Isn't it ironic that Ted Kennedy is morally opposed to "waterboarding". . .?

Question

when he basically waterboarded Mary Jo Kopechne to death at Chappaquiddock?

Yes, it may have been an accident when he ran the car off the bridge, but it wasn't an accident when he left the scene.

If he is so morally outraged by this sort of behavior, why doesn't he resign his Senate seat?

Don't worry. I'm not holding my breath. It didn't do Mary Jo any good. I'm sure it won't do me any good either.

No, I don't know what exactly what went down, but I think:

1. Mary Jo drowned in car that crashed into the water.
2. That car was driven by Ted Kennedy.
3. Said Ted Kennedy left the scene of the accident.

are facts that are not in dispute.

And as far as "do not judge, lest ye be judged" is concerned, isn't that exactly what he's doing to the Attorney General nominee?
2.

Answer 1

And it wasn't an accident that he waited until morning to even tell anyone what happened!

Ted Kennedy has virtually no moral ground to stand on, so what he claims to be morally opposed to carries little weight with me.

Answer 2

Waterboarding is a torture that is purposely and willfully inflicted on someone with the intention of getting information. Information of dubious value at that.
State sponsored torture is not something that the US has ever engaged in and as signator to the Geneva Conventions its not something we ever should engage in.
Forty years ago Kennedy ran his car off a plank bridge in Chappaquiddick. He may, or may not have been drunk, he may or may not have been stunned and disoriented, he may simply have taken what he though to be the easy way out. He said he tried twice to get her out and couldn't. It was investigated and ruled an accidental death. There is a lot of supposition as to what happened. Sometimes that supposition, like she 'could have' been alive for up to two hours is not fact, but a case of what 'could have' happened.
In time, the 'could have' is dropped to make the story more damning.
In any event, state sponsored torture is not in the same ballpark as what happened in an auto accident forty years ago.

Answer 3

Yeah, I heard that at present. isn't it somewhat pathetic and telling that the guy does not even think of of that lady now while he talks approximately drowning intimately? If he did, he does not open his mouth approximately such issues. the guy is in simple terms a unfavorable excuse of a man or woman. Ty----that became eye-catching!

Answer 4

It's unbelievable.

If a conservative fiction writer came up with this scenario - Teddy in the Senate railing against waterboarding - the author would be roundly criticized, and his publisher boycotted.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvFl5Nql_4PFdHWFZ9APeibsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071102065509AA9C0gj

PS the autopsy showed it took Mary Jo about two hours to die, while Teddy ran away and tried to get someone else to say they were driving.

Now THAT'S torture.

PPS Libs had a field day calling Larry Craig a hypocrite. But they cry and whine when the shoe's on the other foot.

Answer 5

Maybe instead of waterboarding, we should get Ted drunk and stick them in the backseat while cuffed and let Ted drive down that road again ;)

Or would that constitute torture?
Cruel? Yes Unusual? Definitely.

Answer 6

No, it is not ironic that Ted Kennedy opposes waterboarding or any other form of torture for the purpose of gathering intelligence, as immoral. What is ironic is the administration's continued reluctance to take a stand against torture, using the "ends justify the means" explanation.

Answer 7

Ted Kennedy having high morals is like saying that the reverend Ted Haggart rigorously practices what he preaches. I just love hypocrisies.

Answer 8

So you were standing there next to the car when it happened and know exactly what went down? Or perhaps you're psychic? I'll bet you had the exact same experience and managed to save the passenger in your vehicle.

Judge not, lest ye be judged!

Answer 9

You might want to reconsider this " question " .
It does nothing to extend dialouge or explore a legitimate issue.
Instead its a thinly vieled excuse for partisan prejudicial rhetoric.
First, this Bush Administration torture issue has nothing to do with what happened in the summer of 1969.
Second its a partisan attack on a personal level and does you little good. Your arguement does not stand, but your ignorance is manifest. I am not defending Kennedy.
I do take issue with your Joeseph Goebbels style of arguement.
Are ad homenim attacks all you have? Does this lend credibility to your appearent allegience to the Bush administration?
__________________
So let's see: You favor torture, right ? Understood. Point taken.

Answer 10

The people doing the waterboarding aren't drunk. Except with power maybe.