Once again, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry's self-appointed hatchet man, goes after Bush without really thinking about his own record on the subject about which he is pontificating:
America is at greater risk of a nuclear attack from terrorists because of the Bush administration's "single-minded focus on Iraq," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said.
In remarks prepared for delivery Tuesday, Kennedy, D-Mass., said North Korea and Iran have continued unchecked with their nuclear buildups while the United States preoccupies itself with Iraq.
And Kennedy proposes dealing with them...HOW? (crickets chirping)
I suppose that he believes that the UN will be able to help, given their stellar record on non-proliferation issues in the past. Or perhaps he believes that all we need to do is a Clinton-redux, where we throw money at the Koreans so they will pretend to stop their program. That was a runaway success, too.
Maybe he believes the answer is to invade them and depose their leaders. After all, he was all for taking troops into Kosovo in 1999, despite the lack of a UN mandate. Saint Ted would never allow politics to prevent him from voting the right way on an issue, despite the fact that the Iraq War's closest analogue is Clinton's intervention in Kosovo.
He said the administration's efforts to rid Iraq of a nuclear program it didn't have not only has destroyed U.S. credibility around the world, but has made al-Qaida terrorists more determined to launch a nuclear attack on America.
Why would that be? After all, Al Qaeda and Iraq are not tied together in any way; Kennedy's cohorts have reminded us time and again of this fact. It's not like Al Qaeda declared war on us in 1998 or anything. Oh, wait...
Kennedy said the United States would be better off under the leadership of Democrat John Kerry, who "has pledged to make preventing nuclear terrorism an absolute priority."
John Kerry's plan to prevent nuclear terrorism is to "appoint a high-level envoy to lead the effort" and to "create a new international protocol to track and account for existing nuclear weapons and deter the development of chemical and biological arsenals", because as we all know, the countries that we need to worry about the most are absolutely certain to be a signatory to such a protocol.
President Bush, who recently indicated a willingness to work more closely with France and Germany on nonproliferation issues, has labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil" with North Korea and prewar Iraq.
But Kennedy said the administration's unilateralism has caused a serious setback in nonproliferation policies. And he said Bush has compounded that neglect by pursuing research into a new type of nuclear weapon, called "bunker busters." The Senate last week rejected an effort to strip funding for the administration's research into mini-nukes.
I don't recall hearing anything from Kennedy when France performed nuclear tests in the South Pacific in 1995 and 1996. He's uttered nary a word about Pakistan's acquisition of nukes, and the ongoing tests in both India and Pakistan. As to Bush's policies causing "a serious setback in nonproliferation policies", I would like to hear specifics. Simply a statement from Mr. Kennedy does not make it so. In fact, despite the outright hostility from the Chirac and Schöder regimes, we are working with France and Germany to reduce proliferation. And our relations with the United Kingdom are exceptionally strong and warm. Even Russia's Putin has exhibited a willingness to work with Bush, so the "unilateralism" slur is unwarranted and irresponsible. Kennedy is so concerned about Kerry winning that he is willing to trash Bush in the eyes of the international community. At least, unike Kerry, Bush is not willing to allow other countries to dictate foreign policy to us.
Kennedy has always been long on rhetoric and short on solutions when it comes to foreign policy. Unlike his oldest brother, he has no clue about standing up to foreign nations when their interests collide with ours. Can you imagine Ted's reaction to the Cuban Missile crisis, or to 9/11? He is one of the few senators who can make Kerry look like a hawk, because he is so thoroughly dovish. If his policies were as sharp as his rhetoric against the Bush administration, he'd have some credibility. As it is, he just comes across as a pompous windbag.