Last week I blogged about an "innocent" Guantanamo detainee who, after being released, emerged
as the #2 al-qaeda operative in Yemen (which is as lawless a radical Islamic
state as there is on the planet).
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates Eleven Saudis who
were released from Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, and then passed through a Saudi
rehabilitation program for former jihadists are now believed to have fled the
country and joined terrorist groups abroad, Saudi officials said
The 11 former detainees include two who were
already identified last month as members of a Yemeni terrorist group. Their
names were on a list of 85 wanted terrorism suspects made public Tuesday by
the Saudi Interior Ministry.
The announcement further underscored the
difficulties faced by the Obama administration as it prepares to close the
Guantnamo detention center. All told, 14 Saudis now appear to have rejoined
terrorist groups after their return from Guantnamo, including the 11 living
abroad and 3 who were rearrested in Saudi Arabia after their
You may have noticed that, untypically, I did not credit the original source of
this story, only the web site where I saw it. The reason is that I wanted to
spring it on you after the fact.
This story comes to us from the New York Times. The same New York Times that has demanded that
Guantanamo be closed for years. You can read the entire article by clicking
To the folks at The Times, and to any other people who railed about how despicable it was
that President Bush put these people in Guantanamo:
Tell the truth. Now that President Bush is gone and you don't have to
pretend that everything he did was idiotic ---- aren't you glad that he was
detaining these people?
Did you really think they were pristine innocents, picked up on the
way to the store to buy milk and eggs for their mothers?
C'mon, you can admit it now, your God has taken the White House. Bush won't benefit by your
Trust me, a lot of the people I aimed that
at still think Guantanamo
was some kind of horrible concentration camp housing sweet, innocent young
jihadis...er, family men.
Probably even those storied freethinkers at The
BARKING DOGS, CHICKENS AND MONKEYS
With, oh, two weeks of experience as President under his belt, is Barack
Obama seriously going to nose into the dispute between India and Pakistan over
Kashmir? The one that has caused two wars between these countries already,
and is currently simmering but not erupting?
Apparently India sees it that way. So its national security advisor is lecturing our President
on the realities of international politics, in the hope that he catches on.
Here is the story, from the London Financial Times. The bold print is
India warns Obama over Kashmir
By James Lamont and Amy Kazmin in New Delhi
Published: February 3 2009 13:56 | Last updated:
February 3 2009 13:56
India has warned US President Barack Obama
that he risks barking up the wrong tree if he seeks to broker a settlement
between Pakistan and India over the disputed territory of
MK Narayanan, Indias national security advisor,
said that the new US administration was in danger of dredging up out of date
Clinton administration-era strategies in a bid to bring about improved ties
between the two nuclear armed neighbours.
I do think that
we could make President Obama understand, if he does nurse any such view, that
he is barking up the wrong tree. I think Kashmir today has become one of the
quieter and safer places in this part of the world, Mr Narayanan said in an
interview with CNBC TV18.
Its possible that at this time there are
elements, perhaps in the administration who are harking back to the pre-2000
The warning comes as Richard Holbrooke, Mr Obamas
special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, prepares to come to the region for
the first time in his new capacity. Mr Narayanan is close to Manmohan Singh,
Indias prime minister, and Sonia Gandhi, the president of the ruling Congress
Kashmir, over which India and Pakistan have fought
two wars and where both countries mass troops, is a highly sensitive issue for
Last month, David Miliband, the UKs foreign secretary, angered the Indian
government by saying that the unresolved dispute over Kashmir was a cause of
terrorism in the region. Its vilification of Mr Miliband was interpreted as a
tacit signal to Washington to keep out.
Kashmir, which has a Muslim majority, was claimed
by both India and Pakistan following partition in 1947 at the end of British
rule. Since 1989 New Delhi has been battling a separatist insurgency in a
struggle estimated to have cost up to 70,000 lives.
Earlier this year large anti-India protests drew
up to 500,000 people onto the streets and led to the imposition of a long
curfew. But New Delhi was encouraged by a largely peaceful state election late
last year that recorded a better than expected voter turnout.
References made by president Obama, which seem to
suggest that there is some kind of link with settlement on Pakistans western
border and the Kashmir issue certainly have caused concern, said Mr Narayanan.
But he said the new US administration and India had yet to have direct contact
over the issue.
C. Raja Mohan, professor of international
relations at Singapores Nanyang University, said New Delhis treatment of Mr
Miliband had helped persuade Washington to abandon any overt linkage of the
Kashmir dispute with combating extremism in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Washingtons decision to drop India from formal
inclusion in Mr Holbrookes special envoy mandate reflected these
You kill a chicken to scare a monkey, Mr
Mohan said at a recent seminar in New Delhi on US relations with South Asia. We
killed the chicken and the monkey got the message.
Mr Mohan said India and Pakistan had
agreed a basic outline of a peace deal on Kashmir during the tenure of Pakistani
leader Pervez Musharraf, but that the process had faltered as Mr Musharraf had
weakenend and finally lost power.
kill a chicken (the UK) to scare the monkey (the US). Got that? We're the
Lucky Mohan isn't a Republican politician, or, with Obama in
office, he'd be called a racist for the rest of his life.
Please pay special attention to that last paragraph. Pervez
Musharraf, the admittedly corrupt, hugely flawed Prime Minister of Pakistan, had moved towards an agreement to
resolve the Kashmir situation.
Since 9/11 Musharraf had also been about as much of an ally as the US
could hope to get in the west-hating, taliban-loving country of Pakistan (anyone
who thinks it was reasonable to expect someone better or more accommodating
there is living in a dream world).
But we abandoned him and he wound up out of office --- based on which party's
demands? Do you remember? Which party pushed and shoved and
screamed to cut him loose, as if anyone else was likely to be better?
You know the answer, don't you?
And now that he's gone, are things any better in Pakistan than they were when
he was its head of state?
International politics is not a parlor game. It isn't easy, it isn't
logical, and when you screw up you don't just shrug and start another
game. There are consequences, and those consequences can affect the
I hope this occurs to Mr. Obama and his pals in congress before it's too
BARACK OBAMA'S PANDERING TO RADICAL ISLAM
Jeff Jacoby is a briliant columnist for the Boston Globe. That in itelf
is not news; it has been true for a good many years. But today he has
Here, without further commentary, is today's column, which discusses Barack
Obama's outreach to the Muslim world. Read it, and try to find a word you
can disagree with:
EARLY IN HIS PRESIDENCY, Jimmy
Carter set about to alter US policy toward the Soviet Union. Six days after his
inauguration he sent
to Soviet ruler Leonid Brezhnev, hailing the two
countries' "common efforts towards formation of a more peaceful, just, and
humane world" and saluting Brezhnev's supposed "aspiration for strengthening and
preserving . . . peace." In a
commencement address at Notre
, he declared that Americans had shed
"that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who
joined us in that fear." In the months that followed, Carter slashed the defense
budget, scrapped the B-1 bomber, welcomed the takeover of Nicaragua by a Marxist
junta, and launched diplomatic relations with the Castro dictatorship in
'That inordinate fear of communism': Soviet troops seize the
Kabul airport, 1979
It wasn't until the Soviets invaded
in 1979 that Carter finally woke
to his naivet. Moscow's brutal
aggression had "made a more dramatic change in my opinion of what the Soviets'
ultimate goals are," he admitted, "than anything they've done in the previous
time that I've been in office."
Carter's failure to understand
the threat posed by the Soviet Empire had costly consequences for America and
the world. Will this pattern now be repeated with Barack Obama and the global
threat from radical Islam?
Ever since taking office two
weeks ago, Obama has been at pains to proclaim a change in US-Muslim relations.
he invited "the Muslim world" to embark on "a new way
forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." Six days later he gave
Al-Arabiya, an Arabic-language satellite channel,
his first televised
as president. This week he
continued his charm offensive with a friendly letter
to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which
represents 57 Muslim governments. He has promised to deliver a major address in
an Islamic capital by spring.
The president cannot be
faulted for using his bully pulpit to reach out to the world's Muslims,
especially given his Muslim roots and family ties. But running through Obama's
words is a disconcerting theme: that US-Muslim tensions are a mostly recent
phenomenon brought on largely by American provincialism, heavy-handedness, and
disrespect. Missing is any sense that the United States has long been the target
of jihadist fanatics who enjoy widespread support in the Muslim
"My job to the Muslim world is
to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy,"
, although "we sometimes make mistakes" and "have not been
perfect," and even though "too often the United States starts by dictating" and
fails to use "the language of respect."
Such apologetic pandering is
inexcusable. For decades, as commentator Charles Krauthammer
noted last week
, "America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them."
To liberate oppressed Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq,
hundreds of thousands of Americans risked -- and in many cases lost -- their
lives. Not even the Islamist atrocities of 9/11 provoked American leaders to
treat Islam with disdain. "We respect your faith," George W. Bush earnestly told
the world's Muslims in a
nationally televised speech on
Sept. 20, 2001
. "Its teachings are good
and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name
of Allah." Would that the Muslim world's leaders spoke with such courtesy about
Christianity and Judaism
Even more troubling is Obama's
seeming cluelessness about US-Muslim history.
"The same respect and
partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years
ago -- there's no reason why we can't restore that," the president said on
Well, let's see. Twenty years
ago, in 1989, American hostages were being
by their Hezbollah captors in
Beirut and hundreds of grief-stricken families were in mourning for their loved
ones, murdered by Libyan terrorists as they flew home for Christmas on
Pan Am Flight 103
. Thirty years ago, in 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini
overthrew the Shah of
Iran , proclaimed America "the Great Satan"
and inspired his acolytes to seize the US embassy and hold scores of Americans
hostage for nearly 15 months. That same year Islamist mobs
destroyed the US
in Pakistan and Libya, and
staged anti-American riots in other countries.
Jihad at sea: A US frigate battles Muslim pirates off the
Barbary coast, 1803
The golden age of
American-Muslim relations that Obama harks back to did not exist
. Radical Islam's hatred of the United States is not a
recent phenomenon, it has nothing to do with "respect," and it isn't going to be
extinguished by sweet words -- not even those of so sweet a speaker as Obama.
Sooner or later, Barack Obama must confront an implacable reality: The global
jihad, like the Cold War, will only end when our enemies lose their will to
fight -- or when we do. Let us hope he's a quicker study than Jimmy
Is the "stimulus package" DOA? It sure is beginning to look that
The reason is simple; the more people hear about how bloated this
monstrosity is with Democratic pork-projects and giveaways to left wing
interests as diverse as ACORN and the movie industry (honest), the less they are
willing to support it.
Today's Rasmussen survey
indicates that support for the Obama administration's pork-infested spending
bill is going up in smoke: currently only 37% favor the measure while 43% oppose
it. Here is the downward trend:
Even worse, perhaps, is the fact that half of poll
respondents say the Dems' pork-fest "may end up doing more harm than
People are catching on to what the bill actually
does, and support seems certain to decline further. The Republicans have a
winning issue here, one that can take them a long way toward reclaiming their
brand. The biggest danger is an untimely collapse by Republican moderates in the
Senate who are not in touch with the mood of the voters.
UPDATE: According to Byron York, Sen. Jim
DeMint says, "I think we've got nearly 100 percent of Republicans who are going
to vote against this bill unless it is fundamentally changed to include real
economic stimulus." And the Dems are sending out hysterical emails to the effect
that calls to Washington opposing the pork bill are outnumbering supporters'
calls by 100-1. I'm not surprised; let's make it 200-1: (202)
In a way, I don't blame Obama, Reid, Pelosi & Co. They just cleaned
Republicans' clocks in the last election and apparently think this means the
electorate will be tickled pink to go along with whatever they come up
I can just hear the logic: "We can
do whatever we want. The people love us. Didn't November prove
it? Besides, it's not like media are going to attack this package;
these people supported us throughout the campaign and think Barack Obama came to earth on a
chariot of fire with a choir of angels"
Well, that isn't turning out to be the way of things, is it?
The voters - who created the Democratic hegemony we will be living
under for the next two years - may quickly be realizing just what they have
And if those polling data on the stimulus package are any indication, we may
be in for a very intense period of buyer's remorse.
WHAT THE PACKAGE WILL STIMULATE
L. Brent Bozell's latest
column gives us a bunch of specifics to explain why
the Democrats' "stimulus package" is becoming increasingly undeliverable.
Here are some key excerpts - without any further commentary from me. Mr. Bozell does fine
on his own:
Must we always fight
Washington policy wars using preferred Democrat terms? Todays example is the
stimulus package, or as ABC touts on screen during its newscasts, the Obama
Rescue Plan, as if the new president was donning Ronald Reagans lifeguard
uniform and pulling the economy out of the surf. Despite the dominant media
terms, liberals like those at the Huffington Post are complaining the Democrats
arent effectively resisting as Republicans seek to tar it as a spending
Only in the world of
politics does one tar an issue by calling a spending bill a spending bill. But
Republicans and conservative activists are doing more than that. Theyre
denouncing the bills enormous size larger than the combined cost of the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan up until now! Theyre also focusing on how its light on
actual stimulus items and heavy on grants pleasing traditional Democrat
special interest groups.
Economist and blogger
Robert Brusca estimated that only about 24 percent of the spending in the Senate
plan can be categorized accurately as stimulus, and the rest is either
cushion for the hard times, or categorized as agenda spending, advancing
Democratic policy dreams. Even the stimulus is delayed, he quipped: Does the
administration go to Hallmark and buy us taxpayers a belated stimulus
card?...This is no Muhammad Ali plan (float like a butterfly, sting like a bee).
It's more like float like a lead balloon, bite like a flea.
Lets start with $3 billion
for prevention and wellness programs, including $335 million for education and
prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. FRC reports that recent government
expenditures in this area include a transgender beauty pageant in San Francisco
that advertised available HIV testing. Then there was the event called "Got
Love? -- Flirt/Date/Score" that taught how "to flirt with greater finesse." Does
this strike anyone as a plan to jump-start the economy, instead of someones sex
On the tax-cut side, the
Senate bill included a tax break worth up to $246 million over 11 years for
outside investors in big-budget Hollywood movie projects. Tax cuts for the
wealthy are okay as long as the wealthy are making movies. But bad publicity
and pork-busting Sen. Tom Coburn pressed the Senate (including 13 Democrats) to
scrap the tax break.
The green lobby is thrown
a pile of bones in the stimulus bill, including $10 million for bike and
walking trails, $200 million for plug-in electric car stations, $400 million for
climate change research by NASA scientists, $600 million to buy new green cars
for government workers, $800 million for more cleanup of Superfund pollution
sites, and $1.5 billion for the construction of new green school buildings.
Then theres just plain
self-dealing by the Democrats. The Washington Times reported on a $2.25 billion
provision in the House bill for the National Parks almost equal to the
National Park Services total yearly budget, and a eyebrow-raising increase of
almost three times the $802 million the Senate Appropriations Committee put in
its stimulus bill. The chief lobbyist for the National Parks Conservation
Association is Craig Obey, the son of House Appropriations Committee Chairman
Theres a reason why the
Obama administration wanted to cram this massive spending bill through the
Congress by Abe Lincolns birthday. Speed is of the essence: the longer it
lingers, the more details emerge, proving this egg is rotten to the core.
Republicans are now using those details to build skepticism about this freight
train of partisan pork.
Standing in their way are
TV news anchors, miffed that the GOP would turn the cold shoulder to Obamas
outreach, as Charles Gibson put it on ABC. His man on Capitol Hill, Jonathan
Karl, added: So much for the President's charm offensive. Today it was all
partisan rancor and name-calling.
The news media are supposed
to be offering us information from Washington. In the case of this stimulus
bill, its the last thing they want to do.
THE "MOTHER" OF FEMALE SUICIDE BOMBERS
I just read an Associated Press article, published in the San Francisco
Chronicle, that is just about as depraved as it gets.
It details how a "woman" (I'm ashamed to use the same term I'd use for a
decent female human being) went about recruiting female suicide bombers for
Here are the key excerpts (you can read the entire article by clicking
'Mother' of Iraqi women bomber network
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA and BRIAN
MURPHY, Associated Press Writers
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
(02-03) 16:43 PST BAGHDAD, (AP) --
A woman accused of helping recruit dozens of
female suicide bombers looked into the camera and described the process:
trolling society for likely candidates and then patiently converting the women
from troubled souls into deadly attackers.
The accounts, in a video released Tuesday by Iraq
police, offer a rare glimpse into the networks used to find and train the women
bombers who have become one of the insurgents' most effective weapons as they
struggle under increasing crackdowns.
In a separate prison interview with The Associated
Press, with interrogators nearby, the woman said she was part of a plot in which
young women were raped and then sent to her for matronly advice. She said she
would try to persuade the victims to become suicide bombers as their only escape
from the shame and to reclaim their honor.
...the suspect, 50-year-old Samira Ahmed Jassim
who said her code name was "The Mother of Believers" has given unusual
firsthand descriptions of the possible workings behind last year's spike in
attacks by women bombers.
The Iraqi military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Qassim
al-Moussawi, said the suspect had recruited more than 80 women willing to carry
out attacks and admitted masterminding 28 bombings in different
Female suicide bombers attempted or successfully
carried out 32 attacks last year, compared with eight in 2007, according to U.S.
military figures. Most recently, a woman detonated an explosive under her robes
that killed at least 36 people during a Shiite religious gathering last
Al-Moussawi, the military spokesman, alleged
Jassim was in contact with top leaders of Ansar al-Sunnah in Diyala, the last
foothold of major Sunni insurgent strength near Baghdad. The group is one of the
factions with suspected ties to al-Qaida in Iraq.
Al-Moussawi said Jassim "confessed to recruiting
28 female suicide bombers who carried out terrorist operations in different
areas." He gave no other details on the locations or dates of the
In the video played for reporters, Jassim
described how she was approached by insurgents to urge women to carry out
suicide attacks. She said her first assignment was Um Hoda, a nickname meaning
mother of Hoda.
"I talked to her a number of times," said Jassim,
who has four daughters and two sons. "I went back to them and gave them the
details on her. And they told me, bring her to us. ... And I took her to the
police station, and that's where she blew herself up."
Another woman, whom she called Amal, was involved
in long conversations, Jassim said.
"I talked to her many times, sat with her, and she
was very depressed," she said on the video. "I took her to them, and then went
back for her and she blew herself up."
Jassim gave no further information on the attacks
or her role in the video.
In speaking with the AP a week after her Jan. 21
arrest Jassim repeated statements she had allegedly made to interrogators that
insurgents organized rapes of women and that she would then try to coax the
victims to become suicide bombers.
She said she was "able to persuade women to become
suicide bombers ... broken women, especially those who were raped."
In many parts of Iraq, including conservative
Diyala, a rape victim may be shunned by her family and become an outcast in
She claimed that Ansar al-Sunnah provided her a
house in Diyala, where she operated a shop selling the traditional robes for
women called abaya. She added, however, that Ansar al-Sunnah once threatened to
bomb her house if she did not cooperate.
"I worked with (Ansar al-Sunnah) for a year and a
half," she told the AP.
Women suicide bombers are uncommon, but not
unknown, outside Iraq.
Among Palestinians, several woman have carried out
suicide bombings for militant groups including Hamas and Islamic
There also have been cases of women in the West
Bank attacking Israeli soldiers so they can be imprisoned after being accused of
breaking traditional rules on sexual conduct. In the Palestinian territories,
relatives can seek harsh punishments, including death, on women seen as
dishonoring the family.
That's some "woman". And some culture she's operating within.
You rape an
innocent female, knowing that instead of love, sympathy and understanding she is likely to be
treated as a pariah - even cast out of the family - for the crime of being
Then, having created an outcast, you can recruit her as a suicide bomber
which, she is told, will somehow redeem her honor - as if she did anything to
lose it in the first place.
This is what we are dealing with. This is why we fight.
I hope the current administration is paying attention.
"KOS" GETS IT RIGHT
I don't agree with Markos Moulitsas Zunigas ("kos" of www.dailykos.com) very much. But did he
ever nail it today, when talking about Democrats who cheat on their taxes:
Since the only time rich DC party insiders seem
to get around to paying their taxes is when nominated to Obama's cabinet, I'd
require that they all be nominated to Obama's cabinet. Suddenly,
these people would discover this strange creature called the "accountant" who
would quickly identify failed tax payments totaling in the tens (or even
hundreds) of thousands.
Collectively, the Treasury could raise hundreds
of billions, while Obama would continue to vouch for their "integrity". It's a
perk of being part of that club.
As for the rest of us poor shlubs, don't forget
to carry that one when doing your taxes. We don't get to be treasury
secretaries when we screw up.
Not only do I agree with Mr. Zunigas' sentiments - and sarcasm level - but I
love his use of the yiddish word "shlub" (though, since the first sound is too
soft for that "s", I would have spelled it zhlub).
A zhlub is a hapless, sad-sack, unsophisticated nebbish type (nebbish is also
derived from a yiddish word, by the way).
Note to "kos": If you spell it shlub, you'll come across as
someone who is trying to use a word he really doesn't know. A little like
calling that delicious, crusty potato square a kuh-nish. Since you got it
so right about rich Democrats and tax cheating, I want everything else to be
right as well.
SUBPRIME MELTDOWN: THE REAL STORY
I've started reading a web site called www.ihatethemedia.com. As you
might expect, the folks running it are not enamored of our wonderful "neutral"
media, and put up material exposing its bias (in that regard we certainly have
something in common, don't we).
Today it has put up a video report from Fox News, which provides a quick
history of how we got into the subrprime mess we are in. Not surprisingly,
blarney frank plays a major role here, but he's not the only one.
Take a look - and by all means watch the video (if you have trouble seeing it
Youve been screwed by Barney
Frank. And we have it all on video.
February 1, 2009
If youre anything like us, youve probably wondered if
theres something network TV news hasnt been telling us about the financial
crisis. Like what really caused it. And who really caused it. CBS hasnt told
the whole story. Neither have ABC, NBC, CNN, nor MSNBC.
Luckily, we have Fox News. Heres a tremendous
video timeline put together by Fox News that shows exactly who did what to whom
This video strips Barney Frank bare and exposes
him to the world. (We sincerely apologize for the hideous images that sentence
brings to mind.)
As the commentary points out, Fox News is the only venue that showed this
Maybe that explains why the networks that withhold this basic information
from you are so angry at Fox and so ready to sneer at its coverage. People
tend to hate someone who embarrasses them by exposing their
HAMAS: "CARING" FOR THE PEOPLE OF GAZA
From today's Jerusalem Post:
Feb 4, 2009
13:39 | Updated Feb 4, 2009 15:23
UN: Hamas raided warehouse in
Gaza, seized blankets, food
By AP AND
JPOST.COM STAFF Hamaspolice
in Gaza have seized thousands of blankets and food parcels meant for needy residents, UN spokesman Chris
Gunness said Wednesday.
Gunness said Hamas
police raided a UN warehouse in Gaza City, snatching 3,500 blankets and over 400
- supplied meant for 500 Palestinian families. He said the incident took place
on Tuesday evening, and that it marked the first
timeHamas had seized UN aid.
In a statement released Wednesday, UNRWA condemned
the theft "in the strongest terms," and demanded that it be "returned
immediately." The statement added that the organization "has a strict system of
monitoring aid delivery and ensuring that its assistance reaches only the
intended beneficiaries," and that officials were present "taking all possible
steps to avoid its diversion."
The aid is especially vital now because
Gazans are facing hardship after Israel's three-week military offensive against
Israeli officials have charged that the group
routinely confiscates supplies meant for needy Gazans.
government spokesman was not immediately available for comment.
Earlier in the week, meanwhile,
former UN and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees chief attorney James Lindsay
alleged that the organization does little to check whether its staff or clients
After decades of operating in Gaza, you'd think the UN would understand
something about what goes on there. But, since the UN has spent those
decades dilligently avoiding reality, it hasn't learned a thing; it is just as obtuse as
hamas could not care less about what the people of Gaza need. hamas's commitment
is vaporizing Israel and killing Jews. If it can also ingratiate itself to Gazans by
throwing them a few crumbs now and then, that's fine. But at crunch time?
hamas takes what it wants, and is indifferent to whether the general public
can find food and supplies elsewhere, or starve in the street.
Quite a wakeup call for the UN. I wonder if its Gaza contingent
will sleep through it anyway. My bet is that they will.
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!!