Skip to comments.What's Important to the MSM: The Convoluted and the Cockeyed - (socks it to Ted Kennedy et al)
Posted on 05/05/2005 9:14:18 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Funny, a couple of years ago President Bush was ridiculed by liberals for placing Iran and North Korea within the Axis of Evil. Now with both those countries giving negotiators and interested parties the middle finger with uranium refining, missile and pending underground nuclear tests, the media decided these next items should dominate the recent news .
Boston Mayor Thomas Forest Gump Menino said yesterday that the City of Boston will soon announce a settlement with the family of Victoria Snelgrove, the Emerson College student who was killed by a pepper pellet shot by Boston Police who had to quell a near riot by hundreds of drunk college students following the Red Sox historic elimination of the New York Yankees from the post season last fall.
Menino mumbled that the settlement would be between four and seven million dollars. One report said that Boston has only budgeted three-and-a-half million for settlements this year, a clear example of Massachusetts math. Also reported was that the City is in settlement talks with other hooligans shot by the pellets, including those who climbed onto the exterior rafters (trespassing) of Fenway Park.
While I firmly and emphatically accept responsibilities for any errors, I also condemn in the harshest words possible the actions of the punks Wednesday night who turned our citys victory into an opportunity for violence and mindless destruction. Boston Police Commissioner Kathleen M. OToole
Last year, OToole said it best. Its amazing how short our memories can be. While paying off the Snelgrove family may be justified (even though were always being assured that its never about the money), by paying off the other punks weve just legitimized criminal behavior and given it a potential pay check.
But what else should we expect from Massachusetts?
What The World Needs Now: Another Jennifer
Its amazing the amount of slack the disappearing / reappearing Jennifer Wilbanks has received. However some have begun to reap some payback on this psycho-looking, cockeyed head case from Duluth, Georgia. District attorney Danny Porter is considering pressing criminal charges while issuing a bill to another woman whose first inclination was to blame an ethnic minority to give her bogus cover story more credibility.
It turns out that Miss Wilbanks basically felt the pressure of this large wedding and could not handle it. Randy Belcher, chief of police, Duluth, Georgia
While that aspect of the story is being blown off by an indifferent media even faster than they did for Susan Smith, its reassuring to know than no amount of tears-on-cue will get this spoiled princess of a well connected family off the hook. Some people are demanding an apology, and humiliation by a thousand cuts may be just what the doctor ordered.
Shes obviously very concerned about the stress that shes been through, the stress thats been placed on her family. She is very upset. Ray Schultz, chief of police, Albuquerque, New Mexico
The sad reality is that any number of publishing company lawyers are currently drafting book deal offers for Wilbanks, while screen attorneys are drafting movie deals that will work in conjunction with that book. I wouldnt be surprised if Shannon Doherty is timing herself, keeping her eyes opened as wide as possible while cross-eyed so she can play Jennifer should Aaron Spelling get the nod.
Jennifer Wilbanks should suffer the indignity of not wearing some kind of knit blankie on her head so we can see her butchered self-haircut disguise attempt. Meanwhile the people who contributed gifts for her eight wedding showers, the 600 people on the weddings guest list, the wedding party including 14 bridesmaids and 14 groomsmen, the officers from several counties and towns, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, and at least 100 volunteers who searched for her spoiled 32-year-old ass are the unfortunate suckers in this case.
Whats most confusing is that her fiancé John Mason is still said to love and want to marry her . Go figure.
A Cockeyed Kennedy Perspective
With the one-year anniversary of the Abu Ghraib scandal that gave liberals a hammer to hit President Bush with before and after the election, ethics-challenged Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy added his voice via a lengthy statement. Now while I go through some of this drivel, especially his reference to water torture, dont forget his willingness to let a woman drown in his car so he could escape and get his story straight a few hours later.
Politics does have its ironies.
The images of cruelty, and perversion are still difficult to look at a year later. An Iraqi prisoner in a dark hood and cape, standing on a cardboard box with electrodes attached to his body. Naked men forced to simulate sex acts on each other. The corpse of a man who had been beaten to death, lying in ice, next to soldiers smiling and giving a thumbs up sign. A pool of blood from the wounds of a naked, defenseless prisoner attacked by a military dog.
Now while no sane person condones prisoner abuse, I still await Senator Kennedys statement to al Qaeda as they kidnap civilians, detain them for weeks while forcing to make statements against their own nations, just to cut their heads off with large kitchen knives while awake. He may have said a couple of sentences here and there over the years, but I dont recall him devoting 3,600-plus words to the issue.
Where are we a year later? Has this problem been resolved? Has the moral authority of the U.S. been restored? Have we recovered from what is perhaps the steepest and deepest fall from grace in our history?
Kennedy has some nerve
It was clear from the start that further investigation of the abuses was needed. The American people deserved a thorough review of all detention and interrogation policies used by military and intelligence personnel abroad, and a full accounting of all officials responsible for the policies that allowed the abuses to take place.
What we got instead were nine incomplete and self-serving internal investigations by the Pentagon. None of the assigned investigators were given the authority to challenge the conduct of the civilian command. For example, the Schlesinger Panels report found that abuses were widespread and that there was both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels, but Secretary Rumsfeld did not authorize the panel to address matters of personal accountability.
Something the senator doesnt seem to understand in his sheltered world of privilege and influence, is that our troops spend almost every waking action in Iraq searching for some unexploded ordinance waiting to kill their fellow soldiers and innocent civilians. The very people who Kennedy is protecting may be someone who planted a bomb, shot a soldier, tortured or raped a civilian, yet extracting information in war demands our side only observe rules.
Should you get the opportunity to hear the gurgling and sound of a knife cutting through the neck bones of a hostage, remember that we should treat anyone with information as to the whereabouts of another hostage with civility. Should a prisoner know of an impending terrorist bomb going off in a major metropolitan city anywhere around the world, we should observe the prisoners human rights and strive to protect his dignity.
If there was evidence that he was being targeted by al Qaeda, does anyone think that Senator Kennedy would object to a suspect with information to be interrogated with the greatest violence necessary? He would be the first person looking to bestow the nations highest honor on any person who used torture to save him and his family.
A year after Abu Ghraib, new revelations about abuse committed by U.S. personnel are still being reported frequently. The military has confirmed 28 acts of homicide committed against detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. Only one of these deaths took place at Abu Ghraib.
Again not condoning the actions of personnel who are clearly in violation of the law, has there been any stories dug up by Mary Mapes-types about prisoner abuse during the Haiti invasion under President Clinton? Any outrage of this magnitude when Bills cruise missile strikes killed countless civilians in Iraq, Mogadishu, and Bosnia? I only say countless because it seems the mainstream media, Amnesty International, Bono, and war protesters lose their math skills when a Democrat pulls the trigger.
Clearly, the civilian lawyers in the Defense Department, the Justice Department, and the White House Counsels office have been on an ideological mission. Their goal was not to reassess the current rules on detention and interrogation in light of the 9/11 attacks; their goal was to destroy them, and to a large extent, they succeeded.
Liberals were more than willing to forgive and forget what they would consider war crimes when John Kerry was the alleged perpetrator. Kerrys own words of his actions were considered youthful indiscretions. Now these same people have the audacity to criticize the motives of people whose job it is to make sure all the Kennedys are safe and secure.
It was one thing when observing Geneva Convention rules to extract information pertinent to a war zone. But as 9/11 illustrated, terrorists will kill civilians by the thousands if left to their own devices. Being nice and respectful of the human rights of animals who would see the United States and our allies reduced to a smoldering wasteland is naïve and dangerous.
Im still waiting for the lengthy statement from Kennedy denouncing the terrorists and their penchant for torture and mass murder.
The President has directed the military to treat detainees humanely, but this directive has not provided adequate guidance to our troops. General Counsel Haynes himself advised Secretary Rumsfeld that simulated drowning, forced nudity, the use of dogs to create stress, threats to kill a detainees family, and other extreme tactics all qualified as humane. When the Pentagons top civilian lawyer shows so little respect for human dignity, how can we expect more from our soldiers serving in the field?
This from a Kennedy who let a woman drown in his car while he fled, and has a relative who may well have beaten a young woman to death and for most of his life gotten away with it, just because he essentially is a Kennedy.
If another 9/11 happens and it turns out we had a suspect with knowledge of the plot on American soil and we didnt do all we could have to save lives, Kennedy would be complaining about Bush Administration incompetence. Hed be blaming the president for not doing enough to save civilian lives. But as the Abu Ghraib prisoners mostly targeted American military personnel and Iraqis, Kennedy probably believes that extracting such important information could have been done simply by asking nicely.
The scandal directly endangers U.S. soldiers and U.S. civilians abroad. We no longer demand that those we capture in the war on terrorism be treated as we treat prisoners of other wars. What will we say to a country that justifies its torture of a U.S. soldier by citing our support for such treatment? How we can we hold other nations accountable for their own human rights violations, when we continue to hold prisoners for years, without charging them or convicting them of anything?
Using Kennedys logic, the car bombings and beheadings would not be taking place if not for the prisoner abuse scandal. If we just treated the terrorist prisoners with a little more respect, they would be happy to let Iraq become the democracy it deserves to be.
With all due respect to Senator Kennedy, its people on your side in the media who continue to this day to refer to our liberation of Iraq as an occupation. It is the very people at CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Democracy Now!, whose words and stories mirror those previously presented by al Jazeera.
As Ive said in previous columns, Id be willing to bet that the rank-in-file American soldier in Iraq would much rather be home barbecuing and watching the NBA Playoffs rather than being in a country where one never knows whats behind those open arms. If this whole thing was about oil as liberals always contend, why didnt we just annex Kuwait after we liberated her from Iraq in the early 90s?
Because we are not as evil as Senator Kennedy assumes we are under Republican administrations. He has no problem with people being blown to smithereens by Democrats, and has yet to call for an investigation for the hundreds of wartime civilian deaths under Presidents Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.
If that aint cockeyed, nothin is.
About the Writer: Bob Parks is a versatile writer, activist, and political campaigner, who currently resides in Boston.
I'll agree to that the only thing was he left out Kennedy's brother off the list. We were doing combat patrols before Johnson got in when JFK was shot.
Ah, the Swimmer in all his
We won't say anything, Meathead; we'll bomb the sh*t out of them. Do you really think they'd have had any compunction about torturing a U.S. soldier even before this supposed "justification" came about?
...Nevermind. Don't answer that question, fatass.
Thanks. I love this article, and I'd forgotten what a great, lively writer Bob Parks is.
I need a photo of Teddy to add to the "evolutionary" club below!
Geeeeez! Do I feel good after reading that!
It's nice to know it's not just FR that has a problem with the Kennedys.