Saturday, 07 September 2013


Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama, on Monday:

"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"

The first paragraph of a front-page article in today's New York Times (which supported Obama twice), this morning:

President Obama raced home on Friday to confront one of the biggest tests of his presidency as he ramped up a campaign to persuade Congress to support airstrikes against Syria that many world leaders he had consulted declined to back.

That is the world's response to Barack Obama's "red line" claim.

President Obama has looked weak, incompetent and ineffectual before.  Many times.  And many times his Accomplice Media - very much including the New York Times, has covered for him.  But not this time.

Who will he blame it on now?  Bush?  Reagan?  Coolidge?  Taft?   Bo the Portuguese water dog?

I wish I could say that this shreds the United States' credibility and makes us look like a bunch of fools in front of the world.  I have that wish because it would mean that, until now, the world was not seeing us this way. 

But, Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media's best efforts to hide it notwithstanding, that is how the world has seen us throughout this sorry, inept, incompetent administration.  And with good reason.

They may not have liked us under Bush, but at least we were feared and respected.  Now a mass murdering despot like bashar al-assad laughs in our faces, and nations that were perfectly willing to back us in Iraq and Afghanistan blow Barack Obama off, telling him, in effect, to just go away.

But whose fault is this?  The answer, sad to say, is that it is ours.  We elected a Chicago machine politician, with no qualifications to be President, who was in 100 miles over his head then and is in 100 miles over his head now.  We got exactly what we bargained for.

What were we thinking?

free` I hope and pray that when Obamas term as POTUS is finished, it will be the last time we ever have to hear about or from him. He has and is the worst POTUS I can remember not only in my lifetime [and I lived through the carter gasoline rationing] but that I have even read about. (09/07/13)


Ken Berwitz

In the last blog, I noted that Ed Asner has attacked President Obama for not being enough of a leftist regarding Syria (and criticized some of his fellow leftists for not joining the attack out of fear that they might be called racist for doing so).

Now it's Paul Krugman's turn.

Economist Paul Krugman is sufficiently far left to be a New York Times columnist...which is to say he is way, way out there.  And here - excerpted from his latest column - is what Mr. Krugman has to say about President Obama's performance regarding the economy:

In a few days, we'll reach the fifth anniversary of the fall of Lehman Brothers - the moment when a recession, which was bad enough, turned into something much scarier. Suddenly, we were looking at the real possibility of economic catastrophe.

And the catastrophe came.

How did that happen? It wasn't a mass outbreak of laziness, and right-wing claims that jobless Americans aren't trying hard enough to find work because they're living high on food stamps and unemployment benefits should be treated with the contempt they deserve. A bit of the decline in employment can be attributed to an aging population, but the rest reflects, as I said, an immense failure of economic policy.

Look, I know that as a political matter an adequate job-creation program was never a real possibility. And it's not just the politicians who fell short: Many economists, instead of pointing the way toward a solution of the jobs crisis, became part of the problem, fueling exaggerated fears of inflation and debt.

Still, I think it's important to realize how badly policy failed and continues to fail. Right now, Washington seems divided between Republicans who denounce any kind of government action - who insist that all the policies and programs that mitigated the crisis actually made it worse - and Obama loyalists who insist that they did a great job because the world didn't totally melt down.

Obviously, the Obama people are less wrong than the Republicans. But, by any objective standard, U.S. economic policy since Lehman has been an astonishing, horrifying failure.

What do we learn from this - aside from the fact that Paul Krugman is an egotist of epic proportion who thinks he is smarter than everyone else?  We learn that:

-He despises the right/Republicans (Krugman rarely distinguishes between the two and today ain't the day) and considers their economic positions are counterproductive.

-He likes the left/Democrats, but considers their economic positions not nearly far enough left to solve the problem.

-And he considers Barack Obama's economic policy - which he won't identify in so many words but, instead, speaks of in terms of when Lehman folded, which just happens to be a few months before Barack Obama became President - "an astonishing, horrifying failure".

Why won't Paul Krugman just say it?  Why won't he call Barack Obama an economic failure?   be Is it the Ed Asner syndrome - i.e. a fear that talking honestly about what a disaster Obama has been will open the door to him being called a racist?

If so, he is a racist.  He just doesn't know it.  Why?  Because he would not be judging Barack Obama as a person, but pigeonholing him as a specifically Black person.  Like so many others on the left who know what being anti-Black is, but don't have a clue about what racism is - i. e. that it doesn't begin and end at being anti-Black.

Regardless of his reasons, however, the fact remains that, almost five years after Barack Obama became President, Paul Krugman correctly assesses that our economy is still down the crapper. 

At least he knows that much.

free` From the article; "Look, I know that as a political matter an adequate job-creation program was never a real possibility. And it's not just the politicians who fell short: Many economists, instead of pointing the way toward a solution of the jobs crisis, became part of the problem, fueling exaggerated fears of inflation and debt." -------------------------------------- Is he talking about himself? He has been on the side of every one of the failed "job" programs that Obama and the D's have come up with that seemed to only enrich the unions and the big donors to the Obama Campaign. (09/07/13)


Ken Berwitz

A lot has been written - certainly in this blog - about the immense failures and serial lying of the Obama administration regarding the attack on our Benghazi facility.

But not a lot has been written about what condition our bombing of Libya - the absolutely unconstitutional bombing visited upon that country by Barack Obama without either UN or constitutional approval - has left the country in.

This excerpt from a very interesting article by Ali Al-Gattani and Asma Elourfi, writing for, gives you a taste - one that you might not find very palatable:

Benghazi It happens every day in Benghazi: a car bomb or an unknown gunman kills someone in the military, law enforcement or the judicial system - and citizens want it to end.

"People are angry with the government's failure to provide security," political analyst Salim al-Ragie said.

"Unfortunately, we haven't yet seen a sincere intention to build an army or police. On the contrary, we hear about bombings targeting security, especially in Benghazi," he said.

"It looks as if extremists and all those who have a vested interest in this mess are saying 'no' to security and army in Libya," he added.

Military prosecutor Youssef al-Asaifar was the latest assassination target when a car bomb killed him last Thursday.

"A whole year has passed since the attack on the US embassy and the security situation in Libya is still suffering," Bouakeula told Magharebia.

As the first anniversary of the attack on the US diplomatic outpost in Benghazi draws near, insecurity plagues Libya's second city and perpetrators of bombings and assassinations go unpunished.

No one has been convicted for the September 11th, 2012 siege left four Americans dead, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. And while former Ansar al-Sharia militia leader Ahmed Boukhtala has been charged by the US in connection with the attack, he remains free in Libya.

When we bombed Libya, there was a fear - a very well founded fear - that terrorist groups - al qaeda among them - would take over.  And, if this article is correct, that, apparently is exactly what has happened.

Why is ahmed boukhtala still walking the streets a free man?  Would a government in any way sympathetic to the USA allow this?

If the Obama administration is ignoring the fact that the killers of our people in Benghazi (not just ahmed boukhtala either) remain free, it shows what a hollow, dishonest, fraudulent claim Barack Obama made when he assured us they would be brought to justice. 

If the Obama administration is not ignoring the fact that they remain free, and actively trying to bring them to justice, it shows what an ineffectual failure this administration is and how little fear or respect it gets, even from a Libyan "government" (or, at any rate, what passes for one) that Obama essentially put in power.

And now he is threatening to bomb Syria? 

For what, Mr. President?  So that assad will be replaced by who? 

Oh, wait, I forgot.  We're not trying to replace al-assad.  The Obama plan is to bomb some of his stuff , but leave him in power - angrier and probably even more disposed to killing his people than he already was.

Next to Barack Obama, George Bush looks like General Patton and Admiral Farragut rolled into one.


Ken Berwitz

Have you noticed all those protests from Hollywood leftists over the prospect of our bombing Syria? 

You know, the ones who were out there virtually at day one against every military action during the Bush administration...even though Mr. Bush got congressional approval and UN sanction beforehand.

What's that you say?  You haven't seen or heard any such protests?  Why do you suppose?

Well, here's the answer...from one of the hardist hard-leftists in Hollywood, Ed Asner:

"A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama"

In other words, "Go ahead and bomb Syria, kill however many people you kill.  We won't say anything about it because, if we do, somone - maybe that God of Gods to us, al sharpton - might accuse us of being against Barack Obama because he is Black.  So let'em die.  Our PR is much more important than some dead Syrians.  But if he were a White guy, of course, we'd be screaming about this from every rooftop".

And this bunch has the nerve to call other people racists?  What the hell do they think they are?

It should be noted that Asner goes on to severely criticize the proposed Syria bombing, along with a lot more about Barack Obama.  Asner is well to Obama's left (yes, that is quite a feat), but at least he is honest about who and what he is. 

You can read the anti-Syria bombing comments of Asner and fellow leftist Mike Farrell in Tim Graham's blog for

Then you can grow old waiting for the phony Hollywood hypocrites Asner is talking about to say or do a thing...other than maybe blaming it on Bush.


Ken Berwitz

"I knew it.  I knew it.  I knew it"

Old timers or old TV buffs (often one and the same) might recognize that line from The Phil Silvers Show.  When Silvers, playing Sergeant Ernest G. Bilko, put one over on the affable but gullible company cook, Rupert Ritzik (played by Joe. E. Ross, who was even funnier as Gunther Toody in "Car 54 Where Are You?, and realization dawned on him (usually too late to do anything about it) that was his lament.

Well, today it is me voicing those words .  Not as a lament, but because I had 100% certainty that some idiot would blame George Bush for Barack Obama not being able to muster support for bombing Syria, and it happened.

Excerpted from Timothy Egan's commentary in Thursday's New York Times web page:

He's there in every corner of Congress where a microphone fronts a politician, there in Russia and the British Parliament and the Vatican. You may think George W. Bush is at home in his bathtub, painting pictures of his toenails, but in fact he's the biggest presence in the debate over what to do in Syria.

His legacy is paralysis, hypocrisy and uncertainty practiced in varying degrees by those who want to learn from history and those who deny it. Let's grant some validity to the waffling, though none of it is coming from the architects of the worst global fiasco in a generation.

Blame Bush? Of course, President Obama has to lead; it's his superpower now, his armies to move, his stage. But the prior president gave every world leader, every member of Congress a reason to keep the dogs of war on a leash. The isolationists in the Republican Party are a direct result of the Bush foreign policy. A war-weary public that can turn an eye from children being gassed - or express doubt that it happened - is another poisoned fruit of the Bush years. And for the nearly 200 members of both houses of Congress who voted on the Iraq war in 2002 and are still in office and facing a vote this month, Bush shadows them like Scrooge's ghost.

Until the Syrian crises came to a head, we had yet to see just how much the Bush fiasco in Iraq would sway world opinion. We know now that his war will haunt the globe for decades to come.

The parallels are imprecise and many degrees apart: Iraq was a full-scale invasion, Syria is a punishment. But there it is - the Bush hangover, felt by all.

There are people on the public stage who have genuinely agonized over lessons of the Bush disaster. They say, with some conviction, that they will never be fooled again.

But for all of these neocons stuck on the wrong side of history - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, say the names loud and clear - it's not a change in conscience at work; its a change in presidents. Later this month, dozens of Republicans in Congress will make the same decision, simply because they hate Obama, and would oppose him if he declared Grandmother Appreciation Day.

The voice that stands out most by his silence, the one that grates with its public coyness, is Bush himself. He has refused to take a side in the Syrian conflict. The president, he said, "has a tough choice to make." Beyond that, "I refuse to be roped in."

This is cowardice on a grand scale.

Ok, let's think about this.

When President Bush invaded Iraq:

-He went after a mass murdering despot for the purpose of removing him from office and allowing the people of Iraq to vote in the leaders they wanted. 

-He did so by getting congressional approval and UN approval. 

-The key basis for this action was that Saddam had WMD's - which a) he had used in the past, on his own people, b) intelligence agencies around the world said he had, along with c) virtually every major Democrat.

-The countries going in with Bush, (the "coalition of the willing") numbered 49 countries, including, among others, Australia, Italy Japan, the UK, the Czech Republic, Portugal and Turkey, among others.

Now, Barack Obama proposes to bomb Syria:

-To go after a mass murdering despot - but not to remove him from office, only to punish him and degrade assets he can replace. 

-He did not ask for congressional authorization, but was embarrassed into doing so by poll data showing a majority do not want to go to war against Syria...but has not said he will pay any attention to it if congress votes him down. 

-He has not sought UN approval at all. 

-The key basis for this action would be the alleged use of chemical weapons by al-assad...but we do not have conclusive proof that it was he who used them - especially since the opposition has become infested with al-qaeda and other similar-minded terrorist groups. 

-There are almost no major countries willing to form a coalition with Barack Obama to fight al-assad.

And, from this, Timothy Egan deduces that the reason everyone isn't begging Barack Obama to bomb to his heart's content is not the unpopularity of a war that offers no clear objective and no benefit to us, which he apparently intends to pursue without anyone else's advice, based on an incident we are not even sure al-assad was responsible for.   

Nope, it's because of George Bush - who, as a former President, has wisely declined to comment on the situation (which, for some reason, has further enraged Egan).

Tell you what:  I don't know what Timothy Egan was talking about when he mentioned Bush should paint his toenails in the bathtub routine.  But allow me to suggest that the New York Times web site would be materially improved if Egan had been painting his toenails, instead of writing this idiocy.

Or, to paraphrase Rupert Ridzik, Egan should be saying "I blew it".  "I blew it".  "I blew it".


Ken Berwitz

Here is an excerpt (in reality, due to how short it is, almost everything) from Raymond Ibraham's piece at

While U.S. leaders continue pushing for war against the Syrian government, today "Al-Qaeda-linked rebels," reports AP, "launched an assault on a regime-held Christian mountain village in the densely populated west of Syria, and new clashes erupted near the capital, Damascus, on Wednesday."

Arabic news agency Al Hadath gives more information concerning this latest terror attack on Syrias Christians, specifically how the al-Qaeda linked rebels "terrorized the Christians, threatening to be avenged on them after the triumph of the revolution."

Thus al-Qaeda terrorists eagerly await U.S. assistance against the Syrian government, so they can subjugate if not slaughter Syrias Christians, secularists, and non-Muslims even as the Obama administration tries to justify war on Syria by absurdly evoking the human rights of Syrians on the one hand, and lying about al-Qaedas presence in Syria on the other.

And we are going to bomb al-assad on their behalf?  WHY?

Whose hands would the blood of these Christians be on? 

Does this administration even care what would happen if "the rebels", as they are today, seized control of Syria?

Why would we do this? 


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!!