  What do we know about Iraq's desires?  What clues do we have as to their progress?

The liberal mindset, unfortunately does not want to cloud the debate with facts or rational dialog.  And this despite evidence of Iraq pursing exactly the two paths that indicate they are putting in place uranium enrichment facilities.  This evidence consists of orders for tens of thousands of high quality machine tubes for centrifuges and carbon fiber winding facilities for carbon heads on those centrifuges.  The liberal mindset however says, "Oh those are for purely benign purposes".  What?  Oh I see, Saddam is openning golf courses at his Presidential palaces and needs the carbon fiber winding equipment so he can go into the golf club handle business.  And the aluminum tubes are for the golf bags.  Right!

Ignoring the facts, and always coming down on the "Me Don't Worry" side of evidence, has given us new determination to place Mr. Ted and his friends into the Alfred E. Neumann's Mad Magazine Hall of Infamy.

Mr. Kennedy, America should see a good debate -- a good battle of wits.  But the American people don't need tot listen to someone who is coming to the debate only half armed.  Yes, you Mister Kennedy, are a half wit.  Retire and give your seat to someone who can carry on a decent debate.
 

© Copyright, 2002, Michael Crawford, MILNET