Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Sep 29, 2009 in At TMV | 19 comments

Applebaum: I am not my husband’s keeper

Polanski.jpgContinuing our coverage of news surrounding the recent arrest of scumbag, pedophile, child-rapist Roman Polanski, (not that I want you to think your reporter is biased on the story or anything) Paterico is still all over the case. Yesterday we told you of Anne Applebaum’s jaw dropping defense of said child-rapist in which she failed to mention that her husband was working to get President Obama to grant said scumbag clemency. As noted below, we should definitely sympathize with Anne, because she can hardly be expected to know what her husband is up to every minute of the day. Unless, of course, she read the article in her own paper which she linked to when she posted her column.

Click on the link in that last sentence, and you’ll see a Washington Post story that contains the following passage:

Polanski also received support from Poland, where he moved as a toddler and avoided capture by the Nazis, who put his mother to death in a concentration camp. “I am considering approaching the American authorities over the possibility of the U.S. president proclaiming an act of clemency, which would settle the matter once and for all,” said Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, according to the PAP news agency.

Radoslaw Sikorski is Applebaum’s husband.

Yes, Anne Applebaum had absolutely no way to know that her husband would do anything about Polanski — unless, of course, she read all the way to the fifth paragraph of the story she herself linked on the issue.

Meanwhile, more and more people seem to be rushing to the defense of the admitted pedophile, including some who you would think would be most up in arms over it. Hot Air reports:

How low will Hollywood go in defending Roman Polanski? Former Oscar hostess Whoopi Goldberg tries to parse the meaning of rape between rape and something called “rape-rape” — which, if you read the testimony of Polanski’s victim, Polanski literally did by raping her and then sodomizing her. Goldberg tries to argue that Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape, not actual rape, which is true, and that he served a sentence — which is absolutely false:

Follow that link above to watch the simply amazing video of this “defense” taking place. Whoopi was joined by Debra Winger in decrying the shoddy treatment which Polanski is receiving. But aren’t these two women who have been on the forefront of defending women and young girls in our society?

I did some quick checking at “Look to the Stars” which promotes charitable work by celebrities, and Debra Winger is listed as one of their most prominent advocates for women’s issues charities. And what is the fourth most prominently championed organization there? The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And who else is listed as a key supporter on the same page? Why, it’s none other than Whoopi Goldberg, whose profile includes the following:

The comedienne has channeled her celebrity into bringing attention to countless causes including AIDS, children’s issues, healthcare and substance abuse.

So, Ms. Winger and Ms. Goldberg are both prominent activists in the protection of females and children. Unless, of course, the female child in question crosses paths with the great Roman Polanski, in which case, well… you know… we understand they’re all kind of whores at that age, right?

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 The Moderate Voice
  • JeffersonDavis

    Statutory rape versus “rape rape”. Nice, Whoopi.

    When this atrocity happened, child advocacy was much weaker. Items like date-rape and even spousal rape weren’t even talked about. He plea-bargained for Statutory rape. He served no sentence. He should pay for his crimes.

    The fact that Winger and Goldberg defend him is unbelievable.

    Great article, Jazz.

  • stellarjay

    Jazz. great post. HOw can a reporter not know they said what they said, overlooked what they overlooked. Conveniently? Why do this when youre going to be found out. IDefinition of arrogant?

  • archangel

    surprised that Whoopi Goldberg would, as a former welfare mother who knows so difficult stories about living in the world of no power against those who hold the power, of often finding yourself in the absolute wrong place because some creep/ criminal who you didnt know was a criminal/ creep promised to help you in some way… except you didnt realize the price tag….that Miss Goldberg would gloss such matters.

    A thirteen year old girl, naive or precocious, regardless, wouldnt know the price tag to ‘maybe this will help you be in pictures,’ any more than grown women or men would realize what price they’d be made/ forced/ pressed to make for some snippet of dream…in this case a price tag that is assault, rape, sodomy, drug injection. Statutory rape doesnt cover this, does it? That seems like getting a parking ticket for having maimed someone in an auto accident during which one deliberately drove into a person.

  • I don’t think this was statutory rape, though it would not surprise me if that was offered as a plea bargain to avoid prosecution and further traumatizing the victim. The whole thing is deplorable and I hope he is extradited and prosecuted to the max.Then, I hope for the same for torturers and murderers of the Bush regime. Children were raped in Iraq and Afghanistan as well.

    • JeffersonDavis

      “Then, I hope for the same for torturers and murderers of the Bush regime. Children were raped in Iraq and Afghanistan as well.”

      I was there when President Bush was in Iraq. I didn’t see him rape any Iraqi children.

      For ANY person that raped Iraqis or Afghans, they too should be prosecuted. The military has prosecuted every one of those that has been brought to light and tried. As far as torture goes, I am against it because we must maintain the moral high ground to maintain honor. And for murder? War is hell – quite literally.

  • AustinRoth

    I cannot see how this time a backlash against the double standard doesn’t occur. This is vile and repugnant that they would defend his actions in these terms.

  • AR, I don’t get it either. This isn’t a political issue. The creep committed a crime that NO ONE should condone or rationalize.

  • i was out of the country when all of this took place. . .so this has been my first experience of hearing the charges. . .am appalled at the actions of Roman Polanski as i have read actual court testimony of the victim. . .absolutely could not understand why Whoopi or anyone would rush to his defense. After reading Jazz’s article this morning and following the links there was mention of a new documentary, called Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. This doc is available on Netflix so watched it. . .Looks to me there are two very different issues ongoing on with the case. . .One being the actual undeniable callous and repulsive actions of the accused and then just as deplorable are the circumstances of the trial and legal system from many angles. . .truly a case of justice run a muck. . . hope others can watch the documentary and see how many layers have piled up. . . Phew!. . .Whoopi could of made an argument that was supportive of Roman Polanski, but the points she brought up are weak and non-relevant to what could be said in support of Roman Polanski and his experience within the American Justice system. . .”The victim was also in the documentary and one can so readily see why she has throwed up her hands and says, ” I am out of here.”And still after hearing the story of the three different attorneys and how they agreed about the mishandling of the case i think the documentary was mis-named and should of been called, Roman Polanski; Prevented Justice and Perverted Privilege. . .

  • War is hell, yes, but I’m not talking about soldiers (on either side) dying. I’m talking about innocent civilians tortured to death. Just like Roman Polanski should have (and likely did) know it is WRONG to rape a 13 year old girl, our military personnel, CIA and Blackwater thugs know it’s WRONG to shove a broom handle up the ass of a teenage boy, or to torture a taxi driver to death. I don’t want to hijack this thread, but there was no evidence whatsoever against the taxi driver Dilawar, who was found shackled to the cieling, dead, with “deep tissue bruises” on his body. He left home to drive his taxi and never came home to his two year old daughter and young wife. Imagine if it was you, your wife and child. May all those responsible, especially Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Addington, Rumsfeld and the ENTIRE PACK OF WAR CRIMINALS have nightmares for the rest of their lives. In prison.

    • JeffersonDavis

      Once again, Green. We agree 100%.
      Torture is wrong – always.
      Did it save American lives back home? Probably. Is that a valid reason to torture? No. However. (and isn’t there always a “however”?)….. If I were personally in front of a gentleman that had information that could save the lives of my wife and children, I don’t think I would have the self-control to NOT beat him into submission. It’s a catch-22 with me. I’m sure there are many out there that feel the same.

      But at least we agree that Polanski should go to jail. What a scumbag.

      • Anna

        JD: “If I were personally in front of a gentleman that had information that could save the lives of my wife and children, I don’t think I would have the self-control to NOT beat him into submission.”

        As an individual, that is a perfectly understandable feeling. Torture is abhorrent and I agree that there is never a valid reason to torture. The main crux of the torture issue that did occur on Bush’s watch was that it was institutionalized, for probably the first time in American history. Say you, as an individual, are in the situation you describe above and do get the information (if it’s even valid, but that’s another point) from the torture and even if you save not only your wife & children’s lives, but thousands of others, while being a hero you would’ve also committed a crime that you’d have to answer for. For someone to commit the crime for the greater good, that’s a choice they’d have to realize would also carry consequences to their actions (at least, their day in court). Institutionalized torture flaunts the rule of law because it carries no consequences and makes the abhorrent acceptable.

  • daveinboca

    Green Dreams, I got my two cents worth on slightly off-topic thrown off this subject for diverging onto ACORN, Obama & support of child-pedophile immigration. So if what’s sauce for the goose, etc., etc. Saddam had special rape rooms for women who were lined up to meet the Prime Minister & he selected the lucky recipients behind a one-way mirror. Thought at first that’s what you were referring to.

  • Kathy Yoder

    That degenerate… may have pled guilty to statutory rape (which, according to Whoopi Goldberg, isn’t really “RAPE rape”), but according to the girl’s testimony, she said NO to Polanski, every step of the way. I guess if you’re a.. Hollywood producer, with a lot of important Hollywood friends, no doesn’t mean no. Whoopi ought to be ashamed of herself.

  • StockBoySF

    As I understand it statutory rape was the plea bargain. From what I can tell he drugged and raped the girl.

    In the meantime there are people thrown in jail for years for statutory rape which was consensual. For instance a boyfriend who may only be a few months older than his girlfriend and they engage in consensual sex may be thrown in jail and his life pretty much destroyed.

    I don’t see many people, the French, Hollywood types, politicians, etc. rushing to the defense of these people thrown in jail with ruined futures. I don’t understand how they can reconcile their outrage at the treatment that Polanski is receiving with their uncaring of stupid “statutory rape” charges brought against people who do engage in consensual sex.

  • StockBoySF

    Applebaum: I am not my husband’s keeper….

    Love it.

    I can’t help but remember this passage from yesterday’s post by Jazz (in the linked article in his update), written by Anne Applebaum:

    “Last week, the Czech prime minister was roused from his bed after midnight to be informed by the White House of a non-urgent decision many months in the making: the cancellation of the missile defense program. The Polish prime minister refused to take a similar call (and the foreign minister, to whom — full disclosure — I am married, was asleep).”

    She certainly knows what her husband is doing and the decisions he makes in his official capacity.

    Also I was struck by the fact that Anne couldn’t help herself by getting a dig in at the White House. She mentions that her husband refused to take the phone call placed by the White House to inform her husband of a decision concerning the missile shield. She seemed to take a certain amount of glee (or maybe smugness?) in that fact.

    Well, I’m sure that her husband certainly has the right to refuse such a phone call. I’m also sure it happens all the time in capitals all over the world with governments other than the US. But I can bet you that if he found out about the White House’s decision through the media then Anne would be all over Obama for not following protocol and having one of his staffers notify the appropriate authority in the Polish government (in this case Anne’s husband).

    I’ve never much cared for Anne’s columns and I don’t read them. Not sure why, but she does seem as though she has something to prove, and a bone to pick. And she lets it sour the quality of her columns.

  • pacatrue

    While I completely agree with the arrest, the way this may unfold seems to be increasingly ummm depressing? Let’s say Polanski is brought to the U.S. for sentencing finally, as I think he should be. Now, the judge can really assess whether the guilty plea is valid and my understanding is there’s already good indications that it may not be due to behavior of the previous judge. If you throw out the guilty verdict as invalid, isn’t a trial now needed? But it’s going to be really hard to prosecute a trial as there’s little evidence at this point except for the testimony of the victim who herself doesn’t want to go to trial.

    The End.

    He got away with it.

    The only hope for him to do some more jail time is if that guilty plea is not just factually true, as it seems to be, but legally valid — which it may not be. A re-trial seems hopeless.

  • jacqjones

    the people who are jumping to Polanski’s defense need their head’s examined.

    he’s a pedophile who, if convicted of this crime today would spend the rest of his life as a convicted child sex offender.

    but i do have concerns about the lack of interest in what the survivor wants….in fact, i’m hearing almost nothing about her. what the hell? shouldn’t she be who we care about? she’s who was assaulted.

    for more on that, check out here:

  • DLS

    Hollywood is outdoing itself this time with its PR self-immolation (among normal and decent people).

    “Bonus” points for those who not only defend the scumbag but hate The Establishment, rad-lefty-style.

  • DLS

    Torture? Guantanamo? Let’s see. I wrote elsewhere, that maybe ObamaCo can “solve” the problem of closing Guantanamo and do what I’ve written about before (ceding the land back to Cuba) by having the Cuban government take over the prison and the prisoners. Problem solved!

    AND, we could arrange for Polanski not to spend time in the USA, but in — Cuba, at Guantanamo.

    [grin] I hope he doesn’t expect to be given the “Fidel” celebrity treatment there, if that were to happen.

    (Oh, if only…)

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :