Saturday, 16 January 2010


Ken Berwitz

A report, detailing the Fort Hood terrorist attack/massacre has been issued by the Defense Department. 

It is a fraud and a travesty.

Ralph Peters, writing for the New York Post, has chapter and verse of just how fraudulent it is.  Please read every word, especially the ones I've put in bold print:

Hood massacre report gutless and shameful

Last Updated: 6:37 AM, January 16, 2010

Posted: 12:25 AM, January 16, 2010

Ralph Peters


There are two basic problems with the grotesque non-report on the Islamist- terror massacre at Fort Hood (released by the Defense Department yesterday):


* It's not about what happened at Fort Hood.


* It avoids entirely the issue of why it happened.


Rarely in the course of human events has a report issued by any government agency been so cowardly and delusional. It's so inept, it doesn't even rise to cover-up level.


"Protecting the Force: Lessons From Fort Hood" never mentions Islamist terror. Its 86 mind-numbing pages treat "the alleged perpetrator," Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, as just another workplace shooter (guess they're still looking for the pickup truck with the gun rack).

The report is so politically correct that its authors don't even realize the extent of their political correctness -- they're body-and-soul creatures of the PC culture that murdered 12 soldiers and one Army civilian.


Reading the report, you get the feeling that, jeepers, things actually went pretty darned well down at Fort Hood. Commanders, first responders and everybody but the latest "American Idol" contestants come in for high praise.


The teensy bit of specific criticism is reserved for the "military medical officer supervisors" in Maj. Hasan's chain of command at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. As if the problem started and ended there.


Unquestionably, the officers who let Hasan slide, despite his well-known wackiness and hatred of America, bear plenty of blame. But this disgraceful pretense of a report never asks why they didn't stop Hasan's career in its tracks.


The answer is straightforward: Hasan's superiors feared -- correctly -- that any attempt to call attention to his radicalism or to prevent his promotion would backfire on them, destroying their careers, not his.


Hasan was a protected-species minority. Under the PC tyranny of today's armed services, no non-minority officer was going to take him on.


This is a military that imposes rules of engagement that protect our enemies and kill our own troops and that court-martials heroic SEALs to appease a terrorist. Ain't many colonels willing to hammer the Army's sole Palestinian-American psychiatrist.


Of course, there's no mention of political correctness by the panel. Instead, the report settles for blinding flashes of the obvious, such as "We believe a gap exists in providing information to the right people." Gee, really? Well, that explains everything. Money well spent!


Or "Department of Defense force protection policies are not optimized for countering internal threats." Of course not: You can't stop an internal threat you refuse to recognize.


The panel's recommendations? Wow. "Develop a risk-assessment tool for commanders."


Now that's going to stop Islamist terrorists in their tracks.


The Fort Hood massacre didn't reflect an intelligence failure. The intelligence was there, in gigabytes. This was a leadership failure and an ethical failure, at every level. Nobody wanted to know what Hasan was up to. But you won't learn that from this play-pretend report.


The sole interesting finding flashes by quickly: Behind some timid wording on pages 13 and 14, a daring soul managed to insert the observation that we aren't currently able to keep violence-oriented religious extremists from becoming chaplains. (Of course, they're probably referring to those darned Baptists . . .)


To be fair, there's a separate, classified report on Maj. Hasan himself. But it's too sensitive for the American people to see. Does it even hint he was a self-appointed Islamist terrorist committing jihad? I'll bet it focuses on his "personal problems."


In the end, the report contents itself with pretending that the accountability problem was isolated within the military medical community at Walter Reed. It wasn't, and it isn't.


Murderous political correctness is pervasive in our military. The medical staff at Walter Reed is just where the results began to manifest themselves in Hasan's case.


Once again, the higher-ups blame the worker bees who were victims of the policy the higher-ups inflicted on them. This report's spinelessness is itself an indictment of our military's failed moral and ethical leadership.


We agonize over civilian casualties in a war zone but rush to whitewash the slaughter of our own troops on our own soil. Conduct unbecoming.

Are they nuts?

This is a war, and hasan was a warrior - for the side we are fighting. 

If the Defense Department can't acknowledge this, and can't bring itself to recognize that to whitewash this attack is to enable the next one and the next one, then we are conceding the battle to people who want our culture ended, then replaced with something out of the 10th century.

Maybe, just maybe, it is time for some changes in the "brain trust" at Defense.  Big ones.

Zeke ... ... Has the country gone insane ? ... ... Who are the enforcers of Orwell's 1984 GroupThink ? (01/16/10)


Ken Berwitz

Things have gotten so bad regarding Martha Coakley's amazingly inept run for what should be a safe Democratic senate seat, that it has caught both the attention, and raised the concerns, of incumbent Democrats who have to deal with an election in November.

From, of all places, the New York Times:

Narrow Senate Race Unnerves Democrats on Health Care


Published: January 15, 2010

WASHINGTON With their partys candidate struggling in Massachusetts in a race for what should be the safest of Senate seats, Congressional Democrats are growing increasingly unnerved about the political consequences of the health care overhaul even as their leadership closes in on a final agreement.

Many Democrats say they still believe the best course is to forge ahead and enact sweeping health care changes, allowing them to claim the party has conquered a domestic issue that has long defied a legislative resolution.

But they also say the health fight has dragged on for far too long, denying Democrats the opportunity to concentrate on issues that are foremost in the minds of many Americans, jobs and the health of the economy.

Now the prospect of Attorney General Martha Coakley of Massachusetts losing on Tuesday in the special election to fill the seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy the longtime champion of a health care overhaul is intensifying anxiety among Democrats who were already worried about the 2010 midterm election environment.

Democrats warn of panic in the ranks should the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, prevail.

Highlighting the sense that the political climate is shifting rapidly, the White House announced Friday that President Obama would travel to Massachusetts on Sunday to campaign for Ms. Coakley, hoping to generate Democratic enthusiasm in a contest that will hinge on turnout. The decision to put the presidents political prestige on the line after the White House initially said he would not make a trip was a gauge of how seriously the administration was taking the threat.

A victory by Mr. Brown could cause the fragile Democratic coalition behind the health legislation to unravel and put approval of the measure itself in jeopardy. Were he to win and take his seat before final consideration of the health legislation, Democrats would be one vote short of the 60 needed to get the bill through the Senate.

Senate Democrats say that in the event of a close race, getting the required election certification and seating a new senator could take up to two weeks. Democrats were considering whether to try to hold the final health care vote before Mr. Brown took his seat if he won, so they could use their 60-vote majority for one final victory a move sure to inflame Republicans and pose political risks for Mr. Obama and his party.

But top Democratic officials said it was unlikely they would try to jam the measure through if the Massachusetts election went against them. Other options would be to try to persuade the House to pass the Senate version and avoid another Senate vote or to employ a procedural shortcut that would negate the need for 60 votes but limit the scope of health changes Congress could consider.

Democratic strategists also warned that a Republican victory in Massachusetts could fundamentally alter the outlook for the 2010 Congressional election season by sparking retirements among vulnerable Democrats.

For the first time, Democratic operatives said privately that control of the House could be at stake if enough Democrats saw the Massachusetts race as evidence they were headed toward defeat in November and decided to forgo a race. Another Democratic House incumbent, Representative Vic Snyder of Arkansas, announced Friday that he would retire, giving Republicans a good opportunity to pick up the seat in November.

Senior Democrats in Congress and the White House said they continued to believe Ms. Coakley would win in Massachusetts, but they acknowledged that her loss could have severe political consequences for them.

We are on the verge of completing legislation that is in a league with Social Security and Medicare, said Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut. It has the potential to change peoples lives.

But some in the party warned that the Democratic Congress was on the brink of a mistake that could cost lawmakers dearly.

 Representative Gene Taylor, a conservative Mississippi Democrat and opponent of the health plan, said its nearly $1 trillion cost and the lack of widespread public enthusiasm for it adds up to a political miscalculation.

Why in the heck are we spending that amount of money for something the American people dont want? asked Mr. Taylor, who said the Democratic situation reminded him of the climate before the Republican takeover of the House in 1994. I was here for 1994, and I know what ugly looks like.

Democratic supporters of the health plan said the party could not afford to back away now.

Said Representative Xavier Becerra of California, a member of the Democratic leadership, We are on the verge of doing something that most Americans did not believe we could accomplish.

I put that last sentence in bold print, because I 100% agree with it.

Did anyone believe that a Republican could possibly compete against a Democrat, already in statewide office, for the seat once held by Ted Kennedy (NOT "the seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy" - someone tell Carl Hulse and his editors that Mr. Kennedy occupied that seat, he did not own it)?  Did anyone believe that a Republican could get to this point by challenging what arguably is the single greatest commitment Ted Kennedy had in his later years -- that of universal health care?

Well, it's happening. 

Martha Coakley may yet win this election.  But if she does it will almost certainly be by single digits.  And that should send shock waves throughout the Democratic party. 

Simply stated, if a Democrat, running for the seat Ted Kennedy once occupied and touting health care has trouble winning in bluest-of-blue Massachusetts, what will happen to them?  How will they make out in November?

And if Coakley either wins in a close race or loses altogether? 

That, coupled with what happened in New Jersey and Virginia, will cause incumbent Democrats to conclude that Barack Obama has no coattails.  And it will liberate untold numbers of them to operate outside of his agenda -- maybe even campaign that they are operating outside of his agenda.  It would throw the party into chaos.

Three more days, and we'll know.


Ken Berwitz

Another unbelievable Martha Coakley gaffe?  This must be some kind of a record.

Here are the details, courtesy of Scott Johnson at

Quotations from Chairman Martha, cont'd

January 16, 2010 Posted by Scott at 7:06 AM


I've dedicated myself to keeping a running compilation of the wit and wisdom of Massachusetts Democratic senatorial candidate Martha Coakley, but she is making it tough to keep up. Yesterday on Nightside with Dan Rea on Boston's WBZ Newsradio 1030 Coakley gave us this:

Dan Rea: Umm Would Barack Obama be in if this thing was not this close?

Martha Coakley:'s hard to know, I think that he is welcome in Massachusetts and I'm sure everybody is happy to see a president come.

 Rea: 62 to 36

 Coakley: But I think probably if it weren't so close Rudy Giuliani would be here and besides he's a Yankee fan. (Laughter.) I just want people to know. (Laughter.)

 Rea: Uhhh, yeah, but now Scott Brown has Curt Schilling...

 Coakley: ...and another Yankee fan.

 Rea: Schilling?

 Coakley: Yes.

 Rea: Curt Schilling a Yankee fan?

 Coakley: Nooo, alright I'm wrong on my, I'm wrong.

 Rea: The Red Sox's great pitcher of the bloody sock?

Coakley: Well, he's not there anymore.

Who can forget Curt Schilling's contribution to Red Sox history or Schilling's bloody sock? Coakley spokesman plead that she was only joking. Now that's funny.

Keep in mind that this is the same Martha Coakley who, just last week, disdained Scott Brown for shaking hands with voters outside of Fenway park. 

Great strategy:  win an election in Massachusetts by insulting Red Sox fans and proving you don't know a thing about the team.

But, hey, look at the bright side:  a lot of Red Sox fans are probably Catholics, and since Ms. Coakley has already lost a bunch of them because of her imbecilic statement that they should probably be banned from emergency rooms, the dropoff on Schilling might not be as bad as it could have been.

Who is running Coakley's campaign?  Scott Brown's mother?

Zeke ... ... It isn't over ... ... Honest elections are a thing of the past ... ... Ineligible voters, fudged vote counts, discarded military votes ... ... ... ... *** watching SEIU goons digging up corpses on Election Day *** ... ... ... ... ... ... (01/16/10)


Ken Berwitz

If you think the war between Conan O'Brien and NBC was ugly before......

Read these excerpts from an Associated Press piece I just pulled from the New York Post.  The bold print is mine:

NBC near deal to allow Conan to leave network


Last Updated: 7:25 AM, January 16, 2010

Posted: 2:07 AM, January 16, 2010


LOS ANGELES NBC neared a deal Friday with "Tonight" host Conan O'Brien to leave the network, freeing Jay Leno to reclaim the late-night show he stewarded for 17 years, according to a person familiar with the negotiations.


Top NBC Universal executives and representatives for O'Brien on Friday were close to settling details of his departure, said the person, who lacked authority to discuss the issue and spoke on condition of anonymity.


The deal under discussion would provide for a settlement of more than $30 million and allow him to start a new show as early as this fall, the person said.


O'Brien has two-and-a-half years left on his contract; reports of his annual salary vary widely, from $10 million to $25 million.


The progress in negotiations didn't stop the talk show host from once again hammering NBC in his "Tonight" monologue.


"In the press this week, NBC has been calling me every name in the book. In fact, they think I'm such an idiot they now want me to run the network," O'Brien said Friday.


Other late-night hosts, including David Letterman on CBS, have been using their shows to crack jokes about NBC's late-night mess and the players. On Friday, Leno fired back.


"Even Dave Letterman is taking shots at me, which surprised me. Usually he's just taking shots at the interns," Leno said, a reference to the CBS host's admission last year that he had affairs with women who worked on his show.


Fox executives have expressed their admiration for O'Brien but said they haven't taken steps to create a late-night show for him.


I've been watching TV for a long time, and never recall an on-air performer saying anything like what O'Brien did about the network brass, or anything even close.

And Leno's (eminently well-deserved) shot at Letterman?  Poetry in emotion.

Ironically, O'Brien's numbers are way up since this unamicable divorce became public knowledge.  Presumably, this is because people are tuning in to hear his now-daily dump on Jeff Zucker, who heads NBC/Universal.

What a complete mess.  Heck, if it gets any worse, people will start confusing it with Martha Coakley's senate campaign.


Ken Berwitz

Well, that didn't take long.

After giving a one-day rest to use of the vile term "teabagger", Democrats have come right back to it as they try, with increasing desperation, to revive Martha Coakley's campaign.

We just got this email, signed by John Kerry:


Dear (NAME)

This is it - the final 72 hours are what make or break elections. J.B. Poersch at the DSCC believes this election is going to be decided by just a handful of votes. That's why we must get every last Democrat out to vote for Martha Coakley, and we need your help. It's not too late to make the winning difference in this race.

Click here to donate $5 or more to the DSCC. Martha needs our help to get each and every Democrat to the polls on Tuesday. Your gift now will make a difference!

The far right wing - the out-of-state tea bagger crowd - has invaded Massachusetts. Republican Scott Brown is trying to deny his relationship with them - but that's a little hard to do when he's speaking at their events, and they're touting his promise to be the 41st senator needed to kill health care reform. And they are raising money to help Brown - more than $1 million in one day.

But I believe in Martha - and in your willingness to assist her in these final crucial hours. Martha Coakley is a fighter for Massachusetts as attorney general and will be a fighter in the Senate - but only if we keep pushing right up until the polls close on Tuesday. Your immediate online gift to the DSCC will make a difference on the ground.

Click here to donate $5 or more to the DSCC. Martha needs our help to get each and every Democrat to the polls on Tuesday. Your gift now will make a difference!

Electing Martha means even more than giving Massachusetts a capable leader to carry on the fights that meant everything to Sen. Kennedy. It means standing up to the big insurance companies and the big banks and passing health care reform, financial reform and the rest of President Obama's agenda. We've got 72 hours. Let's make this happen.


Sen. John Kerry

Paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee,,
and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Now, tell me:  Where are our wonderful "neutral" media, as Democrats continue to use the term "tea-bagger" in this campaign?

Would they be as willing to look the other way if the Brown campaign started calling Martha Coakley a "fellatio Democrat"? 

The behavior of Democrats involved in this campaign, and their willing complicitors in the media, is beyond disgraceful.  

Zeke ... .... I find this 'subtle' put-down parading as 'clever debate' to be distressing. Obama did it in his campaign, as well ... giving the middle finger to McCain in a speech. ... ... .... It ignores issues and makes stand up comedy the criterion. ... ... ... ... Note that the origin of the "Tea Party" term is totally lost -- Protesting Tyrannical Taxation. The irony is that the 1773 Tea Party took place in BOSTON, MA, and was an important step to the subsequent Declaration of Independence. ... .... .... .... .... Notice there is no discussion of the actual Boston Tea Party in all this ... just smary use of vulgar sexual terms by the MSM as well as the Dims. .... .... .... (01/16/10)

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!!