Wednesday, 09 January 2008


Ken Berwitz

philip agee died on Monday in Cuba.

agee, 72, was the former CIA agent who ratted out CIA operatives around the world and probably was resonsible for the death and torture of a good number of them.  Here are excerpts from the Associated Press report of his death:

Ex-CIA Agent Philip Agee Dead in Cuba

HAVANA (AP) Former CIA agent Philip Agee, a critic of U.S. foreign policy who infuriated American intelligence officials by naming purported agency operatives in a 1975 book, has died, state media reported Wednesday. He was 72.

Agee quit the CIA in 1969 after 12 years working mostly in Latin America at a time when leftist movements were gaining prominence and sympathizers. His 1975 book "Inside the Company: CIA Diary," cited alleged CIA misdeeds against leftists in the region and included a 22-page list of purported agency operatives.

Granma, Cuba's Communist Party newspaper, said Agee died Monday night and described him as "a loyal friend of Cuba and fervent defender of the peoples' fight for a better world."

Bernie Dwyer, a journalist with state-run Radio Havana, said in a Tuesday message posted to a Cuba e-mail group that Agee's wife called him to say he had died after ulcer surgery in a hospital where he has he been since Dec. 15.

"He had several operations for perforated ulcers and didn't survive all the surgery," Dwyer wrote, adding that Agee was cremated Tuesday and that friends planned a memorial ceremony for him Sunday at his Havana apartment. .

How ironic - and satisfying - that agee died in a communist rathole because perforated ulcers outmatched its wonderful health care system.

philip agee:  R.I.H. 

Rot In Hell


Ken Berwitz

What is it about second term presidents on their way out that make them go loopy when it comes to Israel? 

Here, courtesy of the Jerusalem Post, is how the formerly strong President Bush, seconded by current Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (who is almost universally despised in Israel right now), is conspiring to sell the country down the river:

Says 'Palestinian right of return' must be discussed

Visiting US President George Bush called on Israel to remove "illegal outposts" in the West Bank, saying that "they simply ought to go" during an evening press conference shared by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday.

At the same time Bush called for all issues to be addressed during negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians - including the Palestinian 'right of return.'

Regarding an Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution, the US president reiterated that although the US had a vital role in assisting in negotiations, "people must understand that America cannot dictate the terms of the [Palestinian] state."

Bush said he believes Israeli and Palestinian leaders have willingness and desire to create a Palestinian state.

The president's first question to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas when they meet Thursday would be, "What are you going to do about" the rockets. He said that the firing of rockets from Palestinian territory is not in Abbas's interest.

Peace meant concessions from both sides, Bush insisted. He said that Arab states must "support the Palestinians as they make tough choices."

Bush added that he was "very hopeful" he could achieve an agreement. He said this is a "historic moment, a historic opportunity" to make peace, and both sides have the willingness and desire to create a Palestinian state. Olmert pledged to implement all of Israel's obligations under the "road map" plan.

The US president also affirmed western concerns that Iran is a threat to world peace, despite the release of his country's National Intelligence Estimate report in November.

"The NIE report may have sent a signal to some that the US doesn't think that Iran is a threat. I have said that Iran was a threat, Iran is a threat and Iran will be a threat if the international community doesn't come together to prevent it from getting a nuclear weapon," Bush said shortly after a meeting with Olmert.

He said that sanctions would force the Iranian people to choose whether to back a nuclear program.

Olmert, who spoke before Bush, said he was "encouraged and strengthened" by the American position on Iran. Despite the US intelligence report, Israel is convinced that Iran continues to seek nuclear weapons.

Bush's visit was very timely and an important way to encourage the process Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice started at Annapolis, the prime minister said.

Olmert claimed that the Israelis and Palestinians were "very serious" in trying to move forward to realize the vision of a two state solution.

"The Israeli team is committed to carrying on negotiations to deal with the with core issues to bring about agreements which will have to be implemented," he added.

Olmert thanked the US for the 30-billion-dollar aid package, saying the assistance was "remarkable" and "very helpful for the future of the state of Israel."

Olmert also related to Wednesday's Kassam attacks on the western Negev.

"Israel will not tolerate vicious attacks on innocent civilians living in our citieswe won't hesitate to take all the necessary measure to stop it," he said.

The prime minister went on to say that there would be no peace until terror is stopped, emphasizing that terror must be stopped everywhere, and that "Gaza must be part of the package.".

Hamas and Fatah, which rule the palestinian Arab population in Gaza and Judea/Samaria (the west bank) are overtly dedicated to the annihilation of Israel.  Rockets from those territories rain down on Israel's land every day.  Palestinian Arab schoolchildren are taught that there is no legitimacy to any part of Israel and that Jews are descended from monkeys and pigs.

So what is the Bush/Olmert solution?  Leave more land to palestinian Arabs, hand them half the country's capital city and negotiate the so-called "right of return" which, if implemented, would make Israel into an Arab state.

Bill Clinton tried to do this when he strong-armed Ehud Barak (the man he helped win Israel's leadership) into offering the sun, moon and stars to yasir arafat.  The offer was half of Jerusalem and about 97% of all the territory he demanded. 

The only thing that saved Israel was that the sun, moon and stars were not enough to make arafat happy.  He rejected the deal, presumably because they didn't toss in Tel Aviv, Haifa and the Israeli air force. 

Eventually Clinton left office, Barak was voted out by the largest landslide in Israeli history and President Bush - the original version, the one with the spine - started his first term.

I miss that version of President Bush.  Where did he go?  And what happened to Condoleezza Rice?  Is this a night of the living dead thing?  Did someone replace her with a pod delivered from Ramallah?


Ken Berwitz

We've all heard the number.  Over 600,000 dead Iraqis, all either at the hands of, or because of, our depraved, murderous troops.

And we know the number is accurate because, after all, it was published in "Lancet", a British journal.  And British people speak much more impressively than we do, rolling their r's and such, so that means it must be true. 

Plus, the article was co-authored by Les Roberts, who is a household name throughout the free world and known to all as being slightly more credible than the oracle of Delphi.

Ok, now that the controlled substances have worn off a little, let me try to talk rationally.  Or, maybe it would be better if I let Kathleen McKinley do the talking, courtesy of  Watch her skewer both the number of casualties and Roberts' credibility, through (you should pardon the expression) "liberal" use of actual facts:

A Study In Lies

By Kathleen McKinley | January 9, 2008 - 18:03 ET

Remember in 2006 when many leftwingers shouted with horror regarding a study that had found over 600,000 Iraqi civilians dead since the war began? I heard this number ad nauseum from my leftwing friends.

The WashingtonPost included the number in this piece. Fox News quoted it with some skepticism. But CNN headlined it.

Turns out, Fox was right to be skeptical because it was a bunch of bull:

It's probably no coincidence that one of the authors Roberts just happened to oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein from his dictator's throne and has confessed he tried to influence the 2004 U.S. elections by timing the release of a previous study that made the war look much worse than it was.

Roberts also ran unsuccessfully as a Democrat for New York's 24th congressional district in 2006. He told the National Journal that "a combination of Iraq and (Hurricane) Katrina just put me over the top."
Meanwhile, "Burnham admitted that he set the same condition" on the second report. didn't believe the numbers from the start because they didn't jive with our government's numbers or the Iraqi government's numbers or even another anti-war group with causality numbers, which were 44,000 to 49,000. Higher than the government's, but a BIT less than over 600,000, If you want to call 550,000 a bit less.

Naturally anti-Bush and anti-war forces have thrown the higher numbers around as if they were indisputable fact, not fraud.
At least one media outlet, though, used its journalistic instincts to take a critical look at the study. The National Journal let Neil Munro and Carl M. Cannon use that publication's Jan. 4 cover story to detail what they discovered after months of scrutiny.
Headlined "Data Bomb," the story identifies three problems:
"Possible flaws in the design and execution of the study."
"A lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud."
The authors have refused to provide the data they used to reach their conclusions. Part of the reason might lie in what should be their professional shame for letting unsupervised Iraqis go into neighborhoods and ask survey questions.
"Political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute."
Almost half of the study's $100,000 price tag was paid for by "an outspoken billionaire who has repeatedly criticized the Iraq campaign and who spent $30 million trying to defeat Bush in 2004."


Yet the wildly exaggerated 2006 Lancet study was not just accepted by the media, it was exalted. Why?
Again, the National Journal has the answer: "Probably because its findings fit an emerging narrative: Iraq was a horrific mess."
Of course the National Journal's expose will never get the same media attention that was heaped upon the original Lancet study. Its sober analysis does not fit the narrative.

Of course those false numbers will continue to be bantered about. The media won't correct it. The left will most certainly not. Why be honest when you can make the U.S. look bad in war?

Even the much lower numbers are a sad fact of war. I don't discount or dismiss them. But to use data and stand behind a false study in order to push a political agenda, using war at the time of war, is unforgivable.

Are you surprised that media did not debunk this BS?  I would assume you are not.  I know I'm not. They just left it hanging out their for the public to be misinformed.

And, coincidence of coincidences, people exposed to this misinformation would be moved to a position against the war in Iraq, against our troops and against our President. 

Sadly, this is what our media do.  Regularly.  Just as they have ignored the good news coming out of Iraq over the past half year.  Regularly.

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

free "Sadly, this is what our media do. Regularly. Just as they have ignored the good news coming out of Iraq over the past half year. Regularly." half of a year? hell i have noticed it for over 3 years now. (01/10/08)


Ken Berwitz

No, Andrew Sullivan, the writer and very scattered political thinker, has not been physically ill.  That title is a reference to his sudden realization that ron paul may not be nominated for the Essence Awards or as B'nai B'rith's Man of the Year any time soon.

As regular readers know, Mr. Sullivan endorsed ron paul for the Republican presidential nomination last month.  At that time I e-mailed him several times about paul's sickening ties to racism and anti-semitism.  Sullivan never replied.

Yesterday, however, The New Republic published a devastating piece by Jamie Kirchick which detailed the content paul's newsletter over the years, in far more detail than I was able to uncover.  The article, which provides numerous quotes, some of them exceptionally disgusting, finally got through to Mr. Sullivan.  You could almost see the wide-eyed look on his face as he wrote in his blog, "Do these (comments) sound like Ron Paul to you"?

Here is the e-mail I sent Mr. Sullivan last night:

"Do these sound like Ron Paul To You"? 
YES, they DO sound like ron paul to me.  They sound exactly like the man I described to you a month or so ago, when I e-mailed numerous examples of ron paul's undesirability and you ignored them.
Here is the e-mail I sent you on December 17:
Andrew (I hope you don't mind the familiarity)
You support ron paul?  Congratulations.  So does a voluminous list of nazis and White supremacists, including (but not limited to) david duke, hal turner, don black, jamie kelso, hutton gibson (Mel's looney-tune holocaust denying father) and those wonderful folks at, whose home page provides you with a convenient link to donate to the paul campaign.
Paul voted against re-authorizing the 1965 civil rights act.  He also voted against the house resolution condemning hezbollah.  He used to publish a newsletter that had overtly racist material in it.  Years later, he claimed he wasn't the writer of that material, but the newsletter was all of 8 pages long and had his name on it.  I know better than to believe he was unaware of its content and so do you.
It's been said that when you sleep with dogs you get fleas.  What do you get when you sleep with nazi and White supremacist colostomy bags and the guy who they support?
Ken Berwitz
I also have also talked blogged repeatedly about ron paul's sordid history on my own blog,  You can read the commentaries at:
Maybe it's time for you to rethink your endorsement.  I assure you there is nothing to be embarrassed about if you do: to paraphrase (and slightly mangle) Provebs 16:18, "Pride goeth before a paul"
Ken Berwitz .
Paul, for his part, has again fallen back on the "It may have been in my newsletter under my name but I didn't write it" alibi.  In other words, the dog ate his homework.  Dozens of times. 
Paul's exact words to Sullivan are:

The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed.  I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin.  As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999:  I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.

This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.  .

I can almost see fido chewing up the math problems.

FYI:  One other thing should be mentioned here:  Andrew Sullivan appears to think very little of Mr. Kirchick.  According to Sullivan , Kirchick, in an e-mail, indicated he was less interested in honest reporting than in stirring the pot and creating a controversy.  The e-mail's exact wording is:

Anyways, I dont think Ron Paul is a homophobe; Im just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy Id have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! .

I don't know Kirchick and can't speak for or against him (though I admit that a) that statement is pretty dumbass and b) his position at The New Republic is a major strike against his credibility). 

But, speaking for myself, I wasn't trying to stir any pot, everything I wrote was to the best of my knowledge, accurate and no one has debunked even one word of it.

And....Mr. Sullivan is still not responding to me anyway.


Ken Berwitz

"Tomorrow we will probably be laughing at a lot of these data.  Let's talk about it then.":  Me, talking about the political polls the day before the New Hampshire primary.

Now it is the day after the primary.  Am I laughing?  Are you kidding?

First, a reminder of what the poll data told us: 

Based on the final data, Barack Obama won the New Hampshire primary by an average of 8%.  The averaged results of all polls combined had Senator Obama at 27%, Senator Clinton at 29%, and former ambulance chaser turned Senator Edwards at 19%.

Individually, every polling organization had Mr. Obama the winner.  Rasmussen had him ahead by 10%.  So did Reuters/C-Span/Zogby.  USAToday/Gallup had him up by 13%.  Politically, Hillary Clinton was being fitted for a sarcophagus. 

Funny thing, though.  Senator Clinton won.  She wound up with 39% of the New Hampshire primary vote to 36% for Obama, with Edwards at 17%.   Bill Richardson got 5%, which I would call a pleasant surprise for him.  Dennis Kukucinich managed 1%, thus proving that his LAMB message was largely pre-empted by the big guys.

In fairness, on the Republican side the average results were a lot closer to reality.  The poll average showed Senator McCain the winner with  34%, former Governor Mitt Romney with 29%, former Governor Mike Huckabee at 11%, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 9%, current congressman ron paul at 7% and current TV actor (if there weren't a writer's strike)/former Senator Fred Thompson at an anemic 3%.

The reality, though not statistically perfect, was close.  And, on average, was in correct order.  McCain won with 37%, Romney was second at 32%, Huckabee was at 11%, Giuliani at 9%, paul at 8% and Thompson nearly flatlined at 1%.

I watched Today this morning.  They had Senators Clinton and Obama on in that order.  There was little doubt about who won and lost: 

-Clinton had all the bravado and swagger back, as if to say "let the coronation march continue". 

-Obama was wan, tight-lipped, barely could get out a smile, and looked like someone who was just kicked hard in the gonads -- which, in a political sense, is exactly what happened.

The Republican fight will change now, because we are getting to the states Giuliani has not conceded and must - MUST - do well in to survive. 

On the Democratic side, the gloves will now come off and this is going to be a street fight.  I have a feeling Clinton's people (not her, the Bill Clintonesque people around her) are more adept at it than the people around Obama.

In the immortal words of Arte Johnson on Laugh-in, this is about to become "Verrrrrrrrrrry interestinggggggg"

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!!