Little help here....Ted Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick incident.

[givemebackmycountry]

Guy that works for me threw the "Teddy Kennedy should be in jail for the Chappaquiddick incident" line at me tonight.
Lady had a knot on her head, he left her for a day or so before he actually 'fessed up etc...

:puke:

Can anyone direct me to a place that actually explains what happened that night, so I can shut his ass up?

[ryanmuegge]

1. He probably should be, but other politicians have done a lot worse.

Like the guy that killed thousands of civilians in Iraq. Cheney should be in jail for shooting that dude in the face. Bush should be in jail for insider trading (the Harken incident).

[ColbertWatcher]

7. Laura Bush should have served time for her car accident, too. n/t

[ryanmuegge]

16. Oh yeah, I forgot about that one.

[aspergris]

10. Cheney did not commit a crime in the shooting case

Hunting accidents are not crimes. Kennedy did commit a crime, and a death resulted.

[ryanmuegge]

13. True, but it does seem like a strange accident given the circumstances.

But I'm sure if it was intentional, he would have been much smarter and had somebody else do it.

[aspergris]

18. I think he was being a careless putz

I really don't read more into it than that.

If you wanna go the intentional angle... (which I see no evidence for)...

He would have to know it's VERY rare to kill somebody with bird shot. So, what possible benefit could he get from wounding the guy intentionally, which he had to realize was the likely consequence?

[ryanmuegge]

34. Probably so. Cheney is so evil that it's easy to get conspiratorial and start projecting on him.

Even when it's undeserved.

[behave]

40. He was being a Republican

[hootinholler]

50. Actually he did...

He was not properly licensed during the incident. That is poaching which carries jail time.

-Hoot

[eowyn_of_rohan]

46. He should be IF he did it - many think he didn't do it - check out this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=205847&mesg_id=216438

[bdamomma]

49. yes, that was the thread I was thinking about

could have been a "set up" for Teddy that nite. I wouldn't put anything past these thugs.

[ingac70]

2. Here is the info you seek...

but it won't shut him up...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Nothing will shut the GOPher sheep up about Chappaquiddick.

You can always check on Wikip*dia, but be sure to check the "talk" page for the best of the conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident">Main article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chappaquiddick_incident">Wikip*dia conversation about writing the Chappaquiddick page.

Enjoy.

[lonestarnot]

4. Ignorant fuckers will drone on no matter what you show them.

[Skittles]

5. had he not been rich he probably would have gone to jail

his actions following that incident seemed to be with his career in mind and not her welfare

[slackmaster]

59. He was also very lucky to have the media saturated with coverage of the Apollo 11 moon landing

Very strange days indeed.

[JerseygirlCT]

100. Yeah, this really isn't one where you're going to have a good

argument in favor of Kennedy.

He did something very, very wrong. And his name got him out of it, at least legally.

For me, it's balanced with a career of fighting for people.

You have to look at the whole man, and the whole career.

But Chappaquidick... not a good thing, however you look at it.

[HomerRamone]

6. don't know, but here's a conspiracy theory for you

http://www.opednews.com/stillwater_062005_kennedy.htm

[Bob Dobbs]

27. Bingo.

We have a winner.

Thanks for this link.

[treestar]

120. Out there, but you never know

Why is there a fear of impeaching the bastids? maybe they know whoever was at the head of it will be "next." Take care, Dennis!

[SoCalDem]

124. Well connected young people evade legal issues all the time.. in ALL parties

Kennedy did a stupid thing, and a young woman died.. Only one person living, really knows what happened, and he'll take that to his grave..

Should he have stood for trial? probably

but he didn't.. and millions of people have been electing him for decades, so it's over.. it's just that simple.

Every family has skeletons..rich & poor.. The poor folks usually have to answer for theirs..sometimes the rich do too, but usually they don't..

[aspergris]

8. actually, most anybody who wasn't a rich kennedy would have at least got some sort of jail term imo

in brief, kennedy got a 6 month deferred sentence. I can tell you from past experience that if you leave a scene of an accident, wait HOURS (and he had multiple opps to notify the police) before contacting the police, and the person in the car died, etc. you would get more than a 6 month deferred sentence.

He got off EXTREMELY lightly...

Notice if he had contacted the police directly after the accident, they would have tested his sobriety. We will never know if he was DUI, but it's certainly a consideration.

from wikipedia entry

Kennedy extricated himself from the submerged car but Kopechne died. Kennedy said that he made several diving attempts to free her and, after exhausting himself, rested for 20 minutes. He then walked some fifteen minutes, past several houses, back to the Lawrence Cottage where the party had been held. When Kennedy arrived back at the cottage, he saw the white Valiant his group had rented parked near the front door. The Senator testified that as he came up to the back of the vehicle, he saw Ray LaRosa. Kennedy made no mention of the accident to LaRosa, however, and instead told him to go get Joe Gargan, Senator Kennedy's cousin and lawyer, and another friend, former U.S. Attorney Paul Markham. Kennedy explained the situation, and although there was a working phone at the cottage, the trio allegedly drove to the scene of the accident to attempt a rescue. The group claimed that the tidal current was too strong and prevented them from reaching Kopechne.

Still, despite their failure to rescue Kopechne, Kennedy, Gargan, and Markham made no attempt to contact authorities. Instead, Kennedy was driven to the Ferry dock where he jumped into the water and swam the distance between Chappaquiddick and Marthas Vineyard Islands, some 500 feet, and returned to his room at the Shiretown Inn, in Edgartown. Gargan and Marken claimed Kennedy said he was heading to contact the authorities, and they returned to the cottage. A night clerk at the Shiretown Inn said he encountered Kennedy on the premises at 2:50 a.m. The next morning, Gargan, Markham, and several female co-workers of Kopechne took the first ferry back to Edgartown. At the Shiretown Inn, Kennedy was seen around the hotel smartly dressed and calmly conversing with other guests. By 9 a.m. Gargan, Markham, and Kennedy were on a ferry back to Chappaquiddick Island, purportedly to return to the cottage.

By this time, however, fisherman had happened upon Kennedy's submerged vehicle and pulled it ashore, rushing to a house a few yards away to notify the authorities at around 8 a.m. Police arrived by 8:20, and a diver was on the scene by 8:30, discovering Kopechne by 8:45. By this time, the car was identified as Senator Kennedy's. Those at the scene feared another Kennedy tragedy might have occurred, and a search for other possible victims ensued; however, at 9:30 Kennedy was spotted on a phone at the Chappaquiddick side of the ferry, where he was asked by authorities if he knew that a dead woman's body had been retrieved from his car. Kennedy initially denied any knowledge of this, but later acknowledged his involvement during questioning at the Edgartown police station, which he documented through a short, written statement about the previous night's trip to the ferry with Miss Kopechne. When questioned about the details, Kennedy refused to answer without his attorney being present.

[DURHAM D]

28. The truth is this -

Ted left the party with a male friend to go back to his hotel room when he ran off the road and into the water. Ted and his friend got out of the car and managed to swim across to the other side and go on about their business. Mary Jo was asleep in the back seat and Ted didn't know she was in the car. Thus, he did not look for her that night.

Why did Ted (and his lawyers) make up the story about diving for her? It is better to accidentally kill a young woman and to be thought of as an adulterer then for the world to know you are bi-sexual or gay. It was 1969 you know.

[aspergris]

29. I think you are reading way too much into it

The CW fact pattern is very believable and matches the physical evidence, the circumstances, etc.

I don't buy the ted didn't know she was in the back seat. Not to mention that he supposedly offered to give her a ride back to (Katama Inn iirc).

I have relatives on Martha's Vineyard and spent many a summer there, fwiw.

I accept that kennedy made a big mistake,a nd there was a good chance he was DUI - that would be the best motivation not to call the cops right away.

[DURHAM D]

35. I have no idea what you refer to with this "reading way too much..."

I just happen to know some of the facts regarding that particular night in Ted's life. I could care less if anyone belives it.

[madaboutharry]

9. I believe that they had been drinking and he was

cheating on his wife. He drove into the water and was able to get out of the car. She drowned.

I think it was a horrid accident made worse by his attempt to search for a cover up.

It was ugly and tragic and he was responsible.

There is no way to explain it away.

I also think he has spent the last several decades as the hardest working senator in Washington as a way of repenting.

[Truth4Justice]

38. What you said about Sen. Kennedy rings true to me, as well. He's done American's alot of good .

[fed_up_mother]

89. That's exactly what I believe.

[The Straight Story]

11. Just tell em bush has been responsible for a lot more deaths over lies

and ask them why he isn't in jail.

[Lex]

12. Did you ask "HOW IS THIS RELEVANT to what's going on TODAY?"

Jesus H. that was 40 years ago.

Is that ALL they got?

[givemebackmycountry]

19. Yeah, I know.

It's ridiculous, I understand that.
But, if it's the truth - I'm not going to argue.
I'll work on him another way.
I just gave him an 8% raise so he likes and respects me.
Maybe if I acknowledge the truth, he'll be more open to some of my other "viewpoints".

Thanks, one and all.

[MadrasT]

81. Exactly

:applause:

[MinM]

14. John Dean: "If Teddy knew the bear trap he was walking into at Chappaquiddick"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x205847

[Bob Dobbs]

31. Exactly.

Thanks for the reminder of this thread.

[Beacool]

37. What Teddy did is inexcusable.

Accidents do happen, but he let that girl drown without reporting the accident until the following morning. As it turns out, the poor girl was alive in an air pocket for quite a while. She died a terrible death. I sometimes have wondered if Teddy ever thinks of what he did that night and regrets not having gotten help right away. He covered his butt (he was driving drunk), but the ensuing scandal prevented him from ever becoming president.

[MinM]

73. Operation Sandwedge

At first blush, I would totally agree with those sentiments. but knowing the long campaign that GOP Dirty Tricksters had waged against Teddy, leaves me more ambivalent. Not to mention the degree of difficulty involved just to extract yourself from a submerged vehicle.

Operation Sandwedge

[fed_up_mother]

96. I think the story is likely

If anybody had a reason to drink and engage in escapism activities, it was him. :(

[CreekDog]

15. do you not know how to use google or wikipedia?

:eyes:

[bigwillq]

17. Jeez, look how helpful you are!

:eyes:

[CreekDog]

22. i'm getting a bit tired of people asking to "debunk" without the least bit of effort on their part

all these threads that start with: hey here's a bunch of crap about one of our candidates, prove it wrong okay? :rofl:

[bigwillq]

24. All you had to say

was "I suggest you search google or wikipedia". Is that so hard? :shrug: You took the time to respond but instead of being helpful you chose to be snarky.

[CreekDog]

25. yes, your observation is correct

:P

[Judi Lynn]

43. You're by no means alone with this. It's not like they're not transparent. It gets so damned old. nt

[defendandprotect]

114. That's nonsense . . . often people here have the REAL stuff at their fingertips . . .

and sometimes you can search and not come up with the definitive story ---

[givemebackmycountry]

20. D.U. is my Google and Wikipedia.

But, I still value your input.

:toast:

[CreekDog]

23. did you look into it at all?

do you have your answer yet?

:eyes:

[midnight]

21. I'll look for a story for you, but their was something posted

here not to long ago about this "Chappaquiddick incident" was a set up to prevent Ted from running for presidency. I believe the information was revield in the watergate tapes. Anyone else who remembers this post please chime in.

I think the key to this mystery is that Nixon had several dirty tricks campaigns in operation. The most important of these was run by H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. The chief field officer was Tony Ulasewicz. This operation began in March, 1969. Ulasewicz kept a strong control over these activities in order that it remained a completely secret operation. It had to be because Ulasewicz was running a campaign to set up Edward Kennedy in order to ensure he did not stand against Nixon in 1972. It is my belief that Ulasewicz was involved in Chappaquiddick incident.

After Kennedy’s career was ended in 1969, Ulasewicz turned his attention to George Wallace. It was Wallace, rather than Muskie that posed the most threat to Nixon being re-elected.

It was only after the arrest of the Watergate burglars that investigators discovered details of Ulasewicz’s activities (via Jack Caulfield). However, Sam Ervin and his Senate Committee backed off investigating this operation. It was one thing to accuse the president of lying about his knowledge of a break-in of an office, it was something else to suggest that he had given orders that had resulted in the death of a woman and an attempted murder of one of your leading political rivals.http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3812&st=60
http://complete911timeline.org/timeline.jsp?
timeline=nixon_and_watergate_tmln&nixon_and_watergate_tmln_watergate_campaign_conspiracy=nixon_and_watergate_tmln_illegal_wiretapping___surveillanceNixon aide John Ehrlichman sends his “on-staff detective,” Jack Caulfield (see April 2, 1969) to the site to pose as a reporter and glean information. Caulfield takes along another former New York police detective, Tony Ulasewicz, who is being paid $22,000 a year out of a secret Nixon political fund handled by Nixon’s personal lawyer, Herbert Kalmbach.

[orleans]

26. as far as i know and understand it, there is no way around how horrible that was

but, as someone else in the thread said, how does that excuse republican behavior? just because kennedy was a dick back in the day--does that mean that all these fucking republicons should walk for destroying our country?

and...what the fuck does kennedy have to do with our present situation? (that's the question i would pose--i'll let you figure out a nicer way to put it)

[defendandprotect]

115. There are other explanations for this . . .

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp7.html



By the way, Richard Sprague was set to reinvestigate the political assassinations of the

1960's and he was sidelined when suspicions of him were created in the mind of Rep. Henry

Gonzalez --- Sprague would have been a true threat and they couldn't let that happen ---

The overall writing by Sprague is called ---

"The Taking of America 1-2-3" ---

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToA.html

Certainly all of this hasn't happened since 2000 . . .

it began with an overt coup on government in 1963 ---

[Recursion]

30. News flash: rich, connected people get away with stuff...

...that the rest of us would go to jail for. Even progressive, rich, connected people.

[kskiska]

32. Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton

while VP and remained in office.

[Warpy]

33. Ask him if all accident victims belong in jail.

I was there during the proceedings and it was ruled an accident. In fact, many people directly involved in the inquest thought Kennedy was blotto and Kopechne was probably driving him home.

Do a search of the incident and take a gander at the bridge, a low concrete affair with no guardrails, no lights, and no signage, hard to hit in broad daylight on a clear day and really hard to negotiate on a foggy night.

Also ask him why he's living so damn far in the past, if the present fuckup in the White House makes the present too painful for him.

Then walk away.

[cliffordu]

36. The google can help.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Mary Jo Kopechne should never have gotten into the car with him as far as I'm concerned

If he had killed an innocent bystander then yes he should've gone to jail. But my parents always taught me that if you get into a car with a drunk driver, it's your own damn fault if anything happens to you. I think that falls pretty well in line with the Republican value of personal responsibility.

[dems_rightnow]

45. Yeah, it's her fault.

:eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

125. Sorry but I don't subscribe to the philosophy of blaming the driver...

For anything that happens to a passenger in their car. Kennedy was obviously reckless and irresponsible and his behavior isn't something that should be condoned. But she wasn't an innocent bystander and as far as I know she made a conscious choice to get in the car with him at the wheel.

To imply (as Republicans often do) that Kennedy murdered her is ludicrous. To a certain extent, she bares the burden of her own choices.

[Balbus]

53. Yeah, she deserved it.

[Hippo_Tron]

123. Never said she deserved anything

[fed_up_mother]

55. Blaming the victim here?

It is what it is. Imagine if we were talking about a repug.

[Runcible Spoon]

58. that's a fucking ugly thought

:puke:

[Midlodemocrat]

61. A friend of mine died after getting into a car with a drunk driver.

He didn't know he was drunk. Is he to blame for his death? I don't think so. Your statement is beyond ignorant and frankly, evil.

[defendandprotect]

116. First, Mary Jo Kopechne didn't drink -- NEVER -- so that should raise your suspicions .. .

though your advice about not getting into a car with a drunk is sound ---

However, it may have been E. Howard Hunt driving the car --- not Ted Kennedy ---


http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp7.html


Richard Sprague was set to reinvestigate all of the political assassinations of the 1960's . . .

he would have been a real threat to the forces of evil at work.

His overall writings are called "The Taking of America 1-2-3" --

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToA.html

[norepubsin08]

41. Mary Jo

was drunk and puled the wheel of the car and made it plunge into the water!!! She was working for the Republicans and they put a hit out on Ted.

[MrSlayer]

42. Well, the ratfuckers were actually trying to kill Ted there.

But they got the next best thing.

[Vinca]

44. Ask the guy if he's heard about Laura Bush.

If Ted should be in jail, so should Laura.

[fed_up_mother]

56. DId she walk away from the scene?

She was a teen. He was a man. You can't possibly believe the two scenarios are equivalent.

Teddy's own behavior has been the "cross" he's had to bear for his whole life. I suspect the man won't find peace until he is dead. Meantime, I think that the good he does must be some kind of atonement in his mind.

[NoGOPZone]

62. So being a teen excuses what she did?

If she's old enough to drive, she's old enough to drive without killing anyone.

[fed_up_mother]

64. eyes rolling

I didn't say it excused what she did. I said the two were not equivalent. And they aren't. A grown man left the scene and didn't get help for a woman who later suffocated to death in an air pocket in the car.

[NoGOPZone]

65. and your remark about the two not being equivalent does not negate

what Vinca wrote, and your question about whether Laura left the scene is not relevant to the point made in the OP, that if you consider one a crime you have to consider another a crime. Two seperate actions can both be criminal without being 'equivalent'

[fed_up_mother]

69. People die in accidents all the time that aren't labelled "crimes."

But that could have happened to your or me.

Leaving the scene with a young woman still in the car? Would you do that?

[NoGOPZone]

70. When that accident is the sole fault of one person

who committed two violations in the course of causing the accident, I have every reason to characterize it as being a crime.

On edit: I come from a law enforcement family. If what happened to Laura happened to me when I was a teen, my brother, my uncle and most of all my father would have personally driven me to a police station.

[fed_up_mother]

74. She ran a stop sign

It happens. Yet it's entirely tragic.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

[NoGOPZone]

76. And when it does 'happen'

criminal charges are liable to be imposed, so not only is it 'entirely tragic', it's potentially a felony. Incidentally, that was not the only violation she committed. I recommend you obtain a copy of the accident report so you can converse intelligently on this topic.

[fed_up_mother]

77. Speeding? Drunk driving? No? I don't think so.

What else is there that puts this in the same category as a grown man leaving a young woman to suffocate in a car?

Wreckless driving? Well, two seventeen year old girls yakking in the car and not paying attention would most certainly be deemed reckless. Unfortunately that probably makes most of us criminals at one time or another.

[NoGOPZone]

78. As I recommended

obtain a copy of the accident report so you don't have to guess and can converse intelligently on this topic, something you've yet to demonsrate you can do. As far as your ongoing comparison of this and Chappaquidick, they are certainly in the same category as far as they are both potentially prosecutable offenses.

And yes, most of us are guilty of yakking in the car, whether we or not we are seventeen and female. The thing is, most of don't allow it to distract us so much that it causes us to kill someone, if in fact that's the explanation Laura has offered for her fatal error. See, it's that fatal part that makes the accident potentially criminal, not simply the fact two people were talking

Lastly, you've continued to disregard the issue raised in the OP. I'll assume you want to continue off on the tangent you started, and I won't mention it again.

[fed_up_mother]

79. I didn't bring it up

And I have no reason to go searching for an accident report from 1963! Now, if you know something that we don't know, you are welcome to share it with us, but apparently, you would prefer to keep your insinuations veiled so as to make us believe there is more to this story than there actually is.

No, they are not in the same category, even if they are both potentially prosecutable offenses. No where near the same. Both were accidents, but one was followed by deliberately leaving the scene of a crime and leaving a young woman to die.

[NoGOPZone]

82. Insinuations?

No, they are facts, readily available for anyone with the desire to acquaint themselves with the truth, which is another thing you've yet to demonstrate. That by itself provides you with a reason to search for an old accident report, but I'll assume that reason won't be enough for you. Indeed, the research you're ignoring may provide you with a new perspective on why Bush remained at the scene, a fact which you seem to hold in particularly high regard, even though it has no bearing on whether or not she committed a crime.

Regarding your continued efforts to demonize Kennedy and exonerate Bush, no one has yet suggested that the incidents were the identical, although the potential charges may well have been, so that strawman isn't convincing.

[fed_up_mother]

86. I thought the second part was illegible?

So I've not searched for that. It really doesn't matter to me.

And, no, being somewhat injured, she wouldn't have walked away.

[NoGOPZone]

87. Illegible

If you view copies of the report available on the Internet, you can't make out the speed the officer wrote nor the wording of the second box he marked in the Violations section.

If you get a copy of the report from the issuing police department, you still can't make out the speed the officer wrote down but you can read the second box he checked.

I don't have own a copy of the report, but I did see one a few years ago. I don't remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of the speed being unsafe for existing conditions.

[fed_up_mother]

88. Either she was speeding or she wasn't

The conditions were fine. No rain. No fog. Dark, yes.

She was a foolish 17 year old driver not paying attention. Conditions didn't add to anything. It was entirely her fault.

[NoGOPZone]

91. There is no written explanation on the report

saying why that box was marked. Since it was a night, it might have been marked if the road was poorly lit requiring a slower speed, but that's speculation.

Regardless, the issue is that freepers exhibit outrage over Kennedy and not Bush. Now, it's easy to say that what he did was worse, but if Michelle Obama, Teresa Kerry, Tipper Gore or any other potential First Lady did what Laura did, they'd never shut up about it.

[fed_up_mother]

94. I don't necessarily think that

They only scream about women who scare them. Strong women. :)

Have a nice day. Good chatting with you. :)

[ScreamingMeemie]

71. No, but this is one that should be left alone if we're making it about

party affiliation. Laura Bush was a Dem from a Dem family when that happened. That's why all this personal life crap is bullshit.

[fed_up_mother]

75. thank you.

I forgot about that. And it was 1963, so the state was definitely democratic back then.

[fascisthunter]

90. Who cares What She Was Back Then

that is totally irrelevent.

[fed_up_mother]

97. It's only relevant in the sense that some would have you believe

the coverup is an ongoing right wing conspiracy. I swear, some dems give the repubs even more power than they have. They act as if the republicans of the past could have seen the present and known that she was going to marry George Bush. LOL

[fascisthunter]

101. You Defend Her yet attack Ted Kennedy

are you a Republican?

By reading your comments you seem eager to place blame on one while making up excuses for the other. You also seemed quit relieved to hear Laura was once a Democrat as if that made a difference and now you use this post to dodge my point above.

[fed_up_mother]

103. I don't defend her. I said the two situations aren't the same.

It's as if we are trying to downplay the seriousness of what Kennedy did by saying, "Look what Laura did." It makes us look ridiculous, imo.

It's much better to acknowledge how awful it was, and that Kennedy has done much good in the world since then.

Really, do you think he would have gotten off so easily if he had been poor? I don't. That's just the way things are in this country - whether you are democratic or repub.

And I'm definitely NOT a republican! :( However, I am a mother of teens, so I suppose I can more easily sympathize with Laura's Bush's situation. I quite understand what it's like to have giggling, talking, teen girls not paying attention to whatever they're supposed to be doing. I just pray that my own teens are never in such a horrible accident.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

47. I doubt Ted was even in the car that evening!

"Most likely the Chappaquiddick incident was intended as a frame-up," said Patrick. "It was a more plausible alternative to a third Kennedy brother assassination (which might have raised eyebrows). In that respect, it did not fail. Dirtying Teddy's reputation at Chappaquiddick, along with likely threats that more could come, served to effectively remove him as the one presidential candidate who would re-open the Dallas investigation."

http://www.opednews.com/stillwater_062005_kennedy.htm

More likely he was "instructed" how to play it after the fact.

[defendandprotect]

117. Right . . . here's more on that . . .

and it begins with comments by John Dean as he speaks to Nixon in the Oval Office . . .

"If Teddy knew the bear trap he was walking into at Chappaquiddick" . . .

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp7.html

[slackmaster]

48. He expressed an opinion that you don't agree with

Why is it important to you to "shut his ass up"?

[Bill McBlueState]

51. "Why are you stuck in 1969?"

That's what I'd say.

[Marie26]

52. Well, it's true,

And the more you look up, the worse it gets.

[Balbus]

54. You don't want to look that up.

You won't like what you find. Just let it go, and find another topic to discuss with your co-worker.

[Marie26]

63. Yeah, segue on over into another topic.

Republicans love to bring up Chappaquidick because it really is indefensible.

[ck4829]

57. I heard that there was a cryptic statement in the Nixon tapes

Someone said "If Teddy knew the bear trap he was walking into at Chappaquiddick."

It was said before the weekend where the whole incident happened?

That's the real mystery right there IMHO.

[L. Coyote]

60. Just ask, "Are you a ratfucker too, or just one of the duped?"

[NoGOPZone]

66. The Wiki article on it is probably as unbiased a source

as you'll find about it on the Internet. As far as shutting his ass up, this is what I usually do to freepers who bring it up. I propose that Kennedy spend 100 days in jail with daily furloughs after the first 30 days. When the freepers are done screaming about how unfair that is, I mention to them that is the very penalty Republican Congressman Bullet Bill Janklow got for his accident that resulted in a second degree manslaughter conviction. That don't know how to reply to that fact.

[fascisthunter]

67. this bothers Republicans but their own criminality doesn't... Okkedokee

I don't take those who parrot this very seriously. All you have to do is point out a myriad of current atrocities by the GOP and ask if that bothers him/her or whoever else wants to dig up dirt.

In comparison, that case is miniscule to a number of incidents by many on the other side.... but then again, it's their way of trying to excuse so many things wrong on their side of the isle. Sad but not surprising...

[tismyself]

84. Dirt is still dirt

regardless of who digs up what. The death of Mary Jo Kopechne outraged many across the board. If one were to "point out a myriad of current atrocities", one could be accused of presenting a classic red herring argument.

[fascisthunter]

85. that's what conservatives are doing

that was my point

[tismyself]

104. I misunderstood you then.

I was thinking about the original question only.

The original post didn't say anything about the context of the comment on Kennedy, such as, why was it bought up in the first place. Whoever made that comment may or may not have used it as a red herring - we don't know. It could have been a legitimate outrage on his part.

I remember when Chappaquiddick happened, and I'm guessing you do too. I recall that it was major news at the time. I have always been deeply disappointed in the way Kennedy conducted himself as well as the abortion of justice for Mary Jo. Call me a sucker for the little person.

[fascisthunter]

105. uhuh

:eyes:

[tismyself]

109. hmm

:wow:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. Here's a picture of the actual bridge.

No pavement on or before the bridge. No guard rails. One narrow lane. No street lights.

It was an accident waiting to happen. Emphasis on the accident.

[AZ Criminal JD]

83. The accident was not the problem.

It is what happened after the car went over the bridge.

[defendandprotect]

118. It's unlikely that it was an accident -- more likely that the car was run off the bridge . . .

because of various other evidence . . .

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp7.html



Richard Sprague was orginally headed to run the reinvestigations into the political assassinations

of the 1960's . . . he was sidelined because he would have been a real threat.


His full writings on the coup on America in 1963 are here . . .

"The Taking of America 1-2-3 -- "


http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToA.html

[dems_rightnow]

121. Even Kennedy admitting.....

... to the incident isn't enough to quell conspiracy theories. After all, he may have been forced to sign his statement to the authorities.

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

122. Did you actually . . .

check the link I gave you --?


http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp7.html

[book_worm]

72. Sorry, I can't defend EMK on Chappaquiddick

[tismyself]

80. Here is a web site

that has some interesting pieces from the inquest itself.

http://www.ytedk.com/exhibits.htm

It appears that there was enough of an air pocket in the car to keep Mary Jo alive for a while.

Whatever else can be said, a young woman died a very shitty death.

[defendandprotect]

119. Yes, but not necessarily in the manner you seem to think . . .

Because of comments by John Deal to Nixon in the Oval Office there is every reason

to think that something different happened ---


"If Teddy knew the bear trap he was walking into at Chappaquiddick" . .


Richard Sprague was set to reinvestigate the political assassinations of the 1960's . . .

and he would have been a real threat ---

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp7.html


His full article is called . . . "The Taking of America 1-2-3" --

[MadrasT]

92. Ahhhh

Nothing like a good Chappaquiddick thread... :popcorn:

[fed_up_mother]

98. They roll around every year at this time all over the web

[tismyself]

107. yes they do

But the thing is, the original poster didn't seem to know anything about it. So, in a way, I guess the web is turning into a historical tome and folks like me and thee are adding to it. Kind of a queer twist on teach your children well.

This is off topic, but I talked to a young person not too long ago who had been taught in a university that the electoral college was "just a theory", that there were no real people attached to it. Good grief!

[fed_up_mother]

110. ROFLOL

You gotta' laugh.

Of course, I just made a stupid mistake myself. Oops.

[tismyself]

111. hee heee

Yeah, but you admitted it and you're not teaching it in a university either!!

:headbang:

[librechik]

93. the case was adjudicated to the nth degree, simply because he was famous

the judge found no reason to jail the man, and believe me, there was a lusty chorus of RWers, even then, who felt lynching was the answer for that particular accidental death. Meanwhile, Laura Bush kills her boyfriend in a car accident and gets away Scot free. Why should Ted pay if she didn't?

But why are they still raking over this 45 year old incident? It is because there are SO FEW democrat transgressions, in comparison to the lengthy list of Republican criminals and convicts. BTW, an accidental death is NOT CRIMINAL, and leaving the scene, while disoriented, is also not a crime. Meanwhile, Kissinger goes free after overseeing thousands of innocent deaths in East Timor. Bush Sr gets away with killing thousands in Central America over his tainted term--NOT ACCIDENTAL DEATHS, BUT "COLLATERAL DAMAGE" from deliberate attacks on our part.

Still, why bother. your conversation partner is obviously deluded and woefully misinformed, since he apparently hasn't read a newspaper since 1969. Did he hear about Rumsfeld ordering torture of innocents? OK to crush a child's testicles to force the parent to "confess?" We are supposed to drop that discussion and talk about an ancient incident because he can't stand talking about the endless crimes of his own side? Can we talk about this?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/browse_thread/thread/9a844de4e1cf0885/25afaba0b3ab3981?#25afaba0b3ab3981
(Drunk Republican kills six in gross vehicular manslaughter) Or this?http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=302
(Republican convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Bush) Or this?http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/us/politics/07pennsylvania.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
(Republican, convicted in 80s bribery, endorses Giuliani)

I believe there were 56 convictions of corrupt politicians in Reagan's administration. Total for Clinton's two terms: 1.

What lame, pathetic cowards they all are. They have nothing positive to recommend them.

[fed_up_mother]

95. It's been brought up because it was the anniversary of the accident

Again, you can't compare the two. The accidents weren't the problem. Kennedy leaving the young woman to die was the problem.

However, I believe he's made amends in his own way.

And it will come up again every year as long as he lives, I suppose.

[librechik]

99. People don't realize how head injuries can remove normal thought patterns

and if he was drinking, even worse. But drinking was never asserted as an aggravating factor. People who judge him morally for his behavior after a head injury are being unfair. And nowadays, simply partisan.

They have nothing to exploit with Obama, except the race issue and the liberal lie. And they don't want to look racist, so they can't go there. They got nothing, so they attack others who they associate with Obama. Ted Kennedy is the most liberal Senator, Obama is like Kennedy, therefore Obama is the most liberal senator. It's just a bunch of flatulent propaganda.

[fascisthunter]

102. yes it is...

[yardwork]

106. Unless you feel strongly about defending Teddy Kennedy, I'd ignore this.

Every time Republicans have absolutely nothing else they go back to 1969 and Chappaquiddick. How pathetic is that? Senator Kennedy is not running for president. The man is very ill with a brain tumor. If people want to hash over his life, let them.

This has no relevance to the Democratic candidate for president in 2008. Obama was how old in 1969? Younger than me, and I was nine.

[Stinky The Clown]

108. He got away with a felony

No way to sugar coat it.

[dflprincess]

127. We forget that in 1969 drunk driving was not taken especially seriously

even when it resulted in injury or death. It was "an accidednt" even if the driver was too drunk to walk, much less drive. It was the norm for a driver to get by with a slap on the wrist no matter who s/he was - not that that excuses Ted, but it's the way it was 40 years ago.

[MasonJar]

112. As I remember Ted was filandering as he often did and was drunk

and drove off into the water. He was able to escape, but could not free her. He did not go straight back for help, but instead swam to another side of the lake(?) and did not report the incident until the next day. It was not a noble day in his life; it was, in fact, an ignoble one. He has done many good things since in the Senate, but that of course does not give the young lady her life back.

[defendandprotect]

113. Yes . . . there is a more believable story . . .

I'll give a link here and PM you to be sure you get the message thru all of this

insanity ---

It kinda reminds me of the stupidity that keeps people from understanding the 2000

election as it really was rather than as a "Nader did it!" situation ---

unbelievable !!!!



http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp7.html

[asteroid2003QQ47]

126. The DU apathetic and ignorant have gone AWOL?

On the Plausibility Scale, the Chap. 7 scenario, right or wrong, stands head and shoulders over all other explanations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We set ourselves up for disaster when we believe liars on face value. We give ourselves to those bastards when we settle for their truths, and we follow Hinkly, Chapman, Oswald, Sirhan, and Ray, patsies and fall guys set up, while invisible men rule the day. The powers that be rely on apathy, and ignorance.
- Peccavi

[defendandprotect]

128. I've always wondered about the . . .

claims of intimidation of Kennedy --- about the threats of murder of the children.

It just seemed totally outrageous --- not impossible --- but outrageous.

Now . . . I've had to consider that they did the same to RFK, Jr. with threats ---

and recently I was watching the lawyer for Sirhan Sirhan in a video of one of his

speaking engagements -- and at the very end he began to suggest that there was in fact

this kind of intimidation.


Of course, upon reflection, Mrs. Kennedy -- Jackie -- certainly seems to have tried to

run away from America -- to escape.

She told us very clearly what happened that day -- and yet the press simply ignored it.

Jackie said clearly . . . that his head was blown apart -- the back of his head gone.


It's still a very powerful conspiracy --- and evidently they've arranged for it to hold

into 2034 . . . ? Isn't that the date for the release of what's left of the evidence?