Friday, 02 November 2007


Ken Berwitz

CBS is in a dogfight to be the most credibility-challenged of the TV networks (no small accomplishment). 

Dan Rather alone puts them in the hunt, but there is so much more.

And, because CBS's credibility problem is their dislike of anything Republican, especially President Bush, that brings out the LAMBs (Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade) in full force.

Let me give you a case in point.  CBS is reporting that "Curve Ball", the name of an honesty-challenged (to say the least) source of information related to Iraq's WMDs and quest for uranium, will be "outed" on 60 minutes tomorrow. 

Now anyone who reads political news has been aware that he is Rafid Alwan for years.  So this "breaking news" is right up there with a report that President Bush defeated John Kerry for the presidency (I do, however, concede that it is news to some of the LAMBs, who don't recognize that any Republican has ever actually defeated a Democrat).

In any event, the article about this big news was posted on CBS' website with the following copy, which I have excerpted (you can read the entire piece at :.

(CBS) 60 Minutes has identified the man whose fabricated story of Iraqi biological weapons drove the U.S. argument for invading Iraq. It has also obtained video of "Curve Ball," as he was known in intelligence circles, and discovered he was not only a liar, but also a thief and a poor student instead of the chemical engineering whiz he claimed to be.

60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon's two-year investigation will be broadcast this Sunday, Nov. 4, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Curve Ball is an Iraqi defector named Rafid Ahmed Alwan, who arrived at a German refugee center in 1999. To bolster his asylum case and increase his importance, he told officials he was a star chemical engineer who had been in charge of a facility at Djerf al Nadaf that was making mobile biological weapons.

He eventually wound up in the care of German intelligence officials to whom he continued to spin his tale of biological weapons. His plan succeeded partially because he had worked briefly at the plant outside Baghdad and his descriptions of it were mostly accurate. He embellished his account by saying 12 workers had been killed by biological agents in an accident at the plant.

More than a hundred summaries of his debriefings were sent to the CIA, which then became a pillar - along with the now-disproved Iraqi quest for uranium for nuclear weapons - for the U.S. decision to bomb and then invade Iraq. The CIA-director George Tenet gave Alwans information to Secretary of State Colin Powell to use at the U.N. in his speech justifying military action against Iraq.

Tenet gave the information to Powell despite a letter - a copy of which 60 Minutes obtained - addressed to him by the head of German intelligence stating that Alwan appeared to be believable, but there was no evidence to verify his story. 

I love that part where CBS slips in their fantasy that the Iraqi quest for uranium for nuclear weapons is "now disproven".  Maybe they should read the 9/11 Commission findings - which, among other things, say that joseph wilson's report actually BOLSTERED the CIA's belief that Iraq was trying to get uranium. 

Maybe CBS can also tell us what they think Iraq's high level people were doing in Niger, a country rich in uranium and little else, when they visited the country:  buying agricultural produce?

But, that aside, this blog is written to show you how LAMBs think, so here are some of their comments about this CBS story. You should know what the LAMBs say when they don't think you're looking. 

Here is a sampling (believe me, there is more):.

Did anyone really expect anything different? If Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Bozo the Clown told Bush something, he''d swear that was Gospel, too. What a f*&^%$ing MORON! And the Republicans chose him as a "leader"??? IN-FRIGGING-CREDIBLE!!!..........................
Articles of impeachment to be brought against *** Cheney next week in the US House of Represenatives. STAY TUNED! HaHaHaHaHa. GO jinGOPigs! I mean go, get out of America, you lying Nazi loving scum of the earth! ................................




HILLARY IS A REPUBLICAN TOO!! .....................

Bush was looking for any shmuck they could find that could feed them phony baloney intel to justify His desire to rape pillage and plunder.

Mission Accomplished........................................

Both Germany and Italy contacted America and told them curveball was a fake and his info bogus, long before Bush went public--but I guess when you want something bad enough (like war, mayhem, torture and a police state) you gotta go with what you are given and hope it never comes out if you stack it under "national security claims"................................

Bu$hco knew that "curve ball" was an unreliable and unvarifiable source well before they used him in their case for war on Iraq. This was about stealing control of Iraq''s oil from day one. Every other reason for going in has turned out to be a total lie...........................

For the GOP goose-steeping lackeysFor the GOP goose-steeping lackeys to complain that we are not doing the Kool-Aid dance with them and following them lemming style over the cliff by calling us Bush-Haters, Commies, Un-American and worse the chicken has come back to roost for them. It was a LIE to the American people, all those dead and maimed soldiers coming from the White House and the buck stops at GW%u2019s desk. Bush has only one thing that an honorable man would do, resign. However, he is just a crooked politician taking money out from the hands of the dead solders and from American%u2019s wallet fro his own greedy good time along with his cronies. The truth will come out and all he%u2019ll say %u201Cit%u2019s an executive secret%u201D and not be compelled to tell the truth. Funny thing is if it was a DEM. as POTUS Rush & his ilk would be breaking down the door of the WH. Unfortunately, if it were a DEM we would never ever be in the jam in the first place as they are honorable & wise. Let%u2019s get ion Hillary in before we all blow up this world believing in the bogie man under the bed  .

Let me remind you again that this is just a tiny sampling of the bile found in these comments.  If you want the entire tidal wave go to the website itself, which I've provided a link for above. 

Then go to places like,, etc, read the comments from their regulars, and find out that this stuff is middle of the road by comparison.

And before you answer with "well, there are rightwing site just like it", I strongly urge you to go to a few and see.  You won't find filth like this at almost any of them.  Hatred of this dimension seems to be the near-exclusive province of the LAMBs.

Nice folks.  Really.  Let's be sure to put their candidates in charge.


Ken Berwitz

For years, the New York Times has been a reliable supporter of Hillary Clinton.  It supported both of her husband's "co-presidential" runs, rationalized her health care committee's disastrous performance and then supported her twice as a senate candidate.

But in the last few months, the Times' support has been anything but reliable. 

More than most mainstream media, the Times has reported on Senator Clinton's series of major campaign finance scandals - scandals that, by now, would have caused virtually every other candidate to either discontinue the presidential quest or spend 75% of the time trying to defend his/her ethics and integrity.

It's not that the Times has done a lot of reporting about Norman Hsu and then the Milberg Weiss law firm's millions in dirty money to Hillary and fellow Democrats (among other major scandals - these are certainly not the only two).  It's that they have reported it at all.

By comparison, how much have you seen about these scandals elsewhere?  How much have you seen on the network news or on the Today or GMA morning shows?  Do you recall anything at all?  

But the clearest indication that the Times may be off Ms. Clinton's bandwagon came this morning, in its letters to the editor section.

The letters to the editor section is certainly not the most popular part of the paper.  Many people never even look at them.  But a) it is the only place where everyday readers can have their say and b) letter selection is entirely at the Times' discretion.  So the paper can (and in the Times' case, does) use that discretion to create an image of how readers feel about issues.

Illustratively, President Bush's approval ratings have ranged from the low 90's (right after 9/11) down to the high 20's.  But in the New York Times letters section, the vast majority of readers have attacked hm throughout his seven years in office.  Did the Times receive a far larger sample of positive letters when his approval ratings were higher?  I would think that to be certain.  But because the Times can pick and choose which letters it publishes you'd never have known it.  

Similarly, read the Times' letters about the war in Iraq and try to find anyone who supports that war.  Not just now, but for almost the entire duration of the war, even when it was enormously popular. 

With this in mind, let me show you the three letters published in the New York Times this morning which talk about Tuesday's Democratic presidential debate - which, Ms. Clinton complains. was an exercise in "the boys" ganging up and picking on her as a woman:.

At the Debate: Was It Ganging Up, or Actual Debating?

To the Editor:

Re Everybody vs. Hillary, by Gail Collins (column, Nov. 1):

The reason Hillary Rodham Clinton is in the sights of other Democratic candidates is that she is the front-runner.

Clinton supporters complain about a bunch of men ganging up against her. But either she is running as the most viable candidate to win the election, in which case being a woman had nothing to do with it, or shes running as a poor, defenseless girl against all those nasty men. The voting public wont buy the latter position.

Michael Grant
Moriches, N.Y., Nov. 1, 2007

To the Editor:

After the Democratic debate, I read about how the candidates were ganging up on Hillary Rodham Clinton and attacking her. It seems that we have lost sight of the language and meaning of words.

If a person asks tough questions so that people can understand what a candidate stands for, that is not ganging up on or attacking a candidate; it is, in fact, what a debate is for.

And it is not gotcha politics to ask how somebody who wants to be president would respond to a theoretical situation that could become an actual problem that would have to be resolved.

Barry Levy
Hawthorne, Calif., Nov. 1, 2007

To the Editor:

Whenever Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks in debate forums, I envision Margaret Thatcher admonishing us not to go wobbly on her. But then, there is Senator Clinton wobbling on issues of war and peace. Hence we heard her convoluted rationale for voting for the saber-rattling Senate resolution on Iran and her less-than-clarion call for reforming Social Security in order to save it.

But make no mistake; however much Mrs. Clinton may tack to the right, she will be mercilessly demagogued by the Republican attack machine.

For those who hunger for real change in the White House after two terms of outsourcing the truth her lawyerly equivocations dont comport with standing up, ramrod straight and unbowed, for the progressive-minded principles of democratic (small d) governance.

Barbara Allen Kenney
Atlanta, Nov. 1, 2007

That's all there was, folks.  Three letters about the debate and every one of them criticized Ms. Clinton and derided her. Three out of three.

Were there letters defending Ms. Clinton?  I have no doubt at all that there were, and plenty of them.  But the paper chose to only print the negative letters.

Just like they do it to President Bush.  Just like they do it to the war in Iraq.  What does that tell you?

When mine workers went deeper into the mine, they used to bring canaries with them.  They let the canaries fly ahead of them and listened for their singing.  Because if the canaries stopped singing it meant there wasn't enough air or there was too much gas where they were headed and the canaries died..  If the canaries died, so would the miners. 

Politically, the parallel is that a candidate can get to the point where he or she will not be sustained by media.

Maybe today's letters to the editor section indicates the New York Times has stopped singing to Hillary.


Ken Berwitz

Yes, I know;  the dollar continues to weaken, the price of oil continues to rise and the housing market is still in the tank.  There is certainly bad economic news out there, and mainstream media have no problem telling us about it every day.

But yesterday I blogged that there was also a 3.9 growth rate in the third quarter, which is excellent.  Did you see/hear about that the way you do about the bad economic news?  I didn't and I suspect you didn't either.

Well here is some more good economic news, courtesy of an excerpt from the Associated Press.  I wonder if  it will be in your paper or on the news show you watch tonight:.

Payrolls Grow by 166,000 in October, Jobless Rate Holds Steady, Labor Department Reports

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Employers boosted payrolls by a surprisingly strong 166,000 in October, the most in five months, an encouraging sign that the nation's employment climate is holding up relatively well against the strains of a housing collapse and credit crunch.

The Labor Department's report, released Friday, also showed that the unemployment rate held steady at 4.7 percent for the second month in a row. It's a figure that is considered low by historical standards.

Job gains were logged for professional and business services, education and health care, leisure and hospitality, and for the government. Those employment increases more than offset jobs losses in manufacturing, construction and retail -- casualties of the problems plaguing the housing market.

The latest snapshot of employment conditions around the country was better than economists were anticipating. Economists were forecasting payrolls to grow in October by about half the pace seen -- around 80,000. They did correctly predict the unemployment rate would be unchanged. .

My point is not to paint an overly optimistic picture of our economy.  I think that is obvious from the first paragraph of this blog. 

My point is that there is good news along with the bad.  Very meaningful good news.  And if you are told little other than the bad news you will probably think the economy is in much worse shape than it really is.  And you will probably act accordingly. 

Or, put another way, if major media bury the positive side of things and tell us only about the negative side, they are intentionally causing people to misunderstand and misread the condition of our economy.

Now; are they doing this?  You read the newspaper and watch/read the broadcast media.  You tell me.

Al The only way that 3.9 looks good is if the govt isn't lying about the inflation figures. Let's hope they aren't. (11/02/07)

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!!