Saturday, 09 April 2011


Ken Berwitz

Wasn't it Barack Obama, campaigning for the Presidency, who told his cheering fans that all troops would be out of Iraq in 12 - 16 months?

Well, it is now 26 months into his administration.  And we have this, excerpted from Kevin Baron's article at Stars & Stripes:

Gates: U.S. troops could stay in Iraq for years

MOSUL, Iraq Defense Secretary Robert Gates said U.S. troops could remain in Iraq for years to come.

It would depend, he said, on what the Iraqis want and what Washington is willing to give.

Gates met soldiers of the 4th Advise and Assist Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, in Mosul, where like the troops Gates met one day earlier in Baghdad they asked if they would actually be staying beyond 2011, and if so, for how long.

Well, I think that would be part of any negotiation, Gates answered, ... whether it would be for a finite period of time, whether it would be negotiated that there be a further ramp down over a period of two or three years, or whether we would have a continuing advise-and-assist role that we have in a number of countries that just becomes part of a regular military-to-military relationship.

What did then-candidate Obama attack President Bush for?  The continuing war in Iraq? The continuing existence of Guantanamo? And didn't he scorn military tribunals for alleged terrorists in favor of civil court proceedings?

Is this the Obama administration or the Bush administration?  Because everything that Bush did Obama is still doing.

When does Mr. Obama acknowledge that, when it came to war and terrorism, President Bush had a point - had lots of points?

And when do our wonderful "neutral" media, who were so thrilled that Barack Obama would take us from those horrible Bush policies, acknowledge that two years of on-the-job experience has brought Mr. Obama right back to those policies?

Don't wait up for either to happen.


Ken Berwitz

Here is a blog by Lori Ziganto of  Because it is very short, there is nothing that can easily be left out,  so I am posting her entire piece (sorry, Lori - feel free to do the same with anything I write).

This appears to be Ms. Ziganto's answer to the left wing's propensity for turning almost every battle on social legislation into a racial issue. 

See what you think:

Ezra Klein Supports Killing Black Babies

Don't Worry, It's Not Racist. He Just Wants Black Children To Die To Save Money

Whats wrong with you, bitter clingers? Dont you realize that a dead child is a cheap child? I mean, all dead babies cost is the funds to suck or cut them mercilessly from their mothers womb. Presto! No more pesky expenses of a living child.

Ezra Klein, writing at the Washington Post, actually proffers that argument in favor of taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood; that abortions are cheaper for the government than having an unintended pregnancy. (Thats their euphemism for unborn baby killed by abortion.) His article is filled with predictable talking points, all easily disproved the SBA List has already done so here.  Setting the horrid spin aside, his concluding paragraph is truly vile:

The fight also isnt about cutting spending. The services Planned Parenthood provides save the federal government a lot of money. Its somewhat cold to put it in these terms, but taxpayers end up bearing a lot of the expense for unintended pregnancies among people without the means to care for their children.

Did you mean among those people, Ezra? After all, the majority of babies aborted are minority babies. In New York City alone, nearly 60% of unborn African-American children were aborted.

Somewhat cold, Ezra? Id go with revolting and sick, but thats just me. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, however, would surely be proud of you.

The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. Margaret Sanger

There it is, Ezra.  Your argument is to kill a wildly disproportionate number of Black children.  That makes you a racist. 

It puts you in the same league as the founder of the organization you're so in favor of.  (Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, was virulently anti-Black, and was an advocate of "eugenics" who considered abortion a way of keeping the Black population low).

Now the shoe is on the other foot, how do you like it?

Zeke .... .... Are you advocating Government control of people's genitalia ? .... .... That would be an alternate solution ..... ..... Or, maybe just teaching individual responsibility. .... .... In many South American countries, children are raised by impoverished families -- and then thrown out on the street to survive on their own, when they're around 8 years old. .... ... Charles Dickens in the 21st century. .... (04/09/11)


Ken Berwitz

My wife and I were in Manhattan today.  While there, we watched an "anti-war" protest - first in Union Square (a traditional site for protests) and then, later in the day, down Broadway south of Houston Street.

The protesters appeared to number a couple of hundred - maybe 250 at the outside. 

A good number of their signs mentioned the group ANSWER; an anti-USA communist organization.  No surprise there.

At least a third of them were anti-Israel ("Justice fror Palestine", Stop the slaughter in Gaza", etc).  No surprise there either.  Where you find far leftists you find Israel haters.

One thing did surprise me, though:  most of the signs were anti-war (no war for oil, no war for corporate interests, stop bombing Libya, etc.).  But not one that I saw mentioned the name Barack Obama.

Maybe I'm missing something.  But...

-Wasn't it Barack Obama who ordered the bombing of Libya? 

-Wasn't it Barack Obama who called Afghanistan a "necessary war" and almost quadrupled our troop presence there?  

-Wasn't it Barack Obama who promised all troops would be out of Iraq, but has left 50,000 there and Secretary of Defense Gates says they may be there for years to come?

How can there possibly be an anti-war protest without even one reference to President Obama?

I have some thoughts about why.  Frankly, they aren't very pretty.  But I'll leave it to you to come up with your own.


Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from an article at CBS New York:

Sheens Violent Torpedo Of Truth Fails Big At Radio City

Fans: Late Start Compounded By An Uninspiring 45-Minute Show

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) Charlie Sheen blasted his way into Radio City Music Hall on Friday night, but the mercurial former sitcom star didnt quite give a winning performance.

It was just the latest chapter in the Sheen saga, reports CBS 2′s Hazel Sanchez.

Despite a 30-minute late start there was a Big Apple welcome for Sheen on Friday night a rousing standing ovation.

But the fandemonium was short lived. What was slated as a 90-minute show ended after just 45 minutes.

I got kicked out once. I snuck back in and he sucked both times, said Gene Cella of Selden.

They were running around naked and booing and screaming. And it was horrible. For the money that we spent it was an atrocity, Karen Kitrilakis said.

He was boring. He had nothing to say. He wasnt even his stories that he was telling about his hotel epics were boring, added Christine Hayes of Ocean Township.

Am I supposed to feel bad for the geniuses who paid money to see this pathetic creature?  I hope not, because I don't.

Why would they have expected to be entertained by a seriously disturbed actor - not  monologist, or comedian, or raconteur, but actor - bitching and moaning about his life? 

You got what you paid for folks.  If you want to complain to someone about it, find a mirror.


Ken Berwitz

I'll make this short and sweet:


WASHINGTON  Perilously close to a government shutdown, President Barack Obama and congressional leaders reached a historic agreement late Friday night to cut about $38 billion in spending and avert the first federal closure in 15 years.


Obama hailed the deal as "the biggest annual spending cut in history." House Speaker John Boehner said that over the next decade it would cut government spending by $500 billion and won an ovation from his rank and file, Tea Party adherents among them. 

From my blog of yesterday:

Put plainly, the threatened shutdown is a contrived, orchestrated event - that will end the minute Democrats perceive it is not working against Republicans.


End of story.

From the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll:

"And, if the budget disagreement should lead to a major shutdown of the federal government, in your view, who will be more to blame for this: President Obama, the Democrats in Congress or the Republicans in Congress?" Options rotated

Obama and/or Democrats in Congress:  42%

Republicans in Congress:                    37%

Any questions?  I doubt it.

One other thing, though: Only in Washington DC could $38 billion dollars, knocked out of a budget with a trillion dollar deficit, be called a "spending cut".

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!!