Saturday, 25 December 2010

WHAT IF WE HAD NOT OVERTHROWN SADDAM?

Ken Berwitz

Paul Mirengoff, of www.powerlineblog.com (a site I read every day), has written an excellent blog about what would have happened if President Bush did not act to overthrow saddam hussein.

Here is a key excerpt.  See if you agree:

Here are...conclusions I believe it is fair to draw. First, Iraq, the Middle East, and the U.S. would be much worse off today if, as most liberals (including Barack Obama) wanted, we had not overthrown Saddam Hussein. Iraq, of course, would still be plagued by one of the most oppressive regimes of modern times. And Saddam would almost certainly be up to mischief, including the support of terrorists, in the Middle East and possibly elsewhere.

Furthermore, in the face of Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, Saddam would probably have developed, or be developing, a nuclear arsenal of his own. Iran, for its part, would likely be closer to having nukes, since it reportedly halted or slowed down its program for a while in response to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Second, Iraq, the Middle East, and the U.S. would be much worse off today if, as most liberals (including Obama) wanted, we had not surged in 2007. Without the surge, al Qaeda and its supporters probably would have remained dominant, or at a major force, in Anbar province. Among other evils, this would have prevented the national reconciliation that, to a considerable degree, has occurred. Meanwhile, sectarian violence would have continued to rage in Baghdad and its environs. This too would have prevented reconciliation.

Without the national reconciliation, Iran would be more influential in key parts of Iraq than it is now, to the detriment of Iraq, the region, and the U.S. And America's standing would be significantly diminished if it had accepted a defeat in Iraq at the hands, in part, of al Qaeda.

Please note that, as Paul correctly points out, Barack Obama was against both actions. 

And why would we be surprised?  Who is Barack Obama?  Before winning the presidency he was a Chicago "community organizer" (whatever that means), who became a Chicago machine politician. 

Until Mr. Obama became President, his "foreign policy" experience was what happened in places like Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana.  Certainly not Iraq.

Plus, given that a) Mr. Obama was so wrong about Iraq and b) his enormous ego so hinders any ability to learn from mistakes, the additional blunders he has made in places like the UK and Israel, to name just two, become entirely understandable.

The 2012 election cannot come fast enough.


GOVERNOR ABERCROMBIE AND THE "BIRTHERS"

Ken Berwitz

Let's start with the fact that I have very little respect for neil abercrombie, the former congressperson who just became governor of Hawaii.  He is a left wing tool and as Israel-hating a politician as you can find in this country.  That's two very big strikes against him in my book.

Now let's talk about his almost immediate front-burner attention to the issue of Barack Obama's birth - which is inexplicable, given that the issue, from a legal standpoint, has been won decisively by Mr. Obama.

Excerpted from Sheryl Gay Stolberg's article at the New York Times:

Gov. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, who befriended President Obamas parents when they were university students here, has been in office for less than three weeks.

But he is so incensed over birthers the conspiracy theorists who assert that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya and was thus not eligible to become president that he is seeking ways to change state policy to allow him to release additional proof that the president was born in Honolulu in 1961.

Its an insult to his mother and to his father, and I knew his mother and father; they were my friends, and I have an emotional interest in that, Governor Abercrombie said in a telephone interview late Thursday. Its an emotional insult. It is disrespectful to the president; it is disrespectful to the office.

The governor, a Democrat and former congressman, said he has initiated conversations with the states attorney general and the chief of its Health Department about how he can release more explicit documentation of Mr. Obamas birth on Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.

He said he has done so of his own accord, without consulting the White House, which declined to comment.

For the purposes of staying on topic, we'll forget Ms. Stolberg's misinformation that the only claim skeptics (not "birthers" - a term I resent) make is that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya.  Let's just stick with the key question:  why in the world would abercrombie open this can of worms? 

The "birthers" have certainly lost.  They don't get any press, do they?  Dr. Terry Lakin, the army physician who refused deployment to Afghanistan on the grounds that Barack Obama had not demonstrated he was legally able to hold the office of President was convicted and will serve jail time.  This is o-v-e-r, over.

If I were President Obama, I would not at all be happy with someone rehashing the birth controversy.  Because, when Governor abercrombie makes his case, it opens the door for the people who doubt Barack Obama's legality to make their case as well.

Like me.

I have expressed my skepticism regarding Mr. Obama's legal status many times in here.  Primarily, I've cited two key reasons. 

1) Instead of spending a few minutes on the phone and a processing fee of , I think, ten dollars, to get a copy of his long-form birth certificate (i.e. the real one, not the "certification of life birth" we were shown, and which Obama-loving sycophants like Chris Matthews pretend is the real one), Mr. Obama spent an estimated $2 million dollars to have a small army of lawyers fiight every effort to make it public.  Common sense tells me you don't do that unless there is something to hide.

2) The original statement about Mr. Obama's birth certificate, by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii's Director of Health, was clearly an artful way of not addressing the issue at all.  Instead of saying "I have seen the birth certificate and it proves Barack Obama's citizenship makes him legally able to be President, or words to that effect, Ms. Fukino issued a press release on October 31, 2008 which said, in its entirety:

There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obamas official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

 

Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obamas original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

 

No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.

Read that again.  Do you see anything at all there which in any way verifies Barack Obama's legality to be President?  All it says is that "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate (is) on record in accordance with state policies and procedures".  This is 100% irrelevant to the presidential legality issue, since the birth certificate of every person who is not legally able to be President is on record as well.  It means nothing..

But wait.  There's more.  In late July, 2009 - eight months later, and after seeing that no one was able to get their hands on the document since her first statement - Dr. Fukino spoke again.  Here is what she said:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

Notice the difference?  Suddenly there is a definitive claim about Mr. Obama's legality; one that did not exist in her first statement.

A very basic question for you:  If the birth certificate conclusively verified that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born citizen, why didn't Dr. Fukino say so in her original statement?  That was the only reason anyone cared.

I blogged about Dr. Fukino's statement at that time (you can read the entire blog by clicking here), and concluded that:

Based on this new statement, I no longer believe there is any value to seeing Barack Obama's original birth certificate.  Because as sure as you stand there, the document Dr. Fukino produces will say exactly what she is now claiming.

I then added the following addendum:.

-If in the near future Barack Obama - who spent a fortune over the past year to hide his original birth certificate - comes out with something along the lines of "Look, I've tried not to do this because I know I'm natural born and the whole thing was so silly, but since it isn't ending I'm instructing Dr. Fukino to release my original birth certificate, then I don't want to hear about this again"...

-...and an original materializes that confirms he is natural born, which he could just as easily have shown us all this time...

-...I will smell a rat from here to Seattle (and I live in New Jersey).

The source and timing may be different.  But if it happens in some form now that F.O.B. (Friend Of Obama) neil abercrombie is running the show?  I stand by my expectation, with all the disbelief intact.

free` Where he was born or not, this is the most secretive President in history. We aren't allowed to see any of this mans history. Not his college transcripts, not what he did as a state senator and the media could care less. This is very bizarre!!! (12/25/10)


BUSH & CLINTON, BY THE BOOK(S)

Ken Berwitz

For years we have been told that President Clinton left office an immensely popular man, but President Bush skulked out of the White House in utter disgrace. 

Well, if book popularity is any indication, we might want to rethink those assumptions just a tad.

From London's Daily Mail:

For someone who mangled words on a regular basis, its an impressive feat.

Former U.S. President George W Bushs memoir has sold an astonishing two million copies since it was released in early November and its not even in paperback yet.

Decision Points, published both in hardcover and e-book form, is flying off the shelves, the Crown Publishing Group says.

By contrast, former president Bill Clintons memoir, My Life, has logged sales of 2.2million copies since it was first published in 2004.
A spokesman for Crown called the performance remarkable.

He claimed he could not think of any other hardcover nonfiction books in 2010 that had sold even one million copies, much less two.

Ok, I admit it can be argued that interest in a public figure's book is not a measure of that person's popularity.  Let me help the Bush-haters by pointing out (before they inevitably do) that if someone unearthed a similar book written by adolf hitler, lots and lots of people would buy it.

But, in answer, I would note those long lines (literally thousands) of apparently very supportive people wherever Mr. Bush does a signing.  I've done book signings, and my hand hurts just thinking about it.

So, is Bill Clinton a very popular ex-President?  Yes he is. 

But so is George Bush.  Probably in a lot of places the media elites don't even think about, let alone know about.  And don't let them tell you otherwise.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!