Saturday, 28 April 2007


Ken Berwitz

My co-author and friend, Barry Sinrod, has just gleefully posted that an important member of the Bush foreign aid team resigned because --- he used a call girl.  I suppose that must be a joyous event for the left, even if it means a genuinely effective man who did a lot of good in the administration is gone. 

I won't judge his sexual needs.  But I will say this:  The madame who outed him apparently has a long list of political luminaries on her books.  If I were Barry I would wait a bit before that other shoe drops.  Democrats like sex too, and - again - that list is long.

One other thing:  Making one man's use of a call girl into an attack on all Republicans is ridiculous.  I wish Barry would see people as individuals.  Illustratively, I don't blame all Democrats for William Jefferson's being a thief (although I do blame them for allowing him to sit on both the budget and ways and means committees as if nothing happened).

Dana Perino, I feel your pain....

barry sinrod
Gravatar Dana, Dana, Dana it was better being an intern. Now you have to answer all those nasty questions from the adults. Please Tony get well soon.

When in doubt Blame Clinton. Now you have two two two Clintons to blame.

George Tenet can use a job. Offer him yours.

See what's free at


Ken Berwitz

This blog is addressed to anyone who still hasn't firgured out (or still hasn't come to grips with the fact that) Jimmy Carter is in the tank for Jew haters.

Here, from the indispensible Ed Morrissey of, are the particulars:


April 27, 2007
Jimmy Carter, Arab Front Man

Alan Dershowitz has often infuriated conservatives with his liberal ideology and sharp-witted speech. He drew insults by the bucketload for defending OJ Simpson in the mid-90s, when it appeared OJ would require a strong team for an appeal-- before a Los Angeles jury proved that celebrities don't need Dershowitz's services. However, Dershowitz has always remained strong in the war against radical Islam and a stalwart defender of Israel, and as such he has come increasingly into conflict with a man he once admired, Jimmy Carter.

Now Dershowitz has discovered that Carter gets his funding for his pro-Palestinian, pro-Arab positions from very suspect sources:

Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source? And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source. Initially, I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School, Rachael Lea Fish showed me the facts.

They were staggering. I was amazed that in the twenty-first century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up, a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son, hosted speakers who called Jews "the enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a "fable." (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not.

Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard's decision, since it was highly publicized. Yet he kept the money. Indeed, this is what he said in accepting the funds: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." Carter's personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable anti-Semite and all-around bigot. ...

The extent of Carter's financial support from, and even dependence on, dirty money is still not fully known. What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Center have accepted millions of dollars from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by BCCI, a now-defunct and virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter's friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave Carter "$500,000 to help the former president establish his center...[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects."

Wow. I have no great love for Jimmy Carter and think his jeremiad against Israel demonstrates a seriously foolish policy, but I had no idea of the scale of which the Saudis have bought him. There is no doubt that Carter has climbed into bed with some of the worst anti-Semites. Dershowitz points out that Abedi intended his BCCI bank to act as "the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists."

The Arabs seem to have gotten a great deal for their investment. The Carter Center, Dershowitz notes, focuses its human-rights interests almost exclusively on Israel. It also scolds the Bush administration for its approach to the war on terror. Notably absent are any declarations against the Arab world for funding radical Islamist terrorism.

Dershowitz then calls out Carter for his hypocrisy on the impact of money on debate. Carter has argued that certain well-known journalists cannot be trusted to report accurately on Israel because some of their money comes from Jewish sources, although Front Page doesn't link to those statements. However, Carter continues to write books and give speeches about the Middle East without disclosing his financial ties to anti-Semitic Saudi sheikhs.

The professor ends by saying that no one in public discourse has a " lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter." Many of us have known that for years, after Carter's various Logan Act violations and selective outrage. No one makes the case quite as well as Dershowitz. (via TMV)


I am often asked why so many Jews cling tenaciously to the Democratic party, when it celebrates anti-semitic garbage like Jimmy Carter.  And Al Sharpton.  And Pete Stark, and Jim McDermott, and Nick Rahall, and Jim Moran, and Cynthia McKinney, etc etc etc. 

I tell them that Jewish support for the Democratic party is, in my view, increasingly untenable.  But what I think aside, many Jews do not get the message no matter how clearly it is sent.

This is another clarion call.  Wake up.  It's a new day.  The Democratic party is NOT what you remember it to be.  Reality is what it is, even if you nostalgically dream of the past.


Ken Berwitz


Bill O'Reilly serial liar. Each and every day. How does Fox keep him? Fire him

barry sinrod        

On the April 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly denied the assertion by Marvin Kalb, lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and a senior fellow at the school's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, that prior to, and during, "the first year or even two after the [Iraq] war got started, Fox and many other people associated with Fox ... said all kinds of things in support of the war, which were not being borne out by the facts." O'Reilly replied: "No, I didn't. I went on facts and facts alone." In fact, in the lead-up to, and following, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, O'Reilly made several false claims and misleading suggestions regarding the threat posed by Iraq. Notably, O'Reilly repeatedly suggested a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, despite numerous reports undermining this claim.

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi

Prior to the invasion, O'Reilly frequently repeated the Bush administration's claim that Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Both claims -- that Zarqawi had prewar connections to Al Qaeda and that Saddam had a relationship with or harbored Zarqawi -- were discredited following the invasion. However, this did not stop O'Reilly from continuing to cite Zarqawi as proof of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.

In the lead-up to war, O'Reilly frequently pushed the story that, in 2002, Zarqawi had his leg amputated at a Baghdad hospital operated by Uday Hussein, Saddam's son, as evidence of the Iraqi government's complicity with Al Qaeda.. (While O'Reilly repeatedly claimed that Zarqawi's leg was amputated in Baghdad, that particular claim was later debunked. As Newsweek reported in March 2004, Zarqawi may have received medical treatment in Baghdad, but he did not appear to have had his leg amputated.) For instance, during the February 4, 2003, edition of the Factor, he asserted: "If this guy Zarqawi got injured in Afghanistan, had his leg treated in Baghdad, that's an Al Qaeda link right there."

The following day, Powell addressed the United Nations Security Council and discussed Zarqawi at length, claiming that Zarqawi had helped establish Al Qaeda "affiliates" in Baghdad. That evening on the Factor, O'Reilly praised Powell's mention of Zarqawi, stating: "You know, look, I mean if the guy's getting his leg amputated in Baghdad, you know, Saddam Hussein is going to know about it. He's an Al Qaeda big shot coming off the battlefield of Afghanistan. Yes, maybe he made a stop in Tehran, but who -- does that surprise anybody?"

But as The Christian Science Monitor reported at the time, several of Powell's claims about Zarqawi's connection to Saddam appeared not "to be true." According to the Monitor, the "International Crisis Group (ICG), a research organization in Brussels whose analysts are very familiar with the region, has cast serious doubt on the US claims" because "when talking about the Zarqawi network, Powell was referring to 'Ansar al-Islam,' a Kurdish Islamic-extremist group," of which "there is little independent evidence of links between Ansar and Baghdad." Moreover, as numerous news outlets reported in October 2004, a CIA report released to policymakers in August of that year found no conclusive evidence that Saddam harbored Zarqawi or gave him aid. (The Senate Intelligence Committee would later assert in a September 8, 2006, report that Saddam's "regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." The report also noted that "postwar information from an al-Qaeda detainee revealed that Saddam's regime 'considered Zarqawi an outlaw,' and blamed his network, operating in Kurdish-controlled northern-Iraq, for two bombings in Baghdad.")

Further, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, numerous reports published in 2003 and 2004 undermined the idea of any meaningful association between Zarqawi and Al Qaeda prior to the invasion:

  • In a June 22, 2003, article, The Washington Post reported that by the time Bush referred to Zarqawi in an October 2002 speech urging Congress to support a resolution authorizing war against Iraq, "U.S. intelligence already had concluded that Zarqawi was not an al Qaeda member but the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al Qaeda adherents."
  • Citing interrogations of Zarqawi associate Shadi Abdallah, Newsweek reported in June 2003 that "Zarqawi competed with bin Laden for trainees and members."
  • Roger Cressey, a former Clinton counterterrorism official at the National Security Council, was quoted in a June 25, 2004, New York Times op-ed as saying that Zarqawi's training camp in Afghanistan operated "as much in competition as it was in cooperation" with Al Qaeda.

Nonetheless, in 2004 and 2005, O'Reilly continued to claim that Zarqawi's presence in Iraq proved complicity between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, as Media Matters repeatedly noted. For instance:

  • On the May 25, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly stated: "He [Zarqawi] has direct ties to Al Qaeda." Earlier that day on his radio show, O'Reilly had claimed that "after [Zarqawi] was wounded in Afghanistan, [he] went to Baghdad. This is the second Al Qaeda big shot."
  • On the June 3, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly said that "Zarqawi is what, second or third in command of Al Qaeda." The next day on his radio program, O'Reilly asserted: "They've [Europeans who opposed the Iraq war] never heard about Zarqawi, the third in command in Al Qaeda getting his leg amputated in Baghdad."
  • In his September 16, 2004, nationally syndicated column, O'Reilly wrote: "I mean, this guy [Zarqawi] is one of the most vicious Al Qaeda thugs in the world. ... In early 2000, Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan to assume a leadership position in an al Qaeda training camp."
  • On the September 27, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly asserted: "I'm just going on what U.S. intelligence told my researcher face-to-face, that Zarqawi was a major Al Qaeda trainer in Afghanistan, was wounded on the Afghan battlefield, went then for treatment in Baghdad, where he remains, in Fallujah, beheading people. ... I want to make this clear. Zarqawi, according to U.S. intelligence -- and we spoke to them directly, this isn't taken from The New York Times or anything like that -- trained Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That's where he trained them from the year 2002-up, until the invasion of Afghanistan by U.S. forces. He was wounded on the battlefield, then he went to Iraq, where he was treated in a hospital run by Uday Hussein."
  • On the October 5, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly dismissed the CIA's failure to find conclusive evidence that Saddam harbored Zarqawi as "a bunch of nonsense. ...There's no question he was in deep with Al Qaeda." That same day on his radio show, O'Reilly was confused by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's admission that he had seen "no strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam to Al Qaeda because "the Factor did its own independent investigation and the smoking gun is this guy, Al-Zarqawi."
  • During the August 16, 2005, edition of his radio show, O'Reilly again claimed that Saddam had "allowed Ansar Al-Islam, an Al Qaeda affiliate, to exist in Northern Iraq," when, in fact, Saddam had no control over the Kurdish region of Iraq.

Other claims

O'Reilly has also made numerous other false claims relating to the Iraq war, as Media Matters has documented:

  • On the April 27, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly falsely claimed that the Paris Business Review had documented the success of O'Reilly's boycott against France for not sufficiently supporting the United States in its fight against terrorism and in Iraq. According to O'Reilly, "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to 'The Paris Business Review.' " As Media Matters noted, a Media Matters search found no evidence of a publication called the Paris Business Review at the time. Also, contrary to O'Reilly's claim, U.S. imports from France actually appeared to have increased during the time in which O'Reilly conducted his boycott.
  • On the September 27, 2004, edition of the Factor, in response to Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) criticism of Bush's use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished," O'Reilly falsely claimed that Bush didn't say "mission accomplished" during his May 1, 2003, speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, in which Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. In fact, during his speech, Bush said: "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished."
  • On the July 12, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly falsely claimed that the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence on Iraq "says he [Bush] didn't lie" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, the report did not address the accuracy of Bush's public statements regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities.

See what's free at

Ken Berwitz I've already done so. I gave you a WEBSITE where olbermann's lies, distortions, etc. are chronicled every day. I'll do it again. The website is Olbermann is a hard left hack, too cowardly to have people who disagree with him on his show. It's no suprise that a hard leftist would love this, because there aren't ever any of those unpleasant little other sides to contend with. O'Reilly, whether you like him or not, has people who disagree with his views on every day. There's your comparison: A coward who never allows a challenge and a man who allows challenges every time he goes on air. (04/29/07)

Ken Berwitz O'Reilly isn't any favorite of mine. But if you want to go back years and pick out individual things he may have said that were wrong (some may be correct, some may not be -- media matters is hardly a neutral observer here) you better be prepared for the same scrutiny of hard left loonies like keith olbermann. There is a site,, that chronicles his lies every day. And he has a tidal wave of lies to choose from. I wish you would discuss issues instead of constant angry bitter confrontational posts that basically are 100 different ways of saying "GET 'IM". (04/28/07)

sinrod I challenge you to list the lies of olbermann. O reilly is about lies 24/7 and I can print them every single day. Try it with Olbermann In fact I would like to see ONE lie from olberman (04/29/07)


Ken Berwitz
Here are three great pieces of news about the war against terrorism.  Front page quality material. 
See how the media you rely on for news handle them, if they handle them at all.  And if you find that there is little or no coverage, remember that when you see the next daily doom-and-gloom episode.  You're getting one side of the story and not the other.
ITEM:  From the Times of London
The al-Qaeda leader who is thought to have devised the plan for the July 7 suicide bombings in London and an array of terrorist plots against Britain has been captured by the Americans.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a former major in Saddam Husseins army, was apprehended as he tried to enter Iraq from Iran and was transferred this week to the high-value detainee programme at Guantanamo Bay.

Abd al-Hadi was taken into CIA custody last year, it emerged from US intelligence sources yesterday, in a move which suggests that he was interrogated for months in a ghost prison before being transferred to the internment camp in Cuba.

ITEM:  From the Associated Press:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - Saudi Arabia announced Friday that an anti-terrorism sweep netted 172 Islamic extremists and stopped plans to mount air attacks on the kingdom's oil refineries, break militants out of jail and send suicide attackers to kill government officials.

An official said the plotters had completed preparations for their attacks, and all that remained to put the plot in motion "was to set the zero hour."

It was one of the biggest roundups since Saudi leaders began cracking down on religious extremists four years ago after militants attacked foreigners and others involved in the country's oil industry seeking to topple the monarchy for its alliance with the U.S.

ITEM:  From Breitbart
US forces on Friday detained four members of a gang suspected of smuggling armour-piercing bombs from Iran to Iraq and sending back militants for "terrorist training", the military said.

A statement from US command in Iraq said the suspects were picked up in an early morning raid on the east Baghdad suburb of Sadr City, a known stronghold of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.

"The individuals targeted during the raid are suspected members of a secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq," it said.

The EFP is a form of roadside bomb in which the detonation of an explosive charge inside a steel tube causes a copper disk to deform into a fist-sized chunk of supersonic molten metal that can scythe through armoured vehicles.

American commanders say the design is exclusively Iranian and in January alleged that at least 170 US troops had been killed by EFPs since May 2004.

The statement also said that the gang had sent "militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training."


What great news.  What a terrific day for the war that we fight against people who want to end our civilization.  These stories MUST be dominating the media which, we all know, are ever hungry for good news to report as a balance to the bad news they tell us about every day.  Right? 



The hypocrites of the Republican Party strike again. Escort service for 65 yr

barry sinrod    
The moral majority of liars club. The REPUBLICANS have come forth once again with the abrupt resignation of a 65 yr old Bush Administration guy using an escort service.  They love to tell us when to have a baby and when not to abort a baby and all about the family values. They hate gays and preach all of the family
values time and again and it always they who cast the first stone.
 WASHINGTON (April 28) - Randall Tobias , head of the Bush administration's foreign aid programs, abruptly resigned Friday after his name surfaced in an investigation into a high-priced call-girl ring, said two people in a position to know the circumstances of his departure. 
Tobias submitted his resignation a day after he was interviewed by ABC News for an upcoming program about an alleged prostitution service run by the so-called D.C. Madam.

ABC reported on its Web site late Friday that Tobias confirmed that he had called the Pamela Martin and Associates escort service to have women come to his condo and give him massages. More recently, Tobias told the network, he has been using a service with Central American women.

Tobias, 65, who is married, told ABC News there had been "no sex" during the women's visits to his condo. His name was on a list of clients given to ABC by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who owns the escort service and has been charged with running a prostitution ring in the nation's capital.

U.S. officials would not confirm the information. A message left on Tobias' voice mail seeking comment was not returned.

Friday evening, the State Department put out a statement announcing Tobias' resignation, saying he "informed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice  today that he must step down as Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator effective immediately."

"He is returning to private life for personal reasons," the statement said.

Tobias held two titles: director of U.S. foreign assistance and administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development. His rank was equivalent to deputy secretary of state.

Rice named Tobias to head the two programs in January 2006, and on Wednesday was at the White House, where President Bush  praised his efforts coordinating global AIDS relief. Tobias had been the White House's coordinator for global AIDS relief before taking the USAID post.

On Wednesday, Tobias attended a luncheon at the State Department with Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes and actress Angelina Jolie , who was in Washington pushing for more U.S. education aid for developing countries.

Before joining the administration, Tobias was a director and chairman of Eli Lilly and Co., the Indianapolis-based pharmaceutical company..

"The lives saved and made better around the globe by Randy's work at the State Department constitute a rich legacy on which he can look back with justifiable pride," department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday.

Tobias was the second public figure identified as a customer of Palfrey's service. Palfrey recently made good on her threat to identify high-profile clients, listing in court documents a military strategist known for his "shock and awe" combat theories.

See what's free at


barry sinrod
 Calling Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, and Colin Powell, please call the White House we have a new shiny medal for you.  Mr. Tenet has given his back.
 Anyone else want a medal, say something that might look like the truth and you too can get a medal. CYA is also a good way to get one.  Mr. O Reilly from Fox Noise,  instead of your fake peabody award we can give you a Presidential Medal.  Call "Shooter" at his ranch in Wyoming.
See us at Huffington Post  we are hopelesspartisanDEM

See what's free at


Ken Berwitz

Take the global warming test.  You can find it at:

You will be fascinated.  You will be amused.  And, most importantly, you will be educated in a way that will make you shake your head at how badly you've been played by media when it comes to global warming.

Take the test and see.


Ken Berwitz
I came across this snippet on the indispensable website,  The bold print at the end is theirs.  If they hadn't emboldened it, I assure you I would have:

Dan Rather Issues Warning About the Future of News


By Kyle Monson

We sat down with veteran news anchor Dan Rather, formerly of CBS News and now with HDNet, to chat about technology, blogs versus mainstream media outlets, and the value of reporting (and watching) wars in high-definition. Rather also tells us what it's like to have Mark Cuban for a boss.

Q: The trend in news right now is to shrink it down, to put it in smaller clips, and we're watching it in smaller windows on small computer screens. And yet you're broadcasting long-form journalism in high-definition on huge displays for people to watch. Do you feel like this gives the audience a chance to get more emotionally involved?

A: First of all, I think your analysis is correct. One thing that's happening in journalism is that there are pressures to keep it shortas in KISS (Keep It Short, Stupid). There's certainly a place for that. But its gone too far. Ive always believed there's a place for the longer form. I think the advantage to the viewer is when we do a story saying, for example, we want you to know what the war iswhat it really isas opposed to what someone wants you to believe it to be. And we're going to spend an hour showing you in high definition, which is more detailed, more vivid, more in-depth than any pictorial war coverage in history. When we're able to wed good reporting and good writing with the best pictures that have ever been on television, then there is added value for the viewer. For the first time in my career, I can spend every moment of every day concerning myself with the quality of the program, not the quantity of the audience. That's been more liberating than I ever imagined it could be.

Q: Do you see a difference in reporting between TV news and newspapers, newsweekly magazines, or even blogs that don't get into the field as much?

A: Some bloggers do get into the field, and I hope that tribe increases. Good journalism finds a way, whether it's blogging or some other form on the Internet, as opposed to radio, TV, print, and so on. The fundamentals dont change.

Q: Do you agree that new technologies make it easy for bloggers to capture reality and throw it in the face of those who would want to distort it?

A: New technologies can be used to our advantage to speak truth, expose corruption, and increase people's knowledge. But we have to be careful on this new frontierthe Internet, iPods, pictures on phones, and so onto be ever alert to the potential for propaganda.

You cannot beat this for sheer entertainment value. 

First off, Rather tells us that his entire career as a news anchor was compromised by balancing journalism against ratings.  That probably is true and I don't dispute it.  But don't then pretend you are a pure journalist.  When did Dan Rather ever admit that he was compromised DURING his term as the CBS news anchor?

Remember, without the internet, Rather's blatantly fraudulent hit piece on President Bush, based on fake documents that were too juicy to spend any time checking for accuracy, would have stood.  And that fraudulence could quite possibly have turned the presidential election (which, in all likelihood, was the idea in the first place). 

But within hours, a number of bloggers exposed the fact that the typeface of these documents was from a computer, and did not exist at the time they were supposedly written.  Even CBS couldn't look the other way at that point and Rather, along with his producer, Mary Mapes, was unceremoniously dumped as the CBS news anchor -- while the people above him were left in place, of course.  Their motto, evidently, was "The Buck Stopped There".  

Is THAT compromised enough for you?

But now, years later, Rather is still whining about how terrible bloggers (like me and Barry for example) really are.  Y'see, it wasn't Rather's fault that he is a partisan hack who reported a fraudulent story because he wanted the other guy to win.  It is the blogosphere's fault for finding out that he did it.

Will Rather ever just shut up and go away?  Please?

The Debate Mr. Gravel and Dennis the Menace said it all........I love them!

barry sinrod        
As posted on THE YOUNG TURKS......Gravel was certainly the Democratic version of old nutty Mr. Perot. Except he was downright funny and
probably right about everything he said, except mainstream politics is not listening. Same goes for Dennis the menace and his gorgeous...daughter...err redhead wife.
They say it right, really right and really wrong at the same time. As a very liberal Democrat what they say is right on and I wish we had a pair of balls or two to go after the damn felons in the administration. Then we can call in the troops from Iraq to build a special GWB prison in downtown Washington right near the Smithsonian.
Atta boy Dennis and Mr. Gravel.

See what's free at


Ken Berwitz

I am so tired of having media intentionally lead with the worst story about Iraq and then report nothing afterwards, so that readers/viewers think it is the ONLY news.

And I am so tired of daily setbacks being treated as devastating defeats, which should require that we bug out and leave Iraq to the al qaeda insurgents.

World War II was our great victory, remember?  No one ever talks about what the cost was in lives and money, we just won.  No politician on either side of the aisle ever has a bad word to say about World War II.

Taking these three factors into account, I have decided to put up what happened in World War II, on the same day as today, so that we can compare.  I picked 1943, the middle of the war.  Here is a synopsis of what happened in World War II on April 28, 1943:  


In Tunisia... The German 8th Panzer Regiment counterattacks the British forces that have occupied Djebel Bou Aoukaz. American forces make some gains in "Mousetrap Valley."

In the Atlantic... Convoy ONS-5 is attacked by 51 U-boats over the course of a following week (April 28-May6th). It loses 13 ships (out of 42) but 7 U-boats are sunk, 5 are seriously damaged and 12 are slightly damaged. This is considered a successful rate of exchange for the Allied convoys.

How would today's media have reported this news?  What position would they be moving their readers and/or listeners towards, in your judgement?

Think about it.  Then think about how Iraq is reported today.

Consider this the start of a recurring feature. 

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!