Pretty harsh,Ace.It does remind me of something I had heard.Did Volkswagen of Amreica actually run an ad of a couple in a floating Beetle with the comment,"If Ted Kennedy drove a Volkswagen,he'd be President today".Or is this an urban legend?

No, lincoln, the magazine National Lampoon ran that ad. And were subsequently sued into printing an apology.

It was pretty funny, though.

"Buy this magazine or we'll shoot the dog."

"Has any liberal ever complained about a lowlife drunken adulterer from the state of Massachusetts committing murder?"

I don't know, has he?

What kind of a halfwitted question is that, anyhow? It's not like Kennedy was the one who got us into this war, unlike our prodigal-son president.

Oooh, what a witty riposte. Oh wait, no.

Teddy drove;
Emts dove

To the tune of

Bush lied
people died.....

Uh, I, uh, totally refute, uh, that assertion, uh, everyone knows Karl Rove, uh, cut the uh, brake laaaanes on that caaaaah.

DU was complaining about a sign in Crawford yesterday that said, "Let Ted Kennedy drive Cindy home." I think that is as close as you'll get to liberals complaining about TK's driving.

That ytedk.com site had a great recounting of the events. I wasn't aware how blatent the cover-up was.

However, one thing bugs me- if the site is accurate, Mary Jo was conscious and lived inside the car, breathing from an air pocket, for quite a while. She didn't die from drowning- she died for CO poisoning when the air pocket got stale. Also, the car was in pretty shallow water. Why didn't she just crawl out and swim to the surface?

The morning after the accident, there's a picture of a guy sitting on the upside-down car, when the car was in its original position after the accident.

The tide might have been higher the night before, but that's only a few feet, I'm assuming.

Dogstar,

Maybe she had a concussion, maybe she was drunk, lots of possibilities. We'll never know.

Tanker

what does ted kennedy have to do with cindy sheehan and the iraq war? just another diversion tactic.

don't forget about first ladies who kill boyfriends with cars, too. remember laura bush ran a stop sign in 1963 and killed her boyfriend.

Changing the subject, while an often used rhetorical device, doesn't change the facts regarding Bush. The issues regarding Elizabeth Edwards and Gwen Kopechne have no bearing on Bush's behavior.

The simple fact is that Bush and his administration lied about the reasons for invading Irag, planned poorly for its execution, and continue to dissemble about the status of the war. However you want to cut it starting a war under false pretenses is wrong. If the war was necessary then tell the truth as to why.

Further or additional references to Democratic behavior or "treasonous liberals" or how other people behaved badly or how Saddam was a bad person, while certainly valid topics for discussion, do not negate or ameliorate these facts about Bush.

If I ever need an example of moral equivalency at its worse I'm going to link to jen's comment.

"The simple fact is that Bush and his administration...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...."

Jeebus, you conference-call-talking-point commenters are tedious. YOu do realize we've heard your tired crap before, don't you?

Nice try, Tanker. I'm surprised your post didn't include something about 9/11 so that you could really try and confuse people about dubya's war of choice. We all know it doesn't take a whole lot to confuse the regulars who visit this site.
By the way, did you know that we're fighting the terrorists OVER THERE so that we don't have to fight them OVER HERE? Brilliant!

An Honest Man,

Perhaps you are, but An Honest Independent Thinking Man you're not.

"An Honest Man"

"non-koolaid-drinker"

Methinks these leftists monikers are like those places at the side of the road that trumpet "GOOD EATS" or "CLEAN ROOMS" in neon.

If you have to advertise it, it probably isn't true.

First off, batty moon persons, take a look up and see what the subject of this blog post is. I'll wait.

...

Okay, waiting a little more.

...

Okay, just mumble it out loud a little if it helps.

...

All right, to hell with waiting any more, I'll go ahead and tell you. It's about John Edwards' wife (remember Edwards? He was the running mate to... who was that? Oh yeah, the guy that lost. A second banana to a loser. Wow, there's a resume-builder) claiming to feel St. Cindy's pain because she (Elizabeth) lost her teenage son to a car accident.

A prominent Democrat's wife trying to glom onto some of Sheehan's "moral absoluteness" by equating a car accident with combat in defense of our nation.

Now who's changing the subject? You morons are, and trying to divert attention away from the fact that the Left is chock full of losers like John and Elizabeth Edwards.

I'm thinking when the k12 schools start their new year we're going to see a drastic reduction in these kinds (non-koolaid-drinker) of comments.

YOu do realize we've heard your tired crap before, don't you?

You seem to hear it - it's just that, if it's inconvenient for your worldview, you forget it as soon as possible.

So we'll just keep reminding you until you get it.

So, where are those WMD's again?

How many Iraqis were 9/11 hijackers?

What happened to that $9 BILLION in taxpayer money Halliburton 'lost' - while our soldiers don't have enough armor?

How's that Iraq democracy coming along?

You know, this site can do a better job generating anti-Bush talking points than the boonbats.

Here's one:

"George W. Bush invaded Iraq so that Rush Limbaugh and big corporations could invade welfare recipients."

And another:

"George W. Bush lowered taxes so that oil companies and SUV owners could steal from Al Franken."

Wow. This is fun. No wonder you guys love it so much!

"boonbats." Heh. I, of course, meant "moonbats." Apologies for the confusion.

"remember laura bush ran a stop sign in 1963 and killed her boyfriend."

Yes, we remember, however, did she piss off home and not report it until the next day? She wasn't drunk, she wasn't driving on an expired license, it wasn't covered up, and there's a remarkable difference between blowing through a stop sign and driving off a bridge.

As they say, take the plank out of your own eye before worrying about the splinter in ours.

"Bush and his administration lied about the reasons for invading Irag"

name one lie.

"planned poorly for its execution"

Ummm, how many days did it take to defeat Saddam and his armies? Do you think it got there by dumb luck? Oh, wait, I get it. You mean this magical mystical 'planning for the peace' thing? Yeah, I mean look at Japan, Germany, and Kosov. We went in, won, and were back out by the weekend.ooh, no, wait a second, we're still there....

"continue to dissemble about the status of the war"

You mean they refuse to follow the MSM and left wing lines that it's a quagmire? Shame on them.. US troops on the ground and some of their more independent embedded reporters cast a very different light on the situation.

"However you want to cut it starting a war under false pretenses is wrong"

yes it is, and as soon as someone does it, we'll be up in arms about it. Claiming it was under false pretenses does not make it so, you do know that don't you?

"If the war was necessary then tell the truth as to why."

There's no point re-iterating to someone who obviously cannot or is unwilling to listen. The left re-iterating on this line are starting to sound rather pathetic.

At least moonbats in Crawford mixed it up a bit by blaming the Joooos.

Your slip of logic is showing.

...John Edwards' wife...claiming to feel St. Cindy's pain because she (Elizabeth) lost her teenage son to a car accident.

Gee - Elizabeth Edwards, whose son was killed for no good reason, says that she knows what it feels like for Cindy Sheehan to have lost a son for no good reason.

Wow, she must be lying.

Now who's changing the subject? You morons are, and trying to divert attention away from the fact that the Left is chock full of losers like John and Elizabeth Edwards.

And your equation to Ted Kennedy is, of course, not at all an inflammatory attempt to change the subject from Iraq, to an incident that happened, what, 30 + years ago?

I admire the constant creativity and inventiveness of some members of the Right, in avoiding the reality of the sheer incompetence of the current administration. But this must start to ring hollowly at some point, no?

Someone above joked about Karl Rove cutting the brake lines on Ted Kennedy's car that night. Well, I know some of you will think it's a joke, but the Vegas oddmakers who told me that Kerry really won the election have also said that the chances of Rove actually doing such a thing are pretty good.

You see, Rove would have been just a wee tyke at the time, and thus able to fit under the chassis of the car Kennedy was driving. It's no big deal to cut a car's brake lines, if you know what to look for. And from what I've read of Rove, he's had an interest in sabotage of the political type since childhood.

The Vegas odds guys and their calculators say it happened, and I'll take that to the bank.

Karl Rove isn't capable of conceiving and executing such a grandiose crime? Wake up. He did it. The silence of traditional media on this subject is enough to establish their newfound bankruptcy.

Do you see the word Iraq in the original post even once? No one's changing the subject from Iraq, though I'm sure any conversation must seem a diversion from McChimplerburton's folly to you.

The subject today is this victim bonding thing you dipshits seem to indulge, where you suck onto victims like lampreys. Except if the victim was aced by a leading Democrat.

Geez, where'd these DUmmies come from?

The Kenndy's have had the premier PR machine in the US for quite awhile. I don't know much about naval warfare, but I've always wondered how the skipper of PT 109 (JFK) magaged to get his boat cut in half by a ship ten times his size and come out of it a hero! Yes it was at night in fog but he was also traveling too slowly, which might've helped him escape.

The Hero of Chappaquidic clearly got clean away with manslaughter or negligent homocide. But also the Moon Walk occurred soon after it, "sucking up all the oxygen" of a Liberal partisan media.

You do realize we've heard your tired crap before, don't you?

You seem to hear it - it's just that, if it's inconvenient for your worldview, you forget it as soon as possible.

So we'll just keep reminding you until you get it.

So, where are those WMD's again?
How about here, here, and here. Don't forget Saddam's attempt to aquire nukes also.

How many Iraqis were 9/11 hijackers?
None. How many terrorists were trained at Salman Pak? How many al-Quaida members did Saddam give shelter to? How many "palestinians" blew themselves up, killing Israeli civilians, so that there families could get Saddams fat welfare check. Or is it not terrorism if they just kill jooos? [Cedarford, Is that you?]

Of course neither of those are the sole reason we went there. You should check the Congressional resolution or perhaps Clinton's rational for attacking Iraq.

Clinton Lied, Kids died

What happened to that $9 BILLION in taxpayer money Halliburton 'lost' - while our soldiers don't have enough armor?
The armor & weapons Kerry voted against? Perhaps you missed the fact that Congress, not the POTUS, authorizes spending. Or maybe Mrs Fields 6th grade civics hasn't covered that yet.

How's that Iraq democracy coming along?
Looks pretty good from all I hear. Hows that Iraqi dictatorship you prefer doing?

Tell you what, you stick to your happy little fantasy world while us big kids sit here and make plans based on facts. If your good we might even give you a lollypop. But only if you stop crying like a baby.

Oh wait babies have actual reasons for crying.

Would Cindy Sheehan have “absolute moral authority” if, instead of demanding that we leave Iraq, she was demanding that Bush nuke the Sunni Triangle in retaliation for the death of her son?

Would the press be so fawning over the “grieving mom”, if she were demanding that Bush invade countries that are seen as helping the Iraqi terrorists; Syria and Iran? Her “moral authority” would still be “absolute” wouldn’t it?

I have a sneaking suspicion that, if Cindy Sheehan were demanding such things, she would get a little coverage in the press as a grieving mother who’s “gone over the edge”.
She would be portrayed as, basically, insane. Then we would hear nothing more of her in the mainstream media.

In JFK's defense, One of 109's engines was bum that night and the reasoning for being so close to the destroyer was do get in so close its guns couldn't deflect downward enough to hammer them - the destroyer captain made the ramming decision when he realized the gun deflection issue.

Jeeze the filter has a problem with http://ma*ssgraves.info/

Gee - Elizabeth Edwards, whose son was killed for no good reason, says that she knows what it feels like for Cindy Sheehan to have lost a son for no good reason.

Wow, she must be lying.

When you tell me that Wade Edwards died when he intentionally slammed his car into a drunk driver's vehicle to save someone standing on the sidewalk, then maybe you'll have a point.

Otherwise, Casey Sheehan at 24 put his own life at risk willingly and lost it for one of the best reasons possible - to defend his fellow man and his country.

Wade Edwards died tragically in an automobile accident at 16.

Since you probably don't feel any war is justified, I doubt that you have the capacity to understand the difference.

And your equation to Ted Kennedy is, of course, not at all an inflammatory attempt to change the subject from Iraq, to an incident that happened, what, 30 + years ago?

I didn't compare it to Chappaquidick, but I'll go ahead and answer this anyway.

Here's how it relates. Let's see if you can follow this. It'll be tough, so put your thinking cap on.

Wade Edwards was killed in an automobile accident.

Mary Jo Kopechne was killed in an automobile accident.

Liberals display convenient cognitive dissonance when presented with the fact that Wade's accident was not a heroic act, yet Elizabeth is now seen as some sort of champion because of this event.

Liberals also display profound cognitive dissonance when presented with the fact that Ted Kennedy could have been heroic and saved Mary Jo's life, but chose to let her sit underwater for hours and hours before even telling anyone she was there. Ted is also seen as a champion for the liberal cause, even though he got away with murder.

They are losers, and those who think they're champions are and will always be losers.

Ahh waaant my, aaahh scotch. Pleaahs.

As an ex-citizen of the People's Republic of Massachusetts I object to the Distinguished Drunk from Massachusetts, that great leader, philosopher, and moral compass of the Dimocratic Party, being called "a lowlife drunken adulterer".

That's "FAT lowlife drunken adulterer" to you.

His complete lack of self control and personal responsibility make him the poster child for the modern DNC (along with President Clinton), a party that has no moral, ethical, and legal standards. Fat Boy does everything that the modern DNC wants from it's politicians: he win elections and rails against the GOP.

As for President Bush, the country held referendum on him, and he won. We'll see how history judges his Presidency in the long term.

As to Kopechne, besides her etoh comsumption, it was dark, the car flipped over, she had to be disoriented and frightened as hell. And, she had to believe her rescue was imminent because Ted wouldn't leave her to die, would he?

As to whether she drowned or suffocated, I don't know. Since, no autopsy was performed, and the claim that she suffocated is based on the opinions of not the most qualified people, no one will ever know.

It is possible that as one becomes oxygen starved, there wd be a loss of consciousness, causing someone to submerge and drown.

Lets see, could that be the same Halliburton that Clinton gave the no bid contracts to in Kosovo? Helloooo??

Where were the left wing anti war protesters when Clinton invaded the sovereign nations of:
Kosovo
Haiti
Somolia....

Why was the lack of or bad intelligence a perfect excuse for blowing up the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade? Bush receives questionable intel and HE IS A F****** LIAR! Were all you people lined up behind Monica?

Ted Kennedy is a murderer by direct hands on involvement. He only escaped jail because of the family "name" and because people felt sorrow for that soulless band of Martha's Vineyard criminals. That the sorry prick is even in office shows what the "office" stands for.

But I digress, how was TK connected to all this? Because he is a real honest to goodness murderer and you hypocritical losers refuse to admit it.

Gee, I seem to remember that the President lived a life of sordid self indulgence, including at least one case of driving drunk. As any semi-intelligent adult knows, regular drinkers do not drive drunk only once. We also know that it is only a matter of sheerest luck that some drunk drivers kill people and others get away with it. I guess now that W.'s found Jesus and the White House, anything he does is acceptable to you cretins? Let him start stupid, destructive dangerous wars for no good goddamn reason--but hey, at least he's no Kennedy! Let him kill a hundred thousand Iraqis and going on two thousand Americans but what's important to remember is that Kennedy killed a girl while driving drunk. I feel very sorry for Mary Jo Kopechne and her family--but if there is a hell there's a much hotter spot waiting for W. than for Teddy.

Maybe Ace could just put together a post (complete with links) answering all these "questions" the loonies on the left keep asking, but ignoring the answers provided.

It would save everyone a lot of time with the trolls.

Gee, I seem to remember that the President lived a life of sordid self indulgence, including at least one case of driving drunk.
Odd that Graeko doesn't believe in redemption for alcholics and drug addicts. I suppose then that he supports locking them all up for life. Afterall, according to his logic, one can never recover and repent from past addictions.

How about here, here, and here. Don't forget Saddam's attempt to aquire nukes also.

Right. Just to entertain your argument, I followed those links.

The first 2 links refer to Saddams' gas massacres of innocents in the late 80's. Another thing that Bush supporters *keep* forgetting, and thus need to *keep* being reminded, is that

a) this occurred when Bush Sr. *supported* Saddam. He kept the UN from sanctioning Saddam for these atrocoties; and increased US support, financial *and* military, afterwards.

b) this was in 1988! Hello! Where are the WMD's that were supposed to be there, in 2002?? You know, the *first* main reason we invaded, before they moved that goalpost?

While North Korea already has 'em, and Iran was already further on the road to 'em ,and now has 'em as well?

The third link you post, is to a Jordanian who says he was trained by Zarqawi - after Zarqawi moved *into* Iraq, so he could attack us once we invaded! So our invasion created terrorism and WMD's, as opposed to limiting them. Thank you for making my own point.

None.

Thank you for admitting that, at least.

How many terrorists were trained at Salman Pak? How many al-Quaida members did Saddam give shelter to?

Absolutely less according to all *known* facts, than those terrorists who were trained, harbored, and funded by and in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan.

Who, under Bush, are of course our allies.

How many "palestinians" blew themselves up, killing Israeli civilians, so that there families could get Saddams fat welfare check. Or is it not terrorism if they just kill jooos?

You tell me. Is it still terrorism if Saudi Arabia does it?

Total amount to Palestinian terrorists: $4 Billion, just from the Saudi Royal Family. - http://memri.org/bin/media.cgi?ID=54203

Total amount Saddam gave - the highest number I've seen is $132 million.

Sure is a good thing Bush took care of the big problem first.

Of course neither of those are the sole reason we went there. You should check the Congressional resolution or perhaps Clinton's rational for attacking Iraq.

Seeing as Clinton didn't commit us to an invasion with ground troops, maybe you should stop trying to blame Clinton for things Bush did. I thought that conservatives were supposed to be about personal accountability, taking responsibility for one's actions, etc? I guess that just doesn't apply if the President's Republican?

And as for the congressional resolution in the Republican-led Senate - a) the Senate didn't have access to the info Bush did, and b) that resolution was to threaten Saddam if he refused to disarm. He DID disarm - or they would have found weapons! This is something else that Bush supporters seem to need constant reminding of.

Clinton Lied, Kids died

Here's where I remind you, again, that Clinton was not president after 1/2001, and Clinton did not commit us to a ground invasion of a foreign country.

What happened to that $9 BILLION in taxpayer money Halliburton 'lost' - while our soldiers don't have enough armor?

The armor & weapons Kerry voted against?

Sure. Maybe. Whatever. If Bush is a better man than Kerry, then why doesn't he get to the bottom of it?

Perhaps you missed the fact that Congress, not the POTUS, authorizes spending. Or maybe Mrs Fields 6th grade civics hasn't covered that yet.

Perhaps you *definitely* missed what I'm talking about.

This is $9 BILLION that was ALREADY authorized for Iraq, and was PAID to Halliburton. That they've since 'lost'. That could be saving soldier's lives as we write.

Constant reminding is needed on this point too.

Looks pretty good from all I hear.

Really? That's interesting. I'm reading that the latest version of the overdue consitution has no rights for women, or the minority Sunni religion, with all laws requiring approval by clerics - and is thus a de facto Islamic theocracy.

Hey, but at least gas is cheaper now. Oh, woops.

Hows that Iraqi dictatorship you prefer doing?

You mean the one that Bush Sr. established and supported, that was fine as long as Saddam did what Bush et al wanted?

You're referring to that contained, toothless Iraqi dictatorship that produced far less WMD's and terrorists than Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan? Let alone the nutball with troops and nukes in North Korea?

You mean the Iraqi dictatorship that's cost 1800+ US soldiers to replace with what looks to be a theocracy?

I wish we had left it alone. It was not worth it.

Tell you what, you stick to your happy little fantasy world while us big kids sit here and make plans based on facts.

In the face of your continual presentation of irrelevant facts referring to previous presidents, or statistics on Iraq that pale in even the simplest comparison to the terrorism made possible by Iran, and by our ALLIES Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - your logical argument of 'Nyaahh, nyahh, I can't hear you' is quite underwhelming.

We'll just keep pounding in these facts until you get them. The rest of America is getting them; you should too.

keep pounding the "facts"

keep losing elections

your call

"We'll just keep pounding in these facts until you get them. The rest of America is getting them; you should too."
-Democrats, just prior to 2000 election defeat

"We'll just keep pounding in these facts until you get them. The rest of America is getting them; you should too."
-Democrats, just prior to 2002 election defeat

"We'll just keep pounding in these facts until you get them. The rest of America is getting them; you should too."
-Democrats, just prior to 2004 election defeat

"We'll just keep pounding in these facts until you get them. The rest of America is getting them; you should too."
-"Jim," August 22, 2005

I detect a pattern. Do you?

How about here, here, and here. Don't forget Saddam's attempt to aquire nukes also.

Right. Just to entertain your argument, I followed those links.

The first 2 links refer to Saddams' gas massacres of innocents in the late 80's. Another thing that Bush supporters *keep* forgetting, and thus need to *keep* being reminded, is that

a) this occurred when Bush Sr. *supported* Saddam. He kept the UN from sanctioning Saddam for these atrocoties; and increased US support, financial *and* military, afterwards.

b) this was in 1988! Hello! Where are the WMD's that were supposed to be there, in 2002?? You know, the *first* main reason we invaded, before they moved that goalpost?

While North Korea already has 'em, and Iran was already further on the road to 'em ,and now has 'em as well?

The third link you post, is to a Jordanian who says he was trained by Zarqawi - after Zarqawi moved *into* Iraq, so he could attack us once we invaded! So our invasion created terrorism and WMD's, as opposed to limiting them. Thank you for making my own point.

None.

Thank you for admitting that, at least.

How many terrorists were trained at Salman Pak? How many al-Quaida members did Saddam give shelter to?

Absolutely less according to all *known* facts, than those terrorists who were trained, harbored, and funded by and in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan.

Who, under Bush, are of course our allies.

How many "palestinians" blew themselves up, killing Israeli civilians, so that there families could get Saddams fat welfare check. Or is it not terrorism if they just kill jooos?

You tell me. Is it still terrorism if Saudi Arabia does it?

Total amount to Palestinian terrorists: $4 Billion, just from the Saudi Royal Family. - http://memri.org/bin/media.cgi?ID=54203

Total amount Saddam gave - the highest number I've seen is $132 million.

Sure is a good thing Bush took care of the big problem first.

Of course neither of those are the sole reason we went there. You should check the Congressional resolution or perhaps Clinton's rational for attacking Iraq.

Seeing as Clinton didn't commit us to an invasion with ground troops, maybe you should stop trying to blame Clinton for things Bush did. I thought that conservatives were supposed to be about personal accountability, taking responsibility for one's actions, etc? I guess that just doesn't apply if the President's Republican?

And as for the congressional resolution in the Republican-led Senate - a) the Senate didn't have access to the info Bush did, and b) that resolution was to threaten Saddam if he refused to disarm. He DID disarm - or they would have found weapons! This is something else that Bush supporters seem to need constant reminding of.

Clinton Lied, Kids died

Here's where I remind you, again, that Clinton was not president after 1/2001, and Clinton did not commit us to a ground invasion of a foreign country.

What happened to that $9 BILLION in taxpayer money Halliburton 'lost' - while our soldiers don't have enough armor?

The armor & weapons Kerry voted against?

Sure. Maybe. Whatever. If Bush is a better man than Kerry, then why doesn't he get to the bottom of it?

Perhaps you missed the fact that Congress, not the POTUS, authorizes spending. Or maybe Mrs Fields 6th grade civics hasn't covered that yet.

Perhaps you *definitely* missed what I'm talking about.

This is $9 BILLION that was ALREADY authorized for Iraq, and was PAID to Halliburton. That they've since 'lost'. That could be saving soldier's lives as we write.

Constant reminding is needed on this point too.

Looks pretty good from all I hear.

Really? That's interesting. I'm reading that the latest version of the overdue consitution has no rights for women, or the minority Sunni religion, with all laws requiring approval by clerics - and is thus a de facto Islamic theocracy.

Hey, but at least gas is cheaper now. Oh, woops.

Hows that Iraqi dictatorship you prefer doing?

You mean the one that Bush Sr. established and supported, that was fine as long as Saddam did what Bush et al wanted?

You're referring to that contained, toothless Iraqi dictatorship that produced far less WMD's and terrorists than Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan? Let alone the nutball with troops and nukes in North Korea?

You mean the Iraqi dictatorship that's cost 1800+ US soldiers to replace with what looks to be a theocracy?

I wish we had left it alone. It was not worth it.

Tell you what, you stick to your happy little fantasy world while us big kids sit here and make plans based on facts.

In the face of your continual presentation of irrelevant facts referring to previous presidents, or statistics on Iraq that pale in even the simplest comparison to the terrorism made possible by Iran, and by our ALLIES Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - your logical argument of 'Nyaahh, nyahh, I can't hear you' is quite underwhelming.

We'll just keep pounding in these facts until you get them. The rest of America is getting them; you should too.

Sorry for the double post. Server's dropping connections for me.

Above was me. But Dave in Texas beat me to it, and wins on brevity, too.

I detect a pattern. Do you?

Hey, what can I say? Regime change is hard work. :)

When you tell me that Wade Edwards died when he intentionally slammed his car into a drunk driver's vehicle to save someone standing on the sidewalk, then maybe you'll have a point.

Nope. I don't see any part of Elizabeth Edwards statement, in any way implying that Casey's death was not heroic. Nor do I see any quote of Elizabeth Edwards saying "My son's death was just as heroic as Casey Sheehan's". Edwards is saying that both of their sons death *hurt really bad*.

The link between the two deaths, is that they were both *tragic*. And they are tragic because they were both *unnecessary*.

Liberals display convenient cognitive dissonance when presented with the fact that Wade's accident was not a heroic act, yet Elizabeth is now seen as some sort of champion because of this event.

The cognitive dissonance I'm seeing displayed by conservatives, is a refusal to see that his death can be both heroic and tragic.

The tragedy comes from the possibility that his sacrifice was unnecessary, if it did not even make America safer.

Liberals also display profound cognitive dissonance when presented with the fact that Ted Kennedy could have been heroic and saved Mary Jo's life, but chose to let her sit underwater for hours and hours before even telling anyone she was there. Ted is also seen as a champion for the liberal cause, even though he got away with murder.

Whatever. He went before a court, and it's now done. Kennedy may very well have gotten out of it through political pull. If you're expecting me to defend him, then you're expecting wrong.

It's thirty years in the past, and has no more relation to the subject at hand than Nixon's systemic corruption.

Jim, Sancho Panza has become, shall we say, too "realistic" for me. Come, join me on my journeys! Sure, I've never pushed over any of those damned windmills, but them's good times, you know man?

Good. Times.

Y'all have fun. I look forward to your next batch of attacks on those who express the sheer effrontery to publicy question any Republican leaders...

Ace, I'm guessing that Tanker felt the original comment wasn't actionable because he didn't actually impute the charge to any specific person. He just used the term "lowlife drunken adulterer," and hey, that could be anybody...

We'll just keep pounding in these facts until you get them. The rest of America is getting them; you should too.

Jeesh! Shades of 1984. If the Jim's of the world have their way, we'll all be in camps where facts will be pounded into our brains until we "get them."

"Has any liberal ever complained about a lowlife drunken adulterer from the state of Massachusetts committing murder?"

-There is no statuate of limitations for murder or manslaughter. If there has, or ever will be a case for indicting Ted Kennedy for murder, the rest of the world oustside of this moronosphere has yet to see it.
In other words- Do your research, punk.

Like all Americans, I had high hopes for the future of the Oldsmobile and its passengers, as we struggle against the onrushing water and its poorly-designed shoulder belts. But as claustrophobia sets in we must begin to sober up and face the truth: hope is no longer an option.

It is time for us to recognize that our continued presence in this volatile region is a hinderance to the Oldsmobile and its people. Rather than helping the situation we are further weighing down the Oldsmobile, causing it to sink faster and faster into the quagmire of Chappaquidick Bay, creating a dangerous situation for both ourselves as well as its passengers who are desperately seeking an air pocket in which to start a better life.

That is why I believe we have reached the point where we must take a deep breath and immediately depart the Oldsmobile. We must seek through the watery darkness and release the belt latch of madness that has kept us here, and reach out for a sane and honorable window crank.

Obviously there will be passengers in the Oldsmobile who do not want us to leave, and will likely try to grasp and grab at our feet as we depart. While we wish them success, it is critical that these passengers quickly learn independence and self-determination. The most effective way to teach them is through example, and with a vigorous kick-off. Let us hope they will cherish our shoes as a lasting legacy of our commitment to liberty....

It Is Finally Time To Exit The Oldsmobile

Case for murder?

What's the point? His rants are invaluable for electing republicans.

Nobody in their right mind would want to take Teddy out of circulation.

-There is no statuate of limitations for murder or manslaughter. If there has, or ever will be a case for indicting Ted Kennedy for murder, the rest of the world oustside of this moronosphere has yet to see it.
In other words- Do your research, punk.

They fixed it by letting him plead to leaving the scene of an accident which was pure bullshit. So, was not getting an autopsy.

Once he pled, jeopardy attached, barring any future charges.

So, do your own research, punk.

Funniest comment so far is Jim Lampley's.

'jim' is a close second, but, come on, good satire has to have some basis in reality. Take it down a notch, man.

Jim, Sancho Panza has become, shall we say, too "realistic" for me. Come, join me on my journeys! Sure, I've never pushed over any of those damned windmills, but them's good times, you know man?

Forget windmills! They shall never mar the landscape of the Hamptons! Join my quest instead, as we seek the Golden Ladle!

Interesting thread. Out of around 50 posts counted- 24 pertain to Kennedy or Sheehan but again avoid Bush's behavior. At least 10 are ad hominem attacks on the writer of a post.

Let's try again to stick to the facts:

"Bush and his administration lied about the reasons for invading Irag"- "name one lie"

Here are two:

OK the Iraqis did at one time have WMD- they gassed the kurds. At the time they did so the US did little to intervene, but perhaps Bush2 felt that the US should finally address this matter from 1988. There is no evidence that Saddam had large stocks remaining or the means to deliver them.

Nukes- yes Israel did destroy the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. However, that was 24 years ago and there has been no convincing evidence that Iraq had active chemical or nuclear weapons research or production at the time of the war. Both Bush and the CIA eventually admittted the Iraqis were not seeking uranium through Niger (remember those 16 words). As to the claim that perhaps Bush was honestly acting on faulty intelligence, there have been too many reports going over the sequence of the events regarding WMD showing that there was little evidence for their production before the war.

The terrorism link to Iraq or the OBL link to Saddam have been similarly debunked. Of course Saddam was the worst of humankind, but there are many throughout the world as bad or worse. Was it necessary to invade Iraq to depose him? I'm sure we all want to remove all dictators and murderers around the world. However, invading all the countries around the world with evil leaders clearly is not an option. Furthermore why Iraq? There was ample evidence at the time of the invasion that other countries posed far more of a nuclear threat (N. Korea) or had far greater human tragedies (Sudan) than Iraq.

It's not clear to me that the invasion of Iraq made the U.S. safer. Did the invasion wipe out all terrorists in the region- hardly though I'm sure some were killed. While the only good terrorist is a dead one it's not clear that after $200 Bil, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and military fatalities > 2000 that we have reduced the risks of terrorism in the U.S.

Did the war wipe out a major source of terrorist funding- again hardly, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. were and are contributing far more towards terrorism. Did it wipe out a source of weapons- WMD or otherwise- well certainly weapons were found and the less bombs the better but there is no evidence that Iraq was supplying large numbers of weapons to terrorists.

"planned poorly for its execution"

You're absolutely right- the execution of the invasion and war itself was pretty well planned. Unfortunately planning for the development of peace which became necessary about 2 months later has not been well handled. Yes there are daily disagreements on whether things are going well or poorly depending on one's political affiliation, but the facts are that for everything from the looting, to inadequate troops, to poor security, to misestimating the political and tribal realities in the region, to the mistreatment of prisoners, the planning has been poor.

"continue to dissemble about the status of the war"

Please see this link on factcheck.org. http://www.factcheck.org/article334.html

They seem to be fairly evenhanded in analyzing these issues.

"However you want to cut it starting a war under false pretenses is wrong"- "yes it is, and as soon as someone does it, we'll be up in arms about it. "

See above.

There- a response without calling people stupid or batty or making a snide remark about the poster or the post.

Honest man further validates my BlogTheory™ that only moonbats™ post coma-inducing screeds as blog comments...

Re: tony's post: that brings the total personal attacks in this thread to 11. The post also avoids dealing with the facts or Bush.

The terrorism link to Iraq or the OBL link to Saddam have been similarly debunked.

No, the Iraq linkage to both terrorism and bin Laden has been CONFIRMED. There is a ton of evidence linking Iraq to a dozen different terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda.

On the WMD stockpiles, Bush didn't lie. He repeated the same bogus intelligence information that Kerry, Clinton, Gore and half a dozen other leading Democrats recited.

Nobody KNOWINGLY stated falsehoods about Iraqi WMDs. Many people MISTAKENLY assumed that the CIA's intelligence was correct.

Big difference.

On the other WMD-related issues, Bush was correct. Saddam had every intent to restart his programs after the UN sanctions were gone. There is plenty of confirming evidence of that.

Saddam also operated at least two current and illegal WMD-related programs- long-range missile research/production and biological weapon research. Again, there is undeniable evidence of those two programs.

Both Bush and the CIA eventually admittted the Iraqis were not seeking uranium through Niger (remember those 16 words).

The 16 words were as follows.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The Butler report concludes the following.

"It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999," the British report said. "The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium.

Bush did not lie in those 16 words. He cited British intelligence's assesment that uranium was sought and British intelligence stands by that assesment.

Try again.

The terrorism link to Iraq or the OBL link to Saddam have been similarly debunked.

Yeah? Debunk this. And this. Please provide links and other evidence to back up your debunking.

I'll be waiting.

I don't think anyone on the left excuses Ted Kennedy for what happened at Chappaquiddick. (As a side note: I drove a cab in Martha's Vineyard in the 1970's, and I can't tell you how many people asked to go to the bridge. The rumor is that it had to be rebuilt several times because people kept taking parts of the bridge as souvenirs). What happened was wrong, and nobody disputes that.

However, what really irks a lot of us on the left is the number of ethically challenged right wingers who are sanctimonious until they are caught. Newt Gingrich castigated Clinton continually for the Monica affair -- until it was revealed that he was having an affair with an intern at the time. Ditto for Henry Hyde and Dan Burton (differing in details -- no intern). Strom Thurmond had a love child with a black woman (doubtless he would have called it miscegenation). Rush Limbaugh is (or was) a drug addict. Bill Bennett had an uncontrollable gambling problem -- now we don't get lectured as much by him on moral virtue or self-discipline.

I don't mean to equate Mary Jo K's death with taking OxyContin. But I understand that human frailty exists across the political spectrum -- only I don't think that we on the left are so damn sanctimonious about it.

I would also like to add that an attempted plot on the life of a former president could also be considered terrorism if not an act of war.

On June 2, 1993, representatives of the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and others in the Department of Justice (DOJ) discussed the results of their investigations with representatives of the Clinton Administration. Three weeks later, the DOJ and CIA reported their conclusions. The DOJ and CIA reported that it was highly likely that the Iraqi Government originated the plot and more than likely that Bush was the target. Additionally, based on past Iraqi methods and other sources of intelligence, the CIA independently reported that there was a strong case that Saddam Hussein directed the plot against Bush.

I don't think anyone on the left excuses Ted Kennedy for what happened at Chappaquiddick

I would say that anyone who votes him back in office excuses his behavior.

I'm still waiting for "an honest man" to respond. Please refute the evidence provided or concede the point.

Nope. I don't see any part of Elizabeth Edwards statement, in any way implying that Casey's death was not heroic. Nor do I see any quote of Elizabeth Edwards saying "My son's death was just as heroic as Casey Sheehan's". Edwards is saying that both of their sons death *hurt really bad*.

Where do you see Elizabeth's statement? It's funny, Tanker never linked it.

Do you know who asked Elizabeth for her opinion on Cindy Sheehan?

The link between the two deaths, is that they were both *tragic*. And they are tragic because they were both *unnecessary*.

The cognitive dissonance I'm seeing displayed by conservatives, is a refusal to see that his death can be both heroic and tragic.

Oh, we perfectly understand that "tragic" and "heroic" are not mutually exclusive terms. You're the one who doesn't understand a particular term, and that term is "unnecessary."

Tell me when you think war is necessary. You do think it's necessary sometimes, don't you?

The tragedy comes from the possibility that his sacrifice was unnecessary, if it did not even make America safer.

And even if it did make America safer it was still unnecessary, right?

Come on, stop being disingenuous. Say what you actually mean instead of using diversion and triangulation.

German for "honest man".

Erlichman

left out the extra h

loose shit

""remember laura bush ran a stop sign in 1963 and killed her boyfriend."

Yes, we remember, however, did she piss off home and not report it until the next day? She wasn't drunk, she wasn't driving on an expired license, it wasn't covered up, and there's a remarkable difference between blowing through a stop sign and driving off a bridge. "

What we know for facts about Kennedy's incident is no more than that it's possible it was an innocent traffic accident from a curve on a dangerous road with no fault on his part, with him in shock from the incident. The rest is speculation.

What we know for a fact about Laura Bush's incident is that on a clear sunny day, with good roads and a lot of visibility, that she negligently broke the law and ran a stop sign and killed an innocent young man.

So what we know for a fact about her incident is worse than Kennedy's.

So what we know for a fact about her incident is worse than Kennedy's.

Oh, bullshit. Kennedy admitted to drinking several beers and rum and cokes before driving off the bridge. He wasn't supposed to be operating a vehicle, period, because he didn't have a driver's license. After his wreck, while Mary Jo was still alive and trapped in the back seat, breathing from an air pocket, he walked past several houses that were lit up, along with a fire station that was lit up, on the way to his cover-up.

Take the time to read a little and learn the facts, before saying something stupid.

Kick his ass, Dogstar!

What we know for facts about Kennedy's incident is no more than that it's possible it was an innocent traffic accident from a curve on a dangerous road with no fault on his part, with him in shock from the incident. The rest is speculation.

Look, I understand the left's idolization of Kennedy. The guy's got a famous name, which you believe somehow gives him more stature when he spouts the same leftist conspiracy moonbat bullshit that you could find on any liberal discussion board.

Three witnesses saw him drink at least three rum and cokes and a few beers. Some "innocent traffic accident."

So i guess in ding bat sheenans mind bush went and put a gun to her sons head and pulled the trigger what kind of crap is this stupid old hen clucking about

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Halliburton blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Iraq blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Furthermore, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Downing Street blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Karl Rove blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Plame blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Cindy Sheehan blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah OIL! blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah imperialism blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

In conclusion, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH rethugs BLAH BLAH!

PS: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

dudes. are you really so desperate as to haul 40 year old kennedy dirt into the argument? is there anything you can't tie that ol' canard to?

just because you can shove your head up your ass, doesn't mean you should make a habit of it.

dudes. are you really so desperate as to haul 40 year old kennedy dirt into the argument? is there anything you can't tie that ol' canard to?

just because you can shove your head up your ass, doesn't mean you should make a habit of it.

Oh, we perfectly understand that "tragic" and "heroic" are not mutually exclusive terms.

Good. Then stop bitchin' at Elizabeth Edwards for making that comparison.

You're the one who doesn't understand a particular term, and that term is "unnecessary."

Tell me when you think war is necessary. You do think it's necessary sometimes, don't you?

I sure do. "Necessary" would be WWII, and arguably the invasion of Afghanistan. Unnecessary is the invasion of Iraq.

And even if it did make America safer it was still unnecessary, right?

The simple facts are that the invasion of Iraq did *not* make America safer. Therefore it was at best unnecessary.

Come on, stop being disingenuous. Say what you actually mean instead of using diversion and triangulation.

I'm saying exactly what I mean.

is that like laura bush killing the person she did with her car??? her and ted kennedy have bunches in common. neither were punished.

is that like laura bush killing the person she did with her car??? her and ted kennedy have bunches in common. neither were punished. how do we know what else she has done in her life? oh, don't forget that republican congressman who is sitting in jail at the moment for drunken driving after getting off a zillion times (i think it was in utah or somewhere like that--he resigned about a year ago after being convicted of killing a motorcyclist at an intersection that he was used to speeding into) tried to say he was innocent-

maybe when you have children they will die and then you will know what it is like. think about it.

maybe when you have children they will die and then you will know what it is like. think about it.

Ah, karin, I hope you're for real. Voices like yours have done more in aid of conservatism than you will ever know.

Good. Then stop bitchin' at Elizabeth Edwards for making that comparison.

Who's bitching? What comparison? Show me the comparison.

There's a point you have evaded. Tanker never posted a link to anything Elizabeth Edwards said about Cindy Sheehan.

Do you know who asked Elizabeth for her opinion on Cindy Sheehan? Tell me.

And why are you trying to squelch my freedom of speech? It's because I'm a woman and a mother, isn't it? I have two sons whom you care nothing about! I have more sympathy for Elizabeth and Cindy than you ever could, and you dare to talk to me this way? Who the hell do you think you are?

(shsts)

I sure do. "Necessary" would be WWII, and arguably the invasion of Afghanistan. Unnecessary is the invasion of Iraq.

"Arguably?" Why is Afghanistan arguable? It should be a certainty, if WWII is your standard.

Unless, of course, your standard is that only a Democrat in the White House is righteous enough to make war and that we must fight for Communists.

The simple facts are that the invasion of Iraq did *not* make America safer. Therefore it was at best unnecessary.

Another evasion. I can infer from this evasion and your waffling on Afghanistan that you're simply a dyed-in-the-wool Chomskyite pacifist who has no interest in America defending herself.

I'm saying exactly what I mean.

Bullshit. If you were saying what you meant, you'd just come out and admit that you don't really care about our soldiers, you just want the "American hegemony" to end and for the progressives/socialists/tranzis to take their rightful places - ruling over all of us.

maybe when you have children they will die and then you will know what it is like. think about it.

Man, it's a good thing liberals aren't "haters."

Imagine what they'd say then.

I'm still waiting for "An Honest Man" to show me how George Bush lied.

Still waiting.....

waiting....

Good. Then stop bitchin' at Elizabeth Edwards for making that comparison.

Who's bitching? What comparison? Show me the comparison.

Sigh.

Look at the top of this page!

To quote: "Elizabeth Edwards now feels a connection to Cindy Sheehan."

From that title onwards, this article's premise, is about the comparison that Elizabeth Edwards made, of her son's death to Cindy Sheehan's son's death!

That's what I'm arguing against!!! That's what these comments are springing from!!

I'm surprised I even have to write this.

There's a point you have evaded. Tanker never posted a link to anything Elizabeth Edwards said about Cindy Sheehan.

He's talking about Edwards' comments, and saying that Edwards has no right to compare her son's death to Sheehan's. I'm saying that she *does* have a right to make that comparison.

Once again, that's what this whole post is about. If you have a problem in there not being a sourced quote, you should take it up with the writer of the original article.

I haven't referenced quotes directly, because the *article* didn't.

But if you want to read the letter of support Edwards wrote directly, here it is:

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/08/index.html#007419

Do you know who asked Elizabeth for her opinion on Cindy Sheehan? Tell me.

You tell me. What's that got to do with anything? Maybe she just wanted to say it herself, with no prompting.

The post and the comments aren't about who asked Edwards. They're about whether or not Edwards is right in making that comparison. I'm saying that she does.

And why are you trying to squelch my freedom of speech? It's because I'm a woman and a mother, isn't it? I have two sons whom you care nothing about! I have more sympathy for Elizabeth and Cindy than you ever could, and you dare to talk to me this way? Who the hell do you think you are?

Is this even anything to do with me?

"Arguably?" Why is Afghanistan arguable? It should be a certainty, if WWII is your standard.

That's a separate argument. I support the invasion of Afghanistan. Other progressives do not.

Unless, of course, your standard is that only a Democrat in the White House is righteous enough to make war and that we must fight for Communists.

Nope, not my standard.

I prefer a verifiable threat that is then dealt with in a sensible and fact-based fashion. If it makes you feel anywhere, this is where JFK and LBJ fell under the 'Domino theory' nonsense, and committed the US to disaster.

Democratic presidents can make mistakes too. I'm willing to admit that. I hope that you're willing to accept that Republican presidents can.

Is your standard that you either support all wars ever, or no wars ever? Because that's the box you're trying to fit me into. And I don't fit, because that's not how I look at things.

The simple facts are that the invasion of Iraq did *not* make America safer. Therefore it was at best unnecessary.

Another evasion. I can infer from this evasion

How is this an evasion? Please explain.

and your waffling on Afghanistan that you're simply a dyed-in-the-wool Chomskyite pacifist who has no interest in America defending herself.

Hey, infer all you want. I'll just keep telling you you're wrong.

Some wars are good ideas, some are bad ones. Guess what - your boy Bush led us into a whopper of a bad one.

Bullshit. If you were saying what you meant, you'd just come out and admit that you don't really care about our soldiers, you just want the "American hegemony" to end and for the progressives/socialists/tranzis to take their rightful places - ruling over all of us.

Nope. Wrong again - that's if I was saying what *you* want to think I mean.

I mean exactly what I say.

don't forget about first ladies who kill boyfriends with cars, too. remember laura bush ran a stop sign in 1963 and killed her boyfriend.

But did she pay off the family so the remains could be creamated a couple of days later to avoid a proper ME investigation?

To Karin:

oh, don't forget that republican congressman who is sitting in jail at the moment for drunken driving after getting off a zillion times (i think it was in utah or somewhere like that--he resigned about a year ago after being convicted of killing a motorcyclist at an intersection that he was used to speeding into) tried to say he was innocent-

I do love it when libs open their mouths and stick what ever body part smells the most right in.

Yes, there is a Republican FORMER congressman in jail.

Kennedy is still pretending he is relevant and actually "at the moment" a SITTING UNITED STATES SENATOR!

Lets see if English works: Kennedy killed a young woman and got away with it. He never once entertained the idea of resigning - he is a Kennedy for gosh sakes. He was not prosecuted and did not pay for his crime. So the relevance to the Republican congressman again? I am just a dopey, evil right winger and can not decipher your sophisticated analogies. Help me out - please.

And also - maybe you will have children one day and they will work for a Massachussetts senator who will take them driving....... or even better, maybe they first will serve as White House interns to fluff up their resumes.

George,

If you think the Janklow scandal is as large as Teddy's, then I'm sure you think Gannongate™ is as significant as the Rather/Eason smackdowns.

I doubt Janklow had presidential aspirations. Its certain that Kennedy did. Its also certain that his faux-pax killed them deader than Mary Jo.

No, Tony, I don't think Janklow was in any way remotely close to Kennedy. If you read my post, you will see I was "responding" to some garbage written by someone who apparently thought they were amongst their own kind at the Kos.

As usual, in this country, there are two sets of standards for public officials. There are the standards for Republicans and the non-standards for liberals. Any number of examples can be used to illustrate this, but Kennedy/Janklow serves as well as do any of them.

Personally, I don't consider murder a faux pas. But it certainly did keep that scumbag away from any White House aspirations, didn't it?

Personally, I don't consider murder a faux pas. But it certainly did keep that scumbag away from any White House aspirations, didn't it?

Sigh.

a) An accidental death is not murder. Kennedy acted in a singularly cowardly and reprehensible fashion. Let's not sugarcoat it- but let's not make it something worse than it is. It's not like he got drunk and drove off a bridge intending to kill someone and get off.

b) You bring up an interesting subject, on the different standards for Republicans and 'liberals' - I'll take it that you mean Democrats. I could of course point out many, many cases of the same, that would point out what I see as Republican hypocrisy.

But that's just more disagreement. We can all parrot our own talking points - how about we work together, and put together a way to hold everyone, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, accountable to working families?

Wouldn't that be something?

Just working families? Not welfare layabouts and "angry single women" and goofy teaching assistants at junior colleges and screaming, in-your-face nancy-boys?

Hey, ditch the baggage and we'll talk.

Bigger Sigh....

Driving a car while drunk and killing someone, then hiding until morning to sober up and think of a reasonable excuse while that young lady drowned/aphyxiated could be construed as murder. If it were my daughter - I can guarantee it would be considered murder. The point would also be academic after the "non" trial.

It really doesn't matter how you parse it. He was not charged with anything that would keep him out of the senate. At this point, I am not sure what keeps one out of a congressional seat - except maybe poor attempts at lying. Certainly killing an innocent woman or running a queer prostitution ring out of your apartment doesn't.

So, how do you propose "we" hold all politicians accountable?

Would you propose a mandatory jail sentence and lifetime ban from politics for anyone found guilty of lying during a campaign - or while in office? To include the heads of the respective parties?

I would.
Step up to the plate.

You or I can feel this way or that way about it - but feeling something is as bad as murder, is different than it being murder. Murder means an *intent* to kill somebody. That's a deeper shade of evil.

As for holding politicians accountable - both sound good to me, although I'm much more concerned about what politicians do in office. So, sure. All parties.

Mandatory jail sounds good to me. I'm not so sure about the lifetime ban from politics. Among other objections, I don't like what such a ban would do to the Constitution.

As for finding people guilty of lying, I'm for independent investigators, working perhaps for the non-partisan Governmental Accountability office. Senators from either party or an independent party for that matter, can raise a question, and that question will be investigated, regardless of which party is in the majority.

Classified documents can't be revealed without oversight, but can be reviewed by a non-partisan investigator with classified clearance. If found relevant, that document will have to go through a review in order to be revealed to the public.

Prhaps a yearly review would be best? The GAO gathers all the public statements of the President, cabinet members, Senators and Congressmen of the previous year, analyzes them against the record, and is empowered to recommend indictments on the results.

There would of course have to be some restrictions on this, or there'd be nothing but one investigation after another...

Would you propose a mandatory jail sentence and lifetime ban from politics for anyone found guilty of lying during a campaign - or while in office? To include the heads of the respective parties?

As for holding politicians accountable - both sound good to me, although I'm much more concerned about what politicians do in office. So, sure. All parties.

Uhmm, didn't I say "while in office?"

What part of the constitution would apply to a permanent ban? One can be permanently banned from owning firearms..... Why could not one be banned from politics? there is no constitutional right to hold office. There are qualifiers - but no rights. Unlike the second ammendment. I am not calling for felons to own firearms - I am only illustrating how the constitution can be manipulated. Another good example is the non-existant separation between church and state portion. That lie has been told and retold so many times, it has become part of the constitution. So, please come up with better rational for keeping liars on used car lots where they belong.

Here is the problem: There are horrendous liars on both sides and zero accountability. Both are trolling for spit bubble blowing constituents who can hold an attention span only long enough to see a 15 second sound bite.

If we are to have a constitutional democracy - we need to thin the ranks and if nothing else return to duels.

That will keep the insipid Reids and Santorums in check - believe me. We won't even go to Dean. He would have been culled long ago.

well, I guess we hit groundwater on this subject - nu?