Thursday, 05 September 2013


Ken Berwitz

So many to choose from......

Here is the latest.

President Obama, yesterday, during a joint press conference with Sweden's Prime Minister:

"I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the worlds population passed a treaty forbidding (chemical weapons) use, even when countries are engaged in war"

President Obama in August, 2012, at a White House press room briefing:

"We have been very clear to the assad regime, but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation."

Does this man ever tell the truth about anything?

Incidentally, during his press conference in Sweden, Mr. Obama made it 100% clear that it is irrelevant to him how congress votes on his proposed military action.

Excerpted from Tom Cohen's article at

In direct language to reporters in Sweden, Obama laid out his rationale for wanting to attack Syria on the same day a Senate committee will vote on a proposed resolution authorizing limited U.S. military strikes.

He also insisted he had the authority to order attacks -- expected to be cruise missile strikes on Syrian military command targets -- even if Congress rejects his request for authorization.

He cited World War II as an example, saying "the people of Europe are certainly familiar with what happens when the international community finds excuses not to act." At the same time, "as commander in chief, I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America's national security," Obama said.

If that is the case, if President Obama can pay attention to or ignore congress as he so chooses, can he, or anyone, explain to me why he has not ordered the attack on Syria already?  Why, as people are dying there everyday, he continues to do nothing?

The reason, OF COURSE, is that he called for the congressional vote to save his own butt.  Anyone with even the slightest hint of logic can see that. 

-If he acts without congress voting, and things go right, he's a hero.  If things go wrong, he gets reamed.

-If congress votes him down, but he acts unilaterally by claiming authority ask commander in chief, and things go right, he's a hero.  If things go wrong, he gets reamed....exactly what would have happened if he had never asked for the vote. 

-And if congress votes with him, and things go right, he's a hero.  But if things go wrong, it's everyone's responsibility. 

So, politically, there is only an upside and no downside.  Which is why Mr. Obama has no problem sitting back and allowing Syrians to die every day, while al-assad scatters and hides the assets we are supposed to be degrading.

If he tells you he's waiting for any other reason, and you actually believe him......forget everything you read above.  It didn't register anyway. 


Ken Berwitz

Just how much BS are we expected to take from the Obama administration, through its designated liar John Kerry?

Please read this excerpt from Mark Hosenball and Phil Stewart's article for Reuters, and try to imagine how disdainful this bunch is of our intelligence and common sense.

Secretary of State John Kerry's public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.

While the radical Islamists among the rebels may not be numerically superior to more moderate fighters, they say, Islamist groups like the al Qaeda-aligned Nusra Front are better organized, armed and trained.

As recently as late July, at a security conference in Aspen, Colorado, the deputy director of the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, David Shedd, estimated that there were at least 1,200 different Syrian rebel groups and that Islamic extremists, notably the Nusra Front, were well-placed to expand their influence.

"Left unchecked, I'm very concerned that the most radical elements will take over larger segments" of the opposition groups, Shedd said. He added that the conflict could drag on anywhere "from many, many months to multiple years" and that a prolonged stalemate could leave open parts of Syria to potential control by radical fighters.

Experts agree that the Nusra Front, an offshoot of the group al Qaeda in Iraq, is among the most effective forces in Syria.

In a second hearing on Wednesday, Kerry was challenged by Representative Michael McCaul, Texas Republican.

"Who are the rebel forces? Who are they? I ask that in my briefings all the time," McCaul said. "And every time I get briefed on this it gets worse and worse, because the majority now of these rebel forces - and I say majority now - are radical Islamists pouring in from all over the world."

Kerry replied: "I just don't agree that a majority are al Qaeda and the bad guys. That's not true. There are about 70,000 to 100,000 oppositionists ... Maybe 15 percent to 25 percent might be in one group or another who are what we would deem to be bad guys.

Do we want the mass murdering sub-human bashar al-assad out as Syria's head of state?  Yes, of course.  But do we want to remove him if he will be replaced by al-qaeda, al nusrah, et al? 

Dennis Kucinich, who nobody will confuse with being a right winger, has said the Obama administration's intention to bomb Syria would mean we are "acting as al qaeda's air force".  He is 100% correct.

And this is before we get to the fact that news organizations around the world are reporting that al-assad is busy moving the assets we would want to hit into different places, very much including civilian areas.  Do we really want to bomb civilian neighborhoods, so that al-assad can call a press conference and tell the world that we, rather than he, are the murderers of Syrian women and children?

This has been botched so badly, for so long, that it is astounding one administration could be this incompetent, this inept, this tone-deaf.

When the opposition to al-assad first started, then grew into a serious effort to do nothing other than remove al-assad, that would have been the time to support them.  I'm not saying it would have necessarily been a good idea even then, but at least we'd be helping people whose key interest was ousting the tyrant running their country.

But now that the opposition is infested with the exact same terrorist groups Barack Obama told us, during last year's election campaign, were "decimated" and "on the run", our window of opportunity is shut tight.  Or at least should be, because now our help would install people even worse than al-assad.

And what will Obama, Kerry, etc. do if/when our bombing results in al-assad attacking Israel - which is his single best shot at generating Arab support?  What happens when Israel does something about it?  

Has anyone in this administration thought about that?  For that matter, has anyone in this administration thought about ANYTHING, other than lying to our faces and playing us all for fools because Barack Obama is embarrassed and has not the capacity to accept blame for his mistakes?

All this, and 3 1/2 more years to go, just like it.  God help us.


Ken Berwitz

Earlier today, I blogged about the comment by Secretary of State John Kerry - in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no less - that Syrian opposition to bashar al-assad has "increasingly become more defined by its moderation"

Here, pulled from the Drudge Report, is a list of links for you to read.  Take a look at the titles alone - then read the links - and understand what an absolute liar Kerry is:

Russia claims 100-page report blaming Syrian REBELS for chemical weapons attack...
'We swear to Lord of Throne, we will take revenge'...

Kerry claims 'moderate'...
U.S. Travel Warning: Rebels Have 'Claimed Nearly 600 Attacks'...

And who is Kerry lying to us for?  Mr. "al qaeda is decimated and on the run", that's who.

Does anyone in his or her right mind want to attack Syria to help these people?

And does anyone in his or her right mind believe a word that comes out of this inept, incompetent, lying administration?

Zeke . . . . . .. Mr. Obama's 'Wag-the-Dog' Policy. . . . . . . . . (09/05/13)

Zeke ... .... Ken - still having blog comment issues . . . posted my 1st comment here two times. .... .... Also, has lost my (first posting, will repeat it) comment on the Mario Savio article. ........ (09/05/13)


Ken Berwitz

You can't make this stuff up.

Following are a series of quotes from John Kerry, who replaced Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.  They were made yesterday, while Kerry testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about Syria and President Obama's intention to bomb it:

-He was asked if the Syrian "rebels" had become infiltrated with al-qaeda, al-nusra and other such murderous, USA hating terrorist groups.  He answered that this information was "basically incorrect" (try to explain what that means). 

-He claimed that the rebel movement - which started out as a spontaneous uprising against bashar al-assad and subsequently became infested with al-qaeda and the other groups - has "increasingly become more defined by its moderation" (literally, a reverse chronology of what happened)

-When asked if, by bombing al-assad's assets we would make al-qaeda stronger, his answer was "No, I don't believe you do.  As a matter of fact, I think you actually make the opposition stronger. And the opposition is getting stronger by the day now.".  (In other words, by weakening al-assad, only the ragtag, scattered, non-al-qaeda rebels get stronger.  But the organized, well funded, al qaeda, and al nusrah, etc. do not.  This also indicates that Kerry assumes none of  unaffiliated rebels are sympathetic to al-qaeda, without any explanation of what he bases this on.)

-And when asked if al qaeda and its pals now were the majority of rebels, Kerry said ." Extremists amount to 15 to 25 percent of the opposition" (assuming Kerry's estimate is correct, not a gross understatement designed to build support for the bombing, does he seriously think that percentage is somehow insignificant?  Does he know of any other specific rebel group as large, or anywhere close?  When there is a power vacuum, the most organized, best-funded group is going to predominate.)

I have no doubt the Obamaniacs, the ones who will tell us that everything Obama & Co. do is brilliant, masterful and heaven sent, are just thrilled with those words.

But the rest of us just might be appalled by the fact that this suggests John Kerry is living in a dream world, intentionally lying his backside off, or both.

The Syrian fiasco continues toward......what?  No one knows.  Certainly not Kerry or his equally inept, incompetent boss.


Ken Berwitz

College equals free speech, right?

Nope.  Not if you don't speak the words whoever is in charge wants to hear. 

And who is running our colleges?

Excerpted from Robby Soave's article at 

The student government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has dealt a final blow to the College Republicans' budgetary plans, effectively barring the group from bringing two well-known conservative women to campus - and insulting those women in the process.

Last week, the student government finance committee slashed the College Republicans' funding allocation from $8,000 to $3,000. The cut meant that students would not be able to bring conservative speakers Katie Pavlich and Ann McElhinny to campus, so they appealed the decision to the full Student Congress.

College Republican chairman Peter McClelland argued that the funding was important in order to maintain a semblance of intellectual diversity on the liberal campus. UNC Students have few chances to be exposed to conservative speakers and ideas, he said. Besides, at least  two liberal organizations - a socialist club and a feminist magazine - received more funding than the College Republicans.

But the Student Congress was unmoved by these arguments, and voted 21-1 to allocate only $3,000 to the club earlier this week.

During the debate over the issue, several student government leaders insulted Pavlich and McElhinny, whom they deemed "non-intellectual," "non-academic" and "unreliable."

McElhinny is a well-known environmental reporter and investigative journalist who has received accolades for her documentary, "Frack Nation."

Pavlich is a Fox News contributor and author of The New York Times bestseller, "Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover-Up."

Does the University of North Carolina come across as a bastion of free speech to you?  Does it come across as an institution of learning, in which different points of view are valued and discussed so that students can make informed decisions?

Or does it come across as a one-side-only rat hole, where student fascist wannabes essentially tell people who don't think the way they do to go screw themselves?

What a wonderful place for mom and dad to pay a king's ransom in tuition. 

And don't think for a minute that this is an isolated instance, because it isn't.

The blog title calls this another reason for Mario Savio - an icon of the "free speech" movement - to turn over in his grave.  Let me amend that.  It is a reason for him to turn over, gyrate in uncontrollable anger, and declare the "free speech" movement, as it currently exists, as dead as he is.

Zeke ..... ...... I took an NSF (National Science Foundation) Math and Physics program the summer after my Junior year in High School. It was conducted at Manhattan College with their faculty. ..... .... One fellow student was Mario Savio. . . VERY bright guy, asked incisive questions .... .... BUT he was terribly tongue-tied. . . Could not get out a single sentence without severely stumbling. . . . . . By the time he got to Berkeley, he acquired a sheepskin coat and a public speaking voice. . . . . . (09/05/13)


Ken Berwitz

Another Obama lie exposed.

Barack Obama on Monday, trying to deflect any responsibility for saying -  as he most assuredly did - that he considered the use of chemical weapons a red line that Syria could not cross without us doing something about it:

"I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world's population passed a treaty forbidding (chemical weapons) use, even when countries are engaged in war"

Now, the headline and sub-head of James Kirkup's article for London's Daily Telegraph (one of many I could have chosen from):

Syria crisis: Barack Obama faces growing opposition to airstrikes as he arrives for G20

President Barack Obama is facing growing international opposition to military intervention in Syria as China, the European Union and the Pope all warned against attacks on the Assad regime.

This is the world's "Red Line"?  WHERE?

Another Obama lie.  And count on plenty more to come.

We know this because experience is the best teacher.

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!!