Friday, 26 April 2013

THE TERRORIST TSARNAEVS

Ken Berwitz

Are you sure that it is only the murdering maggot brothers, tamerlan and dzhokhar tsarnaev?

Excerpted from Ben Brumfield and Greg Botelho's article at cnn.com:

Father's visit delayed

Meanwhile the Tsarnaev brothers' parents have left their home in Dagestan for another part of Russia, their mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaev, told CNN Friday.

She said the suspects' father, Anzor Tsarnaev, is delaying his planned trip to the United States indefinitely.

She told CNN's Nick Paton Walsh that her husband was delaying the trip for health reasons. She wouldn't elaborate.

Anzor Tsarnaev had earlier agreed to fly to the United States after FBI agents and Russian officials spoke with them for hours this week at the family's home.

The mother also will not be flying to the United States, where she is wanted on felony charges of shoplifting and destruction of property.

The family lived in Massachusetts before Zubeidat Tsarnaev jumped bail after her arrest on the charges in 2012. The parents moved to Dagestan that year.

Sources: Russia raised concerns about mother, son

Zubeidat and Tamerlan Tsarnaev had previously fallen under the suspicion of Russian authorities concerned they were following radical ideologies.

U.S. authorities did add Zubeidat Tsarnaev and her older son to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE, database in 2011 -- a collection of more than a half million names maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center, an intelligence official said.

So not only do we have the murdering maggot brothers, we have:

-a father who was coming to the United States to help out but who, when it came time to actually get on a plane, suddenly is unavailable indefinitely, and

-a mother who puts on a crying show every day for the cameras, but isn't showing up either, because not only does she have felony charges pending against her, but it turns out that - we now know only today - that she is on our terrorist watch list, just like her murdering maggot kid.

Now, can someone tell me why that disgraceful, incompetent, lying Obama toadie, Attorney General eric holder, rushed a magistrate to the hospital so she could read dzhokhar tsarnaev his miranda rights - and sent a lawyer along with the magistrate to immediately advise the murdering maggot that he could now shut up and tell the FBI nothing?  Was the information he might have provided unimportant?

How much longer before we have John Kerry imitating Hillary Clinton, by banging his hand on a desk and telling us it "makes no difference" how the Boston bombing took place, as Clinton did with the Benghazi bombing?  Will Obama's Accomplice Media fall all over themselves to say what a fabulous performance he put on, the way they did for Clinton, after her disgusting, dishonest Benghazi "testimony" (if you can call it that)?

It becomes clearer and clearer that there is more to this than just the two brothers.  Much more.  And, frankly, it is looking more and more like an Obama administration coverup, just like Benghazi. 

WHY?

When do our so-called "media" worry more about the safety and well-being of the United States than they do about propping up their lord and savior, Barack Obama?  When do they start asking the questions we are asking here?

free` "When do our so-called "media" worry more about the safety and well-being of the United States than they do about propping up their lord and savior, Barack Obama? When do they start asking the questions we are asking here?" -------------------- It is Bushs' fault, they were going to cover all of those stories except Bush had to open a library. So there was no room left for those other stories. ;) (04/26/13)


IS BARACK OBAMA BLIND TO TERRORISM?

Ken Berwitz

Is Barack Obama - for whatever his reasons - blind to what most of us see very clearly; i.e. that we are, more and more, under siege by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism?

John Bolton thinks so.  And he's an expert in this area - thus, to be blunt, exactly the kind of person Mr. Obama seems to not want around him.

Why is that?

Here are a few quotes from Mr. Bolton's discussion last night with Fox News's Greta Van Susteren:

"They are so blind to the world that you can't acknowledge that there is an international terrorist threat."

"(Speaking of Benghazi) Remember, the narrative was that it was a demonstration that got a little bit out of control over the famous video, much in the same way what happened at Boston was some people who had been self-radicalized, no international connection."

"I said this before. I wish the administration was engaging flat-out in a political cover-up, because that is less dangerous for the security of our country than an ideology that blinds them to the reality of the threat of international terror."

Strong words.  But is John Bolton right?  You tell me.  And, if the answer is "yes", then tell  me what it means to our safety and well-being. 

Not a very pretty picture?  Well that's too bad, because we are signed up for four more years of it. 

What were we thinking when we re-elected Barack Obama to another term in office?  Were we thinking at all? 

free` "What were we thinking when we re-elected Barack Obama to another term in office? Were we thinking at all?" ----------------------------- From video I have seen of people that voted for obama, many were thinking 'whats in it for me'. Others seemed to not be able to answer one question correctly about obama or this country in general. (04/26/13)


IS BARACK OBAMA BLIND TO TERRORISM?

Ken Berwitz

Is Barack Obama - for whatever his reasons - blind to what most of us see very clearly; i.e. that we are, more and more, under siege by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism?

John Bolton thinks so.  And he's an expert in this area - thus, to be blunt, exactly the kind of person Mr. Obama seems to not want around him.

Why is that?

Here are a few quotes from Mr. Bolton's discussion last night with Fox News's Greta Van Susteren:

"They are so blind to the world that you can't acknowledge that there is an international terrorist threat."

"(Speaking of Benghazi) Remember, the narrative was that it was a demonstration that got a little bit out of control over the famous video, much in the same way what happened at Boston was some people who had been self-radicalized, no international connection."

"I said this before. I wish the administration was engaging flat-out in a political cover-up, because that is less dangerous for the security of our country than an ideology that blinds them to the reality of the threat of international terror."

Strong words.  But is John Bolton right?  You tell me.  And, if the answer is "yes", then tell  me what it means to our safety and well-being. 

Not a very pretty picture?  Well that's too bad, because we are signed up for four more years of it. 

What were we thinking when we re-elected Barack Obama to another term in office?  Were we thinking at all? 

free` "What were we thinking when we re-elected Barack Obama to another term in office? Were we thinking at all?" ----------------------------- From video I have seen of people that voted for obama, many were thinking 'whats in it for me'. Others seemed to not be able to answer one question correctly about obama or this country in general. (04/26/13)


THE NEW YORK TIMES GUANTANAMO EDITORIAL

Ken Berwitz

Do you blame President Bush for the hunger strike being waged by some number of inmates at Gunatanamo? 

If you do, I'd love to know why - since Mr. Bush has not been President for over 4 years, and his successor stated that one of his first acts as President would be to close Guantanamo.  Doesn't that make Barack Obama responsible for what goes on there now?

With this in mind, here is today's lead editorial in the New York Times - in rust, with my comments in blue.  You may notice a certain sameness in how I react to each "point" the editorial makes; read on and see if you detect it:

All five living presidents gathered in Texas Thursday for a feel-good moment at the opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum, which is supposed to symbolize the legacy that Mr. Bush has been trying to polish. President Obama called it a "special day for our democracy." Mr. Bush spoke about having made "the tough decisions" to protect America. They all had a nice chuckle when President Bill Clinton joked about former presidents using their libraries to rewrite history.

But there is another building, far from Dallas on land leased from Cuba, that symbolizes Mr. Bush's legacy in a darker, truer way: the military penal complex at Guantanamo Bay where Mr. Bush imprisoned hundreds of men after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a vast majority guilty of no crime.  Barack Obama has been President for over four years.  He said he would close Guantanamo, but kept it open.  He is responsible for Guantanamo, not George Bush.

It became the embodiment of his dangerous expansion of executive power and the lawless detentions, secret prisons and torture that went along with them. It is now also a reminder of Mr. Obama's failure to close the prison as he promised when he took office, and of the malicious interference by Congress in any effort to justly try and punish the Guantnamo inmates. A "reminder" of failure?  That's it?  That's the extent of his culpability?  Barack Obama has been President for over four years.  He said he would close Guantanamo, but kept it open.  He is responsible for Guantanamo, not George Bush.

There are still 166 men there - virtually all of them held without charges, some for more than a decade. More than half have been cleared for release but are still imprisoned because of a law that requires individual Pentagon waivers. The administration eliminated the State Department post charged with working with other countries to transfer the prisoners so those waivers might be issued.  Barack Obama has been President for over four years.  He said he would close Guantanamo, but kept it open.  He is responsible for Guantanamo, not George Bush.

Of the rest, some are said to have committed serious crimes, including terrorism, but the military tribunals created by Mr. Bush are dysfunctional and not credible, despite Mr. Obama's improvements. Congress long ago banned the transfer of prisoners to the federal criminal justice system where they belong and are far more likely to receive fair trials and long sentences if convicted.  That's how you tie Barack Obama to Guantanamo?  By complimenting him on his improvements?  Barack Obama has been President for over four years.  He said he would close Guantanamo, but kept it open.  He is responsible for Guantanamo, not George Bush.

Only six are facing active charges. Nearly 50 more are deemed too dangerous for release but not suitable for trial because they are not linked to any specific attack or because the evidence against them is tainted by torture.

The result of this purgatory of isolation was inevitable. Charlie Savage wrote in The Times on Thursday about a protest that ended in a raid on Camp Six, where the most cooperative prisoners are held. A hunger strike in its third month includes an estimated 93 prisoners, twice as many as were participating before the raid. American soldiers have been reduced to force-feeding prisoners who are strapped to chairs with a tube down their throats. Barack Obama has been President for over four years.  He said he would close Guantanamo, but kept it open. He is responsible for Guantanamo, not George Bush.

That prison should never have been opened. It was nothing more than Mr. Bush's attempt to evade accountability by placing prisoners in another country. The courts rejected that ploy, but Mr. Bush never bothered to fix the problem. Now, shockingly, the Pentagon is actually considering spending $200 million for improvements and expansions clearly aimed at a permanent operation. Barack Obama has been President for over four years.  He said he would close Guantanamo, but kept it open.  He is responsible for Guantanamo, not George Bush.

Polls show that Americans are increasingly indifferent to the prison. We received a fair amount of criticism recently for publishing on our Op-Ed page a first-person account from one of the Guantanamo hunger strikers.

But whatever Mr. Bush says about how comfortable he is with his "tough" choices, the country must recognize the steep price being paid for what is essentially a political prison. Just as hunger strikes at the infamous Maze Prison in Northern Ireland indelibly stained Britain's human rights record, so Guantanamo stains America's.  Barack Obama has been President for over four years.  He said he would close Guantanamo, but kept it open.  He is responsible for Guantanamo, not George Bush.

Do I make myself clear?

What you just read is far less an editorial than it is a testament to the New York Times' hatred of George Bush, and unconditional love of Barack Obama. 

Remember when The Times was a serious newspaper?  Harder and hard to do so, isn't it?.

free` "Remember when The Times was a serious newspaper?" ----- I would bet it was before the internet!!! (04/26/13)


TODAY FINALLY DOES A STORY ABOUT A DOCTOR CHARGED WITH MURDER. EXCEPT....

Ken Berwitz

As readers of this blog certainly know, for over a month kermit gosnell has stood trial in Philadelphia, charged with 8 murders (later reduced to eithe 5 or 6 depending on which report you read), and a total of something like 380 other offenses. 

Trial testimony indicated that he either participated in or oversaw literally hundred of other murders - not of live babies in the womb at the end of women's pregnancies (which would certainly be murders to me), but of babies born and out of the womb - which, other than that imbecile from Planned Parenthood who said keeping a born baby alive was a decision for the mother and the doctor, would certainly be murders to just about everyone.

The trial is now over, because the "defense", if you can call it one, declined to call any witnesses (like who, for example?).  It will now go to jury deliberation.

Yet, for all this time, NBC's Today Show - and, I believe - NBC Nightly News - has not done one story on kermit gosnell.  Not one second of coverage.  People who rely on NBC for their news, therefore, do not know about the existence of a "man" who might well be the single most prolific mass murderer in US history.

But this morning?  Finally, after all this time, The Today Show did a story - a major one too - on a Doctor charged with murder. 

Except.....

The doctor was not kermit gosnell.  It was Conrad Murray, who was convicted of killing Michael Jackson by overdosing him, and has been in jail for almost 2 years. 

Not kermit gosnell, the administrator of a house of horrors which killed newborn babies in abominably unsanitary conditions, and is charged with hundreds of offenses so disgusting and grisly that it would sicken any decent human being to even think of them.  No, it is Conrad Murray, whose trial is long over and nobody other than maybe the Jackson family even cares about.

Does NBC really believe it has a news division?  Does NBC really believe it has any professional integrity in reporting news?  If so, why?


PRESIDENT OBAMA'S POSSIBLE INTERCESSION IN SYRIA: A REMINDER

Ken Berwitz

This morning's news is full of stories that President Obama feels Syria has crossed "a red line" through use of chemical weapons (i.e. sarin gas), that it is a "game changer" and that the United States may intercede militarily.

A reminder: 

-President George Bush interceded in Iraq based on intelligence that saddam hussein had chemical weapons - Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) as they were called.  The CIA, along with British, Russian, French, and Israeli intelligence, all agreed on this.  In addition, hussein had a history of using chemical weapons - on his own people, and on the Kurds, who, though in Northern Iraq, he considered a separate, enemy entity. And he had tossed out the United Nations nuclear inspectors.

-This is before we get to the fact that saddam, based on his war with Iran, his devastatingly murderous attack on Kuwait and the estimated 300,000 or so of his own people murdered, probably had overseen the killing of more human beings - mostly his own Muslim brethren - than any other living human being.

-Given this information, it is no surprise that when President Bush went to both the United Nations and to the United States Congress for approval to go into Iraq, he got it from both.  If not one Republican had voted on the resolution authorizing Mr. Bush to act, it would have passed anyway, on Democrat votes alone. 

-Nor is it a surprise that virtually every major Democrat - including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Carl Levin and a host of others - publicly stated that Iraq had WMD's which they might use for additional mass murders.

I post this as a reminder - not only to readers of this blog, but to the many, many media geniuses who are bashing Mr. Bush this week for his invasion of Iraq, yet seem very comfortable with what Mr. Obama is threatening in Syria.

Zeke .... ..... ..... Barack Obama has cut the US military. .... .... Fewer troops, fewer aircraft, fewer ships. ... .... ..... Now, he's about to get us into a THIRD war -- with yet another proxy. .... .... In all probability, we'll shortly need our military to : 1) save Iraq's bacon. ... .... 2) oppose Red China's expansionist moves ..... 3) keep a lid on North Korea .... ... 4) tell Comrade Putkin to 'keep it Realski' and behave. ..... ..... Seems that our military is going to be stretched and stretched. .....5) Besides, we have no bases near Syria -- Turkey won't cooperate with us (they refused to let US troops in, to invade Saddam's country in the Gulf War) .... Lebanon is run by Hezbulloh, Israel is politically unacceptable to the Muslims .... Egypt is a mess .... .. Jordan is shaky ..... Iraq is finished with us (for now) .... .... 6) We are short one aircraft carrier battle group (sequestation), and all the others are committed. .... .... (04/26/13)


THE TERRORIST TSARNAEVS

Ken Berwitz

Are you sure that it is only the murdering maggot brothers, tamerlan and dzhokhar tsarnaev?

Excerpted from Ben Brumfield and Greg Botelho's article at cnn.com:

Father's visit delayed

Meanwhile the Tsarnaev brothers' parents have left their home in Dagestan for another part of Russia, their mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaev, told CNN Friday.

She said the suspects' father, Anzor Tsarnaev, is delaying his planned trip to the United States indefinitely.

She told CNN's Nick Paton Walsh that her husband was delaying the trip for health reasons. She wouldn't elaborate.

Anzor Tsarnaev had earlier agreed to fly to the United States after FBI agents and Russian officials spoke with them for hours this week at the family's home.

The mother also will not be flying to the United States, where she is wanted on felony charges of shoplifting and destruction of property.

The family lived in Massachusetts before Zubeidat Tsarnaev jumped bail after her arrest on the charges in 2012. The parents moved to Dagestan that year.

Sources: Russia raised concerns about mother, son

Zubeidat and Tamerlan Tsarnaev had previously fallen under the suspicion of Russian authorities concerned they were following radical ideologies.

U.S. authorities did add Zubeidat Tsarnaev and her older son to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE, database in 2011 -- a collection of more than a half million names maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center, an intelligence official said.

So not only do we have the murdering maggot brothers, we have:

-a father who was coming to the United States to help out but who, when it came time to actually get on a plane, suddenly is unavailable indefinitely, and

-a mother who puts on a crying show every day for the cameras, but isn't showing up either, because not only does she have felony charges pending against her, but it turns out that - we now know only today - that she is on our terrorist watch list, just like her murdering maggot kid.

Now, can someone tell me why that disgraceful, incompetent, lying Obama toadie, Attorney General eric holder, rushed a magistrate to the hospital so she could read dzhokhar tsarnaev his miranda rights - and sent a lawyer along with the magistrate to immediately advise the murdering maggot that he could now shut up and tell the FBI nothing?  Was the information he might have provided unimportant?

How much longer before we have John Kerry imitating Hillary Clinton, by banging his hand on a desk and telling us it "makes no difference" how the Boston bombing took place, as Clinton did with the Benghazi bombing?  Will Obama's Accomplice Media fall all over themselves to say what a fabulous performance he put on, the way they did for Clinton, after her disgusting, dishonest Benghazi "testimony" (if you can call it that)?

It becomes clearer and clearer that there is more to this than just the two brothers.  Much more.  And, frankly, it is looking more and more like an Obama administration coverup, just like Benghazi. 

WHY?

When do our so-called "media" worry more about the safety and well-being of the United States than they do about propping up their lord and savior, Barack Obama?  When do they start asking the questions we are asking here?

free` "When do our so-called "media" worry more about the safety and well-being of the United States than they do about propping up their lord and savior, Barack Obama? When do they start asking the questions we are asking here?" -------------------- It is Bushs' fault, they were going to cover all of those stories except Bush had to open a library. So there was no room left for those other stories. ;) (04/26/13)


THE CHRIS HAYES FIASCO

Ken Berwitz

Just a quick update on what an immense mistake MSNBC made by removing the execrable Ed Schultz from his 8PM prime time slot and replacing him with the colossally cataclysmic Chris Hayes, a mega-weenie with about as much charisma as an avocado pit. ( As you may gather I am no fan of either host).

When Schultz was dumped, his main competition, Bill O'Reilly, had about 2 1/2 times the audience he did.  But, before you look down your nose at how Schultz was doing, be advised that, as of last week, O'Reilly had about 4 times the audience Hayes was scraping together. 

In fairness, thought, that was last week.  Maybe, as Hayes' show percolated a bit, things might change for the better. 

Er.....nope.  I just checked the latest data (Wednesday).  And O'Reilly is now up to almost 6 times Hayes's audience (3,041,000 viewers to 535,000).

Oops.

It seems to me that, so far, the biggest impact Chris Hayes has had is to give O'Reilly his biggest belly laugh in years. Or, put another way, If MSNBC decided to replace Chris Hayes with the ghost of Gabby Hayes, it might be an improvement...and the wardrobe costs would be cheaper too.**.

Way to go, guys.  Have you gotten your "miss me yet" card from Ed Schultz yet?  

=========================================================

**OK, I admit I'm having fun with this.  But it should be noted that, when not in front of the cameras as a dusty old prospector, ranch hand or sidekick who could not put two intelligible words together, Gabby Hayes was Mr. George Hayes, dressed to the 9's, and noted as a sophisticated, worldly raconteur.

Hey, since the nice suits aren't working, maybe MSNBC should try dressing Chris Hayes in a cowboy outfit.....


THE NEW YORK TIMES GUANTANAMO EDITORIAL

Ken Berwitz

Do you blame President Bush for the hunger strike being waged by some number of inmates at Gunatanamo? 

If you do, I'd love to know why - since Mr. Bush has not been President for over 4 years, and his successor stated that one of his first acts as President would be to close Guantanamo.  Doesn't that make Barack Obama responsible for what goes on there now?

With this in mind, here is today's lead editorial in the New York Times - in rust, with my comments in blue.  You may notice a certain sameness in how I react to each "point" the editorial makes; read on and see if you detect it:

All five living presidents gathered in Texas Thursday for a feel-good moment at the opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum, which is supposed to symbolize the legacy that Mr. Bush has been trying to polish. President Obama called it a "special day for our democracy." Mr. Bush spoke about having made "the tough decisions" to protect America. They all had a nice chuckle when President Bill Clinton joked about former presidents using their libraries to rewrite history.

But there is another building, far from Dallas on land leased from Cuba, that symbolizes Mr. Bush's legacy in a darker, truer way: the military penal complex at Guantanamo Bay where Mr. Bush imprisoned hundreds of men after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a vast majority guilty of no crime.  Barack Obama has been President for over four years.  He said he would close Guantanamo, but kept it open.  He is responsible for Guantanamo, not George Bush.

It became the embodiment of his dangerous expansion of executive power and the lawless detentions, secret prisons and torture that went along with them. It is now also a reminder of Mr. Obama's failure to close the prison as he promised when he took office, and of the malicious interference by Congress in any effort to justly try and punish the Guantnamo inmates. A "reminder" of failure?  That's it?  That's the extent of his culpability?  Barack Obama has been President for over four years.  He said he would close Guantanamo, but kept it open.  He is responsible for Guantanamo, not George Bush.

There are still 166 men there - virtually all of them held without charges, some for more than a decade. More than half have been cleared for release but are still imprisoned because of a law that requires individual Pentagon waivers. The administration eliminated the State Department post charged with working with other countries to transfer the prisoners so those waivers might be issued.  Barack Obama has been President for over four years.  He said he would close Guantanamo, but kept it open.  He is responsible for Guantanamo, not George Bush.

Of the rest, some are said to have committed serious crimes, including terrorism, but the military tribunals created by Mr. Bush are dysfunctional and not credible, despite Mr. Obama's improvements. Congress long ago banned the transfer of prisoners to the federal criminal justice system where they belong and are far more likely to receive fair trials and long sentences if convicted.  That's how you tie Barack Obama to Guantanamo?  By complimenting him on his improvements?  Barack Obama has been President for over four years.  He said he would close Guantanamo, but kept it open.  He is responsible for Guantanamo, not George Bush.

Only six are facing active charges. Nearly 50 more are deemed too dangerous for release but not suitable for trial because they are not linked to any specific attack or because the evidence against them is tainted by torture.

The result of this purgatory of isolation was inevitable. Charlie Savage wrote in The Times on Thursday about a protest that ended in a raid on Camp Six, where the most cooperative prisoners are held. A hunger strike in its third month includes an estimated 93 prisoners, twice as many as were participating before the raid. American soldiers have been reduced to force-feeding prisoners who are strapped to chairs with a tube down their throats. Barack Obama has been President for over four years.  He said he would close Guantanamo, but kept it open. He is responsible for Guantanamo, not George Bush.

That prison should never have been opened. It was nothing more than Mr. Bush's attempt to evade accountability by placing prisoners in another country. The courts rejected that ploy, but Mr. Bush never bothered to fix the problem. Now, shockingly, the Pentagon is actually considering spending $200 million for improvements and expansions clearly aimed at a permanent operation. Barack Obama has been President for over four years.  He said he would close Guantanamo, but kept it open.  He is responsible for Guantanamo, not George Bush.

Polls show that Americans are increasingly indifferent to the prison. We received a fair amount of criticism recently for publishing on our Op-Ed page a first-person account from one of the Guantanamo hunger strikers.

But whatever Mr. Bush says about how comfortable he is with his "tough" choices, the country must recognize the steep price being paid for what is essentially a political prison. Just as hunger strikes at the infamous Maze Prison in Northern Ireland indelibly stained Britain's human rights record, so Guantanamo stains America's.  Barack Obama has been President for over four years.  He said he would close Guantanamo, but kept it open.  He is responsible for Guantanamo, not George Bush.

Do I make myself clear?

What you just read is far less an editorial than it is a testament to the New York Times' hatred of George Bush, and unconditional love of Barack Obama. 

Remember when The Times was a serious newspaper?  Harder and hard to do so, isn't it?.

free` "Remember when The Times was a serious newspaper?" ----- I would bet it was before the internet!!! (04/26/13)


PRESIDENT OBAMA'S POSSIBLE INTERCESSION IN SYRIA: A REMINDER

Ken Berwitz

This morning's news is full of stories that President Obama feels Syria has crossed "a red line" through use of chemical weapons (i.e. sarin gas), that it is a "game changer" and that the United States may intercede militarily.

A reminder: 

-President George Bush interceded in Iraq based on intelligence that saddam hussein had chemical weapons - Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) as they were called.  The CIA, along with British, Russian, French, and Israeli intelligence, all agreed on this.  In addition, hussein had a history of using chemical weapons - on his own people, and on the Kurds, who, though in Northern Iraq, he considered a separate, enemy entity. And he had tossed out the United Nations nuclear inspectors.

-This is before we get to the fact that saddam, based on his war with Iran, his devastatingly murderous attack on Kuwait and the estimated 300,000 or so of his own people murdered, probably had overseen the killing of more human beings - mostly his own Muslim brethren - than any other living human being.

-Given this information, it is no surprise that when President Bush went to both the United Nations and to the United States Congress for approval to go into Iraq, he got it from both.  If not one Republican had voted on the resolution authorizing Mr. Bush to act, it would have passed anyway, on Democrat votes alone. 

-Nor is it a surprise that virtually every major Democrat - including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Carl Levin and a host of others - publicly stated that Iraq had WMD's which they might use for additional mass murders.

I post this as a reminder - not only to readers of this blog, but to the many, many media geniuses who are bashing Mr. Bush this week for his invasion of Iraq, yet seem very comfortable with what Mr. Obama is threatening in Syria.

Zeke .... ..... ..... Barack Obama has cut the US military. .... .... Fewer troops, fewer aircraft, fewer ships. ... .... ..... Now, he's about to get us into a THIRD war -- with yet another proxy. .... .... In all probability, we'll shortly need our military to : 1) save Iraq's bacon. ... .... 2) oppose Red China's expansionist moves ..... 3) keep a lid on North Korea .... ... 4) tell Comrade Putkin to 'keep it Realski' and behave. ..... ..... Seems that our military is going to be stretched and stretched. .....5) Besides, we have no bases near Syria -- Turkey won't cooperate with us (they refused to let US troops in, to invade Saddam's country in the Gulf War) .... Lebanon is run by Hezbulloh, Israel is politically unacceptable to the Muslims .... Egypt is a mess .... .. Jordan is shaky ..... Iraq is finished with us (for now) .... .... 6) We are short one aircraft carrier battle group (sequestation), and all the others are committed. .... .... (04/26/13)


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!!