So Drunken Ted Kennedy (Democrat from Chivas Regal) has a problem with Iraq and Bush’s handling of the war? Gee, funny how late we are to learn about this! And, the revelation that Bush had actually PLANNED a war with IRAQ? Funny how Ted had noproblem with Clinton’s mishandling of Iraq…and now Ted thinks that Bush’s handling of the war is all wrong!
I’ve got a message for you Ted…lay off the scotch for a while…let your alcohol-soaked brain recover a bit!
If you think every word of that speech wasn’t carefully thought over you’re naive.
That sounded to me every bit the ‘purpose speech’. A prominent democrat, who’s fore-ordained to get big coverage, who is NOT running for the Presidency, starts saying big things about the President. He does this so that the national party can see how the concept plays before the candidates weigh in. If the public begins burning Kennedy in effigy then the candidates ‘respectfully’ disagree with the Senator from Massachusetts. If the public shows real support for the issues outlined by Kennedy then the candidates begin hammering the point in their stump speeches.
Basic politics…nothing more.
Yo quiero Linko Bell.
And, um, what’s the conflict between supporting not going to war (Clinton) and not supporting going to war (Bush)? And what “mishandling” are you referring to?
Perhaps you could be his roommate at Betty Ford. He might be able to help you stay sober.
So Kennedy has a problem with Bush (AKA Satan’s dumbest minion)? Good for him. So do I. So do a lot of Americans. What’s your point?
Who are we bashing here? 
What the fuck are you bitching about? Ted Kennedy has a problem with what Bush has done in Iraq? So the fuck what? Any decent person should. What the fuck is your point?
Also, how, exactly, did Clinton “mishandle” Iraq. Did he forget to lie about WMDs? Is that what you mean?
BTW, some linkage would be nice.
Hey OP, you should have done it like this: Ted Kennedy (D-Chivas Regal)
First of all, here’s the link to the text of the speech:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/s/custom.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=20550
The speech was excellent. He keeps the name calling to minimum and sticks with the facts, which are damning. And he neatly sums up the reason so many of us on these boards and elsewhere have been screaming about this war since the first time the subject came up:
ralph, do you have anything to say that’s not an ad hominem attack against the speaker or an attempt to blame Clinton? If not, then shut the fuck up. And furthermore, I think that Bush supporters should be wary about calling people “drunks”. Sure, Senator Kennedy has had bouts with the bottle. Can you think of any other prominent politicians who have had the same problem?
One is reminded of the famous anecdote about Lincoln, when questioned about U.S. Grant’s drinking, remarked that he would find out what whiskey Grant drank, and send a barrel to each of his other generals.
Whom should I respect more? A drunk who tells me the truth, or a teetotaler who lies through his teeth?
If those notes are as Teddy describes them, that sounds to me like the smoking gun.
The OP makes me wonder if this is what passes for Republican “debate” these days…
I’m sure they’re long shredded and burned to ashes.
I do believe your President had a bit of problem with alcohol too, including being pulled over for drunk driving.
Then again, he never drowned anyone (that we know of)
Probably.
So ralph, exactly which part of Teddy’s speech is indicative of his overconsumption of booze? I’m dying to know.
And Kennedy never got anyone killed from starting unjustified wars, so W’s still far,far ahead on body count.
That and the “If you don’t completely agree with the President/The Screaming Right-Wing Hordes, you hate America and should be killed” line of reasoning are pretty much it.
Good point- it was only John who started those.
And if this is a Democrat trial balloon, hey, best of luck. If the Democrats have decided that this year’s strategy is to pander to the less-than-40% of Americans who are against the war even as fighting winds down, then they’re going to reap all sorts of rewards come November. All sorts.
You misspelled “Eisenhower”, schmuck.
I get it - supporting truth and morality and civilization and democracy itself is “pandering” now. Apparently that is what passes for Republican debate these days. The fighting “winding down”, you say? On what factual basis? The same one that led to the “Mission Accomplished” banner so long ago?
I’ve been accused of everything! My point is this:
=Teddy had AMPLE opportunity to air his criticisms of the Bush foreign policy…and yet he WAITS until NOW to badger us! Such courage!
-Indeed, Teddy has no grounds to moralize to ANYBODY…this is a man who left a woman to drown in his car (and later claimed he’d TRIED to rescue her). Later, on a famous Palm Beach Easter weekend with his son and nephew, got a couple of young women drunk and watched as his nephew attempted to rape one of them.
-Oh, and yes, Teddy has a fondness for the bottle…I suppose it is only fair to point out that it is a common human weakness.
So go on ted,keep acting as a mouthpiece for the democrats who are afraid to speak for themselves…I hope that the next election finds you strippedof any chairmanships you now have! :wally
::cupping hands to mouth::
Raaaaalphhh! Raaaaa-aaaalph? Where are ya buddy? People have questions for ya…
It was a drive-by Republicanizing…
Sam