Saturday, 09 February 2008


Ken Berwitz

Here is a report from the American Forces Press Service that will almost certainly be of interest to you.  The question is whether it will be of interest to people like Reid, Pelosi, Clinton and Obama :

Al Qaeda Leader's Diary Reveals Organization's Decline

By Seaman William Selby, USN
Special to American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9, 2008 U.S. troops found a diary belonging to an al Qaeda in Iraq leader that has Coalition forces believing the terrorist organization is on its heels, a senior military official in Baghdad said this morning.

Soldiers of the 101st Airborne Divisions 1st Brigade Combat Team on Nov. 3, 2007, captured a diary belonging to Abu Tariq, an al Qaeda emir in control of five battalions within two sectors, U.S. Air Force Col. Donald J. Bacon, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman, told online journalists and bloggers during a conference call.

The soldiers found the diary during a patrol conducted about 15 kilometers south of Balad. Bacon said the 16-page diary contains records about man power, operations, weapons, and finances, and it shows that al Qaeda is hurting badly in the belts of Baghdad.

There were 600 al-Qaeda members in this sector, now there (are) 20 or less, said Bacon.

In the diary, Tariq describes each battalions number decline and goes on to describe the 4th battalion as scoundrels, sectarians and nonbelievers. Tariq attributes his terrorist organizations decline in large part to groups of concerned local citizens, who are also known as the Sons of Iraq.

Many high-ranking al Qaeda members, including Osama Bin Laden, have spoken out about the negative impact that the concerned local citizens groups have had on their organization. As a result, the concerned local citizens are being attacked more frequently by the terrorists, Bacon said.

Nevertheless, Bacon said the numbers of concerned local citizens are growing, which indicates that they are less afraid of al-Qaeda.

Right now there (are) approximately 77,500 CLCs with 135 different initiatives, and more and more are being hired, Bacon said.

Bacon said he believes the diary is also in part a will of sorts, in case anything was to happen to Tariq.

He wanted to keep a clear record, Bacon said.

Bacon said he believes the diary is indicative of some other areas in Iraq but not all of Iraq. He cautioned that al Qaeda is still a dangerous enemy.

We still believe they are our number one threat, said Bacon.

There is a 90 percent decline of violence in Anbar but we are still fighting them in Diala, he added. They still have the capacity and the will but we have the momentum.

Bacon noted, however, that overall levels of violence in Iraq are down, and we are seeing positive trends.

Sadly, what you have just read is bad news to the quartet I cited above, not good.  Their political fortunes are fully invested in Iraq being positioned as a losing quagmire, not a victory for the USA and the Iraqi people. 

Simply stated, the better off Iraq is, the worse off they are.  And, by contrast, the better off Iraq is, the better off John McCain is.

Wouldn't it be something if Senator McCain rides to victory in November based on his steadfast support of the war in Iraq?  That possibility was laughable a half year ago.  But you can bet that Reid, Pelosi, Clinton and Obama aren't laughing about it now.  That's a guarantee.


Ken Berwitz

In keeping with the theme of my previous blog, here is another example of a left wing lunatic, used to being insulated from any consequences of his lunacy, suddenly finding out that when people know about it they don't like it.  The information comes to us from  The bold print is mine:

Sharia law row: Archbishop is in shock as he faces demands to quit

Under fire: Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams

The Archbishop of Canterbury was facing demands to quit last night as the row over sharia law intensified.

Leading bishops publicly contradicted Dr Rowan Williams's call for Islamic law to be brought into the British legal system.

With the Church of England plunged into crisis, senior figures were said to be discussing the archbishop's future.

One member of the church's "Cabinet", the Archbishop's Council, was reported as saying: "There have been a lot of calls for him to resign. I don't suppose he will take any notice, but, yes, he should resign."

Officials at Lambeth Palace told the BBC Dr Williams was in a "state of shock" and "completely overwhelmed" by the scale of the row.

It was said that he could not believe the fury of the reaction. The most damaging attack came from the Pakistan-born Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali.

He said it would be "simply impossible" to bring sharia law into British law "without fundamentally affecting its integrity".

Sharia "would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence.

"This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy."

The church's second most senior leader, Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu, refused to discuss the matter. But he has said sharia law "would never happen" in Britain.

Politicians joined the chorus of condemnation, with Downing Street saying British law should be based on British values. Tory and LibDem leaders also voiced strong criticism.

Even prominent Muslims were rounding on Dr Williams. Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, said: "I haven't experienced any clamour or fervent desire for sharia law in this country.

"If there are people who prefer sharia law there are always countries where they could go and live."

Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar, rejected the idea that British law forces Muslims to choose between their religion and their society.

He said: "This will alienate people from other communities because they will think it is what Muslims want - and it is not."

The Muslim Council of Britain came to Dr Williams's aid, however, describing his comments in a lecture to lawyers and a BBC interview as "thoughtful".

But Oxford University Islamic scholar Professor Tariq Ramadan admitted: "These kinds of statements just feed the fears of fellow citizens. I really think we, as Muslims, need to come up with something that we abide by the common law and within these latitudes there are possibilities for us to be faithful to Islamic principles."

The archbishop is likely to come under heavy fire next week at a meeting of the Church's General Synod.

Liberal and feminist critics have been appalled by the thought of sharia law while evangelical opponents believe Dr Williams has failed to defend Christianity.

The archbishop was already battling intractable difficulties within the church over gay rights, a row which began nearly five years ago and has brought him criticism from all sides. Later this year he has to face a conference of hundreds of bishops from around the world which threatens further bitter division.

Dr Williams's opponents on the conservative evangelical wing - who resent his liberal beliefs on issues such as gay rights - were suggesting last night that the archbishop is finished.

The Reverend Paul Dawson of the Reform group of around 500 clergy said: "We are very sad that he does not seem to be able to articulate a clear Christian vision for Britain. It is true to say that there is a lot of dissatisfaction."

Dr Williams defended himself in a Lambeth Palace statement saying he had been trying to "tease out" the issue.

The archbishop had said it could help build a better and more cohesive society if Muslims were able to choose to have marital disputes or financial matters, for example, dealt with in a sharia court. The adoption of some elements of sharia law "seems unavoidable".

But the statement insisted: "The archbishop made no proposals for sharia, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law."

Even fellow bishops, however, think this is precisely what Dr Williams did say.

Bishop of Southwark Tom Butler, a liberal who would normally be expected to defend Dr Williams, said the archbishop had been entering a minefield and added: "It will take a great deal of thought and work before I think it is a good idea."

He was more blunt in a circular to clergy in his diocese, saying he had yet to be convinced of the feasibility of incorporating any non-Christian religious law into the English legal system..

Let's understand that this is far from the first time rowan williams has pumped out his LAMB ideology.  He appears to absolutely hate the USA and absolutely hate Israel, for example, and seems to find little that palestinian Arabs do that is objectionable. 

However, none of these positions was enough to push things over the edge.  Who cares if  he's telling the USA or Israel how to live?  This is the UK.

But, wait, now he's telling the UK how to live too??  An outrage!  A disgrace!  Off with his head!

And how satisfying is it to find out that the hapless williams is "shocked" and "overhwlemed" by the reaction to his comments?  You can almost hear him thinking "How can people possibly feel this way?  After all, what did I do?  I only told my country that maybe it should start adding shari'a law to the mix, what's wrong with that?  Look at how free people are in Yemen and Saudi Arabia - not to mention those happy go lucky, fun-loving folks in Gaza.  Aren't my fellow Britons ENVIOUS of their way of life and their legal systems?"

Thank you, internet, for the exchange of information that makes this possible.  And thank you Dr. rowan williams for proving to us that becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury does not in any way prevent you from remaining a hopeless, idelogically driven fool. 

I'm sure your namesake, Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) couldn't be prouder.  Little did he know his character could get so far in the British clergy.


Ken Berwitz

I've already blogged about the incredibly offensive and tasteless comment MSNBC's david shuster made when he suggested that Chelsea Clinton was "pimped out" to make political calls for her mother, Hillary.

I meant every word I wrote - including the point that MSNBC's "talent", most especially keith olbermann, has been far more tasteless and far more prolific in vicious personal attacks on many other people, almost all of whom are to the political right.  Bill O'Reilly (who regularly leaves olbermann in the dust ratings-wise) is olbermann's single most frequent target and the insults he barfs out at O'Reilly range from childish to disgusting to borderline sick.

But, going back to the shuster incident, if there is one thing you don't do in this world it is give a Clinton the chance to claim victimhood.  Here, courtesy of ,  is Ms. Clinton's latest statement regarding shuster's comment:

Hillary rips MSNBC's Shuster

By: Kenneth P. Vogel and Michael Calderone
Feb 9, 2008 02:39 PM EST

ORONO, MAINE  Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday morning ripped MSNBC over reporter David Shusters suggestion that Chelsea Clinton was sort of being pimped out by the campaign.

I found the remarks incredibly offensive, Clinton told reporters in this snowy town outside Bangor. Earlier, she sent a letter to NBC brass that called for swift action against Shuster, who was suspended Friday by MSNBC.

Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient, Clinton wrote to NBC News President Steve Capus, who apparently had already called Clinton to personally apologize.

I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language, Clinton wrote. Theres a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.

NBC did not immediately respond to an e-mailed request for comment.

The letter and harsh rebuke followed similar comments made by her top advisers and came a day after Shuster issued an on-air apology and
was suspended.

The hubbub started Thursday, when Shuster guest-hosted Tucker Carlsons MSNBC show, Tucker.  In a discussion about Chelsea Clintons role in calling superdelegates on behalf of her mothers presidential campaign, he asked whether she was sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way.

The Clinton campaign immediately demanded an apology and floated the possibility that Clinton would no longer participate in an MSNBC debate, scheduled for Feb. 26. The campaign did not explain under what conditions Clinton would participate in MSNBC's debate.

In her comments to reporters Friday, Clinton sounded ambivalent about participating in the debate.

Weve accepted a lot of debates from a lot of different sponsors, and were going to wait and see how this plays out, she said.

I am a mom first and a candidate second, she said. You know I can take whatever comes my way. Thats what I signed up for as a candidate and an office holder.

She cast Shusters comments as part of a troubling pattern of comments and behavior that has to be held accountable.

MSNBC host Chris Matthews last month
apologized over remarks he made about Clinton that were widely denounced as sexist.


Dear Mr. Capus,

Thank you for your call yesterday. I wanted to send you this note to convey the depth of my feeling about David Shuster's comments.

I know that I am a public figure and that my daughter is playing a public role in my campaign. I am accustomed to criticism, certainly from MSNBC. I know that it goes with the territory.

However, I became Chelsea's mother long before I ran for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official second.

Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.

I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.

There's a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.


Hillary Rodham Clinton

" temporary suspension is sufficient"?  She wants shuster FIRED because of his comment?  She wants him to lose his job because he said something that, while admittedly inexcusable, he then realized was inexcusable and apologized to her and to the MSNBC audience for?

In my previous blog I made it clear that I don't like david shuster.  But did you see me demand that he be fired?  Absolutely not, nor would I. 

Is this an ultimatum?  Is MSNBC supposed to get rid of david shuster or Queen Hillary won't show up at its February 26 debate?

I don't know for 100% sure, but if I were a betting man I would be betting that the Clinton camp feels david shuster's reporting is more congenial to Mr. Obama than it is to Ms. Clinton -- which, in the end, might be what Ms. Clinton's outburst is really all about.

But my question, raised in the title of this blog, still stands. 

If this is what Hillary Cliinton demands when Chelsea is personally insulted one time, what should Bill O'Reilly - or maybe his wife - demand?  That keith olbermann be fired, boiled in oil then burned with his ashes spread over's incorporation filing?


Ken Berwitz

Remember this report the next time you hear the hard left demand that a conservative talk radio host be taken off the air for his or her opinions.  Remember how accepting they are of depraved leftwing hatred - as examplified by what you will now see, courtesy of Noel Sheppard of

Maher: Why Didnt Rush Die From Drugs Instead of Heath Ledger?

By Noel Sheppard | February 9, 2008 - 00:20 ET

The hatred from supposedly compassionate and open-minded Hollywoodans is something to behold, isn't it?

After all, just imagine despising a radio talk show host so much that you would suggest, on national television, that he should die of a drug overdose.

Alas, such was the case Friday evening when HBO's Bill Maher actually asked guest P.J. O'Rourke, who was talking about Rush Limbaugh's use of the prescription drug OxyContin. (video available here courtesy our friend Ms Underestimated):


Why couldn't have he croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?

Honestly, can you imagine?

MSNBC's David Shuster was suspended on Friday for making insensitive remarks about Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out."

Will Maher even get a slap on the wrist from HBO for this?

Yes, that's a rhetorical question.

Of course, what's really interesting is how just before Maher made this despicable remark, he was actually condemning Republicans for their antipathy towards John McCain:

BILL MAHER, HOST: Why is it, I was asking Amy this, why is it that the Republican establishment, I guess it is, have so much disdain, not just for McCain, but for the other guy who's still in it...Huckabee? They don't like either one of them.

P.J. O'ROURKE, WRITER: Well, I think a couple of things are going on. It's the it's the twilight of the radio loud-mouth, you know? I knew it from the moment the fat guy

MAHER: You mean Rush Limbaugh and Sean..?

O'ROURKE: from the moment the fat guy refused to share his drugs (audience laughter). I was, you knowhe never called, he never wrote. I'm ready to party, you know, come on! No, I think it's kind of over for those people. So

MAHER: Right, you mean the OxyContin that he was on?

O'ROURKE: Yeah, exactly. I mean, that stuff's good!

MAHER: Why couldn't, uh, why couldn't have he croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger? (small audience groans)

O'ROURKE: Yeah, yeah.

Amazing, wouldn't you agree?

First, Maher chastises Republicans for not liking their presidential candidates. Then, he wishes ill of the leading conservative voice in the media.

Physician, heal thyself!

*****Update: Late night slip of the keyboard alert: OxyContin is certainly not an over-the-counter drug. Correction made, and thanks to all who brought it to my attention. 

Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters..

The truth is, maher can say things like this all he wants - and does.  No problem.  He is a member of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade.  LAMBs usually get a free media pass on hatred. 

And if you think this is an isolated incident, think again. It isn't.  Illustratively, just a few days ago randi rhodes of (what's left of) Air America put on a "parody" about Mitt Romney dropping out of the presidential race in which he advocates killing people right and left, even children.  So help me, she really did.  Here is the report on it, complete with youtube video, from Brian Maloney at

ANNOUNCER: The following is a paid advertisement from Republicans for Mitt Romney, or mass suicide. If John McCain is the Republican Presidential nominee, it will destroy the Republican Party. Were Romney supporters and we know. Cause, if you vote for John McCain, were going to go on a killing rampage. Hey, better dead then moderate.

REPUBLICAN CHARACTER VOICE: "Look, I for one dont want to die in a hail of gun fire from crazed Mitt Romney supporters, but its better then nominating a man who opposed the Bush tax cuts. Hell, John McCain spent years in a North Vietnamese prison. A prison? That doesnt make him a hero. That makes him an ex-con.

ANNOUNCER: Exactly, and um, you know what men do in prison. You see if John McCain is President, hell make sodomy mandatory. Now, Mitt Romney, well, he believes all sex should be outlawed.

SECOND REPUBLICAN CHARACTER VOICE: As a true Republican, Im prepared to poison my own children if John McCain is the nominee, but I do wish there was another way.

ANNOUNCER: There is. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, hell give everyone a free new car, made by people in Michigan, with company-paid health care and pensions just like 1955. If John McCain is the nominee, well, we are going to kill everybody, then turn the guns on ourselves. So choose wisely this election day. This has been a paid ad for Republicans for Mitt Romney, or (gun cocking sound effect) mass suicide.

And here is the YouTube clip with the audio:

.Have you heard even one word about this in the media?  Has or demanded rhodes' removal from the air for hate material?  maher's?

Have you heard one word from the mainstream media about rhodes or maher?  These are the same mainstream media which give Limbaugh's and Hannity's "offenses" (real or imagined, it doesn't seem to matter) major story treatment. 

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


Ken Berwitz

There are a lot of very good things and very bad things about the internet.  One of the very best is that it enables people like you and me to get information that, pre-internet, either was entirely unavailable to us or only available through media which could put their spin on it.

This brings us straight to Berkeley.

For years and years Berkeley, California has been a happy resting place for LAMBs (members of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade), who have done things that would curl your nose hair if you knew about them. 

One example was in 2002 when The Daily Californian, an independent newspaper published by students at UC - Berkeley, endorsed the opponewnt of incumbent mayor, tom bates.  Not surprisingly, the mayor didn't like what the paper had done.  So he decided to make it go away.  Specifically, bates physically stole over 1,000 copies of the Daily Californian from Berkeley, so people could not read its endorsement.

Mayor bates was charged with theft, forced to admit he was a thief, and had to pay a fine, as well as restitution for the stolen copies. 

The cost of the fine was $250. The cost of the restitution was $500.  The cost to the city of Berkeley's freedom of speech?  Priceless.

I was tempted to add in the cost to Berkeley's reputation just now.  But I didn't, even though Berkeley touts itself as the home of the "free speech movement".  Why?  for two reasons:

-One is that I'm betting you didn't even know about the incident I just described.  Most of the mainstream media bury stories like this on behalf of the left.  So, outside of the Bay Area and maybe a few other parts of California, it probably was barely known - if it was known at all;

-The other is that Berkeley itself apparently was ok with the mayor's self-aggrandizing censorship.  The reason for this conclusion is very simple.  They have RE-ELECTED tom bates and he remains the mayor of Berkeley to this day!

How can you tarnish the reputation of people who accept political censorship which steals their own freedom, and who then reward the guy who did it?  What reputation is there to tarnish?

Now, as the firestorm over Berkeley's war against the US Marines gets more and more intense. I can't help thinking that bates has acted in the disgusting, mindless, fascistic way he did because - as with the newspaper theft in 2002 - he assumed he could get away with it. 

Hey, maybe the people would give him an even bigger landslide next time.  If they liked their loss of freedom of speech in 2002, it stands to reason they'd love it in 2008, right?

But in those intervening 5-6 years, the internet has genuinely blossomed.  Media no longer have the capability of burying this fascist's actions anymore.  Now, only because of the ease with which people like you and me can get such information - usually through the blogosphere rather than the dinosaur elitists in media - outrages in places like Berkeley are no longer buried and forgotten.

It is only because the word spread this way that we know about Berkeley.  And only for this reason are lawmakers (like Senator Jim DeMint, who proposes cutting off significant federal funding to Berkeley) prompted to action.

And because of the firestorm that has erupted over their actions, the cowards on Berkeley's city council fear losing federal MONEY ($$$$$$$).  So their idea is to backtrack, and rescind as little of their marine hatred as they think they have to for the dollars to keep rolling in.  That, self-evidently, is the one and only reason they're doing it. 

Personally, I hope it doesn't work.  I hope Senator DeMint persists, and prevails.  If they hate our government and our military so much, don't take the cash.  Screw off. 

If Berkeley wants funding, let them get it from code pink bake sales. 

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!!