FAMILY TIES AND LIES
Ken (NY)
Condit’s common tale.
Mr. Dunphy* is an officer of the Los Angeles Police Department
July 14, 2001 12:00 p.m.
Not quite three weeks ago, my editorial masters at NRO HQ solicited my
thoughts on the Chandra Levy case. I demurred, reasoning at the time
that the matter invited only idle speculation, a surfeit of which was
already erupting across the airwaves and the Internet. Such
speculation did nothing to aid in the search for Miss Levy, but rather
served only to compound the unfathomable grief being borne by her
family and friends. But in the time that has since passed some things
have become clear. Foremost among them, most sadly, is that Miss Levy
is all but certain to have come to harm. I regret adding my voice to
those who would deny the Levys their fleeting hopes that their
daughter will one day be found alive, but she has been missing since
April 30 and the prospects for her safe return have grown dim. Twenty
years in law enforcement have taught me that evil does indeed walk the
world. Chandra Levy, I fear, has become its victim.
But in whose guise has evil come to claim her? The swirling
speculation has thus far focused on Rep. Gary Condit, and not without
considerable justification. When police officers searched Miss Levy's
apartment they found a photograph of her with Mr. Condit, who, when
first asked about his relationship with Levy, characterized it as a
"close friendship." He continued his denials of a sexual relationship
with her until last Friday, when at last he admitted to investigators
that he and Levy had been lovers. He had been steadfast in his denial
of a sexual relationship "to protect his family."
In this belated admission Mr. Condit has followed a script, one
authored by a much more prominent politician. Though I had hoped never
again to write about Bill Clinton, doing so is unavoidable under the
present circumstances, such was his mastery of the self-serving yet
manifestly absurd denial. In denying his affair with Monica Lewinsky,
Mr. Clinton employed — and encouraged others to employ — all manner of
intellectual and etymological contortions, to the point that those who
hoped to unravel the mysteries of the Oval Office had to resort to the
grade-school exercise of diagramming sentences. And when finally
cornered in his own web of lies he reluctantly admitted the truth, but
said he had lied because he wanted to protect his family from the
meanies who so relentlessly hounded him. What it boiled down to was
something similar to this: "I didn't." "I wouldn't." "I couldn't
have." Then, finally, "Okay, I did, but it's none of their business."
So, what of Mr. Condit? Let us put aside for the moment the
speculation that he is somehow responsible for Miss Levy's
disappearance. He may indeed be, as we say in the trade, as clean as a
Safeway chicken. An alternative theory, just off the top of my head,
is that Chandra was done in by some rival suitor, one who became
enraged on learning of her affair with Condit. By denying the affair
as long as he did, Condit prevented detectives from even considering
this avenue of investigation. When responding to a report of a missing
person, investigators must quickly immerse themselves in the quotidian
details of the person's life, so as to make an informed decision on
the direction the investigation may then take. In withholding the
truth about his relationship with Miss Levy, Mr. Condit impeded the
investigation at its most critical juncture.
Every televised update on the Levy investigation is accompanied by
images of Condit briskly walking hither and thither through a phalanx
of reporters, cameramen, and still photographers, presumably in
attendance to his continuing congressional duties. And as he flits
about he seems to be constantly and incongruously grinning, grinning,
and grinning some more, like some Cheshire cat loaded up on lithium.
What in creation, we may ask, has he to grin about? Granted, there is
no evidence to suggest that he has harmed Miss Levy, or even that he
had any role her disappearance. But, at the very least, his behavior
in the matter has been dishonorable, even disgraceful. And in another
echo of Mr. Clinton's White House shenanigans, other women are coming
out of the woodwork to say that they, too, had affairs with Condit,
some of them simultaneously with Chandra Levy. Is it possible that
Mrs. Condit will prove to be as numb to insult as was Mrs. Clinton?
Mr. Condit may not be headed for a criminal courtroom, but some
divorce court must surely await him.
We as a country used to expect more from fathers and husbands, and
even more from those who would serve as our leaders. Nearly every day
of my 20 years as a cop I have dealt with the fallout from the
diminution of the family in American life. This will come too late for
Mr. Condit, but I offer a few words of advice to all the other
intern-grabbers and skirt-chasers out there: The time to protect your
family is before you have the affair. If you can't live up to your
vows then get a divorce. I'm tired of cleaning up after you.
(*Jack Dunphy is the author's nom de cyber. The opinions expressed are
his own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD
management .)
Ken (NY)
--
Chairperson,
Department of Redundancy Department
____________________________________
"Cal Ripkin will be finishing his
career at Yankee Stadium in the
fall. Yankee fans will celebrate
by throwing batteries at his head."
~Jay Leno
No trees were harmed to bring you
this e-Presentation...
For the spam search bots:
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com
Andy Katz
wrote:
>So, what of Mr. Condit? Let us put aside for the moment the
>speculation that he is somehow responsible for Miss Levy's
>disappearance. He may indeed be, as we say in the trade, as clean as a
>Safeway chicken. An alternative theory, just off the top of my head,
>is that Chandra was done in by some rival suitor, one who became
>enraged on learning of her affair with Condit. By denying the affair
>as long as he did, Condit prevented detectives from even considering
>this avenue of investigation.
Wait a sec here, Ken, I know you didn't write this, but clarify one
point for me if you will: does "Dunphy" in his eagerness to bash
Condit (who certainly does deserve some bashing) imply that DC
detectives were bound to believe Condit's denial and not even consider
the "rival" suitor angle until he came clean?
They couldn't, on their own, assume, as did 99.99% of the American
public, that Condit was lying and investigate the rival suitor angle
accordingly?
This isn't a criticism of DC police, btw, it's a criticism of
"Dunphy". He's so eager to pile blame onto Condit that he's asking the
public to believe some rather ridiculous assumptions about the
mentality of police detectives ... then, next month, he'll be back
with another editorial pissing and moaning about how the public lacks
respect for police and where the hell does *that* come from?
Condit has behaved disgracefully from a PR standpoint and from a basic
moral pov. But it's still far from clear that he has in any way
hampered the investigation or endangered Levy.
>the direction the investigation may then take. In withholding the
>truth about his relationship with Miss Levy, Mr. Condit impeded the
>investigation at its most critical juncture.
"It's most critical juncture"? Again, that remains to be seen, but
probably not.
>Every televised update on the Levy investigation is accompanied by
>images of Condit briskly walking hither and thither through a phalanx
>of reporters, cameramen, and still photographers, presumably in
>attendance to his continuing congressional duties. And as he flits
>about he seems to be constantly and incongruously grinning, grinning,
>and grinning some more, like some Cheshire cat loaded up on lithium.
>What in creation, we may ask, has he to grin about? Granted, there is
>no evidence to suggest that he has harmed Miss Levy, or even that he
>had any role her disappearance. But, at the very least, his behavior
>in the matter has been dishonorable, even disgraceful. And in another
That's right. And apparently it isn't enough to consider him a
disgrace, "Dunphy" has to add to real wrongs with imaginary ones.
>We as a country used to expect more from fathers and husbands, and
>even more from those who would serve as our leaders. Nearly every day
>of my 20 years as a cop I have dealt with the fallout from the
>diminution of the family in American life. This will come too late for
>Mr. Condit, but I offer a few words of advice to all the other
>intern-grabbers and skirt-chasers out there: The time to protect your
>family is before you have the affair. If you can't live up to your
>vows then get a divorce. I'm tired of cleaning up after you.
Bullshit.
Does "Jack" really expect readers to believe that powerful men (and
women) having extra-marital affairs is a new phenomenon?
Andy Katz
____________________________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Juvenal
a...@interport.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
Ken (NY)
unpricked by the thorns of reason and logic, uttered the following:
>On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 14:54:00 GMT, Ken4...@usa.NOSPAMnet (Ken (NY))
>wrote:
>
>>So, what of Mr. Condit? Let us put aside for the moment the
>>speculation that he is somehow responsible for Miss Levy's
>>disappearance. He may indeed be, as we say in the trade, as clean as a
>>Safeway chicken. An alternative theory, just off the top of my head,
>>is that Chandra was done in by some rival suitor, one who became
>>enraged on learning of her affair with Condit. By denying the affair
>>as long as he did, Condit prevented detectives from even considering
>>this avenue of investigation.
>
>Wait a sec here, Ken, I know you didn't write this, but clarify one
>point for me if you will: does "Dunphy" in his eagerness to bash
>Condit (who certainly does deserve some bashing) imply that DC
>detectives were bound to believe Condit's denial and not even consider
>the "rival" suitor angle until he came clean?
>
>They couldn't, on their own, assume, as did 99.99% of the American
>public, that Condit was lying and investigate the rival suitor angle
>accordingly?
Like you said, I didn't write it nor will I back Dunphy on
this one. Of course other angles could have and should have been
explored.
>This isn't a criticism of DC police, btw, it's a criticism of
>"Dunphy". He's so eager to pile blame onto Condit that he's asking the
>public to believe some rather ridiculous assumptions about the
>mentality of police detectives ... then, next month, he'll be back
>with another editorial pissing and moaning about how the public lacks
>respect for police and where the hell does *that* come from?
>
>Condit has behaved disgracefully from a PR standpoint and from a basic
>moral pov. But it's still far from clear that he has in any way
>hampered the investigation or endangered Levy.
If you believe the usual "police sources", he certainly did
cause some problems for the detectives by lying about his affair with
the girl. To withold a possible motive is a great example of how to
hamper an investigation. If you believe the flight attendant, Condit
also suborned purjury by interfering with a witness, advising her that
she didn't have to talk to investigators, including the FBI. This
information came later in the investigation and surely put the
detectives on alert. If he would lie to the police and the public and
tamper with a witness to a possible homicide, you have to wonder what
he was covering up and you would question all the rest of his earlier
protestations of innocence.
>>the direction the investigation may then take. In withholding the
>>truth about his relationship with Miss Levy, Mr. Condit impeded the
>>investigation at its most critical juncture.
>
>"It's most critical juncture"? Again, that remains to be seen, but
>probably not.
Condit: "Hey detective, remember that girl I last week said
was only a friend?
Det: "Yes?"
Condit: "I just remembered that I'm f**king her."
>>Every televised update on the Levy investigation is accompanied by
>>images of Condit briskly walking hither and thither through a phalanx
>>of reporters, cameramen, and still photographers, presumably in
>>attendance to his continuing congressional duties. And as he flits
>>about he seems to be constantly and incongruously grinning, grinning,
>>and grinning some more, like some Cheshire cat loaded up on lithium.
>>What in creation, we may ask, has he to grin about? Granted, there is
>>no evidence to suggest that he has harmed Miss Levy, or even that he
>>had any role her disappearance. But, at the very least, his behavior
>>in the matter has been dishonorable, even disgraceful. And in another
>
>That's right. And apparently it isn't enough to consider him a
>disgrace, "Dunphy" has to add to real wrongs with imaginary ones.
>
>>We as a country used to expect more from fathers and husbands, and
>>even more from those who would serve as our leaders. Nearly every day
>>of my 20 years as a cop I have dealt with the fallout from the
>>diminution of the family in American life. This will come too late for
>>Mr. Condit, but I offer a few words of advice to all the other
>>intern-grabbers and skirt-chasers out there: The time to protect your
>>family is before you have the affair. If you can't live up to your
>>vows then get a divorce. I'm tired of cleaning up after you.
>
>Bullshit.
>
>Does "Jack" really expect readers to believe that powerful men (and
>women) having extra-marital affairs is a new phenomenon?
Mr. Dumphy is of course pointing out what should be obvious.
But the advice is valid nonetheless. I am sure that there are a few
elected phooffey-haired politicos out there who are regarding the
young dewy eyed, pouty lipped, miniskirt-clad young interns in their
offices in a different light these days. I am also sure that most
didn't decide to review thier bimbo-banging status because they read
Mr.. Dumphy's article in National Review. One would merely have to
look at what happened to those who committed adultry while in office.
But... Then again, Condit knew what happened to Clinton because of
Monica - a small fine for lying in court - and maybe figured what the
hell?
Sincerely,
Andy Katz
wrote:
> Mr. Dumphy is of course pointing out what should be obvious.
>But the advice is valid nonetheless. I am sure that there are a few
>elected phooffey-haired politicos out there who are regarding the
>young dewy eyed, pouty lipped, miniskirt-clad young interns in their
>offices in a different light these days. I am also sure that most
>didn't decide to review thier bimbo-banging status because they read
>Mr.. Dumphy's article in National Review. One would merely have to
>look at what happened to those who committed adultry while in office.
>But... Then again, Condit knew what happened to Clinton because of
>Monica - a small fine for lying in court - and maybe figured what the
>hell?
Most definitely. Not to mention having no seat to protect for
re-election;-)
Ken (NY)
unpricked by the thorns of reason and logic, uttered the following:
>On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:46:17 GMT, Ken4...@usa.NOSPAMnet (Ken (NY))
>wrote:
>
>> Mr. Dumphy is of course pointing out what should be obvious.
>>But the advice is valid nonetheless. I am sure that there are a few
>>elected phooffey-haired politicos out there who are regarding the
>>young dewy eyed, pouty lipped, miniskirt-clad young interns in their
>>offices in a different light these days. I am also sure that most
>>didn't decide to review thier bimbo-banging status because they read
>>Mr.. Dumphy's article in National Review. One would merely have to
>>look at what happened to those who committed adultry while in office.
>>But... Then again, Condit knew what happened to Clinton because of
>>Monica - a small fine for lying in court - and maybe figured what the
>>hell?
>
>Most definitely. Not to mention having no seat to protect for
>re-election;-)
That is news to me. I understood that he was a shoe-in for
reelction since he usually garnered 60% of the vote. No matter how
this investigation turns out, according to polls, he does not have a
lock on his office anymore.
Regards,
Andy Katz
wrote:
> That is news to me. I understood that he was a shoe-in for
>reelction since he usually garnered 60% of the vote. No matter how
>this investigation turns out, according to polls, he does not have a
>lock on his office anymore.
Really? I'll have to check that out. I thought he'd come up against a
term limit.