Sunday, 22 July 2007

DAVID LIMBAUGH DECONSTRUCTS CHRIS MOUTHEWS

Ken Berwitz

David Limbaugh is a columnist (and, yes, Rush Limbaugh's brother).  Here is his latest, which takes apart the arrogant, egotistical, non-stop talking, serial Democratic partisan, Chris Matthews (who I refer to here as Chris Mouthews).  The bold print is mine:.

Chris Matthews' "Misinformation"

David Limbaugh
Friday, July 20, 2007

MSNBC's Chris Matthews appeared on "The Tonight Show" Wednesday night pontificating, mostly, about the Iraq war.

Those who deny the overwhelming liberal bias of the mainstream media and who are pushing the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative talk radio should be required to watch a tape of Matthews' performance.

To a fawning Jay Leno, Matthews engaged in a nearly uninterrupted soliloquy trashing all things Bush, from his governing according to perceived signals from God to his alleged lies about WMD.

Notably ironic, was Matthews' repeated spewing of misinformation in the process of characterizing the administration of disseminating misinformation. They talk about men and women occupying different planets. Perhaps, but at least their planets seem to be in closer proximity than the ones inhabited, respectively, by liberals and conservatives.

Leno jump-started Matthews by asking him about New York Times columnist David Brooks' supposed assertion that President Bush has pursued the war in Iraq because God wills it. "God told him that we should fight this war."

We've heard this bogus charge before. Matthews dutifully responded, "Well, if he was going to play Joan of Arc, we wouldn't have elected him. Getting whispers from heaven is scary business. The guys we're fighting say that, too." Matthews said Bush needed "a little humility." Even Abraham Lincoln, Matthews said, didn't claim to have God on his side in the Civil War.

While I can't prove a negative, I am confident Bush never said that God is on our side in this war though it wouldn't bother me if he had or that God directed him to attack Iraq. He has said he continually prays for divine guidance and reads the Bible every day.

That is wise, commendable and utterly no different from what Abraham Lincoln and many, probably most presidents in our history did.

This is not a distinction without a difference. Matthews is unequivocally implying that Bush has claimed to get his marching orders directly from God and that that is scary as if he's in some kind of spiritual trance. It simply isn't true, and Matthews is distorting the truth in suggesting it is.

Contrary to Matthews' depiction, Bush is exhibiting the ultimate humility in prostrating himself before God to ask for His guidance and blessing. Perhaps Chris has his wires crossed. It's the secular humanist types who are more likely to have too much pride: to believe in God, much less ask for His guidance.

Matthews then began a rant, saying "almost half the American people believe that Iraq attacked us on 9/11. The misinformation, the indoctrination that's going on. And the rest of the American people have gotten so skeptical now do you think the American people believe that the brass didn't have something to do with Abu Ghraib?

"Do you think the American people don't think that we were given a bill of goods to get us in over there? . . . I think we gotta be damn skeptical of this crowd, because on WMD, on the connection to 9/11, on the surge . . . on the torture, on every step of the way we've been given misinformation to the point now, we just did a poll, a fifth of the American people believe we found weapons of mass destruction when we got there. They're still indoctrinated . . . How do we get all this misinformation? From the top, unfortunately. It's a sad thing . . . "

There is no question in my mind that Matthews believes this nonsense he is spewing. I think he's a decent enough guy but he just doesn't think straight. The administration never said Iraq attacked us on 9/11. It never said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida, just that there was a relationship, which there was.

Only grassy-knoll nutcakes and anti-military types believe the "brass" authorized systematic abuse of enemy combatant detainees. I don't deny that many Americans now mistakenly believe, after being bludgeoned over the head with liberal propaganda for years, that Bush lied us into war, as I've said three billion times, but apparently not often enough.

On all of these points and more it is the Democrats and mainstream media who are responsible for the "misinformation."

If two-fifths of the American people believe Iraq attacked us on 9/11, it isn't Bush's fault because he never said that. And if one-fifth of the people believe we found new WMD stockpiles (we clearly did find old WMD), it isn't because Bush said so. Yet Matthews says this "misinformation" came from "the top," meaning Bush. But he knows that Bush has never said we've found WMD there. Never. He's said quite the opposite. This one isn't even arguable.

Unchallenged, even frequently applauded, Matthews "disseminated" his "misinformation" to the audience. It's no wonder people so many people are so woefully misinformed.

Chris, you're not helping. .

Limbaugh's point, of course, is that if you have a biased media that relentlessly feeds a gullible public (i.e. of the belief that because it is in the newspaper or on TV it must be true) one side of the story, over time a good number of them will believe it.  Whether it is true or not becomes immaterial.

As a young researcher/advertising guy I learned that perception is far stronger than reality.  This is a lamentable case in point.

And the one place where this bias does not have a stranglehold, talk radio, is under attack because it isn't fair that the other side has a voice.  You've heard of  "The Fairness Doctrine"?  (You certainly have if you read this blog).  Keep your eyes open and watch the continued attempts to implement it -- not on all media, but on talk radio only.

If it were on all media, the liberal/left/Democrats would be forced to give a voice to the other side.  If it is on talk radio only, the liberal/left/Democrats regain a complete stranglehold on dissemination of their views.

Now:  Which side to you figure they're on?


JIMMY CARTER'S BOY, CHAVEZ

Ken Berwitz

In the last "election", Hugo Chavez won by 59% to 41%.   And jimmy carter assured us this was legitimate.

Interestingly, the exit polls showed the exact vote, 59% - 41%.......but for his opponent.  On the other hand, however, jimmy carter did say the election was legitimate, didn't he?  And who can argue with jimmy carter.

Now Mr. Chavez, that paragon of free elections and diversity of opinion, brings us this (courtesy of the BBC):.

Chavez 'battalions' hold meetings

By James Ingham
BBC News, Caracas

Plans to form a single political party in Venezuela have taken a step forward with the first activists' meetings.

Six million people have signed up to become members of the President's United Socialist Party.

Critics worry about the threat to plurality, but organisers say it will give ordinary Venezuelans more chance to shape the future of the country.

Venezuela's parliament, the National Assembly, is made up purely of politicians who support the president.

But they come from a number of different parties.

Activist battalions

Hugo Chavez is changing that by creating one united party, which he says will be constructed from the bottom up.

Six million people have volunteered to become activists.

They have been formed into battalions. More than 1,000 of these have now met for the first time.

They will choose representatives who will soon take part in a national congress which will decide how the party will work.

However, all this is creating division within the coalition.

Three key parties have so far refused to dissolve their groups and they have expressed concerns that this new style of politics could lead to one way of thinking.

But Mr Chavez says the battalions will be centres of debate which will drive the socialist revolution.  .

Maybe this would be a good time for former president (thank God) carter to issue a statement to the effect that, well, maybe chavez isn't such a great paradigm of democracy and freedom after all.  If he can take time out from bashing the USA and hating Jews, that is.

Don't hold your breath waiting.


ISRAEL'S "PEACE PARTNER" UPDATE

Ken Berwitz

In case you're wondering what Israel's fun-loving palestinian Arab peace partners in Gaza are up to these days, here is an update for you, courtesy of  Arutz Sheva/Israel National News:  .

MK HaNegbi Stops Short of Calling for War on Hamas

by Hillel Fendel

(IsraelNN.com) Two years after Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza, the Chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee says war, or something near it, is inevitable.

MK Tzachi HaNegbi (Kadima), a former Public Security Minister, was responding to the words of a widely-quoted "senior IDF officer" who said that Hamas has become a small army with strong military capabilities.  HaNegbi stopped short of calling upon Israel to attack Hamas, but merely said that it was an inevitable development.  "It's just a matter of time," he said.  "It will occur sooner or later, either as an Israeli initiative, or following a deterioration of the situation unwanted by both sides."

Hamas Army Growing
The quoted senior officer said on Thursday that Hamas had "advanced a generation" of late in its military capabilities.  He told reporters that the Hamas army now numbers 13,000 fighters, and that it had imported 20 tons of explosives through the Rafiah crossing in the past several weeks.  The Hamas arsenal contains Strella shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles, which are "liable to make air actions difficult," as well as "the best weapons there are," the officer said.

Nationalist Members of Knesset warned the 2005 Sharon-Mofaz-Olmert government that removing the IDF from the Rafiah crossing would lead to a mass influx of arms into Gaza, but the warnings went unheeded.

The officer said that at least 400 Hamas fighters had left Gaza via Rafiah for training in Iran in recent weeks.  On the other hand, since Hamas took over Gaza six weeks ago, Israeli forces had carried out some 50 actions to prevent terrorists from entering Israel; 110 terrorists were killed in these actions, 198 were wounded, and 766 were arrested, including 47 on the wanted list.

MK HaNegbi, who has also served as Minister of Justice, Health and the Environment, said that Hamas's strengthening is no secret.  He noted that the relative quiet being maintained by Hamas against Israel is designed only to serve its own interests, in order that Israel not respond in kind.  He said that Hamas is using this period to train and arm, though he noted that the IDF is also preparing and studying the mistakes it made last year in Lebanon.

Eygpt Ignoring Obligations
HaNegbi said that Egypt has no interest in fulfilling its obligations to prevent smuggling from the Sinai into Gaza via Rafiah, despite the agreement it signed with Israel to this effect when Israel withdrew. 

Some fears have been raised that war with Hamas could exact heavy IDF casualties and many Kassam rockets at the Negev.  Despite the dangers inherent in delayed action against the Hamas military build-up, at least one high-placed military officer says that the most he can recommend at present is an intense attack on various Hamas headquarters and top officials.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Friday that he cannot promise that Israel's border with Gaza will not soon look like Israel's border with Lebanon prior to last summer's war.  Despite this, he has no intention of ordering a major ground assault in Gaza.  It is felt that the shadow of the Winograd Commission, expected to release a scathing report criticizing Olmert's haste in going to war last year, is a factor in Olmert's hesitation to take the offensive.

On Sunday morning, IDF forces shot and killed two Hamas terrorists near a former Jewish community in the northern Gaza Strip.  The terrorists were approaching the security border fence and were carrying grenades and guns.  .

Lovely.  hamas is a terrorist organization that specifically states its dedication to the ending of Israel via killing its Jews, with copious help from Egypt which is happy to look the other way on their behalf.

Now, it seems clear, they are preparing an attempt to do just that, with the blessing of the palestinian Arab population.  The population MUST be in favor of it because they voted hamas into a majority position in their government -- before hamas decided to just take it over entirely.

Simply stated, any time Israel decides enough is enough and Gaza has to be vanquished, they have every right to do it.  There is no doubt the world would condemn Israel if they do.  And what of it?  The world condemns Israel for everything anyway.

I pity the Gazans (and I'm absolutely sure there are some) who wish nothing other than to live and let live.  Their problem is that they live within a population that is begging to be taken out.  And if Israel sees this as an "us or them" choice, believe me taken out they will be.


WHY WE DEPEND ON FOREIGN OIL

Ken Berwitz

Why do we depend on foreign oil - more often than not from countries who hate us and who we dramatically enrich with our oil purchases?

Well, if you think it's because we NEED this level of dependency on their oil, think again.  We don't.  Please read this commentary from Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Institute, which I found in today's Washington Times.  It is an eye opener:.

Untapped oil supplies
July 22, 2007
Ben Lieberman -

Has the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries infiltrated Congress? If so, that sure would explain the latest energy bill.

Make that the anti-energy bill. Both the already-passed Senate version and the upcoming House one are bad enough for what they do contain. But they're worse for what they don't even one drop of additional domestic oil.

America remains the world's only oil-producing nation that has placed a significant amount of its reserves off-limits. Yet the lawmakers behind these misguided "energy" bills seem more than happy to keep it that way.

Make no mistake, there is still plenty of oil to be found here. A recent Interior Department study estimates 21 billion barrels of oil lie untapped beneath federally controlled lands, mostly in the West and Alaska. That equals 30 years of current imports from Saudi Arabia.

There's a lot of natural gas as well. Unfortunately, the department found "just 3 percent of onshore federal oil and 13 percent onshore Federal gas are accessible under standard lease terms." In other words, only this tiny percentage of energy can be produced without serious legal or regulatory impediments. Some of the rest is accessible, but only if energy companies wade through all the red tape.

Most disturbing of all, "51 percent of oil and 27 percent of the natural gas are presently closed to leasing" or completely off-limits.

Granted, few Americans want unrestricted oil and gas wells in our treasured national parks or historical sites. However, the current drilling restrictions go well beyond any such reasonable limits. This is especially true given advances in drilling technology that have dramatically reduced both the above-ground environmental footprint and the risk of spills.

A companion Interior Department report on offshore oil is much the same. About 19 billion barrels of oil sit below the 85 percent of our territorial waters where drilling is not allowed. It's worth noting that as with the onshore estimates these initial energy inventories usually prove to be on the low side.

Granted, America's untapped oil is not nearly enough to end imports from hostile regimes. But it is enough to reduce them. As things now stand, however, imports are gradually increasing, from less than 40 percent during the Arab oil embargo days of the 1970s to more than 60 percent today, and still rising.

More American drilling is a partial solution to our energy challenges. We should be doing all we can with sensible environmental safeguards to maximize domestic output. Producing extra barrels of "Made in America" crude would enable us to lower prices and to compete with imports.

However, congressional efforts to reduce the restrictions on domestic energy production have fallen short in previous years. And now the new Congress isn't even trying. The Senate energy bill does nothing to lift existing restrictions, and the House version wants to add new limits. For example, the House seeks several more layers of red tape for a regulatory process already the slowest of any energy-producing nation, effectively placing additional oil off-limits.

Of course, OPEC hasn't infiltrated Congress. Why would it want to? Surely America's current domestic energy policy suits it just fine.
.

Why is it that, what our enemies don't do to us, we seem so willing to do to ourselves?


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, 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!!