Ted Kennedy on Bush & Iraq Scandal!

[Lysergic]

Woah, happened upon this speech by Ted Kennedy, JFK's brother, rather interesting read coming from a member of our own government and brother to ex president! He pretty much opens wide the book on IRAQ and BUSH, Cheney, woflowitz, Rumsfield. Its nicely laid out timeline that shows all sorts of unnerving ties and 'coincidences' that lead to this complete total duckup occupation poopy-poop that we're now knee deep in!

http://www.yuricareport.com/Iraq/SenEdw ... nIraq.html

Hoorayyyyyyyyy now if we can only get Bush impeached. http://www.votetoimpeach.org

[Simply Joel]

Ted "MARY JO KOPECHNE Chappaquiddick" Kennedy has all the credibility to question George Bush like the Catholic church has the moral authority investigating its own pedophile priest.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/jfk/jfk038.htm

MARY JO KOPECHNE • Accident Victim

Mary Jo Kopechne was killed in the auto accident that almost ended Edward Kennedy's political career. Kopechne was a former campaign worker for Kennedy's brother, Robert F. Kennedy, who was assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan during the 1968 presidential campaign. On 18 July 1969, Kopechne attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island, a short ferry ride off the island of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. Edward Kennedy and Kopechne left the party together; a short time later, their car plunged off the Dike Bridge into a pond, where it overturned. Kopechne died in the car. Kennedy swam ashore but didn't report the accident until the next morning, later claiming he had been dazed by the crash. Though the details of the incident are not entirely clear, 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.

[primate]

Joel, let me first say I enjoy your posts.
You take the time to think through and then verbalize your opinions in a way that many people seem to be incapable of.
Often your opinions are very different from my own. Which is probably why I enjoy them so much.
With that said, I find it odd, in fact almost comical that most people in life are often remembered for the one or two bad things that they did and that those things typically override the hundreds of good things that they have done. Let's certainly not remember that Ted Kennedy has worked tirelessly through out his career to make health care affordable.

It seems curious to me that Ted Kennedy would be singled out as not being worthy of comment about the current administration because of an incident that happened so long ago. If this is the bar by which we allow commentary by politicians I don't believe you will find any one of them worthy. So let us accept that all politicians have at least one or two indiscretions in their past, thus putting them all on equal footing. That is to say we must accept that all politician are egotistical liars and cheaters. So when they comment about how another politician is a cheat and a liar, they know what they are talking about.

However in the case of Ted Kennedy's comments we are talking about the present vs the past. You are essentially saying that we must Judge Ted based on something that happened well over 20 years ago and compare that to something that happened with Bush in the last 2 years. That is to say his (Ted's) comments should be disregarded because 20 years ago he was involved in a shady incident. What has that got to do with what is happening right now in Iraq? Why is it that we are spending any time what so ever even discussing Ted's past?
That is not the issue. The issue is we have a president who has now invaded two countries in 4 years. Has taken a surplus and turned it into huge deficits because he has given tax cuts to 1% of the wealthiest people in the country. So if Ted Kennedy killed some girl some twenty years ago and covered it up and now he is commenting about a president who has killed thousands and is trying to cover it up, I'd say he knows a little bit about what he is talking about.

I am often reminded of the words of Henry Rollins commenting on heroin addiction when it comes to some people and how they feel about Bill Clinton and the Kennedy family. He said, when a person is addicted to heroin, all they talk about is how they love heroin. Once they get clean and stop using heroin, all they talk about is how they used to love heroin. Either way, they are still talking about heroin.

[Simply Joel]

With that said, I find it odd, in fact almost comical that most people in life are often remembered for the one or two bad things that they did and that those things typically override the hundreds of good things that they have done. Let's certainly not remember that Ted Kennedy has worked tirelessly through out his career to make health care affordable.

primate, i certainly agree with your position... however, i believe both the left and right of aisle political thinkers here on the e-playa and elsewhere liberally regurgitate "the one or two bad things that they (public figures) did and that those things typically override the hundreds of good things that they have done." to make or support their positions.

certainly, George Bush's name has been lavishly appointed many personal misdeeds that most of us, myself included, might be guilty of... Laura Bush got honorable mention for her accident (involuntary manslaughter) i think it was... and whole lot more to numerous to mention or for me to remember. But go ahead, do a little research here on the e-playa and i think it will become evident... no one is spared ridicule on the e-playa.

and regarding health care... it is still broken, granted neither party has a good solution.

regurgitate:
verb: pour or rush back
verb: feed through the beak by regurgitating previously swallowed food
verb: repeat after memorization

It seems curious to me that Ted Kennedy would be singled out as not being worthy of comment about the current administration because of an incident that happened so long ago. If this is the bar by which we allow commentary by politicians I don't believe you will find any one of them worthy. So let us accept that all politicians have at least one or two indiscretions in their past, thus putting them all on equal footing. That is to say we must accept that all politician are egotistical liars and cheaters. So when they comment about how another politician is a cheat and a liar, they know what they are talking about.

please refer to comments above.

However in the case of Ted Kennedy's comments we are talking about the present vs the past. You are essentially saying that we must Judge Ted based on something that happened well over 20 years ago and compare that to something that happened with Bush in the last 2 years. That is to say his (Ted's) comments should be disregarded because 20 years ago he was involved in a shady incident. What has that got to do with what is happening right now in Iraq? Why is it that we are spending any time what so ever even discussing Ted's past?

in my opinion, as stated above... Ted Kennedy does not possess the moral character to judge anyone...

That is not the issue. The issue is we have a president who has now invaded two countries in 4 years. Has taken a surplus and turned it into huge deficits because he has given tax cuts to 1% of the wealthiest people in the country.

hey, news flash folks, i am not thrilled by the current administration's bumbling, on the other hand, i don't see a clear cut better alternative at the moment.

So if Ted Kennedy killed some girl some twenty years ago and covered it up and now he is commenting about a president who has killed thousands and is trying to cover it up, I'd say he knows a little bit about what he is talking about.

a very amusing observation...

I am often reminded of the words of Henry Rollins commenting on heroin addiction when it comes to some people and how they feel about Bill Clinton and the Kennedy family. He said, when a person is addicted to heroin, all they talk about is how they love heroin. Once they get clean and stop using heroin, all they talk about is how they used to love heroin. Either way, they are still talking about heroin.

i can assure you, for the most part, neither of those families make a "blip" on my radar screen. I served under Bill Clinton's administration which did little if nothing but defend himself from some rabid republican legislators...

primate and my fellow e-playans, i have unfortunately/fortunately been keeping track of this crap since i got the political bug in high school... '71 - '75... so, nearly 30 years... and frankly, there is a need to go back to some basics... nouns like... ethics, character, morality... whose morality, i am not sure, but some morality... someone mentioned a long time ago education... and i agree. we, the populace have a responsibility to define those terms, then apply them to ourselves and by doing so, others follow our example.... ok, maybe that is being overly optimistic... yet that view suse beats the hell out of "the ship is sinking, abandon the ship" mentality that i perceive...

DVD, just so you know.... politicians make me sick too... what you haven't acknowledged is... the faceless people behind the political scene would make you sicker...

someone has to watch the hen house to keep the foxes out! is that person you?

[Force]

That is not the issue. The issue is we have a president who has now invaded two countries in 4 years. Has taken a surplus and turned it into huge deficits because he has given tax cuts to 1% of the wealthiest people in the country.

hey, news flash folks, i am not thrilled by the current administration's bumbling, on the other hand, i don't see a clear cut better alternative at the moment.

Wow, are you the boss where you work? Because if you're so understanding that you can characterize the incredible fucking mess where people are dying every day as "bumbling", then I want to work for you. I could probably just send you a picture every week or two of me appearing to do work while cleaning out the company supply closet and selling the stuff to my buddies and still continue to receive a paycheck and probably fairly favorable reviews for at least 8 years...

... ok, maybe that is being overly optimistic... yet that view suse beats the hell out of "the ship is sinking, abandon the ship" mentality that i perceive...

Wrong metaphor- it's a preponderance of every one who matters including Colin Powell etc., etc., etc., making statements that Shrub is very bad for America and should be fired.

As should most politicians. I've stated before my belief that firing more of them on a more frequent basis would result in them at least pretending to serve us more often.

And your contention that anyone who's ever done anything wrong is then disqualified from ever again speaking the truth or commenting on anyone else?

Well, it's laughably ridiculous, so I won't even bother with that point. Aside from saying that I guess no one on earth is qualified to comment on anyone else.

[Simply Joel]

And your contention that anyone who's ever done anything wrong is then disqualified from ever again speaking the truth or commenting on anyone else?

i believe my contention is more along the lines that "if you live in glass houses, one should not throw stones"

or possibly, one should strive to attain the high moral ground before slinging shit at one another like monkeys...

case in point, Ted Kennedy has no moral high ground of which to tread on... and frankly, couldn't lead himself out of an open field... and 20 years ago... of an island without killing someone in the process.

maybe more meaningfully, look in the mirror, are you of the caliber to lead this nation? if so, step up and swing away, as they say in baseball...

"Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way" GEN George Patton

[bullD]

Murderer! He/She who murders once (don't family ties see the kennedy name involved in other deaths or other heinous shit as well?), lies to cover and gets away, is absolutely capable, if not willing, to talk in half truths or tell complete lies,,, jockeying for position if you will...

[bullD]

just my 1 cent

[bullD]

I will now move along

[Lysergic]

who ducking cares if he was drunk driving and accidentally killed someone if we're talking in terms of IRAQ. Sure this immoral act speaks volumes about kennedy's personal life. But I don't see how it relates one ducking bit about Bush's current genocide.

[Simply Joel]

maybe a definition of genocide is in order


http://www.munfw.org/archive/50th/4th1.htm
50th Agenda

50th Session Issues
Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
by
Karyn Becker

Genocide: The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

Ethnic Cleansing: The elimination of an unwanted group from a society, as by genocide or forced migration.

Any discussion of genocide or ethnic cleansing would seem to be straightforward, both in the subject matter itself and in the myriad examples one could bring to mind. As these topics are studied in greater depth, however, the discussion invariably becomes far more complicated. Defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group," genocide tends to evoke thoughts of the Holocaust of World War Two--the most egregious and infamous example of the mass killing of people based on their ethnic or religious background. For many people, that is the full extent of what genocide means. Today, however, the word genocide draws upon an even more complex body of history and scholarship, focusing on the motivation of the perpetrators. By narrow definition, genocide can only occur when there is a deliberate attempt to completely destroy all members of a particular group. As such, there are few clearly identifiable examples of genocide.

The phrase "ethnic cleansing" may embody just the opposite. Ethnic cleansing has been defined as "the elimination of an unwanted group from society, as by genocide or forced migration." This definition is inherently broader than that of genocide alone, and thereby encompasses mass killings and forced removals in far greater number and scope. The U.S. State Department, in a recent report on Kosovo, concluded that ethnic cleansing "generally entails the systematic and forced removal of members of an ethnic group from their communities to change the ethnic composition of a region." The latter definition, while accurate for that particular situation, is seemingly too narrow to be a useful descriptor of a majority of situations which are encompassed in the broader definition. Ethnic cleansing, then, may involve death or displacement, or any combination thereof, where a population is identified for removal from an area.

By using the above definitions, most mass killings and forced relocations fit into one or both of the two discrete categories that are presented. Acts of genocide, as the more narrowly defined term, have been recognized by the United Nations nine times this century. These examples include the purge of Armenians by the Turks beginning in 1915, Jews killed in the Ukraine in the late 1910's as well as during the Nazi regime, Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge in the 1970's, Bosnian Muslims in the former Yugoslavia early this decade, and the slaughter of the Tutsi minority by the Hutu majority in Rwanda in 1994. At least ten additional examples of ethnic cleansing were not recognized by the U.N., due to the criteria used to determine what qualifies as genocide. While genocide is globally recognized as a crime against humanity, ethnic cleansing is not. It is unlikely that such a broad and oft used term could garner the support to declare ethnic cleansing, as a whole, as a crime against humanity.

The United Nations was the forum in which genocide was declared to be a crime under international law--either in times of war or peace. The term had already been coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-born advisor to the then U.S. War Ministry, in a book he published in 1944. Lemkin was the first to argue that genocide is not a war crime, but a crime against humanity-- something uniquely different from anything that had been seen before.

The formal definition came in the 1948 Convention for the Prevention and the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Genocide is defined in the Convention as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) killing members of the group; b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. In the years since the Convention came into force, reconsideration of its points have led to the addition of acts of genocide occurring prior to World War Two.

Both "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing"--as words and concepts--have drawn criticism. Some critics suggest that genocide is a word used too frequently and too loosely in our vernacular. Alain Destexhe, former Secretary General of MÇdecins Sans Frontiäres (Doctors Without Borders) at the time of the Rwandan conflict earlier this decade, argues that there are only three examples of genocide in the 20th century: Armenians killed by the Turks; extermination of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals by during World War II; and slaughter of the Tutsi minority by the Hutu majority in Rwanda in 1994. Destexhe fears that the ubiquitous use of the word genocide to describe any massacre or repressive situation is causing "genocide" to lose its vital meaning as a crime above all others, distinguishable by the single-minded intent behind the barbaric actions. While Destexhe worries that the meaning of the word will be diluted, other critics hope that their revisionist history will be aided by the too common usage of genocide. Particularly for those who do not believe that the Holocaust occurred, the overuse of "genocide" bolsters their propaganda that the Nazi extermination camps and the "final solution" were not really such a uniquely horrible period in history.

"Ethnic cleansing" has also been used to describe a group of people of similar nationality, race, or religion who are experiencing any kind of action which they consider objectionable. Illegal Jewish settlers in the Palestinian controlled territory of Israel believe themselves to be victims of ethnic cleansing when their own government decides to evacuate them in the name of preserving peace. Some people feel they are forced from their home countries because of prejudices that make their lives difficult or intolerable, though they may not actually fear for their physical safety. These examples demonstrate the difficulty in relying on the phrase "ethnic cleansing" to be self-explanatory. The given definition of ethnic cleansing might encompass these situations, but at the same time, may also diminish the seriousness often entailed in the use of the phrase.

The phrase ethnic cleansing has been drawn into the discussion often this decade, as examples of mass killings of persons with a distinctive commonality have abounded. In the former Yugoslavia a variety of groups-- Bosnians, Serbs, Muslims, and Kosovars--have fallen victim to relatively, and perhaps specifically, organized campaigns of ethnic cleansing in this decade alone. More recently we have seen a wave of violence in East Timor, which may yet be described as ethnic cleansing when more complete information becomes available. Both historically and in the present day, there are countless examples of genocide and ethnic cleansing around the world. With no shortage of instances of death and destruction wrought upon those who suddenly find themselves of the wrong ethnicity, religion, nationality or political belief, the time appears ripe for a reconsideration of the instrument which was to have brought such cases to a halt more than a half century ago.

In December of 1998, Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Genocide Convention. He recalled that with the adoption of the Convention, nations had bound themselves legally to forestall those who would perpetrate such actions wherever they might occur. He also noted that shamefully little was done to arrest these actions in progress, and only in their aftermath was significant action taken. The Secretary-General himself was accused, in the as yet unresolved circumstances of the Great Lakes region, of allowing genocide to proceed unhindered inside Rwanda in the spring of 1994. Mr. Annan was the designated head of peacekeeping operations for the UN at that time, and was apparently warned that Hutus were massing arms that could only be used to slaughter others. Despite his privileged knowledge, Mr. Annan did not request additional troops for the existing peacekeeping mission, nor seek to have the existing mission mandate altered to allow for confiscation of said weapons. Having been in a position to halt the imminent slaughter of half a million civilians, Mr. Annan as a high ranking and appropriately placed member of the UN bureaucracy chose inaction. Additionally, some governments also refused to identify the situation for what it was--genocide in progress--in order to avoid their obligation to intervene under the Convention.

Rwanda is a more definitive example of genocide than most situations. While the lack of concerted international reaction there is inexplicable, it is certainly not the only example of turning a blind eye to the slaughter. Two million Cambodians were killed in the 1970's in what came to be considered genocide, albeit well after the fact. In very recent memory was the indiscriminate killing of Kurds in northern Iraq at the hands of Saddam Hussein. While not genocide by technical definition, this group was targeted because they threatened--more psychologically than physically or militarily--the totalitarian power and authority of Hussein. And there is no end in sight for this type of violence that is targeted against specific groups of people.

The General Assembly also reaffirmed the importance and necessity of the Genocide Convention in December of 1998, adopting resolution A/53/L.47, which expresses the concern of the body that many thousands of innocent human beings continue to be victims of genocide. Despite this action, and having a Convention which abhors these aforementioned circumstances, the parties to that instrument seem unwilling to abide by their word and fight against genocide. Some parties may fear the political ramifications of doing so, while others may be concerned about the specificity of the Convention's language in relation to the real world situations it is meant to contain. Cries of racism have even been heard from those who believe that decisions to intervene are based primarily on the skin color of those being massacred and those responsible for the massacre.

The reality is that despite the stated desire among parties to the Genocide Convention fifty years ago to ensure that genocide would never again occur, the will to achieve that most important goal has been severely lacking. The strongest efforts have been aimed at punishing those who are responsible for genocide, primarily through individual criminal tribunals organized for that specific purpose. Even these endeavors--in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia--have come about only in this decade. Those responsible for recognized acts of genocide over the last three decades have gone unpunished, despite demands from survivor and witnesses.

In recent years, such pressure has culminated in an extraordinary amount of effort to conclude the legal instrument, known as the Rome Statute, which may eventually lead to the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC would have jurisdiction over four classes of crimes, including genocide and crimes against humanity. The definition of crimes against humanity included in the statute is broad enough to include some of the currently unprosecutable offenses now referred to as ethnic cleansing. Unlike the current ad hoc tribunals, which must be approved by the Security Council, there will be no veto power over the ICC. When 60 states have ratified the statute the court will come into operation. The lack of veto power will likely make the ICC a more effective international legal body than any previously conceived. Major nations have expressed reservations over the statute and may not be willing to ratify it.

The creation of the ICC seems a step forward in global efforts to halt the proliferation of mass killings and other egregious violence. This pattern has been recurring throughout this century, and despite rhetoric to the contrary, little serious effort has gone into abating these tragedies. Clearly, past attempts have not been successful, and the reasons behind that remain unclear. What must future efforts entail in order to successfully avoid this scourge? How many more people will have to die at the hands of their neighbors and countrymen before the human considerations outweigh the political ramifications? What will be required to finally end what should have been but a memory at the dawn of the 21st century?

Questions

1) Should the definitions of genocide and ethnic cleansing be reviewed to allow for greater inclusiveness of those actions described as crimes against humanity?
2) Should the Convention be reconsidered for revision, including possible expansion to include cases of ethnic cleansing and mass killing that might not be included in a strict (Destexheian) interpretation of "genocide?"
3) Under what basic circumstances should the United Nations intervene in a situation of ethnic cleansing or genocide, or seek to have regional organizations do the same?
4) Will the International Criminal Court be an effective remedy to the continuing problem of genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Sources

Annan, Kofi. Press release on the Occasion of the fiftieth Anniversary of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. SG/SM/6822, December 8, 1999.
Bell-Fialkoff, Andrew. "A Brief History of Ethnic Cleansing," Foreign Affairs; Summer 1993, pp. 110-121.
Destexhe, Alain. Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century. New York University Press, 1995.
www.uen.org/utahlink/lp_res/AnneFrankGenocide.html
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ p_genoci.htm
www.un.org --general search under the topics "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing."
www.un.org/icc --home website of the International Criminal Court.

[Simply Joel]

http://www.genocideprevention.org/v1i1_4a.html

[Simply Joel]

I'll stand by my "Ted K lacks credibility with me" statement...

and here are some sites that really don't like him.

http://www.ytedk.com/

http://www.conservativeindex.com/

personally, i wouldn't give you two dead rat's asses for Ted Kennedy and his ilk. just my opinion, of which i am entitled under the Bill of Rights.

[DVD Burner]

so let me guess,

are you saying that what America is doing in Iraq is Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing ?

Joel, I knew you would come around some day.

[Simply Joel]

so let me guess,

are you saying that what America is doing in Iraq is Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing ?

Joel, I knew you would come around some day.

no, no and finally no.

"Acts of genocide, as the more narrowly defined term, have been recognized by the United Nations nine times this century. These examples include the purge of Armenians by the Turks beginning in 1915, Jews killed in the Ukraine in the late 1910's as well as during the Nazi regime, Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge in the 1970's, Bosnian Muslims in the former Yugoslavia early this decade, and the slaughter of the Tutsi minority by the Hutu majority in Rwanda in 1994. At least ten additional examples of ethnic cleansing were not recognized by the U.N., due to the criteria used to determine what qualifies as genocide."

and what was the Kerry/Edwards stance on entering Bosnia?

hey ho, anybody got an answer?

[bullD]

nope... The president yes but, these two individuals, no.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Kennedy: "Saddam's attempted assassination of President Bush during a visit to Kuwait in 1993 added fuel to the debate."


This part is very questionable and perhaps totally false. The only reason they were link to saddam was that the investigators found papers that were linked to him.

I would ask why would a group of assassins of Saddam be carrying around those papers?

Not in a fucking million years! Saddam wasn't that stupid and nor was his agents.

But, what if Osama was really behind the plot?

That makes more sense and why?

Because Osama needed the USA to get rid of Saddam for their greater plan for the region that's why!

A II Z

[Simply Joel]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Lysergic]

Semantics semantics! Ok what then do you call systematic murder, starvation and neglect of any human being regardless of race/religion/sex/etc but usually because of it IN THE NAME OF MONEY or POWER or RELIGIOUS CONVICTION.

And its no wonder that the genocide of the palistinians don't fit the required prerequisites of a word by so accurately defined by the U.N.

[Simply Joel]

Ok what then do you call systematic murder, starvation and neglect of any human being regardless of race/religion/sex/etc but usually because of it IN THE NAME OF MONEY or POWER or RELIGIOUS CONVICTION.

PLO? TALIBAN? BAATHIST? COMMUNISTS?

i think it depends on which side of the fence you are standing.

and before the reader, any one of you, responds... take a clear look at those organization's plans for world peace before you begin arguing to the contrary.

from my perspective, all sides live in glass houses and should drop the rocks in there hands.

[Simply Joel]

(grammatical correction) their hands.

[DVD Burner]

(grammatical correction) their hands.

Damn why oh why could'nt I have caught that first.

[Simply Joel]

(grammatical correction) their hands.

Damn why oh why could'nt I have caught that first.

like you would have noticed?