Comments on: Ted Kennedy Sells Memoirs For $8 Million
Massachsetts Senator Signs Lucrative Book Deal Following Bidding War
- CLINTON LETS BUSH PARDON HIMSELF
Buried deep inside Military Commisions Act, which was FULLY SUPPORTED by Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain, is a provision which pre-pardons President Bush and all the members of his administration for any crimes which they may have committed all the way back to September 11, 2001. Why that far back? That kind of makes you wonder. Huh? I can''t help but recall what Nixon said during an interview following the Watergate scandal when he said, "If the President does it, by definition, it''s not illegal." History never repeats itself, folks. It only rhymes. At least Nixon had enough class to wait for another President to pardon him for his crimes against our country. Bush apparently doesn''t want to take that chance. He has to consider the risk that Ron Paul will become our next President. - Reply to this comment
- CAMPING-OUT WITH HILLARY
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which was supported by Clinton, Obama and McCain, permits militarized police round-ups and detention of "protesters" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities which are already contracted for and under construction by Kellog, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. This Law, which was sold to an emergency managed and willfully gullible public in the wake of the 9/11 attacks as a necessary measure needed by our President in order to fight his "global war on terrorism," permits the indefinite detention of American citizens who resist the foreign and domestic agenda of our President. The Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International reported recently that global engineering and technical services powerhouse, Kellog, Brown & Root announced during January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division had been awarded a (no bid) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract to build these detainment camps with a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term, and that this contract called for the company to build "temporary detention and processing capabilities" to augment existing U.S. government Detention and Removal Operations and to support "the rapid development of new programs." New Programs? Could it possibly get any worse? Why would the president be so concerned about Americans protesting? Aren''t we all happy campers? - Reply to this comment
- WILL CLINTON MAKE THIS A THOUGHT CRIME?
While CBS was busy pretending all other news didn''t exist during the California wildfires, our Constitution was burning on the floors of Congress. On Oct 23, the House overwhelmingly passed HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. This Bill is one of the most blatant attacks against our right to freedom of speech ever devised by Congress. The Bill actually defines different types of thought as "homegrown terrorism," and unlike previous anti-terror legislation, it specifically targets U.S. citizens. The Bill uses extremely vague language to define "terrorist propoganda" as any speech which promotes an agenda that the government considers an "extremist belief system." Since the bill doesn''t specifically define what an "extremist belief system" is, it will be entirely up to the interpretation of government officials. Isn''t that comforting? Considering how much the government has done to desecrate our Constitution lately, they would surely have to define this post as promoting an "extremist belief" system, since it promotes the restoration of civil liberties--something not en vogue these days. As disturbing as this Bill is, so to is the additional requirement that there be a seperate, "public version." In other words, the Bill we see is different from what Congress is seeing. Why''s that necessary? Whatever the reason, I predict this Bill will become Law soon while CBS focuses the country''s attention elsewhere - Reply to this comment
- COULDN''T VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN? REALLY?
Everytime I hear Democrats say "I hate the Republican Party. Look at what Bush has done.," I can''t help but think about all of Bush''s Democratic enablers in the Congress like Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, et. al. who made all of his dastardly deeds possible. They handed him every bit of legislation with which he has used to make himself the dictator that he now is on a silver platter. The Democrats in Congress don''t even seem to express any interest in investigating Bush for the crimes he and Cheney have surely committed against our country even though a vast majority of Americans think they should. What cowards! In fact, Obama and Clinton even voted in favor of legislation which actually allows Bush to pre-pardon himself and his administration for crimes dating all the way back to 9/11. What''s up with that? Look. Do yourself and your country a favor. Focus on the candidate, and the ideas and positions he or she represents, and then study the candidate''s track record of performance with respect to those positions. That''s all that really matters in the end. Elections are not a contest of two teams. Ultimately, It''s the politician who will either serve your interests or betray them while in office--not their party. Finally, Democrats, I ask you this: Would you have voted for Steven Douglas (a Democrat), who was ardently pro-slavery, against Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) simply because Douglas was a Democrat? I think most of you would. - Reply to this comment
- In today''s society, he would definitely had gone to prison and not for leaving the scene of an accident, but negligent homicide. I am all for bashing him, but I thought some of the people on here were just shadowing other people''s statements. Does everyone here know how the Kennedy''s became so rich? It was boot legging during prohibition. Yeah, ole Joe was a bootlegger, made his millions supplying the "Speak Easy''s"
- Reply to this comment
- But the whole incident was overshadowed by the worldwide coverage of the moonwalk. Besides, all the people involved had, by midday, left Martha''s Vineyard and headed home. When the police went to the cottage where the party had taken place, all they found were some washed Coca-Cola bottles. There was no one to interview and no one who would talk then %u2014 or ever. Besides, Kennedy was treated like Massachusetts royalty by the local police chief, Dominick Arena, who even gave up his office so that Kennedy could make telephone calls to advisers and lawyers in privacy.
It may have been the last time when a scandal was so under-investigated, so quickly dispatched %u2014 and the man involved seemed to get off so easily for what he had done. A week later, Kennedy, who arrived in court wearing a neck brace, pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and was given a two-month suspended sentence and a year''s probation. - Reply to this comment
- Right from the start, the reporters who arrived at the scene were skeptical of his story, skeptical even of how he claimed he got back to Edgartown that night. Markham and Gargan said when they drove to the ferry landing %u2014 the ferry had stopped running by then %u2014 Kennedy took them by surprise by jumping in the water, and swimming across the channel towards Edgartown. They assumed, they said, he would report the accident that night to the police. Instead Kennedy went back to his hotel, ostensibly to change his clothes but instead, went downstairs to complain about a noisy party that was going on.
The next morning Markham and Gargan were waiting for Kennedy when he arrived at 9 A.M. on the first ferry. The ferry operator said Kennedy appeared to be in a jovial mood, but probably only until he was told that his car had been found. Only then did Kennedy return and report the accident.
Some reporters, primarily the foreign press, did ask tough questions. For example: Did Kennedy really swim back to Edgartown that night? No one saw him with wet clothes and my husband, for one, interviewed a young man who had tied up his rowboat at the Chappaquiddick dock on Saturday night. When he got there on Sunday morning, he said, it had been retied and with what he called a "land lubber''s knot." - Reply to this comment
- What everyone testified at the time was that Kennedy and Mary Jo left the party before midnight. Kennedy said he was driving her back to the ferry to Edgartown, and took a wrong turn, though he was very familiar with the roads on the island. His car toppled off a narrow wooden-planked bridge, a bridge that is in the opposite direction to the road that led to the ferry but is on the way to the beach. The car landed upside-down in eight feet of water and, Kennedy claimed that after escaping, he tried unsuccessfully to rescue Mary Jo. He then staggered back to the party, called out his cousin Joe Gargan and his pal Paul Markham, to return to the scene. What he didn''t do, inexplicably, was seek help in a lighted house only yards from the bridge or use the fire-alarm phone at a fire station he passed on the way back to the party.
- Reply to this comment
- In case you have forgotten or never knew the details, Ted and five of his pals and six women known as the "Boiler Room Girls" who had worked in Bobby Kennedy''s presidential campaign, cut short by his assassination the year before, were weekending together. Afterward, the men claimed it was just a couple of days of innocent fun to thank the girls for their help, though the six guys were all married but partying without their wives, and the young women were all single. One of the "Boiler Room Girls" is now big-time New York literary agent Esther Newberg, who was Mary Jo''s roommate for the weekend. Like everyone involved in the incident, Esther remains close-mouthed about what occurred.
- Reply to this comment
- Kennedy''s critics suggested he had been driving drunk, had panicked after the accident, or even had tried to arrange a coverup of his involvement. Nothing was ever proved. Kennedy had been considered a likely candidate for president in 1972; instead he pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and had his driver''s license revoked for a year.
- Reply to this comment
Author Thomas Friedman on Obama's Afghanistan plan and the war on terror.




