Thursday, 13 September 2007


Ken Berwitz

Anyone who reads this blog knows I have some very major problems with Ann Coulter. But her latest column is so worth reading that I overlook them today to reprint it. 

I acknowledge that I sometimes need a strong stomach to read Ann Coulter.  But anyone who can her latest column and still trust Democrats with our foreign policy has a stronger stomach than I will ever have..

by Ann Coulter
September 12, 2007

Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't.

Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military -- except when they can find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war and call for a humiliating retreat.

It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even invaded Iraq -- despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.

Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq -- comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United States."

On Sept. 14, 2002, The New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."

This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.

Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, the Times' Nicholas Kristof warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul." He said: "The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again." He announced that "the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya."

The day after we invaded, Kristof cited a Muslim scholar for the proposition that if Iraqis felt defeated, they would embrace Islamic fundamentalism.

We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.

But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.)

Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.

The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.

They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."

Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.

At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."

About the same time, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now" -- although he may have been referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.

In October 2004, Nicholas Lemann wrote in The New Yorker that "it may not be safe enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January."

Days before the first election in Iraq in January 2005, The New York Times began an article on the election this way:

"Hejaz Hazim, a computer engineer who could not find a job in computers and now cleans clothes, slammed his iron into a dress shirt the other day and let off a burst of steam about the coming election.
"'This election is bogus,' Mr. Hazim said. 'There is no drinking water in this city. There is no security. Why should I vote?'"

If there's a more artful articulation of the time-honored linkage between drinking water and voting, I have yet to hear it.

And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They've voted twice more since then.

Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.

OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.



Ken Berwitz

As the co-author of our book and the person who does most of the blogging here, I apologize to all readers for the lunatic comments of the previous blog. 

If the point here is that Bush is killing off people who disagree with him - and that's what the point seems to be - then whoever is making it needs competent psychiatric help.  Using that "logic", President Bush should, by now, have killed off ALL of the 7 soldiers (what good would 2 have done?), about 90% of the journalists, almost every Democrat and half the entire country.

A CARGO TRUCK OVERTURNED.  That's what happened.  Does keith idiot think Bush was driving it?

One last thing:  if someone is killed BECAUSE he met with President Bush, who is supposed to have killed hm?  The Bush administration?

This is sick hatred.  Nothing else.


Ken Berwitz

I apologize for leaving something out of my apology:

There apparently is no record of General Fallon calling General Petaeus the names attributed to him in barry's blog, other than "unnamed sources".  Which is to say there is no evidence of any value at all that it ever was said.


Petraeus called "ass kissing chicken shit" by his boss Admiral Fallon

Barry Sinrod
We need him to testify NOW.
U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq.. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".

Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."

By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest population of Islamic extremists.

Plans for continued high troop levels in Iraq would leave no troops available for other contingencies in the region.

Fallon was reported by the New York Times to have been determined to achieve results "as soon as possible". The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter.

Fallon also expressed great scepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" as saying that Fallon had been "saying from Day One, 'This isn't working.' "

One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" -- a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.

Fallon was signaling his unhappiness with the policy of U.S. occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate period. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely.

During the summer, according to the Post Sep. 9 report, Fallon began to develop his own plans for redefine the U.S. mission in Iraq, including a plan for withdrawal of three-quarters of the U.S. troop strength by the end of 2009.

The conflict between Fallon and Petraeus over Iraq came to a head in early September. According to the Post story, Fallon expressed views on Iraq that were sharply at odds with those of Petraeus in a three-way conversation with Bush on Iraq the previous weekend. Petraeus argued for keeping as many troops in Iraq for as long as possible to cement any security progress, but Fallon argued that a strategic withdrawal from Iraq was necessary to have sufficient forces to deal with other potential threats in the region.

Fallon's presentation to Bush of the case against Petraeus's recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his recommendations was another sign that Petraeus's role as chief spokesperson for the surge policy has created a deep rift between him and the nation's highest military leaders. Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the surge policy to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top brass.

Fallon had a "visceral distaste" for what he regarded as Petraeus's sycophantic behaviour in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.

Fallon is a veteran of 35 years in the Navy, operating in an institutional culture in which an officer is expected to make enemies in the process of advancement. "If you are Navy captain and don't have two or three enemies, you're not doing your job," says the source.

Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.

He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.

A crucial element of Petraeus's path of advancement in the Army, on the other hand, was through serving as an aide to senior generals. He was assistant executive officer to the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Carl Vuono, and later executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton. His experience taught him that cultivating senior officers is the key to success..

The contrasting styles of the two men converged with their conflict over Iraq to produce one of the most intense clashes between U.S. military leaders in recent history.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005. 


See what's new at and Make AOL Your Homepage.


Ken Berwitz

This article from today's New York Post doesn't need any commentary. Read it and understand who the "neutral" New York Times is rooting for.  Pay special attention to the paragraphs in bold print:.


By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief

September 13, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House," the ad which ran in Monday's Times says Petraeus is "a military man constantly at war with the facts" and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."

A spokesman for confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.

Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give such a discounted price.

Citing the shared liberal bent of the group and the Times, one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the "family discount."

"I'm surprised they had to pay anything at all for the ad," the GOP staffer said. "They could have just asked the editorial page to run it and it wouldn't have cost them a cent."



Ken Berwitz

I apologize again for the garbage being spewed by Barry.

I hope you are as sickened by it as I am.

The Democratic senate UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED General David Petraeus.  Every one of them.  No exceptions. 

But if General Petraeus doesn't tell you that we are losing in Iraq, or that we should lose, or that we should turn tail and run so al qaeda can have a victory which they'll use to recruit terrorists around the world?  That makes him what barry put in his title, which I won't repeat.  If you want to read it, go there, not here.

To these sick lunatics the enemy is our General, not the people who want us dead or enslaved.


Ken Berwitz

The Wall Street Journal (along with - surprisingly - the New York and Los Angeles Times) are among the few major media venues telling people about how dirty the huge Democratic fundraiser, Norman Hsu, really is, and how tainted his money is. 

I apologize for the length of this article, but you have to know to be educated, and where else are you going to get the education?  From the network news?  GMA or the Today show?  You're kidding, right?

Here is the Wall St. Journal piece in its entirety.


'60s Figure Says
He Financed
Donor Hsu

Woodstock Creator
Tells DA That Funds
Have Gone Missing
A $40 Million Shortfall
September 12, 2007; Page A1

Where did Norman Hsu get his money?

That has been one of the big questions hanging over the prominent Democratic fund-raiser, as reports have surfaced about hundreds of thousands of dollars he made in political donations, plus lavish parties, fancy apartments and a $2 million bond he posted to get out of jail earlier this month.

New documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal may help point to an answer: A company controlled by Mr. Hsu recently received $40 million from a Madison Avenue investment fund run by Joel Rosenman, who was one of the creators of the Woodstock rock festival in 1969. That money, Mr. Rosenman told investors this week, is missing.

 Mr. Hsu told Mr. Rosenman the money would be used to manufacture apparel in China for Gucci, Prada and other private labels, yielding a 40% profit on each deal, according to a business plan obtained by the Journal. Now the investment fund, Source Financing Investors, says Mr. Hsu's company owes it the $40 million, which represents 37 separate deals with Mr. Hsu's company. When Source Financing recently attempted to cash checks from the company, Components Ltd., the investors say they were told the account held insufficient funds.

Source Financing's arrangement with Mr. Hsu's company, according to court documents and investor accounts, echoes an older matter that came to light in recent weeks. In 1991, California officials charged Mr. Hsu with grand theft for failing to repay investors for money he raised to import latex gloves from China.

"Norman Hsu has an extraordinary ability to deceive," says Seth Rosenberg of Clayman & Rosenberg, a lawyer representing Mr. Rosenman.

Mr. Rosenman and a partner, Yau Cheng, wrote a joint letter on Monday to alert their fund's investors. "Last week, our attorneys met with representatives of the Manhattan District Attorney's office to inform them of the situation," they wrote. The district attorney is investigating, the letter says. A spokesman for the district attorney did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Hsu's lawyers had no immediate comment to the allegations by Source Financing.

Two Bankruptcies

Where Mr. Hsu got his money has been a burning question in recent weeks. He financed a web of political donations and a lavish lifestyle, despite two bankruptcies and a felony record. Telling acquaintances he was an apparel executive, he set up multiple companies, sometimes giving early investors profits, they say, so they would bring in friends. In some cases, investors in his businesses say they were so eager to please Mr. Hsu that they donated to political candidates alongside him.

See details on political donations from Norman Hsu and a handful of Mr. Hsu's business associates in New York

Mr. Hsu himself has donated $750,000 to Democrats and Democratic parties out of his own pocket since 2004, according to campaign-finance records.

In checks no larger than $2,300 apiece -- the legal limit for donations to single candidates for a primary or a general election -- Mr. Hsu also raised more than $850,000 for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. He co-hosted fund-raisers that brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars more, including a recent event for Mrs. Clinton at the Modern, a restaurant at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan.

The contributions are now haunting the Democratic party. Mrs. Clinton's campaign said on Monday it would refund all of the donations made or raised by Mr. Hsu. More Democrats announced yesterday that they would dispose of funds that Mr. Hsu gave or raised, including Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York ($25,000), Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts ($35,000), Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu ($11,700), Montana Sen. Jon Tester ($4,750), Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill ($20,700) and Pennsylvania Rep. Joseph Sestak ($2,500). Others have given their money to charity, including Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, whose campaign received $2,000 in March from Mr. Hsu.

More Democrats are expected to follow. A Wall Street Journal analysis of campaign finance reform records has linked Mr. Hsu with at least $1.8 million in donations to Democrats since 2004.

Mr. Rosenberg, the attorney for Mr. Rosenman, asked politicians to hold on to the funds so that Source Financing and other investors can be made whole. "It appears that Source Financing Investors joins Hillary Clinton...and many others as his victims," Mr. Rosenberg said in an interview. "We urge candidates who received contributions from Mr. Hsu to retain those funds so that they may be returned to victims of the scheme."

According to his communication with investors, Mr. Rosenman became suspicious after press reports over the past three weeks examined Mr. Hsu's political fund raising and his business past. The first was a Wall Street Journal story in late August that called attention to similar donations by Mr. Hsu and a California family who shared one of his many addresses.

The family lives in a modest home and one member, William Paw, is a mailman. Campaign-finance records show the $55,000 in donations the family members have made to Mrs. Clinton since 2004 place them among her leading financial supporters. The family has donated about $225,000 to Democrats since 2005. The U.S. Justice Department is investigating possible campaign-finance violations.

Grand Theft Charge

Then came revelations that Mr. Hsu was wanted in California. Mr. Hsu pleaded no contest to grand theft charges in 1992 for swindling investors of $1 million in the latex-glove scheme. Facing three years in prison, he vanished before his sentencing hearing. He ultimately emerged in New York as one of America's biggest political fund-raisers.

Late last month, California authorities demanded Mr. Hsu turn himself in to face the 15-year-old charges. He appeared in court and was released after paying $2 million in bail. He then skipped his next court hearing before re-emerging in a Colorado hospital last week. He's under arrest there and expected to be extradited soon back to California.

Mr. Rosenman, the son of a Long Island, N.Y., orthodontist, is best known for his role in Woodstock. In 1967, Mr. Rosenman had degrees from Princeton University and Yale Law School, but was working as a guitarist at clubs on Long island and in Las Vegas.

'Unlimited Capital'

He and a friend with a big trust fund, John Roberts, decided to pitch a situation comedy about a hapless duo who hatched a new business plan every week. Looking for material, they placed an ad in The Wall Street Journal and New York Times that said: "Young Men With Unlimited Capital looking for interesting, legitimate, investment opportunities and business propositions."

 The responses -- thousands of them -- inspired them to become venture capitalists instead of screenwriters, according to a book by Messrs. Rosenman and Roberts, "Young Men With Unlimited Capital."

One of the ideas was for a three-day concert. Together with two others, the pair raised money, produced and organized Woodstock in 1969.

That same year, Mr. Hsu, who grew up in Hong Kong, received a Social Security card and enrolled in the University of California.

Woodstock's creators, meanwhile, struggled with enormous debt and bad publicity, according to the account by Messrs. Rosenman and Roberts. They opened and then sold a recording studio in Manhattan. Eventually, they opened an investment firm in New York called JR Capital. Mr. Rosenman co-produced Woodstock '94, a 25th-anniversary reprise of the first iconic event.

In an interview with the Daily Princetonian in 2001, Mr. Rosenman said he examines a handful of business projects every week. "I am still doing the same thing as in 1968," he said.

Mr. Rosenman's partner, Ms. Cheng, met Mr. Hsu while working for an Internet company in 2000. She began investing in one of his businesses and made a profit, according to someone familiar with the matter. In 2002, she joined JR Capital and introduced Mr. Rosenman to Mr. Hsu. That year, Mr. Rosenman invested and also made a profit. He began telling friends and relatives about the investment opportunity.

Mr. Rosenman described the deal in a pitch letter he provided to prospective investors for Source Financing Investors, which he launched in 2005. The investment pool would "lend to U.S. private label designers that needed interim financing to fill orders for a select group of well-known, high-end U.S. apparel retailers." Since 2001, he writes, "the return of these short-term (typically 4 months) loans has been no less than 40%."

In a "step-by-step" outline of a typical transaction prepared for investors, Source Financing describes the way a deal worked with Mr. Hsu. Source Financing would agree to provide bridge loans for seasonal high-ticket, high-quality retail goods made in China for exclusive brand names, according to investors. Mr. Hsu told the company that he would obtain from Chinese manufacturers a price quote for apparel production. He would then add a mark-up and give the quote to a high-end buyer in the U.S.

If the U.S. buyer accepted, according to the outline, Source Financing would transfer by wire what Mr. Hsu said was 80% of the necessary loan, with Mr. Hsu saying he would provide the other 20% himself. Mr. Hsu told the investors he would then receive a letter of credit from a Chinese bank and that the manufacturer would ship the apparel to the U.S., where Mr. Hsu would deliver it to the merchant.

Mr. Hsu would give the investment firm a check, post-dated for 135 days beyond the wire transfer, for the amount of the loan plus profit. When the check matured, Source Financing would deposit it and allocate the money to investors. The company that would carry out these transactions, Mr. Hsu told investors, was Components Ltd., set up in 1997.

Some investors in Source Financing said they got involved through friends who knew Mr. Rosenman. Some did not know who Mr. Hsu was until news about him broke in late August.

On Friday, Aug. 31, Mr. Hsu appeared in court in Redwood City, Calif., to address the long-dormant grand theft charges. His case, and his $2 million bail bond, was front-page news across the country. In recent days, some media reports have raised questions about political contributions that appeared to be linked to Components Ltd. and Mr. Hsu.

On Monday, Sept. 3, Labor Day, Mr. Rosenman and Ms. Cheng talked to Mr. Hsu to find out about the status of their investments, they said in a letter to investors dated the next day.

They said that Mr. Hsu had vowed that he would deal with their orders personally, the letter said. "He expects substantial new orders this season," it read. "Because his personal schedule has become so hectic," it added, he may need up to five days beyond his promised target to finish an order. After consulting with advisers, they decided to give him time to perform.

The day after that letter was drafted, Wednesday, Sept. 5, Mr. Hsu skipped his next court hearing in California and went on the run from the law, via an eastbound Amtrak train. He was arrested the next day in a hospital in Grand Junction, Colo., where he was taken off the train after passengers reported he was ill.

In a letter this Monday, Mr. Rosenman told investors that the 37 outstanding deals with Components Ltd. are set to mature "over the next four months." But he indicated that was not likely. He said he had deposited two checks from Components that "matured Sept. 7." He was informed by the banks that there were insufficient funds.

"This development, coupled with recent revelations," he wrote, "led us to believe that payments due on our recent transactions with Components and Hsu may not be made."



Ken Berwitz.

"I really do think to accuse a general of the "willing suspension of disbelief," particularly in the atmosphere that has created with these terrible attacks, I don't know, I mean I think that's not the way in a responsible way to go about , you know, forging the foreign policy of the United States and the military policy of the United States." 

"I think this name calling, you know, saying to people, 'willing suspension of disbelief, and then saying the horrible thing they said about betrayal -- that is the last thing we need right now."

"What we need right now is a reasoned account, we need statesmanship not political venom."

.That quote is from Rudy Giuliani, in answer to Hillary Clinton apparently calling General David Petraeus a liar.

Thank you Mr. Giuliani. It needed to be said.  And more needs to be said too.

It is increasingly clear that when Eli Pariser of said his organization owned the Democratic party two years ago, he was right.

As we watch Democrat after Democrat try to out-moveon each other (just the way their earlier racist segregationist counterparts used to try to out-seg each other to win elections in the south) it becomes more and more difficult to escape this conclusion. put out their despicable, dishonest ad attacking General Petraeus, the commander of multi-national forces in Iraq, and each Democratic presidential hopeful, like programmed robots, has tried to "prove" he/she is the one most in agreement.  It is like a grotesque game of show-and-tell with george soros and the Tides foundation as the teachers.

What is lost in all this (or is it?) is the value such an attack provides for our enemies, both in and out of Iraq. 

Does the propaganda value of presidential contenders in the USA denouncing their own military leader during a war mean nothing to the Democratic party?  Do they want the other side to benefit from it?  What happens to us - Democrat no less than Republican - if they do benefit from it? 

It is time - actually long past time - that media start talking honestly about this. And way long past time that they start talking about who funds, what these people are and what their goals are. 

When Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and most of the other Democratic candidates suck up to, they are sucking up to the people and motivations behind it too.

Finally, where are the REPUBLICANS?  What rock are they hiding under?  If media are allowing  to own and operate the Democratic Party without educating voters about this organization, what in hell are THEY doing about it?  

What exactly is the Republican party afraid of?  That if they expose voters to their own positions they'll lose elections?  If so, they should formally change those positions.  Maybe a good start would be for them to call a press conference, apologize to harry reid and nancy pelosi, then say they were right all along and beg forgiveness.  

Do Republicans really believe that speaking up in support of General Petraeus and our objectives in Iraq, as well as talking about the damage being done by Democrats who are attacking both, is not the right thing to do?  If so, they've already lost the next election.  Because they are it is telling the country that and the Democratic party is right.

If Republicans think that hiding from their own positions or trying to be some ridiculous version of  "Democrat lite" is going to be a winner, they might as well start writing their concession speeches right now.

Bernard Goldberg, the former liberal/now conservative emmy-winning news correspondent, had a best-seller out this year, called "Crazies to the Left of me, Wimps to the Right of Me".  That title says it all.


Speak against the war and you might be murdered. Think this is coincidence.??

A reminder, that 7 soldiers in Iraq wrote an OP ED piece for the NY Times.  2 were killed before the article was printed. One was shot in the head the other was killed in a car accident as recorded by the US military.
Now word comes that a third soldier died in another car accident two days ago.  Little has been reported of this except by Keith Olbermann.  Also, a Sunni leader who met with W on his sneak visit to Iraq was killed yesterday.  Iraq as you can tell is now very safe according to W and his boys who testified this week and he will tell us so tonight.    barry
2 Soldiers Who Wrote About Life in Iraq Are Killed
Published: September 12, 2007

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 Engaging in the banalties of life has become a death-defying act, the seven soldiers wrote of the war they had seen in Iraq.

They were referring to the ordeals of Iraqi citizens, trying to go about their lives with death and suffering all around them. They did not know it at the time, but they might almost have been referring to themselves.

Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war, in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19, were killed in Baghdad on Monday. They were not killed in combat, nor on a daring mission. They died when the five-ton cargo truck they were riding in overturned.

The victims, Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26, and Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, were among the authors of The War as We Saw It, in which they expressed doubts about reports of progress.

As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day, the soldiers wrote.

My son was a soldier in his heart from the age of 5, Sergeant Grays mother, Karen Gray, said by telephone today from Ismay, Mont., where Yance grew up. He loved what he was doing.

But he wasnt any mindless robot, said the sergeants father, Richard Gray. Sergeant Gray leaves a wife, Jessica, and a daughter, Ava, born in April. He is also survived by a brother and sister.

Sergeant Moras mother, Olga Capetillo of Texas City, Tex., told The Daily News in Galveston that her son had grown increasingly gloomy about Iraq. I told him God is going to take care of him and take him home, she said.

A native of Ecuador, Sergeant Mora had recently become an American citizen. He was proud of this country, and he wanted to go over and help, his stepfather, Robert Capetillo, told The Houston Chronicle. Sergeant Mora leaves a wife, Christa, and a daughter, Jordan, who is 5. Survivors also include a brother and sister.

While the seven soldiers were composing their article, one of them, Staff Sgt. Jeremy A. Murphy, was shot in the head. He was flown to a military hospital in the United States and is expected to survive. The other authors were Buddhika Jayamaha, an Army specialist, and Sgts. Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck and Edward Sandmeier.

We need not talk about our morale, they wrote in closing. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

See what's new at and Make AOL Your Homepage.

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!!