Tuesday, 01 January 2008


Ken Berwitz

I think it was W.C. Fields who said "why would anyone agree with a critic, they don't even agree with each other".

With that in mind, I would like to show you the following Associated Press item which I picked up from www.breitbart.com.  It is about political polls.  Please read it through and see if it reminds you of the W.C. Fields quote too:

THE RACE: The presidential race for Democrats, Republicans in Iowa.


THE NUMBERS - DEMOCRATS (CNN-Opinion Research Corp.)

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 33 percent

Barack Obama, 31 percent

John Edwards, 22 percent


Mitt Romney, 31 percent

Mike Huckabee, 28 percent

Fred Thompson, 13 percent

John McCain, 10 percent

Rudy Giuliani, 8 percent

Ron Paul, 8 percent



The poll shows a two-way race developing for the Democratic nomination in Iowa, with Clinton and Obama in a dead-heat and support for Edwards dropping. Previous polls in late December showed a tight three-way race between the three candidates. This poll suggests Democratic voters in Iowa see Clinton as the candidate who can win the general election and is most experienced while they say Obama is the most likable and most honest candidate. For Iowa's GOP race, Romney and Huckabee remain virtually tied; McCain, Thompson and Giuliani still trail far behind.

The CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted Dec. 26-30. It included telephone interviews with 373 Republicans likely to vote in the Iowa caucuses, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points; and 482 likely Democratic voters, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 points.



CNN: http://www.cnn.com


THE RACE: The presidential race for Democrats, Republicans in Iowa.


THE NUMBERSDEMOCRATS: (The Des Moines Register)

Barack Obama, 32 percent

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 25 percent

John Edwards, 24 percent

Bill Richardson, 6 percent



Mike Huckabee, 32 percent

Mitt Romney, 26 percent

John McCain, 13 percent

Fred Thompson, 9 percent

Ron Paul, 9 percent

Rudy Giuliani, 5 percent



An influx of first-time caucus-goers, including political independents, helped Obama inch further ahead of Clinton. His support increased from 28 percent in a Des Moines Register poll in November, while Clinton's remained flat, at 25 percent. Edwards' performance was about the same as in last month's survey. Obama's lead also is the largest of any of the Democratic candidates in Register polling this year.

Among Republicans, the survey shows McCain overtaking Giuliani to move into third place, up from his fifth in the November survey. Giuliani, who has not campaigned as hard in Iowa as some of his rivals, has fallen to sixth place. McCain is enjoying a resurgence of sorts in his campaign, and is looking for a strong finish in Iowa to help him in next-up New Hampshire, where he also has gained support.


The telephone poll for The Des Moines Register of 800 likely Democratic caucus-goers and 800 likely Republican caucus participants was conducted Dec. 27-30. The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.


COMPLETE RESULTS: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?categoryiowapoll07.

Now, someone please explain again why I would take political polls seriously.


Ken Berwitz

Robert Cox is a veteran blogger who has a web site, www.olbermannwatch.com which takes Keith Olbermann apart daily.  It does so by deconstructing each of his shows and criticizing their content and veracity. 

Mr. Cox pretty obviously hates Olbermann's guts and is not at all shy about showing it.  In that regard I think he carries things way further than he should.  Unfortunately, instead of just being insightful and accurate Bob comes across as nasty and vindictive (part of what he accuses Olbermann of being).

That said, however, it should also be pointed out that Olbermann gives Cox a seemingly endless string of opportunities to do so.  He is certainly the most offensive cable talk show host I have ever seen.  I consider him a nightly disgrace for MSNBC and someone the network should be ashamed of.

As a matter of personal disclosure, I did a satirical piece for Bob Cox in late 2006.  It ridiculed Olbermann in what I thought was a  humorous way (I still do).  Cox asked me some silly questions about Keith  Olbmerann which also attacked him, and I responded with some silly answers which attacked him too. 

In my opinion, Olbermann deserved to get the business -- if for no other reason because his nightly bombing run is not skewered by mainstream media for what it is.  Someone should nail olbermann for being the one-sided obnoxious farbissoner puss he is, so I did.

As a matter of further disclosure, after doing the Olbermann material an anti-Bill O'Reilly site asked me to do the same for them.  I agreed.  I would do satirical material on just about anyone on either side of the aisle. 

It didn't happen because they then indicated that they wanted it to be a more serious hit job.  While I'm not a big fan of O'Reilly, I don't put him in the same low-end league as Olbermann or anywhere close.  So I declined.

In any event, Mr. Cox has compiled a top 10 (or should I say bottom 10) list of the lies Keith Olbermann pumped out during 2007.  It must have been very hard to cull this down to 10, but he did it.  I thought you might like to see them.  So here they are:

Keith Olbermann's Top Ten Lies of 2007

It's time for our annual list of the worst, most egregious, most outrageous lies from the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann. It's the toughest job of the year: narrowing the list down to just ten. There is so much to choose from! Be that as it may, the staff of Olbermann has caucused and the votes are cast. Here are Keith Olbermann's Top Ten Lies of 2007:

Bathtub Boy

#10 - Keith Olbermann just can't help itself when it comes to Fox News. It's Extreme Olby: Envy Edition as hardly a day goes by without some attack on a news channel that is actually successful. The usual tactic is to claim something on Fox was untrue or a lie, when it wasn't. Or another favorite: make a sweeping claim that you know is untrue, because it appeals to your blue blog base. But the #10 winner uses a more blatant technique: just make up something about Fox, broadcast it as if it were the truth, and never correct the record.

#9 - Olbermahn's diseased loathing for anyone to the right of Fidel Castro--like his hatred of Fox--regularly sends KO into fits of fantasy, where facts and truth are dispensible annoyances. So he'll, say, invent totally fictitious statistics to slander the American Enterprise Institute. Just as he will misstate a whole fistful of facts when it suits his purposes. This syndrome also explains the lunatic statement that comes in at #9 in the countdown: "Mister" Bush is the first President ever to fire US attorneys.

#8 - When Monkeymann gets worked up about something, the truth just isn't good enough. It's much more effective when Olby himself can create a phony quote and use that to make his dishonest points. You know, like when he spent an entire segment berating Rudy for something he never said? In our #8 entry, note how Herr Olbermann pulls that same trick: to "prove" a point he cites a Patrick Fitzgerald statement that turns out to be, well, imaginary.

Bathtub Boy

#7 - You know that since we are on the threshhold of O'Reilly attack #400, there had to be some doozies in 2007. There are too many Olbermann Lies about Bill O'Reilly to detail without running out of space. We've selected this and this as our representative examples for #7.

#6 - Republicans beware. Edward R Olbermann will cover up for Hillary and spike stories that paint her in a bad light. But if you have an (R) after your name the Hsu is on the other foot. Bathtub Boy will run endless scandal stories, and if the blue blogs don't give him enough ammunition, then he can cook up Another Olbermann Lie or two. Governor Gibbons (R) learned how truthful Olby's reports are: not very. So it is that lie #6 in our countdown finds Mr Merkle berating Mitt Romney for something that--all together now--Romney never said! Yes, another phony, doctored quote from Olbermoronn.

#5 - As quickly as Herr Olbermann will rush to attack other broadcasters, he is oh-so-careful not to upset his corporate masters at A-Mess-NBC. He'll broadcast flat-out fabrications, like claiming Rudy Giuliani's Presidential campaign is being run by--get ready for this--Fox's Roger Ailes. He'll even lie about the contents of a competitor's blog. But our #5 entry shows Keith "Man on Fan" Olbermann at his most desperate. So eager was he to protect a possible NBC hire (Rosie O'Donnell) he doctored her words (sound familiar?) to claim she never compared US troops to terrorists. Then he blamed "Fox Noise"--another lie to protect his own sorry butt, since the people who accused Rosie of the troops/terrorism comparison were Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, and Howard Fineman--not on Fox, but on MSNBC!

Bathtub Boy

#4 - More lies about Fox News. We could do a top ten list every month the way Oralmann spews them. Whether it's a smear of Chris Wallace, or a slander of Brit Hume, the one thing you can trust about Monkeymann's attacks is that you cannot trust Monkeymann's attacks. That's what made this #4: Keith Olbermann contructs an ostentatious salvo at Fox over a leak. And guess what? Every single statement he made about Fox News was false. Untrue. An elaborate edifice of lies.

#3 - When Oralmann gets a bee in his bonnet, there is nothing that will stand in the way of OlbySpin. So he will pretend Richard Armitage never existed and assert that Karl Rove was an "original leaker" of Valerie Plame. To attack GWB, he'll invent a nonexistent checklist of rules for Presidential pardons. But his blatant dishonesty about waterboarding is our #3 lie. Olby's duplicity about Daniel Levin was so shamelessly barefaced that even the fawning mainstream media called him on it, something that gave John Gibson no end of pleasure.

#2 - Did you know that Keith Olbermann doesn't indulge in personal attacks? Why no, he's above all that. Sure, tell that to Liz Claman. In #2 of our countdown, observe how Fat Ass, to fuel yet another error-ridden critique of GWB, is willing to smear two writers: ridicule their professions, lie about their success... There can be no doubt that Keith Olbermann is The Model of a Liar.

And finally, here it is, the #1 Keith Olbermann lie of 2007. In fact it bids fair to be the greatest lie of his sorry career: "I'm not politically biased."



Ken Berwitz

It is pretty clear that just about all Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and Judea and Samaria (the west bank) speak out against the existence of Israel.  They favor a) replacing it with am Arab-ruled country called Palestine and b) subjugating, tossing out or killing every Jew who lives there. 

This is due, in no small part, to the fact that anyone who speaks out any other way will be killed in the street, probably along with the rest of his/her family.

Do all Palestinian Arabs like the nonstop hatred and killing?  Of course not, they are human beings.  But god help them if they say so in the "Palestinian territories."

Then we have the Palestinian Arabs who live in Israel.  They are in a place where they have more latitude to speak out as they truly feel.   So what do they say about which government they prefer to live under?

Here, from Daniel Pipes writing for the Jerusalem Post, is an insightful look at this issue:

Palestinians who prefer Israel

Palestinians have a hidden history of appreciating Israel that contrasts with their better-known narrative of vilification and irredentism.

The former has been particularly evident of late, especially since Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, floated a trial balloon in October about transferring some Arab-dominated areas of eastern Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority. As he rhetorically asked about Israeli actions in 1967, "Was it necessary to annex the Shuafat refugee camp, al-Sawahra, Walajeh, and other villages, and then to state that these are part of Jerusalem? One can ask, I admit, some legitimate questions about this."

In one swoop, this statement transformed pro-Israel statements by Palestinians (for a sampling, see my 2005 article, "The Hell of Israel Is Better than the Paradise of Arafat") from the mostly theoretical into the active and political.

Indeed, Olmert's musings prompted some belligerent responses. As the title of a Globe and Mail news item puts it, "Some Palestinians prefer life in Israel: In East Jerusalem, residents say they would fight a handover to Abbas regime." The article offers the example of Nabil Gheit, who, with two stints in Israeli prisons and posters of "the martyr Saddam Hussein" over the cash register in his store, would be expected to cheer the prospect of parts of eastern Jerusalem coming under PA control.

Not so. As mukhtar of Ras Khamis, near Shuafat, Gheit dreads the PA and says he and others would fight a handover. "If there was a referendum here, no one would vote to join the Palestinian Authority...There would be another intifada to defend ourselves from the PA."

Two polls released last week, from Keevoon Research, Strategy Communications, survey representative samples of adult Israeli Arabs on the issue of joining the PA, and they corroborate what Gheit says. Asked, "Would you prefer to be a citizen of Israel or of a new Palestinian state?" 62 percent want to remain Israeli citizens and 14 percent want to join a future Palestinian state. Asked, "Do you support transferring the Triangle [an Arab-dominated area in northern Israel] to the Palestinian Authority?" 78 percent oppose the idea and 18 percent support it.

IGNORING THE don't-knows/refused, the ratios of respondents are nearly identical preferring to stay within Israel - 82 percent and 81 percent, respectively. Gheit exaggerates that "no one" wants to live in the PA, but not by much. Thousands of Palestinian residents in Jerusalem who, fearful of the PA, have applied for Israeli citizenship since Olmert's statement further corroborate his point.

Why such affection for the state that Palestinians famously revile in the media, in scholarship, classrooms, mosques, and international bodies, that they terrorize on a daily basis? Best to let them explain their motivations in direct quotations.

Financial considerations: "I don't want to have any part in the PA. I want the health insurance, the schools, all the things we get by living here," says Ranya Mohammed. "I'll go and live in Israel before I'll stay here and live under the PA, even if it means taking an Israeli passport. I have seen their suffering in the PA. We have a lot of privileges I'm not ready to give up."

Law and order: Gazans, note Israeli-Arab journalists Faiz Abbas and Muhammad Awwad, now "miss the Israelis, since Israel is more merciful than [the Palestinian gunmen] who do not even know why they are fighting and killing one another. It's like organized crime."

Raising children: "I want to live in peace and to raise my children in an orderly school," says Jamil Sanduqa. "I don't want to raise my child on throwing stones, or on Hamas."

A more predictable future: "I want to keep living here with my wife and child without having to worry about our future. That's why I want Israeli citizenship. I don't know what the future holds," says Samar Qassam, 33.

Others raise concerns about corruption, human rights, and even self-esteem ("When the Jews talk about swapping me, it's as though they are denying my right to be a person").

These earnest views do not repudiate the vicious anti-Zionism that reigns in the Middle East, but they reveal that four-fifths of those Palestinians who know Israel at first-hand understand the attractions of a decent life in a decent country, a fact with important and positive implications.

What does this mean?  It means that when human beings are given a choice of living like the human beings they are, or as murderous, hate-filled automatons, they usually prefer living like human beings.

The saddest most frustrating factor is that Arabs in Gaza and Judea/Samaria are no different than those who live in Israel.  If they happened to live in Israel it is a near-sure bet they would feel the same way Israeli Arabs do.

So what is causing the difference?  Why is it that the same people who are so accepting of Israeli governance think so differently when they are ruled by fatah, hamas and whoever has the most guns and mortars nearby? 

Well, maybe if they had a chance - a real chance - to speak out we'd find out that many of them don't think so differently at all.

Will they ever get that chance?  Sorry, my crystal ball broke this morning and I can't say.  But I can hope.


Ken Berwitz

Michelle Malkin has put together what she considers the "notable quotables", of  2007.  They range from intelligent to dumb, friendly to scary and proprietous to obscene.  Some of them express opinions I agree with and some that I do not.

The list is way too long for one post - mine or hers.  So Ms Malkin has separated them into two parts - the first half of the year and the second.  Also, instead of just posting the quotes (which she has done with some), Malkin provides links which take you to the quotes along with additional material about them.

Here is the first half of her list.  The second is coming up later today:

Malkins year-in-review: Notable quotables, Pt I.

By Michelle Malkin    December 28, 2007 11:42 AM

A Yale professor named Dont tase me, bro as the most memorable phrase of 2007 last week. Heres the first of my two-part list of obvious and not-so-obvious notable quotables, words, headlines, and phrases of the year. Part I covers January through June. Part II will cover July through December.


Obscene amenities. - WaPo troop-basher William Arkin.

Amenities International. - Sout al-Kuffars video smackdown of Arkin.

Ive lost my son but he became a part of history. - Deb Dunham, mother of fallen Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham, recipient of the Medal of Honor.

The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy. - Gen. David Petraeus on the surge, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee.


Whore. - What Democrat Rep. Joe Baca called Rep. Loretta Sanchez, who quit the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in protest.

Beclowned. - To make a thorough ass of oneself in public, coined by blogger Tim Blair.

This is both my first post to the Edwards blog and my announcement that Im joining the presidential campaign for John Edwards for 2008. Ill be taking over the job of Blogmaster (mistress?) over the course of the month of February. The main two questions this brings up are: Why me? And why John Edwards? - Amanda Marcottes first official post as chief John Edwards blogger

Godbag. Jeebus. - Favored religious-bashing slurs of Marcotte.

Christofascist. - Favored slur of Edwards second blogger, Melissa McEwan

Important action alert. - Coined by nutroots leader Chris Bower of MyDD to rally supporters of John Edwards nutty bloggers.

He felt that what we were doing was just and right. - Charles Cummings, father of fallen hero Army PFC Branden Cummings, who died in an IED attack in Diyala, Iraq.

Chickengreens! - Blogger Tigerhawks nickname for Al Gore and his eco-sanctimonious elites who Conserve as I say, not as I do.

Dr Evil escapes againdamn.
Better luck next time!
If at first you dont succeed
You cant kill pure evil. Like an exorcism, you have to drive a stake through it.

- Huffington Post commenters reacting to the suicide bomb attack on Bagram Air Force base during VP Cheneys visit.

KICK MY ASS. - Sign worn by performance artist Mark McGowan, who crawled around the streets of New York in a George Bush mask looking for unhinged moonbats to plant their shoes on his backside for therapeutic purposes.

Whats wrong with sucking up to everybody? - John McCain on the campaign trail in Seattle.


Chocolate Jesus. - Cowardly artists attempt to offend people of faith.

I am John Doe. - Our response to the lying, flying, suing imams.

I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard. I will never feel the same. I will never be the same. - Techblogger Kathy Sierra gives in to online threats.

I made the Vote Different ad. - The producer of the famous viral anti-Hillary Big Sister ad steps forward.

He would do it all over again, and he loved being an American. - Kristia Cavere, sister of fallen hero Jonathan Cadavero, an Army medic killed on patrol in Baghdad.

Aww dont feel noways tired. Ive come too faarrr from where I started frum. . . . Aww could have listened all day luung. - Hillary Clinton in Selma, Alabama.


No attack occurred. - the North Carolina Attorney Generals conclusion regarding the Duke lacross players.

This is why Im hot
Catch me on the block
Every other day
Another bitch another drop
16 bars, 24 pop
44 songs, nigga gimme what you got

- from my post on Don Imus vs. the Billboard Hot Rap Tracks Chart

Theres only one whore on this split-screen, and its you, Mr. Shabazz. - My response to hatemonger Malik Shabazzs attack on me as a political prostitute.

You know, when I walk into the Oval Office in January of 2009, Im afraid Im gonna lift up the rug and Im goin to see so much stuff uh-nder thar . . . You know, what is it about us always havin to clean up after people? . . . But this is not just going to be pickin up socks off the floor. This is going to be cleanin up the government. - Hillary Clinton preaching at Al Sharptons church

We should not surrender in the face of barbarism - Joe Lieberman to Harry Reid.

As coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting continues to unfold, AAJA urges all media to avoid using racial identifiers unless there is a compelling or germane reason. - Asian American Journalists Association grievance-mongers complaining about coverage of VTech killer Cho Seung-Hui.


Verizon decided this week to end its support and sponsorship of Akon. - Verizon official Jim Gerace.

Im not serving you. - restaurant owner Jeff Ruby to O.J. Simpson

I dont feel like a hero, to be honest with you. I feel like I did the right thing. But the real heroes are our men and women overseas, and the people in our law enforcement who handled this situation. - Brian Morgenstern, the John Doe whistleblower who tipped of the feds to the Fort Dix Six jihadi suspects.

F**k you.

- John McCain cursing out John Cornyn over shamnesty


12 million undocumented Americans. - Harry Reids description of the illegal alien population of the US.

Loud people. - Lindsay Grahams disdainful description of grass-roots opponents of shamnesty.

Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem. - The odious Trent Lott.

Clay pigeon. - Harry Reids last-ditch shamnesty ploy.

Bush Estrangement Syndrome. - Kathryn Lopezs term of un-endearment for the White House after the shamnesty debacle.

I sincerely apologize to anyone I may have inadvertently offended. The bag was a purchase I made as a tourist in China and I did not realize the potentially hurtful nature of the slogan printed on it. - Cameron Diaz apologizing for carrying her Mao bag in Peru.

And by special commenter request

If the answer is build a fence Ive got two goats on my place in Mississippi. There aint no fence big enough, high enough, strong enough, that you can keep those goats in that fence.

Now people are at least as smart as goats, Lott continued. Maybe not as agile. Build a fence. We should have a virtual fence. Now one of the ways I keep those goats in the fence is I electrified them. Once they got popped a couple of times they quit trying to jump it.

Im not proposing an electrified goat fence, Lott added quickly, Im just trying, theres an analogy there.

- The odious Trent Lott striking out again.


Ken Berwitz

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"

The above quote has been attributed to many people;  Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin among them.  But one thing whoever said it first and everyone who said it afterwards has in common is that they have a point.

With this in mind, here is the latest foolish commentary from Hillary Clinton, a woman who seems determined to singlehandedly elevate the art form.  It comes to us from the excellent web site www.powerlineblog.com:

Ms. Hillary does Pakistan

Thomas Houlahan comments on Ms. Hillary's recent discussions of events in Pakistan with Wolf Blitzer and George Stephanopoulos, addressing the question: "How credible is Hillary Clinton on Pakistan?" Houlahan writes:

"If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election," [Senator Clinton] told Blitzer, "then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow."

My immediate reaction was: "Did I hear that correctly?"

As a Pakistan analyst, I know for a fact that Pervez Musharraf doesn't wish to stand for election any time soon.

The upcoming elections are for the next parliament. Musharraf was just elected president of Pakistan, overwhelmingly, by popularly elected electors on Oct. 6. He's just begun his five-year term as the president of the country. Why would he ever want to run for one seat in parliament? It wouldn't make sense.

However, I checked the transcript of the interview later. That's exactly what she said.

My next reaction was: "Maybe she misspoke. Candidates do a lot of interviews. Not every sentence comes out the way they want it to."

After all, Sen. Clinton is a candidate who is running claiming big-time foreign policy knowledge and experience that she says her closest opponents in the Democratic Primary don't have.

Pakistan? A nuclear power? A front-line ally in the war on terror? A country that's been in the news an awful lot in the past few months? "C'mon," I told myself. "A candidate with all of those advisors has got to know at least the basics about Pakistan's political system."

No such luck.

Sunday morning, ABC's This Week ran an interview George Stephanopoulos had done with Sen. Clinton on Friday.

The interview produced this gem:

Referring to a possible delay in the elections, Sen. Clinton said: "I think it will be very difficult to have a real election. You know, Nawaz Sharif [leader of the PML-N, an opposition party] has said he's not going to compete. The PPP is in disarray with Benazir's assassination. He [President Pervez Musharraf] could be the only person on the ballot. I don't think that's a real election."

And then it hit me:

Sen. Clinton really didn't know that the upcoming elections were for individual seats in Pakistan's parliament. She actually believed that Bhutto, Nawaz and Musharraf would be facing off as individual candidates for leadership of the country in the upcoming elections.

Sen. Clinton didn't know that Nawaz Sharif isn't allowed to run for office in Pakistan because of a felony conviction. She didn't know that President Musharraf won't be on the ballot because he's already been elected.

Sen. Clinton, a candidate for the leadership of the free world, apparently doesn't know the first thing about the country referred to by some as "the most dangerous place on earth."

A transcript of Senator Clinton's interview with Blitzer is posted here; a video of Senator Clinton's interview with Stephanopoulos interview is posted here. If any of the major Republican presidential candidates had spoken in this manner about the scheduled elections in Pakistan, surely an issue would be made of it.

And with this latest ignorance from Ms. Clinton comes my standard lament:  Where are media on this?  How can they so blatantly protect Senator Clinton and pretend they are objective? 

Haven't the same media mercilessly attacked and ridiculed President Bush for his painful lack of communications skills?  Wouldn't it seem reasonable to expect that the same media would offer us a word or two about Hillary Clinton's combination of abject ignorance and willingness to thrust her chin out and state that ignorance as fact?

Suppose the person who made those comments was Rudy Giuliani.  Do you think for a moment, for a nanosecond, that media would look the other way and bury it for him?

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.



Ken Berwitz

P.J. Gladnick of www.newsbusters.org has written an excellent piece about yesterday's New York Times editorial, which essentially calls our soldiers along with our elected administration war criminals. 

This needs no commentary from me.  It speaks for itself.  Sickeningly.

See if you agree:

NYT Editorial Accuses American Soldiers of War Crimes

By P.J. Gladnick | January 1, 2008 - 11:22 ET

In what looks like an editorial authored by one of the more extreme members of the Democratic Underground, the New York Times ended the year with a rabid leftwing rant that among other things accused American soldiers of war crimes on a large scale:

In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account. We have seen mercenaries gun down Iraqi civilians with no fear of prosecution. We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant.

 If you think these assertions are outrageous, the Times' editorialist was only getting warmed up:

There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country. Sunday was one of them, as we read the account in The Times of how men in some of the most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover up the torture of prisoners by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening behavior. It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule of law and human decency.

No mention in the editorial about Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Democrats being briefed on waterboarding way back in 2002. The main point of this editorial was to attack the Bush administration and Republicans with absolutely no anger directed against actual terrorists:

We have read accounts of how the governments top lawyers huddled in secret after the attacks in New York and Washington and plotted ways to circumvent the Geneva Conventions and both American and international law to hold anyone the president chose indefinitely without charges or judicial review.

Those same lawyers then twisted other laws beyond recognition to allow Mr. Bush to turn intelligence agents into torturers, to force doctors to abdicate their professional oaths and responsibilities to prepare prisoners for abuse, and then to monitor the torment to make sure it didnt go just a bit too far and actually kill them.

The White House used the fear of terrorism and the sense of national unity to ram laws through Congress that gave law-enforcement agencies far more power than they truly needed to respond to the threat and at the same time fulfilled the imperial fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney and others determined to use the tragedy of 9/11 to arrogate as much power as they could.

So according to this New York Times editorial the real problem isn't the terrorists themselves but the fear of terrorism that was used to fulfill the "imperial fantasies" of Vice President Cheney and other EVIL Republicans in their drive to acquire power. You can almost hear the violins playing as the Times laments the fate of the poor little terrorists at the hand of the Bush administration:

Hundreds of men, swept up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, were thrown into a prison in Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, so that the White House could claim they were beyond the reach of American laws. Prisoners are held there with no hope of real justice, only the chance to face a kangaroo court where evidence and the names of their accusers are kept secret, and where they are not permitted to talk about the abuse they have suffered at the hands of American jailers.

The editorial concludes with a plea to in effect elect a Democrat as president to correct all the horrible misdeeds committed, according to the fantasies of this editorialist, by the Bush administration:

These are not the only shocking abuses of President Bushs two terms in office, made in the name of fighting terrorism. There is much more so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them.

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

Reading this warped editorial, one has to wonder what the DU screen name of this author is over at the Democratic Underground.

You tell me.  Who came out better in this editorial; our troops or the people they are fighting?

The one positive here is educational in nature.  You now know exactly what the New York Times thinks of our military. 

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!!