Sunday, 16 March 2008


Ken Berwitz

William Kristol of the Weekly Standard has written a brilliant, fact-filled explanation of how strongly saddam hussein was linked to terrorism prior to our invasion five years ago.

Ironically, the facts for this article were drawn entirely from the Pentagon report that, according to our "neutral" mainstream media, proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that there was no such link.

Clearly, either Mr. Kristol or the mainstream media is full of beans.  Well, here is Mr. Kristol's article in its entirety; you tell me who is who:


Why is the Bush administration silent on the new Pentagon report?
by William Kristol
03/24/2008, Volume 013, Issue 27

Late last week, the Defense Department released an analysis of 600,000 documents captured in Iraq prepared by the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded think tank. Here's the attention-grabbing sentence from the report's executive summary: "This study found no 'smoking gun' (i.e. direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda."

Relying on a leak of the executive summary, ABC News reported that the study was "the first official acknowledgment from the U.S. military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda." There followed a brief item in the Washington Post that ran under the headline "Study Discounts Hussein, Al-Qaeda Link." The New York Times announced: "Study Finds No Qaeda-Hussein Tie." NPR agreed: "Study Finds No Link Between Saddam, bin Laden."

And the Bush administration reacted with an apparently guilty silence.

But here's the truth. The executive summary of the report is extraordinarily misleading. The full report, released Thursday night, states, for example, on page 42: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." In fact, as Stephen F. Hayes reports in this issue, the study outlines a startling range of connections between Saddam and various organizations associated with al Qaeda and other terror groups.

But don't take our word for it: Go to and read the 59 pages of analysis for yourself. You'll see, in the words of the authors, "strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism." And, from the report's conclusion:

The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's "coercion" toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting (1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats, (2) the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and (3) organizational relationships and "outreach programs" for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.

Take a look also at the documents showing links between Saddam Hussein and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Apparently whoever wrote the executive summary didn't consider the link between Saddam and al Zawahiri a "direct connection" because Egyptian Islamic Jihad had not yet, in the early 1990s, fully been incorporated into al Qaeda. Of course, by that standard, evidence of support provided to Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s might not be deemed a "direct connection" because al Qaeda as we know it today did not yet exist.

If you talk to people in the Bush administration, they know the truth about the report. They know that it makes the case convincingly for Saddam's terror connections. But they'll tell you (off the record) it's too hard to try to set the record straight. Any reengagement on the case for war is a loser, they'll say. Furthermore, once the first wave of coverage is bad, you can never catch up: You give the misleading stories more life and your opponents further chances to beat you up in the media. And as for trying to prevent misleading summaries and press leaks in the first place--that's hopeless. Someone will tell the media you're behaving like Scooter Libby, and God knows what might happen next.

So, this week's fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war will bring us countless news stories reexamining the case for war, with the White House essentially pleading nolo contendere. Even though there is abundant evidence that Iraq was a serious state sponsor of terrorism--and would almost certainly have become a greater one if Saddam had been left in power--most Americans will assume there was no real Saddam-terror connection. After all, they haven't heard the Bush administration say otherwise.

The president has a responsibility to help the American people understand the nature of the threat we faced in 2003 and the threats we face today--how terror groups work, the extent of state sponsorship, and how that sponsorship transcends Sunni-Shia or secular-jihadist differences.

It's not too late. Bush can still override his cautious aides and tell the American people the whole truth about the situation we faced in 2003 and would face today if Saddam were still in power. This is more than a matter of political advantage. It is a requirement of war leadership.

--William Kristol

Now you know.

The most infamous part of this, of course, is that media are grossly misrepresenting what the report actually says.  But a close second is that the Bush administration cannot call them on it because, based on experience, they realize that media would just bombard us with the same misrepresentations a second time and there is no way for the administration to outfight them.  So they let the lie just sit there.

But now you know.  Remember what you just read every time people tell you that the opposite is true.  They have fantasy and dishonesty.  You have reality.  Reality is better.


Ken Berwitz

The invaluable web site,, has done it again.  Read this - and wonder why, if an internet web site can put these articles together, mainstream media can't (won't):

Was Obama In Wrights Christmas Audience?

March 15th, 2008

As we have previously noted, Mr. Obama is now claiming that he has never heard his pastor for twenty years say anything untoward:

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

Indeed, Mr. Obama has specifically denied attending Mr. Wrights fiery Christmas 2007 sermon:

But, at least according to the New York Daily News, Mr. Obama was home in Chicago for the holidays:

Im no Muslim, says Barack Obama

By Michael Saul

Sunday, December 23rd 2007

PLEASANTVILLE, Iowa - A day before he will fly back to Chicago to spend Christmas with his family, a voter asked Barack Obama to explain his Muslim background - an Internet-fed fallacy that continues to dog his campaign

And the Associated Press says so as well:

For candidates, relative peace marks holiday

Published: Wednesday, December 26, 2007

MANCHESTER (AP) Christmas Day offered a brief break from the campaign trail for presidential hopefuls, but their ads didnt stay off New Hampshire televisions.

With less than two weeks to go before New Hampshire voters cast ballots in their first-in-the-nation presidential primary, campaign staffs stayed close to the offices, and the candidates stayed on the air.

Historically, theyve not really campaigned on Christmas Day, but this is completely different, said Andrew Smith, a University of New Hampshire political scientist.

With Iowa and New Hampshire contests coming so soon after the holidays, taking a break wasnt an option.

Theyll be doing some sort of campaigning. It may just be making sure the press sees them going to church services, Smith said

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., will celebrate the holiday with his wife and daughters in Chicago.

Weve got family coming in to spend the holiday with us, and were looking forward to taking a little break to celebrate before the final sprint.

So are we to believe he did not take his family to his church for Christmas?

Is there any doubt at all that this is a lie?

Barack Obama is a man in the process of trying to assure voters he is a Christian, not a Muslim.  He is at home, with his family, on Christmas day.  And he doesn't bother taking them to church?  A blind person would see through this.

Not that I needed another proof that Mr. Obama is lying about his knowledge of jeremiah wright's sermons.  Over the past few days I have blogged about other facts that completely debunk his ludicrous claim.  But this appears to be the ultimate smoking gun. 

Barack Obama is a balloon ready to burst, and jeremiah wright is an aneurysm on that balloon. 

As for the people who were telling us that Hillary Clinton should just pack up and leave the presidential race because Mr. Obama has it in the bag?  They look as stupid as Mr. Obama looks dishonest.


Ken Berwitz

Days ago, I made reference to the "tri-state trifecta":  the fact that, in the past four years, a Governor from every part of the tri-state area - New York, New Jersey and Connecticut - has had to resign in disgrace.

(This doesn't count the reprehensible hypocrite jon corzine, current Governor of New Jersey, who SHOULD resign over HIS behavior).

One of the three who resigned was former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy.  McGreevey tried to flimflam us by blaming his resignation on the whiney crybaby claim that he was being oppressed because of his homosexuaity, instead of a level of corruption in his administration that would have made Warren Harding green with envy.

And what about McGreevey's wife, Dina Matos McGreevey?  For all these years, everyone I know (me included) felt sympathy for her and assumed she was a victim. 

But wait.  Maybe she isn't a victim at all.  Here are excerpts from an article in today's Newark Star-Ledger which spell out the details (you can read the entire article by clicking here):

McGreevey aide says he had sexual trysts with ex-governor, wife

by Judith Lucas and John P. Martin/The Star-Ledger
Sunday March 16, 2008, 5:22 PM

A former aide to James E. McGreevey said today that he had three-way sexual trysts with the former governor and his wife before he took office, challenging Dina Matos McGreevey's assertion that she was naive about her husband's sexual exploits.

The aide, Theodore Pedersen, said he and the couple even had a nickname for the weekly romps, from 1999 to 2001, that typically began with dinner at T.G.I. Friday's and ended with a threesome at McGreevey's condo in Woodbridge.

They called them "Friday Night Specials," according to Pedersen.

"I wanted to get this out now because it was so offensive to me that she goes on television playing the victim," Pedersen said. "She's trying to make this a payday for herself. She should have told the truth about the three of us."

Neither of the McGreeveys returned calls for comment. Their lawyers declined to comment on Pedersen's claims.

Pedersen, 29, served as a driver and traveling aide for McGreevey during his gubernatorial campaign and after he won office in 2001. McGreevey attended Pedersen's graduation from Rutgers University in 2003 and Pedersen accompanied the governor and others in a trip to China last year.

Matos McGreevey claims the onetime Woodbridge mayor duped her into marriage in 2000 to further his political career, and that she had no clue about his sexual preference until just before he resigned in August 2004, when he announced he was gay and had an affair with an aide.

She has demanded full custody of their only child, Jacqueline, plus alimony and more than $600,000 in damages.

McGreevey has denied any fraud and, in court filings, countered that he fulfilled his duties as husband because he gave his wife a child and companionship. He has demanded equal time with their daughter.

I do not know if Theodore Pedersen is telling the truth.  I wasn't there (hey, it was a three-way, not a four-way). 

But having read this, I now wonder if both McGreeveys, not just Jim, have pulled a fast one on us. 

Between these two, former Senator Robert Torricelli (another resigner) and the current scumbucket, it's hard to defend my home state these days.

For years, the state slogan was "New Jersey and you.  Perfect together".  Who were they talking to?  The occupants of Rahway Prison?


Ken Berwitz

I once watched a comedy special that had a half dozen or so old-time comics discussing various things.  Shelly Berman's name was mentioned.  

One of the comics said "can anyone think of a good thing to say about Shelly Berman" and they all were laughing and indicating (jokingly, of course) that they couldn't.  Suddenly Henny Youngman looked up and said "His brother was worse!.  The room broke up, because it was so funny that this was the only "good" thing anyone could come up with.

As comedy, this is great stuff.  As reality, it isn't. 

I was reminded of this anecdote by how the daily kos has finally talked about the Barack Obama/jeremiah wright firestorm.  It is reported by the wonderful sight

Daily Kos: Huckabee Was Much Worse! Who Needs Evidence?

Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 9:42:19 am PDT

After doing their level best to completely ignore the Obama-Rev. Wright scandal, the Kos Kooks finally have a front page post on it this morning.

Their spin: Well, Mike Huckabee was worse! We dont have any evidence, but it has the feel of truthiness about it! Daily Kos: The Wright Stuff.

Without weighing in on whether or not the content of Reverend Jeremiah Wrights sermons should be denounced by Barack Obama, I do find one aspect of this story quite troubling.  We have now seen more sermons from Barack Obamas minister in 48 hours than we ever did of Mike Huckabee and Mike Huckabee was a presidential candidate for 14 long months. Why is it acceptable to scour every last sermon given by Wright, but only weeks ago we werent allowed to see or read Mike Huckabees sermons?  In fact, not only was it totally ignored by the traditional media, but the few times the question of Huckabees sermons was raised, it was brushed aside as inappropriate.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

Regular readers of this blog know that I would never vote for Mike Huckabee, on the grounds that he has blurred the lines of separation of church and state.  Mr. Huckabee stated about 10 years ago that he left the Baptist ministry for politics so that he could take the nation back for Christ - and has never specifically disaovowed this objective.

That said, I have never heard Mr. Huckabee say a bad word about any group by race or religion.  I have never heard him say "goddamn the USA" as he voluntarily lives here and enjoys its rights and privileges.  I have never heard him sing the praises of palestinian Arabs while sneering out disdain for "zionists"   And nowhere in the daily kos whine-fest do I see any evidence that he ever did.

But I have heard every one of these things from jeremiah wright. 

Apparently, none of this counts in the happy horse-manure world of Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and his daily kos crew. 

Charles Johnson runs, and was probably the one who appended "Pathetic.  Absolutely pathetic" to the end of the above piece.  Truer words were never spoken.


Ken Berwitz

A quick note about the New York Times this morning:

I have just finished reading through its Sunday, "Week In Review" section.  As I'm sure is obvious to you, ths is where the news of the week is reviewed.

But there is not a word about jeremiah wright, the content of his sermons or any connection between him and Barack Obama.

Nor is there a word about tony rezko, the progress of his trial or any connection between him and Barack Obama.

People who think they get the news by reading the New York Times are wrong.  Period.  They get whatever part of the news the Times selects, for the purpose of manipulating them.

What happened to the New York Times?  This used to be a great newspaper. 

How much further can it fall?

free Do we really know it used to be a great newspaper? Could they have been reporting like this for a long time and until the internet just got away with it? Also it is not just the NYT's it seems to be most news agencies. (03/16/08)


Ken Berwitz

As we watch Eliot Spitzer's career in ashes, we are also watching his call girl partner's career soar. Why?  Because she IS his call girl.

That, in and of itself, should tell you how sickening the value system some of us have really is these days.

Apparently, this young woman does little BUT lie.  And when her lying isn't of the physical variety, it is the description of her own family.  That makes her a pig.

Here are key excerpts from the story that appears on CBS news' web site (you can read the entire article by clicking here).

'Kristen's' MySpace Story News To Her Friends

Alleged Call Girl Said To Live Life Of Privilege In N.J.

NEW YORK (CBS) ― So who is the woman at the center of the Spitzer scandal? She was living a double life as an adult but growing up a wealthy teen in New Jersey is a far cry from how she described her younger years.

Is the alleged prostitute named 'Kristen,' also known as Ashley Dupre, telling the truth about her hard scrabble life?

"I was kind of shocked by that too," said Lauren del Valle, her former best friend.

Contrast that with what Dupre's self-described pimp told CBS 2 News on Friday:

"I knew her as Ashley, I knew her as one of the sexiest women I've ever had the pleasure of knowing."

Lauren says Ashley lived a charmed life in a sprawling, million dollar home; a total contradiction to the abuse, drugs and poverty she writes about on her 'MySpace' page.

"I never witnessed or knew of any abuse. Or heard of any abuse here," said del Valle.

According to family members, Ashley left her home five years ago at the age of 17, landing eventually in New York City with big dreams of becoming an R&B singer.

So we now know that this young woman doesn't just make up her name.  She makes up pretty much everything else as well.

In our society today, that could mean millions more for her.  Ugh.

But while we watch her prosper for this, it would be good to remember that  the lies don't just affect her and the men she has sex with for money.  When she tells the world that she grew up in poverty in an environment of abuse and of drugs, she damns her own family.  What are they supposed to tell the people they live among?  What are the people who know them supposed to think?

Lovely.  Just lovely.

Incidentally, there's another little issue here.  Since Kristen/Dupre/Youmans/whatever else she dreams up has been living a high-end life on the money she made from prostitution, when does the IRS get involved?  Aren't they going to be asking her about how much she paid in taxes for this lifestyle? 

I  would love to be a fly on the wall for THAT audit. 

Personally, I favor legalizing prostitution and regulating it to protect both the sellers and buyers from sexually transmitted diseases.  I can't say I consider it a desirable professsion (maybe a desire profession would be more appropos).  But if there is one thing on this earth you own it is your body, and people should have the right to sell its use.  If you can rent a U-haul, why not a, never mind.

Then the "Kristen" set might not have to lie about every part of their lives anymore.  Just some of them.

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!!