None Dare Call It Treason

Penn

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>None dare call it treason

For many Americans Sen. Ted Kennedy has long been a caricature of liberal elitism, the bloated shell of what once was the youthful beauty of change. He has long lost the ability to shock with his antics, whether it's his questionable private behavior, returning the outreach of the Bush family with cheap shots galore or playing so loose with the facts in his public pronouncements that Jane Fonda looks like an intellectual heavyweight by comparison.<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p></O:p> But wait, there's fire in the old warhorse yet. In a speech in <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 /><ST1:STATE><ST1:pLACE>Washington</ST1:pLACE></ST1:STATE> today, Mr. Kennedy became the first senator to call for the early withdrawal of <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1:pLACE>U.S.</ST1:pLACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION> troops from <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1:pLACE>Iraq</ST1:pLACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>.<O:p> </O:p>

Drawing a parallel with the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1:pLACE>Vietnam</ST1:pLACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION> war (why is it that liberals are so hot to champion <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1:pLACE>U.S.</ST1:pLACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION> failure?), he declared that "the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1:pLACE>U.S.</ST1:pLACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION> military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution. We need a new plan that sets fair and realistic goals for self-government in <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1:pLACE>Iraq</ST1:pLACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>, and works with the Iraqi government on a specific timetable for the honorable homecoming of our forces."<O:p></O:p>

In other words, let's ignore the sacrifice of those who have died to defeat a brutal dictator and to establish a fledgling democracy in the heart of the <ST1:pLACE>Middle East</ST1:pLACE>, and get the hell out as quickly as we can. Now that's statesmanship. Three days before courageous Iraqis risk their lives to vote in their first-ever democratic election. Now that's timing. To appease the Saddam holdovers who are brutally killing and maiming their own women and children to return to power. Now that's the American way.<O:p> </O:p>

And this is the man regarded by many as the senior statesman of the Democratic Party.<O:p></O:p>

-- <ST1:pERSONNAME>Fran Coombs</ST1:pERSONNAME>, Managing Editor



posted at 1:26 PM

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
This is a few days old, but the first commentary about it.
 
willie

willie

Well-Known Member
"the bloated shell of what once was the youthful beauty of change."
The only part of the article I disagree with. He was always a two faced socialist airhead.
 
willie

willie

Well-Known Member
A good interview with Ken Adelman right now on CH 7. IMHO he makes Kennedy and the rest of the naysayers look like fools. He is total common sense.
 
Last edited:
Penn

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
willie said:
A good interview with Ken Alderman right now on CH 7. IMHO he makes Kennedy and the rest of the naysayers look like fools. He is total common sense.
Click to expand...
I think somebody else mentioned it, but to me it's amazing the people of Massachusettes keep voting that bag of wind in office for all these terms.

Don't they hear what the fool is spouting off about, or do they genuinely feel they way he does?
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Penn said:
I think somebody else mentioned it, but to me it's amazing the people of Massachusettes keep voting that bag of wind in office for all these terms.

Don't they hear what the fool is spouting off about, or do they genuinely feel they way he does?
Click to expand...
I used to live there, for many years, and it's a bit like DC inasmuch as they'll never or rarely ever vote for a Republican. Like DC, the election is made in the primaries.
 
Lenny

Lenny

Lovin' being Texican
Penn said:
I think somebody else mentioned it, but to me it's amazing the people of Massachusettes keep voting that bag of wind in office for all these terms.

Don't they hear what the fool is spouting off about, or do they genuinely feel they way he does?
Click to expand...

It's the UNIONS that make Democrats unbeatable in the Northeast. A friend from upstate New York says if the teachers union in New York City were disbanded, the state would be electing Republicans all the time. Remember that the Firefighters' unions backed "Flip Flop" this year while rank-and-file backed '43'?

Did anybody hear Eleanor Clift on McLaughlin yesterday? She said comparing Kennedy to Bush was to ignore a drunk-driving arrest for Bush in the 70's. But she conveniently forgot Teddy's drunk-driving manslaughter.
 
Last edited:
Penn

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
Lenny said:
It's the UNIONS that make Democrats unbeatable in the Northeast. A friend from upstate New York says if the teachers union in New York City were disbanded, the state would be electing Republicans all the time. Remember that the Firefighters' unions backed "Flip Flop" this year while rank-and-file backed '43'?

Did anybody hear Eleanor Clift on McLaughlin yesterday? She said comparing Kennedy to Bush was to ignore a drunk-driving arrest for Bush in the 70's.

But she conveniently forgot Teddy's drunk-driving manslaughter.
Click to expand...
Eleanor Clift!! What a scream! She may be the paragon of Partisanship. :lol:

A lot of people evidently forgot quickly about Kennedy's escapade with a young woman - Mary Jo Kopecknik(sp?) - who was out with Teddy one night way back when. He apparently ran into a bridge abutment, I think, and the vehicle plunged into a river. Kennedy couldn't free her from the wreck, and he also apparently - couldn't get to a firehouse 1/4mile down the road in time to get help in order to save her life.
 
Penn

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
willie said:
A tale of cowardice.
http://www.ytedk.com/

When I fully realized what had happened this morning, I immediately contacted the police."
~ from Inquest Exhibit # 2
Immediately the next morning :loser:
Click to expand...

Whooeey! I thank you for posting that article. A lot of the evidence in there points to a coverup.

- Learn how Senator Kennedy spent the nine hours after the accident attempting to cover-up his involvement, while Mary Jo Kopechne was left to die in his submerged automobile.

"Senator Kennedy's driver's license had expired on February 22, 1969 (nearly 5 months before the accident) and had not been renewed.
- Although driving with an expired license was only a misdemeanor, it did provide the evidence of negligence needed to prove a manslaughter charge in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.
- The license problem was "fixed" by officials at the Registry of Motor Vehicles, under the direction of Registrar Richard McLaughlin, before the legal proceedings began."


If you and I were to have been found guilty of that, you know where we would be residing at this moment.

Can you impeach a Senator?
 
itsbob

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Penn said:
I think somebody else mentioned it, but to me it's amazing the people of Massachusettes keep voting that bag of wind in office for all these terms.

Don't they hear what the fool is spouting off about, or do they genuinely feel they way he does?
Click to expand...
He's one of the Cape Cod elite, and his fellow country club members wil continue to vote for one of their own He almost lost once, and had to bring up religion to beat Mitt Romney.. after he promised he would NEVER do such a thing. People in Mass have no idea how stupid they look to the rest of the world, reelecting him time and time again!
 
T

tlatchaw

Not dead yet.
I'm glad we didn't elect his neice as governor last time around. Did you notice how she was playing up the Kennedy connection during that last race? It wasn't just "Townsend for Gov" or "Kathleen Townsend for Gov," nope she insists on being referred to as "Kathleen KENNEDY Townsend!" :roflmao:
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Penn said:
Were Sen. Ted Kennedy's comments, just days before the first Iraqi elections, aiding and abetting the Terrorist's cause?

http://insider.washingtontimes.com/blog/2005_01_27_archive.php#110685045444899393
Click to expand...
It's always been my contention that the time for legitimate dispute over going to war and committing troops to battle is *before* they go there. Argue as much as you like - but once the battle is joined, it's too late to argue about it. Why? Because the lives of men depend on it, and to continue to dispute it after troops are engaged, to withdraw before completion is to cheapen the lives of those who gave their lives at the beginning.

It's never an easy choice to go to war, nor should it ever be. But the time to protest is before it happens. Once it starts, we need to support them in what they do, or we get nitwits telling us that men like Pat Tillman died for nothing. Way to "support the troops". Nothing like telling men they're dying for nothing to increase morale.

While we made many mistakes in Vietnam - the worst one was leaving. We were beating the snot out of them. We didn't lose as much as we closed up shop and went home. And *millions* lost their lives as a consequence.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Nobody dislikes Kennedy more than I do, but I think that is this circumstance his words are being taken out of context. He was not saying that we should cut and run. What he was saying is that after the elections, we should pull our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible as they are a provocation to the enemy.

Since there's no one better at cutting and running to save one's hide than Ted Kennedy (just ask Mary Jo), it's easy to see where he's coming from. Where I disagree with Kennedy is that he wants to runaway from a fight rather than stand up to the bad guys... a position a lot of people in this country share. Sure this will save American lives in the short-term, but you can bet we'll be sending troops back in within a few years to fight another battle.

Kennedy's comments may eb stupid, but they aren't treasonous.
 
Lenny

Lenny

Lovin' being Texican
Bruzilla said:
Nobody dislikes Kennedy more than I do, but I think that is this circumstance his words are being taken out of context. He was not saying that we should cut and run. What he was saying is that after the elections, we should pull our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible as they are a provocation to the enemy.
Click to expand...

USA Today, January 31, 2005, Pg. 6

On Capitol Hill, Bipartisan Praise, Caution
By Kathy Kiely, USA Today

So far, Sen. Edward Kennedy is the only leading member of Congress to call for immediate troop withdrawals. Even Kennedy's fellow Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. John Kerry, disagreed with him. “I wouldn't do a specific timetable,” Kerry, last year's Democratic presidential nominee, said on NBC's Meet the Press.
Click to expand...

You were saying.....?
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
That's the thing... he's not calling for "immediate" troop removals. That's what I thought he had said based on what I heard on Hannity's show on Friday, but when I listened to his complete remarks on C-SPAN that's not quite what he's saying. He's saying that after the elections we need to start looking at bringing the troops home. He also didn't say anything that I heard about bringing them all back at once either. In short, he didn't say anything that just about every Dem working during the campaigns didn't say.

Damn!!! I hate like hell having to defend anything that POS says!

Oh yeah... did everyone catch Kerry's performance on MTP Sunday? It was great! After meandering all over the policy roadmap during the election, he's now decided on a definative 4-step plan to save us in Iraq. And amazingly, they are four things that either Bush is doing or has said he plans to do. But Kerry was making it sound like Bush was responding to what Kerry had proposed back on a specific date during the campaign. I thought it was very telling that Kerry could cite a specific speech where he said those things, whereas most candidates can say "as I said throughout the campaign." Kerry's story changed so much he's able to pick out a specific speech to cover any contingency.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Penn

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
Bruzilla said:
That's the thing... he's not calling for "immediate" troop removals. That's what I thought he had said based on what I heard on Hannity's show on Friday, but when I listened to his complete remarks on C-SPAN that's not quite what he's saying. He's saying that after the elections we need to start looking at bringing the troops home. He also didn't say anything that I heard about bringing them all back at once either. In short, he didn't say anything that just about every Dem working during the campaigns didn't say.

Damn!!! I hate like hell having to defend anything that POS says!

Oh yeah... did everyone catch Kerry's performance on MTP Sunday? It was great! After meandering all over the policy roadmap during the election, he's now decided on a definative 4-step, a 4-part plan to save us in Iraq. And amazingly, they are four things that either Bush is doing or has said he plans to do. But Kerry was making it sound like Bush was responding to what Kerry had proposed back on a specific date during the campaign. I thought it was very telling that Kerry could cite a specific speech where he said those things, whereas most candidates can say "as I said throughout the campaign." Kerry's story changed so much he's able to pick out a specific speech to cover any contingency.
Click to expand...
I saw that too! As I listened to Kerry pause, chuckle, and then say "You know, during such and such a date, I said that we had to have a 4-part step plan to achieve a victory, or at least appear to be making some headway, we need to do......", and I wondered:
Geee, Mr. Kerry, I don't believe I heard you say that, I must have missed it in all the excitement.

I don't know how these guys can do it: Take someone else's plan and make it sound as if it were their own? :confused: Then sit there with a straight face and expect us to swallow it. If I knew it was a lie, I could not pull that off.
 
willie

willie

Well-Known Member
I just read his speech again and tried my best to find something of substance in there but it's missing. The speech is 100% political and just like the noise he usually makes, it is self serving. you can read the part about withdrawal any way you want. The only thing he makes very clear is that GW is wrong no matter what he does.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145565,00.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top