I was listening to the Bush speech last night, and afterwards, the democrats had their usual riposte. I was therefore amazed to hear our somewhat-befuddled senior senator, saying that “torture is an American value”. Did I hear right? I know that Sen. Kennedy sometimes has problems pronouncing multi-syllabic words…but I heard it again today…does anybody here KNOW what this bozo/esteemed senator was talking about?
Working here with absolutely no context, I assume that Teddy was providing his interpretation of George Bush’s speech, not stating a position he himself holds.
Again, that’s based on no more information than was included in the OP.
I think Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi did the official response this year.
Ted was being sarcastic. Everyone knows that leaving the scene of an accident and leaving a passenger to drown is a family value.
We need to make this a Corollary to Godwin’s Law. The first person who disagrees with something Ted Kennedy says, and who mentions Chappaquidick, automatically loses the argument.
Totally.
I mean, there comes a point when we shouldn’t hold someone’s past against them, even if they did let an innocent person die.
Sheesh. It happened decades ago! It’s not like her life was important or anything.
:rolleyes:
It’s pretty easy to see where Kennedy got the notion that Americans are soft on torture, from news stories of the past week:
Court Orders CIA to Comply With Request For Torture Records
Psychologist: Abu Ghraib Ripe for Violence
Nominee grilled on post-9/11 torture
The Alberto Gonzales Nomination Sends Mixed Message to Those Fleeing Tyranny
Guantanamo Abuses Caught on Tape, Report Details
UZBEKISTAN HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM
Senator Kennedy was probably referring to the nomination of Alberto “The Geneva Convention is so outdated” Gonzalez.
If Kennedy wants to spout on about the environment or education, that’s his right and obligation. But when it comes to morals and values, he should just shut the fuck up. Bush may have put his stamp on torturing potential terrorists, but that pales in comparison to what Ted Kennedy did to the Kopechne family.
Geesh.
But it’s not relevant in determining whether something that Ted Kennedy is saying is true or false, a good idea or a bad idea. It’s just a dishonest debating tactic. It would be like saying that I’m opposed to Bush’s plans for Social Security because he was once convicted of drunk driving. It’s senseless.
Ted is still a real, live, practicing hypocrite. I don’t see why he should get a pass. Ever. Fuck you for suggesting that such egregious disregard for the life of another should not color our opinion of what Ted says and does today.
Pfft. Sounds like something Hitler would have said.
Now I’m [dishonestly] debating? Please, tell me what position I was putting forth, and how I dishonestly supported it. Tosser.
Leaving the name-calling out of it, I have to say that it’s not easy to tell. Here’s my stab at it: Kennedy was criticizing the Bush Adminstration’s position on torture. You seem to be saying that he is in no position to be making such a criticism, because he was involved in an ugly, deadly affair on Chappaquiddick in 1969 (I note, in passing, that he was never convicted of any crime, but it was still a tragedy that he never really answered for), and therefore lacks the moral authority to make any pronouncement about government-sponsored torture. If that’s not what you were saying, I apologize, but I’m going to need clarification from you, as that’s the only way I could read it.
I’m maintaining that whatever you think of Ted Kennedy, dismissing his criticism of the Bush Administration’s policy on torture because of the events on Chappaquiddick is simply the lazy man’s way of avoiding dealing with the issue at hand, i.e., is the Bush Adminstration’s policy on torture supportable, or should it be condemned? By shooting the messenger, you seem to think that you’ve gotten ridden of the message, as well.
I have no idea what the OP is talking about, but I did find a tangentially related thread here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=300298&highlight=un-american
It has nothing to do with Ted Kennedy, but it does specifically address the issue of whether torture is un-American…
Wow, I usually enjoy your posts. But man, stay out of the political debates, dear. Because (1) this is a mindless appeal to emotion, and anyone who puts any value on rational discussion will laugh it off like the drivel it is. (2) Logically, it has no bearing on whether there’s any truth to what he says - and you’re being ridiculous if you don’t see that. “These canapés are good.” “AS GOOD AS THE CANAPES YOU ATE THE NIGHT YOU DROVE MARY JO KOPECHNE TO HER DEATH?!” (3) Whether Ted Kennedy did anything wrong or not (beyond driving drunk) is eminently debatable, as he did attempt to rescue her (not to defend drunk driving - I think drunk drivers are scumbags of the highest order - but you’re a hypocrite if you attack Kennedy for doing so and not the millions of others who’ve done it, including many of our illustrious leaders.) (4) To avoid not turning this into meaningless partisan bickering, I’ll remind you that George W. Bush has been convicted of drunk driving (though you might not be aware, as he did lie about it during his first campaign) and Laura Bush also killed someone with her car. So to those who think Ted Kennedy is scum, I’ll expect to hear you condemning the President and First Lady as well.
Nitpick (from Wikipedia): “he pled guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. He received a sentence of two months in jail, which was suspended. An Edgartown grand jury later reopened the investigation but did not return an indictment.”
Torturing potential terrorists? Well, since they were potential terrorists, then that makes it all right then! Never mind that none of them were ever convicted of anything. Never mind that most people at Abu Ghrab were either petty criminals or totally fucking innocent people caught up in indiscriminite sweeps. Never mind that the very NOTION of torture is antithetical to the American ideal. They were POTENTiAL terrorists. Brownies, you know. Mohamadeen. They were just itching to blow up some white Christians, so they needed some electro-genital persuasion to see things our way. You should have seen how they were dressed–they were asking for it.
Pales in comparison… Unfuckingbelieveable.
Take your fucking “morals and values” that allow tourture and shove them up your lilly-white ass.
I confess I did not know that.
There’s an interesting theory out there, by the way, that says that Kennedy wasn’t in the car at all when it went off the bridge. Before you say, “that’s just crazy talk,” think about it for a moment. If he had let Mary Jo drive off in his car, having had too much to drink, he could be charged with something like second-degree murder - reckless disregard, and all that. If, on the other hand, he were in the car, and not driving drunk, then it’s just a horrible accident, but without a prosecutable offense (other than the one you’ve pointed out). So, it was better for him to maintain that he was actually in the car at the time.
This somewhat wild theory actually explains why it took Kennedy so long to report the accident to the police - he wasn’t there, and didn’t even know it had happened until the next day. It also explains why he showed up in dry clothes - he wasn’t in the car when it hit the water, and he never actually swam anywhere. It also explains the disconnect that Kennedy, someone who was very familiar with the area, would head down that particular road - only someone unfamiliar with the territory would make that mistake.
So, he lied about the whole thing, but not in the way most people think he lied, and for rather different reasons.
I’m not sure I buy any of it, but it’s intriquing, at the very least.
Seriously? You think that what Ted Kennedy did was worse than torture? Even accepting the very, very worst interpretation of that night’s events as true, that’s an astonishing claim.