Friday, 17 August 2007

CHARLES JOHNSON ON THE GLORIFICATION OF SUICIDE/HOMICIDE BOMBERS

Ken Berwitz

Charles Johnson is the gentleman who is kind enough to give us www.littlegreenfootballs.com, a genuinely valuable website.  One of his specialties is uncovering reality as it applies to palestinian Arabs and their leaders. 

For this, of course, he is reviled and despised by the hard left.  Most of that crowd hateS Israel at least as much as the USA.  But courage is not Mr. Johnson's short suit, and he continues to provide information that a vast majority of mainstream media do not consider important enough to publish.  Hey, why should we know the truth about Israel's "peace partner" anyway?

If you think I exaggerate, here's an example.  If you read this in your paper or saw it on the network news please assume I've made a retraction and have apologized.  Of course you haven't, so I'm not too worried about that.:

'Moderate' Palestinians Name Soccer Tourney After Murderer

Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 8:20:33 am PDT

The "moderate" terrorist government of Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party has named a children's soccer tournament in the West Bank after a mass murderer.

A school in the West Bank town of Tulkarm this week organized a soccer tournament named after Ziyad Da'as, a Fatah terrorist, Palestinian Media Watch reported on Thursday.

Da'as planned a 2002 attack in Hadera in which a gunman opened fire with an M-16 rifle at a bat mitzva, killing six and wounding 30.

He was also behind the kidnapping and murder of two Israelis in Tulkarm in 2001. Daas was killed in an IDF operation in August 2002.

Reporting on the tournament, Al Hayat hailed Da'as as "one of the brave people of the Palestinian resistance, whom the Israeli occupation forces assassinated in cold blood."

The Palestinian daily reported that the tournament took place in a Palestinian school and that the committee that organized the tournament thanked the school administration "for providing the means for its success."

Lets give them a state! .

Remember this when you are told what a "moderate" Abbas is and that Fatah is a "moderate" organization.  He isn't and it isn't.

Fatah is "moderate" only in the context that Mussolini was "moderate" - if you compared him to Hitler.   But that is not my reckoning of what the word means, and I suspect it isn't yours either.

Moderates, to me, are people somewhere in the middle, not people filled with hate who celebrate and glorify violence.  Fatah is filled with hate and celebrates and glorifies violence.  That pretty much says it all.

You cannot negotiate with, make peace with or coexist with a group that wants your country vaporized and you dead.  And a group which glorifies suicide/homicide bombers who act on behalf of those goals is no peace partner.  Period, end of story.


SUCCESSES IN IRAQ: HAVE YOU HEARD?

Ken Berwitz

Here is an editorial from the New York Post regarding our recent successes in Iraq.  I intentionally held off posting it for two days to give your favorite newspaper or commercial TV or cable TV show time to report it along with the Post.  Did they?.

GOOD NEWS FROM IRAQ

August 15, 2007 -- News out of Iraq continues to be encouraging: High-profile attacks have fallen nearly 50 percent since the start of the troop surge, USA Today reported this week.

Gen. David Petraeus, commanding the war in Iraq, says hundreds of al Qaeda fighters were killed or captured in just the past month alone.

Tips about the enemy are up fourfold over the last year - to some 23,000 a month.

"Tribes and people are starting to stand up and fight back," said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, deputy commander of the U.S. division north of Baghdad, in the USA Today report. "They are turning against al Qaeda."

It's a sign of the preliminary success of a number of operations now under way, as troop strength has finally reached the maximum planned by the surge.

To think that just a month ago, Democrats were trying to pull the plug on Iraq.

Maybe they feared exactly what is happening: The tide in Iraq seems to be turning in America's favor - and that spells bad news for the Dems, who've pinned their own political fates on the White House failing in the war.

Democrats aren't the only ones who have suddenly gone mum: Little by way of saber-rattling has been heard from the mullahs' motor-mouth in Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The shifts, in rhetoric and on the ground, could portend, well . . . anything.

The enemy may be laying low, figuring they can't bear - at the moment, anyway - the high cost of additional attacks and confrontations.

Or they may be re-arming for a major offensive.

Surely they've by no means ended their violence completely, even temporarily: Yesterday, suicide bombers killed at least 175 people and wounded 200.

But Coalition forces aren't letting up, either: This week, they launched a third major campaign, Operation Phantom Strike, aimed at disrupting al Qaeda and Iranian-backed operations.

The verdict is still out on Iraq. Far-left Democrats may yet force a premature pullout.

But Americans can hope for the best. There's no reason to cut this war short.

.

If you've seen this information elsewhere, I'm very pleased.  You certainly won't have any problem finding negative news about Iraq, so it means you're getting both sides.. 

If you haven't seen this information elsewhere, then ALL you're getting is negative news about Iraq, even when positive news exists.  That is not at all pleasing to me.  And it shouldn't be any more pleasing to you. 

News media are supposed to provide all sides of the story, not just one.  When they intentionally provide only the side that is most negative toward their country, it's hard not to conclude that it is what they are rooting for.


GUEST COMMENTARY: ED MORRISSEY ON BARACK OBAMA

Ken Berwitz

Ed Morrissey, of www.captainsquartersblog.com/ has written a fact-filled, very well thought out piece, which harshly judges Barack Obama.  I'm not sure I agree with Morrissey on how badly the senator from Illinois has hurt himself, but I'm not so sure he's wrong either. Quality analysis is quality analysis. Take a look and see what you think:.

Are The Wheels Coming Off For Obama?

The primary campaign has turned into a very long dance for Barack Obama, who seems determined to prove at every opportunity that he has two left feet. In New Hampshire, Obama told a crowd that the US military effort consists mainly of "air raiding villages and killing civilians" -- which his tone-deaf campaign confirmed moments later to reporters (via The Corner):

Obama defended his push to prosecute a tougher military effort to root out al-Qaida on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, which drew criticism from primary rivals for sounding too bellicose.

Now you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so weve got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there, Obama said.

Campaign spokesman Reid Cherlin said Obama was not endorsing the current Bush policy, which consists solely of air raids and bombing of civilians.

The NATO troops in Afghanistan would beg to differ. They don't have a policy of bombing civilians, and the ground troops play a very important role in defending Afghanistan's villages from the depravities of Taliban control. Perhaps Obama can explain his analysis of military strategy and tactics to the ground troops that get wounded in these battles -- or to the families of the dead soldiers who died holding ground against the radical Islamists.

In fact, as posited by the Obama campaign, such a strategy would amount to war crimes. This sounds perilously close to the same kind of accusations that Vietnam War veterans faced when they came back from their service -- that they indiscriminately wiped out villages, killing women, children, and babies. And Obama offers this as a defense of his previous pronouncement that he would invade Pakistan as a positive step, presumably as an improvement on indiscriminate attacks on villages in Afghanistan.

Obama started this primary campaign looking like a man with a future in the Democratic Party. His asinine pronouncements on military affairs and foreign policy now make him look like someone drowning in two feet of water. Besides having a nice voice and a pleasant disposition, the man has nothing to offer. He's an empty suit, a man who doesn't engage his brain before activating his jaw.

Another part of his speech provides an example. He claims that he will settle the Iraq War by having Saudi Arabia and China occupy Iraq. How exactly will the US convince China to send troops to Iraq -- and why would the Iraqis want the Chinese there at all? Why would we want to put Chinese troops in the center of the Middle East, with all of the critical energy interests we have there? And while some Sunni Iraqis might consider Saudi troops as allies, the majority Shi'ites will see it as another Sunni attempt to dominate them. They would almost certainly appeal to Teheran for troops, and the regional war would flash into existence.

Does Obama think before making these statements? Does he think at all? He's not just blowing his chances in this election, but he's making an argument for his long-term exclusion from any position with foreign policy or military issues under his control.

UPDATE: The AP's Nedra Pickler tries to run interference for Obama with a ludicrous "fact check," which requires its own fact check. I provide it here. .

This is what happens when you take someone absolutely unqualified to be president with exactly no experience on a national stage, other than to smile nicely and speak articulately.  (Yes, Obama is articulate.  If that makes me a racist, next time I'll try saying he's INarticulate and see what I'm called).

I disagree with Morrissey to the extent that I think Obama's status as a potential national candidate is still relatively intact.  But he certainly is skating on very, very thin ice.

Maybe Obama should talk less and learn more.  No matter how articulate he is.


KYOTO: DESPOILER OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Ken Berwitz

Here, from www.newsbusters.org, is another piece of vital information that you must be aware of to know what is going on.  And, as we've seen in so many other cases, it is information that mainstream media are withholding from you because it cuts into their political model.

Read the article below, and you are sure to be informed in a most uncomfortable way:.

A Really Inconvenient Truth: Kyoto Protocol Destroying Ozone Layer

By Noel Sheppard | August 15, 2007 - 11:01 ET

Here's something the mainstream media are guaranteed to ignore: "The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says."

Didn't hear about this? Well, how could you, for although Reuters published its article on the subject Monday, no other mainstream press outlet thought it was newsworthy.

Not one!

Alas, there were even more worrisome revelations in this Reuters piece that folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio would find very inconvenient if media actually did their job and reported them (h/t Benny Peiser, emphasis added throughout):

In addition, evidence suggests that the same projects, in developing countries, have deliberately raised their emissions of greenhouse gases only to destroy these and therefore claim more carbon credits, said Stanford University's Michael Wara.

At the heart of the clash is a carbon trading scheme under Kyoto, worth $5 billion last year, whereby rich countries pay poorer ones to cut greenhouse gas emissions on their behalf, called the clean development mechanism (CDM).

The most popular type of project has been to destroy a potent greenhouse gas known as HFC 23, one of a family of so-called hydrofluorocarbons, in China and India.

The problem is that HFC 23 is a waste product in the manufacture of a refrigerant gas which damages the ozone layer, called HCFC 22, and chemical plants have used their CDM profits to ramp up production.

"This is certainly one of the major drivers now in the increase in production of HCFC 22," Rajendra Shende, director of ozone issues at the United Nations Environment Programme, which administers the Montreal Protocol, said on Monday.

For those unfamiliar, the Montreal Protocol was a treaty first created in 1987, and eventually signed by 191 nations, to phase out the international production of substances known to cause ozone depletion. As such, it appears the Kyoto Protocol is stepping on the toes of the Montreal Protocol, and media couldn't care less.

Nor are they interested in the carbon credit scam this has spawned:

CDM projects which destroy HFC 23 are especially lucrative because the gas is 12,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), although its overall contribution to climate change is far less because CO2 is much more common.

As a result, destroying HFC 23 spawns far more money-spinning carbon credits than any other way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

The environmental credentials of HFC 23 projects are further undermined by evidence that chemical plants in China have deliberately "tuned" their factories to produce more of what should be a waste product, to make more money under CDM.

Chemical plants participating in CDM make twice as much HFC 23 as a proportion of the actual end product refrigerant than those in rich countries which can't participate in the scheme, said Michael Wara, research fellow at Stanford University.

"It doubles the flow of carbon credits, but there are real questions whether it's hot air," Wara said. The carbon credits are being used as carbon offsets to allow companies to continue to produce greenhouse gases in Europe.

"They've tuned the plants to double the amount of HFC 23 you would normally produce, for example in Europe or the United States. All CDM participant plants came in at 3 percent (HFC 23 versus HCFC 22), the Kyoto Protocol maximum, versus 1.5 percent in countries that can't participate in the scheme."

Add it all up, and you find that the ozone layer is being negatively impacted while developing nations like China increase their emissions of GHGs only to get rich selling carbon credits to companies in Europe so that they can "offset" the GHGs they're releasing into the air.

Put more simply, GHG emissions are actually increasing as a result of all this, while the ozone layer is being destroyed.

Any questions as to why our media won't report this? Wouldn't a truly "green" media trying to advance truly "green" concepts want to disseminate information concerning flaws in the Kyoto Protocol that are actually having a negative environmental impact? Isn't that newsworthy?

Or, is the environment really much less important to our press representatives than advancing the manmade global warming myth along with socialist economic "solutions" they deem are beneficial in the long run regardless of the apparent lack of environmental benefit?

As the latter seems likely, it appears media are taking quite a Machiavellian approach to their journalistic responsibilities, wouldn't you agree?

How disgraceful..

Why do I call this knowledge "uncomfortable"?  Because if you dare mention it to any PC acquaintances, the ones who "know" that Kyoto and Al Gore were going to save the planet, they are almost certain to react as if YOU were the one who doesn't get it, not them.

If you go against Kyoto or St. Albert of Tennessee, you are a neanderthal fool, not worth wasting time or logic on.  That is how ingrained this is.

It has been said that beauty is pain.  Well, sometimes so is knowledge.  If you have it you are dismissed as a pain - and you know where.


KYOTO: DESPOILER OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Ken Berwitz

Here, from www.newsbusters.org, is another piece of vital information that you must be aware of to know what is going on.  And, as we've seen in so many other cases, it is information that mainstream media are withholding from you because it cuts into their political model.

Read the article below, and you are sure to be informed in a most uncomfortable way:.

A Really Inconvenient Truth: Kyoto Protocol Destroying Ozone Layer

By Noel Sheppard | August 15, 2007 - 11:01 ET

Here's something the mainstream media are guaranteed to ignore: "The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says."

Didn't hear about this? Well, how could you, for although Reuters published its article on the subject Monday, no other mainstream press outlet thought it was newsworthy.

Not one!

Alas, there were even more worrisome revelations in this Reuters piece that folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio would find very inconvenient if media actually did their job and reported them (h/t Benny Peiser, emphasis added throughout):

In addition, evidence suggests that the same projects, in developing countries, have deliberately raised their emissions of greenhouse gases only to destroy these and therefore claim more carbon credits, said Stanford University's Michael Wara.

At the heart of the clash is a carbon trading scheme under Kyoto, worth $5 billion last year, whereby rich countries pay poorer ones to cut greenhouse gas emissions on their behalf, called the clean development mechanism (CDM).

The most popular type of project has been to destroy a potent greenhouse gas known as HFC 23, one of a family of so-called hydrofluorocarbons, in China and India.

The problem is that HFC 23 is a waste product in the manufacture of a refrigerant gas which damages the ozone layer, called HCFC 22, and chemical plants have used their CDM profits to ramp up production.

"This is certainly one of the major drivers now in the increase in production of HCFC 22," Rajendra Shende, director of ozone issues at the United Nations Environment Programme, which administers the Montreal Protocol, said on Monday.

For those unfamiliar, the Montreal Protocol was a treaty first created in 1987, and eventually signed by 191 nations, to phase out the international production of substances known to cause ozone depletion. As such, it appears the Kyoto Protocol is stepping on the toes of the Montreal Protocol, and media couldn't care less.

Nor are they interested in the carbon credit scam this has spawned:

CDM projects which destroy HFC 23 are especially lucrative because the gas is 12,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), although its overall contribution to climate change is far less because CO2 is much more common.

As a result, destroying HFC 23 spawns far more money-spinning carbon credits than any other way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

The environmental credentials of HFC 23 projects are further undermined by evidence that chemical plants in China have deliberately "tuned" their factories to produce more of what should be a waste product, to make more money under CDM.

Chemical plants participating in CDM make twice as much HFC 23 as a proportion of the actual end product refrigerant than those in rich countries which can't participate in the scheme, said Michael Wara, research fellow at Stanford University.

"It doubles the flow of carbon credits, but there are real questions whether it's hot air," Wara said. The carbon credits are being used as carbon offsets to allow companies to continue to produce greenhouse gases in Europe.

"They've tuned the plants to double the amount of HFC 23 you would normally produce, for example in Europe or the United States. All CDM participant plants came in at 3 percent (HFC 23 versus HCFC 22), the Kyoto Protocol maximum, versus 1.5 percent in countries that can't participate in the scheme."

Add it all up, and you find that the ozone layer is being negatively impacted while developing nations like China increase their emissions of GHGs only to get rich selling carbon credits to companies in Europe so that they can "offset" the GHGs they're releasing into the air.

Put more simply, GHG emissions are actually increasing as a result of all this, while the ozone layer is being destroyed.

Any questions as to why our media won't report this? Wouldn't a truly "green" media trying to advance truly "green" concepts want to disseminate information concerning flaws in the Kyoto Protocol that are actually having a negative environmental impact? Isn't that newsworthy?

Or, is the environment really much less important to our press representatives than advancing the manmade global warming myth along with socialist economic "solutions" they deem are beneficial in the long run regardless of the apparent lack of environmental benefit?

As the latter seems likely, it appears media are taking quite a Machiavellian approach to their journalistic responsibilities, wouldn't you agree?

How disgraceful..

Why do I call this knowledge "uncomfortable"?  Because if you dare mention it to any PC acquaintances, the ones who "know" that Kyoto and Al Gore were going to save the planet, they are almost certain to react as if YOU were the one who doesn't get it, not them.

If you go against Kyoto or St. Albert of Tennessee, you are a neanderthal fool, not worth wasting time or logic on.  That is how ingrained this is.

It has been said that beauty is pain.  Well, sometimes so is knowledge.  If you have it you are dismissed as a pain - and you know where.


Bush does it again Read about Richard Stickler Written May 2006

Barry Sinrod

Sunday, May 21, 2006 _PERMALINK_ (http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/05/bush-should-withdraw-mine-safety.html) Posted 11:44 PM by Jordan (http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=5218538&postID=114817686232717358) (http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5218538&postID=114817686232717358)

Bush Should Withdraw Mine Safety Nominee

I'm not sure if anyone is reading this who matters, but after the _deaths yesterday_ (http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/05/five-miners-killed-in-explosion-its.html) of five more coal miners, bringing this year's total to 31, it is clear to me that Richard Stickler's name should be withdrawn as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.

I'm not saying that Richard Stickler is a bad person, or even that he doesn't care about the health and safety of mineworkers. In fact, let's assume that Richard Stickler is sincerely interested in improving the safety of American miners and has every intention of turning MSHA around. The fact is that he is clearly unsuited for this job, and I'm not basing this only on the fact that Stickler is yet another in a long line of Bush administration industry foxes that have been appointed to guard this country's henhouses.

The job of leading one of this country's workplace safety and health agencies is much more than just having good intentions and some safety experience in the industry. Moving the health and safety agenda forward requires fighting tough political battles on several fronts. The most obvious is the battle against those companies who seek to shortcut safety in order to maximize production, particularly when coal prices are at their highest level in 20 years.

It took this country over 200 years to figure out that leaving workplace safety in the hands of employers did not ensure safe working conditions. This lesson was ignored when George Bush came into office, but it's been painfully re-emphasized since January. Even with the best of intentions, the person who heads MSHA needs a healthy sense of skepticism, a clear sense of right and wrong and strong character in order to deal with what former mine safety official _Tony Oppegard _ (http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/03/coal-miners-biggest-hazard-greed-and.html) calls "the greed or indifference of mine operators." Most of all he or she needs to be independent of the companies that MSHA regulates.

Issuing unpopular and costly regulations and enforcing the law against the good buddies with whom you've spent your entire career is not easy even for the strongest, most principled individuals. Richard Stickler has given us no reason to believe that he has the strength, independence or character to do the job.

But the struggle against unsafe employers is only one of the battles that an MSHA director will need to fight in Washington DC. Two other major obstacles are the United States Congress and the Bush Administration. Even if we assume that Stickler is sincere about improving MSHA's effectiveness, it's highly doubtful that he is strong enough or experienced enough to effectively fight the all-important inside political battles.

Our Congressional representatives -- particularly those in control at this point -- like to talk a good line, but, like employers, don't always follow up with needed resources. Five and a half months after Sago, bi-partisan mine safety legislation was introduced into the Senate just last week. And only the Democrats have introduced legislation in the House of Representatives. One might think that an Republican agency director would not have a problem with a Republican Congress. But in reality, that only makes the job harder for someone who is sincerely interested in change. Bucking your own party is never easy, but it's even harder in this case where your boss (Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao), who is responsible for running the agency into the ground for five years, is married to the Senate Majority Whip (Mitch McConnell). Neither Chao nor McConnell has ever shown any sincere interest in workplace safety.

The most difficult barrier for any agency head sincerely interested in change is, of course, his own administration which may be concerned -- in the short term -- with limiting political fallout from mine disasters, but has no interest or motivation to do much of anything that might disturb their industry patrons once the headlines disappear and the photos of grieving widows fade from people's memories.

There is nothing in Stickler's history or testimony at his confirmation hearing that shows him to be the man best qualified for this job. Most of his career was spent in industry where the mines he managed had injury rates that were _double the national average_ (http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2005/10/msha-nominee-stickler-high-risk-for.html) , according to government data


HATING BUSH MORE THAN FEARING TERRORISTS

Ken Berwitz

Anyone who is still under the delusion that the New York Times fears terrorism more than it hates President Bush needs to read today's edition.

Today is the day after Jose Padilla, a "man" who converted to Islam for the purpose of committing terrorism against our country, was convicted on three counts - and, if there is any justice, will spend the rest of his life in prison, along with his two equally hateful and depraved co-defendants.

That is good news.  Or at least most people would think of it in a positive way.  But then we have the New York Times.  Let's start with their lead story, the headline and first few paragraphs of which I have posted below:.

August 17, 2007

Padilla Is Guilty on All Charges in Terror Trial

MIAMI, Aug. 16 In a significant victory for the Bush administration, a federal jury found Jose Padilla guilty of terrorism conspiracy charges on Thursday after little more than a day of deliberation.

Mr. Padilla, a Brooklyn-born convert to Islam who became one of the first Americans designated an enemy combatant in the anxious months after Sept. 11, 2001, now faces life in prison. He was released last year from a long and highly unusual military confinement to face criminal charges in Federal District Court here.

The governments chief evidence was a faded application form that prosecutors said Mr. Padilla, 36, filled out to attend a Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in 2000.

The jurors, seven men and five women from Miami-Dade County, would not speak publicly at the courthouse and left through a side entrance. But one juror, who asked that her name not be used, said later in a telephone interview that she had all but made up her mind before deliberations began.

We had to be sure, the juror said in Spanish. We wanted to make sure we went through all the evidence. But the evidence was strong, and we all agreed on that..

Lovely.  Convicting a subhuman sack of excrement like this isn't a victory for the country, it is a political victory for Bush, the man they hate.  Oh, and by the way, the only reason he's convicted is some faded piece of evidence and at least one of the jurors "all but made up her mind before deliberations began" (that means she was mostly but not completely sure of his guilt after hearing all the evidence, but if you read it quickly the wording might cause you to conclude she made up her mind before the trial altogether). 

And The fact that "..the evidence was strong, and we all agreed on that"?  The fifth paragraph down.

And then there is the Times' lead editorial, the first two paragraphs of which are shown below:.

The Padilla Conviction

It is hard to disagree with the jurys guilty verdict against Jose Padilla, the accused, but never formally charged, dirty bomber. But it would be a mistake to see it as a vindication for the Bush administrations serial abuse of the American legal system in the name of fighting terrorism.

On the way to this verdict, the government repeatedly trampled on the Constitution, and its prosecution of Mr. Padilla was so cynical and inept that the crime he was convicted of conspiracy to commit terrorism overseas bears no relation to the ambitious plot to wreak mass destruction inside the United States, which the Justice Department first loudly proclaimed. Even with the guilty verdict, this conviction remains a shining example of how not to prosecute terrorism cases..

Translation:  Yeah, he's guilty, let's get that out of the way fast.  And now on to the real issue, Bush is a (fill in 893 different criticisms and epithets).

Bottom line:  If President Bush is on the front line of putting a terrorist in jail before he blows innocent people up (ironically, maybe those people would include members of the New York Times' staff), it isn't good for the country, it is just a political victory for a president The Times hates.

This, as you probably know, is the same New York Times that has consistently published information helpful to our enemy in Iraq over the years we have been at war there.

You have to wonder which side the Times is rooting for.  And you have to wonder whether their hatred of President Bush is more intense than their fear of terrorists who would not think twice about blowing them to kingdom come. 

You really do.


GUEST COMMENTARY: ED MORRISSEY ON BARACK OBAMA

Ken Berwitz

Ed Morrissey, of www.captainsquartersblog.com/ has written a fact-filled, very well thought out piece, which harshly judges Barack Obama.  I'm not sure I agree with Morrissey on how badly the senator from Illinois has hurt himself, but I'm not so sure he's wrong either. Quality analysis is quality analysis. Take a look and see what you think:.

Are The Wheels Coming Off For Obama?

The primary campaign has turned into a very long dance for Barack Obama, who seems determined to prove at every opportunity that he has two left feet. In New Hampshire, Obama told a crowd that the US military effort consists mainly of "air raiding villages and killing civilians" -- which his tone-deaf campaign confirmed moments later to reporters (via The Corner):

Obama defended his push to prosecute a tougher military effort to root out al-Qaida on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, which drew criticism from primary rivals for sounding too bellicose.

Now you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so weve got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there, Obama said.

Campaign spokesman Reid Cherlin said Obama was not endorsing the current Bush policy, which consists solely of air raids and bombing of civilians.

The NATO troops in Afghanistan would beg to differ. They don't have a policy of bombing civilians, and the ground troops play a very important role in defending Afghanistan's villages from the depravities of Taliban control. Perhaps Obama can explain his analysis of military strategy and tactics to the ground troops that get wounded in these battles -- or to the families of the dead soldiers who died holding ground against the radical Islamists.

In fact, as posited by the Obama campaign, such a strategy would amount to war crimes. This sounds perilously close to the same kind of accusations that Vietnam War veterans faced when they came back from their service -- that they indiscriminately wiped out villages, killing women, children, and babies. And Obama offers this as a defense of his previous pronouncement that he would invade Pakistan as a positive step, presumably as an improvement on indiscriminate attacks on villages in Afghanistan.

Obama started this primary campaign looking like a man with a future in the Democratic Party. His asinine pronouncements on military affairs and foreign policy now make him look like someone drowning in two feet of water. Besides having a nice voice and a pleasant disposition, the man has nothing to offer. He's an empty suit, a man who doesn't engage his brain before activating his jaw.

Another part of his speech provides an example. He claims that he will settle the Iraq War by having Saudi Arabia and China occupy Iraq. How exactly will the US convince China to send troops to Iraq -- and why would the Iraqis want the Chinese there at all? Why would we want to put Chinese troops in the center of the Middle East, with all of the critical energy interests we have there? And while some Sunni Iraqis might consider Saudi troops as allies, the majority Shi'ites will see it as another Sunni attempt to dominate them. They would almost certainly appeal to Teheran for troops, and the regional war would flash into existence.

Does Obama think before making these statements? Does he think at all? He's not just blowing his chances in this election, but he's making an argument for his long-term exclusion from any position with foreign policy or military issues under his control.

UPDATE: The AP's Nedra Pickler tries to run interference for Obama with a ludicrous "fact check," which requires its own fact check. I provide it here. .

This is what happens when you take someone absolutely unqualified to be president with exactly no experience on a national stage, other than to smile nicely and speak articulately.  (Yes, Obama is articulate.  If that makes me a racist, next time I'll try saying he's INarticulate and see what I'm called).

I disagree with Morrissey to the extent that I think Obama's status as a potential national candidate is still relatively intact.  But he certainly is skating on very, very thin ice.

Maybe Obama should talk less and learn more.  No matter how articulate he is.


CNN: POLLING AS A PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACK

Ken Berwitz

Would CNN ever publish a bogus poll, one that they omit key details from for some reason - maybe because the details would make the poll look phony and CNN look bad? 

Read this piece from www.newsbusters.org and see if you think so:.

Were CNN Poll Questions Weighted Against Surge Report?

By Warner Todd Huston | August 17, 2007 - 04:54 ET

CNN released a poll on the 16th that claims that 53% of Americans don't trust the U.S. Military assessment of what is going on in Iraq and that 72% won't have their mind changed on their view of the war no matter what General Petraeus says about the surge next month. But if one reviews the questions of the poll and its methodology is considered (at least the only hint of methodology released), it makes one suspicious that it was anywhere near a fair and balanced method. In fact, there are so many questions about how this poll was carried out that the results must be viewed with skepticism.

To start with, of course, the poll is conducted by Hillary Clinton supporter Vin Gupta's Opinion Research Corporation, the organization CNN has hired to run their political polling -- a convenient situation for the Clinton campaign, to be sure. This single fact alone is enough to inform that the poll could likely be weighted to skew toward the ideas that Hillary Clinton is propagating in her campaign.

According to the front page of the partial downloadable PDF file of the poll, it was compiled from "interviews with 1,029 adult Americans" by telephone between August 6th thru the 8th with a plus or minus 3 percentage points.

There is no indication what party the respondents claimed to be members of, there is no mention if they were voters, registered, or likely. No geographic region is identified, no age bracket and no gender info for the poll is offered. This also causes skepticism. After all, they could have asked all Democrats, or weighted the Democrats to be a higher percentage. Maybe more women than men were asked? Maybe all the respondents were in the environs of Washington D.C., or maybe they were all women in Austin, Texas!? We have no idea as no facts of the sample size are revealed.

Only half of sample asked certain questions?

Then we get to the odd choice of asking only half those interviewed some of the questions from the poll. What was the deal with this? At least questions 28 through 33 were only presented to half those interviewed. One of those questions pertained to how respondents viewed the report general Petraeus would be giving next month.

33. As you may know, in September the top U.S. commander in Iraq will report to the President and Congress about how the war is going. Do you trust him to report what's really going on in Iraq without making the situation sound better than it actually is, or don't you feel that way? (ASKED OF HALF SAMPLE)

The half of the 1,029 interviewed that were asked this question ended up giving the following results:

  • Trust him to report whats really going on 43%
  • Do not trust him to report whats really going on 53%
  • No opinion 4%

But which half were asked this question? Was the question asked of women and not men? Was the question asked of Democrats and not Republicans? How do we know how this question was weighted so that we might assess the legitimacy of the results?

Further, if many of the questions were only asked of half the respondents, doesn't that mean that the poll was not conducted among 1,029 adult Americans, but was really only conducted among some 514 adults, roughly half the claimed sample size?

As Duane Patterson of radioblogger says, "It's hard to take a poll seriously when on the one hand, 50% can support the war or say they're open minded to change their mind, and then in the next breath say 72% wouldn't change their mind on Iraq regardles of what General Petraeus might say, because most people don't trust him anyway."

And who could disagree with that?

All in all, what we have here is another questionable CNN poll by Clintonista, Gupta, that is possibly weighted toward the antiwar side and one that should be viewed with a healthy skepticism... not that any of CNN's viewers and readers would be aware of the problems here. .

So, what do you think about the CNN poll?  Is it real, or just a biased, shameless pre-emptive attack on the possibility that our troop surge might be seen as a success?

You be the judge.


SUCCESSES IN IRAQ: HAVE YOU HEARD?

Ken Berwitz

Here is an editorial from the New York Post regarding our recent successes in Iraq.  I intentionally held off posting it for two days to give your favorite newspaper or commercial TV or cable TV show time to report it along with the Post.  Did they?.

GOOD NEWS FROM IRAQ

August 15, 2007 -- News out of Iraq continues to be encouraging: High-profile attacks have fallen nearly 50 percent since the start of the troop surge, USA Today reported this week.

Gen. David Petraeus, commanding the war in Iraq, says hundreds of al Qaeda fighters were killed or captured in just the past month alone.

Tips about the enemy are up fourfold over the last year - to some 23,000 a month.

"Tribes and people are starting to stand up and fight back," said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, deputy commander of the U.S. division north of Baghdad, in the USA Today report. "They are turning against al Qaeda."

It's a sign of the preliminary success of a number of operations now under way, as troop strength has finally reached the maximum planned by the surge.

To think that just a month ago, Democrats were trying to pull the plug on Iraq.

Maybe they feared exactly what is happening: The tide in Iraq seems to be turning in America's favor - and that spells bad news for the Dems, who've pinned their own political fates on the White House failing in the war.

Democrats aren't the only ones who have suddenly gone mum: Little by way of saber-rattling has been heard from the mullahs' motor-mouth in Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The shifts, in rhetoric and on the ground, could portend, well . . . anything.

The enemy may be laying low, figuring they can't bear - at the moment, anyway - the high cost of additional attacks and confrontations.

Or they may be re-arming for a major offensive.

Surely they've by no means ended their violence completely, even temporarily: Yesterday, suicide bombers killed at least 175 people and wounded 200.

But Coalition forces aren't letting up, either: This week, they launched a third major campaign, Operation Phantom Strike, aimed at disrupting al Qaeda and Iranian-backed operations.

The verdict is still out on Iraq. Far-left Democrats may yet force a premature pullout.

But Americans can hope for the best. There's no reason to cut this war short.

.

If you've seen this information elsewhere, I'm very pleased.  You certainly won't have any problem finding negative news about Iraq, so it means you're getting both sides.. 

If you haven't seen this information elsewhere, then ALL you're getting is negative news about Iraq, even when positive news exists.  That is not at all pleasing to me.  And it shouldn't be any more pleasing to you. 

News media are supposed to provide all sides of the story, not just one.  When they intentionally provide only the side that is most negative toward their country, it's hard not to conclude that it is what they are rooting for.


Bush does it again Read about Richard Stickler Written May 2006

Barry Sinrod

Sunday, May 21, 2006 _PERMALINK_ (http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/05/bush-should-withdraw-mine-safety.html) Posted 11:44 PM by Jordan (http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=5218538&postID=114817686232717358) (http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5218538&postID=114817686232717358)

Bush Should Withdraw Mine Safety Nominee

I'm not sure if anyone is reading this who matters, but after the _deaths yesterday_ (http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/05/five-miners-killed-in-explosion-its.html) of five more coal miners, bringing this year's total to 31, it is clear to me that Richard Stickler's name should be withdrawn as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.

I'm not saying that Richard Stickler is a bad person, or even that he doesn't care about the health and safety of mineworkers. In fact, let's assume that Richard Stickler is sincerely interested in improving the safety of American miners and has every intention of turning MSHA around. The fact is that he is clearly unsuited for this job, and I'm not basing this only on the fact that Stickler is yet another in a long line of Bush administration industry foxes that have been appointed to guard this country's henhouses.

The job of leading one of this country's workplace safety and health agencies is much more than just having good intentions and some safety experience in the industry. Moving the health and safety agenda forward requires fighting tough political battles on several fronts. The most obvious is the battle against those companies who seek to shortcut safety in order to maximize production, particularly when coal prices are at their highest level in 20 years.

It took this country over 200 years to figure out that leaving workplace safety in the hands of employers did not ensure safe working conditions. This lesson was ignored when George Bush came into office, but it's been painfully re-emphasized since January. Even with the best of intentions, the person who heads MSHA needs a healthy sense of skepticism, a clear sense of right and wrong and strong character in order to deal with what former mine safety official _Tony Oppegard _ (http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/03/coal-miners-biggest-hazard-greed-and.html) calls "the greed or indifference of mine operators." Most of all he or she needs to be independent of the companies that MSHA regulates.

Issuing unpopular and costly regulations and enforcing the law against the good buddies with whom you've spent your entire career is not easy even for the strongest, most principled individuals. Richard Stickler has given us no reason to believe that he has the strength, independence or character to do the job.

But the struggle against unsafe employers is only one of the battles that an MSHA director will need to fight in Washington DC. Two other major obstacles are the United States Congress and the Bush Administration. Even if we assume that Stickler is sincere about improving MSHA's effectiveness, it's highly doubtful that he is strong enough or experienced enough to effectively fight the all-important inside political battles.

Our Congressional representatives -- particularly those in control at this point -- like to talk a good line, but, like employers, don't always follow up with needed resources. Five and a half months after Sago, bi-partisan mine safety legislation was introduced into the Senate just last week. And only the Democrats have introduced legislation in the House of Representatives. One might think that an Republican agency director would not have a problem with a Republican Congress. But in reality, that only makes the job harder for someone who is sincerely interested in change. Bucking your own party is never easy, but it's even harder in this case where your boss (Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao), who is responsible for running the agency into the ground for five years, is married to the Senate Majority Whip (Mitch McConnell). Neither Chao nor McConnell has ever shown any sincere interest in workplace safety.

The most difficult barrier for any agency head sincerely interested in change is, of course, his own administration which may be concerned -- in the short term -- with limiting political fallout from mine disasters, but has no interest or motivation to do much of anything that might disturb their industry patrons once the headlines disappear and the photos of grieving widows fade from people's memories.

There is nothing in Stickler's history or testimony at his confirmation hearing that shows him to be the man best qualified for this job. Most of his career was spent in industry where the mines he managed had injury rates that were _double the national average_ (http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2005/10/msha-nominee-stickler-high-risk-for.html) , according to government data


HATING BUSH MORE THAN FEARING TERRORISTS

Ken Berwitz

Anyone who is still under the delusion that the New York Times fears terrorism more than it hates President Bush needs to read today's edition.

Today is the day after Jose Padilla, a "man" who converted to Islam for the purpose of committing terrorism against our country, was convicted on three counts - and, if there is any justice, will spend the rest of his life in prison, along with his two equally hateful and depraved co-defendants.

That is good news.  Or at least most people would think of it in a positive way.  But then we have the New York Times.  Let's start with their lead story, the headline and first few paragraphs of which I have posted below:.

August 17, 2007

Padilla Is Guilty on All Charges in Terror Trial

MIAMI, Aug. 16 In a significant victory for the Bush administration, a federal jury found Jose Padilla guilty of terrorism conspiracy charges on Thursday after little more than a day of deliberation.

Mr. Padilla, a Brooklyn-born convert to Islam who became one of the first Americans designated an enemy combatant in the anxious months after Sept. 11, 2001, now faces life in prison. He was released last year from a long and highly unusual military confinement to face criminal charges in Federal District Court here.

The governments chief evidence was a faded application form that prosecutors said Mr. Padilla, 36, filled out to attend a Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in 2000.

The jurors, seven men and five women from Miami-Dade County, would not speak publicly at the courthouse and left through a side entrance. But one juror, who asked that her name not be used, said later in a telephone interview that she had all but made up her mind before deliberations began.

We had to be sure, the juror said in Spanish. We wanted to make sure we went through all the evidence. But the evidence was strong, and we all agreed on that..

Lovely.  Convicting a subhuman sack of excrement like this isn't a victory for the country, it is a political victory for Bush, the man they hate.  Oh, and by the way, the only reason he's convicted is some faded piece of evidence and at least one of the jurors "all but made up her mind before deliberations began" (that means she was mostly but not completely sure of his guilt after hearing all the evidence, but if you read it quickly the wording might cause you to conclude she made up her mind before the trial altogether). 

And The fact that "..the evidence was strong, and we all agreed on that"?  The fifth paragraph down.

And then there is the Times' lead editorial, the first two paragraphs of which are shown below:.

The Padilla Conviction

It is hard to disagree with the jurys guilty verdict against Jose Padilla, the accused, but never formally charged, dirty bomber. But it would be a mistake to see it as a vindication for the Bush administrations serial abuse of the American legal system in the name of fighting terrorism.

On the way to this verdict, the government repeatedly trampled on the Constitution, and its prosecution of Mr. Padilla was so cynical and inept that the crime he was convicted of conspiracy to commit terrorism overseas bears no relation to the ambitious plot to wreak mass destruction inside the United States, which the Justice Department first loudly proclaimed. Even with the guilty verdict, this conviction remains a shining example of how not to prosecute terrorism cases..

Translation:  Yeah, he's guilty, let's get that out of the way fast.  And now on to the real issue, Bush is a (fill in 893 different criticisms and epithets).

Bottom line:  If President Bush is on the front line of putting a terrorist in jail before he blows innocent people up (ironically, maybe those people would include members of the New York Times' staff), it isn't good for the country, it is just a political victory for a president The Times hates.

This, as you probably know, is the same New York Times that has consistently published information helpful to our enemy in Iraq over the years we have been at war there.

You have to wonder which side the Times is rooting for.  And you have to wonder whether their hatred of President Bush is more intense than their fear of terrorists who would not think twice about blowing them to kingdom come. 

You really do.


CHARLES JOHNSON ON THE GLORIFICATION OF SUICIDE/HOMICIDE BOMBERS

Ken Berwitz

Charles Johnson is the gentleman who is kind enough to give us www.littlegreenfootballs.com, a genuinely valuable website.  One of his specialties is uncovering reality as it applies to palestinian Arabs and their leaders. 

For this, of course, he is reviled and despised by the hard left.  Most of that crowd hateS Israel at least as much as the USA.  But courage is not Mr. Johnson's short suit, and he continues to provide information that a vast majority of mainstream media do not consider important enough to publish.  Hey, why should we know the truth about Israel's "peace partner" anyway?

If you think I exaggerate, here's an example.  If you read this in your paper or saw it on the network news please assume I've made a retraction and have apologized.  Of course you haven't, so I'm not too worried about that.:

'Moderate' Palestinians Name Soccer Tourney After Murderer

Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 8:20:33 am PDT

The "moderate" terrorist government of Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party has named a children's soccer tournament in the West Bank after a mass murderer.

A school in the West Bank town of Tulkarm this week organized a soccer tournament named after Ziyad Da'as, a Fatah terrorist, Palestinian Media Watch reported on Thursday.

Da'as planned a 2002 attack in Hadera in which a gunman opened fire with an M-16 rifle at a bat mitzva, killing six and wounding 30.

He was also behind the kidnapping and murder of two Israelis in Tulkarm in 2001. Daas was killed in an IDF operation in August 2002.

Reporting on the tournament, Al Hayat hailed Da'as as "one of the brave people of the Palestinian resistance, whom the Israeli occupation forces assassinated in cold blood."

The Palestinian daily reported that the tournament took place in a Palestinian school and that the committee that organized the tournament thanked the school administration "for providing the means for its success."

Lets give them a state! .

Remember this when you are told what a "moderate" Abbas is and that Fatah is a "moderate" organization.  He isn't and it isn't.

Fatah is "moderate" only in the context that Mussolini was "moderate" - if you compared him to Hitler.   But that is not my reckoning of what the word means, and I suspect it isn't yours either.

Moderates, to me, are people somewhere in the middle, not people filled with hate who celebrate and glorify violence.  Fatah is filled with hate and celebrates and glorifies violence.  That pretty much says it all.

You cannot negotiate with, make peace with or coexist with a group that wants your country vaporized and you dead.  And a group which glorifies suicide/homicide bombers who act on behalf of those goals is no peace partner.  Period, end of story.


CNN: POLLING AS A PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACK

Ken Berwitz

Would CNN ever publish a bogus poll, one that they omit key details from for some reason - maybe because the details would make the poll look phony and CNN look bad? 

Read this piece from www.newsbusters.org and see if you think so:.

Were CNN Poll Questions Weighted Against Surge Report?

By Warner Todd Huston | August 17, 2007 - 04:54 ET

CNN released a poll on the 16th that claims that 53% of Americans don't trust the U.S. Military assessment of what is going on in Iraq and that 72% won't have their mind changed on their view of the war no matter what General Petraeus says about the surge next month. But if one reviews the questions of the poll and its methodology is considered (at least the only hint of methodology released), it makes one suspicious that it was anywhere near a fair and balanced method. In fact, there are so many questions about how this poll was carried out that the results must be viewed with skepticism.

To start with, of course, the poll is conducted by Hillary Clinton supporter Vin Gupta's Opinion Research Corporation, the organization CNN has hired to run their political polling -- a convenient situation for the Clinton campaign, to be sure. This single fact alone is enough to inform that the poll could likely be weighted to skew toward the ideas that Hillary Clinton is propagating in her campaign.

According to the front page of the partial downloadable PDF file of the poll, it was compiled from "interviews with 1,029 adult Americans" by telephone between August 6th thru the 8th with a plus or minus 3 percentage points.

There is no indication what party the respondents claimed to be members of, there is no mention if they were voters, registered, or likely. No geographic region is identified, no age bracket and no gender info for the poll is offered. This also causes skepticism. After all, they could have asked all Democrats, or weighted the Democrats to be a higher percentage. Maybe more women than men were asked? Maybe all the respondents were in the environs of Washington D.C., or maybe they were all women in Austin, Texas!? We have no idea as no facts of the sample size are revealed.

Only half of sample asked certain questions?

Then we get to the odd choice of asking only half those interviewed some of the questions from the poll. What was the deal with this? At least questions 28 through 33 were only presented to half those interviewed. One of those questions pertained to how respondents viewed the report general Petraeus would be giving next month.

33. As you may know, in September the top U.S. commander in Iraq will report to the President and Congress about how the war is going. Do you trust him to report what's really going on in Iraq without making the situation sound better than it actually is, or don't you feel that way? (ASKED OF HALF SAMPLE)

The half of the 1,029 interviewed that were asked this question ended up giving the following results:

  • Trust him to report whats really going on 43%
  • Do not trust him to report whats really going on 53%
  • No opinion 4%

But which half were asked this question? Was the question asked of women and not men? Was the question asked of Democrats and not Republicans? How do we know how this question was weighted so that we might assess the legitimacy of the results?

Further, if many of the questions were only asked of half the respondents, doesn't that mean that the poll was not conducted among 1,029 adult Americans, but was really only conducted among some 514 adults, roughly half the claimed sample size?

As Duane Patterson of radioblogger says, "It's hard to take a poll seriously when on the one hand, 50% can support the war or say they're open minded to change their mind, and then in the next breath say 72% wouldn't change their mind on Iraq regardles of what General Petraeus might say, because most people don't trust him anyway."

And who could disagree with that?

All in all, what we have here is another questionable CNN poll by Clintonista, Gupta, that is possibly weighted toward the antiwar side and one that should be viewed with a healthy skepticism... not that any of CNN's viewers and readers would be aware of the problems here. .

So, what do you think about the CNN poll?  Is it real, or just a biased, shameless pre-emptive attack on the possibility that our troop surge might be seen as a success?

You be the judge.


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!!