Monday, 04 February 2008


Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of the Associated Press, is the latest on how "the peace process" is going between Israel and the people who want to annihilate it.  The bold print is mine:

3 dead in Israel explosion
Israeli airstrike kills leading militant in northern Gaza Strip
The Associated Press
updated 6:35 a.m. ET, Mon., Feb. 4, 2008

JERUSALEM - A suicide bomber on Monday blew himself up in the southern town that houses Israel's secretive nuclear reactor, killing at least three other people and wounding five, Israeli rescue officials said.

Police said there were two attackers, though only one managed to detonate his explosives belt, but it was not immediately clear whether the Dimona nuclear reactor was their target. The blast, the first suicide attack in Israel in more than a year, took place in an industrial area about six miles from the reactor site.

Separately, an Israeli aircraft attacked a car traveling in the northern Gaza Strip on Monday, killing one of the most wanted militants in Gaza, The Associated Press quated Palestinian officials as saying.

The Popular Resistance Committees said Abu Said Qarmout, its leader in northern Gaza, was killed in the airstrike. The PRC has fired hundreds of rockets into southern Israel, frequently sparking Israeli airstrikes and military reprisals. The group, which has close ties to the ruling Islamic militant group Hamas, said Qarmout had previously escaped four other Israeli attempts to kill him.

The Israeli army confirmed it had attacked a "PRC activist."

'Large explosion'
"We heard a large explosion and people started to run. I saw pieces of flesh flying in the air," a witness of the attack in southern Israel, identified only by her first name, Revital, told Army Radio.

The Haaretz daily reported that the second attacker was shot dead before he could explode himself.

Southern Israel has been on alert against militant attacks since the Gaza Strip's Islamic Hamas rulers breached the border with Egypt on Jan. 23. Egypt managed to reseal the border only on Sunday.

The breach made Israel's Negev desert, where Dimona is located, more vulnerable to penetration by Palestinian militants who could enter through Egypt's Sinai desert. Dimona is about 40 miles northeast of the porous Egyptian border. Last week, Israel closed a number of popular hiking areas in the south for fear of militant attacks.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for Monday's attack.

In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Ayman Taha said he did not know whether his group was involved but that the attack was justified. He also rejected suggestions that the bombing would hurt Hamas' chances of reopening the border with Egypt.

"The suicide bombings were there before the closures and the resistance used every opportunity to make these glorious acts," he said. "They show the Palestinians can respond to the enemy and their crimes."

The last suicide bombing in Israel occurred on Jan. 29, 2007, when a Palestinian attacker killed three Israelis at a bakery in the southern Israeli city of Eilat. Before that blast, there had been no suicide bombings in Israel for nine months, though Israel says it has foiled numerous attempts at carrying out such attacks.

After the breakdown of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in 2000, Palestinian militants carried out dozens of suicide bombings that killed hundreds of people. Last November, peace negotiations were resumed between Israel and the moderate, West-Bank-based government of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

To review: 

-Israel was attacked by two suicide/homicide bombers (one of whom they were able to stop in time).  Innocent civilians were killed and injured. 

-Israel killed a terrorist leader responsible for "hundreds" of attacks on Israel by his own group's reckoning.

-The group he belonged to - the one responsible for the hundreds of attacks - has close ties to hamas, which governs Gaza.  (Note:  Hamas won a parliamentary majority in Gaza, which means its people wanted them to be in charge and got what they wanted.  Hamas then violently removed all elected officials from al fatah, the other terrorist group elected to govern palestinian Arabs).

-The likely reason suicide/homicide bombers were able to get into Israel was that Egypt's border fence was blown up by hamas.  This enabled them to end-around the Israeli border fence.  Until then, Israeli's border fence had prevented the attacks.

Anyone who thinks there is any "peace process" here needs immediately psychatric attention.  You cannot make peace with people who want your country obliterated, you dead, and who consider blowing up civilians a "glorious act".

Personally?  I wait for the time that Israel finally has enough.  I want to see Israel give Gazans a few days to vacate their villages along the Gaza/Israel border, blow those villages to kingdom come, put in a second fence and electrify the distance between the two fences.  Israel is 100% justified in doing so for the protection of its own citizens.

Then let the murderers of civilians only dream about their "glorious acts".


Ken Berwitz

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday.  22 states will have primaries. 

Until now I have put up final polling data the day before primaries and talked about how it compared to actual results the day after.  That is pretty impractical to do when almost half the country is in play. 

So bear with me through tomorrow and I'll try to hit the high - and low - spots on Wednesday.


Ken Berwitz

Fred Schwarz has written a terrific piece in the latest issue of National Review.  In it, he explains how Democrats Clinton and Obama are trapping themselves by lying about the successes that have become so obvious in Iraq - even to many of their fellow Democrats.

With that, I pass Mr. Schwarz's article along to you:

Will Vietnam Cost the Democrats the White House -- Again?
Selling defeat is not a path to victory.

By Fred Schwarz

A year after the American troop surge in Iraq began, its success is clear, even to Newsweek, the Washington Post, and Rep. John Murtha. As Wesley Morgan details in the current issue of National Review, violence is way down, American troop levels are decreasing, tribal leaders are casting their lot with America, and a tattered al-Qaeda is on the run. Yet most leading Democrats sound like they havent heard the news.

On the anniversary of the surge, Harry Reid wrote that as President Bush continues to cling stubbornly to his flawed strategy, Al Qaeda only grows stronger. After Bushs State of the Union Address last week, Hillary Clinton said, President Bush is not satisfied with failure after failure in Iraq; he wants to bind the next president to his failed strategy . . ., while Barack Obamas assessment was: Tonight we heard President Bush say that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know thats just not true. During Thursday nights debate at the Kodak theater, conservative radio host Michael Graham asked in frustration, Do these two U.S. senators have any idea whats actually happening in Iraq?

Are they simply clueless? Maybe, though you have to suspect that they do actually know the surge is working. Unpatriotic? Call it what you will; theres nothing like amplifying every failure and minimizing every success to show the troops in the field which side youre rooting for. But as the French say, Its worse than a crime; its a blunder. Insisting that America is losing in Iraq is not only wrong factually and morally; its poor strategy.

You can win an election on bad news if its obvious, but not if you have to sell the voters on it first. Hope is a powerful emotion, and given the choice between a candidate who says were doomed and one who says were winning, most voters will prefer to believe the latter, particularly when the facts bear him out. Why choose to feel dismal? Moreover, suppose you think that Americas mission in Iraq is imperiled but not lost. Which side are you going to vote for the one that wants to fight things out or the one that wants to quit? The doomsaying strategy works only on voters who are naturally inclined to despair, and thankfully, they make up a small part of the electorate.

In any event, its unnecessary. History shows that its entirely possible to win a war and then lose an election. Bush 41 is the most recent example (Hillarys husband could tell her about that), but there are many others. After World War II, voters in both Britain and America strongly repudiated the parties that had been in power. In World War I, American troops surged into Europe and changed a static slaughterhouse into an Allied victory that was all but complete by the fall of 1918. On the eve of that years congressional election, Woodrow Wilson appealed to voters to support his fellow Democrats. The result: The Senate changed from 54-42 Democratic to 49-47 Republican, and the House from a narrow Democratic majority to a 50-seat Republican edge. You can even go all the way back to John Adams. For most of his single term as president, he fought an undeclared naval war with French terrorists; then in September 1800 he triumphantly announced a peace treaty. The nation rewarded Adams by tossing him out of office in favor of Thomas Jefferson.

Turning the page and moving on sounds much better to voters than switching horses in midstream, especially when the stated plan is to turn the horse around and retreat. So why are the Democrats so stuck on denying the facts? Why cant they admit the surges success while criticizing the wrong turns that preceded it, and fight the election on other issues? The answer lies in the lingering illness that the party has been unable to shake for 40 years: McGoverns Disease, popularly known as Vietnam Syndrome.

In its simplest form, VS causes its sufferers to view every military action through the template of the Vietnam War. In its advanced stages, they take this tendency a step further, seeing everything that occurs in politics and government as a rerun of the 1960s and 1970s. Its like that game where you cast your friends as characters on Gilligans Island. Victims of VS remember that Richard Nixon won in 1968 by suggesting that the war was going badly, even though the situation had stabilized by that summer. In 1972 he was reelected in a landslide after Henry Kissinger said, Peace is at hand; three years later, helicopters were picking Americans off Saigon rooftops. Since, in the VS mindset, everything that happens at any time is simply 1968 coming around again on the guitar, this means the only way to win a wartime election is to out-trick Tricky Dick by denying any positive military news.

Of course, 1968 was an extraordinarily turbulent year, and four years later George McGovern was breathtakingly inept, and there hasnt been a draft in decades, and casualties are way below the level of Vietnam. Besides the fact that theyre both wars, theres no particularly close parallel between Vietnam and Iraq. But that wont stop Hillary and Barack from vying to see who can make it look more like a catastrophe and when theyre talking to a mostly Democratic audience, that makes sense. If theyre smart, though, once the primaries end, the Democrats will shake off their VS, stop pitching defeatism, and say they were behind the surge all the way (Hillary would have an easier time pulling this off, which is another reason for Republicans to root against her). But most of all, the Democrats need to find some new problems to complain about (which wont be too difficult), preferably ones that voters wont have to be laboriously convinced of first.

To appeal to the base of their party, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama (along with reid and pelosi) are working dillgently to "prove", against all facts and logic, that Iraq is a hopeless, Vietnam-like quagmire.  It is making them look more and more ridiculous every day.  

Listening to this quartet try and spin the past half-year's successes in Iraq into failures, I have repeatedly asked:  "who are they rooting for"?

If Fred Schwarz is correct, maybe the answer- without any of them realizing it - is "The Republican candidate".


Ken Berwitz

When you said you were leaving tomorrow
That today was our last day
I said there would be no sorrow,
That I'd laugh when you walked away.

But A little bitty tear let me down,
Spoiled my act as a clown
I had it made up not to make a frown,
Oh, but a little bitty tear let me down.

That was sung by Burl Ives sang many years ago.  It was a big hit for him. 

But this is the day before Super Tuesday, 2008.  And tomorrow it is possible that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama may be a lot closer to walking away.  Will Ms. Clinton's latest little bitty tear (the second in a series) put the finishing touches on Mr. Obama tomorrow?  Or on herself?

Here are the particulars, courtesy of  Jason George writing for

Hillary Clinton cries in Connecticut

by Jason George

NEW HAVEN, Conn. Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.

A doctor, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clinton's eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye. At the time, the doctor was saying how proud he was that sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.

"Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path," Clinton said with emotion after the introduction.

Clinton is holding a roundtable discussion with Connecticut women to talk about childcare and healthcare.

When Clinton got misty-eyed at an event in New Hampshire on Jan. 7, politicos and pundits filled hours discussing if it helped her, and Clinton eventually pointed to the moment as when she "found her voice" and turned the corner in the Granite State.

At the time, there was much debate if the candidate's emotional response to a question -- "How do you do it?"" -- was genuine or calculated.

Let the conversation begin again....

Hooboy.  It's deja vu all over again, isn't it? 

The last time Hillary Clinton cried publicly I wrote that, despite how little I trusted her and how opportune the timing was, it appeared to be sincere emotion.

Well, fool me once and shame on you.  Fool me twice and shame on me.

This is the second perfectly timed tear-fest for Ms. Clinton.  I now officially assume that she is full of what your digestive system produces after meals.

Further, even if the crying were sincere, do you want to elect a President whose reaction to stressful situations  is to cry? 

Isn't that what Kathleen Blanco, the former governor of New Orleans, did after hurricane Katrina?  She cried and asked people to pray.  If it was poignancy you wanted Ms. Blanco gave you a tidal wave of it.  If it was effective governance you wanted, she was completely useless and pathetic.  Louisiana needed effective governance.

Useless and pathetic was bad enough when restricted only to Louisiana.  Do we want it for the entire country?  Do we really want Clinton the Cryer to sit in our oval office? 

Do we want Clinton the Cryer to try dealing with Putin or ahmadinejad or assad or the hate-USA bloc at the UN by putting on her patented sob-fest?  What do you think will happen?  Will they say "oh, I'll give you everything you want, I just can't stand seeing a lady cry"? 

I know I don't.  Tomorrow we'll see how Democratic primary voters feel.


Ken Berwitz

A couple of weeks ago I blogged about a human turd named jay grodner.  grodner happened upon a car with U.S. Marine license plates which he then decided to key ($2,400 of damage). 

The owner of the car, Marine sergeant Mike McNulty, observed him doing it.  When grodner was confronted he lied about what he had done and whined that he was being picked on because he is Jewish.

I ended the blog this way:

Point of order:  I'm Jewish.  I've never been ashamed of that for one second.  But a "man" like this tests my attitude to the limit.

He makes me sick.

Well, apparently this incident was resolved a couple of weeks ago - January 18th to be exact.  There was even a link to its resolution in the article I posted at that time. I'm sorry to be so late in reporting what happened, but I didn't follow that link and just found out that the grodner situation was taken care of.  My oversight.

Here is what happened, courtesy of Michelle Malkin and Beverly Pearson (one of her readers who witnessed the proceedings):

Jerk update: Guilty troop-hating lawyer Jay Grodner to serve probation, donate to Semper Fi Fund

By Michelle Malkin    January 18, 2008 08:49 PM

I mentioned this morning that lawyer Jay Grodner, accused of keying a Marines car on the eve of his deployment, was scheduled to appear at a hearing today. The hearing took place and reader Beverly Pearson e-mails an account of what happened:

It was awesome. There were probably 15 folks who showed up in support of Sgt. McNulty. Big guys with Marine Corp. jackets on! The creepy attorney was late again! His lawyer got up and told the judge Attorney Grodner was late because he wanted to let the press clear out! The judge was really mad then and ordered a warrant immediately. Then the lawyer says Grodner is coming and will show up within 30 minutes. The judge says he will be arrested when he gets here. Sure enough, Grodner walks in and two cops take him out and cuff him.

Sgt. McNulty did not have an attorney but the [States] Attorney was there for him. They all went into a side room to work a deal. Then they all come out and the judge orders a continuance. So we all leave and about 20 minutes later a Policeman came out and got those of us who were still there and told us they were going to settle and we could come back in. It was obvious the judge wanted us in the Courtroom.

Long story short, he has to pay $600 to a Semper Fi Fund (Marine [Corps] fund for the wounded) and he has to report for Social Services probation once per month for a year. Judge told him if he screws up and misses any he will be arrested and will serve 364 days in jail! He told Grodner that the reason the courtroom was so full was because Sgt. McNulty belongs to The Band of Brothers and this is what he can expect when he mistreats a Marine (not his exact words but the same meaning)

He really admonished him and the part I really liked was when the judge made Grodner admit he keyed Sgt. McNultys car. He also explained to him about military plates and how people pay extra because the monies go into a fund for scholarships. I cried but they were tears of joy!!!!!!!!!!!

Sgt. McNultys damages were $2400 but his car is fixed and just like The Band of Brothers, he asks that this creep give $600 to a fund for his Brothers. God Bless The Band of Brothers. This is a story the whole world should read about.

God bless that judge.


The one and only thing I take issue with here is Ms. Malkin calling grodner a jerk.  That is too complimentary. 

Come to think of it even human turd is too complimentary. 


Ken Berwitz

In a word:  no.

I've been blogging about the surge for Mr. Romney over the past couple of days.  But Michelle Malkin has a very nicly detailed overview that adds considerably to what I've been saying.

So here it is:.

By Michelle Malkin    February 4, 2008 07:05 AM

If theres one thing weve learned in this presidential season so far, its that nothing is a sure thing. John McCain says he assumes hell get the nomination and that hell have it wrapped up by Super Tuesday.

I wondered over the weekend whether the Rasmussen poll showing McCain and Mitt Romney in a dead heat was an anomaly. Well, heres Zogby putting Romney 8 points ahead in California:

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, led McCain 40 percent to 32 percent in California, where the margin of error was 3.3 percentage points. A win in California, the most populous state, could help puncture McCains growing momentum in the Republican nomination fight.

McCain won the last two contests, in South Carolina and Florida, to seize the front-runners slot in a hard-fought Republican race despite qualms among some conservatives about his past views on taxes, immigration and campaign finance.

Romney is widening his lead in California and has a really big advantage with conservatives, Zogby said. Romney winning California would give some Republicans pause when they look at McCain as the potential nominee.

Romney said he would cut short a scheduled trip to Georgia and fly back to California on Monday for a last-minute campaign visit.

People there are taking a real close look at the race and it looks like Ive got a good shot there, Romney told reporters.

Look for McCain and Huck to increase their class warfare attacks and conspiracy-mongering, while continuing to coo to each other about their civility.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line explains why hell vote for Romney:

The McCain I saw in the California debate last week didnt look particularly electable. With the economy emerging as the overwhelmingly central issue in the campaign, with McCains nasty streak increasingly on display, and with his reputation for straight-talk diminishing before our eyes, Im not prepared to base a vote for the Senator on electability.

The decision thus comes down to policy and effectiveness. I give Romney the edge on both counts.

Rick Santorum says that when he was in the Senate, there were three parties the Democratic party, the Republican party, and the McCain party. This is an exaggeration, but it contains some truth. Think of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Byrd (the gang of 14 deal), and now McCain-Lieberman. On some of the most important issues of our time political speech, immigration, judicial nominations, taxation, and now climate change McCain has been more comfortable with liberal or centrist positions than with conservative Republican ones. Lets not deceive ourselves into believing that this will change if McCain gains the highest office in the land. Its far more likely that well actually have a McCain party instead of just a McCain faction.

By the same token, we should not believe that, as president, Romney would be the same across-the-board conservative hes running as. But nothing in Romneys record as governor (as opposed to his record as a candidate for office in liberal Massachusetts) suggests that he wont govern as a reasonably reliable conservative. At a minimum, Romney will understand that there can be no Romney party any attempt by him to forge a third way by allying with the Democrats ultimately would leave him hopelessly isolated. McCain may be willing to accept that risk, but Romney surely isnt.

Meanwhile, McCains champions continue their efforts to deride and marginalize opponents. First, they were deranged and Kossack-like. Now, they need to grow up (Barnes invoking Barry Goldwater) and get over their dyspepsia (Kristol in the NYT).

Translation: Dont worry, be happy, shut up.


More signs:

The GOP race in Georgia is tightening up

The latest InsiderAdvantage / Majority Opinion Research poll shows the Republican presidential race tightening in Georgia while Barack Obama maintains a strong lead over Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side. The polling was conducted Saturday.


(Sample size: 388; margin of error: plus or minus 5 percentage points. Weighted for age, race, gender and political affiliation.)

Romney: 30%
McCain: 29%
Huckabee: 28%
Paul/Other: 3%
Undecided: 10%

The GOP race in Missouri is a toss-up:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows John McCain narrowly on top at 32% followed by Mike Huckabee at 29% and Mitt Romney at 28%.

Hugh Hewitt looks at the delegate count:

Winner-take-all states that lean McCain: New York (101), Missouri (58), Arizona (53), New Jersey (52) Connecticut (30), and Delaware (18).

Winner-take-all states that lean Romney: Utah (36) and Montana (25).

Winner-take-all states that lean Huckabee: Arkansas (34).

States dividing delegates Tuesday on other-than-a-winner-take-all basis:

California: 173
Georgia: 72
llinois: 70
Tennessee: 55
Alabama: 48
Colorado: 46
Massachusetts: 41
Minnesota: 40
Oklahoma: 41
West Virginia: 30
Alaska: 29
North Dakota: 26

Possible scenario: If Romney takes Utah (36) and Montana (25) and wins in California (largest Super Tuesday state), Georgia (third-largest Super Tuesday state), Missouri (fifth-largest), Massachusetts, and a smattering of small states (e.g., Tennessee, Montana, Alabama), he could still be in contention.

It aint over.

Senator McCain is doing a lot of swaggering these days.  I suspect it is strategic in nature -- i.e. if he acts as though his nomination is a foregone conclusion in the days leading up to Super Tuesday,  it might cause some voters to jump on his bandwagon and might discourage some Romney supporters enough for them to become disheartened and not bother to vote. 

Isn't this the same kind of intimidation strategy the New England Patriots tried against the New York Giants in the days leading up to yesterday's Super Bowl? 

How'd that work out?


Ken Berwitz

When do media talk about the insanely large - I don't mean big, or very big or huge, but insanely large - amounts of money given the the Clintons in return for the benefits Bill and Hill provide? 

Why do media pretend they do not exist?  They do.  And if media treated what the Clintons have done with even a small fraction of the investigative journalistic efforts they put against trying to find out if President Bush missed a national guard meeting in 1972, voters would know all about them.

But readers of this blog have been told over and over again.  You know all too well what so many of your friends and relatives don't -- the friends and relatives who assure you that everyone picks on the Clintons, that they are wonderful and it's all about a blow job.  The ones who actually believe this BS.

Here is the latest outline of just how deep the corruption goes and just how much money is involved.  It comes to use from A. J. DiCintio, writing for

Bill and Hillary Billions
The Fifth Column A.J. DiCintio, Featured Writer
February 4, 2008

I cant for the life of me understand why, but the Obama campaign hasnt thought it important to expose the financial shenanigans in which the Clintons have immersed themselves both during and after Bill Clintons presidency. After all, telling the truth that another Clinton in the Oval Office will guarantee scandals of proportions not seen since the age of the Robber Barons will surely be the straw that breaks the backs of a slew of Hillarys already Clinton-fatigued supporters.


So, beginning with the latest news and working backward, heres a little help not just for Barack but for every American who heeds George Washingtons advice to beware the dangers of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart.


Its a long story that Jo Becker and Don Van Natta tell in the New York Times; happily, however, just a few details reveal how it relates to Washingtons warning.


In September, 2005, Canadian Frank Giustra, head of a fledgling uranium mining company, privately jetted to Kazakhstan, seeking to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstans state-owned uranium agency.


However, Mr. Giustra didnt jet alone. With him was a person who had zero experience in uranium mining but a lot of other kinds of experience, explaining why upon landing, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstans president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.


You guessed right if you guessed Mr. Giustras mystery guest was Bill Clinton.


However, to know the full story about Bill and Franks wonderful voyage, you have to know the following:


▪ Bill Clinton claimed he traveled to Kazakhstan to buy discounted AIDS drugs.


▪ While in Kazakhstan Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leaders bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. (Even chutzpah cant do justice to Clintonian gall.)


▪ After Mr. Nazarbayev won re-election in a process condemned for [an] atmosphere of intimidation [and] ballot-box stuffing, Mr. Clinton congratulated him by gushing, Recognizing that your work has received an excellent grade is one of the most important rewards in life. (Would have used the term, but vomitive comes up short when applied  to Clinton style praise.)


▪ Mr. Giustra got the contract, thereby shocking the worlds big uranium players and making himself filthy rich.


▪ Months after the deal was finalized, Giustra contributed $31.3 million to the William J. Clinton Foundation.


▪ Later, he promised the Foundation an additional $100 million.


▪ In February, 2007, his uranium company was acquired for $3.1 billion.


▪ Very soon after that deal, Giustra arranged for the head of Kazakhstan uranium mining to take a trip to Chappaqua, NY, where he and Clinton listened to the mans pitch for Kazakhstan to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology


(Remember that a year earlier Mr. Clinton had advised Dubai about how to respond to the outcry over a Dubai companys plan to run American ports.)


▪ Mr. Clinton turned down the opportunity to lobby for the Westinghouse deal.


▪ The Kazakh representative, however, announced he was pleased by the chance to promote his nations proposal to a former president and quoted Mr. Clinton as saying, This was very important for America.


▪ Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra denied that [the] meeting occurred.


▪ Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for the Kazakh official to meet Mr. Clinton.


▪ However, confronted with evidence by The Times, both men admitted the truth.


▪ After apologizing that the meeting had escaped [his] memory until [The Times] raised it, Mr. Giustra also admitted that he asked [Clinton] to meet with the head of Kazatomprom [the Kazakh company] to discuss the future of the nuclear energy industry.


As you think about the entire significance of that wonderful excursion, keep in mind that Mr. Clintons consulting work, his speech making, and his talents as an investment adviser (not to mention his gifts as a pardoner) have brought tens of millions into the Clintons joint checking account and many hundreds of millions into the Clinton Library and the Clinton Foundation.


Moreover, dont lose sight of the fact that Bill Clinton had amassed a whole lot of experience in working with billionaires before he met Mr. Giustra explaining why he was thoroughly prepared to get to work for him on day one.


Much of that experience came from efforts as an investment adviser for billionaire Ron Burkle, on whose personal (and lavish) 757 the Clintons love to jet here and there, smugly nodding off into dreams about the tens of millions Bills job has stuffed into Bills wallet and Hillarys purse.


For doing what? Well, for one thing, taking good investment care of Dubais billions of oily dollars.


And dont forget that one of Burkles funds figured out it could make good money investing funds from state retirement systems (CALPERS, of California, for example, has assets of $200 billion.)


Perhaps to get ones very private hands on some of that very public money one might hire a very well connected, very powerful former political figure with very powerful contacts no need to go on, is there?


In addition to flying high with Burkle, the Clintons have also done some serious flying with Indias high tech billionaire Vinod Gupta, regarding which the Washington Post has this to say:


...the Clintons have jetted around on Vinod Guptas corporate plane, to Switzerland, Hawaii, Jamaica, Mexico -- $900,000 worth of travel. The former president secured a $3.3 million consulting deal with Guptas technology firm. His presidential library got a six-figure gift, too.


With regard to the love Mr. Guptas lavished on the Clintons, you should know that shareholders of one of his companies sued, claiming that the largesse the company showered upon the Clintons was so obscenely large it had a deleterious effect on their investment.


From India, we move on to (where else?) China. Remember James Riady of Lippo Group and the Clinton Chinagate campaign fundraising scandal? (You will recall that the scandal reeked not only of illegal foreign money coming into a campaign from Chinas generals but also very highly classified U.S. military technology flowing out to those same generals.)


Remember, too, that according to the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Mr. Riady and his father had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency.


Having done all that remembering, consider that while in office, Mr. Clinton designated as a federal preserve an area in Utah holding $1 trillion (yes, $1 trillion) of rare low-sulfur coal, thereby taking that coal off the U.S. and world markets.


Consider that the only other huge deposit of such coal is found in Indonesia.  Then, consider that the Lippo Group has enormous influence in Indonesia.


Now, you are prepared to think of a whole bunch of important (and frightening) questions for yourself.  


This piece ends, but the story of Bill and Hillary Billions goes on and on and on. Why? Because everyone knows that the public has no clue about all the people and circumstances surrounding the Clintons personal income.


Because the public will never get a look at every last contributor to the Clinton Foundation, including a full explanation of each persons or institutions connection to the Clintons.


Because Bill Clinton openly says he will continue raising money for his foundation during a Hillary presidency.


And because a President Hillary is certain to imitate her husband in fulfilling her desire to deposit some really big money into the family checkbook not to mention her need for maybe a billion or so to fund  her own library and her own foundation.


Thats why Barack Obama ought to expose the truth about Hillary Clintons candidacy for the worlds most powerful office and not just regarding the love of money but every other danger posed by that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart.


Fortunately, if he wont do it, there are plenty of others who will.


Pretty breathtaking, isn't it?  And that's before we get to most of the more recent $$$ scandals that Mr. DiCintio left out (probably for lack of space).  The ones involving people like Norman Hsu, Abdul Rehman Jinnah, Sant Chatwal, the spate of oriental dishwashers and busboys magically coming up with thousands of dollars of "their" money to contribute to Ms. Clinton, etc. etc. etc.

These are the scandals that you know about by reading this blog.  Unfortunately, due to mainstream media burying them on behalf of Hill and Bill, they are also the ones that get patronizing, "why do I have to put up with this idiot" looks from so many Clinton supporters you mention them to. 

Why?  Because people kept ignorant of these scandals are then liberated to conclude that YOU don't know what YOU'RE talking about, not them.  That's what gets you comments like  "If these are real, I would have heard about them, right?"

But Barack Obama and his team knows all about every one of these scandals.  So where is he?  Why is he not attacking her for it the way she attacked him on Tony Rezko?

If Barack Obama loses the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton it will, in no small part, be because he does not have the intestinal fortitude to fight them by exposing their own sordid, money-grubbing, corrupt activities over these many years. 

And if Mr. Obama can't do that, he probably deserves to lose the nomination.  Do you want someone without the guts to expose Bill and Hill sitting across the negotiating table from an adverserial head of state during a crisis? 

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!!