A judge let him off back in 1968. Forty years ago. Don't you have anything more recent on the Democrats.
Kennedy got lost in the fog, and went off a bridge... maybe. If you're interested in more dirt Mark Furman wrote a book or article about what he thinks REALLY happened. His explanation makes a lot of sense.
Laura Bush, age 17, was driving with a friend and went through a stop sign when she hit a boy's car and killed him. She wasn't alcohol tested.
It always helps to have money and connections when these things happen but drivers used to get off much lighter then than they do now.
Three years ago, the Congressman from South Dakota, a known careless driver and speeder also ran a stop sign and killed a motorcyclist who had the right of way. He was given jail time, and resigned his seat.
2006-10-20 11:29:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Skip F 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Double Jeopardy. There wasn't enough evidence to convict him for manslaughter. If there was, he'd be out of jail now, after over thirty years. He did plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and got a three month suspended sentence. It may be light, others have gotten off just as light or lighter. Lara Bush did no time for her traffic fatality. George Bush had two DUII convictions swept under the carpet.
2006-10-20 11:34:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by wyldfyr 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Same reason Bush isn't being tried for war crimes. Power. Are you trying dredge up Chappaquiddick as some sort of pre-election Democrat-bashing tool? Do you realize that occured almost 40 years ago? There are more current events appropriate for mudslinging purposes if you feel so compelled.
Ok, I just looked at your profile. You ARE trying to mudsling. An officially lame attempt, my friend. I'm not trying to help you out, but you will have better luck making valid arguments against Democrats if you elevate your thought processes a bit. Learn the intricacies of the political issues in play today, debate them in a knowledgeable fashion, and leave the muck out of it. You'll have more credibility, and make more impact.
2006-10-20 11:42:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by functionary01 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Going back and trying to figure out why something happened in the past is a waste of ones time. We all need to focus on the present and what is happening now. It is much like arguing about whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. It doesn't matter we did so lets move on.
2006-10-20 11:32:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by David P 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Would have required a trial, which would have required proof. It was easier to let him get elected and keep an eye on him that way...
It only carries 12- 15... Even if he had gone to prison, he'd be out by now...
2006-10-20 11:33:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because he is a Kennedy...Laura Bush was a teenager and ran a stop sign as opposed to a 36 year old who waited 12 hours to report an accident. It is not even close to being the same.
2006-10-20 11:28:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
I've never been able to figure that out, other than he has a lot of money, comes from an important family, and has powerful political connections. Oh, I guess I DID figure it out!
Wow! Thumbs down for the truth! Interesting thing how many people didn't even try to answer the question, but only retaliated with knee-jerk Republican-bashing.
2006-10-20 11:27:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Bad Kitty! 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Why isn't W for possession of Cocaine? I mean if you have to go back, again, to Chappaquidick, you are officially reaching. Why don't you try attacking his arguments? Because you can't, maybe?
2006-10-20 11:30:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by Schmorgen 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
If he's guilty, then he should be.
Why is Dick Cheney not in prison for shooting that guy in the face?
2006-10-20 11:27:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by Enterrador 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Why isn't Laura Bush?
(If we're going to play this silly game, we'll keep coming up with similar incidents on each side, so you 'bout as well not play it.)
2006-10-20 11:26:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by WBrian_28 5
·
3⤊
5⤋