Tuesday, 01 July 2008


Ken Berwitz

"Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war.  I was shot down over Vietnam and spent five years as a POW. Some of the friends I served with never came home. I hate war. And I know how terrible its costs are.":  John McCain, in a TV ad less than a month ago.

With the above in mind, please now read the ABC news account of what Obama operative Rand Beers said about John McCain yesterday:

Dem Guru: McCain 'Limited' by POW Years

June 30, 2008 3:02 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Molly Hunter Report: While Barack Obama was urging supporters not to devalue the military service of rival John McCain, an informal Obama adviser argued Monday that the former POW's isolation during the Vietnam War has hobbled the Arizona senator's capacity as a war-time leader.

Sadly, Sen. McCain was not available during those times, and I say that with all due respect to him," said informal Obama adviser Rand Beers. "I think that the notion that the members of the Senate who were in the ground forces or who were ashore in Vietnam have a very different view of Vietnam  and the cost that you described than John McCain does because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war."

"So I think," he continued, "to some extent his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be committed to conflicts around the world."

McCain spent five years in captivity as a POW in North Vietnam.

The Beers remarks, which were made at the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund in Washington, D.C., drew a swift rebuke from a McCain spokesman who portrayed them as an example of Obama saying one thing and his supporters doing another.

"Mr. Beers' remarks are part of a pattern of Obama supporters attacking John McCain's military service, and a reminder of why it's what Sen. Obama, his supporters and his campaign actually do that matters most," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers tells ABC News. "Sen. Obama speaking out against these attacks isn't really relevant -- either his supporters aren't hearing him or they don't believe his words."

McCain's spokesperson is 100% right.  This is a pattern.  It is a formula.  You can now count on Barack Obama to tell you that Beers is wrong and should never have said what he did. 

Mr. Obama is getting the benefit of Rand Beers' attack and then pretending to be simon-pure and above it all.  The same way he did with Weaselley Clark.  The same way he did with jeremiah wright.  The same way he did with william ayers and bernardine dohrn and tony rezko and louis farrakhan and......well, you get the picture.

If you believe this is just randomly happening, you will believe anything. 

And if you believe that Barack Obama is anything but a (very good looking and very glib) standard-issue politician from the Chicago Democratic machine, you are beyond hope altogether.


Ken Berwitz

We are succeeding too much in Iraq. 

We must be, because now we see our wonderful, unbiased media on a mission to find failure elsewhere.  And here, via excerpts from the Associated Press article, is one way of doing it:

Troop deaths in Afghanistan top Iraq toll

Analysts say the grim tally underscores the Taliban's growing strength
The Associated Press
updated 6:35 p.m. ET, Mon., June. 30, 2008

KABUL, Afghanistan - Militants killed more U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan in June than in Iraq for the second straight month, a grim milestone capping a run of headline-grabbing insurgent attacks that analysts say underscore the Taliban's growing strength.

The fundamentalist militia in June staged a sophisticated jailbreak that freed 886 prisoners, then briefly infiltrated a strategic valley outside Kandahar. Last week, a Pentagon report forecast the Taliban would maintain or increase its pace of attacks, which are already up 40 percent this year from 2007 where U.S. troops operate along the Pakistan border.

Some observers say the insurgency has gained dangerous momentum. And while June also saw the international community meet in Paris to pledge $21 billion in aid, an Afghanistan expert at New York University warns that there is still no strategy to turn that commitment into success.

Numbers reflect rising violence
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has noted that more international troops died in Afghanistan than in Iraq in May, the first time that had happened. While that trend now two months old is in part due to falling violence in Iraq, it also reflects rising violence in Afghanistan.

At least 45 international troops including at least 27 U.S. forces and 13 British died in Afghanistan in June, the deadliest month since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion to oust the Taliban, according to an Associated Press count.

In Iraq, at least 31 international soldiers died in June: 29 U.S. troops and one each from the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan. There are 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 4,000 British forces in additional to small contingents from several other nations.

The 40-nation international coalition is much broader in Afghanistan, where only about half of the 65,000 international troops are American.

"I think possibly we've reached a turning point," said Mustafa Alani, the director of security and terrorism studies at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center. "Insurgents now are more active, more organized, and the political environment, whether in Pakistan or Afghanistan, favors insurgent activities."

Pakistani efforts to negotiate peace deals
U.S. commanders have blamed Pakistani efforts to negotiate peace deals for the spike in cross-border attacks, though an initial deal with militants has begun to fray and security forces recently launched a limited crackdown in the semiautonomous tribal belt where the Taliban and al-Qaida operate with increasing freedom.

U.S. Ambassador William Wood said violence is up because Taliban fighters are increasingly using terrorist tactics that cause higher tolls, but that there's no indication fighters can hold territory. He said June had "some very good news and a couple cases of bad news."

"The very good news was Paris. There were more nations represented, contributing more than ever before," Wood told the AP.

The scramble after the jailbreak to push the Taliban back from the nearby Arghandab valley was the other big plus, Wood said. The Afghan army sent more than 1,000 troops to Kandahar in two days.

"Although Arghandab got major press for being a Taliban attack, the real news in Arghandab was that the Afghans themselves led the counterattack, deployed very rapidly and chased the Taliban away," Wood said.

The worst news, Wood said, was the prison break, and the possible involvement of al-Qaida.

"The Taliban is not known for that level of complex operation, and others who have bases in the tribal areas are," he said.

Alani agreed: "The old Taliban could not do such an operation, so we are talking about a new Taliban, possibly al-Qaida giving them the experience to carry out this operation."

Translation:  Deaths in Iraq have dropped to levels in Afghanistan.  So now the story line includes only one passing mention of the success which causes lower casualty rates in Iraq (buried in the middle of the story - I've put it in bold print so you can even find it), and the main thrust is that Afghanistan is  our new failure du jour.

I'm also amused (in a black-comedy sense) by the fact that the only way AP could make its headline work is to add in non-USA troops.  Without that, USA casualties in Iraq, though dramatically lower than at this time last year, would still be slightly higher than in Afghanistan.

I also note that the forces in Iraq are almost all from the USA, while it is about half USA and half everyone else in Afghanistan.  Wouldn't it be nice to see a comment that, since virtually every country agreed with our action there, and all humanity benefits by the taliban being neutralized, it is unfair for us to assume half the entire burden (and, I'm sure, the lion's share of the dangerous actions)?  And that, because we do, that is why our casualty rates are higher than they otherwise would be?

Here is what I never expect to see:  A story line which points out...

-that al qaeda and the taliban are never going to be completely wiped out.  They are not uniformed forces, like the German and Japanese armies, that will sign a formal surrender agreement. 

-that they will continue to exist as long as so many people in the countries they emanate from are taught little other than fundamentalist Islam and hatred for everything else. 

-that the poverty, ignorance and despair of these people, coupled with the fact that this is all they are taught, is the real root cause of groups like al qaeda and the taliban becoming, and remaining active.

- and that while we may not be able to definitively defeat them, we must continue to fight them, or they will take over more and more of the world and we will be accordingly less and less safe.

But for mainstream media to say any of that would suggest that what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is necessary, therefore correct -- thus President Bush just may have been right to do it.

Grow old waiting for that to happen.


Ken Berwitz

Suppose I told you that the latest report on Iraq came out and, now, the country is deemed satisfactory on 15 of the 18 key benchmarks.  Would you consider it spectacularly good news?  I bet the answer is yes.

Now, do you remember what media did regarding the previous report, when Iraq had only met three of those benchmarks?  Remember the tidal wave of negative coverage?  So they must be crowing at what an amazing turnaround this is, right?

Well, here are the first three paragraphs of the Associated Press article.  See if you still think so:

WASHINGTON (AP) - No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates.

Iraq's political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it's done so has been achingly slow.

The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory"almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarksenacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenuesare unsatisfactory.

Unbelievable.  Two paragraphs of hardline negativity before they even mention it.  And if you use the link I've provided and read the entire article, you will find that most of the rest of the article works at finding negative angles as well.

Until recently I've seen the AP as leaning pretty strongly towards Democrats but generally fair in its reportage.  Now, in this election year, they seem to have forgotten about that "generally fair" part, with articles looking more and more like press releases from Obama2008.  Instead of news we are getting an exercise in unabashed partisanship.

Too bad for them.  And too bad for us.

steve schneider the media will remain pro democrat. i was watching msnbc for 10 mins yesterday afternoon. they were doing a piece on humor in the presidential race. it consisted of 4 bits found either on the internet of comedy central, i'm not sure. 2 made fun of bush and 2 made fun of mccain. they were funny but the point is how come obama gets a free pass? steve (07/02/08)


Ken Berwitz

If you want to know why palestinian Arabs become what so many of them are, just click on

  this video

and it will be crystal-clear to you. 

Did you watch the video?  Good. 
Now:  Explain to me how Israel is supposed to make, and live in, peace with palestinian Arabs.  I challenge you.

free Also why isn't the left asked how they can support the palestinians over Israel. We are living is some very strange times. (07/01/08)


Ken Berwitz

Regular readers of this blog are familiar with the term LAMB.  It stands for the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade. 

Not surprisingly, in a match between Barack Obama and John McCain the LAMBs are pretty much uniformly supporting Mr. Obama.  No shock there.

But there is a bit of an issue here.  To win the Democratic nomination requires sucking up to the LAMBs, because, lamentably, they largely control the Democratic Party these days.  But to win the general election means posturing as more of a centrist - therefore turning away from the LAMBs. 

Will they accept this reality?  The overall verdict is not yet in.  But here, courtesy of www.littlegreenfootballs.com, is how one of the most important of them, Markos Moulitsas Zunigos of www.dailykos.com, feels about it:

Kos Throws Obama Under the Bus

Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:05:27 pm PDT

Markos Screw Them Moulitsas will be withholding his money from Barack Obama until Obama toes the progressive line: Daily Kos: Rewarding good behavior.

Maybe what looks like cowering to me is really part of that moving to the center stuff everyone keeps talking about. But there is a line between moving to the center and stabbing your allies in the back out of fear of being criticized. And, of late, hes been doing a lot of unecessary stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician. Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician who has ever turned his or her back on the base in order to prove centrist bona fides. Thats not an indictment, just an observation.

Now I know theres a contingent around here that things Obama can do no wrong, and he must never be criticized, and if you do, well f*ck you! I respect the sentiment, but will respectfully disagree.

Because nothing says respect like a hearty f*ck you!

Is it just me, or is Mr. Zunigas less than taken with Barack Obama's concession to reality?  It could be that this is a one-day wonder and Mr. Zunigas is, if grudgingly, going to come back into the fold.  But maybe not.

I'll keep watching.  This could get very, very interesting. 

And I promise that if I ever use that terminology it will be because I DISrespectfully disagree.


Ken Berwitz

I'm kicking myself for not writing about yesterday's article about swift-boating in the New York Times.  I had it in mind to do so but between the other material I put up here and the fact that my blogging is a one-man show which I fit within my work schedule, it didn't happen.

On the other hand, Steve Gilbert at www.sweetness-light.com did such a stellar job of saying what I was going to say that his blog, shown below, probably gives you a better take on it than I would have:

NYT Decries What Swift Boat Now Means

June 30th, 2008

From the endlessly despicable New York Times:

John Kerry, hands on hips, and Roy F. Hoffmann, kneeling, in Vietnam. Mr. Hoffman helped start the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which criticized Mr. Kerry in his 2004 presidential bid.

Veterans Long to Reclaim the Name Swift Boat

Published: June 30, 2008

Years ago, when William Miller talked about being in the Vietnam War if he talked about being in the Vietnam War he would tell people he served on a Swift boat.

At least now they have heard of it. But not in the way he would like.

I was proud of what I did, and all the guys I was with, Mr. Miller said. Now somebody says Swift boat and its a whole different meaning. They dont associate it with the guys we lost. Thats a shame.

Swift boat has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears, a shadow that hangs over the presidential race as pundits wait to proclaim that the Swiftboating has begun and candidates declare that they will not be Swiftboated.

Swift boat veterans especially those who had nothing to do with the group that attacked Senator John Kerrys military record in the 2004 election want their good name back, and the good names of the men not lucky enough to come home alive.

You would not hear the word Swift boat and think of people that served their country and fought in Vietnam, said Jim Newell, who spent a year as an officer in charge on one of the small Navy vessels in An Thoi and Qui Nhon. You think about someone who was involved in a political attack on a member of a different party. It just comes across as negative. Everyone who is associated with a Swift boat is involved in political chicanery.

Sorry, but that is as far as I could read.

And not because this is yet another typically overly wordy and meandering New York Times article.

But it is Olympian grade hypocrisy for The Times to shed crocodile tears over the supposedly negative connotation of the term "Swift boat."

For it is only due to tireless efforts by The Times and the rest of our Democrat owned and operated media that the name has become pejorative if it has.

After all, what did the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth do? What were their crimes against humanity?

They exercised their God given right to express their political opinions about a Presidential candidate.

Moreover, their opinions were based upon their personal experience and knowledge none of which has been refuted by Mr. Kerry nor anyone else.

In truth, many if not most of the SBVT were lifelong Democrats, including John ONeal.

Their personal knowledge was supplemented by research by people like yours truly, who uncovered further damning material about Mr. Kerry, after he returned from his four months in Vietnam.

Such as how Mr. Kerry lied about our soldiers, gave aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese, negotiated with representatives of the enemy, and even was present at a meeting where plans to assassinate pro-war Congressmen were discussed.

This was information a real media concerned about having an informed citizenry media should have been eager to report.

But instead our watchdog media sought to cover-up and even denigrate these facts, and those who dared to bring them to light.

And once again, this is information that has never been refuted.

But as we now know all too well, being "Swift boated" actually means having someone tell inconvenient truths about a Democrat.

Which is of course exactly why this is being trotted out at this time. We are being warned not to "swift boat" Mr. Obama.

That is to say, we are not to bring up any unpleasant facts about him.

The New York Times and their Democrat masters have spoken.

Exactly right.  john kerry has never refuted a thing the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth accused him of. 

And when T. Boone Pickens, the Texas oilman, offered him $1,000,000 to disprove any of it, kerry told an adoring press that he would do just that.  It was reported everywhere.  Then, when he didn't?  That same press buried the story. 

To me, swift-boating will always mean embarrassing someone with facts they are trying to hide.  Because that is exactly what happened with the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and john kerry.  Even if the New York Times wants to live in their one-sided fantasyland and pretend otherwise.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, 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!!