- The Washington Times - Sunday, August 30, 2009


The death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, we are being told, should strengthen our resolve to act in a bipartisan fashion. Many of the tributes, from former presidents and Republican colleagues, have stressed the late senator’s willingness to find “common ground.” Well, since ancient Rome, we’ve been exhorted not to speak ill of the dead. But neither should we completely disfigure the truth.

Before I offer some less than hagiographic reflections on the late Mr. Kennedy (may he rest in peace), one pleasant memory: About a decade ago, I was late for a party in Northwest Washington — an area not known for abundant parking spaces. After circling the block several times, I spied a cramped space and determined that somehow I would fit my minivan into it. Just then, a large man approached walking two Portuguese water dogs. He stopped, saw my predicament and proceeded to guide me into the space with lots of laughter, encouragement and a little bit of teasing. I knew (obviously) that my good Samaritan was the senior senator from Massachusetts. I have no reason to think he recognized me.

So I have personal experience of Mr. Kennedy’s charm and affability. The many stories of his personal kindnesses to others (including those with whom he disagreed politically) speak well of him — to a point.

Nevertheless, Mr. Kennedy was a politician who too often permitted his own sense of righteousness to overwhelm the large reservoir of decency he is reported to have possessed. He could trample on conservatives with, it seems, hardly a pang of conscience. He may have been the “great liberal lion” of the U.S. Senate, but some of us cannot forget that his tactics were often less than admirable.

Former President George W. Bush has been characteristically gracious about Mr. Kennedy (“a great man”) in his comments since the senator’s death, but Mr. Kennedy went after Mr. Bush without scruple. Consider Mr. Kennedy’s shrill attacks on Mr. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.

In 2002, Mr. Kennedy himself had said, “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.” However, just a year later, Mr. Kennedy was saying, “This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud.” In 2004, Mr. Kennedy said, “Before the war, week after week after week we were told lie after lie after lie after lie … the president’s war is revealed as mindless, needless, senseless, reckless.”

Mr. Kennedy did not — perhaps could not — accept that the Bush administration had made a good-faith decision to use military force (as his brother had in the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam). Instead, he contributed to conspiracy theories about Mr. Bush’s true motives. Echoing the most inflamed leftist Web sites, Mr. Kennedy purported that “the president and his senior aides began the march to war in Iraq in the earliest days of the administration, long before the terrorists struck this nation on 9/11.”

When the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison came to light, disgust and abhorrence were expressed pretty universally and certainly bipartisanly. Mr. Kennedy, however, unable to resist a cheap political shot, compared the United States to Saddam, saying, “Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management — U.S. management.”

Mr. Kennedy’s rhetorical ruthlessness was perhaps displayed most famously within minutes of the nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court. The world now knows that Mr. Bork is one of the most intelligent, witty, reasonable and civilized men in America. But at the time, few knew anything about him. Mr. Kennedy rushed to the Senate floor to introduce a grotesque boogeyman: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Judge Bork recounted later that when he met privately with the senator, Mr. Kennedy mumbled, “Nothing personal.” When you have calumniated a man before the entire world, you cannot claim it isn’t personal.

One hopes the Kennedy family will find comfort in the days ahead. But I cannot join those who uphold Mr. Kennedy as a model public servant, far less as an exemplar of any sort of bipartisanship.

Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide