U.S. MUST NOT GO NUCLEAR IN IRAQ - Fat Teddy Weighs In

Providence Journal | 2/02/03 | Edward Kennedy (D. Mass.)

[aShepard]

Ted lies once more.

I've never heard any reports that the administration has ever contemplated a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iraq. I've heard that if Sadaam uses his bio/chemical/nuclear stockpiles, the US may retaliate with nuclear.

HUGE DIFFERENCE!

Have I been asleep, or is Ted continuing to view his world through the muddy brown glass of his empty whiskey bottle?

[dead]

What grandstanding crapola.

Preemptive nuclear strike is not on the table and it never was.

No need to tell Saddam that though.

[mhking]

a change of this magnitude should be brought to Congress for debate before the United States goes to war with Iraq.

Now that Tubby's been heard from, we can all sleep more safely. Yeah, right.

[Puppage]

And, THIS from a man who couldn't be bothered to grab a drowning woman from his Oldsmobile. Some how, I don't think this guys words carry much weight, if you'll pardon the pun.

[wideawake]

The only person drunker than Ted is the guy who believes he actually wrote this DNC boilerplate dribble.

The old Daschle-style "Bush is ker-razier than Hussein" foolishness.

[Shermy]

Demos stuck on the "unilateralist" word. They think it makes them sound smart or something.

[John W]

Tell ya what,Teddy...Let the adults run the war and you tend the keg.Easy on the foam.

[chiefqc]

I think he was drunk, as usual, when he slured this statement.

[jdege]

President Bush had an opportunity Tuesday night to explain why he believes such a radical departure from longstanding policy is justified or necessary.

What departure?

US policy is that we would consider any attack on the US, US forces, or US allies by Weapons of Mass Destruction sufficient justification for a nuclear response.

We haven't changed that policy in the slightest.

And not, we have never guaranteed that we'd make a nuclear response - only that it would be one of our options.

Teddy, of course, believes that we should promise to Saddam that we would not use nukes in response to a chemical or biological attack.

What effect that would have on the safety of US troops or US allies apparently doesn't concern him.

[fooman]

Hey Ted

.5 Kilo deep in the ground << 15 Mega overhead

got it?

[bfree]

Too bad Rose never got to bring out the old black dress for him.

[InspiredPath1]

Just another attempt to scare the uneducated masses

[drjoe]

Have I been asleep, or is Ted continuing to view his world through the muddy brown glass of his empty whiskey bottle?


Nope! He is continuing to view the world through the windshield of a sinking automobile with an already dead girl inside.

[elhombrelibre]

He's the Democrats front man on the war!!!!!!!!!!

[martin_fierro]

U.S. MUST NOT GO NUCLEAR IN IRAQ - Fat Teddy Weighs In

AYE AYE, SKIPPER!

[gridlock]

Aw, Heck, Ted. The Pentagon has plans on the shelf for pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against Cleveland! The military is paid to plan for all sorts of things, 99.9% of which never see the light of day.

[LTCJ]

Relax, Teddy. We'll run off that bridge when we come to it.

[gridlock]

BTW, either Teddy is just pulling this stuff out of the bottom of a bottle, or he is leaking classified briefings. Neither explaination is particularly flattering to the Sub Driver.

[ggekko]

Ted Kennedy is living in a 1960's time warp. In reality, President Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons three times against the Chinese in order to solve various crises in Asia during the 1950's.

The Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine was superannuated with the collapse of the Soviet Union . The use of nuclear weapons has always been part of our military doctrine since the 1940's. Hussein needs to know that we will escalate if he does.

[CoolPapaBoze]

I will never, for the life of me, understand why this man is consistently lent any shred of credibility. Instead of holding elected office and bloviating on the public's dime, he ought to be spending every waking hour on his knees thanking God almighty that he isn't in jail. He, like so many politicians, is a simply deplorable person bereft of anything remotely resembling a conscience who has consistently displayed behavior that any reasonable person would find disgusting and deplorable and would cause most people to refuse to associate with the likes of him; yet somehow, he holds an elected position of some high esteem, rather than being appropriately treated like an moral leper that he is.

Can someone tell me: Why?

It boggles the mind, it really does.