Thursday, 31 March 2011


Ken Berwitz

As we continue to bomb Libya, wouldn't it be a good idea to find out who the $%#& we are it bombing for?

In that regard, here are a few excerpts from Karen DeYoung and Greg Miller's article for today's Washington Post:

In Libya, CIA is gathering intelligence on rebels

The Obama administration has sent teams of CIA operatives into Libya in a rush to gather intelligence on the identities and capabilities of rebel forces opposed to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, according to U.S. officials.

The information has become more crucial as the administration and its coalition partners move closer to providing direct military aid or guidance to the disorganized and beleaguered rebel army.

Several lawmakers briefed by Clinton, Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said they were told that the United States is still trying to put together a full picture of the Libyan rebellion but believes that it does not contain large numbers of radical Islamic militants.

Nobody had detected any significant presence, although they knew there were some people, said Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.). But nobodys vouching for resumes at the moment, Ackerman said.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), said he heard nothing in the briefing that turned him in favor of arming the rebels. Calling it a horrible idea, Rogers said: We know what theyre against. We dont really know what theyre for.

Regular readers of this blog certainly have seen my comments about "the rebels" before.  But for anyone who has not.....this article is telling readers that we have been bombing Libya without knowing who "the rebels" really are, or whether they are any better than - maybe even worse than - moammar qaddafi.

How nice of the writers to defer to the Obama administration by not mentioning that, almost a week ago, rebel leader abdel-hakim al-hasidi told London's Daily Telegraph that he was recruiting, and accepting al qaeda forces.  His reason?  Because "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader". 

Simply stated, anyone who doesn't wonder about - and worry about - who we are helping, is probably beyond reason.  And anyone who doesn't wonder about - and worry about - how a major newspaper could possibly leave the rebels' al-qaeda sympathies out of a story involving who the rebels are, is even further gone.

But they do say that information on who we are bombing for "has become more crucial", don't they?  

Incredible!  Can someone tell me when it was not crucial? 

We are breaching a sovereign country's air space and bombing its military targets, on behalf of people whose motives - other than getting rid of qaddafi - are unknown to us.  But those motives have only now "become more crucial"???? 

Here's a question for the authors of this article - and the Obama administration:  What if "the rebels" want to replace qaddafi with a regime sympathetic to al-qaeda?.  What if they welcome osama bin laden (assuming he is even alive anymore) and/or his cohorts to the new Libya, and encourage them to train their operatives there? 

In other words, what if our bombing results in Libya essentially becoming pre-9/11 Afghanistan, with massive oil revenues?

Is that ok with you?  Because it isn't ok with me.  And the very real possiblity that we are in the process of installing such a regime stands the hairs on my neck.

Does anyone in this administration have even the slightest clue about what they're doing?

Zeke ..... Naive ..... .... Clueless ..... Inept ..... ..... Criminally Stupid ..... ..... Having NO IDEA who we are helping in this fight ? ? ? .... ..... .... (03/31/11)


Ken Berwitz


Dear Obama administration and Libya coalition:  Welcome to Israel.


Excerpted from todays article at Reuters:

ROME (Reuters) - At least 40 civilians have been killed in air strikes by Western forces on Tripoli, the top Vatican official in the Libyan capital told a Catholic news agency on Thursday, quoting witnesses.

"The so-called humanitarian raids have killed dozens of civilian victims in some neighborhoods of Tripoli," said Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli, the Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli.

"I have collected several witness accounts from reliable people. In particular, in the Buslim neighborhood, due to the bombardments, a civilian building collapsed, causing the death of 40 people," he told Fides, the news agency of the Vatican missionary arm.

Libyan officials have taken foreign reporters to the sites of what they say were the aftermath of Western air strikes on Tripoli but evidence of civilian casualties has been inconclusive.

Western powers say they have no confirmed evidence of civilian casualties from air strikes, which they have carried out under a U.N. mandate to protect civilians caught in conflict between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces and rebels.

"It's true that the bombardments seem pretty much on target, but it is also true that when they hit military targets, which are in the middle of civilian neighborhoods, the population is also involved," Martinelli said. 

So, how does it feel to kill civilians because the enemy has placed military assets among them?


How does it feel to make a choice of either allowing the enemy to fire and kill at will, or taking out the military capability where it is sure to kill civilians as well?


How does it feel to be murderers of innocent women and children, whose only crime is their proximity to what the enemy is doing?


Do you feel that being called murderers in this situation is unfair, given that you have no choice but to do what you have done?  Is it exasperating?  Infuriating? 


Like I said:  Welcome to Israel. 


Maybe this will finally teach you something.

free` Ken, also you can bet that the Libyan people weren't warned before the bombing like Israel warns the people beforehand. Which we all know unfortunately also lets the terrorists know. (03/31/11)

Ken Berwitz free - excellent point; one I wish I had thought of myself (04/01/11)


Ken Berwitz

Here is a dissertation on President Obama, by that wonderful, tolerant paradigm of humanitarianism, malik zulu-shabazz.

In case you didn't know, shabazz heads the "new Black panther party", whose members intimidated voters in Philadelphia during the 2008 election - oh, excuse me, they didn't do anything terrible; eric holder told us so.



Maybe holder and the Department of Justice he has perverted, would now like to rethink its BS dismissal of the Philadelphia outrage - seeing as how zulu shabazz no longer appears to be supporting Barack Obama.

Or, on the other hand, maybe holder assumes that, come 2012, the new Black panther party will have to support Obama, because the other choice is likely to be a White person.  In that case, he's home free.

Isn't it inspiring to see how completely race politics has receded since Mr. Obama took office?


Ken Berwitz

What do you do when, just after you've ditched a writer whose views you despise on the grounds that he has breached your high standards, a different writer, whose views you love, makes far worse comments?

Last week, Andrew Breitbart - one of the few right-of-center contributors to the decidedly left-of-center - was unceremoniously shown the door.  Why?  Because, in an article for a different web site, he called President Obama's ill-fated Green Czar, van jones, a "commie punk", "human toxin" and "cockroach".  

That fact that jones is a self-described communist?  Irrelevant and immaterial.  According to's Mario Ruiz, Mr. Breitbart "violates the tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched".

If you know anything about the huffington post, reading that description of its standards should make you launch:  namely, anything you've eaten in the last 12 hours. 

But Ruiz said what he said.  And that should have ended the matter ---- were it not for the fact that, very shortly thereafter, bill maher, also a contributor, referred to Sarah Palin as a "dumb twat" and a "bimbo" and a "cunt". 

Unlike the van jones case (and certainly not surprisingly), Ms. Palin does not describe herself in these lowest-of-low terms; terms that are enormously demeaning to women.

I think most people would agree that calling a woman a "dumb twat" and a "cunt is a tad more severe than calling anyone a "human toxin" and a "cockroach"

So has immediately bounced maher out of its roster of contributors, right?

Wrong.  He's still there in good standing.

As you might expect, this has been a source of both confusion, and amusement for people on the right side of the fence. 

One such person is Noel Sheppard, of  He decided to "call the huffington post's bluff" and try getting an explanation of why what Andrew Breitbart said about van jones was worse than what bill maher said about Sarah Palin.

If you click here, you can read Mr. Sheppard's letters to Ruiz and find out where they got him.  It is well worth your while. 

But I have a feeling you already know the answer - i.e no matter how many times Mr. Sheppard contacted Ruiz he got the same response:  no response at all.

I certainly hope none of this surprises you.  But I just thought you'd like to know........


Ken Berwitz

For the poll lovers in the house....

Here are the results of a Rasmussen poll, taken Monday and Tuesday night:

-Question:  "Does the United States have a clearly defined military mission in Libya"? 

-Answer:  Yes:  21%       No:  56%       Don't Know:  23%

According to Rasmussen, the results before and after President Obama's speech came out about the same.

If these data are accurate, therefore, people did not think the administration had a clearly defined military mission before President Obama's speech, and the speech did not change their minds.

Make of it what you will.

Zeke .... .... The US (now NATO) mission is quite clear: .... Provide air attacks to assist al Q'aeda. .... ... Issue armaments and conduct training for the Muslim Brotherhood. .... ... Assist anyone seeking to establish a global caliphate. .... .... ..... Possible future activities, such as bowing down to whoever the leaders of these 'rebels' are. ..... (03/31/11)

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!!