I know – bad joke. But I’m talking about the redoutable (Arthur) Chrenkoff who has post that is pretty sad, actually, reminding us of how low Teddy the K. has sunk in the land of grumpitude. I wonder if Teddy can even smile when he sees a million people marching for democracy in the streets of Beirut. Would his brothers have been the same way? What a way to get old. At least he has the recent CDC report to cheer him up.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
I’m beginning to think that the only benefit that Teddy provides is that he’s half the reason that we in California don’t have the worst pair of Senators.
I have been Abu Ghraibed well past my limit.
The FT came to the rescue this weekend with a long article about a visit to Iraq by UK union officials, all of whom had violently opposed the war.
I wish I could link to the photo that accompanied the story. It was a huge, half-page image of beaming Kurds holding up a photo of George Bush shaking hands with Tony Blair:
Here’s what the article, written by John Lloyd, who says he is one of the few leftist writers to have supported the war, has to say about Abu Ghraib:
Kennedy: Ask what the country can do for you, but not what you can do for it.
That Teddy, he’s a pistol. I’ve cogitated more than once on how it is that out of the four Kennedy brothers, we ended up with this one.
Catherine
Thanks for the reminder of why we are doing what we are doing, over there. I would love to stand beside Ted the K as he took that tour. He would find a way to twist it, of that I am sure. It is easy to see why he is such a friend of alcohol, he certainly needs something to blur the reality of his present life.
Today’s WSJ editorial rebuts the Esteemed Gentleman from Massachusetts rather well.
Ted Kennedy possesses the weakest mind of the four brothers, at least by the standards of the Camelot myth. He lacks the charm, the wit and even the superficial intelligence of his brothers. I can imagine him sitting at the dinner table absorbing his father’s pro-Hitler, anti-Semitic rantings; reveling in the old man’s conquests of Hollywood starlets; and of course imbibing the ethics of the Kennedy-Mafia lifestyle. Teddy is a cheat, a liar, an abuser of women, and, most despicably, a friend of corrupt dictators everywhere. Edward M. Kennedy is true to his father’s legacy. He is the Joe Kennedy of the War on Terror.
Jerry, Norma Desmond, er, Gloria Swanson wasn’t a Hollywood starlet, she was a star (it was the pictures that got small).
Kyda:
I am from flyover country [Chicago] so I didn’t get nuance between starlet or star. However, I am sure that Old Joe bedded many less then stellar actresses.
That Ted! Always trying to make a big splash.
ìI wonder if Teddy can even smile when he sees a million people marching for democracy in the streets of Beirut.î
Ted Kennedy subconsciously wishes to harm those who are truly advocating democracy in the Middle East. He is well aware that George W. Bush and the Republican Party deserve credit for this development. Democrats like himself mostly tried to throw a monkey wrench into the works. Kennedy will try to find any excuse to abandon the Iraqis or the Lebanese. I am utterly convinced that our national Democrat Party is the greatest threat to these voices of liberation. Al Qaeda and the Baathists are only a secondary obstacle. Never forget what our liberal Democrats did to the Vietnamese—and letís make sure it never happens again.
The ladykillers: JFK, Frank Sinatra, James Bond, and…uh…Teddy.
Kyda Sylvester ó ” I’ve cogitated more than once on how it is that out of the four Kennedy brothers, we ended up with this one.”
One couldn’t fly and two couldn’t duck. The rest is known only to Oliver Stone.
Jerry–I’m sure you’re right (although he probably didn’t talk about it much at the dinner table).
David–Sadly, it wasn’t just liberal Democrats who did in the south Vietnamese. We all own a piece of that action (well, those of us of a certain age).
Richard–That reminds me of a joke that, I think, Will Durst told last year during the Dem convention about how the Schwartzenegger/Shriver marriage is phase I in a genetic experiment seeking to design a bulletproof Kennedy.
The Chappaquiddick Kid always thought of himself as a contender until he got caught when Mary Jo took a dive in the first round. Heís an old porker now thinking about what could have been if he’d just of had some heart.
From WSJ-Online comments on today’s editorial:
‘Overhyped’ Is an Understatement
C.K. Amos – Princeton, W.Va.
Overhyped? Not even close to describing how overreported and overblown Abu Ghraib was and remains.
It’s 12:20 a.m. EDT Wednesday. I just searched the New York Times archives for “Abu Ghraib” and got 1,000 hits. A Google search for that exact phrase returned about 2,470,000 hits. Of those, No. 2 was Sy Hersh’s New Yorker tome, “Torture at Abu Ghraib.”
For comparison, a Google search of ” ‘mass graves’ Iraq” got 311,000 hits. “Oil-for-Food Scandal” got 458,000 hits. ” ‘Free elections’ Iraq” produced 175,000 hits.
Based on this instant research through the most popular Web search engine, that means there’s 800% more mention in cyberspace about Abu Ghraib than the murder of as many as 300,000 men, women and children by Saddam Hussein and his monsters. There’s 540% more than for the worst scandal in U.N. history that surely led to the deaths of Iraqis, Americans and coalition troops. And a free election for more than 25 million Iraqis in almost four decades got 8% the attention paid to it as Abu Ghraib.
The Dems, liberals and leftists can protest all they want that they’re aren’t biased, as can the advocacy media. Execrable is the most printable word I can find to describe their words and pusillanimous about their behavior about things that matter.
Nicely done, C.K. But who’s this Buddy Larsen guy from Blanco, Texas?
Hmmmm.
“That Teddy, he’s a pistol. I’ve cogitated more than once on how it is that out of the four Kennedy brothers, we ended up with this one.”
It says a lot about a man when he’s not worth a bullet.
Let’s bring it on over, shall we–
From today’s Reader’s Comments at WSJ:
Bag the Idiocy
Buddy Larsen – Blanco, Texas
The big story of Abu Ghraib–the story that history will remember–is the story of the moral idiocy of the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party. I think the senator must be realizing that this is so, that his rhetoric has left him no exit, that he has little choice now but to redouble the purpling windbaggery and hope against hope that he can get out from under his perpetual onus.
No shrinking violets here, please.
Ha! That wasn’t there when I pasted CK’s letter here…I can usually write that site without worrying that they’ll post it.
For some reason, I get inspired on the subject of windbaggery. Teddy must’ve been in the Bard’s forward-recovered pre-memory with the famous Macbeth “…”Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” A large, voluminous walking shadow across the honorable tradition of better-quality trashy politics.
ìThe Dems, liberals and leftists can protest all they want that they’re aren’t biased, as can the advocacy media.î
They have truly conned themselves that they are not biased and objective human beings. This is what makes them so dangerous. These people first lie to themselves, and then to the rest of us. I am sure that more than a few them will be enraged that I think they want democracy to fail in the Middle East. However, on a gut level they not only want these efforts to fail—they will actively work to ensure failure. I would rather deal with someone who deliberately wishes to con me than those who run from reality.
As long as you’re already p*ssed, David, you might as well read an equally–and uncharacteristically–p*ssed Instapundit:
The Chappaquiddick Kid always thought of himself as a contender until he got caught when Mary Jo took a dive in the first round. He?s an old porker now thinking about what could have been if he’d just of had some heart.
Indeed. Just consider the future ramifications of Teddy’s having moved heaven and earth trying to save Mary Jo (and perhaps succeeding). Mary Jo ended up making the ultimate sacrifice for the rest of us–I hope wherever she is, she knows that.
And in case there’s still an outside chance of rescuing your mood, please kill it now with this, by the Democrats’ principled reason that America must pick a different Ambassador to the United Nations (you see, if only they can ‘get-out-in-front’ everything’ll ‘be alright’):
My favorite Teddy moment was when he complained about “drowning” torture tactics by the CIA. It’s almost like he’s mocking us. Like, sure, I killed Mary Jo, what are you gonna do about it?
He’s a survivor. http://reelcobra.blogspot.com/
Ted Kennedy possesses the weakest mind of the four brothers, at least by the standards of the Camelot myth.
He’s certainly the only one for whom it’s a matter of public record that he was suspended from Harvard for cheating. (Actually, the link, from PBS of all sources, says he was expelled, but I think that he later received an AB from Harvard).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kennedys/timeline/timeline2.html
B.L.: Thanks for the link to the Townsel “hurry up defense” confession of plagiarism.
Isn’t it obvious that a previous plagiarism (a false public statement) is not a valid consideration when assessing the credibility of a subsequent public statement? How dare it be brought up?
And if there is “absolutely NO excuse” for what she did, why bopther adding the she was under “tremendous academic, financial and family pressure at the time”. Sounds like excuses to me.
“Isn’t it obvious that a previous plagiarism (a false public statement)is not a valid consideration…”
Plagiarism is not a false statement, public or otherwise. Plagiarism is taking someone else’s written work and acting as if it was your own. It might indicate a general dishonesty but it doesn’t address directly the concept of making a false claim as to a fact. The best plagiarism is no doubt 100% true. If the original work is not true it’s not worth stealing in the first place, is it?
svjim–I think he got his degree from UVA (and it cost daddy plenty).
Kcom: A little hyper-technical, are you? OK.
So it is the ACT of plagiarism that is a lie.
Hard to see how it would not be indicative of general dishonesty.
I’m not so sure old Ted even believes what he says. Not that he doesn’t either. I mean he doesn’t really care about Abu Ghraib either way. He’s just using it to keep the minions fired up. To remind them why they should hate Bush and all Republicans.
The real sheeple in this country are the moonbat Dems. And the Dem leadership keeps feeding them the crap they want to believe.
ìAs long as you’re already p*ssed, David, you might as well read an equally–and uncharacteristically–p*ssed Instapunditî
I earlier read Glenn Reynolds rebuke of the New York Times. Please note this gentleman uses words very prudently. He is a lawyer and knows that one should be extremely careful when charging someone with lying. And yet, Instapundit accuses the New York Times reporter with ìan out-and-out lie.î This is how far the situation has deteriorated. The Times cannot be trusted. It is often today nothing more than a liberal propaganda rag. Is the NY Times similar to Pravda of the former Soviet Union? No, that would not be entirely accurate. It is, however, still too unreliable and deceitful.
Is the NY Times similar to Pravda of the former Soviet Union? No, that would not be entirely accurate–DT
I think that,in context,this comparison would be entirely unfair —- to Pravda.
Re: The sharp language that Instapundit used on the NYTimes, here for emphasis is his close:
“Sorry, but this is just a pathetic performance by the Times, and warrants a correction. And an apology.”
Uh, indeed.
I don’t know why NYTimes doesn’t just carry a disclaimer somewhere high above the fold: “For readers who like lies, here’s some. For those who don’t, we apologize. And whichever side you’re on, remember, you read it in the Times.”
I think he got his degree from UVA (and it cost daddy plenty).
Harvard undergraduate, UVA law school, I think.
Yeah, I think you’re right–I vaguely remember that he, and the guy who took the test for him, were able to reapply sometime later once they demonstrated good citizenship or some such. Wonder what that cost (I think UVA got a building, or at least a wing).
How many of Saddam’s 350,000 killed (an overblown number to begin with) occurred contemporaneously with Google’s existence? That’s a rather odd comparison to make.
Google is a worldwide service. I gather the rest of the world was somewhat interested in the revelation that the US’s talk about torture over the last 50 years is just that. As pre-emption before it, the signal has now been sent to the world that torture is no longer beyond the pale in the US. They’re Googling because they’re taking notes.
Torrid, actually the reverse is true. Glance at the international news, or thru the blogosphere…worldwide respect, affection, and gratitude for the USA is on the ascendant–and has been since 911 and the national response to it. You must be getting your info from some pro-UNscam, pro-DNC political-partisan sources, which spend a lot of effort trying to sell something untrue on its very face. Look at election results and GNP growth around the world–only a fool can’t see what’s happening, only partisans invested in liberalism keep trying to tell the people not to believe their own lyin’ eyes.