APP - Ted Kennedy loathed Britain - so why did Gordon Brown knight him? Read more: http://

cancel2 2022

Canceled
By Ruth Dudley Edwards (Source)


Last updated at 8:00 AM on 27th August 2009

Sometimes it is right to speak ill of the dead. The truth matters, even when it is deeply unsavoury. The truth about Ted Kennedy is certainly unsavoury.

Not that you'd know it from yesterday's tributes, dominated by sycophantic humbug.
'A great and good man,' said a fawning Tony Blair. 'A true and constant friend of the peace process in Northern Ireland,' said Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward.

article-1209324-06304562000005DC-290_468x315.jpg
Eulogised: The tributes left for Ted Kennedy were full of praise but a lot of his past was unsavoury

Gordon Brown was 'proud to have counted him as a friend and proud that the United Kingdom recognised his service earlier this year with the award of an honorary knighthood'.

Proud? He should be ashamed. Kennedy was a formidable and Machiavellian political operator in the U.S., but he was no friend of Britain. In fact, he was one of our most committed and unrelenting enemies on Capitol Hill.

In his anti-British sentiments, he took after his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, who was unable to hide his bigoted views during a shameful spell as U.S. ambassador to Great Britain.

Ted did his father proud. As a politician dependent on Irish-American votes, this master of empty rhetoric had no scruples about spreading the bitter message of Irish republicanism, especially if there was an election at stake.


More...



Indeed, his pro-republican record was unblemished, though he was never in favour of violence. When Northern Ireland descended into violence, it was Kennedy who, in 1971, gave aid and comfort to the IRA by comparing British attempts to prevent civil war with the U.S. invasion of Vietnam.

He, like the IRA, supported the republican Troops Out movement, and demanded that Ulster Protestants opposed to a united Ireland should 'go back to Britain'.

He also blamed the 1981 hunger strikes on the 'insensitivity' of the Thatcher government rather than cynical republican leaders sacrificing prisoners for electoral advantage.

article-1209324-062FDC75000005DC-496_468x421.jpg
Gerry Adams and Kennedy - the U.S. senator was a big supporter of the Irish nationalist cause

Later in life, as he came under the influence of the Irish government, he began to moderate his stance on Northern Ireland. But he remained a vociferous critic of the British government and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

It was never enough that he occupied a safe Senate seat, 'inherited' from his father, who had bought it with a fortune made from bootlegging.

He believed he was entitled to the U.S. presidency, too. And had he not caused the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick in 1969, he may well have been able to ride his brothers' reputations all the way to the White House.

While it cost him the presidency, it failed to dampen his obscene sense of entitlement.

And so, in 1993, in a breathtaking example of nepotism, he persuaded President Bill Clinton to appoint his shamefully ill-qualified sister, Jean Kennedy Smith, as U.S. Ambassador to Ireland.

Kennedy wanted his sister in the job for two reasons. First, he owed her. In 1991, Ted had spent the evening drinking heavily with her son, William Kennedy Smith. Later that night, William took a woman to the beach, who went on to accuse him of rape. Though found not guilty, the trial was lurid and his mother was distraught.

Second - and more importantly - Ted Kennedy had his Irish nationalist agenda to pursue. And how better to do this than through a sister who would defer to a bullying male relative?

By this time, Sinn Fein and their IRA masters were on their knees, militarily, financially and electorally. But Ted was committed to using his influence to support the nationalist cause. And Jean was only too happy to help.

She made no secret of where her loyalties lay - as ambassador, she represented the interests not of the U.S., but of the Irish nationalists.

The U.S. State Department would later rebuke her for the way she treated diplomats who dared to question her. Ireland would tellingly reward her with honorary citizenship.

After all, she was, like her brother, an enemy of Britain and devoted to the nationalist cause.

While his sister supported the nationalists and republicans in Ireland, Ted worked to bolster their cause in the U.S.

In 1994, he persuaded Bill Clinton to go against the express wishes of Prime Minister John Major and grant former terrorist Gerry Adams a U.S. visa.

It's always suited nationalist interests to claim this decision was instrumental in bringing about an IRA ceasefire. In fact, it merely set a precedent for the weak-willed appeasement that would be adopted as British government policy once New Labour were elected.

Indeed, as Tony Blair took over the peace process, everyone seemed to forget that Ted Kennedy was an enemy of Britain. He was suddenly repackaged as a friend.

The truth is that the warm words for Kennedy - not to mention the honorary knighthood - are shameless exercises in self-justification.

Like Ted Kennedy and other nationalist sympathisers, Blair and Brown would have us believe they forged a peace to be proud of - rather than just handing over the keys of power to bigots and terrorists.

And so, working on the Goebbels principle that if a lie is big enough and is repeated often enough then people will come to believe it, Blair tells us that the life-long Brit-hater Kennedy's 'passionate commitment was matched with a practical understanding of what needed to be done to bring about peace and to sustain it'.

Well, sorry Mr Blair, Ted Kennedy was neither great nor good. And sorry, Mr Woodward, he was a friend of Irish nationalism, not of the peace process.

Nor did he serve the interests of Britain, Mr Brown. He served only the interests of Edward Kennedy. By singing his praises, they are all betraying Britain.
 
By Ruth Dudley Edwards (Source)


Last updated at 8:00 AM on 27th August 2009

Sometimes it is right to speak ill of the dead. The truth matters, even when it is deeply unsavoury. The truth about Ted Kennedy is certainly unsavoury.

Not that you'd know it from yesterday's tributes, dominated by sycophantic humbug.
'A great and good man,' said a fawning Tony Blair. 'A true and constant friend of the peace process in Northern Ireland,' said Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward.

article-1209324-06304562000005DC-290_468x315.jpg
Eulogised: The tributes left for Ted Kennedy were full of praise but a lot of his past was unsavoury

Gordon Brown was 'proud to have counted him as a friend and proud that the United Kingdom recognised his service earlier this year with the award of an honorary knighthood'.

Proud? He should be ashamed. Kennedy was a formidable and Machiavellian political operator in the U.S., but he was no friend of Britain. In fact, he was one of our most committed and unrelenting enemies on Capitol Hill.

In his anti-British sentiments, he took after his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, who was unable to hide his bigoted views during a shameful spell as U.S. ambassador to Great Britain.

Ted did his father proud. As a politician dependent on Irish-American votes, this master of empty rhetoric had no scruples about spreading the bitter message of Irish republicanism, especially if there was an election at stake.


More...



Indeed, his pro-republican record was unblemished, though he was never in favour of violence. When Northern Ireland descended into violence, it was Kennedy who, in 1971, gave aid and comfort to the IRA by comparing British attempts to prevent civil war with the U.S. invasion of Vietnam.

He, like the IRA, supported the republican Troops Out movement, and demanded that Ulster Protestants opposed to a united Ireland should 'go back to Britain'.

He also blamed the 1981 hunger strikes on the 'insensitivity' of the Thatcher government rather than cynical republican leaders sacrificing prisoners for electoral advantage.

article-1209324-062FDC75000005DC-496_468x421.jpg
Gerry Adams and Kennedy - the U.S. senator was a big supporter of the Irish nationalist cause

Later in life, as he came under the influence of the Irish government, he began to moderate his stance on Northern Ireland. But he remained a vociferous critic of the British government and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

It was never enough that he occupied a safe Senate seat, 'inherited' from his father, who had bought it with a fortune made from bootlegging.

He believed he was entitled to the U.S. presidency, too. And had he not caused the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick in 1969, he may well have been able to ride his brothers' reputations all the way to the White House.

While it cost him the presidency, it failed to dampen his obscene sense of entitlement.

And so, in 1993, in a breathtaking example of nepotism, he persuaded President Bill Clinton to appoint his shamefully ill-qualified sister, Jean Kennedy Smith, as U.S. Ambassador to Ireland.

Kennedy wanted his sister in the job for two reasons. First, he owed her. In 1991, Ted had spent the evening drinking heavily with her son, William Kennedy Smith. Later that night, William took a woman to the beach, who went on to accuse him of rape. Though found not guilty, the trial was lurid and his mother was distraught.

Second - and more importantly - Ted Kennedy had his Irish nationalist agenda to pursue. And how better to do this than through a sister who would defer to a bullying male relative?

By this time, Sinn Fein and their IRA masters were on their knees, militarily, financially and electorally. But Ted was committed to using his influence to support the nationalist cause. And Jean was only too happy to help.

She made no secret of where her loyalties lay - as ambassador, she represented the interests not of the U.S., but of the Irish nationalists.

The U.S. State Department would later rebuke her for the way she treated diplomats who dared to question her. Ireland would tellingly reward her with honorary citizenship.

After all, she was, like her brother, an enemy of Britain and devoted to the nationalist cause.

While his sister supported the nationalists and republicans in Ireland, Ted worked to bolster their cause in the U.S.

In 1994, he persuaded Bill Clinton to go against the express wishes of Prime Minister John Major and grant former terrorist Gerry Adams a U.S. visa.

It's always suited nationalist interests to claim this decision was instrumental in bringing about an IRA ceasefire. In fact, it merely set a precedent for the weak-willed appeasement that would be adopted as British government policy once New Labour were elected.

Indeed, as Tony Blair took over the peace process, everyone seemed to forget that Ted Kennedy was an enemy of Britain. He was suddenly repackaged as a friend.

The truth is that the warm words for Kennedy - not to mention the honorary knighthood - are shameless exercises in self-justification.

Like Ted Kennedy and other nationalist sympathisers, Blair and Brown would have us believe they forged a peace to be proud of - rather than just handing over the keys of power to bigots and terrorists.

And so, working on the Goebbels principle that if a lie is big enough and is repeated often enough then people will come to believe it, Blair tells us that the life-long Brit-hater Kennedy's 'passionate commitment was matched with a practical understanding of what needed to be done to bring about peace and to sustain it'.

Well, sorry Mr Blair, Ted Kennedy was neither great nor good. And sorry, Mr Woodward, he was a friend of Irish nationalism, not of the peace process.

Nor did he serve the interests of Britain, Mr Brown. He served only the interests of Edward Kennedy. By singing his praises, they are all betraying Britain.

Tom, I had no idea, thanks for the interesting article, I hear this comment that he was only out for himself, but if that were truly the case, why was he re-elected for so many years? I guess I just don't understand being in Congress for that long.

Ted Stevens also served for a very long time, and I never felt the man was in it just for himself. I think he really did have a need to serve. He may have liked the power that came with the job, but he also felt he could do well for Alaska. It was always at the heart of what he did. I may not have agreed with him and his pork, but he did serve Alaskans.
 
Tom, I had no idea, thanks for the interesting article, I hear this comment that he was only out for himself, but if that were truly the case, why was he re-elected for so many years? I guess I just don't understand being in Congress for that long.

Ted Stevens also served for a very long time, and I never felt the man was in it just for himself. I think he really did have a need to serve. He may have liked the power that came with the job, but he also felt he could do well for Alaska. It was always at the heart of what he did. I may not have agreed with him and his pork, but he did serve Alaskans.

She is coming from the view that he was no friend of the UK in the war against the IRA, remember that it was US organisations like Noraid that were supplying money for arms from places like Libya, I do not ever remember Ted Kennedy speaking out against this.

As you know I am from an Irish Catholic background and I have seen the damage that the IRA inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland, I suspect if even one bomb had been let off in Boston or New York by the IRA then the whole lot of them would have been banished to Gitmo.
 
She is coming from the view that he was no friend of the UK in the war against the IRA, remember that it was US organisations like Noraid that were supplying money for arms from places like Libya, I do not ever remember Ted Kennedy speaking out against this.

As you know I am from an Irish Catholic background and I have seen the damage that the IRA inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland, I suspect if even one bomb had been let off in Boston or New York by the IRA then the whole lot of them would have been banished to Gitmo.

Thanks, I was also Catholic and am still of Scot/Irish ancestry, but I am guilty of not paying very close attention to what was happening then. I did not like the IRA, either, what I knew of them. I don't like any organization that kills in order to obtain their objectives.
 
Gerry Adams is a terrorist? He's a member of parliament. People with criminal records can't even run for parliament.

The person who wrote this article has a tremendous bias. Sorry, I'm going with Brown on this one.
 
Gerry Adams is a terrorist? He's a member of parliament. People with criminal records can't even run for parliament.

The person who wrote this article has a tremendous bias. Sorry, I'm going with Brown on this one.

He hasn't got a criminal record but it is well known, at least in the UK, that he was and probably still is high up in the hierarchy of the IRA, why this is not common knowledge in the US is fairly astounding to me. Martin McGuinness was the quartermaster for the IRA in the 70/80s and is the current deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, I bet you never knew that as well. Another fact is that Sinn Fein/IRA members of Parliament have never actually attended Westminster yet continue to claim all the expenses regardless.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/08/sinn-fein-expenses-martin-mcguinness
 
Last edited:
He hasn't got a criminal record but it is well known, at least in the UK, that he was and probably still is high up in the hierarchy of the IRA, why this is not common knowledge in the US is fairly astounding to me. Martin McGuinness was the quartermaster for the IRA in the 70/80s and is the current deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, I bet you never knew that as well. Another fact is that Sinn Fein/IRA members of Parliament have never actually attended Westminster yet continue to claim all the expenses regardless.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/08/sinn-fein-expenses-martin-mcguinness

Why would anything that happened 40 years ago in the UK be common knowledge in the US? Especially to a 20 year old?

Sinn Fein is not the IRA.

They have a right to claim expenses, just as any politician does, and they use this for political purposes. They do not attend parliament, but people that do are usually just wasting their time anyway.
 
Why would anything that happened 40 years ago in the UK be common knowledge in the US? Especially to a 20 year old?

Sinn Fein is not the IRA.

They have a right to claim expenses, just as any politician does, and they use this for political purposes. They do not attend parliament, but people that do are usually just wasting their time anyway.

With just a few clicks of the mouse you could have found out all about Gerry Adams and his involvement in the IRA if you wanted to, but apparently you'd rather not bother. First point in your education is that the Troubles started around 40 years ago but they carried on through until the late 90s and arguably still do. As to saying that Sinn Fein is not the IRA that's truly laughable when Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness were both on the IRA General Council and in Sinn Fein at the same time.

I guess also that you missed the great MP expenses row this year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7840678.stm
 
Last edited:
With just a few clicks of the mouse you could have found out all about Gerry Adams and his involvement in the IRA if you wanted to, but apparently you'd rather not bother. First point in your education is that the Troubles started around 40 years ago but they carried on through until the late 90s and arguably still do. As to saying that Sinn Fein is not the IRA that's truly laughable when Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness were both on the IRA General Council and in Sinn Fein at the same time.

I guess also that you missed the great MP expenses row this year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7840678.stm

No, I enjoyed how much Labour got tackled until I realized how much the Conservatives benefited.
 
Thanks, I was also Catholic and am still of Scot/Irish ancestry, but I am guilty of not paying very close attention to what was happening then. I did not like the IRA, either, what I knew of them. I don't like any organization that kills in order to obtain their objectives.

Apparently Kennedy was not as disconnected from his Irish roots as I had previously thought. While I understand the anger of the Irish people, I can never condone the behavior of the IRA; particularly post-independence.
 
WM I had no idea you were so ignorant about the Troubles.

I assumed you would have obsessively researched it by now.
 
I guess my predisposition towards researching conflicts just led me to it. As you claim to be able to give a decent summary of each country's political parties and leanings, I can give a decent summary of almost every conflict across the globe.
 
I guess my predisposition towards researching conflicts just led me to it. As you claim to be able to give a decent summary of each country's political parties and leanings, I can give a decent summary of almost every conflict across the globe.

I couldn't give you a summary of Tanzania's political situation. :)

I could probably tell you the ruling party or coalition in every European or developed Asian country, though, and with most of them I could give you a summary of the deeper political situation.
 
It's pseudo-journalism, written much more like an opinion piece than a news story.

Allow me to enlighten you as to the background of the writer, you might just agree that she is likely to know a lot more about Irish politics than some others including yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Dudley_Edwards


Here is what she wrote about Ken Loach's polemical film The Wind That Shakes the Barley back in 2006 in the Guardian.

What about making Black and Tans: the movie?

Ken Loach is being predictable and morally lazy in making yet another sympathetic portrayal of Irish republicanism. As an Irish historian living in England, I have become inured to the self-flagellation of nice, well-meaning, leftish people like George Monbiot when it comes to Ireland. They see only negatives when they consider the record of Britain in Ireland and are blinkered by ignorance and blinded by romance when they look at violent republicanism.
I began my career as a biographer of Patrick Pearse and James Connolly - two leaders of the 1916 rebellion. I viewed them sympathetically, as I view all my subjects, but I could not but conclude that they had no more justification for revolution than did the Provisional IRA more than sixty years later nor the Real and Continuity IRAs now. They were leaders of a tiny cabal: Ireland was a democracy, and Home Rule was on the statute book.
The British reaction to a revolution in the middle of a world war was harsh enough to alienate Irish public opinion, while too mild to smash violent nationalism. (Salient figures: 450 deaths, of which 116 were soldiers, 16 policemen, 242 civilians and 76 insurgents.)
Although there were only 16 executions, they aroused the sympathy of the hitherto unbellicose Irish and in 1918 won the election for Sinn Fein, though there was no mandate for future violence. Yet violence had become respectable. The unnecessary war of independence began when in January 1919, a handful of Irish Volunteers took it on themselves to kill two members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. From then on it was a war on anyone in uniform - British or Irish - or with unionist sympathies. Ken Loach set The Wind That Shakes the Barley in County Cork, but I'm told there is no mention in it of the ethnic cleansing of Protestants in several villages.
To deal with IRA terror, early in 1920 the British government dispatched ex-servicemen to join the RIC. Inadequately trained and ill disciplined and without even a proper uniform (they became known as the Black and Tans because of their odd mixture of khaki and black), they met terror with counter-terror and raids with reprisals: violence and brutality escalated on both sides during 1920 and 1921. (About 1,400 died, including 600+ security forces and 550 IRA).
This was a terrible period, though not as damaging for the Irish psyche as the civil war that followed, when a minority of republicans showed their contempt for the Irish electorate by taking to the gun rather than accept the Treaty with Britain, which the Irish parliament had ratified. The atrocities of previous years were exceeded in the war of republican against republican. (Around 1,500-2,000 died.)
Ken Loach spoke of the "legendary" brutality of the Black and Tans, and indeed their nastiest deeds have gone down in story and song and have never knowingly been understated. The reason why I won't be going to his film (which I couldn't see before I wrote about it as it had been shown only at Cannes) is because I can't stand its sheer predictability.
All films dealing with Irish republicans show them as tormented idealists who sometimes do things they shouldn't: the British or unionists are portrayed as cynical, brutal and despicable (for example Loach's Hidden Agenda and Neil Jordan's Michael Collins). So Loach was doing nothing brave in taking a sympathetic look at republicans: he was being morally lazy. What would have been interesting and worthwhile would have been for this champion of the underdog to look at events from the standpoint of some wretch of a Black and Tan who had survived years of war only to end up in Ireland being shot at from behind hedges.
Loach has explained to the republican Daily Ireland that partition has failed and that the "unionist veto on change must be removed". He is, therefore, even more militant than is post-agreement Sinn Fein. The only republicans who now oppose the principle of consent in determining the future of Ireland are the dissidents who are still trying to kill and maim for Ireland. That puts Loach on the side of those who murdered 29 people and unborn twins in Omagh in 1998.
 
Last edited:
Allow me to enlighten as to the background of the writer, you might just agree that she is likely to know a lot more about Irish politics than some others including yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Dudley_Edwards

From the small piece about criticising Ken Loach, she also appears to be a typical Daily Mail contributor, preferring to raise herself into a lather of self-righteous outrage and bluster over films which she hasn't even bothered to watch.
 
From the small piece about criticising Ken Loach, she also appears to be a typical Daily Mail contributor, preferring to raise herself into a lather of self-righteous outrage and bluster over films which she hasn't even bothered to watch.

She also contributes to the Guardian and I would suggest that she, as a professional historian, is better equipped than many to know the true facts about Irish Nationalism. I have seen that film by the way and it is so predictable it is just tedious and I speak as the son of Irish immigrants from the auld sod.

I'll never understand why Ken Loach is so revered as his films are almost always just long winded polemical discourses. I might also add that her father was also a distinguished Irish historian but I can't tell you if he wrote for the Daily Mail, no doubt if he did you would rubbish him as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dudley_Edwards
 
She also contributes to the Guardian and I would suggest that she, as a professional historian, is better equipped than many to know the true facts about Irish Nationalism. I have seen that film by the way and it is so predictable it is just tedious and I speak as the son of Irish immigrants from the auld sod.

I'll never understand why Ken Loach is so revered as his films are almost always just long winded polemical discourses. I might also add that her father was also a distinguished Irish historian but I can't tell you if he wrote for the Daily Mail, no doubt if he did you would rubbish him as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dudley_Edwards

Well, as a "professional historian" you'd expect a certain level of professionalism wouldn't you?

Whether Ken Loach's film was predictable, or tedious, i don't know. I haven't seen the film in question and therefore don't consider myself in a position to offer any sort of critique on it. Perhaps if i were a "professional historian" then i'd feel more qualified to do so?
 
Back
Top