Friday, 18 September 2009

ANOTHER INDICATION THAT JOE WILSON WAS RIGHT

Ken Berwitz

Joe Wilson touched off a firestorm with his "YOU LIE" outburst at President Obama, after Mr. Obama said that illegals would not get health care under his plan.

Let's start with the fact - that's right, it's a fact - that President Obama was lying.  He pointed the the bill's language that excluded illegals from coverage --- but somehow forgot that the bill provided no way of checking to see if anyone seeking health care was illegal.  And when Republicans tried to insert a checking procedure -two different times - it was voted down by Mr. Obama's Democratic majority.  And he never ever told them he supported its insertion, he just let the checking procedure go bye-bye.

That by itself tells you where the truth lies.  But there's more.  Today we have another indication that Rep. Wilson was dead right and Barack Obama was lying.

From the Washington Times.  The bold print is mine:

Friday, September 18, 2009

Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care 'amnesty'

By Stephen Dinan (Contact)

 

Republicans see a backdoor move toward 'amnesty'

 

President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.

He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered - a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. "That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.

Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

Republicans said that amounts to an amnesty, calling it a backdoor effort to make sure current illegal immigrants get health care.

"It is ironic that the president told the American people that illegal immigrants should not be covered by the health care bill, but now just days later he's talking about letting them in the back door," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

"If the American people do not want to provide government health care for illegal immigrants, why would they support giving them citizenship, the highest honor America can bestow?" Mr. Smith said.

But immigrant rights groups see the speech as a signal that Mr. Obama is committed to providing health care coverage for anyone in the United States legally, regardless of their citizenship status.

"It's the first time I've certainly heard, publicly, him talking more about legal immigrants," said Eric Rodriguez, vice president for research and advocacy at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). "I think that was certainly positive progress. We were absolutely concerned about not hearing that."

Liar.  And the fawning media which have run cover for his lie are just as bad.


THE NEW YORK TIMES AND OBAMA'S BETRAYAL OF EASTERN EUROPE

Ken Berwitz

I was flying in from Chicago this morning, and read the New York Times' lead editorial - to be either amused, enraged or some combination thereof.

I was both.

In its neverending effort to rationalize and apologize on behalf of Barack Obama, the Times went out of its way to extol the reversal of US policy toward Poland and the Czech Republic, which has them so upset, and Russia and Iran so happy.

Here is the first part of the editorial, with my comments in blue.

Missile Sense

Published: September 17, 2009

 

President Obama made a sound strategic decision, scrapping former President George W. Bushs technologically dubious plan to build a long-range missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Instead, the Pentagon will deploy a less-ambitious but more feasible system of interceptors and sensors, first on ships and later on land. Ok, keep talking.  Let's see if this makes any sense.

 

Mr. Bushs plan was flawed in three fundamental ways. The technology was nowhere near ready. The threat it was supposed to defend against an Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile was also years away. And the plan (and Mr. Bushs ham-fisted insistence on it) gave Moscow a far-too-convenient excuse to rail against the Wests encroachment and shirk its responsibility to help contain Irans nuclear ambitions. Hooboy, the BS is flying here.  Yes, it isn't ready yet.  But neither is Iran's ICBM program, so that's a wash.  And if the US missile shield causes Iran to stop their ICBM program at some point, the money wasn't wasted at all because it will have forced Iran to start from square one in a different direction.  In other words, Poland and the Czech Republic (among others) are safe for the entire time it worked on its program and then until it can come up with an alternative from scratch.  As for Russia, which is being run like the old USSR by putin, and which invaded and ravaged former SSR Georgia last year, anyone who thinks they will play nice because we appease them is an incredibly poor student of world history (which brings us straight back to the NY Times, doesn't it? 

 

The new system addresses the first two problems. The technology exists and can be deployed much sooner than the Bush system. And it is intended to counter a more immediate danger: Irans short- and medium-range missiles that could threaten Europe or Israel.  Then how come Poland and the Czech Republic are furious with President Obamas decision, and how come Iran isnt?  You would need an IQ below sea level to buy this.

 

Still, managing the diplomacy particularly the disappointment of the Central Europeans and the politics in this country will require a very deft hand. This decision doesnt show a deft hand, it shows a deaf ear.

 

Neither Poland nor the Czech Republic was ever worried about Iran or particularly committed to the need for missile defense. What they fear is Russia. And what they wanted was the security of a closer relationship with Washington and the American military personnel that came along with the interceptors and radar.   Then how come they are beside themselves with fury over Mr. Obamas decision?  How come the Polish Prime Minister was so enraged that he refused to take Secretary of State Hillary Clintons call?  Why are Poland and the Czech Republic so furious if this is as good as, or better than, what President Bush put in place.  The Times must think its readers are hopeless morons or so committed to the liberal left that they are blind to what is right in front of their eyes.  Sadly, for a great many Times readers, its door #2.

 

President Obama called the leaders of both countries before the announcement. Speaking at the White House on Thursday, he reaffirmed this countrys commitment to the common defense of all NATO members. It will take a lot more reassurance in the weeks and months ahead to calm their anxieties.  No mention of Hillary Clinton being blown off by the Polish PM?  It happened well before the editorial was published.  This looks suspiciously, maybe definitively, like a lie of omission that is, something that is left out so youll come to the wrong conclusion.  And this is nothing new for the Times either.  Does the name Walter Duranty mean anything to you?

I could go on, but what's the point.  If you want to read the entire editorial click here and have a ball.

Over recent years, The New York Times has lost a ton of readers and 100 tons of its once-considerable prestige.  If you read this crap, you'll know why.


IRAN'S INTENTIONS

Ken Berwitz

This excerpt from today's article in Reuters is for anyone (if there is anyone left, other than a New York Times sycophant) who believes that Iran can be negotiated with, especially over Israel:.

Iranian president raises stakes against Israel

Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:24pm IST

By Parisa Hafezi and Firouz Sedarat

TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raised the stakes against Israel on Friday and called the Holocaust a lie, just as world powers try to decide how to deal with the nuclear ambitions of an Iran in political turmoil.

"The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim," he told worshippers at Tehran University at the end of an annual anti-Israel "Qods (Jerusalem) Day" rally.

"Confronting the Zionist regime is a national and religious duty."

Ahmadinejad's anti-Western comments on the Holocaust have caused international outcry and isolated Iran, which is at loggerheads with the West over its nuclear programme.

The hardline president warned leaders of Western-allied Arab and Muslim countries about dealing with Israel.

"This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it ... This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end," he said in a speech broadcast live on state radio.

Britain was swift in condemning Ahmadinejad's remarks, calling them "abhorrent as well as ignorant".

"It is very important that the world community stands up against this tide of abuse. This outburst is not worthy of the leader of Iran," Foreign Secretary David Miliband said.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Lebanon's Iran-backed Hezbollah which fought a 34-day war with Israel in 2006, defended Ahmadinejad and said he was criticised for supporting "the 'resistance', the people of the region and Palestine."

"Our belief and creed ... remain that Israel is an illegal entity, a cancerous tumour, that must cease to exist," he said in a televised address.

Ahmadinejad's fresh comments came ahead of his appearance at the United Nations General Assembly next week and before Tehran attends talks on Oct. 1 with major powers worried about the Islamic Republic's nuclear strategy.

Western powers are concerned by what they have called Tehran's defiance and "point-blank refusal" to suspend uranium enrichment and address the issue as demanded by U.N. Security Council resolutions since 2006.

Instead of directly addressing those demands, Iran handed world powers this month a proposal that spoke generally of talks on political, security, international and economic issues but was silent on its nuclear programme.

Diplomats familiar with the Iranian proposal said it was vague and did not appear to pass "the smell test".

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was time Iran showed it is serious about addressing international concern. "There will be accompanying costs for Iran's continued defiance: more isolation and economic pressure," she said

I wonder if it is more amusing or more exasperating to ahmadinejad that, the more directly he tells us he is going to vaporize Israel, the more idiotically the Obama administration threatens him with things that he has already laughed off in their faces.

Hillary clinton is talking about "more isolation and economic pressure"?????  Wow, hooboy.  I bet they're all cowering in a bunker over that one.

Will this administration ever understand that using stale diplomatic language to threaten Iran in a way that they've already blown off may look good in print, and wow 'em at the UN, but accomplishes absolutely nothing?

Then again, it's no skin off of ours.  We have the luxury of playing lets-pretend from thousands of miles away. 

Israel, however, does not.  Our inaction is going to force Israel to defend itself, because Hillary Clinton's diplomatic-speak isn't going to protect a thing.

And what will Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton do then?  Issue another strongly worded statement?

We need serious foreign policy.  Not a clown show.  The sooner the better.

 


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!!