Ted Kennedy

[Wim Dankbaar]

On request he will say: The Kennedy family has never doubted the Warren Commission! Never has, never will!

Why? He must know better, especially with the findings of the HSCA, which he ignores. I just can't figure it out. Any ideas?

Wim

Edited June 14, 2004 by dankbaar

[John Simkin]

An answer to this question can be found at the following two threads:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=943

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=512

[Tony Frank]

Ted Kennedy is one of the Members of Congress who is in the CIA in violation of Article I, section 6, of the United States Constitution, which states: “No Person holding any Office under the United States shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”

Ted is also a cocaine addict. I saw him in possession of cocaine in 1984. His KGB handlers killed both of his brothers.

After the KGB infiltration of the CIA was exposed in 1984, Ted and the rest of the corrupt hierarchy in the government and the CIA were determined to make sure that none of the corruption would be exposed.

But as I exposed the KGB infiltration, and I was at the closed-door Congressional hearings that proved the KGB officers in the CIA had killed Kennedy, I will be the undoing of the corruption and I will have Ted tossed out of Congress.

[Peter McGuire]

Ted Kennedy is one of the Members of Congress who is in the CIA in violation of Article I, section 6, of the United States Constitution, which states: “No Person holding any Office under the United States shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”

Ted is also a cocaine addict. I saw him in possession of cocaine in 1984. His KGB handlers killed both of his brothers.

After the KGB infiltration of the CIA was exposed in 1984, Ted and the rest of the corrupt hierarchy in the government and the CIA were determined to make sure that none of the corruption would be exposed.

But as I exposed the KGB infiltration, and I was at the closed-door Congressional hearings that proved the KGB officers in the CIA had killed Kennedy, I will be the undoing of the corruption and I will have Ted tossed out of Congress.

Your story is suspect, but the premise of your writing is one that should not be forgotten.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Peter McGuire

[Guest Gary Loughran]

I wouldn't be too hard on Ted Kennedy. Island misadventures aside, he also had lost 2 of his brothers and possibly a nephew to America.

It wouldn't be a huge leap of faith to believe he took a back seat and went into self preservation mode.

He has, though, been successful in bringing Irish Nationalism/Republicanism onto the world stage. His involvement in the USA was one of the many influential events that have facilitated the current detente and possibly permanent democratic peace in Ireland.

[John Geraghty]

Ted Kennedy is one of the Members of Congress who is in the CIA in violation of Article I, section 6, of the United States Constitution, which states: “No Person holding any Office under the United States shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”

Ted is also a cocaine addict. I saw him in possession of cocaine in 1984. His KGB handlers killed both of his brothers.

After the KGB infiltration of the CIA was exposed in 1984, Ted and the rest of the corrupt hierarchy in the government and the CIA were determined to make sure that none of the corruption would be exposed.

But as I exposed the KGB infiltration, and I was at the closed-door Congressional hearings that proved the KGB officers in the CIA had killed Kennedy, I will be the undoing of the corruption and I will have Ted tossed out of Congress.

You certainly give yourself a lot of importance Anthony.

John

[Sid Walker]

I wouldn't be too hard on Ted Kennedy. Island misadventures aside, he also had lost 2 of his brothers and possibly a nephew to America.

It wouldn't be a huge leap of faith to believe he took a back seat and went into self preservation mode.

He has, though, been successful in bringing Irish Nationalism/Republicanism onto the world stage. His involvement in the USA was one of the many influential events that have facilitated the current detente and possibly permanent democratic peace in Ireland.

Ted Kennedy, I think, deserves the benefit of the doubt.

He has survived - quite an achievement in itself, in his unfortunate family.

Without claiming his voting record - or anything else about him - is perfect, I think fair-minded observers might agree he's been one of the more effective legislators in Congress with a much better-than-average commitment to decent, progressive policies over a long period of time.

Ironic, really, that we're discussing this just a couple of days after Ted Kennedy issued the following, rather bold statement (bold for a US Senator in our times) opposing the latest crazy 'surge' of the US war machine...

January 11, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Iraq is the overarching issue of our time. American lives, American values, and America’s role in the world is at stake.

As the November election made clear, the American people oppose this war, and an even greater number oppose sending more troops to Iraq.

The American people are demanding a change in course in Iraq. Instead, the President is accelerating the same failed course he has pursued for nearly four years. He must understand that Congress will not endorse this course.

The President’s decision to send more American troops into the cauldron of civil war is not an acceptable strategy. It is against the advice of his own generals, the Iraq Study Group, and the wishes of the American people and will only compound our original mistake ingoing to war in Iraq.

Just this morning, the Secretary of State testified that the Iraqi government “is…on borrowed time.” In fact, time is already up. The Iraqi government needs to make the political compromises necessary to end this civil war. The answer is not more troops, it’s a political settlement.

The President talked about strengthening relations with Congress. He should begin by seeking authority from Congress for any escalation of the war.

The mission of our armed forces today in Iraq no longer bears any resemblance to the mission authorized by Congress in 2002. The Iraq War Resolution authorized a war against the regime of Saddam Hussein because he was believed to have weapons of mass destruction, an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, and was in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolutions.

Not one member of Congress would have voted in favor of the Resolution if they thought they were sending American troops into a civil war.

The President owes it to the American people to seek approval for this new mission from Congress. Congress should no longer be a rubber stamp for the President’s failed strategy. We should insist on a policy that is worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.

President Bush has been making up his mind on Iraq ever since the election. Before he escalates the war, the American people deserve a voice in his decision.

He’s the Commander in Chief, but he’s still accountable to the people. Our system of checks and balances gives Congress a key role in decisions of war and peace.

We know an escalation of troops into this civil war won’t work. We’ve increased our military presence in the past, and each time, the violence has increased and the political problems have persisted.

Despite what the President says, his own generals are on the record opposing a surge in troops.

Last November 15th, 2006, General Abizaid was unequivocal that increasing our troop commitment is not the answer. He said, “I’ve met with every divisional commander. General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey – we all talked together. And I said, ‘in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?’ And they all said no.”

On December 29, General Casey said, “The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias…They can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems.”

Time and again, our leaders in Vietnam escalated our military presence, and each new escalation of force led to the next. We escalated the war, instead of ending it. Like Vietnam, there is no military solution to Iraq. The President is the last person in America to understand that.

We must not only speak against the surge in troops, we must act to prevent it.

[Ron Ecker]

I can't understand a man who would continue to work in a governmental system that assassinated two of his brothers, unless his purpose was to do something about it. (Ha ha ha.)

He's "compromised"? Then again, why stay in government? If he must work despite all his money, then why not find an honest occupation (surely he could find some gainful employment), far from the totally unaccountable killers of his brothers?

I see Ted Kennedy as a pathetic human being.

[Sid Walker]

I can't understand a man who would continue to work in a governmental system that assassinated two of his brothers, unless his purpose was to do something about it. (Ha ha ha.)

He's "compromised"? Then again, why stay in government? If he must work despite all his money, then why not find an honest occupation (surely he could find some gainful employment), far from the totally unaccountable killers of his brothers?

I see Ted Kennedy as a pathetic human being.

I find that an extraordinarily harsh judgment, Ron.

You do indeed have very high standards.

How do you rate the rest of the 2007 Congress?

Do you believe no-one at all should attempt to win elected office in the USA's (admittedly) corrupted political system?

Edited January 13, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Dawn Meredith]

I can't understand a man who would continue to work in a governmental system that assassinated two of his brothers, unless his purpose was to do something about it. (Ha ha ha.)

He's "compromised"? Then again, why stay in government? If he must work despite all his money, then why not find an honest occupation (surely he could find some gainful employment), far from the totally unaccountable killers of his brothers?

I see Ted Kennedy as a pathetic human being.

Just what can Ted do about this? I am positive he knows. I think Chappaquiddick was one very dire warning.

Dawn

[Sid Walker]

I see Ted Kennedy as a pathetic human being.

I'd agree 100% with your Ron...a very, VERY patheitic person....on a human level and on a political one. He likely thinks his weak simpering liberalism is some compensation for the damage...I don't. He obviously doesn't need a job and could buy an island, put missiles around it for protection, with submarines aircover and guards and work day and night exposing the plot to kill his brothers [and a hell of a lot of others - and our country and polity!]...but instead he does his minstral blackface senate routine only needling - not opposing - the very villians who did it [and he knows exactly what forces did...and did him in too]. He has one last chance [i doubt he will take] and release something substantial upon his death....don't hold your breathe. With 'patriots' like that, we will never stop the slide toward a policestate and fascism. He would have it with universial medical insurance...fine...but how about NO policestate and a vibrant, safe democracy run by the people and not the oligarchs [of which he is one..even if on the less regressive side of the oligarchy]. Ted, shame on you!

If he took your advice, Peter, I can imagine how the story would play in the 'balanced and fair' western mass media.

Something like:

"Paranoid Ted Skips America for Luxury Island Hideaway"... or "Al Qaida Base on Kennedy Island Shock!"

Meanwhile, his significant role as head of the family (and elder statesman in he Senate of principled liberalism) is taken over by...?

Let me be clear. I am no apologist for Ted Kennedy.

But there is something rather curious about the extraordinarily high standards set for this man by some participants on this forum.

He is, after all, just a human being.

In the early 21st century US Congress, that's also quite an achivement in itself.

Edited January 13, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Ron Ecker]

How do you rate the rest of the 2007 Congress?

Congress is full of crooks and miscreants. What difference does the year make? It's a thoroughly corrupted institution. Those in the House and Senate who aren't crooks in their own right are all accessories after the fact to all the crimes of the federal government that we all know have been perpetrated over decades and continue unabated.

Do you believe no-one at all should nominate to win elected office in the USA's (admittedly) corrupted political system?

I'm through with it. I don't care who's nominated for what. I still live in this country out of necessity, not choice. I'm embarrassed to be here.

[Sid Walker]

How do you rate the rest of the 2007 Congress?

Congress is full of crooks and miscreants. What difference does the year make? It's a thoroughly corrupted institution. Those in the House and Senate who aren't crooks in their own right are all accessories after the fact to all the crimes of the federal government that we all know have been perpetrated over decades and continue unabated.

Do you believe no-one at all should nominate to win elected office in the USA's (admittedly) corrupted political system?

I'm through with it. I don't care who's nominated for what. I still live in this country out of necessity, not choice. I'm embarrassed to be here.

I can sympathize, Ron and agree with your assessment to a considerable extent - but I can't applaud.

It seems to me that if you really have 'given up' on trying to effect any significant and worthwhile change in your society, it ill-behoves you to brandish labels such as "pathetici human being" against someone who is still having a go.

[Peter McGuire]

I can't understand a man who would continue to work in a governmental system that assassinated two of his brothers, unless his purpose was to do something about it. (Ha ha ha.)

He's "compromised"? Then again, why stay in government? If he must work despite all his money, then why not find an honest occupation (surely he could find some gainful employment), far from the totally unaccountable killers of his brothers?

I find that an extraordinarily harsh judgment, Ron.

You do indeed have very high standards.

How do you rate the rest of the 2007 Congress?

Do you believe no-one at all should attempt to win elected office in the USA's (admittedly) corrupted political system?

Edited August 27, 2009 by Peter McGuire

[Ron Ecker]

It seems to me that if you really have 'given up' on trying to effect any significant and worthwhile change in your society, it ill-behoves you to brandish labels such as "pathetici human being" against someone who is still having a go.

Still having a go at what? His one significant, lasting achievement has been silence in the wake of his brothers' executions, by the very system he continues to work for. That's not pathetic?

If I was a lone nutter, or conspirator, I would applaud him for "still having a go."