Friday, 08 February 2008


Ken Berwitz

It's hard to know what to make of this report from about adam gadahn (formerly Adam Pearlman), the ancestrally Jewish sicko who became a mouthpiece for al qaeda.  See what you think:

February 07, 2008

American al Qaeda, Adam Gadahn, Dead?


I've been hearing the same speculations and rumors that Laura Mansfield has that Adam Gadahn, the only American indicted for treason since 9/11, was killed in the Predator bombing that took out Abu Laith al-Libi. Al-Libi was a bigger fish, but taking out America's number one traitor would be so sweet.

The first indication that the rumors might be true were confirmations that computers and a satellite phone were found among the rubble. Sure, could mean nothing, and maybe this is just wishful thinking making the rounds as hope filled rumors, but, like I said, if there is one person on the planet I'd like to see dead other than Osama bin Laden, it's Adam Gadahn. He's from California for crissake. He was born Adam Pearlman. Now he's a card carrying member of al Qaeda!

Here's the story. The major caveat is that The International News is a Pakistani publication:

According to sources, American officials who are yet to publicly confirm the killing of Abu Laith al-Libi, had reportedly sharing information with western media that most likely another most wanted figure, Adam Gadahn, has also been killed in the air strike by the CIA-operated unmanned drone on a house in Khushali Torikhel village near Mirali town.

According to sources, the American al-Qaeda militant, who has been reportedly spending much of his time in Afghanistan and Pakistani tribal areas along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, had reached Mirali for an important meeting with other senior al-Qaeda commanders for planning the so-called spring offensive against US and Nato troops in Afghanistan.

However, there were no details whether he arrived in the town when a house reportedly housing some senior al-Qaeda operatives including Abu Laith al-Libi, was blitzed. US military officials based in Afghanistan are reportedly collecting details about those killed in the attack on the house and in this regard two of their spy planes continued flying over the same area even after the tragic incident.

I'll note that al Qaeda has confirmed the death of Abu Laith al-Libi, but not Gadahn.

UPDATE: Check out this pic. I second the sentiment.

Gateway Pundit finds a second source, but seems to be based on same rumor.

UPDATE: I can also confirm that this rumor is being circulated on al Qaeda linked forums.

Let me add this. The last time we circulated the rumor, yes started by us, that Azzam al Amreki (that's Adam's street name these days) had been killed, Gadahn found it necessary to make a new video showing proof of life. Time to step up to the plate douchebag and show your ugly self.

Update: Steve Schippert weighs in:

However, as my colleague and fellow ThreatsWatch member Nick Grace said in reaction, I would imagine that if Gadahn got knocked off they would have announced his death just as quickly as they did al-Laiths. Having an American become a martyr would be a propaganda coup on their side. Gadahn would be more useful to al-Qaeda dead than alive. Imagine how they will play up an American who was martyred while fighting for al-Qaedas Jihad. .

Based on the sources involved, I doubt that gadahn is dead.  But there is enough meat there to at least speculate that he might have been taken out along with abou laith al-libi.

Personally, I would not lose much sleep over gadahn's demise.  Like not one second.  I doubt that you would either. 


Ken Berwitz

A horrifying, senseless mass murder took place in Kirkland, Missouri yesterday.  One that could have been prevented. 

Here are the details, courtesy of the Associated Press, via

Conference scheduled today to identify victims in deadly Kirkwood City Hall shooting

07:23 AM CST on Friday, February 8, 2008

Six dead after gunman opens fire at Kirkwood City Council meeting


Associated Press Writer

 KIRKWOOD, Mo. (AP) -- A gunman with a history of acrimony against city leaders opened fire at a council meeting Thursday night, killing two police officers and three city officials before law enforcers fatally shot him, police said.

Two police officers and three people attending the meeting were killed after the gunman rushed the council chambers and began firing, according to St. Louis County Police spokeswoman Tracy Panus. She said two others were wounded.

Panus said no names of the victims would be released until a news conference scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday. But the wounded included Mayor Mike Swoboda, who was in critical condition late Thursday in the intensive-care unit of St. John's Mercy Hospital in Creve Coeur, hospital spokesman Bill McShane said, declining to discuss the severity of the injuries. McShane said another victim, Suburban Journals newspaper reporter Todd Smith, was in satisfactory condition, but McShane didn't elaborate on his injuries.

A witness said the gunman yelled "Shoot the mayor!" as he fired shots in the council chambers, hitting Swoboda.

The gunman was fatally shot by Kirkwood police.

Panus said the gunman killed one officer outside the city hall, then walked into the chambers and shot another. He continued firing in the chambers, killing three attendees and wounding two others, she said. Names of the victims were not released.

"Tonight our fellow Missourians in the city of Kirkwood were terrorized by a senseless and horrific crime at an open government meeting," Gov. Matt Blunt said in a statement. "I join Missourians tonight in praying for the victims, their families and friends, and everyone in the community of Kirkwood."

Reporter Janet McNichols, who was covering the meeting for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, said the 7 p.m. meeting with about 30 people had just started when the shooter rushed into the council chambers and began opening fire with at least one weapon, the newspaper reported. He started yelling "shoot the mayor" while walking around and firing, hitting police officer Tom Ballman in the head, McNichols said.

The shooter then went after Public Works Director Kenneth Yost, who was sitting in front of Swoboda, and shot Yost in the head, McNichols said.

McNichols also said the shooter fired at City Attorney John Hessel, who tried to fight off the attacker by throwing chairs. The shooter then moved behind the desk where the council sits and fired more shots at council members.

The newspaper quoted McNichols as saying Swoboda, and council members Michael H.T. Lynch and Connie Karr also were hit. She identified the gunman as Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton, a man she knows from covering the council. McNichols said Thornton was often a contentious presence; he had twice been convicted of disorderly conduct for disrupting meetings in May 2006.

Most of Thornton's ire was directed at the mayor and Yost, she said.

Dozens of emergency vehicles were on the scene and an area of several blocks was cordoned off along a busy north-south corridor around the city hall.

Kirkwood is about 20 miles southwest of downtown St. Louis, just inside the I-270 loop. City Hall is located in a quiet area filled with condominiums, eateries and shops, and is not far from a dance studio and train station.

Mary Linhares, a teacher who lives about four blocks from City Hall, described the town as quiet and eclectic after walking down to the scene with her husband.

"It's like a small town in St. Louis," Linhares told The Associated Press. "You can call it Mayberry."

Thornton was well-known at Kirkwood City Hall, often making outrageous comments at public meetings, according to a 2006 article in the weekly Webster-Kirkwood Times.

The newspaper quoted Swoboda as saying in June 2006 that Thornton's contentious remarks over the years created "one of the most embarrassing situations that I have experienced in my many years of public service."

Swoboda's comments came during a council meeting attended by Thornton two weeks after Thornton was forcibly removed from the council chambers. The mayor said at the time that the council considered banning Thornton from future meetings but decided against it.

"The city council has decided that they will not lower themselves to Mr. Thornton's level," Swoboda said at the meeting. "We will act with integrity and continue to deal with him at these council proceedings. However we will not allow Mr. Thornton, or any other person, to disrupt these proceedings."

Thornton said during the meeting that he had been issued more than 150 tickets.

Thornton twice was arrested and later convicted for disorderly conduct for outbursts at two council meetings in 2006, often convinced the city was persecuting him. When allowed to speak during one meeting, he approached the podium with a posterboard with a picture of a donkey and began making harassing remarks about Swoboda.

In a federal lawsuit stemming from those meetings, Thornton, representing himself, insisted that Kirkwood officials violated his constitutional rights to free speech by barring him from speaking at the meetings. But a federal judge in St. Louis tossed out the suit Jan. 28, writing that "any restrictions on Thornton's speech were reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and served important governmental interests."

"Thornton engaged in personal attacks against the mayor, Kirkwood, and the city council," the judge noted in her opinion. "Because Thornton does not have a First Amendment right to engage in irrelevant debate and to voice repetitive, personal, virulent attacks against Kirkwood and its city officials during the comment portion of a city council public hearing, his claim fails as a matter of law." .

Insane.  Senseless.  And, worst of all, predictable (i.e. that thornton would keep escalating his actions), thus preventable.

charles lee "cookie" thornton was a known lunatic, who was twice removed from the chamber for disorderly conduct.  But, despite this, he was allowed to keep coming back because they "didn't want to sink to his level"?

What is that supposed to mean?  Thornton was a sick, irrational, clearly threatening nutcake who disrupted city council meetings in various ways for years.  Is disallowing him from doing so an EQUIVALENT behavior? 

Where do people come up with these mindless non sequiturs?

Look, I hate to sit safely in front of a computer and judge such well-meaning people during their time of horror and grief.  I mean this with complete sincerity.

But I feel it is imperative that we all understand there is such a thing as overlooking too much, of being too tolerant of intolerable actions.  And that doing so can encourage and empower offenders to keep pushing the envelope further and further.  Even to killing.

In a few days thornton's mass murder will be old news to just about everyone outside of the Saint Louis area.  And, lamentably, so will the lesson that we should be learning from it.  That is why I write this now, while people are most conscious of what happened. 

The one and only possible silver lining I see is that the lesson of Kirkland might be learned by other people, who might then use that learning to prevent a similar tragedy at another time in another place.

F. Saltwater I do not believe that this article presented clear and unbias picture of Mr. Thronton or his targets. Was he a madman that killed innocent public servants or Negro that finally had enough? (02/08/08)


Ken Berwitz

As if Mike Huckabee's promise to "take this nation back for Christ" weren't enough, now James Dobson, the human fart, has endorsed him:

Christian Leader James Dobson Endorses Huckabee for GOP Nod

Dobson said given the situation at that point, he was reluctant to choose between two pro-family candidates whom I could support Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

But Dobson wrote that Romneys announcement Thursday that he was suspending his campaign changed the political landscape.

The remaining candidate for whom I could vote is Governor Huckabee, Dobson said. His unwavering positions on the social issues, notably the institution of marriage, the importance of faith and the sanctity of human life, resonate deeply with me and with many others Obviously, the governor faces an uphill struggle, given the delegates already committed to Senator McCain. Nevertheless, I believe he is our best remaining choice for president of the United States.

McCain has won more than 707 nominating delegates, more than half the 1,191 needed to win the nomination. Huckabee has 195.

Dobson called Huckabee on Thursday before issuing the endorsement, said Gary Schneeberger, a Dobson spokesman. Dobsons statement said he would support Governor Huckabee through the remaining primaries, but it wasnt clear whether that meant campaigning for him.

A Huckabee campaign spokeswoman said late Thursday he was unavailable for comment, but confirmed that he and Dobson had spoken.

Huckabee had long sought Dobsons endorsement, believing he is the best fit to advance Dobsons conservative, moral world view. Until now, Dobson had never endorsed a GOP presidential hopeful during the primary campaign.

Throughout what had been an unsettled GOP race, Dobson picked his spots to signal that some candidates simply didnt meet his standards. He ruled out Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and McCain. At one point, Dobson said hed consider voting for a minor-party candidate if faced with Giuliani as the nominee.

He took on McCain again this week as the Arizona senator widened his already large lead over his GOP opponents.

Dobson criticized McCain for his support of embryonic stem cell research, his opposition to a federal anti-gay marriage amendment and for his temper and use of foul language. He said hed sit out the presidential election if McCain were the nominee.

Dobson is easily the biggest-name evangelical endorsement Huckabee has earned. Other movement leaders have shied from Huckabee either because of his lack of money, support for expanding the evangelical agenda to include the environment and poverty, as well economic and tax positions that fiscal conservatives have attacked.

John Green, a senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said Dobsons endorsement can help Huckabee in upcoming Southern states Louisiana votes Saturday but not change the belief that Huckabees support is confined to social conservatives.

It is rather late in the game, Green said. But Dr. Dobson is well known for sticking to his guns. It doesnt surprise me this late in the game he would make an announcement like this because it fits in well with what hes been saying. He really doesnt want a moderate Republican nominee, he wants a conservative.

Dobson emphasizes that when he endorses candidates, he is doing so as a private citizen and not as a representative of Focus on the Family, a tax-exempt organization he founded. His endorsement of Huckabee was to be e-mailed to 110,000 people through Focus on the Family Action, a separate entity that is allowed to be more politically active, Schneeberger said.

Oh brother.

In 1998 Mr. Huckabee told a national conference of pastors the following:

"I got into politics because I knew government didnt have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives. I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

Just what the country needs:  an ex (?) Baptist minister seeking presidential powers, which he can then use to turn the USA into a de facto theocracy.  And before you say "wait, the comment is from 10 years ago", please be aware that every time Mr. Huckabee is asked about it he ducks, dances and dodges.  NOT ONE TIME have I heard or read of him disavowing his assurance to the national pastors organization.

That by itelf disqualifies Mike Huckabee in my book.  But, as an extra added attraction, we now have James Dobson - a man who seems determined to keep the legend of Cotton Mather alive - endorsing him too. 

Dobson, it should be noted, was working against Mike Huckabee 48 hours ago.  But now Huckabee  is the "lucky winner", on the grounds that John McCain is not "pro-family".  John McCain is not pro-family????????

You have to wonder what phase the moon is in.



Ken Berwitz

I've read a lot of material on why a large segment of conservatives are against John McCain.  But I think Mona Charen encapsulates the reasons better than anyone else, so I'm posting her thoughtful, dispassionate, reasoned column for you below:

Why They Can't Vote for McCain
By Mona Charen
Friday, February 8, 2008

I posted a squib on the National Review website about a robo call I received from John McCain (Virginia's primary is Tuesday). The call stressed that he would, if elected, be a down-the-line limited government conservative who would never raise taxes, would defend life, would enforce immigration laws and would win the war on terror. The candidate is trying, I said, to meet conservatives "more than halfway." The response of readers was, shall we say, emphatic.

One lady wrote that she would never vote for him as "He is the most disloyal, ill-tempered man and he brings out the worse in all of us...." Several readers made the point that after decades of suffering abuse at McCain's hands, conservatives are not going to fall into line for him now, no matter what blandishments he offers.

I know how they feel. The problem with McCain is not just that he strays. George Bush has strayed from conservatism, too. So has Fred Thompson. Certainly Mitt Romney has as well. But Sen. McCain has a knack for saying things in just the tones and accents that liberals prefer. In 2000, he condemned the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance." In 2004, when Sen. John Kerry was getting his comeuppance from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, vets who had known him during the war and couldn't remain silent as the Democratic nominee distorted his war record, McCain weighed in by calling the Swift Boaters "dishonorable and dishonest." When the Bush Administration was being vilified as a nest of Torquemadas for using waterboarding on three occasions, McCain came forward to condemn waterboarding as torture.

McCain was a Vietnam hero. Conservatives in particular revere him for this. Indeed, his return from the political grave can probably be traced to the moment (Oct. 22) when he joshingly referred to having missed the Woodstock music festival in 1969 because "I was tied up at the time." In that instant, he came to personify for many the conservative side of the great 1960s chasm that (Barack Obama's irenic rhetoric notwithstanding) continues to divide our society. Not only was he not smoking pot and lolling in the mud with his girlfriend, you could almost hear Republicans telling themselves, he's standing up to torture at the hands of America's enemies!

And yet, a better man would not stoop to suggesting that military service is the only way to show love of country and sneer that -- unlike Romney -- he served for "patriotism, not profit." Profit is a four-letter word in the McCain vocabulary, whether applied to "Big Pharma" or other businesses.

McCain reaches too hard and too transparently to turn everything into a contest about military service. When Romney observed that Bob Dole wouldn't necessarily be the one he'd want an endorsement from, McCain pronounced himself "very sad and disappointed to see that kind of comment about a person who was an American war hero" and demanded that Romney apologize!

There is a strutting self-righteousness about McCain that goes hand in hand with a nitroglycerin temper. He flatters himself that his colleagues in the Senate dislike him because he stands up for principle whereas they sell their souls for pork. Not exactly. He is disliked because on many, many occasions, he has been disrespectful, belligerent and vulgar to those who differ with him.

Bradley Smith, former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission and the leading legal scholar on campaign finance issues, experienced the McCain treatment firsthand. Because Smith opposed limits on political speech, he was denounced as "corrupt" by the senator (as was Commissioner Ellen Weintraub). Smith, who lives modestly, jokes that his wife has complained about the absence of jewels and furs.

Though he served on the commission for five years and made several attempts to meet with McCain to discuss the issues, Smith was rebuffed. The two did accidentally meet outside a hearing room in 2004 when they were both scheduled to testify before the Senate rules committee. At first, McCain grasped Smith's outstretched hand (Smith was in a wheelchair, recovering from surgery), but when he recognized his campaign finance opponent, he snatched his hand back, snarling, "I'm not going to shake your hand. You're a bully. You have no regard for the Constitution. You're corrupt."

Smith, a soft-spoken scholar, ardent patriot and lifelong conservative Republican, cannot, as a matter of honor, pull the lever for McCain. He is far from alone, and that is the Republican Party's heartbreak in 2008. .

Interestingly, Ms. Charen does not title this "Why I Can't Vote for McCain. 

This suggests to me that, however disturbed she is over McCain's frequent, high-profile departures from orthodoxy, and however concerned she is about his short fuse and foul mouth, she is even more disturbed and concerned about a Clinton or Obama presidency.

My guess is that a great many of the people Ms. Charen has talked about in this column will come to that conclusion by election day.


Ken Berwitz

I first read about david shuster's incredibly disgusting comment yesterday.  Initially I decided not to blog about it, since he is such a complete jerk and MSNBC is such an epicenter of tasteless remarks like the one he made.  I just chalked it up to standard operating procedure. 

But since shuster's verbal vomit has become something of a "happening" across the blogosphere, I don't want to be left behind.  So here, courtesy of the Associated Press, are the details:


MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

SEATTLE - A distasteful comment about Chelsea Clinton by an MSNBC anchor could imperil Hillary Rodham Clinton's participation in future presidential debates on the network, a Clinton spokesman said.

In a conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson on Friday excoriated MSNBC's David Shuster for suggesting the Clinton campaign had "pimped out" 27-year old Chelsea by having her place phone calls to celebrities and Democratic Party "superdelegates" on her mother's behalf.

Wolfson called Shuster's comment "beneath contempt" and disgusting.

"I, at this point, can't envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network," he added.

MSNBC said Shuster, who apologized on the air for his comment, has been temporarily suspended from appearing on all NBC news broadcasts except to offer his apology.

"NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks," MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines said, adding the network was hopeful the debate would take place as planned.

Clinton and Obama are scheduled to participate in an MSNBC debate Feb. 26 from Ohio, which holds its primary March 4. The Clinton campaign has pushed hard for as many debates as possible with Obama, but Wolfson said the Feb. 26 debate could be jeopardized.

Wolfson pointed to what he called a pattern of tasteless comments by MSNBC anchors about the Clinton campaign. Weeks ago, "Hardball" host Chris Matthews apologized to the former first lady after suggesting her political career had been made possible by her husband's philandering.

Shuster told The Associated Press he has tried to reach Clinton to apologize.

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, called Shuster's comments "deplorable" and said they had no place in the political process.

Superdelegates are elected officials and other members of the Democratic National Committee who serve as upledged delegates to the party's convention. They're expected to play an important role in selecting the party's nominee if the delegate contest between Clinton and Barack Obama remains close..

There are two outrages here. 

-One, obviously, is shuster's tasteless, obnoxious comment about Chelsea Clinton.  Sadly, it is hardly out of character for him.

-The other outrage is that MSNBC would act as though shuster's comment is something unusual for that network.  david shuster is a perfect match for MSNBC because his comment about Ms. Clinton is right in line with the kind of things you hear there every day.

Illustratively, MSNBC has been running the keith olbermann "countdown" show for almost five years.  The network has sat passively, even happily, by as olbermann grows more vicious, more personal, more insulting and more offensive by the day.  Not once to my knowledge has it ever done a thing about olbermann's out of control, over the top hate-fest. 

olbermann has a sick obsession with Bill O'Reilly (who more than triples his ratings even after all this time) and indulges it on virtually every show.  Plus, Dan Abrams and Chris Mouthews have both put out similarly vicious personal material on their shows. 

When MSNBC allows this kind of filth to be its standard fare, how can it then complain about what shuster said?  The network brings this upon itself.  

Further, olbermann has said many things about O'Reilly that are just as bad as, often even worse than, what shuster said about Chelsea Clinton without so much as a peep from  MSNBC .  The difference for shuster is that he insulted a Democrat.  

In my opinion, MSNBC is not apologizing for shuster's tastelessness.  It is apologizing only because he said it about someone in the political party MSNBC gives a crap about. 

If shuster had said one of George Bush's daughters was being pimped out, would he be doing this kind of penance? Would MSNBC be doing this kind of apologizing?  Yeah, and the cow jumped over the moon.

So is david shuster a jerk?  Yes.  And does he deserve to be suspended?  Youre damn right he does.  

But does MSNBC have a basis for posturing about how regretful they are, when garbage like this fouls the network as a matter of course?  No. 

MSNBC regretting shuster's remark is like hamas regretting that its bombmakers don't like Jews.


Ken Berwitz

I'll bet not one person in 10 has a clue as to what Barack Obama's middle east positions are.  But I would like to think that if they did they would be troubled, maybe even appalled, by them. 

Here is an excellent piece by Tom Gross of Israel Insider, detailing some of the people Mr. Obama has put on his staff and who he has high regard for.  See if you can discern any lean to their feelings about the middle east:

Obama: The Company He Will Keep
By Tom Gross   February 5, 2008

Excerpted from today's dispatch at Tom Gross Media

Just in case anyone doesn't know, today is "Super Tuesday," when voters in 24 American states go to the polls in a series of primaries and caucuses. The Democratic race is particularly tight with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton running neck and neck.

Among the five major candidates remaining in the Democratic and Republican Party races, Barack Obama is the only one that raises serious concerns when it comes to foreign policy.

Obama may be articulate, charming and charismatic on television and in public rallies, but -- as far as we can see -- his policies for the Middle East may very well set back the interests of America, of Muslim democrats and liberals, of Israel, and of peace and freedom in general.

In an interview with Paris Match (January 31, 2008) Obama said one of the very first things he would do once elected is "to organize a summit in the Muslim world with all the heads of state... We must also listen to their concerns."

In other words, Obama will listen to the "concerns" of these despots and dictators, including (he has made clear) the regimes in Damascus and Teheran, rather than to the pro-west opposition movements struggling to bring democracy to the Muslim world.

Many of these heads of state actively promote terrorism and anti-Semitic incitement in their state-controlled media.

We know that one of the prime "concerns" of these dictators is Israel's existence.

Nowhere in the Paris Match article does Obama condemn the repeated terrorist strikes and incitement against Israel -- the only stable democracy in the region.

Furthermore Obama has said he will swiftly withdraw from Iraq, come what may, leaving the poor, suffering civilian population there at the mercy of al-Qaeda -- who last week tricked two Down Syndrome women into becoming suicide bombers.

Obama has appointed ardent critics of Israel as his foreign policy advisors. They include:

* Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser;
* Robert Malley, a relentless apologist for Yasser Arafat;
* Samantha Power, who has also called for the elimination of foreign aid to Israel and its redirection to "Palestine".

Among the conservatives Obama has said he may call upon to advise him are (according to an interview Obama gave in the February 4, 2008 issue of Newsweek) Senators Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel, possibly the most anti-Israel figures among Senate Republicans.

When asked by Newsweek "Would you have Republicans in your cabinet?" Obama replied, "No decisions, but Dick Lugar embodies the best tradition in foreign policy. Chuck Hagel is a smart guy who has shows some courage, even though we disagree on domestic policy."

Among their record on foreign policy:

On July 24, 2001, the Senate voted 96 to 2 to renew the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act to help deny Iran and Libya money that they would spend on supporting terrorism or acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The only two senators who opposed the measure were Lugar and Hagel.

On November 11, 2003, the Senate voted by 89 to 4, to pass the Syria Accountability Act, which authorized sanctions on Syria for its support of terrorism and its occupation of Lebanon. Hagel refused to vote for it.

On April 6, 2001, 87 members of the Senate sent President Bush a letter saying Yasser Arafat should not be invited to meet with high-level officials in Washington until he renounced terrorism against Israel. Lugar and Hagel declined to sign the letter.

The hardline Iranian government-controlled Fars news agency writes positively
here of Barack Obama. It seems they hope that Obama would serve the Ahmadinejad regime's interests better than John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney.

If you despise Israel and think that palestinian Arabs in Gaza and Judea/Samaria (the west bank) have an equal claim to the high ground, or maybe even a better claim than Israel, this information should warm the cockles of your heart.

Do you?  Because if you don't, you better think long and hard about an Obama presidency.

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!!