Wednesday, 02 December 2009


Ken Berwitz

From Dan McLaughlin of

Rumsfeld to Obama: What Requests For Troops in Afghanistan Are You Talking About? [UPDATED]

Congress Should Investigate Those 21 Words In Obama's Speech

One line in President Obamas orgy of blame-Bush-for-everything speech last night has prompted former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, who managed the Afghan war for five years, to call for the President to back up his assertions. Secretary Rumsfelds statement, issued in a press release this morning:

In his speech to the nation last night, President Obama claimed that Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as Secretary of Defense, deserves a response.

I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006. If any such requests occurred, repeated or not, the White House should promptly make them public. The Presidents assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan.

In the interest of better understanding the Presidents announcement last night, I suggest that the Congress review the Presidents assertion in the forthcoming debate and determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied.

UPDATE: The Administration responds:

Robert Gibbs cheerfully responded to Donald Rumsfelds denial that hed denied troops to Afghanistan with, first, a clarification that Obama had been talking about the post-Rumsfeld era of 2008.

I will let Secretary Rumsfeld explain whether the war in Afghanistan was sufficiently resourced during his tenure and how he thinks history will judge whether they were or were not sufficient, Gibbs said.

Gibbs quipped: You go to war with the secretary of Defense that you have.

Or, in the case of the Obama Administration, you go to war with the very same secretary of Defense - Robert Gates, the man who held the job in 2008 - that you just threw under the Obamabus. If you recall, Gates himself had testified in November 2008 (after the election) that he expected an additional 30,000 troops to be sent, but the incoming Administration put off its follow-through on that promise until March, and cut Gates proposal nearly in half.

21 words dont say what they used to, do they?.

Do you think our wonderful "neutral" media will actually do some checking and see whether Obama or Rumsfeld is being honest about this?

Surrrrrre.  It should happen about two days after Ed Schultz has a sex change operation and proposes to Rosie O'Donnell


Ken Berwitz

From Brad Wilmouth, writing for, we have that paradigm of civility, keith olbermann, complaining that Dick Cheney has the temerity to defend himself and the Bush administration as President Obama relentlessly blames them for everything that has gone wrong this year.  (the bold print is Brad's, not mine):

Olbermann Slams 'Cowardly' Cheney, 'Maybe You Should Shut Up, Dick'

By Brad Wilmouth (Bio | Archive)
December 2, 2009 - 07:12 ET


During a special 9:00 p.m. edition of Countdown after President Obama's Tuesday speech, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann attacked former Vice President Cheney for a recent interview criticizing President Obama for some of his actions in the war on terrorism, with Olbermann accusing Cheney of being "cowardly" for opposing the administration's plan to try suspects behind the 9/11 attacks -- like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- in New York City: "So cowardly is Mr. Cheney, in fact, that he trembles at the thought of an accused terrorist coming to New York City in chains." Olbermann also charged: "Mr. Cheney revealed that unlike authentically tough people, he is still so panicked that he still mistakes acting tough for being tough and makes the corollary error that failing to act tough implies that you are weak."


And because the former Cheney took exception with Obama for giving an unusually "deep bow" to some world leaders, after invoking President Nixon bowing to Japanese Emperor Hirohito, Olbermann snapped: "If you can`t summon up just the boilerplate grim respect your former responsibilities still demand, maybe you should shut up, Dick."


In the opening teaser, as he previewed an interview with retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson -- a former assistant to Secretary of State Colin Powell -- Olbermann also blamed Cheney for the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan, charging the former Vice President with "cutting and running" in 1991: "And Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson on the arrogance of the former Vice President who has spoken out, even though it was his insistence on Iraq in 2002 that made Afghanistan what it is today, who`s cutting and running as Secretary of Defense in 1991 made the Taliban what it is today."


On Monday, during a discussion with Newsweeks Jonathan Alter, Olbermann had similarly charged that Cheney "cut and ran from Afghanistan in 1991 after he basically created the Taliban." Olbermann: "And coming back to the base, the other political wild card I`m wondering about in this, can they get anywhere by selling this, especially to the left, as we`re cleaning up, not just George W. Bush`s mess as President in Afghanistan and Dick Cheney`s mess as Vice President in Afghanistan, but you know what, we have to clean up when Dick Cheney cut and ran from Afghanistan in 1991 after he basically created the Taliban while he was Secretary of Defense."


Below is a complete transcript of the relevant segment from the Monday, December 1, Countdown show on MSNBC:


KEITH OLBERMANN, IN OPENING TEASER: And Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson on the arrogance of the former Vice President who has spoken out, even though it was his insistence on Iraq in 2002 that made Afghanistan what it is today, who`s cutting and running as Secretary of Defense in 1991 made the Taliban what it is today.


DICK CHENEY AUDIO: This continual, sort of, agonizing over what the policy ought to be has consequences.


OLBERMANN, AT 9:17 P.M.: Also, unfriendly fire, perhaps unhinged fire from the right. The former Vice President speaks in terms of treason. In terms of, prior to the delivery of the speech, how his attacks on the commander-in-chief may have revealed much more about himself than they did about Obama. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson will join me for that. You`re watching Countdown on MSNBC.


OLBERMANN, AT 9:27 P.M.: Twenty-four hours before the commander-in-chief addressed the nation, the troops, the allies, the enemies abroad, the previous vice president accused him of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, committing, in legal terms, treason. Dick Cheney, on the warpath, out of his mind. Plus, now, we know the plan for the country where bin Laden is not, what indeed about the country where he reportedly is? Pakistan and the path forward, ahead on Countdown.


OLBERMANN: The very day before Mr. Obama`s speech tonight, former Vice President Cheney gave an interview primarily about Mr. Obama`s Afghanistan plan in which Mr. Cheney accused the U.S. President, in legalese, of treason and revealed, not for the first time, that the Vice President, who failed to fight terrorism, had instead personally succumbed to its most insidious aspect, panic. In a 90-minute interview yesterday with Politico, Mr. Cheney revealed that unlike authentically tough people, he is still so panicked that he still mistakes acting tough for being tough and makes the corollary error that failing to act tough implies that you are weak. Because, apparently, in trashing America`s President the day before a vital foreign policy speech, Mr. Cheney cannot conceive that displays of grace and humility might arise instead from actual grace and humility.


CHENEY AUDIO: Here`s a guy without much experience, who now travels around the world apologizing. I think our adversaries, especially when all of that`s preceded by a deep bow to the head of government or whoever he`s visiting, I think they see that as a sign of weakness.


OLBERMANN: What did you think when Nixon bowed to Hirohito? The guy is the President of the United States and it was a former elected official. If you can`t summon up just the boilerplate grim respect your former responsibilities still demand, maybe you should shut up, Dick.


Perhaps betraying just how effective terrorism has been against Mr. Cheney, he described himself as both worried and beginning to get nervous, blaming Mr. Obama`s policies for his lack of nerve, his deficit of courage despite the fact that his own doctor has said, quote, "There was real fear throughout Mr. Cheney`s office after 9/11." The former Vice President even imagines others feeling his fear claiming Afghan citizens, after eight years of Bush-Cheney dithering will suddenly now switch sides out of fear if America says, as the President did tonight, it may one day leave.


So cowardly is Mr. Cheney, in fact, that he trembles at the thought of an accused terrorist coming to New York City in chains. So lacking in faith is Mr. Cheney or simply an understanding of America`s strength that he revealed he`s afraid, not of what a freed terrorist might do, but of what a captured terrorist might say.


CHENEY: Our al-Qaeda adversaries out there are going to think that this is a great set of developments for their cause because one of their top people will be given the opportunity, courtesy of the United States government and the Obama administration to have a platform from which they can espouse this hateful ideology that they adhere to.


OLBERMANN: Which administration distributed and verified all those Osama bin Laden tapes? Sadly predictable perhaps that Mr. Cheney thinks a feeble, primitive, fear-based ideology would benefit from exposure. But Mr. Cheney went further in his critique of the Obama administration decision to put Khalid Sheikh Muhammad on trial claiming, quote, "I think it`s likely to give encouragement, aid and comfort to the enemy," U.S. Constitution defining giving aid and comfort to America`s enemies as treason. The former Vice President of the United States accused the current commander-in-chief on the eve of the presidential declaration about the way forward against the enemy of treason.

Let's quickly review:  In those couple of minutes, olbermann said, about a former congressperson, presidential chief of staff, Defense Secretary and Vice President, that:

-He is a cut-and runner

-He is responsible for the taliban being what it is today

-He is accusing President Obama of treason

-He is panicking

-He cannot conceive of what real grace and humility are

-He is particularly susceptible to terrorist threats

-He is a coward

-He has no faith in America

-He is ridiculous for worrying about the international stage khalid sheikh mohammed and his pals will get in a civil trial in New York City

-And he should just shut up.

olbermann's message to Dick Cheney:  How dare you speak out to refute the nonstop attacks on you and President Bush.  Why don't you take my advice and just shut up?  Let Barack Obama - along with the other olbermanns of the world - blame you and George Bush at will.  What kind of man are you to defend yourself, and the President you were second in command to, against these attacks? 

I particularly like that line by olbermann that..."If you can't summon up just the boilerplate grim respect your former responsibilities still demand, maybe you should shut up, Dick.".  Has President Obama devoted even one second to summoning up boilerplate grim respect for the man he replaced, and who was previously in charge of those responsibilities?  Is olbermann telling Barack Obama to "shut up" also?

How proud MSNBC must be of olbermann.  What a wonderful advertisement he is for that network.

Zeke ... "How proud MSNBC must be of olbermann. What a wonderful advertisement he is for that network." ... ... ... and MSNBC's new motto: ... "Unfair and Unbalanced". (12/02/09)


Ken Berwitz

In case you're wondering how Europe felt about President Obama's speech, here is a taste for you, excerpted from Gabor Steinhart's article in Germany's Der Speigel:

President Barack Obama's Tuesday speech left a bad taste in many mouths.


Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.


One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech would be well-received.


Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.


One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics.

He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.


An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

There will be more.  I expect it to be just as negative.  I'll post additionally commentary as I see it.


Ken Berwitz

Here, from, is a short list of reading material about the global warming scam.  I thought you might find these links worthwhile:


CLIMATEGATE: Scientist at center of e-mail controversy to step down...


Penn State Professor also under investigation...

Inhofe Asks Boxer to Probe Potential Scientific 'Conspiracy'...


Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill


'It's all unravelling now'...

Are you wondering when our wonderful "neutral" media are going to really start asking the hard questions about this scam? 

So am I.

free` Why should the msm cover a story they don't like? It isn't like they need to worry about losing business if there readers were to find out they have been left in the dark on the biggest science fraud in my lifetime. Also on Drudge; DEM LAWMAKER: Govt will need to help shape U.S. media.. absolutely sickening. (12/02/09)


Ken Berwitz

I inadvertently left this out in an earlier blog.  So it gets its own blog now:

From the silver tongue of keith olbermann:

"We are, at present, fighting, in no particular order, the Taliban; a series of sleazy political-slash-military adventurers, not the least of whom is this mountebank election-fixer Karzai, and what National Security Advisor Jones estimated in October was around eight dozen al-Qaida in the neighborhood."

From me:

You do understand that al qaeda used to have a far greater presence in Afghanistan than it does now, right?  Well how do you think it came to pass that its previous strength dropped down so far?  Who was in the oval office when that happened?

President Bush invaded Afghanistan because the 9/11 attack was facilitated by the taliban, which ruled Afghanistan and made the country available for osama bin laden to train his al qaeda terrorist recruits.  Mr. Bush had two key objectives:  to remove the taliban from power and to prevent al qaeda from continuing to use Afghanistan as a training ground for its terrorist attacks. 

President Bush accomplished both in a very short time, and kept things that way with a troop level that, compared to Iraq, was minuscule.  This is the "mess" that he handed Barack Obama.

Would it be nice if Afghanistan became a western-style democracy too?  Sure it would.  But no one in his/her right mind expects that, certainly not any time soon.  As long as the taliban stay out of power and al qaeda is neutralized there, our objectives are intact. 

I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to compliment President Bush on doing so much in Afghanistan, so successfully, with so few military assets.  So I will.

Super job, Mr. President.


Ken Berwitz

Since our wonderful "neutral" media have done such a bang-up job of minimizing, then burying, the global warming scam, I thought I would post this piece from John Hinderaker of  As you will see, it contains a Jib-Jab-like video, by something called "Minnesotans For Global Warming (M4GW), which makes considerable sport of Al Gore and Phil Jones.

Phil Jones Goes Under the Bus, Temporarily

December 1, 2009 Posted by John at 9:07 PM


Climategate has claimed its first victim, sort of: the head of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, is stepping down from his post while his university conducts an investigation. Jones is the author of many of the most offensive emails that have come to light, and richly deserves to be ousted from this and other positions, but it's important to note that East Anglia U. could very well whitewash him and, after a few months, he could quietly return to his post. It seems clear that the alarmists' strategy, in general, is to lie low and hope Climategate blows over.


Of course, some, like Minnesotans for Global Warming, are doing their best to make sure the scandal doesn't fade quietly away. Here, M4GW performs "Hide the Decline":




UPDATE: Excellent news: the Australian Senate has voted down their government's cap and trade proposal.

Phil Jones heads East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (CRU).  As you can see, he has a great deal to do with hiding the facts about global warming and thus perpetuating this scam. 

But instead of resigning in disgrace, which is what he should be doing, Jones has munificently agreed to "step down" until an investigation is completed.  This very likely means that, a couple of months from now, when things die down a bit (and long after the US media have moved on to more important things than President Obama committing trillions of dollars and instituting business-busting regulations based on a scam and a hoax),  he can just come right back.

Our mainstream media have spent a good many years richly earning the distrust of more and more people.  But I have to say that, with some (but not many) exceptions, its refusal to cover this international scam brings them to a new low.


Ken Berwitz

Here is Jeff Jacoby's latest column, which takes apart the global warming scammers/hoaxsters.  There will be no additional commentary by me, because none is needed - this speaks for itself:  I only ask that you reflect - again - on why so few of our so-called "journalists" are not coming down on these hoaxsters/scammers like a ton of bricks

Climategate: Dissent on ice

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

December 2, 2009

RICHARD NIXON said he wasn't a crook. O.J. Simpson said he didn't kill his wife. The scientists who run the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia say they are "committed to scientific integrity ... and ... respectful and informed debate" with climate-change skeptics.

But as Nixon and Simpson eventually discovered, truth has a way of undoing even the most determined stonewall. Now it is the turn of the CRU's climate scientists -- especially its director, Phil Jones -- to learn that uncomfortable lesson.

The CRU, a highly influential source of data on global warming, is home to some of the foremost proponents of the scientific "consensus" that climate change is a looming man-made disaster to be reversed at all costs. It is also at the center of an international furor triggered when thousands of emails and documents were hacked from CRU computers and publicly released over the internet last month.

Assuming that the purloined emails are genuine -- something the University of East Anglia and the CRU don't dispute -- they are nothing short of scandalous. They reveal celebrated climate scientists apparently conspiring to corrupt the peer-review process, to suppress or finesse temperature data at odds with global-warming alarmism, to silence or discredit climate experts who criticize their work, and to hide or eliminate the raw data on which their own much-trumpeted claims have been based.

For years, climate alarmists have insisted that their views are validated by the peer-review process, which ensures that only research of the highest quality gets published in leading scientific journals, or in reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). There is no reason to heed global-warming skeptics, they have argued, since their findings haven't appeared in peer-reviewed publications.

Behind that smug public appeal to scientific authority, however, was what now looks like a concerted private effort to blackball the skeptics. In a July 2004 email, for example, CRU director Phil Jones dismisses as "garbage" the work of two dissenters. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," he assures fellow scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another email, Mann fumes because the peer-reviewed journal Climate Research published a paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature.' Obviously, they found a solution to that -- take over a journal!" The only thing to do, he suggests, is to rig the peer-review system: "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Even more disturbing than such contempt for legitimate disagreement is the thread of emails in which Jones and other climate scientists discuss how best to evade requests for the raw data underlying their published work -- including requests made under Britain's Freedom of Information Act. There are repeated recommendations that records and correspondence be destroyed. "Mike," wrote Jones last year in an email to Mann regarding the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?" Earlier, referring to requests by global warming skeptics for the meteorological station data used to build the CRU's global temperature record, Jones had written that if the critics "ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

On Sunday, the Times of London reported that the CRU's raw temperature data was in fact thrown out years ago, which means "other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."

You don't have to agree with the skeptics on whether climate change is or isn't a crisis to be appalled by such anti-scientific behavior.

The CRU documents make it only too clear, IPCC contributor Eduardo Zorita said last week, that too much climate-science research "is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion. . . . The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas." British environmentalist George Monbiot, though a fierce critic of global-warming skeptics, vented his fury over the Climategate revelations. "Opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science," he blogged. "No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last."

Amid the uproar, Jones stepped down yesterday. As Nixon and OJ could have told him, stonewalling rarely succeeds.


Ken Berwitz

Let me start with the reaction of Steve Gilbert, of, to President Obama's "Afghanistan speech", delivered to an audience of West Point cadets last night: 

What a shock. Mr. Obama has the troops slated to come home from Afghanistan just in time for his 2012 re-election campaign. Its a good thing he isnt politicizing this.

Still,  we dont recall FDR talking about the endgame in his declaration of war on the Japanese, or anytime after that even.

We dont recall President Lincoln (another person Mr. Obama likes to compare himself to) telling the South that they only had to hang on 18 months to win.

Its beginning to look like The Won might be a Won term President, after all.

By the way, Mr. Obama only used the pronoun I 36 times in this speech. He mentioned me only six times. Hes getting better.

And its a minor miracle that Mr. Obama didnt wish our troops and those viewing at home a happy Eid Al-Adha.

Yeah, Steve is a little bitter.  And that "won" pun isn't at the top of his game.  But, possible second terms aside, is he making sense?  

And think about how many times during his speech Barack Obama said "I" or "me" (42 of them, about once a minute).  Is there a bigger ego on the planet?

Now, how did the cadets respond? 

Last night I pointed out that there was precious little applause for Mr. Obama's speech - and that what applause he did get came from his references to the quality of the USA and of its military forces, not for anything relating to his disclaimer of responsibility (the repeated inferences that every problem was George Bush's fault, y'see), his explanation for the three month wait before making a decision or his entire troop commitment and strategy statement.

In the spirit of full disclosure, here, straight from the transcript, is every comment during his speech that drew a round of applause:

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.)

What we have fought for what we continue to fight for is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.)

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.)

Its easy to forget that when this war began, we were united bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.)

America we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

 There you have it folks.  Six rounds of applause in a 35 - 40 minute speech.  And, by the way, the last four were all clustered in the final 2-3 minutes when all that was left was the opportunity for a few rah-rah statements, sure to get applause from any audience no matter what the subject was.

The truth?  This was a tepid "something for everybody" clunker. 

Mr. Obama's theme was that we are there to fight and win, but we can't wait to get out, so here's less troops than what our military commander asked for, and a loose timetable of when we're leaving so the taliban know when to ramp things up.

It reminds me of a very funny description (by Shel Silverstein, I think) of a neutral country's flag during the cold war:  A hammer and sickle over a field of red, white and blue, with the words "In God we trust - if there is one".

By the way, why does President Obama insist on meticulously pronouncing the term "taliban".  Did you notice that he took great care to say "TOHL - ee - ban"?  Why is he doing that?  Out of respect for them?  So they won't be offended if he says it like everyone else?  

One last point, just to lighten things up a little.

Here is how President Obama characterized al qaeda's threat to Afghanistan:

Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan General McChrystal has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable.

And here is keith olbermann's reference to al qaeda in Afghanistan:.

We are, at present, fighting, in no particular order, the Taliban; a series of sleazy political-slash-military adventurers, not the least of whom is this mountebank election-fixer Karzai, and what National Security Advisor Jones estimated in October was around eight dozen al-Qaida in the neighborhood.

In other words, keith olbermann claims that President Obama's security advisor estimates there to be fewer than 100 al qaeda for Afghanistan to worry about.  President Obama, who just might have a bit more access to that security advisor along with other intelligence, says al qaeda is fewer in numbers than they used to be (no "eight dozen" reference - what a shock), but have safe havens along the border, and are enough of a threat so that there is a "need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population"

I guess the President needs to start conferring with keith olbermann, who seems to think he knows more about al qaeda's threat to Afghanistan - and more about what the President's security advisor has to say about it - than the President itself.

And you thought the biggest ego of this blog belonged to Mr.Obama?  Naaahhhhh, we have a clear winner, and it ain't him.

Zeke ... Shahid Special ... ... Travel from Yemen, Sudan or Somalia to Sunny Afghanistan ... ... Enjoy Healthy Mountains, Kill Infidels ... ... miserable, rusty scow leaves in 18 months and 2 days. ... ... ... Happy Jihad to all (12/02/09)


Ken Berwitz

First, let me remind you that I would not vote for Mike Huckabee.  Not for President or anything else.  He has, in the past, made statements that he is committed to bringing the United States to Jesus Christ, and has never specifically recanted those statements.

His exact words, in 1998, were:

"I got into politics because I knew government didnt have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives. I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

His subsequent disclaimers, when he said things like "I've never done anything like that as Governor" do not reassure me at all.  I still don't know what he would do if given four years as President.  Nor, at this point, would a specific disclaimer do it for me, not after all this time.

Now that I've made it clear that I'm not a big fan of his, I would like to post what Huckabee did regarding maurice clemmons,  the subhuman scumbag who killed four police officers in Washington State last week and (happy to say) was eventually shot dead by one or more of their fellow officers.

We have been told that clemmons' sentence was "commuted", without elaboration.  This suggests that Huckabee just ignored the crimes of a murderer and rapist, and let him walk free. 

Well, that's not what happened.  Not even remotely what happened.

The fact is that, at the age of 16, poor and Black, clemmons was sentenced to 108 years for a series of robberies and possession of a deadly weapon.  Not for rape or murder. 

And only after clemmons served 10 full years of that sentence, Huckabee commuted it from 108 years to 47 years.

clemmons wasn't a murderer or rapist who Huckabee set free.  He was a 27 year old who served 10 years - probably more than a well-to-do White kid in Arkansas would have been sentenced to in total - and, based on what Huckabee signed, could still have remained in jail until he was 64 years old.

A parole board - unanimously - allowed clemmons to go free.  It was their judgment, not Huckabee's that put him on the street.

Here is Huckabee's account of why he commuted the sentence, from  Please pay very special attention to the second paragraph, which I have put in bold print:

"Here was a kid at age 16 had committed a burgarly and a robbery and got a 108 year sentence," Huckabee said Tuesday night at the Right to Life annual banquet on Purdue's campus. "The judge thought it was unfair. The parole board did and recommended to me to commute his sentence. I didn't let him loose because I didn't have that power as a governor. I commutted his sentence to 47 years giving him the oppurtunity to be parole eligible."

Six days after posting bail in Washington on charges of child rape, Clemmons opened fire on four police officers. Huckabee says that isn't the same man he knew back in 2000.

"He wasn't a cop killer. He wasn't a rapist. He wasn't a violent criminal. He wasn't a fugitive from justice. He was a person at 16 did some dumb things and some criminal things. I don't know a single person that can look me in the eye and tell me that if they had that same file in front of them they wouldn't believe that maybe 47 years was a more appropriate sentence for what he did as a minor," Huckabee said.

Got that?  Huckabee is taking all the heat for commuting clemmons' sentence from 108 to 47 years, after he had served 10 years for robberies committed when he was a teenager.  At that time clemmons had no history of violence;  certainly not rape or murder. 

But they have given a free pass to the geniuses in Washington, who allowed clemmons out on bail as an adult with a violent criminal record, including a recent charge of child rape, just a week before he killed those four policemen. 

We know all about Huckabee.  But have we even been told the name of the judge who allowed clemmons out on bail last month, let alone his reasons for doing so? 

And from the LA Times:

"Where once stood a young . . . misguided fool who's [sic] own life he was unable to rule . . . now stands a 27-year-old man who has learned through the 'school of hard knocks' to appreciate and respect the rights of others," Clemmons wrote.

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Marion Humphrey supported the clemency application. Humphrey said Monday that Clemmons had a good demeanor and seemed a promising candidate for rehabilitation. In 2000, Huckabee cut Clemmons' sentence in half, making him immediately eligible for parole.

"It's not unreasonable to give him a second chance," Humphrey said. "I believe that's the spirit in which then-Gov. Huckabee acted."

Now you have a much better idea of what the truth is about Mike Huckabee and maurice clemmons.

Still want to blame Huckabee for letting a rapist and killer walk free?  Be my guest.  But base your opinion on the facts, not the BS and lies of omission we have been fed by our wonderful "neutral" media for the last several days.

free` It is almost comical [if it weren't so serious] the feigned shock from the media and the left [which is interchangeable] that Huckabee commuted the sentence. I thought the left never met a black convict they didn't want freed, mumia and tookie instantly come to mind. (12/02/09)

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!!