Friday, 08 June 2007


Ken Berwitz

John Edwards, the human oil slick, gets more pathetic every time he opens his mouth and panders to and the rest of the LAMBS (Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade).

Try this on for size:  It is an excerpt from his speech yesterday in New York City, as reported by the Associated Press.  Please pay special attention to the paragraph I have put in bold print:-

NEW YORK (AP) - Presidential contender John Edwards on Thursday disputed Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's claim that the U.S. is safer since Sept. 11 and contended GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani will never win if he embraces President Bush's policies.

Speaking on the New Yorkers' home turf - and not far from Ground Zero - Edwards dismissed Clinton's comments in Sunday's debate in which she said the nation is safer now that it was before the terrorist attacks. Clinton's other top rival, Sen. Barack Obama, also has challenged her claim.

"Today, as a result of what George Bush has done, we have more terrorists and fewer allies," Edwards said at a news conference. "There was no group called al-Qaida in Iraq before this president's war in Iraq."

He never mentioned Clinton by name but the subject was obvious.

(AP) Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards is surrounded by members of the media after giving a...
Full Image
Clinton advisers said she had been referring to improvements in domestic and airline security in the wake of the attacks.

Like Clinton, Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, voted to authorize military action against Iraq in 2002 and supported the concept of a global war on terror throughout his 2004 presidential bid. He was quoted during that campaign as saying he believed the country was safer than it had been before Sept. 11.

On Thursday, he said his views had changed as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated.

Edwards also assailed the Republican candidates for their tough talk on Iraq and global terror, arguing that they were trying to be "George Bush on steroids." He singled out Giuliani, the former New York City mayor widely praised for his leadership after the attacks.

"If Mayor Giuliani believes that what the president has done is good ... and runs a campaign for the presidency saying 'I will give you four more years of what this president has done,' he's allowed to do that. He will never be elected president, but he is allowed to do that," Edwards said.

In response, Giuliani campaign spokeswoman Katie Levinson said, "John Edwards' track record of predicting election outcomes speaks for itself."

Clinton's campaign declined to comment, pointing to a statement released by New York Sen. Chuck Schumer after Sunday's debate.

Despite the Bush administration's failures, America's first responders have worked tirelessly over the last six years to make the nation's cities and towns safer," Schumer said. "As a senator from New York, Hillary Clinton is grateful every day for their efforts."  -

There you have it.  Edwards has spoken.  He has endowed us with the product of his great insight.

Now let's think about what he said: 

-Do we have more terrorists now?  Ok, where?  I haven't taken a census of terrorists so I don't know the numbers.  Maybe the human oil slick has.  But I do know that we have not been hit even once since 9/11/01. That is almost 6 years ago.  And I also know that attempts to hit us have been stopped in their tracks during that time.

-Do we have fewer allies now?  If so, maybe Mr. Edwards can explain the elections of Harper in Canada, Merkel in Germany, Abe in Japan, Howard in Australia and most recently Sarkozy in France.  Every one was the most pro-USA candidate running and every one of them won his/her election.  It seems to me that this is not a reduction in our allies, nor in our prestige among the people in those countries.  But, then again, what do I know?  I'm not John Edwards.

-And my personal favorite:  Where was al qaeda before we invaded Iraq?  Forgetting whether or not they had a presence in the country beforehand (maybe Mr. Edwards should google "al-ansar" and do a little reading on the subject) where would he like them to be?  Does he feel cheated that they are fighting us in Iraq instead of at ground zero, in Pennsylvania and in Washington DC, the way they were on 9/11?  Was that preferable? 

In fairness, though I urge you not to take my word for any of this, because I have been wrong about Edwards in the past.  Case in point:  every time I think the human oil slick can't get any smarmier and more dishonest, he proves me wrong. 



Ken Berwitz

Duke Cunningham is a Republican.  He is also a corrupt thief.  He was a congressperson from California.  He resigned in disgrace and is now in jail.

Bob Ney is a Republican.  He is also a corrupt thief.  He was a congressperson from Ohio.  He resigned in disgrace and is now in jail.

William Jefferson is  Democrat.  He is also a corrupt thief.  He is currently a congressperson from Louisiana.  He is not resigning, despite overwhelming evidence that he took bribes (is surveillance video good enough for you?), the discovery of most of the bribe money stashed in his home freezer, and the fact that two (so far) of the people who bribed him have already pled guilty to doing so.

Now we find out that his trial will start in January of next year.  This is over a half a year from now, and will certainly be dragged out so that he can finish his congressional term.

The CCC (Culture of Corruption Crew) in Jefferson's party - Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - are not demanding he resign.  Pelosi is making a few abstract clucking sounds about how if he did something wrong he should be held to account and then changing the subject.  That, it seems, is supposed to cover her.  End of story.

Pelosi, it should be noted, has her own ethics problems - among them the millions of dollars her husband (therefore she) stands to make from a waterfront project that will benefit property he owns nearby.  And that's before we get to her unbelievably shameful screwing of StarKist hourly workers in American Samoa, which I've blogged about before.

Maybe Pelosi is hoping that if she does as little as she can get away with regarding Jefferson, he won't retaliate by talking up her slimy little waterfront deal.  I don't know.  But what I do know is that neither she, nor Reid, is trying to get Jefferson to do the right thing here.  He says he won't resign and they, by their actions, are saying, "okay, we'll play ball".  Evidently any demands for Jefferson to show even the mimimal  integrity of Cunningham and Ney are frozen just as solid as his bribe money was.

The double standard is breathtaking.


Ken Berwitz

The USA is despised, right?   One of the key reasons is that we are greedy, heartless people who don't give enough of our bounty to help others, right?

Well, it turns out that, of the G8 countries that promised all that money to combat AIDS in Africa, the only one which has met and even exceeded its promise is the USA.

And who is the source for this information?  It is Bono, the activist rock singer, along with fellow activist Bob Geldof.  

But Bono committed a cardinal sin:  He came out and said so.  He and Geldof called a press conference and went public with their gratitude to President Bush and the United States for doing what the others talked a great game about, but didn't do at all.

This is big news.  Huge news.  It flies in the face of the relentlessly negative stories we are bombarded with daily about the USA.  So it was on the front page of your newspaper today, right?  It was the feature story on Today, right?  It was.........................

Well, no.  It wasn't.  Bono had the temerity to notice the good works of President Bush and the USA.  He's not supposed to do that.  He should know better. 

Please remember this when the negative bombardment resumes.  If we have something to be proud about, you're probably not going to be getting the full story.

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!!