Saturday, 19 May 2007


Ken Berwitz

Here is Ed Morrissey, from the invaluable website, analyzing the latest "palestinian cease-fire" and what's really going on over there.  As usual, he is right on target.  Thanks Mr. M:-


The two major Palestinian factions reached yet another cease-fire in their slide towards total civil war in Gaza this morning. Mahmoud Abbas reached out to international Hamas head Khaled Mashaal, who directed Hamas to negotiate with the Fatah leader:

Negotiators from the rival Hamas and Fatah movements reached a new cease-fire deal Saturday, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said.

The agreement was worked out in a meeting at the Egyptian Embassy in Gaza, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the matter with reporters.

Previous agreements reached in the past week of deadly factional fighting quickly collapsed, and it was not clear if this one would hold. Under the new truce agreement, both sides pledged to pull their fighters off the streets and to exchange hostages later Saturday.

Of course, we've seen these cease-fires before, and they usually last long enough to get more ammunition to the street fighters. While the opening salvos of this latest war between the two groups showed high-level command and real tactics when Hamas attacked the Karni crossing and the presidential compound, it has descended into gang warfare on the streets. It's questionable whether those foot soldiers have enough discipline to stop shooting at each other for longer than that, now that the hostilities have broken out in a real way.

Hamas has other reasons to seek a peace besides altruistic desire for unity with the rest of the Palestinians. Shortly after launching their war against Fatah, they also attacked Israel in an attempt to gain the sympathy of the people of Gaza. They wanted to use an Israeli invasion to motivate the Gazans to rally to the Hamas banner, and even attempted to paint Fatah as collaborators ahead of time.

Israel didn't bite. Instead of the full-scale invasion Hamas thought they'd get, Israel has used some good intel to selectively hit only Hamas assets in the field. Hamas has complained that Israel is playing favorites -- I'm not kidding about that -- but it has taken the steam out of the Hamas offensive. Israel's response to Hamas' accusations can be summed up thusly: We don't care who wins as long as it's not Hamas:

A series of Israeli air strikes has driven Hamas fighters out of their bases and prompted accusations that Israel is helping Fatah.

Peretz insisted Israel is not interfering in the internal fighting. However, he also said that "we certainly would like the moderate forces to emerge with the upper hand," a reference to Fatah.

Fifty people are dead in Gaza. What services they had have come to a standstill. Garbage piles in the streets, commerce has shut down until this morning, food and supplies can't come through the crossings; it's a self-imposed catastrophe. While their people starve, Palestinian leadership try to kill Palestinians; while their infrastructure collapses, theie engineers try to squeeze more yardage out of their Kassams. This is what happens when a protostate puts terrorists in charge.

Think they've learned anything yet?



Ken Berwitz

Unlike a good many others in the blogosphere, I do not consider the Associated Press (AP) an organization that second-naturedly takes the leftward side in its reportage.  I acknowledge it does so often, the organization's hands are by no means clean in this regard.  But to be honest, my biggest problem with the AP is that media which subscribe to them (which is to say just about everyone) cherry-pick their stories so that just one side gets out. 

In this instance, however, the AP is absolutely guilty as charged.  Please read this story, which I assure you is sanitized into a tiny fraction of the horror these two innocent young people were subjected to, and I'll show you why:


Bloggers say media coverage is unequal

Postings claim news outlets refuse to cover case of crime against whites by blacks.


KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - In a powerful demonstration of the way the Internet has opened up the mainstream media to intensive second-guessing, bloggers are charging that news outlets have ignored the rape and murder of a young Knoxville couple because of the racial implications of the story.

The two victims were white; the five defendants are black.

The critics include mainstream conservatives, such as the National Review, and white supremacists. They have drawn comparisons to the Duke lacrosse rape case and wondered why the killings of Channon Christian, a 21-year-old University of Tennessee student, and her 23-year-old boyfriend Christopher Newsom are not getting the same attention from what the bloggers regard sneeringly as the liberal media.

"Oh, thats right, the victims were WHITE!" several conservative blogs have observed.

Local media in Knoxville have covered developments in the carjacking case since the bodies were found, and The Associated Press transmitted stories nationally.

"The Internet has been basically chastising the mainstream mediasince the Internet opened up," said Aly Colon at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg.

Christian and Newsom were last seen Jan. 6. They were carjacked as they were leaving a friend's apartment. Newsoms shot and burned body was found the next day along the railroad tracks, and Christians corpse was discovered two days later in a trash can at a house rented by one of the defendants. Both had been sexually assaulted. Household cleaner had been poured in her mouth to remove evidence, according to court records.

Some Internet postings have suggested the killings should be treated as a hate crime. But Police Chief Sterling Owen said: "We have no evidence to support the notion that this was a race-based crime. We see this as a cold-blooded murder." -

Ok, let's start with the obvious.  Five Black men carjacked a White couple, then raped, tortured and killed them (the torture part was left out by the AP.  I will detail it further on).  Suppose Five White men had done this to a Black couple?  Do you have any doubt, even 1/10th of 1%, that this would be reported in racial terms?  Of course not.

Now let's think about the passage I put in bold print:  The critics include mainstream conservatives, such as the National Review, and white supremacists.  What is the AP communicating to you?  That there is an equivalence in status and in position of mainstream conservatives and White supremacists, that's what.  They are put in the same boat. 

Yes, it is true that mainstream conservatives sometimes have opinions similar to those of White Supremacists.  It is also true that Hitler believed in paper currency and street lights.  That didn't make him equivalent to the Allies, did it?  The fact that some people coincide on individual issues is fool's gold when it comes to comparisons like this.

Did you ever see any dispatch from the AP that said "the critics include mainstream liberals, such as the New York Times, and communists?"  Nope, and I doubt that you ever will.  This phony baloney comparison is on a decidedly one-way street.

Finally, just so you would make less of it, the AP was nice enough to omit the actual details of what happened to these two young people.  Reading it makes a decent person's stomach crawl.  It is unspeakable that anyone would have to live through it.

  Here are the details, from James H. Lilley of (there are numerous other sources as well).  WARNING:  If you can't take genuinely gut turning sickness, don't read it - this is not meant rhetorically, you really shouldn't:-

On Saturday January 6, 2007 Hugh Christopher Newsom, age 23 and Channon Gail Christian, age 21, both students at the University of Tennessee went out on a date.

They were driving in Channons Toyota 4-Runner when they were carjacked at gunpoint. Suddenly the crime turned far more savage than an armed car theft. Chris and Channon were kidnapped and driven to 2316 Chipman Street where they were forced into the home at gunpoint. While Channon was forced to watch, her boyfriend was raped prison style and then his penis was cut off. He was later driven to nearby railroad tracks where he was shot and set afire. But Channons hell was just beginning. She was beaten; gang raped repeatedly in many ways, had one of her breasts cut off and bleach poured down her throat to destroy DNA evidenceall while she was still alive. To add to Channons degradation the suspects took turns urinating on her. They too set her body afire, apparently inside the residence, but for some reason left her body therein five separate trash bags. -

Remember when Don Imus's description of Black members of the Rutgers' women's basketball team as "nappy-headed ho's" was first page news for over a week?  This racial incident is 1,000,000 times worse.  It happened almost a HALF YEAR AGO.  And there has been virtually no news about it outside of the local area.  Sad to say, the most logical reason is that the colors of the people involved were in the wrong order. 

Racism takes many forms.  And one of them is altering news coverage based on who is White and who is Black.  This, to me, is a classic example.


Ken Berwitz

The Bush administration has about a year and a half to go.  All of it will be with a Democratic opposition congress that, obviously, is not going to sign off on any partisan initiatives it proposes.  Frankly, Reid and Pelosi-Ricardo seem determined to do as little as possible even on issues that are not partisan - or shouldn't be.

If that were the end of the political gamesmanship it would be reasonably fair and reasonably predictable. It's how the game is played.  But there is a lunatic left mega-moonbat brigade out there that cannot sleep at night unless they are attacking someone or something to their right (which is to say just about everyone and everything).  To this end, they are desperately seeking a way - any way - of impeaching President Bush. 

Let me say at this point that impeachment is certainly legal and certainly reasonable if impeachable offenses have been committed.  For example, four articles of impeachment were brought against President Clinton.  (Given the ignorance and dysinformation about Clinton's impeachment, it is possible that some readers must think this means he was charged with getting four blow jobs from Monica Lewinsky.  If so, I urge you to finally, at long last READ the articles of impeachment and see if you can find anything about sex of any kind in them.  Trust me, you can't).

But the reality that these people can't seem to come to grips with, is that there isn't actually anything President Bush has done that is impeachable.  Yawping out things like "he lied about Iraq" may be good for the mega-moonbat soul, but most of the "lies" they refer to are actually their own, not President Bush's.  Illustratively, Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat.  The "16 words" in his state of the union speech about Iraq attempting to buy yellowcake uranium were absolutely true (the first five were "The British Government has learned...." -- that's a little something these looney-tunes don't want you to know).  The "Downing Street Memos" ended as an issue the second someone asked to see the original copies.  They apparently are being held with the proof that Bush missed a couple of National Guard meetings 35 years ago, etc. etc. and so on.

With this in mind, Here is a commentary from which talks about what lengths this bunch would go to for impeachment.  It is both laughable and pathetic.  I urge you to not only read it for the entertainment/amusement value, but please, please click on the link at the end and see just how full-moon crazed these people are:


Leftwing Blogosphere Desperately Grasps At Yet Another Impeachment Straw

Posted by P.J. Gladnick on May 19, 2007 - 08:24.

As the clock ticks down on the Bush administration, the leftwing blogosphere is becoming ever more infected with impeachment fever to often comedic effect. In just the past week there have been almost 5 dozen Daily Kos threads on the topic of impeachment alone. Most of these impeachment threads lack the vital element of legal grounds for impeachment so the leftwing nutroots have to be very creative to justify this course of action. The latest of the leftwing grounds for impeachment is a real doozy: Bush did NOT lie. I kid you not. When Bush was asked by a reporter if he sent his chief of staff and legal counsel to ailing Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room in March 2004 to sign a reauthorization of an electronic surveillance program, he anwered that it was an important program. And now the nutroots are running with the notion that Bush's non-lie is grounds for impeachment as can be seen in many of the comments in this Daily Kos thread,  WE GOT HIM!!!

Let history record that Kelly O'Donnell of NBC News was the first journalist to ask George W. Bush the question that will end his presidency.

We need to halt the nation's business until we get an answer to this question.

The beginning of the end for him, to directly lie to the people. People get pissed. Bush left it unsaid, which is good enough for good 'publicans.

Bush did not lie - he stuck out his tongue, said, "I'm not gonna answer, and you yellow-bellied Dems can't make me do it, because you can't make me do anything," and that is good enough for the Republicans.

Congress is perfectly entitled to draw an adverse . . . inference from that evasion/non-answer.

Back in 1998, liberal legal scholars were claiming that perjury is not gounds for impeachment. However, now that Bush is President, liberals are now saying that NOT lying is grounds for impeachment.  This premise is not only prevalent in the Daily Kos but in much of the leftwing blogosphere as well. Despite the initial enthusiasm for this bizarre premise, it now looks like the left will have to start looking for another impeachment straw to grasp at. It seems the enthusiasm for impeachment over a non-lie that was at fever pitch on Thursday has already started to wane.  

This Daily Kos impeachment straw thread has over 600 overenthusiastic replies but if you want to see just the comedic gems harvested from their latest impeachment fever frenzy, check out the DUmmie FUnnies.


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!!