starting with this from glen ford's 'Barack Obama versus Black Self-Determination' (black agenda report):

Venezuela claims that recent explorations confirm that the South American nation has surpassed Saudi Arabia in oil reserves. Barack Obama is nearly as bellicose as John McCain when it comes to Venezuela's "rogue" leader, President Hugo Chavez - a hugely popular politician who was fairly elected three times under the watchful eyes of international observers. But democratic credentials don't matter to American politicians anxious to prove they can warmonger with the meanest blowhards in the pack.
Obama growls about bringing sanctions against Venezuela for allegedly undermining its neighbor, Columbia, Washington's narco-death squad-client-state. With the U.S. guzzling down 60 percent of Venezuela's oil exports, and plenty of other customers willing to take America's place, the sanctions threat is just plain silly. But Obama's hostility to Chavez (who does not return the insult, even when Obama derides Chavez's "predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy") is a bad omen for peace in the region.
The U.S. supports secessionist efforts by the moneyed classes in Venezuela and its two closest allies, Ecuador and Bolivia. Not coincidentally, all three plots are centered in the countries' main oil or gas-producing regions. Another coincidence: after 60 years deactivation, the U.S. Navy this month revived its Fourth Fleet, with responsibility for South and Central America. Eva Morales, President of Bolivia, called it "the Fourth Fleet of intervention."
The spark can come any time the Americans decide to set off a regional conflict. Barack Obama, the phony peace candidate, is already providing warlike rhetoric, vowing to support Colombia if it repeats incursions into neighboring Ecuador or Venezuela in search of FARC "terrorists."
"We will support Colombia's right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders," Obama promised Cuban exiles and their progeny in Miami. "And we will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation and - if need be - strong sanctions. It must not stand."

that's a gift to all the whiners suddenly showing up in my inbox, moaning, 'you never even talk about what barack stands for.' well there you go. that's what he stands for.

this is howard wolfson's "HUBdate: A Strong Partner With Indian Country" (hillaryclinton.com):

"A Strong Partner With Indian Country" Yesterday, during a stop at the Flathead Reservation, Hillary "reaffirm[ed] her support for tribal sovereignty…[and her commitment to] partner with the Montana Tribes to expand economic opportunity and improve health care, education and housing on all seven Montana Reservations." Hillary "told several hundred people yesterday at Salish Kootenai College that she wants to be a 'strong partner with Indian country.'" Read more and more.
Automatic Delegate Watch: Virgin Islands automatic delegate Kevin Rodriquez announced his support for Hillary yesterday. Rodriquez is a member of the Democratic National Committee.
On the Air: A new television ad hit the airwaves in South Dakota yesterday: "George Bush's spending has sent the economy into a tailspin and put social security in jeopardy…Hillary Clinton will stop spending money America doesn't have. She'll end fifty five billion dollars in giveaways to corporate special interests, reduce the deficit and protect Social Security." Watch here.
Crowd Gives Hillary "A Raucous Welcome" "It took a Clinton to repair America after the first Bush presidency and it will take a Clinton to fix the mistakes of the second President Bush," Hillary told supporters in Billings, MT yesterday. Many of those supporters waited in line to see Hillary throughout the afternoon. One 16-year-old supporter said she "was thrilled that the candidate was coming to Billings. 'It's just an amazing thing to get to see her,' she said…The crowd started cheering about 7 p.m., and the chants gained momentum when campaign staffers started tossing t-shirts into the bleachers. The crowd spelled out, 'H-i-l-l-a-r-y' and shouted, 'Madame President!'" Read more and more.
Previewing Today: Hillary attends a campaign event in Kyle, SD and hosts a "Solutions for South Dakota’s Future" rally in Rapid City, SD.
On Tap: Tomorrow, Hillary will continue to campaign throughout South Dakota, making stops in Huron and Watertown.

today's snapshot had me crying. c.i. generally dictates them over the phone while we're eating. and i started sobbing over 1 section so blame me (i wasn't the only 1 tearing up, but i was sobbing) because c.i. said 'pull that part' as a result. it was very nice about hillary and bill and based on what c.i.'s observed on the road and based on knowing them forever. c.i. didn't want to be accused of using 'cheap sentiment' to influence the election. (betty has begged c.i. to tell two stories - stories c.i. told betty last summer when betty decided she was for hillary and was worried how every 1 would react - at third or at the common ills and c.i. refuses. that would be trading on personal stories and while an election is going on c.i. thinks that would cross the line.)
but it really was something and i love how c.i. can just flip it, can find whatever smear the media's using and just flip it over and show you how not only are they smearing but they are missing the real story as they pretend they are psychics who can peer into the souls of candidates.

jenny e-mailed to ask, 'how much of a chance does hillary stand right now?' she's worried because of the increased attacks on hillary.

here's the thing, you don't attack some 1 who's down. if you think they are down & out, you don't attack them.

only a bully does that.

so the fact that the attacks on hillary are so intense goes to the fact that she's a stronger prospect for the democratic presidential nomination than ever before.

as she gets stronger, they play dirtier.

i can understand jenny being nervous. every day, another person seems to pop up to attack.

but hillary's not out of the race and she's not losing. if she were either, the attacks would cease.

it's like if your worst enemy fell ill and was on the death bed. you wouldn't trash her or him publicly. you wouldn't want to be seen as some 1 so petty.

so the fact that losers like amy goodman & katrina vanden heuvel are piling on goes right to the fact that hillary's campaign is only getting stronger.

bill clinton was joking when he was warning people about the cover up. they don't want you to know that hillary's doing this well. they are working over time to destroy her. and if she was down & out they'd find something else to focus on. the fact that they can't goes to how strong she and her campaign are.

hillary is the best candidate and she is the 1 who can win in november. i was talking to a super delegate c.i. knows (he was waiting to talk to c.i. who was on another cell) and he was telling me 'i'm not supporting barack obama anymore. he's going to lose the election and put congress at risk as well.' that is the 3rd time this week i have heard that from super delegates.

the more people get to know barack, the less they like him (public) and super delegates are seeing that.

so just ignore the worthless in panhandle media and remember that if they could get real jobs they wouldn't be begging for money to do their supposed jobs.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, May 28, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, war resisters are ignored by most media outlets (including pathetic Amy Goodman), Bully Boy gives a speech, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Camilla Mortensen (Eugene Weekly) reports on US war resister and Iraq War veteran James Burmeister who self-checked out and went to Canada only to return this year, turn himself in and wonder what comes next: "His father fears the Army wants to keep Burmeister quiet about the 'bait-and-kill' teams the he alleges have been used to kill Iraqi civilians. While James Burmeister awaits the Army's decision, his father [Erich Burmeister] is fighting to bring him home. From the article:

Burmeister was also distrurbed by the "small kill teams" for which he was asked to provide cover. On Sept. 24, 2007, the Washington Post investigated the story of the classified program of using "bait and kill" tactics in which sniper teams would scatter "bait" such as ammunition and detonation cords to attract Iraqi insurgents who would then be shot by snipers. But Burmeister, who had deserted from the Army five months before the story broke, had been telling that story to the media for months.
In a July 2007 article in The Oregonian, Burmeister said he had participated in a team that placed fake cameras on poles and labeled them U.S. property to give the team the rights to shoot anyone who to tried to move or takes the equipment.

Kill teams? September 26, 2007, Josh White and Ann Scott Tyson's "Charges Against Snipers Stir Debate on 'Baiting'" (Washington Post) was published. From the July 16, 2007 snapshot:

James Burmeister is a war resister who went to Canada after serving in Iraq. He, his wife, Angelique, and their son, Cornell, now live in Ottawa. Mark Larabee (The Oregonian) reports on Burmeister and notes the "traps" were an issue -- setting out the fake carmera or other equipment so that someone would go for it and then shooting them for touching US property -- with James Burmeister declaring, "As soon as anyone would mess with it, you were supposed to lay waste to them. I completely disagreed with that tactic. I can't see how that's helping anyone whatsoever"; and on Iraq, "I though people needed to be free there. But when I went there it was all about captures and kills and it felt like we messed things up over there." For some reason, J.E. McNeil is quoted in the story and really doesn't know the first thing about the topic. I'll call out McNeil the same way I would a right winger. McNeil's area of expertise and area of interest is C.O.s and that's the topic McNeil should stick to. I find McNeil's remarks (and ingorance) damaging. It takes only a few seconds to say, "C.O.s is my focus. Have you considered calling the War Resisters Support Campaign?" A voice who does know something on the subject, Helen Burmeister, mother of James, whom Larabee reports is proud of her son and declares, "I don't support the war. I don't know anybody who supports what's going on in Iraq. . . . It took guts for him to do what he did."

Click here for the CBC interview and here's a transcript from the Sept. 25, 2007 snapshot:

James Burmeister: Myself, I was a Calvary scout. We do a lot of reconnaissance, mapping out, a lot of raids. Our platoon in particular would set up small groups called "Platoon Kill Teams" -- maybe a group of four, five people, some snipers and we would set up fake cameras, we would put "Property of US government" in English and Arabic and we would wait for an Iraqi to come up and touch it because that gives the US the right to kill them -- so they say. That would be the typical thing we would do.

Rob Benzie: You called this baiting. Is that right?

James Burmeister: Definitely.


Meanwhile Courage to Resist notes this on US war resister Ryan Jackson:

Join the vigil outside Fort Gordon near Augusta, Georgia Thursday, May 29th, 7:30pm at Gate 1 to demand "Free Ryan Now!" Ryan will be court martialed Friday, May 30th for resisting war.
Ryan was formally charged with multiple counts of AWOL stemming from his attempt to be released from the Army prior to Iraq deployment. He will face a Special Court Martial--with a maximum one year prison sentence--on Friday, May 30. Since voluntarily returning to Fort Gordon on April 14 and formally applying for a conscientious objector discharge, Ryan has been held in pre-trial confinement at the Charleston Navel Brig.
Write to Ryan Donate to Ryan's defense Attend Ryan's court martial
Following his arraignment, Ryan was able to call friends for a couple of hours. Primarily, he wanted to express his gratitude for everyone's support, and making him feel that his stand against war, and his time already spent in the brig, meant something. In addition to Courage to Resist members, he was also able to talk to Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace representatives prior to returning to the brig.

War resisters in Canada today need support as they wait to see if the motion for safe harbor is going to come to the Parliament floor. You can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Lahey quotes NDP's Oliva Chow, who steered the motion, explaining, "If (Liberal leader) Stephane Dion were to say tomorrow that he supports this motion . . . we will then debate it. So we need people to call Mr. Dion . . . 'whose side you on Mr. Dion'?" The number to call is (613) 996-5789.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Qais Mizher (New York Times) report, "Iraq's largest Sunni political bloc suspended its return to the Shiite-dominated government on Tuesday, saying Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki had refused to give it the cabinet ministries it wanted." The bloc is the Accordance Front and Al Jazeera reminds, "The Accordance Front pulled out of the national unity government in August, seeking the release of mainly Sunni Arab detainees in Iraq's jails." Leila Fadel (Baghdad Observer, McClatchy Newspapers) explains that the group "was supposed to return to the government three weeks ago" instead of continuing "the nearly year-long boycott to the government". Sinan Salaheddin (AP) observes, "The decision was a setback to Prime Minister Nori al-Maliki's efforts to bring the Sunnis back into the political fold to shore up recent security gains." CNN notes: "Reidar Visser, a scholar of Iraq who is editor of the Iraq-oriented Web site historiae.org, said Sunni Arab states are unhappy with al-Maliki's leadership because he seems to favor a tripartite Iraq comprised of Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions. Among Sunni Arabs' qualms with this philosophy is that there is no oil wealth in the Sunni heartland. The Kurds have a semi-autonomous region, many Shiites want their own and both want areas where there is abundant oil production."

While al-Maliki's latest public embarrassment (he's like Bully Boy without the carrier to parade around on) garners attention, Moqtada al-Sadr calls on action. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, cleric al-Sadr is calling on weekly Friday demonstrations protesting a treaty Bully Boy and the puppet are attempting to hammer out. Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) reported Tuesday that the al-Sadr "has since emerged as an ardent nationalist who commands the support of hundreds of thousands of devotees and the scorn of those who see him as a thuggish militia leader of limited intellect. He has lartely sought to reposition himself as a more mainstream figure, even in the face of increasing pressure from Iraq's Shiite-led government. His decision last week to allow the Iraqi army to enter the capital's Sadr City district, his base of power, was the latest in a series of calming edicts that began last summer." On Sunday, Mark Kukis (Time magazine) reported on al-Maliki and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker visiting Najaf to meet with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and noted: "It raised questions whether Sistani is making a comeback as a voice in political decision-making in Iraq. For years Sistani and Muqtada al-Sadr have seesawed with each other as Iraq's two main Shi'ite power players. In the early days of the occupation, Sistani's call for calm undoubtedly allowed American troops to avoid fierce resistance to their presence in southern Iraq. But Sistani's repeated appeals for peace lost their weight as sectarian violence rose in Iraq, with Sadr leading the Mahdi Army militia in an inexorable year-long quest for Shi'ite revenge following the bombing of a revered shrine in Samarra in early 2006." Last week Hamza Hendawi and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) noted, "Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible -- a potentially significant shifty by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad." Yesterday, UPI declared al-Sistani might be angling for "a comeback" and asserts, "Crocker was in Najaf amid reports that Sistani was losing patience with the U.S. pace of reconstruction in Iraq, while Maliki emerged from his meeting with Sistani Thursday with vague pledges of support, signaling a possible political play by the reclusive cleric." Egypt's Middle East Times editorializes that Senators John McCain and Barack Obama should visit Iraq because things are 'changing': "The U.S. George W. Bush administration has already suffered two new serious blows to its policies this week. First, Iraq's Sunni Muslims have pulled out of talks to enter the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. And second, Mahdi Army leader Moqtada Sadr has called for nationwide protests against the proposed Status of Force Agreement that U.S. diplomats are pressuring Maliki to sign. . . . Maliki's officials have been leaking hints and claims of his opposition to SOFA for weeks and even the ulta-cautious Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most eminent religious leader of Iraq's Shiites, has been reported by his aides as favoring non-violent resistance to the agreement." Meanwhile CNN notes al-Sadr's demonstration are referred to "an organized media action"

"Hey now we're bleeding for nothing/ It's hard to breathe when you standing on your own/ We'll kill ourself to find freedom/ You'll kill yourself to find anything" (Agustana's "Hey Now," Can't Love, Can't Hurt, Epic Records)

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that left eight people wounded (two were police officers), a Baghdad mortar attack on an Iraqi government buildment, a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed 2 lives ("father and his son") with another son injured and a Kirkuk bombing that may have been an attack on Col Fo'ad Shwani ("deputy of emergency police in Kirkuk") that resulted in one of his body guards being wounded.

Shootings?

Reuters notes an armed clash in Baghdad that began yesterday and ended today with 7 'suspects' killed and three police officers wounded while also noting "A mob stormed the house of a member of a U.S.-backed neighbourhood patrol and stabbed him to death in the town of Garma".

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 8 corpses discovered in Baghdad

In other news, the puppet government is stating it will hold a census at the end of next year -- yes, they've promised a census before. Don't get your hopes up.

"I said, hell is so close, and heaven's out of reach/I ain't givin' up quite yet/ I've got too much to lose" (Augustana's "Sweet and Low," Can't Love, Can't Hurt, Epic Records). Bully Boy gave a speech in Colorado Springs today. Michael Abramowitz (Washington Post) observes, "President Bush acknowledged to 'learngin as we go' in building democracy in Iraq, as he used a commencement address at the U.S. Air Force Academy Wednesday to counsel patience and resolve in America's wars of the 21st century." For laughs, full speech here and note how he's confused about which people ("a new mission: Protect the American people -- Iraqi people") and here's Bully Boy defining 'success' and 'victory': "So in Iraq and Afghanistan, we set a clear definition of success: Success will come when al Qaida has no safe haven in those countries and the people can protect themselves from terror. Success will come when Iraq and Afghanistan are economically viable. Success will come when Iraq and Afghanistan are democracies that govern themselves effectively and respond to the will of their people. Success will come when Iraq and Afghanistan are strong and capable allies on the war on terror. Men and women of the Air Force: These successes will come -- and when they do, our nation will have achieved victory, and the American people will be more secure." Barack Obama would like to be president -- first he'd need to win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination -- and certainly anyone idiotic enough to think the US has 57 states is Bully Boy's undeclared son. Yesterday he was caught in yet another lie: His uncle rescued people in Auschwitz. Only it wasn't his uncle. Maybe it was his "great uncle". Oh, and maybe it was Buchenwald. Here for Jeralyn (TalkLeft), here for Elaine, here for Mike and Wally and Cedric's did a joint-post on it.

Today Amy Goodman demonstrate she is filth, human trash and so much more than just living in a political closet. Long after the nonsense over Friday's remarks by Hillary were over, Trash Goody had to 'cover' them today. The same piece of trash that has NEVER mentioned James Burmeister's name, has NEVER told her audience that Corey Glass was informed last Wednesday that he was being deported from Canada on June 12th, go down the list. She's not but human filth. Bob Somerby (Daily Howler) explains how trash came to make the non-story a story: "Obama's campaign told the 'press corps' to jump. The 'press corps' barked and then wondered: How high?" There was nothing wrong with what Hillary Clinton said and it wasn't news in March but Obama's campaign e-mailed and faxed it and got all the WHORES of the 'press' (include Red Amy Goodman right next to Keith Olbermann) to swing their tired, flabby asses under the streetlamp for another night -- may they call contract a social disease. In the real world (translation, where propagandist Amy Goodman could never work), Jake Tapper (ABC News) reports Gallup's latest poll "seems to re-affirm Sen. Hillary Clinton's argument that she is likelier to beat Sen. John McCain than is Sen. Barack Obama." Maureen Dowd (no link to trash) produced more trash for today's New York Times and, at some point, maybe someone should ask the obvious: Why would Bill Clinton tell Hillary to drop out and why would she follow that?

As someone who has known the Clintons for over 15 years, yes, Bill listens to Hillary, yes, Hillary listens to Bill. But they both make up their own minds. It sure is interesting that no man's wife was ever instructed by the press to tell him to drop out but the press feels more than comfortable insisting Bill should tell Hillary to drop out. It's sexism and let's not pretend it's anything else. Caryl Rivers (WeNews) notes the very real backlash Hillary is confronting:

Put these disparate items together and you see the clear message: Women have gone too far, and they shouldn't be running for president. They belong at home, and in fact are choosing to stay home. So why shouldn't males get the college spots, and who cares about workplace discrimination?
As president Hillary Clinton could change at least some of this. That's why it's so hard to listen to the delegate-counters say her prospects are fading.
Some women are fighting back.
On May 20, the Women's Media Center launched a "Sexism Sells, But We're Not Buying It" campaign against the pervasive sexism in the media's election coverage. The group's Web site offers a petition for you to sign, chiding media outlets for their performance. "Sexism isn't a partisan issue," it says. "We're not going to let anyone hit the snooze button on this important issue!"
To which I say, "Amen!"


Meanwhile Shamus Cooke (Socialist Appeal) observes, "As Barack Obama's anti-war rhetoric is blasted around the country in his attempt to seal the Democratic nomination, his real position on U.S. militarism is being revealed discretely to his political, military, and corporate colleagues. Two recent examples prove beyond any doubt that Obama is in total conformity with the U.S. ruling class on the issue of maintaining -- or even expanding -- the role of the military in the Middle East. This of course is the complete opposite of what he tells those who fill stadiums to hear him speak." Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) explores Obama at length but we'll note this section:

It is fair to say that Somalia is the first African war to be tackled by the new American military command, Africom. So widespread is public opposition on the continent, fearing an attempt to re-colonize the region, no country has agreed to host the Africom. But Barack Obama fully supports the robust U.S. military presence. "There will be situations that require the United States to work with its partners in Africa to fight terrorism with lethal force," said Obama. "Having a unified command operating in Africa will facilitate this action."
Obama's enthusiasm for swamping Africa in an ever-expanding "war on terror," is obvious.
On the western shores of the continent, Obama was rumored in early May to have proposed a cease fire in the guerilla war over oil resources in Nigeria's Niger River delta. The insurgents, who claim the central government excludes delta residents from the benefits of oil production, have also asked former President Jimmy Carter to mediate the dispute. Whether anything comes of either request, it is certain that Nigeria, Africa's number one oil producer, will always be a leading candidate for Africom intervention. The presence of guerillas in the delta is all the Americans - including, based on his own words, Obama - will need to invoke the terror threat.

For more on the topic, see The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Idiots:"

As we've long noted, Barack also promotes war in Africa and, as others seem to forget, the whole point of abandoning Europe and setting up bases in Africa was that the US wants to stage new wars in that region. Bully Boy, attempting to secure land for bases, was rebuffed by African leaders. Do you really think "Son of Kenya" is going to be rebuffed? Do you really think some of the hype about Barack on the part of the same media that sold you the illegal war isn't over the fact that US imperialism can expand?
Hillary trying to get US bases is just another White impearilist to rebuff. (She's made no statements indicating she wants the US to take part in wars in Africa. By contrast, Samantha Power got on board Bambi's Senate work to sell him war on Darfur and he still echoes Power's opinion.) "Son of Kenya" could get those bases. And it's amazing that so many allegedly 'anti-war' types are silent on that fact. The Iraq War has taken place. It is ongoing. It's laughable to see 'peace' 'leaders' refuse to call out what's set to come in Africa. It's laughable to watch them avoid using the term "AFRICOM."AFRICOM was supposed to be up and running by now. It is up and running . . . in Germany but the failure to secure land deals for bases has stymied it somewhat. May 23, 2002, Mike Crawley's article in The Christian Science Monitor opened with the following:In the search for alternative sources of oil outside the politically volatile Middle East, the US is increasingly turning toward a place not normally seen as a major energy producer: sub-Saharan Africa. The region's crude oil production surpassed 4 million barrels a day in 2000 – more than Iran, Venezuela, or Mexico. The US currently gets 16 percent of its oil imports from sub-Saharan Africa -- almost as much as from Saudi Arabia. And, according to projections by the National Intelligence Council, that proportion will reach 25 percent by 2015, surpassing the entire Persian Gulf. The vast majority of it will come from a stretch of coastline between Nigeria and Angola called the Gulf of Guinea.

Samantha Power, for those who've forgotten, is Our Modern Day Carrie Nations and The Nation magazine (the 'anti-war' Nation magazine) has been happy to run her garbage. Those in the peace movement stupid enough to listen to 'leaders' saying Barack will end the illegal war damn well better be willing to own what's planned for Africa.

iraq
james burmeistermark larabee
josh white
ann scott tyson
amit r. paley
michael abramowitzthe washington post
qais mizherrichard a. oppel jr.the new york times
cnn
womens media center
mark kukis
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadel
glen ford
augustana
talkleftlike maria said pazmikey likes itthe daily jotcedrics big mix

starting with howard wolfson's 'HUBdate: Fighting For Puerto Rico's Soldiers and Veterans' (hillaryclinton.com):

Fighting For Puerto Rico's Soldiers and Veterans: During a conversation with the family of a Puerto Rican soldier who had fought in Iraq, Hillary promised that "[w]hen I’m president, we will begin ending the war in Iraq, and you won’t have to worry about [your son] going back…Our veterans deserve a commander in chief who will take care of them, and I will." Read more.
Memorial Day Statement: Hillary issued a statement yesterday reflecting on Memorial Day: "Memorial Day is a solemn day for every American; a day to express our profound gratitude to the men and women who have given their lives in military service. A day to join in our thoughts and prayers with the families mourning loved ones. A day to cherish the freedoms and opportunities that so many have served, sacrificed, and died to defend." Read more.
Today In Montana: Hillary hosts a "Solutions for America" town hall in Pablo and a "Solutions for America" rally in Billings, MT.
In Case You Missed It: "Number Crunching With Past Five Elections as a Guide" Read more.
On Tap in South Dakota: Hillary will campaign in Kyle and Rapid City on Wednesday, May 28, and in Huron and Watertown on Thursday, May 29.

so that's our vitamins. let's dig into the gooey cheesecake. katty van-van devil hovel of the nation magazine still thinks some 1 in the world sees her as 1) a thinker and 2) trust worthy. are your sides splitting yet?

let's go through the early part of katty-van-van's big meow entitled something like 'hillary, leave with dignity.' (that's especially funny if you know about the screaming fight katty-van-van had earlier this year. if you're a community member, e-mail me and i'll give you the details passed on earlier by my mother-in-law. you will laugh your ass off.)


Check out CNN.com for Bill Clinton's vent about how a "cover up" is hurting Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the Democratic nominee. This is a man who has trampled on his spouse's voice every time, in this campaign, that she's found it.

wait, katty, what cover up. the 1 you took part in. the non-stop attacks on hillary? the way you used foundation money - is that a violation of the law? if it was, i hope no 1 has proof of it. that would be a real faux pas for you, wouldn't it? bill clinton talked about how the media is covering up the fact that hillary's not just in the race, she's doing an amazing job. she is too. and it kills katty-van-van, the radical russian wanna-be.

i know all about that piece of trash and her trashy father. over the years, c.i. would say, 'now that's just a rumor' when my mother-in-law would bring up the latest dish on the tacky katty but these days, c.i. just shrugs.

c.i. got katty her job at abc news. i've noted that before. how roone didn't want her (thought she was ugly - which she is - and couldn't be put on camera. c.i. pointed out that katty could afford to dress well and roone was a real snob - always trashing the way the news dept. dressed). poor katty van. with that face, she had to go into print.

The women of The Nation are the first to deplore the sexism in media commentary this primary season, but a "cover up"?

when katty?

when did 'the women of the nation' do a damn thing. you mean 2 pathetic blog posts by katha and 1 column? you mean your blog post objecting to 'pimping'. that's it, katty. that's not real much, is it?

you've encouraged the sexism, you've printed it.

eat s**t, you lousy big nosed liar.

hey, does katrina like her brothers? all of them? i know this tale about a cheating spouse who scattered his seed to the wind. file it under 'coming attractions.'

katty, you live in a castle of sand and i have a feeling a mighty wind's about to blow it down.


Hillary Clinton started this race last year as the one to beat--she had the money, the machine and the name recognition that assured her of quasi-incumbent status. And, indeed, she ran as a quasi-incumbent, an establishment candidate in a change-year election.

no, that's how your trashy magazine painted her. are we supposed to forget those slams?

are we supposed to forget those ridiculing covers?

not buying it, ugly girl.

Yes, there were the Chris Matthews and the Tucker Carlsons and the Mike Barnicles and the Rush Limbaughs and the women who were working out their Clinton hatred through Hillary's candidacy.

that would include you katty.

and isn't it interesting that you never wrote about any of that in real time? nor did any 1 in your magazine or online. suck ass, you ugly piece of trash.

i can't wait for the truths about your father to start popping up. you're already social pariah and it's only going to get worse. maybe you can amy goodman can start a 'reds in bed' type support group?


Betsy Reed's superb May 19th cover story, "Race to the Bottom: How Hillary Clinton's Campaign Has Divided the Feminist Movement," documents those sexist remarks--and explains how Clinton's campaign has divided the feminist movement.

betsy reed is a cheap ass liar. betsy reed thought she could play feminist to readers of the nation and hoped they never noticed that 149 was the number of female bylines in the 2007 issues of the magazine while 491 was the number for men.

rot in hell old & ugly and take betsy reed with you.


katrina's trash. she's trash whose grandfather made some money (which the whole family fought for when he died - like the money grubbers they are - refused to pay taxes - took the issue to the supreme court and lost!).

it's over for katty-van-van.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, May 27, 2008. Chaos and violence continues, Dana Perino reveals how little oversight Bully Boy's giving to the Iraq War, Joan Walsh insults Latinos and the working class of Kentucky, Katrina vanden Heuvel reveals she hasn't changed a bit (and that's not a good thing) and more.

Starting with war resistance. Last Wednesday, US war resister and Iraq War vet Corey Glass was informed by the Canadian government that he had until June 12th to leave on his own and, after that, he would be deported. The government is refusing to grant him asylum. Attorney Jeffrey House explains to The Real News Network (link has text and audio), "A soldier discovers the war is illegal, and then he or she doesn't want to participate in it. If they go back to the United States, they're treated as deserters, and they can't argue, 'Oh, this is an illegal war.' The courts have said you're not able to raise such a complicated question. And so a main argument and a main reason why these soldiers have refused to fight on honorable grounds is being kept out of the court system -- it tears the heart out of the argument."

Yesterday Sandra Cason (Marshall News Messenger) reported on the family of James Grady Johnson who died while serving in Vietnam (February 26, 1968). Cason spoke with his siblings and oldest sister Linda Ford stated that her half-brother went AWOL for a brief period (three days) and is quoted by Cason stating, "'I bear a great burden of guilt. I'm the one who talked him into' going back 'and I took him to the plane in Longview. It is something I will always regret. I had the money to send him to Canada, which is what a lot of others did'."

War resisters in Canada today need support as they wait to see if the motion for safe harbor is going to come to the Parliament floor. You can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Lahey quotes NDP's Oliva Chow, who steered the motion, explaining, "If (Liberal leader) Stephane Dion were to say tomorrow that he supports this motion . . . we will then debate it. So we need people to call Mr. Dion . . . 'whose side you on Mr. Dion'?" The number to call is (613) 996-5789.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

On Sunday, a press conference was staged in Baghdad, presided over by US Rear Admiral Patrick Driscoll and Major Mohammed al-Askari (spokesman for Iraq's Ministry of Defense) was trotted out for show, but, uh-oh, he went off script when pressed about weapons that must be, simply must be, coming from Iran. His response:Well, this topic is the responsibility of the Iraqi government. We are an executive side. Those weapons could be smuggled and passed in an illegal way. And the Multi-Nation Forces have information and talked about this several times. At the Ministry of Defense, we do not interfere with the external policy of the Iraqi government. We just detain the wanted personnel and we present to the court. And if we captured different kinds of weapons, regardless of their background, and most of them are coming from outside the country like western, coming from western countries. This topic, of course, we do not interfere in it. And...but we'd like to also, what we do is give those reports and evidence to the Iraqi government. And I think the government will have procedures and may not talk about it, but I'm sure there will be some procedures by the government, like committees or stuff like that. Actually, what we have, any kind of weapon that we capture, we present it to the Iraqi government. And I think the government has the responsibility for that.

That would be real news so don't look for it in Panhandle Media. (Amy Goodman was too busy trying to erase Fidel Castro's critism of Barack. First she played Barack's statement then she reduced Castro's criticism to half a line. It's so very hard when Red Poster Boys come out against Goodman's candidate.) The US government continues to try to portray the Iranian government as a supplier of weapons to Iraq. And yet al-Askari stated very clearly that the bulk of the "weapons that we capture" are from the "West." Meanwhile AFP reports that The Political Council for National Security is telling puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki he better "ensure that a pact under discussion to extend the US troop presence beyond 2008 will not harm the national interest. Washington and Baghdad are holding negotiations on a Status of Forces Agreement aimed at giving a legal basis to the US troops after December 31, when a UN mandate defining the current status of foreign forces expires." On the US end, the Status of Forces Agreement (a treaty being called something else) has met with strong objections from Congress. From the April 8th snapshot, Senator Hillary Clinton questioning US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker:

With Crocker, she brought up the treaty the White House wants to make with the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, "With respect to our long term challenge, Ambassador Crocker, the administration" is planning to make an agreement with Iraq and "will it be submitted to the Iraqi Parliament for ratification?" Crocker replied that it had been "indicated that" it would be brought "to the council of representatives." Well then, Clinton wanted to know, "does the administration plan to submit the agreement to our Congress?" No, Crocker replied, "at this point . . . we don't" because they don't believe it "would require the advice and consent" of the Congress. That "seems odd to Americans," Clinton noted, that "the Iraqi Parliament may have a chance to consider this aggreement" while "the United States Congress does not." She noted the legislation she introduced (December 6, 2007) calling for the Bully Boy "to seek Congressional approval for any agreement that would extend the US military commitment to Iraq." And it is very odd that the White House thinks they can make a treaty without the consent of Congress and that the Iraqi Parliament will be weighing in (their Constitution guarantees them that right -- the US Constitution guarantees that Congress also has that right).

April 9th, US House Rep Susan Davis would echo Clinton's points and point out that allowing the Iraqi Parliament a say while the US Congress gets none (under the White House plan) "strikes people in our districts as strange." Davis also wanted to know whether the proposal would be used as "a vehicle for leverage that would actually bring about a result that would not occur without the agreement?" Davis was required to repeat the question to Crocker three times before getting some sort of 'answer' : "I think that like other agreements, this is a geustion of mutal agreements uh uh we both have interests in uh uh . . . it's not a question of uh uh having something to give to them uh uh . . ." April 10th, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations would address it with US State Dept's David Satterfield and US Defense Dept's Mary Beth Long:


Senator Joe Biden: We will hear today about the two agreements that the Administration is negotiating with Iraq which were anticipated in the November Declaration. On Tuesday, Ambassador Crocker told us that these agreements would set forth the "vision" -- his phrase -- of our bilateral relationship with Iraq. One agreement is a "strategic framework agreement" that will include the economic, political and security issues outlined in the Declaration of Principles. The document might be better titled "What the United States will do for Iraq," because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction -- promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to have a stable country. We're told that the reason why we're not continuing under the UN umbrella is because the Iraqis say they have a sovereign country. But they don't want a Status of Forces Agreement because that flows two ways. The Administration tells us it's not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is. The second agreement is what Administration officials call a "standard" Status of Forces Agreement, which will govern the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. Unlike most SOFAs, however, it would permit U.S. forces -- for the purposes of Iraqi law -- to engage in combat operations and detain insurgents. In other words, to detain people that we think are bad guys. I don't know any of the other nearly 90 Status of Forces Agreements that would allow a U.S. commander to arrest anyone he believes is a bad guy.

The key statement on the treaty (which does need Senate approval, regardless of what the White House claims) was probably when committee chair Biden explained, "Just understand my frustration. We want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist." And possibly when Senator Russ Feingold told Satterfiled, "I would suggest your difficulties are with the nature of our Constitution." Even Republican Seantors Norm Coleman and Johnny Isakson expressed objections. Meanwhile, there are objections in Iraq as well. Reuters reports that Moqtada al-Sadr is calling for a demonstration this "Friday against negotiations between Washington and Baghdad on keeping U.S. troops in the country beyond 2008" and quotes him stating: "We invite Iraqis to join us for a mass demonstration after Friday prayers unless the government cancels this agreement." CBS and AP say the protest would be a "weekly protests."

Martin Sieff (UPI) reviews recent news from Iraq: "On Monday, reports said violence had dropped to a four-year low in Iraq. That was obviously good news. The same day, reports announced that two more U.S. troops had been killed in yet another bomb attack. That was obviously bad news." He also notes that Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani "opposes the current terms of the Status of Forces Agreement that U.S. diplomats are seeking to conclude with the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad."

The US is engaged in the Iraq War and that is, apparently, news to the White House. For seven long years, Bully Boy has tried to pose as commander-in-chief (which only applies to the military, not the civilian population) yet on Friday, at a White House press conference, Dana Pernio stated of Bully Boy and Gen David Petraeus (the top commander in Iraq), "Well, they talk regularly -- at least once a week, if not twice a week -- and they were able to see each other this week." The US is engaged in an war and the best the Bully Boy can do is 'talk' with Petreaus "at least once a week"? Exactly what does the commander-in-chief do with all his time? Counsel Stephen Harper on Canada's ladybird beetle?

While the spin is that things are getting better -- and weren't they already fine and dandy? -- in Iraq, Raviya H. Ismail and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report on students like Murtada Abdul Zahara who could be going to college next year; however "he hasn't been to school since March 23, because it's been closed due to violence between Shiite Muslim militants and U.S. and Iraqi security forces in the Sadr City neighborhood where he lives." School teacher Juhaina Mahmoud Ahmed states that only one-half of students enrolled now attend classes in New Baghdad due to the violence.

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing wounded one member of an "Awakening" council, a Diyala Province home bombing claimed the life of 1 "Awakening" council member while six more people were wounded and a Tal Afar car bombing claimed 5 lives and left forty-five people wounded. Reuters notes a Baghdad pipe bombing which wounded one person.

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala Province shooting that wounded "two men and a child" and one person was wounded by gunfire in Kirkuk. Reuters notes "three Iraqi oil technicians" were shot dead "as they tried to fix an oil pipeling in the town of Baiji," 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul and a woman shot dead in a Mosul suburb.

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad Monday (he also reported 18 deaths and thirty-two wounded), McClatchy's Hussein Kadhim reported 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad Sunday (and 5 deaths and thirty-three wounded) and Saturday Al Dulaimy reported 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 2 in Kirkuk (4 killed and nine wounded).

Due to a DoD announcement today of a May 22nd death (DoD is suppose to identify the dead, not make the announcement, that's MNF's job) the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war currently stands at 4083.

Yesterday, Memorial Day, Chris Vaughn (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reported on the death of Jeffrey McKinney who "killed himself" in Baghdad: "Finally, around 2 p.m., 12 hours after he reported for duty that day, Jeff yelled 'F--- this!' He stepped out of the Humvee and fired two rounds into a vacant building. Then he pointed the gun at himself and pulled the trigger.
'APACHE 7 IS DOWN!' his driver screamed into the radio. 'HE SHOT HIMSELF. I NEED HELP NOW!'" McKinney was taking "antidepressants, antibiotics and prescriptions for heartburn and diarrhea." Sunday Halimah Abdullah (McClatchy Newspapers) wrote about Brian Rand's 2007 suicide "just a few months after being discharged from his second tour of duty in Iraq, Rand smoked half of a cigarette as he wrote a suicide note, grabbed a gun and went to Cumberland River Center Pavilion in Clarksville, Tenn. As the predawn dark pressed in, he breathed in the wintry air and stared at the park where he and his wife, Dena, had married. Then he placed the gun to his head and silenced his inner ghosts." Today, David Morgan (Reuters) reports that PTSD rates in the US army "surged 46.4 percent in 2007" and Morgan states, "Experts also say PTSD symptoms increase as soldiers return to combat for multiple tours of duty." Experts as in outside experts? Just asking because though the bulk of the country missed it, that was confirmed by the army in April. "One of the issues with multiple deployments and the dwell time for soldiers when they've come back, we've learned from the research that we've done, [is] that 12 months is not enough time for soldiers to reset and go back for another deployment," declared US Amry Director (Divisions of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research) Col Charles W. Hoge to the House Subcommitte on Health April 1st. US House Rep Shelley Berkely followed up on his statements. "Not enough time between tours of duty, did I hear you correctly?" Hoge replied, "Yes . . . What we've found . . . Yes. That's what I said . . . The 12 months is insuf- . . . appears to be insufficient." [". . ." in Hoge's statements indicate pauses. That is his complete response, without any editing.]

Turning to the political races in the US. Where there are lies, there lies Katrina vanden Heuvel who writes, "The women of The Nation are the first to deplore the sexism in media commentary this primary season, but a 'cover up'?" We'll get back to "cover up" but let's be really clear that "the women of The Nation" -- she makes it sound like a special issue of Playboy, doesn't she? -- didn't do crap. Stab Barbara Ehrenreich? Her idiotic nonsense about Hillary's 'scary' religion? (While refusing to note Barack's ties to the same prayer group.) Betsy Reed? Self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders staying silent on Barack's use of homophobia but making time to slime Robin Morgan? How about this simple and undeniable fact: The Nation magazine publishing 491 men, 149 women in 2007. Want to fix sexism, Katrina, fix your own damn magazine. Funny, you dispatched Ben to e-mail this site in the summer of 2007 claiming that you were going to do just that. And you never did a damn thing. True, Katrina did call out David Schuster's outrageous remark on MSNBC that Hillary was 'pimping' Chelsea. She deserves credit for that -- no sarcasm. You didn't see anyone at The Progressive call it out, did you? Amy Goodman played dumb. So Katrina does get credit for that but that credit is off-set by the fact that she allowed longterm sexist (so sexist it got him kicked out of the Berkeley commune) Tom Hayden to hide behind his wife for his sexist rant which The Nation was happy to publish online. No, Katrina, the women of The Nation have done damn little. Over and over. "Cover up"? Bill Clinton (video here) was speaking of the push to force Hillary out of the race when she is in fact winning the popular vote. Bill's not a crackpot, his remarks were not 'shocking'. He called it like it was. It's cute of Katrina to pretend like she's been pro-Bill Clinton until now. She's written and okayed the publishing of the sort of crap one's more used to seeing in The Weekly Standard but fascists in love with authoritarian regimes stick together, now don't the? Katrina, you're not a feminist. (You also didn't win an award from Planned Parenthood -- The Nation was awarded, not you -- try correcting that lie.) For the record, a feminist calls out homophobia but no one at your crap-ass magazine (with declining circulation that can no longer be hidden by including trial subscriptions in the count) ever called out Barack's homophobia. Sell your lies elsewhere.

Katrina also feels the need to offer this version of the rules and 'democray': "when the polls close on June 3, superdelegates should move, expeditiously, to make their decision . . ." Uh, no, they shouldn't. The rules don't allow for that. By the rules, it now goes to the convention floor unless Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama decides to drop out. Democracy is a difficult concept for the school girl spending her days dreaming of the Soviet Union but that's what we've got in the US, accept it. "Cover up" frightens Katty-van-van because she's been all up in the campaign since 2006. She's been behind the scenes, using the Roosevelt Institution to conduct 'meet ups'. If anyone ever checks out how the Institution played it this election season, it won't be pretty for Katty. She brought on FaceBook to the campaign, she orchestrated coverage, she did a great deal. She doesn't believe in democracy and it's no surprise that she's scared now. There's a push back and it's so huge, Katrina has to put aside the planning and aftermath time for the seventeenth birthday party to scribble some garbage quickly. For more on how Panhandle Media has schemed to deceive the people, see "Realities in the Democratic presidential nomination contest," "The Democratic Race for the presidential nomination," "hillary, hillary and only hillary," "Only Hillary can win in November," "Hillary can win in November," "Want to win the White House?," "Realities in the Democratic presidential nomination contest," "Realities in the Democratic presidential nomination contest," "There's only one choice for Democrats,""The cruelest and most vile word you can call a Democrat," "Is the DNC paying attention?" and "Hillary's the only choice" As Elaine's noted, Katty-van-van is no friend to women. The women of The Nation have done damn little other than encourage it and waive it through (in one of three pieces -- columns and blog posts -- Katha Pollitt did call out Tom Hayden -- but how did he get published to begin with? The same way that filth of a 'book review' sliming two women authors and extolling the virtues of a bordello was published in The Nation's first issue for 2007. Take responsibility for that, Katrina.) As Linda Hirshman (Slate) noted of Pig Hayden's nonsense:

In a recent Nation column, Tom Hayden (the '60s guy, now in his 60s) deployed a full arsenal of insults, comparing Clinton to Lady Macbeth and then going on to liken her appearance to a "screech" on the blackboard.
Hayden, apparently fearing some criticism, hid behind the voice of his never-before-heard third wife, Barbara, a "meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic," never previously given to offering hostile political pronouncements. But Clinton's appearance on TV apparently makes Tom's wife "scream." Poor Tom Hayden, still looking for a sufficiently submissive female. Everyone remembers Jane Fonda, Hayden's second wife. But probably few Nation readers remember the first Mrs. Hayden, one Casey Hayden. In 1965, right around the time she divorced Tom, Casey Hayden wrote the screed that helped launch the women's liberation movement, "Sex and Caste." Her ex-husband's most recent unleashing of the hysteria rocket shows how little distance we have covered since Casey Hayden picked up her pen.

That garbarge of Hayden's was brought to you by Betsy Reed and Katrina vanden Heuvel. They need to own it and they need to apologize for it. (Don't hold your breath waiting.) They could have done a roundtable on the issue but weren't interested. Instead CNN's Reliable Sources, anchored by Howard Kurtz, did that. Susan (Random Notes) has posted the video of the discussion and notes "Marie Cocco really hits the 'liberal' or 'progressive' blogs and their commentators for their filth."

Carol Costello: It does bother me personally. It does bother me deeply. And you know I've done many stories on The Situation Room on this. One thing I would like to say, you know, we sit around and we blame males for sexist comments but women are guilty as well. I remember Jane Fonda came out and called Hillary Clinton what? "A patriarch with a vagina." Laura Ingraham, the conservative radio talk show host played the Wicked Witch of the West music everytime she talked about Hillary Clinton. Randi Rhodes, a liberal woman talker, she called Hillary a term I cannot say on television. But at least she was fired on it. But women play into this sexist culture as well. You know, explain to me, ladies, why women play into this when they have been in the same position as Hillary Clinton, fighting to get to the top, they know what it's like and yet they play into it. And they get away with it because the media doesn't cover that part of it."

Transcript here. It should be noted Jane Fonda has denied that she made the statement everyone heard her make but, after saying the "c" word on NBC what do you expect? While Katty-van-van issues dispatches from her Harlem mansion, her crush Barack puts his foot in his mouth again. Not content to claim there were 57 states in the United States, Jeralyn (TalkLeft) points out Barack's now claiming to see dead people: "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of . . ." Barack Obama, thinking he's fit to be president, doesn't even know what a "fallen hero" is. Apparently, they didn't teach that Indonesia (or Barack couldn't follow it) and skipped it in his posh prep school as well. (Jeralyn also reviews the primaries and the caucuses here.) It's a hard knocks life, that elite life Barack's lived. Rachael Jolley (New Statesman) speaks with Sidney Blumenthal about how he sees it as part of the Hillary campaign:

"She has a tangible connection with them that she didn't have before. She has very definite connections with these voters."
Blumenthal, who has written extensively about the consequences of a Republican-dominated America and been an outspoken critic of Bush the younger, believes that the Democrats' key failure in the latter part of the 20th century was an inability to reach and represent working people: "This is a central factor for the regeneration of the Democratic party," adding they had come to be seen as "elitist".
The Democrats were further stigmatised, particularly through the Reagan years, as less patriotic than the Republicans, and less competent with the economy - similar to the picture the Tories painted of the UK Labour Party in the 1970s and 1980s. "The Clinton period was an effort to deal with these inherited problems and to reconstruct the centre left," says Blumenthal.
The strength of Blumenthal's conviction that Hillary should be the next Democratic candidate matches the strength -- and waspishness -- of his opinion that Barack Obama should not. For example, he dismisses Obama's foreign experience as "I think he stopped in Britain once for a day".
"Obama's problem is, as a candidate he hasn't really extended his support beyond his base as a state senator." These supporters hail from liberal academia, the well-off young and African Americans, believes Blumenthal, who is not afraid to point the finger at Obama's attitude to working class as "insulting", plainly referring to comments during the Pennsylvania primary.

Meanwhile Joan Walsh makes an idiot (and racist) out of herself at Salon where she posited on Monday that those White and Latino voters not supporting Barack may not be racist, they just may have a "lack of familiarity with Obama." Quoting Ava: "How dare you write about people you know nothing about and how dare your Anglo publication try to talk about my community. Kiss my Latina ass, Joan Walsh. Latinos and Latinas know who Obama is -- I imagine so do most White voters regardless of income unless they're returning from a mission to Mars -- the reality is WE DO NOT LIKE HIM. It has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with his empty rhetoric and the fact that he's a light-weight. Hillary's the fighter and has earned that title. But Barack couldn't take that title away from her with both her hands tied behind her back. He is weak. The Latino community does not look to weaklings to lead. Dolores Huerta is no cream puff. Either leave your desk and speak to the people you think you 'know' or write about what you do know. I doubt you know a damn thing about the White working class in Kentucky but I damn well know you don't know a thing about the Latino community. Clue to Joan: Instead of you writing about my community, how 'bout you get off your Anglo ass and hire some Latinos and Latinas to write and, no, that's not a a request for a job. Tu no eres nadaien importante loca vieja. If that confuses you, it just demostrates my point. Let me throw it back to you: You may not be racist, you just may be stupid. How does that feel on your end?"

Lastly, Womens Media Center notes (link has petition and video): "On May 23, The Women's Media Center, along with our partners at Media Matters, launched, "Sexism Sells, But We're Not Buying It," a new video and online petition campaign illustrating the pervasive nature of sexism in the media's coverage. While Hillary Clinton's campaign has cast a spotlight on the issue of sexism, this isn't a partisan issue: it's about making sure that women's voices are present and powerful in our national dialogue. If you haven't already, please click on the image at right to watch the video. You can also read a statement about the video from WMC president Carol Jenkins. Then sign on below to join our petition campaign."

iraq
womens media center
amit r. paleythe washington post
mcclatchy newspapers
corey glasssandra cason
the common ills
the third estate sunday review
like maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudetrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itthomas friedman is a great manruths reportsickofitradlz

The cruelest and most vile word you can call a Democrat contains five, not four, letters: Loser. They certainly work hard to earn that word, over and over. They're working just as hard this primary cycle as they avoid the obvious warning signs attached to Barack Obama.

Friday, CBS News online featured a discussion with Doug Schoen who played it suprisingly straight. The spin came via CBS: "A lot of Obama partisans have argued that his weaknesses are exaggerated right now in the heat of a primary battle. They say that in this environment in which 80 percent of the public thinks we're on the wrong track, Bush has the highest disapproval of any President in modern history, that this is a Democratic year and Obama will do fine."

A new map! A new math! A new day! Somebody fire up Nina Simone on the boom box.

Setting aside Barack's weaknesses for a moment, let's zoom in on how his groupies insist that "this is an enverionment in which 80 percent of the public thinks we're on the wrong track," Bully Boy has high disapproval number and that somehow means "this is a Democratic year and Obama will do fine." Those are the claims. What is reality?

This time four years ago (May 24, 2004), CBS News was reporting on something similar. John Kerry was already the Democratic nominee due to the fact that others had suspended their campaigns and he'd been awarded the magic number of delegates from primaries and caucuses. And the word was Kerry couldn't lose! CBS News was pointing out the most recent polling: 65% of Americans said the United States was on the "wrong track." 65% was considered a death blow to the Bully Boy and a sure sign that the White House would change parties following the November 2004 election. For those who missed it, Kerry has never been introduced with this prefaced: "Ladies and gentelmen, the president of the United States . . ."

80% is being sold as "significant" today the same way 65% was sold as "significant" four years ago. It's a fifteen percent increase. Bully Boy's disapproval rating at this point in 2004 stood at 41%. Polling this month places dispproval at a range of 28% to 33%. Accepting the highest number of 33%, that's an 8% increase in the number of people who disapprove of the Bully Boy. When you consider his gross misconduct in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the departure of Scooter Libby from his administration over the outing of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, the scandalous firing of attorneys across the country, the continued illegal war in Iraq and so much more, an eight percent increase in four years is not "significant," it's appalling and should make all on the left grasp that a segment of the country will never see things the way they are.

In four years, that's all that's really happened. A 15% increase in the number of Americans saying the country is on the "wrong track" and an 8% increase in Bully Boy's unfavorable ratings. Here's another fact: Bully Boy is not running for re-election. The Constitution limits presidents to two terms. The most likely candidate for the GOP's presidential nomaintion will be John McCain. Despite MoveOn and others efforts to prtend otherwise, Bully Boy is not John McCain.

Aged Socialite's Cat Littler Box sent up a stink this month as the always useless socialite declared that John McCain did not vote for Bully Boy in 2000. McCain denied that and the socialite couldn't let it go -- you'd have thought she was again being accused of assembling George Clooney quotes from various interviews and insisting he'd blogged at her site. While she just knew she had him in the crosshairs, all she did was remind everyone of the very real differences between McCain and the Bully Boy in 2000. That included smearing the adopted child of John and Cindy McCain. Way to go, socialite, you thought you were questioning his honesty and all you did was demonstrate how far from Bully Boy he was.

John McCain's last name is not "Bush" and he is his own person. Sober detractors of McCain (that would include us) are fully aware of that fact. Of all the insane "hopes" coming from the Obama campaign, the most lunatic one may be their belief that they can convince the American people that McCain is Bully Boy. There is no proof that they can do that and it seems highly unlikely. File it under "pipe dream."

That is not a planning for winning it's a tactic that might or might not work as part of a larger strategy. Its problems include that the only real basis for drawing the comparison is that both men are Republicans and that tactic could very likely backfire in terms of turning off swing voters or, for that matter, people who voted for Bully Boy in 2000 or 2004 which includes a huge number of people.

John Kerry ran a weak presidential campaign and lessons should have been learned from that but were not. If Barack thinks "catty" is the way to shore up male votes, he's doing a fine job. But "catty" is all his carping at John McCain has been thus far -- despite his groupies insisting he's delivering "knock out blows." That's as ludicrous as the claim that he's got a rapid response team when this month saw him wait an entire news cycle to respond to a charge from John McCain.

The "change" campaign seems to think, if Barack steals the nomination, the general election match up will be some sort of Neely O'Hare vs. Helen Lawson in the ladies' room exchange. Already the Barack campaign can't shut up about McCain's age. A clue to the Barack campaign, an underage teenager attempting to purchase liquor really doesn't need to point and scream at some "old' man, it only draws attention to extreme youth -- some might say "immaturity."

As Barack's insisted upon playing Alexis Carrington, John McCain's already landed one body blow the "hope" and "unity" and "change" campaign:

First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today. He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama campaigning. We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is. It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgement and preparedness to be President of the United States. Through their actions and words, Senator Obama and his supporters have made clear that ANY criticism on ANY issue -- from his desire to raise taxes on millions of small investors to his radical plans to sit down face-to-face with Iranian President Ahmadinejad -- constitute negative, personal attacks. Senator Obama is hopeful that the media will continue to form a protective barrier around him, declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race. Senator Obama has good reason to think this plan will succeed, as serious journalists have written off the need for 'de-tox' to cure 'swooning' over Senator Obama, and others have admitted to losing their objectivity while with him on the campaign trail.



In PDF form, that memo can be found here. To put into the juvenile language that The Cult of Barack can understand: McCain just pantsed your candidate.

The McCain campaign has Barack's act down pat. And it's one the entire country has seen over and over. Barack can write about his use of drugs in two books, he can crack jokes about his drug use to Jay Leno on NBC's The Tonight Show, but when anyone else mentions it -- even when questioned on it repeatedly by Chris Matthews with the Obama campaign's David Axelrod present -- suddenly the whining starts, suddenly it's time for a two-year-old tantrum and, most importantly, it's time for all the ones on the floor, kicking their legs in the air, to falsely cry "racism."

That is the tactic the Obama campaign deployed non-stop in the primary season. Surprising considering that they could make racist remarks ("punjab") and they could and did practice homophobia. But they always whined "racism." The campaign did, they egged on reporters with quotes and memos. Barack pretended to stay out of it. Then, when the controversy died, Barack would issue some statement about how he didn't think the person was a racist and would win applause from the press for that -- as if his campaign hadn't pushed the issue, as if he had truly remained out of it.

Hillary's New Hampshire win freaked the Obama campaign out. At that point, African-Americans were still unsure of him and South Carolina was coming up. What better way to make the bi-racial Barack appear part of the African-American community (without offering a damn thing that would benefit the African-American community) then by painting him as the victim of racists? New Hampshire was a big scare for the Obama campaign. The exit polls demonstrated that those who broke for Hillary at the last minute cited the debate performance. As everyone has now seen repeatedly, Barack can't handle a debate. A fact that should frighten the DNC because he won't be able to pout, stamp his feet and cry "No more debates" as a general election nominee.

The usual pathetics tried to pretend otherwise at the time. Non-Democrat Matthew Rothschild was spinning hard the day after the debate claiming "Obama played it cool throughout and projected calmness" but the day after the primary, of the same debate, the same Rothschild was admitting to "Obama's lackluster debate performance Saturday night".
Yes, it was pretty bad. So the Obama campaign had to discredit Hillary's win and they dispatched Jesse Jackson Jr. to MSNBC (January 9th), after the New Hampshire primary to stumble and fumble and attack. He didn't just accuse her of winning due to her eyes moistening (the moment was overplayed by the national media and barely registered in New Hampshire), he had to attack her as racist and vain insisting she had cried (she didn't):

Not in response to voters resp-, uh, not-not in response to Katrina, not in response to uh-uh other issues that have devastated the American people, the war in Iraq, we saw tears in response to her apprearance. So her appearance brought her to tears --

Here's what he's referring to and you'll note when her eyes moisten:

Hillary Clinton: And I couldn't do if it I just didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know I have so many opportunities from this country [the eyes tear] I just don't want to see us fall backwards. You know? So. This is very personal for me. It's not just political, it's not just public. I see what's happening and we have to reverse it. And some people think elections are a game, it's like, who's up and who's down. It's about our country, it's about our kid's futures, and it's really about all of us together. You know some of us put ourselves and do this against some [sardonoic voice] difficult odds, and we do it, each one of us because we care about our country. But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one and some of us haven't really thought that through enough. And so when we look at the array of problems we have and the potential for really spinning out of control, this is one of the most important elections America has ever faced. So [smiling] as tired as I am, and I am, and as difficult as it is to keep up what I try to do on the road like occassionally exercise, and try to eat right, it's tough when the easiest food is pizza, I just believe so strongly in who we are as a nation. So I'm going to do everything I can to make my case and then the voters get to decide.

But it was necessary for Jesse Jackson Jr. to lie, to attack Hillary for alleged vanity, and to tar her as a racist. Jackson Jr. is the co-chair of Obama's national campaign. To insist Hillary was vain, he had to distort but what a charge coming from Jackson Jr. Ebony reported he had "undergone bariatric surgery in 2004 . . . He began to tell me about the procedure he went through, something called a DS or duodenal switch." Jesse Jackson Jr. went under the knife to have two-thirds of his stomach removed in order to 'lose' weight. And he got away with calling anyone else vain? Fatty couldn't put down the fork and needed a 'slimming' surgery for his own vainity and he wants to finger-point at someone else? In a real media, you would have heard howls of laughter greeting Junior's appearence.

But the campaign was just gearing up. Bill Clinton declared that Barack's stance on the Iraq War was a "fairy tale" and, apparently reading a different version of Brothers Grimm than the rest of us, numerous Barack supporters began insisting "fairy tale" was racist. (Someone wake up Sleeping Beauty with that news.)


The Chicago Tribune has the video and text online and here's what Bill Clinton said with links of support:



"But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. 'It doesn't matter that I started running for president less a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois State Senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I'm the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning. Always, always, always.' " "First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way." "Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004* and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break. "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab? Did you like that?" "Or what about the Obama hand out that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook? Scouring me, scathing criticism, over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon. "So, you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want. It wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly that we didn't do better in Iowa. But you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media, doesn't mean the facts aren't out there. "

Non-Democrat and Panhandle Media beggar Matthew Rothschild insisted it was racism, it wasn't. It was the truth and Bill Clinton is only mistaken on one thing, it was 2003 when Barack vanished his speech in the midst of Barack's US Senate campaign.

Douglas Wilder, who left the Democratic Party a decade ago, is a big Barack supporter and can never miss the opportunity to LIE like the old fool he is. (For the record, non-Democrats should have no say in the Democratic Party's primaries.) Sounding like the idiot that he is, Wilder sobbed, "Barack Obama is not a fairy tale. He is real." It was a very "If you believe, clap your hands; don't let Tink die" moment. In January and February, that strategy appeared to work. Had the general election been held then, Barack might be able to win the White House.

The general election takes place in November. People have seen the race card played falsely and are sick of it. Barack infamously declared in San Francisco that his problem with Small Town Americans was that they clung to God, guns, anti-immigration and anti-free trade beliefs. The press allowed him to later spin that as he wasn't insulting them. He believes in God too! By refusing to hold him accountable for the last two comparisons, they spun it as no big deal. Voters, of course, felt otherwise. Which is why Hillary won Indiana, which is why she blew Barack out of the water in West Virginia and which is why she won Kentucky by over 35% of the votes.

Barack's not the nominee and he's no longer the strongest candidate. The wind went out of his sails some time ago. Big Tent Democrat (TalkLeft), who believes Barack will be the nominee, notes of three recent polls, "Forget for a moment that Clinton is beating McCain in these same polls, excuse me, is no one but me worried about needing a unified Democratic Party in November?" Forget for a moment? The coronation hasn't taken place, despite media claims. There is no reason for the Democratic Party -- other than it's desire to yet again be labeled "Loser!" -- to go with the weaker nominee. Hillary leads in the popular vote.

This lead comes as the empty slogans and other revelations take the hot air out of Barack's balloon. Hillary's leading in the popular vote and doing so after non-stop sexist attacks in the media and from the Obama campaign. She's doing so -- and here's the real untold story -- despite a two-year campaign by Panhandle Media to rip her apart and push Barack. The link goes to a KPFA 'analysis' of the Texas debate. Host Larry Benksy invited on various guests and listeners were under the impression that they were getting a fair analysis. If they really believed that the reason is the guest list was limited to Barack supporters -- people who had publicly endorsed Barack -- yet the guests weren't identified as Barack supporters. Multiple 'experts' and they all agreed Barack won the debate (polling felt otherwise). Two hours of propaganada on US public airwaves, on the US tax dollar. (KPFA is 'public' radio.) Panhandle Media loves to lecture Real Media about ethics but they don't even have the ethics to tell listeners that every guest has endorsed Barack? To point out that, of course, every 'expert' is going to insult Hillary and praise Barack, the 'experts' on air have already endorsed Barack?

Pathetic Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! (also on the public dole) pulled the same crap. As Ava and C.I. noted in January, 'reporters' and 'experts' were brought on and they were never required to disclose who they were supporting and attacks on Hillary didn't require Goodman stating, "We attempted to contact the Hillary campaign." For those not familiar, Goody's the 'journalist' who wanted to lecture Judith Miller about ethics. Wasn't it a conflict of interest for Goody to bring Melissa Harris-Lacewell on as an unbiased observer for the January 7th broadcast. Since Harris-Lacewell was already supporting Barack, had traveled around the country (including California in 2007) to campaign for him, shouldn't Goodman (who knew from Rev. Jesse Jackson's radio show that Harris-Lacewell was part of the Obama campaign) have informed her audience of that? Shouldn't Harris-Lacewell have disclosed that herself? Neither woman thought it was important. It would hurt their propaganda efforts. It would, for example, undercut 'impartial' Harris-Lacewell gushing of a Barack speech she 'just happened' to catch, "I was in Nashua at Barack Obama's really packed speech. And we got there about two hours early and stood in line. I had my five-year-old daughter with me, and she stood in line that whole time. Along with me was lots of other older people who were using canes, young people, infants. And it was an incredibly moving and powerful experience. And also, again, just sort of--it was a cross between, you know, the 'I Have a Dream' speech and a high school football pep rally. It was a bizarre, but really kind of exciting mixture." As she tossed out smaller morsels to John Edwards and Ron Paul, she had nothing kind to say about Hillary. Just by accident, just by happen-stance, you understand. (Non-journalist Harris-Lacewell would appear as part of a journalism roundtable on The Charlie Rose in February and it wouldn't be disclosed to viewers that she was part of the Barack campaign. All others were journalists, it sure was nice of Charlie -- also on the public dole -- to make room at the table for someone working for Barack's campaign while denying a place for anyone from Hillary's campaign.) Goodman, in fact, booked Barack supporters non-stop beginning in 2006. They were brought on for that reason, which is why the long conversations always got to that point. Hillary was ripped apart non-stop and Goodman never included any examples of sexism in her headlines. To discuss the Nevada caucus she brought on 'objective' journalist -- one she never told her audience was supporting Barack and had written such 'reporting' as "Hillary's hearing voices." The deck was stacked. The playing field was slanted.

Goodman's not a Democrat. She frequently bills herself as a "movement baby" and she means Communist Party movement. It sure is interesting how many non-Democrats in Panhandle Media have felt the need to get involved. Take self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders who is not a Democrat (she didn't vote for Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004). When Barack used homophobia in South Carolina, Flanders (who, apparently, today is only out to the gay press but when she was on air in San Francisco for years with the local NPR's Your Call, she didn't hide in a sexual closet) urged Barack to . . . break with Richard Daley. The same Daley Michelle Obama worked for, the same one Michelle's family has long ties to and, as a matter of fact, so does Barack. Intelligence isn't an asset of Flanders' nor is self-respect. She, to this day, has refused to call him out for using homophobia to scare up votes in South Carolina. She's far from the only one. The co-author of one of the few reports on that was interviewed by Amy Goodman -- when the article was in the current issue of The Progressive -- and Goodman never found time to ask him about it. But then Goodman never made time to include the fact that groups were protesting the announcement of Barack inviting four homophobes for a campaign event or that, when the event took place, it was picketed.

Panhandle Media has worked themselves into a frenzy to pimp (we'll use the term) Barack while slamming and smearing Hillary. Amy Goodman pumped John Nichols about a 'story' before a broadcast, she then let him repeat his smear on air and there was never truth to it (which is why Nichols never wrote a word about it) but when Barack was under fire from the Real Press for his campaign telling the govenrment of Canada not to worry about Barack's public remarks about NAFTA, Panhandle Media had to find some way to smear Hillary so that their candidate of choice didn't look bad.

One doesn't need to read the print edition of The Nation, just flip through the covers of the last two years and it will register how hard the magazine has worked to tear apart Hillary while lavishing Barack with (undeserved) praise. As Ruth noted in real time, The Nation's Patricia J. Williams went on KPFA February 23, 2007 determined to lie for Barack: "Ms. Williams had hopped on board the Obama train and was bound and determined to ride it all the way home. The ride meant that she cut off a caller with a 'correction' that was not a correction. The caller felt that Senator Barack Obama had not taken a strong enough stand against the current war with Iraq or the propsective war with Iran. As the caller spoke, very emotionally, Professor Williams thought she was in her classrom and in control, so she snapped, 'He did not vote for the war!' Well, no, he did not vote for the authorization because he was not in Congress in 2002. He has yet to complete his first term in Congress. But he has voted for the continued funding of it. The woman, the caller, was making some very important points and, whether it was because she could be heard as 'foreigner' or because she was not a professor, Professor Williams had no problem stepping all over her. Something, by the way, that I strongly encourage Ms.[Andrea] Lewis to do the next time, in a single answer, Ms. Williams hits her third long pause and twelth 'uh' in a row." Consider that caller the first thrown under the bus by the Obama campaign.

Panhandle Media is where Barack got the push for his presidential campaign, it's where interference has been run for him, and it is where any lie or smear can be told about Hillary (and will be told). Forget the mainstream media for a moment because this is where the hatred of Hillary bubbled up and it is the least remarked upon point of the current contest. Panhandle Media is not staffed with "Democrats." (Even Obama's 'official campaign blogger' -- hailing from Panhandle Media -- is not a Democrat.) It's apparently not staffed with liberals either judging by the attacks on liberals Peter Hart and Bill Fletcher Jr. engaged in two Fridays ago on CounterSpin. (Bill Fletcher's in the political closet these days and lamented recently to Amy Goodman about all the "red baiting" going on. When you have repeatedly and publicly praised the Communist Party, it's not "red baiting" to note what you are. If you'd known Barack would run for president ahead of time, maybe you wouldn't be on record as late as two years ago marveling over the Communist Party? That's your problem, not our problem.)

Panhandle Media likes to hide behind the label "progressive." All should be required to go on record as exactly what party they belong to. They have no business in a Democratic Party primary making endorsements and hiding behind the illusion that they are Democrats if they're not and, tip, the bulk are not. Hart and Fletcher attacking liberals should have been your first clue. Liberals and Democrats are not 'good enough' for 'radicals' (an imprecise term but one they use interchangeably with 'progressives'). Panhandle Media has poisoned the well against Hillary -- they've poisoned the wells of democracy and journalism also -- and a large number of their audience think they're hearing Democrats critiquing Hillary. They are hearing (or reading) no such thing. There is nothing with a "radical" (Communist or Socialist) critique of the Democratic Party. But that's not what they've offered. What they've offered is holding Democratic Hillary Clinton up to a radical critique and offering passes for Barack Obama. They are the ones who got the ball rolling, they are the ones who matched the Barack campaign up with Facebook (via Katrina vanden Heuvel's steering of the Roosevelt Institution). It's been done in the dark and in the shadows and it's the most under-reported dynamic of this campaign season. To be clear, some working in Panhandle Media are Democrats. There's Eric Alterman, for example. After him, however, you'd be hard pressed to name another. And if they were open about, if they were honest about it, it would be no problem. Consumers of Panhandle Media would stumble across one of their non-stop attacks on Hillary Clinton and think, for example, "Well that's the Communist Party line on Clinton." Instead, they are tricked into assuming that these critics are part of the Democratic Party when they are not.

Bill Flectcher can moan all he wants that he's being "red-baited." There's no reason why he can't be honest with people about who he is politically (he never had a problem doing so until recently). When you start endorsing in a Democratic Party, people have a right to know if you are or are not a Democrat. If a closeted Republican was supporting Hillary, you better believe Panhandle Media would be exposing the person. There's no special pass for Communists and Socialists that allow them to hide in the closet if they insist upon endorsing during a Democratic Party's primary. The primary is for Democrats. You can endorse in a general election but, if you're not a Democrat, you either butt out of the primary or you get used to the fact that people have a right to know whether you're a Democrat or not. And if you're not, "progressive" isn't the lable you can hide behind.

Trickery and deceit has been behind the attacks on Hillary and we can't close that discussion down without a special note on Betsy Reed. For those who missed it, Betsy Reed felt the need to slam Hillary at the start of the month and tell America that, in Betsy's 'radical' eyes, Hillary wasn't a feminist! Pretty big charge coming from closeted Betsy who is the executive-editor of The Nation magaine. For those not in the know, that means Besty is responsible for the magazine publishing 491 men, 149 women in 2007. Besty Reed might better spend her time in her political clost asking herself why any woman would give a damn what she has to say when she has actively used her position of executive editor to prevent women from being published? Women made up less than one-third of the bylines in 2007 and Betsy thinks she can question any other woman's feminist credentials? What world is she living in?

In the real world, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will conclude the primary season with enough delegates awarded to them to take the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. By rules and guidelines, it's on to the convention. [As John Mashek (US News & World Reports pointed out following John Edwards endorsement, "Truth be told, it really doesn't matter at this late hour. Edwards holds a meager handful of pledged delegates, and even they can act as free agents at the convention in Denver." That's actually true of all delegates on the convention floor.] The markers are not good for Barack. The bloom is off his rose. Hillary leads in the popular vote. (For a ridiculous example of how Panhandle Media and 'non-partisans' work hard to disguise that fact, see this article by Ava and C.I. and note that the e-mail exchange from FairVote acknowledges Hillary's in the lead even if FairVote refuses to do so on air.) There's a great deal of hype, lying and trickery going on. If Barack were the nominee Real Media and Panhandle Media declared long ago, he wouldn't be losing any primaries today. But that's what's happening and it's because he is not the nominee or even the choice of Democrats. Hillary leads in the popular vote. She's carried the big states. She's carried the swing states. She is the strongest candidate. By all markers, it is her nomination unless the Democratic Party intends to allow itself to be taken over by non-Democrats in some insane desire to lose in 2008.



-- The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
All of the above except Jess are Democrats. Jess is a Green. See, Panhandle Media, it's not that hard to disclose your political party.


the common ills
the third estate sunday review
like maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudetrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itthomas friedman is a great manruths reportsickofitradlz

"Hillary's the only choice"

And from Womens Media Center:

Sexism Might Sell, But I'm Not Buying It!

On May 23, The Women's Media Center, along with our partners at Media Matters, launched, "Sexism Sells, But We're Not Buying It," a new video and online petition campaign illustrating the pervasive nature of sexism in the media's coverage. While Hillary Clinton's campaign has cast a spotlight on the issue of sexism, this isn't a partisan issue: it's about making sure that women's voices are present and powerful in our national dialogue. If you haven't already, please click on the image at right to watch the video. You can also read a statement about the video from WMC president Carol Jenkins. Then sign on below to join our petition campaign. Let's send a message to the media: Sexism Might Sell, But We're Not Buying It!

starting with howard wolfson's 'HUBdate: The Popular Vote Leader' (HillaryClinton.com):

The Popular Vote Leader: The Philadelphia Inquirer reports about Tuesday night’s contests: "Hillary Clinton netted approximately 150,000 votes and is now poised to finish the primary season as the popular-vote leader. In some quaint circles, presumably, these things still matter...If you believe that the most important precept in democratic politics is to 'count every vote,' then...Clinton leads Obama by 71,301 votes." Read more.
Hillary Strongest in Swing States: A Quinnipiac University poll out yesterday shows Hillary's continued strength in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania…She leads Sen. McCain by 7 in both Florida and Ohio and by 13 in Pennsylvania. Read more.
Overriding Bush’s Farm Bill Veto: In a statement yesterday, Hillary said: "I was proud to stand with my Senate colleagues in overriding President Bush's veto of the Farm Bill by a vote of 82 to 13. This bill is now law, and will move us further down the path to energy independence, provide a safety net for family farmers, enhance nutrition programs, require Country-of-Origin labeling, and improve access to broadband in rural communities...Senator McCain has made it clear that he agrees with President Bush on farm policy. Americans will have a real choice this fall -- between a candidate who supports rural America and family farms and John McCain, who offers a continuation of President Bush's failed policies." Read more.
Why I'm Supporting Hillary: One New York farmer says, "My passion is ensuring that we have family farms for future generations and that American agriculture is strong. I know Hillary understands and supports that!...Like South Dakota, New York is home to family farms (about 34,000), and I KNOW she will make the best president for producers and rural South Dakotans alike." Read more.
In Case You Missed It: A member of the Kansas City Star editorial board writes this to Hillary in a memo: "I have only two words to share with you about your valiant quest to become the 44th president of the United States and the first woman to hold the highest office in the land: Don’t quit." Read more.
Previewing Today: Hillary attends a "Solutions for Securing South Dakota’s Future" conversation in Brandon, SD and a "Solutions for Securing South Dakota’s Future" town hall in Brookings, SD.
On Tap: Tomorrow, Hillary travels to Puerto Rico for island campaign events.

that's the only real candidate. now here's what i let it rip. ap reports: 'Former presidential candidate John Edwards next month will make his first trip back to Iowa since the state's caucuses.' guess what, no 1 cares. no 1 gives a damn.

john edwards was telling msnbc he wouldn't endorse, he was telling cbs' face the nation he wouldn't and then, boom, he does. not weeks later. all in the run up to his announcement. he's a liar.

no wonder people saw him as a trial lawyer.

he lost a son and was lucky his wife chose to get pregnant again. that should have taught him something about the value of life. meaning? his wife is ill. her time is probably not zooming into the future. he should be spending his time with her.

he made a joke of himself as a candidate and then he made himself a bigger joke when he endorsed barack.

his race is over. his time should belong to his wife.

no 1 cares, john edwards.

you're another democratic failure. a weak wimp who lacked the ability to run a successful campaign because you lacked the strength your wife has.

quit taking that for granted. your presidential run is over, your 'constituency' is gone. your wife is seriously ill, focus on her. quit seeking the limelight and focus on her.

no 1's going to show any sympathy should she pass away in the near future and you show up with another boo-hoo moment in public. there were people who said he should drop out of the race when the news of elizabeth edwards was made public. (such as matthew rothschild.) i didn't support that because elizabeth edwards clearly didn't support it.

but she did her part. she campaigned, she gave everything to his campaign (while he hedged his options in debate after debate). now's the time to honor that. and she may say, 'oh, it's not an issue.' she seems like the type of person who always puts others ahead of herself. that's a great trait and i have tremendous admiration for her.

but he's her husband. she gave up for him for this run, it's time for him to pay that back.

it's time for him to spend some time honoring her and letting her know how special she is.

nobody gives a damn about what john edwards - running for no office - has to say about poverty.

his wife has cancer and there's no cure.

he needs to get his priorities in order and that's not seeking more media coverage.

it's as though, in love story, ryan o'neal had told ali mcgraw, 'hey, you look a little better today, i think i'll go across country in my pathetic bid for more news coverage.'

in addition to his wife, her illness effects their children and he needs to be making sure that all of them (adult and non-adult) are prepared for what will arrive (hopefully in five to ten years - i don't think the odds are - short of a cure being discovered - for much longer than that).

on a non-political note, i am the keeper of cds. with kat, ava and c.i. not going home on the weekends - they go to puerto rico - i have been made the keepr of the cds they take on the road. (i'm in south dakota, along with jim, dona, wally, and marcia.) so 2 cds i love that i usually don't listen to are jack johnson's sleep through the static and cat power's the greatest. those are really great cds and, when mike was here during the week, they are cds that we'd all relax to in the evening when we finished speaking. (usually kat and i cut out early and they would continue speaking.) i don't know if, due to my baby, there was a thought of, 'oh, we need some soft music' or not. if there was, this baby rocks out. at the house, flyboy is always playing the who, janis and etta james so our baby is not offended by or awakened by music that's not 'gentle.'

but those 2 cds really do compliment 1 another and have the same bright quality to the sound of the music. if you haven't checked them out, i strongly urge you to. and if you need more urging, kat reviewed cat power's the greatest here and she reviewed jack johnson's sleep through the static here. also elaine is a huge, huge fan of jack johnson so there's another reason for you to check him out.

back to politics. this is from erica werner's 'Feinstein backs ticket with both Obama, Clinton' (san francisco chronicle):

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a staunch supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said Friday that if Sen. Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee he should pick Clinton as his running mate.
"I think as this race has emerged each one of them has garnered a different constituency and different states, and therefore when you put the two of them together it forms, I believe, the strongest ticket," Feinstein, D-Calif., told The Associated Press in a phone interview.
"Women feel very strongly about Hillary and African-Americans feel very strongly about Barack, and the election results show that, and the young versus old, the higher educated versus the working person ... All these things are sort of separated out into one or the other so there is a logic in combining the two constituencies."
Feinstein said she hasn't discussed the idea with Clinton and isn't pushing it with party leaders. The Obama and Clinton campaigns have dismissed reports that there were talks going on between the two campaigns about putting Clinton on the ticket.

dianne feinstein's right. (words i never expected to write - although, as c.i. pointed out, she was very effective in the april petraeus spin to congress - effective calling the nonsense out.) regardless of who the nominee is, the easiest way to bridge the very real division in the democratic party is for the nominee to pick the other candidate as the running mate.

i don't know that either would.

but that is reality.

i think hillary has to be the candidate and without her on the ticket they lose. i think she can run at the top of the ticket with wesley clark or whomever and win. i do not think that about barack. he's pulled too many stunts (including letting his campaign - and him as well - play the race card and his constant attacks on opponents with his later claims of 'i never attacked' when they respond in kind - we saw that with democrats throughout the race and he's now doing it with john mccain). hillary's the winner of the popular vote and can win the general election.

on her own or with barack as her running mate.

the nominee needs to pick their own running mate. but if they were practical, they would grasp that.

in terms of barack, he needs hillary on the ticket. there's talk of joe biden (bill richardson sold out and now he's not even a contender in the press). joe's a strong senator but a barack-joe ticket won't stop the bleeding of support. sorry.

hillary could. whether she would want to or not, i don't know.

i also don't know how much blood loss she could stop if she did want to be v.p. but some supporters of her would gladly vote for the ticket. some would refuse it.

if there's any justice, she'll get the nomination she's earned.

we can make sure of that by continuing to fight.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Friday, May 23, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces a death, Bully Boy rises to his level (latrines) and more.

Starting with war resistance. On Wednesday, US war resister and Iraq War veteran Corey Glass was informed by the Canadian government that he had until June 12th to leave the country or he would be deported. While a large chunck of the left and 'left' play dumb, stupid silent (including Amy Goodman who still hasn't informed her audiences of the decision), "digitaljournal.com" ("The Power of Citizen Journalism") notes Glass by repeating the lies the left and "left" have allowed to take hold: "Military service today is voluntary, not compulsory. There is no draft. Men and women in uniform today are they because they have enlisted or been commissioned of their own accord, not because they have been called into service by the draft board."

Canada didn't base the decision on there being a draft. The US involvement in Vietnam was illegal, it was a slaughter. Their decision wasn't about the draft. This is so remedial but apparently still needed. There were "draft dodgers" and "deserters." The former was a male who had been called out but did not report for induction. The latter was someone who was part of the military and decided to leave. They were both welcomed in Canada. Had "draft dodgers" been the only ones welcomed (legally) then digitaljournal.com would have a point. But that's not reality. "Deserters," members of the military who checked out, were welcomed into Canada. There was no question about, "Wait, you were drafted, right? You didn't enlist on your own, did you?" There was no, "Oh, wait! You chose to enlist. Sorry, no safe haven for you." The safe haven was not dependent on the draft during Vietnam. That is a lie.

We apparently need to again review. From the April 1st snapshot, (no quotes, we're just going to run it together) . . . During Vietnam, American males could go to Canada and seek asylum. There were two categories "draft dodgers" -- which everyone seems to remember -- and "deserters." A "draft doger" (also known as a "draft resister") was someone who had been called up. A "deserter" was someone already in the service. Canada's asylum then was not conditional upon someone being drafted. Those who were in the military and elected to resist were waived on through the border and welcomed the same way. There was no additional burden placed on them. They were not required, for instance, to prove that, yes, they were in the service, but they had been drafted into it. A male who chose to enlist and then began resisting after he was serving could go to Canada and be granted asylum. Pot apparently smoked the brains of not only our left 'leaders' of that period -- a pot haze is the only thing to explain the repeating of the lies of the draft -- but the Canadian education system failed to educate their citizenry on recent history because an editorial board that wants to argue -- as one did last week and all the right-wing Canadian cites have re-posted it -- that Canada should say "no" to today's war resisters because there was a draft during Vietnam and Canada only took in "draft dodgers" is merely flaunting how ignorant everyone serving on the editorial board is.

Had Canada put in a place a qualifier that said, "We will take war resisters but only those who have seen duty in Vietnam," Canada still would have been swarmed with some of the same war resisters. "Draft dodger" (or "draft resister") or "deserter," both cateogries were welcomed in Canada during Vietnam. That is reality and I'm sorry that the Canadian education system is so poor today. In terms of the US, honestly the same male 'leaders' of the left tripping out on tales of the draft today hurt the movement in many ways back then as well. They'll probably continue to do so when they are in their graves.

Then US president Gerald Ford pardoned Tricky Dick of crimes against the US citizenry, crimes against the US government, crimes against humanity and a great deal more. With the war resisters, he set conditions. Apparently he didn't think Tricky Dick's fat ass could make it through an obstacle course so he just waived Nixon on through. Ford granted war resisters an amnesty . . . . provided they went through a long process and met this criteria and that critieria and then, in the end, were judged to be worthy of the pardon. Having just pardoned the War Criminal Nixon, it was outrageous. Hearing an idiot, post-Ford's death, go on Democracy Now! and brag about Ford's program only explained to you just how much "establishment" is also in the left. In Canada (and I was visiting Canada when that program was announced) there was huge outrage and outcry -- from Canadians as well as US war resisters. Those who resisted the slaughter in Inochina were being asked to leep through hoop after hoop with no guarantee that if they made it through all the hoops they might be pardoned. Much speculation at the time was that it was a trap/trick to get US war resisters back in the United States where they would be tossed in prison. But Ford's program offered the obstacle course to both.

Jimmy Carter followed the Ford presidency. Carter didn't offer anything to deserters. Carter did offer draft resisters a limited asylum.In recent years, a number of war resisters from that era have been arrested while visiting the US. So there's really no excuse for people who lived through that time period to not know the difference. The only excuse is to provide cover for a peace movement that continues to struggle and to provide an excuse for your own inaction. (And to brag about days forty years ago which, let's face it, is all some left 'leaders' have to offer today having willingly been co-opted long ago.) Not grasping the difference, not speaking of that difference between reality then and 'reality' remembered now is hurting US war resisters and someone please throw a pie in the face of the next Baby Boom left male 'leader' who wants to gas bag about the hardships he endured due to the 'draft' that never found him called out because he knew how to game the system. It's the equivalent of fishing tales only damaging and it needs to stop. If you can't pie them, stop the males with, "When did you serve in Vietnam?" And when they stutter that they didn't, ask them how they got it. When they start to offer the tale of that 'invasive' physical, stop them and repeat, "I asked how you were able to avoid serving since you didn't go to Canada and you didn't go to Vietnam?" If one claims "I went underground" ask him, "From the time you turned 18 until Vietnam was over?" Because, no, the bulk of the 'leaders' jaw boning today did not go 'underground' and when a few did, it had nothing to do with the illegal war but everything to do with being kicked to the curb by the peace movement. But that's the story they never want to tell.

That's the April 1st snapshot. We have gone over and over this: May 20, 2007, September 9, 2007, March 26, 2008, we could go on and on. David Postman (Seattle Times) outlined what Gerald Ford offered to war resisters: "a limited clemency for Vietnam draft resisters and military deserters." Here's Gerald Ford speaking in September of 1974 (and link has text and audio):

In my first week as President, I asked the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense to report to me, after consultation with other Governmental officials and private citizens concerned, on the status of those young Americans who have been convicted, charged, investigated, or are still being sought as draft evaders or military deserters.
On August 19, at the national convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars in the city of Chicago, I announced my intention to give these young people a chance to earn their return to the mainstream of American society so that they can, if they choose, contribute, even though belatedly, to the building and the betterment of our country and the world.

Get it? A lot of people don't. And some of them are 'helpful' 'friends'. This history hasn't just been lost, it's been distorted in outlets such as Democracy Now! where a 'friend' spoke of Carter and Ford's programs -- allegedly -- but was speaking of Ford's unknowingly. Jimmy Carter? Here's how PBS's The NewsHour (then The MacNeil/Lehrer Report) reported Carter's program on January 21, 1977 (link has text, audio and video):

Just a day after Jimmy Carter's inaguration, he followed through on a contentious campaign promise, granting a presidential pardon to those who had avoided the draft during the Vietnam war by either not registering or traveling abroad. The pardon meant the government was giving up forever the right to prosecute what the administration said were hundreds of thousands of draft-dodgers. . . . Meanwhile, many in amnest groups say that Carter's pardon did too little. They pointed out that the president did not include deserters -- those who served in the war and left before their tour was completed -- or soliders who received a less-than-honorable discharge. Civilian protesters, selective service employees and those who initiated any act of violence also were not covered in the pardon.

Then US House Rep Elizabeth Holtzman was among the four guests (and, in the seventies, with demands being made, there were two women and two men brought on for the report) and stated, "I'm pleased that the pardon was issued, I'm pleased that it was done on the first day and I'm pleased that President Carter kept a commitment that he made very clear to the American people. I would have liked to have seen it broader, I would like to have seen it extended to some of the people who are clearly not covered and whose families will continue to be separated from them . . . but I don't think President Carter has closed the door on this category of people." It's really clear. It hasn't been due to the fact that 'helpers' have continually gotten the facts wrong and we used to let that slide and think, "Oh, they mispoke. They'll correct themselves." But they never did. After March 2006 when a 'helper' got it so wrong, we started calling this crap out. You don't know your history, you need to stop speaking long enough to learn it. Obviously, you baked your mind with drugs.

Hope it was fun. But today's war resisters don't have to suffer because you repeatedly insist that "draft dodgers" went to Canada and they were the category provided safe harbor and it was just because there was a draft in the US. There is no draft today (and that's a good thing), you're nostalgia is not only distorting reality, it's damaging the chances of today's war resisters in Canada. Get your act together or get off the stage. Going on stage Saturday will be three war resisters who will speak as part of a presentation (including a film) from seven to nine p.m. at the First United Church, 435 21st St. W. in Owen Sound Canada for an event sponsored by the Grey Bruce Coalition for Peace and Justice and the Grey Bruce Presbytery Peace and Justice Committee.

War resisters in Canada need support as they wait to see if the motion for safe harbor is going to come to the Parliament floor. You can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Lahey quotes NDP's Oliva Chow, who steered the motion, explaining, "If (Liberal leader) Stephane Dion were to say tomorrow that he supports this motion . . . we will then debate it. So we need people to call Mr. Dion . . . 'whose side you on Mr. Dion'?" The number to call is (613) 996-5789.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to Iraq, the Asia Times explains, "More than a million civilians have been disabled by the war in Iraq, and represent the most marginalised sector of society. They psychological traumas they bear create serious imbalances inside their families, and the central government is not paying attention." Voice of Iraq notes:

According to a study conducted by the International Disabled Persons' Organization (IDPO), in cooperation with the Iraqi ministries of labor and social affair, and health, there are over 1 million disabled persons, whose disability varies from mild to profound, in a country whose population is nearly 27 million.
There are an estimated 43,600 war disabled persons, including 5,600 who suffer from total disability, 100,000 amputees and over 100,000 blind persons, in addition to 205,000 who are threatened to lose their sight.
Abdul Ghaffar Saadi, the director of the mental disability department in the Labor Ministry, said that the mass media only focuses on the number of dead and wounded in the violence, but does not tackle the psychological or social effects on the victims and their families.

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Falluja car bombing (police were attempting to defuse the bomb) that resulted in two police officers being wounded a Salahuddin Province roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 person and left three more wounded.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack on 2 Iraqi troops in Salahuddin Province.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division - Center Soldier was killed in an improvised explosive device attack 12 miles southwest of Baghdad, May 22." Sahar Issa(McClatchy Newspapers) notes: "A roadside bomb targeted a joint foot patrol in Bustan Albu Areim area, west Fallujah. The explosion killed 2 American soldiers, injured 1 in addition to killing 2 Iraqi army servicemen, said Fallujah Police. US military said, ' A Marine patrol was attacked just northwest of Fallujah by an IED at9:25 this morning. The attack occurred while conducting a dismounted patrol. One interpreter was killed, and there were six Marines wounded. All casualties have been evacuated and are under medical care'."

Reviewing one new topic and two topics noted in yesterday's snapshot. Zachary Coile (San Francisco Chronicle) notes the 165 billion dollar war supplemental that the US Senate approved yesterday and that, on the veterans measure of college tuition, "New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said the country should honor its soldiers' service by paying their full tuition at a public university when they return home. 'This is not a half-measure or an empty gesture,' she said. 'This is a full and fair benefit to serve the men and women who serve us'." MTV News notes: "Things got exciting (um, by Congressional standards) in the Senate this morning [Thursday] as a bunch of Republicans switched their votes to YES at the last minute. Sen. Jim Webb's plan to increase the amount of money veterans get to go to school passed 75-22 as part of next year's funding package for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That wide margin of victory is good news, since President Bush has promised to veto the entire thing. We're not sure if you all remember how a bill becomes a law (hello, Saturday morning!), but that's a large enough majority for the Senate to override that veto." The always inept Barack attempted to grandstand and overplayed his hand in his attacks on John McCain (who was on the campaign trail and didn't vote). Jake Tapper (ABC News) reports that McCain issued a statement declaring McCain "will not accpet from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regards for those who did. It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of." Barack shot back that McCain was making a personal attack and seems to expect (as has happened repeatedly this campaign season) that he can trash anyone and if they fire back he can clutch the pearls. Those days are over, Bambi. Barack attacked McCain's commitment to veterans. That was a personal attack. His groupies may play otherwise but it was a personal attack and Barack's done this throughout his destructive campaign. McCain is correct on this. Maria Gavrilovic (CBS News) noted yesterday that "Barack Obama used the Senate floor today to jab at his rival" and that Barack has used the same thing to "jab at John McCain" in Michigan. It is a personal attack. Guess what, it's also politics, normal every day politics. But Barack launched it and wants to pretend he doesn't play politics. That's all he ever does. (That is not a defense of McCain's presumed "no" vote -- he wasn't in the Senate, he didn't vote. My own opinion of all refusing to support the veterans funding is that they're being cheap and it's shameful. There's no need to bring McCain's service into it or try to distort it or insult it. But some Dems are determined to relive 2004 with a flip and see this as payback for John Kerry's record being attacked.) Jennifer Duck (ABC News) notes Bully Boy went to Fort Bragg yesterday and asserted, "The vision for success in Iraq that I just outlined will not come easily. There will be tough fighting ahead. But the progress is undeniable." If it sounds familiar, check out every State of the Union address Bully Boy's given since Jan. 2004. James Gerstenzang (Los Angeles Times) notes, "Bush said that since he increased the troop level from 138,000 to approximately 160,000 last year, Iraq's economy had taken 'tremendous strides,' with inflation dropping, the economy growing, and investments in energy and communications increasing." Peter Maer (CBS) notes the only difference that took place yesterday: "It was a first in my more than 22 years on the White House beat: coverage of a presidential latrine inspection. It happened yesterday at Fort Bragg, N.C., where President Bush checked out military 'facilities' at the home of the famed 82nd Airborne Division." Latrine inspection? At last a job the Bully Boy may be up for. On corruption, Dana Hedgpeth (Washington Post) reports that the IG for the DoD admits that "$15 billion worth of goods and services ranging from trucks, bottled water and mattresses to rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns that were bought from contractors in the Iraq reconstruction effort" cannot be accounted for. James Glanz (New York Times) observes:


The Pentagon report, titled "Internal Controls Over Payments Made in Iraq, Kuwait and Egypt," also notes that auditors were unable to find a comprehensible set of records to explain $134.8 million in payments by the American military to its allies in the Iraq war.The mysterious payments, whose amounts had not been publicly disclosed, included $68.2 million to the United Kingdom, $45.3 million to Poland and $21.3 million to South Korea. Despite repeated requests, Pentagon auditors said they were unable to determine why the payments were made. [. . .] According to the report, the Army made 183,486 "commercial and miscellaneous payments" from April 2001 to June 2006 from field offices in Iraq, Kuwait and Egypt, for a total of $10.7 billion in taxpayer money. The auditors focused on $8.2 billion in so-called commercial payments to contractors -- American, Iraqi and probably other foreign nationals -- although the report does not give details on the roster of companies.

Turning to the race for president. Ralph Nader is running as an independent candidate, Matt Gonzalez is Nader's running mate. Outside the White House at noon today, Ralph Nader called for president of vice Dick Cheney and the Bully Boy of the United States to resign. Yunji de Nies (ABC News) quotes Nader saying the Bully Boy "dishonored the White House and brought a pattern of waste. A wasteful defense is a weak defense and a weak defense inspires waste." Nader is currently fighting for ballot access. Joe Sobczyk and Jonathan Salant (Bloomberg News) report: "Before Ralph Nader can win a single ballot this fall, he must first get his name on the ballot -- and that, an aide says, is a 'total nightmare.''
Nader, 74, making his third presidential bid, must gather more than 1 million signatures nationwide to run in all 50 states. It's an issue that confronts minor-party and independent candidates every four years: how to navigate, often on a shoestring budget, the patchwork of state ballot requirements. The signature drive will probably cost $2 million, of which Nader has raised 'more than a third,'' said Jason Kafoury, who is coordinating the effort. They have about 100 people working full time on the job. The goal is to get on the ballot in at least 45 states and Washington, D.C. That would be an improvement from 2004, when Nader was on 35 ballots." At The New Republic, Jonathan Chait (no link to trash) refers to the "noxious presence of Ralph Nader." Remember, every vote for Nader means 'little devils' like Chait get a pitchfork up the juxy and democracy lives for another day. CSPAN played Nader's call live this afternoon and Team Nader notes they will re-play at 6:40 EST on Friday.

Turning to the Democratic race for president. It is a tie. No one will be awarded enough delegates (from states and primaries) to be declared (or worse, to declare themselves) the winner. By rules and guidelines, the fight goes to the DNC floor. But the media lies. And they lie some more. Hillary's ahead in the popular vote. So they lie and they lie some more.

Let's deal with one of the 'kinder' lies. CBS News online features a conversation with Doug Schoen who is smart but dead wrong on one aspect, not calling out nonsense. CBS News tells him, "A lot of Obama partisans have argued that his weaknesses are exaggerated right now in the heat of a primary battle. They say that in this environment in which 80 percent of the public thinks we're on the wrong track, Bush has the highest disapproval of any President in modern history, that this is a Democratic year and Obama will do fine." Bully Boy is not running for a third term. That's the sort of weak-ass nonsense the Barack campaign offers daily. Give it up, it's not going to work. But let's deal with their "80 percent of the public thinks we're on the wrong track!" so any Dem will win. Today is March 23, 2008. Via CBS News, travel back with us to May 24, 2004. John Kerry was the nominee (due to everyone else dropping out after Kerry won the needed number of delegates from primaries and caucuses). And Bully Boy was in the White House. How many Americans thought the country was on the "wrong track"? 65%. 65% and Kerry couldn't pull out a win. In four years 15% more Americans think it's the wrong track and The Cult of Obama would have you believe (a) that is significant in terms of November and (b) that's astounding! It's neither. A lousy candidate can't close the deal with the public. [Bully Boy had a 41% approval rating then. Polls taken this month put him at a low of 28% with a high of 33% on approval. That's not a huge shift either. But, again, Bully Boy is not John McCain. It's interesting that the Barack campaign keeps screaming they are being "smeared by association" when their entire McCain counter-strategy appears to smear McCain by association.]

Andrew Stephen (New Statesman) documents some of the sexism the media used to attack Hillary with and how they felt good about themselves for lying and distorting:

The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman's presi dential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself "unhappy" with the vilification carried out so methodically by his staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 per cent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.
I suspect that, as a result, she will never be able entirely to shake off the "racist" tag. "African-American super-delegates [who are supporting Clinton] are being targeted, harassed and threatened," says one of them, Representative Emanuel Cleaver. "This is the politics of the 1950s." Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent.
The danger is that, in their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate (aka "Hildebeast" and "Hitlery") from becoming president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever. But that creeping realisation has probably come too late, and many of the Democratic super-delegates now fear there would be widespread outrage and increased racial tension if they thwart the first biracial presidential hopeful in US history.
But will Obama live up to the hype? That, I fear, may not happen: he is a deeply flawed candidate. Rampant sexism may have triumphed only to make way for racism to rear its gruesome head in America yet again. By election day on 4 November, I suspect, the US media and their would-be-macho commentators may have a lot of soul-searching to do.

As today's HUBdate notes: "The Popular Vote Leader: The Philadelphia Inquirer reports about Tuesday night's contests: 'Hillary Clinton netted approximately 150,000 votes and is now poised to finish the primary season as the popular-vote leader. In some quaint circles, presumably, these things still matter...If you believe that the most important precept in democratic politics is to 'count every vote,' then...Clinton leads Obama by 71,301 votes.' Read more." She's the stronger candidate. She's leading in the popular vote. She has a plan. Bob Somerby notes the media confession on the decision to weigh the scales against Hillary. You'll see that in play tonight and over the weekend as a remark she made pointing out that this primary is not really going that long. That will be dubbed 'news'. Barack not knowing how many states there are? His fan club in the press doesn't care.

NOW on PBS (airs tonight in most markets, check local listings) explores assault and rape in the military and asks: "How are these women picking up the pieces of their life after military sexual trauma?" Streaming will be available online by late tonight. Also on PBS (check local listings, airs tonight in most markets, some air it later or repeat it later), Washington Week finds Gwen sitting down with, among others, Dan Balz (Washington Post), NPR's Tom Gjelten and Time's Karen Tumulty. And on PBS tonight (check local listings) Bill Moyers Journal will note Memorial Day (this Monday) and you can watch the commentary already at YouTube.

iraqcorey glass
james glanzthe new york times
the washington postdana hedgpeth
the asia timeswashington weeknow on pbspbsdan balznprtime magazinetom gjeltenkaren tumulty
bill moyers journal
zachary coilethe san francisco chronicle

opening with howard wolfson's "HUBdate: Count Every Vote" (HillaryClinton.com):

Count Every Vote: During a campaign stop at Century Village Retirement Community in Boca Raton, FL, Hillary told a crowd of 700 Floridians: "'We believe that casting your vote is the truest expression of your will. Here in Florida, you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted. If any votes aren't counted, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished." Read more. Read Hillary's remarks here.
Automatic Delegate Watch: Guam Democratic Party Chair and automatic delegate Pilar Lujan today announced her support for Hillary.Hillary Strongest in Swing States: A new Quinnipiac University poll out today shows Hillary’s continued strength in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania…She leads Sen. McCain by 7 in both Florida and Ohio and by 13 in Pennsylvania. Read more.
Tomorrow On The Trail: Hillary will campaign in South Dakota, and will host "Solutions For Securing South Dakota's Future" events in Brandon and Brookings."Major General Paul Eaton Goes to Bat for Hillary" In Missoula, Montana, Major General Paul Eaton, Ret., told residents that Hillary is the best prepared to be commander in chief and bring the war in Iraq to a safe end. "We've got to get a competent leader into the White House," Eaton said. "Hillary Clinton is hands down electable because she is smart and she is tough." Read more.
Dalton’s Donation: "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has her own poster boy: Dalton Hatfield, who, as she reminded us during her victory speeches in both West Virginia and Kentucky, sold his bike and video games to donate more than $400 to her campaign." Read more.

for weeks now, c.i.'s been hearing from the cult of bambi trying to make nice after their sexist attacks on hillary. today 1 of the kooks wrote me. none of us are e-mailing you back. but i'll respond here.

after a bunch of lying about how much he 'loved' my site, he writes:

how can you be a feminist and support hillary?

it's real easy bucko, feminists do not support homophobia.

baby boy went to south carolina to scare up some votes and used homophobia to do so. keep kidding yourself that he's something different. he's not.

even john mccain hasn't used homophobia in the campaign so far.

barack put at least 4 homophobes on stage at his rally. let 1, an ex-gay, give a little sermon on 'salvation.' that event was protested as soon as it was announced.

barack didn't care.

he was happy to use homophobia.

that's not something any REAL feminist can get on board with.

i have many reasons for supporting hillary but that is probably the biggest reason i could not support barack (and would not vote for him if he were the nominee).

i didn't support hillary early on. on super duper tuesday, i voted for cynthia mckinney.

that was a mistake. if she'd announced she was only running for 5% of the vote, i wouldn't have voted for her. i thought she was a real candidate. i thought she was running a real race.

i was wrong.

i also was wrong about hillary who has grown into this amazing voice of the people, voice for the people, fighter who is just ready to take on anything and anyone.

she doesn't back down.

she doesn't give up.

she knows her facts.

she has real proposals that will really make a difference in people's lives.

years ago, c.i. drug me to an a.b.a. thing and hillary gave this amazing speech. i didn't know who she was and c.i. said, 'she's going to be the first lady.'

she really was amazing.

i had forgotten about that speech until, really, new hampshire. in that race, i saw her with determination and with so much power to right wrongs, such a strong desire.

that's hillary. i think we've all suffered (including her) from the press portrayals of her when her husband was president.

she went into the senate and did her hard worker thing (she is a very hard worker) and really didn't have that profile and that profile was reduced by the media during the 90s.

i didn't follow iowa and she may have had her spark there. but i think she had to go from senator clinton to candidate clinton and it was a huge transformation.

think about how many idiots use the term 'billary.' that's a press thing. it was done in the 90s and so many little sexists who say they're democrats use it today. she had to scale back because of the 1992-1994 attacks. and then she was fighting the right like all other democrats. then she got into the senate and wanted to do the best job she could.

so she buried her nose in policy.

when she stepped back out on the campaign trail, she took awhile to warm up but when she did, there was no stopping her.

that's why she's leading in the popular vote.

it's because so many of us support her.

she won me over.

let me be clear on that because i voted for cynthia mckinney in feb.

that's what hillary does, she wins people over.

that is why she is the best candidate for the nomination. she won me over, she wins everyone over. with hillary, the democrats will wipe the floor with mccain come november.

with barack? get used to saying 'president john mccain.'

while he's gotten weaker and weaker, she's roared to life. his campaign has faded, her campaign has come to life. she has the momentum and she is the only 1 who can beat john mccain.



let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

starting with howard wolfson's 'HUBdate: Celebrating in the Bluegrass State' (hillaryclinton.com):


Previewing Today: Hillary hosts "Solutions for America" events in south Florida where she emphasizes the need to count every vote.Leading the Popular Vote: According to ABC News, Hillary's Kentucky victory keeps her ahead in the popular vote. She now leads Sen. Obama 17,387,254 to 17,188,969 when Florida and Michigan are included in the count. Read more.
Celebrating in the Bluegrass State: Last night, Hillary told supporters in Kentucky: "Tonight we've achieved an important victory. It is not just Kentucky bluegrass that is music to my ears. It is the sound of your overwhelming vote of confidence even in the face of some pretty tough odds. Some have said your votes didn't matter, that this campaign was over, that allowing everyone to vote and every vote to count would somehow be a mistake. But that didn't stop you. You’ve never given up on me because you know I’ll never give up on you." Read more and more.
$22 Million: In April, Hillary raised over $22 million from supporters across the country, making it the second best fundraising month ever for the campaign. Campaign Chairman Terry McAulliffe said, "Senator Clinton’s game-changing victories last month turned the tide for the campaign and resulted in an outpouring of grassroots support." Read more.
Superdelegate Watch: Ohio automatic delegate Craig Bashein of Hunting Valley announced his support for Hillary Clinton today….Massachusetts Attorney General and Automatic Delegate Martha Coakley endorsed Hillary yesterday: "Mrs. Clinton's energy, stamina, and resolve have changed the course of history for women seeking office, including the presidency, and I dare say, have changed the course of history of Presidential politics in the United States." Read more and more.
Looking Forward to SD, MT, and PR: Campaign Political Director Guy Cecil said, "We have thousands of volunteers in South Dakota, Montana, and Puerto Rico who are making calls and knocking on doors to get the vote out. The people they are talking to want to participate and be heard." Read more.
"Florida and Michigan Deserve to Be Heard" The campaign has urged supporters to send messages to the DNC urging them to count the votes of Florida and Michigan: "Millions of people in Florida and Michigan went to the polls to make their voices heard in the Democratic Presidential primary. They deserve to have their votes count. Sign Hillary's petition before the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meets to show your support for seating Florida and Michigan delegates." Sign here.
Cuban Independence Day: Yesterday, Hillary joined with Cuban Americans in celebration of Cuban Independence Day. Hillary said, "After nearly 50 years of one-man rule, the new leadership in Cuba faces a choice - continue with the failed policies of the past that have stifled democratic freedoms and stunted economic growth - or take an historic step to bring Cuba into the community of democratic nations." Read more.
On Tap: This Friday, Hillary travels to South Dakota.

i didn't forget the hubdate last night (as some of you e-mailed asking). that whole post went south. the videos must have done it. sorry.

so hillary won kentucky and apparently that stopped being a part of the united states. that must be why prissy barack couldn't campaign there and why the news media doesn't think hillary winning a state by over 35% matters.

it's a funny kind of 'logic' - just like the 'logic' that paints hillary as 'bad' for insisting that all votes count. folks, that's what a democracy is supposed to be about.

we are seeing the left & 'left' play the same damn game the republicans did against al gore. they have no morals.

be sure to read cnn's 'U.S. deserter faces deportation from Canada' about corey glass. c.i. covers glass' story in today's snapshot but the cnn story went up after. they also have a photo of corey and he's very good looking which is another reason to check out the link. he is a u.s. war resister in canada. after serving in iraq, he went there because he could not continue to be part of the illegal war. he has been trying to seek asylum since 2006. so far canada has refused him the same way they've refused almost every war resister. (if i remember right, 1 resister may have gotten asylum but not because of the illegal war.)

canada's supposed to be so wonderful but they still haven't done a damn thing on this issue. they got a lot of credit in december for their motion. it's april. people may be forced to return to the u.s. and what the hell has the parliament done? still not even debated the motion let alone proposed a bill.

i think of that idiot american who moved to canada because she didn't like the election results and how every time she pens 3 words, she gets 1 wrong but, most of all, americans are not sympathetic to her because (a) she's so damn preachy and (b) those of us opposed the current occupant of the white house stayed to fight.

war resisters went to canada to avoid the illegal war, to avoid taking part in the slaughter of a people. that is noble and a reason to leave. leaving because you don't like the results of an election? that's really pathetic and that's why that woman does more damage to the war resisters with each idiotic, ahistorical piece she writes. she doesn't cause sympathy in the u.s.

no 1 needs to hear from 'i don't like the election results!' about how awful america is. her departure (with a refusal to move on) is just cowardice. war resisters, however, are taking brave stands. unlike her, if they are granted asylum, that means they can stay in canada but they cannot return to the u.s. without risking arrest. there is no out for them. they have made a very difficult decision that they were forced to make by our government and they deserve our support.

let's close with c.i.'s ' 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, May 21, 2008. Chaos and violence, US prisons in Iraq hold children (and deny them rights they would be guaranteed in prisons located in the US), US war resister Corey Glass is told he can't stay in Canada, Hillary wins Kentucky and more.


Starting with war resistance. Canada's Global TV reports, "Corey Glass, a former U.S. National Guardsman who deserted to Canada in 2006 to avoid serving in Iraq, was told today that his application to stay in Canada has been rejected supporters say. Michelle Robidoux, a spokesperson for the War Resisters Support Campaign, said Glass could be deported by June 12." Canadian Press notes: "Ottawa has decided that an American soldier who fled the army over the Iraq war will not face the risk of abuse or mistreatment if returned to the U.S. The means Corey Glass can now be deported to the United States, where he faces possible jail time for desertion."

On March 30, 2007, Corey Glass stood before Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board explaining he signed up for the National Guard in Indiana to assist with national disasters "on American soil." Iraq War veteran Glass self-checked out, went underground and moved to Canada in the fall of 2006. After self-checking out, Glass was underground for seven months before going to Canada and, during that time, the Army (which supposedly just waits for traffic violations to catch self-check outs) was visiting his parents, calling phone numbers trying to track him down. In October of 2006, Corey Glass, Justin Colby, Ryan Johnson and other war resisters in Canada were considering returning to US as a result of the way Darrell Anderson's discharge was resolved. However, once the military attempted to screw over Kyle Snyder, that changed. Glass told Brett Barrouqere (AP) at the start November 2006, "After what they did to him, I don't see anybody going back." Glass stated, "I knew the war was wrong before I went, but I was going to fulfil my end of the bargain, right or wrong and eventually my conscience just caught up with me. . . I felt horrible for being a part of it. If I could apologise to those people [Iraqis], every single on, I would."

Today at Trinity-St. Paul's Centre in Spadina, Glass spoke explaining, "What I saw in Iraq convinced me that the war is illegal and immoral. I could not in good conscience continue to take part in it. I came here because Canada did not join the Iraq War. Also I knew Canada had welcomed many Americans during the Vietnam War." Reuters notes, "If he is returned to the United States, Glass, of Fairmount, Indiana, could face jail time. He joined the National Guard in 2002" and they quote him stating of his work in military intel in Iraq, "Through this job I had access to lots of information about what was happening on the ground in Iraq. Through what I saw, I realized innocent people were being killed unjustly."

War Resisters Support Campaign puts out the call:

U.S. Iraq war resister Corey Glass was told today that his application to stay in Canada has been rejected and he now faces deportation. Glass would be the first Iraq war resister to be deported from Canada. Last December the House of Commons' Standing Committee on Citizenship & Immigration passed a motion calling on the Canadian government to "immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members […] to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and … the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions … against such individuals".
Please take a moment tocall Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion at 613.996.6740 or 613.996.5789 Tell him you want the Liberal Party... • to support the Parliamentary motion to allow Iraq War resisters to remain in Canada, • to oppose the deportation of people of conscience who have resisted an illegal war, and • to support the will of the Canadian people, not Stephen Harper's decision to deport war resisters, and not the U.S.'s war agenda.

Some war resisters are in Canada and they need support as well as they wait to see if the motion for safe harbor is going to come to the Parliament floor. You can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to Iraq and starting with a show confession. CNN reports on testimony -- self-incriminating -- that we're apparently supposed to rejoice over while ignoring the fact that the man is "blindolded and hancuffed" and "crouches in the corner of the detention center while an Iraqi soldier grills him about rampant crimes being carried out by gangs in the southern city of Basra." For those unaware, these show confessions are the equivalent of American Idol in Iraq and the reason they are taped is to broadcast them. A real 'winner' or 'audience pleaser' is when they can force of confession of crimes and homosexuality. That leads to tremendous rejoicing in a segment of the viewing public. There is no justice in Iraq and there's no need to believe any 'confession' obtained by the military (are we supposed to forget that there is an Iraqi police force?) let alone any confession where the person is "blindfolded and handcuffed". It's a travesty and it's shameful. Did the imprisoned kidnap and rape "15 girls"? You're not supposed to think that far. You're just supposed to be outraged. (Rape, kidnapping and murder go on daily in Iraq. That's not the issue here, the issue here is the show confessions, forced and presented as 'justice' and without question.)

One of the greatest indictments of the 'free' Iraq is what continues to pass for 'justice' in the country.

Need more indictments? In an editorial entitled "Iraq And Afghanistan: Recruiting young," the Seattle Post-Intelligencer notes the "up to 2,500 minors" being imprisoned in by the US military. Martha Neil (ABA Journal) explains, "In a report to a United Nations committee, the United States says it is holding 500 juveniles, apparently in adult detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan." As April round down, Radhika Coomaraswamy (UN Secretary General's Special representative for Children and Armed Conflict) completed a six-day trip to Iraq where she examined the the status of Iraqi children and stated, "Many of them are no longer go to schook, many are recruited for violent activities or detained in custody, they lack access to the most basic services and manifest a wide range of psychological symptoms from the violence in their every lives." UNICEF noted, "Ms. Coomaraswamy has urged all parties in the conflict to release any children in their forces who are under the age of 18" and quoted her stating, "Let peace in Iraq begin with the protection of children."

The US government is making a big deal out of the fact that they do not hold "enemy combatants" in Iraq -- they follow Geneva, they insist; however, whomever wrote the government's report to the United Nations needs to check their wording. Their reply [PDF format, CRC.OPAC.USA.Q1] notes: "Since 2003, the United States has held approximately 2,400 juveniles in Iraq. The juveniles that the United States has detained have been captured engaging in anti-coalition activity, such as planting Improvised Explosive Devices, operating as look-outs for insurgents, or actively engaging in fighting against U.S. and Coalition forces. As of April 2008, the United States held approximately 500 juveniles in Iraq. The response's next sentence (responding to length of time of imprisonment) is, "The U.S. Department of Defense detains enemy combatants who engaged in armed conflict against U.S. and Coalition forces or provided material support to others who are fighting against U.S. and Coalition forces." If the US government is upset that the media didn't remember the claim that the US follows Geneva in Iraq (follows the guidelines for warfare), they might try explaining that to allegedly honoring to the people writing resporses on behalf of the government. The response continues: "In Iraq, a great majority of juvenile detainees are released within six months, and most are currently held for no more than 12 months. A very small percentage of the juveniles detained in Iraq have been held for longer than a year, as they were assessed to be of a high enough threat level to warrant futher detention."

The response futher notes:

In Iraq, detainees are being held by U.S. forces as imperative threats to security with the authorization of the U.N. Security Council and at the request of the sovereign Iraqi government. Review of a detainee's status occurs at several different levels. The first level of review is called the Detention Review Authority and is completed by the detaining unit commander and the unit's Staff Judge Advocate to assess whether the individual is an imperative security threat. Approximately 50 percent of those initially detained in Iraq are determined not to be an imperative security threat, and these individuals are released at the unit location. Those assessed to be a threat are transferred to the TIF.
At the TIF, the detaining command Magistrate Cell, consisting of judge advocates, conducts a thorough review of each individual's case. Based on this review, the Magistrate Cell either recommends the detainee be expeditiously released or retained as an imperative security threat. Additionally, the Cell recommends either that the detainee be referred to the Central Criminal Court of Iraq (CCCI) if there are grounds for criminal prosecution, or that the detainee's case be referred to the Combined Review and Release Board (CRRB) if he is a security internee. The CRBB process is consistent with a review under Article 78 of Geneva Convention IV. The CCCI or CRBB, as appropriate, forms the third review in this system. Through each of the reviews conducted at the TIF, the detainee is ontified in writing and provided the opportunatiy to present information for consideration.
Through each of the reviews conducted at the TIF, the detainee is notified in writing and provided the opportunity to present information for consideration. Additionally, a detainee is authorized access to an attorney and, if referred to the CCCI, will be provided a government defense attorney if he does not have private counsel.

A few things to note just on the above. First US law (and British law -- those would be the two occupying powers in Iraq running prisons) recognizes "in loco parentis" which can be dumbed down "in place of a parent" and we also use "ward of the state." What the US government says in their response (in too many words), is that if you're an Iraqi child imprisoned by the US as a criminal suspect, you will be allowed an attorney and even have one provided for you if you need it; however, if you're imprisoned for security reasons, you're told you can have one and not provided with one by the US. (It would be interesting to see England's policy in writing on Iraqi juveniles.) That's not 'justice' and it's not 'freedom' and the US is over it. Not just in the puppet master way the US is over everything that happens in Iraq, but in the basics. The US is running the prisons in question, that's what they are responding about: US prisons in Iraq. This is a policy the US military has put in place in Iraq and, were they to try it in the US, it would meet with loud objections. A 'security' prisoner (as opposed to a criminal one) does not need an attorney -- according to the US military. Supposedly stating that they can have one is enough when the reality is that statement is meaningless. The bulk of children imprisoned have no contact with their families (including families who assume their disappeared child is dead). So telling a juvenile, "We won't provide you with an attorney but, hey, if you can somehow magically conjure up one, go for it" is crap.

US policies and laws apply to US jails and prisons, regardless of where they are. (As the current administration will most likely learn in 2009.) A juvenile imprisoned by the US is a ward of the state and needs to be provided with legal counsel. That is a basic. This is not to justify those charged as 'criminals' (but obviously never tried in the real sense of a 'trial') but that is to loudly call out the nonsense that someone who is so not a criminal that they can't even be charged with that, a child, is expected to navigate the complex legal labyrinth the US has constructed in their Iraqi prisons. That's ridiculous. That's shameful.

So is the credit the US wants for 'schools' they provide the juveniles with. Read closely and the school was established in August 12, 2007. How many of the nearly 2500 Iraqi children imprisoned in US prisons since 2003 had already been deprived of school by then? If you think about, you'll remember that in June of 2007, US soldiers were hailed as heroes (and that group, for that action, deserved that praise) for discovering and rescuing mentally disabled children in a facility where they were (at best) neglected. By August 17, 2007, the orphanage was back in the news. But if we're going to talk seriously about neglect, let's talk about the reality that prior August 12, 2007, US prisons in Iraq were holding children and not providing schooling. No offense intended to the US soldiers who rescued the Iraqi children in June 2007, they did a wondeful thing. But while they didn't seek to applaud themselves (they did deserve applause, however), the chain of command went crazy trying to applaud the military. (It was only August of that year that the chain of command would finally recognize the soldiers who deserved the credit.) It takes a lot of gall for the chain of command to point to neglect in an Iraqi children's facility while Iraqi children are held in a US prison (!) and denied education. (Most, the response rushes to assure, were only held for six months. That's six months too long and, if there's no way around it, you at least meet the same basics in Iraq that you are required to in the US.) AFP quotes the US Department of Defense's dept. assistant secretary Sandra Hodgkinson's "The US does detain juveniles that are encountered on the battlefield. We go to great lengths when we do detain juveniles to recognise the special needs of the juvenile population and to provide them with a safe environment away from hostilities." It takes a lot of nerve to make that claim with a history of denying Iraqi children imprisoned education and attorneys.

Last week, the ACLU issued a statement which includes:

According to the ACLU, the lack of protections and consideration for the juvenile status of detainees violates the obligations of the U.S. under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict that the U.S. ratified in 2002, as well as universally accepted international norms. The CRC oversees compliance with the Optional Protocol, which mandates countries to protect children under 18 from military recruitment and guarantees basic protections to former child soldiers. The CRC will question a U.S. government delegation on its compliance with Protocol obligations on May 22 in Geneva.
According to the government report, approximately 2,500 youths under the age of 18 have been held, in some cases for months and years without being charged with a crime, in U.S.-run facilities overseas. As of April 2008, there are approximately 500 youths being held in US-run detention facilities in Iraq alone. The government report claims that it is holding Iraqi children in prison in order to educate them to "contribute positively to the future of Iraq."

Over the weekend, Jessica Lipnak (The Industry Standard) reported that Iraq isn't safe anyone:

"Many people have been killed going to meetings in Iraq." It was an offhand remark made by a US military advisor in a casual conversation about virtual work -- its benefits, its pitfalls, its resisters, its committed participants. Until that moment, it had never before crossed my mind that traveling to a face-to-face meeting could be lethal. Turns out Army commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken measures to reduce travel. "One of the first things I did here was set up a collaborative network to offset the fact that we couldn't travel easily or safely," Lieutenant General Jim Dubik explained in an email to me.

Meanwhile Sami Moubayed (Asia Times) grades puppet of the occupation Nour Al-Maliki's two year pretend reign and finds him lacking in every regard. Moubayed notes that al-Maliki just "fired Mutaa Habib Khazraji, the commander of the 2nd Army Division, which is based in Mosul. He was accused of supporting officers implicated in terrorist attacks. Additionally, the prime minister recalled nearly 5,000 retired soldiers from their homes, all being residents of Mosul, to take part in the fighting, along with 400 officers from the war-torn city." This follows Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reporting yesterday that that an armed clash in Sulaimaniyah resulted in the death of "gunmen" and one of those turned out to be "a captain in the army forces". Moubayed notes unemployment in Iraq is at 50%, sewage problems unaddressed, fear of cholera returning, Mosul school exams postponed, refugees, and on and on the list of al-Maliki's failures go. Anna Badkhen (Salon) observes, "Trash pickup in most of Baghdad ended with the rule of Saddam Hussein. Now the garbage chokes the capital's streets and clogs the sewage pipes and canals, which overflow and burst. The sewage that leaks out of broken pipes seeps through the dirt of roads that were once paved, but now have mostly turned to dirt because the tracks of American tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles have destroyed the asphalt over five years of war."

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .


Bombings?


Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that wounded four people, 3 Baghdad car bombings that claimed 3 lives and left thirteen wounded, an Al Anbar Province bomber who blew up herself and claimed the life of 1 "Awakening" Council members while leaving three others wounded and a Baghdad assassination attempt on Judge Qasim Ali Motar via a bomb attached the car -- the judge appears to have survived the explosion however he "lost one of his legs in the explosion". Reuters notes 3 dead from a Baghdad mortar attack.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the Ministry of Transportation's Col Abdul Kareem Muhsin was shot dead in Baghdad and 4 "Kurdish security members known as Asayish" were shot dead in Baquba. Reuters reports 11 Iraqis shot dead by US forces in Iraq for the suspected crime of being "militants".

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses discovered in Baghdad, 10 corpses were discovered in two mass graves in Baquba, the corpses of 2 "young men" were discovered in Baquba -- the two men had been arrested along with thirteen others two hours prior.

Turning to US political races. As Ruth noted last night, "Senator Hillary Clinton has won the Democratic Party primary in Kentucky by a blow-out. This comes as she picks up another super delegate." Kentucky was a major victory. "Once again tonight, you and I stood together and showed America what we're made of," Hillary Clinton declared in last night's Kentucky primary victory speech. "Every time we win another state, we prove something about ourselves and about our country. And did we ever prove something tonight in Kentucky. We showed America that the voters know what the 'experts' will never understand -- that in our great democracy, elections are about more than candidates running, pundits commenting, or ads blaring."

And, yes, despite the false media narrative that the race is over, despite the rants that Hillary should drop out, Hillary won Kentucky last night, adding yet another state to her list of recent victories which most recently includes West Virginia and Indiana. 700,690 Democrats went to the polls and voted. Hillary beat Barack in a 35.5% win with 459,093 voters selecting her -- nearly 250,000 more votes than he received (his total is 209,869). Third place went to "UNCOMMITTED" (17,526 votes) and, coming in dead last, John Edwards (14,202 or 2% of the vote). (Results posted here at Kentucky's Secretary of State website.)In her victory speech, Hillary pointed out, "Some have said your votes didn't matter, that this campaign was over, that allowing everyone to vote and every vote to count would somehow be a mistake. But that didn't stop you. You've never given up on me because you know I'll never give up on you." Voters tend to agree judging by exit polls. CNN notes 49% of those voting in the Democratic primary (which was a closed primary) declared that if Hillary was not the Democratic Party nominee come November, John McCain and not voting become their choices with 33% choosing McCain and 16% choosing to abstain from voting in the presidential race -- an increase of 5% from West Virginia where 44% stated they would vote for McCain or not vote if Barack was the nominee in November.

In today's New York Times, Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny don't lead with that information and pretty much disregard the rising anti-Barack sentiment (he peaked in Februrary) and stress his campaign's claim (as opposed to reporting) that, come November, he will be able to pull her "supporters into his camp; winning over elements of the Democratic coalition like working-class whites, Hispanics and Jews". Not very likely. Not only is Hillary ahead in the popular vote, Barack can't connect with working-class voters as a group. He remains distant and detached from them and that connection is not a 'skill' you suddenly pick up. His disdain for them and his campaign's disdain for them has been apparent throughout the primary cycle. This is not something you easily 'heal' in a matter of months especially when you avoid visiting states. (He would not have done significantly better in those states had he visited during the primary. The issue is that by refusing to campaign there he only solidified the message that he doesn't care for those voters.) Kristi Keck (CNN) observes of Barack, "He's yet to make his case with the working-class vote." She's not sure it's a lost cause. Mike is sure it's a lost cause for Barack and provides a long list of why in his post last night. Taylor Marsh observes: "The thing is that when you don't respect people enough to walk in to where they live, talk to them about their troubles and assure them you get it, they won't give you their vote. It's not a black - white thing, it's a ego thing; as in you think you're too good for them. People can sense political arrogance a mile away and Obama's got it in abundance. That's why if he thinks he's going to get beat he doesn't even bother.
This isn't about race. It's about ego. Obama's, that is."

Ruth notes the victory speech including a significant word, "Referring to whomever the Democratic presidential candidate might be, Senator Clinton used the pronoun 'she.' It was a statement and vision of the possibilities her campaign is creating and it may also be seen as a rebuttal to former 2008 Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards' repeated emphasis on the best 'man' for the job when endorsing John Edwards last Wednesday."

In Oregon, Barack won with 349,132 votes (58.19%) to Hillary's 245,770 (40.96%). Jeryln (TalkLeft) notes, "Regardless of what the DNC does on May 31 with FL and MI delegates, the popular votes were certified by the states. Their numbers are real and they must be added to her popular vote total." Hillary leads in the popular vote and, for those who have forgotten, Barack's campaign used to use that as a marker and scream "the will of the people." The press appears to have 'forgotten' that fact.

Eloise Harper (ABC News, text and video) reports, "In her most emphatic argument yet for counting the votes in Michigan and Florida, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, traveled Wednesday to Palm Beach County, Florida -- ground zero for hanging chads and the vote-count controversy of the 2000 election" and quotes Hillary stating:

We believe that the outcome of our elections should be determined by the will of the people. Nothing more. Nothing less. And we believe the popular vote is the truest expression of your will. We believe it today just as we believed it back in 2000 when right here in Florida you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and a candidate with fewer votes is determined the winner.

Meanwhile, Paul Bedard (US News & World Reports) notes Sidney Blumenthal pointing out the obvious: "Don't run against GOP nominee John McCain by painting him as Bush III, because he's not." He isn't and if that's how some in the DNC think Barack could pull off a win, they're kidding themselves. Blumenthal notes re: Iraq, that McCain's son is serving there and someone appears to have missed that point. (Well, MoveOn's never been that smart, have they?) In addition, as Ava and I noted last week of a report on CBS' The Early Show:

It featured a clip where Barack was mouthing about how a vote for John McCain would be giving a third term to the Bully Boy and that's part of Barack's problem. The myth is that he was against the illegal war from the start and that he stayed against it. It's not true but it's too late to change perceptions. So when he speaks about mistakes, he is on dangerous ground. No one likes a know-it-all. "Eggheads" do, it's a case of like attracting like. The reality is that a lot of Americans voted for Bully Boy. He wouldn't have been in the White House if that wasn't the case. (Yes, 2000 was stolen.) A lot of Americans supported the illegal war. Barack's Little Mister Perfect. The eggheads and his campaign don't grasp that they created that trap for him. He's always right! That's the myth. And his statements are inprecise and often hit voters. He thinks he's targeting the Bully Boy but he's shooting scatteshot and hitting a lot of voters with his charges. Hillary's position on Iraq, as portrayed by the media, is more consistent with the public view. Barack's is "I was right! I was right!" And it really irritates people because not everyone knew everything from day one. So when he criticizes McCain, he needs to be specific about policies (Barack's weakest area) and stop insulting voters. His "third term" nonsense doesn't play well. It does for Hillary to say it but for him to say it, it plays into his larger image problems, "He really doesn't like us. Oh, look, he's insulting us again."


People voted for Bully Boy. A lot of people may not like him today but you have to be very careful when campaigning not to give people the impression you think they are idiots. In word and deed, Barack gives that impression every day.


iraq
corey glass
jessica lipnack
iraqsami moubayed
anna badkhen
mikey likes it

if the video doesn't work, click here to watch.

and let me also note valerie plame and joe wilson's endorsement video.



okay, oregon will be announcing unofficial results at their secretary of state page beginning 11:00 p.m. est (8:00 p.m. pst).

i'm nervous and blogging right now to get it out of the way. hillary's won kentucky.

even typing that makes me nervous.

the tv says she leads by over 30% and i'm sure not every 1 voted. that would be a miracle if every 1 registered voted. but there are little less than 1/2 the voters who could have voted with the total counties reporting not yet at 100%. so i suppose somehow all those remaining registered democratic (it's a closed primary) voters could show up in the final count, but i doubt it.

she's won kentuky. they said she was out. they said she should quit.

if she's winning still what does that say about barack?

if he's the nominee the media keeps telling us he is, then why is he losing to hillary. he lost indiana to her, he lost west virginia to her and now he's lost kentucky to her.

seems to me the only 1s saying she's losing is the obama campaign which includes a number of the press. c.i.'s 'other items' this morning was an amazing correction to the media narrative. i hope you read that.

the race is not over. and, by the rules, it now should be headed to the convention floor.

the media keeps saying it's over and voters keep saying, 'no, it isn't.'

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'


Tuesday, May 20, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Sadr City invaded, guess who says they have more oil, Kentucky and Oregon primary results due this evening, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Great Britian's Socialist Worker notes Matthis Chiroux refusal to deploy to Iraq in June and quotes him stating: "My decision is based on my desire to no longer continue violating my core values to support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation." Meanwhile Courage to Resist notes that Robert Weiss, conscientious objector, has been "sentenced to seven months confinement during a court martial Tuesday [of last week] at Rose Barracks in Vilsek, Germany. Weiss pled guilty to charges of desertion and missing movement, which reduced the court martial's proceedings mostly to the sentencing phase." Back in July of 2007, Adam Kokesh posted an e-mail from Weiss where Weiss explained he had "informed my chain of command that the only way I will go to Iraq is if they tranquilize me, cuff me, and throw me on a plane. That being the case I won't perform any duties or wear a uniform anyways. I don't plan on letting the situation progress that far. I am hopeful that I will be placed on rear detachment until the decision on my application comes in. When it becomes apparent that they won't do this I will simply refuse to follow any orders given to me or wear a uniform. This will surely result in some jail time but that doesn't deter me one bit. It makes more sense to me to resist the military now rather than in Iraq where the situation would be much more difficult." Courage to Resist explains: "Though this agreement carried a prison sentence of eight months, Judge [Peter] Masters issued a seven-month sentence, to be served at the U.S. Military Detention Facility Europe at Coleman Barracks in Mannheim, Germany."



Turning to Iraq where Sadr City remains in the news. BBC toys at news and insists that "Iraqi government troops" went into Sadr City to "clear mines". Alexandra Zavis and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) provide far less spin: "Iraqi security forces moved deep into Sadr City today to wrest control of the vast Baghdad district from militiamen loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr. Columns of Iraqi armored Humvees and tkans, backed by helicopters, lumbered down the slum's main arteries, while soldiers fanned out over the roof tops and into narrow allies. Others set up checkpoints, searching vehicles for weapons and fighters." Of course the helicopters are US helicopters as are most of the vehicles listed. UPI notes that the purpose of the raid includes "confiscating weapons." AFP cites one of their reporters "in Sadr City said residents were welcoming the Iraqi soldiers who began spreading out across the district while US soldiers remained deployed outside." Great Britain's Socialist Worker points out, "The US military and its Iraqi allies have abandoned the siege of Sadr City, the poor Shia slum of Baghdad, after failing to disarm the Mehdi army -- a resistance organisation led by rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The humilitating climbdown is a heavy blow to the 'surge' strategy launched by George Bush that had the central aim of crushing all major resistance to the occupation." CBS and AP note: "The move is the strongest attempt yet by the government to impose control over the district, which has long been the unquestioned bastion of the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to al-Sadr. Iraqi and U.S. troops have in the past largely stayed on the neighborhood's edges" and their photo demonstrates that the illegal occupation of Iraq includes the US dictating military fashion since the uniforms Iraqis are wearing are the same as the US.

AFP alone notes, "Much of the fighting had centred around a huge concrete wall that the US military has been building to cut off one third of the Sadr City in a bid to prevent the flow of heavy weapons to the rest of Baghdad. Work on the wall became a key issue for the militiamen who repeatedly attacked those constructing it under tight US protection." Meawhile, as Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) noted last week, over "8,500 families" -- not individuals, "families" -- were forced to flee since the assault on Sadr City began in March. Ali Hamdani and Deborah Haynes (Times of London) quote Iraqi military spokesperson Qassim Abdul Raheem stating, "The opeartion will continue to tomorrow. We expect to be controlling all parts of Sadr City by tomorrow morning."

The assault on Sadr City began as an off-shoot of the assault on Basra. Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) reports that, following the failed efforts by puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki, "British soldiers have re-established a permanent presence in the city of Basra, patrolling with Iraqi forces in 'no-go' areas they were driven from months ago by Shia militants."

In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded two people, another Baghdad bombing claimed the life of 1 civilian wounding four, a Balad Ruz mortar attack claimed 2 lives and left nine wounded and a Diyala Province bomber who killed themselves, wounded four civilians and claimed the life of 1 five-year-old girl. Reuters notes: "A woman suicide bomber attacked the house of Sheikh Mutlib al-Nidawi, the head of the U.S.-backed neighbourhood police of Mandili, killing his niece and wounding him as well as two of his guards, police said."

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Sulaimaniyah that left three people wounded and that 1 "of the gunmen is a captain in the armed forces and has been handed over to the military authorities for disciplining" and 4 "Awakening" Council members were shot dead in Salahuddin Province. China's Xinhau reports an attack on a minibus outside of Mosul that resulted in 11 police recruits being shot to death.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Anna Badkhen continues filing reports from Iraq for Salon. In her latest, she opens with: "The most important man on Twenty Third Street in Baghdad's southwestern neighborhood of Risala is Haidar Majli Finjan, a bony, balding man in his 30s who likes to dress in a dirty T-shirt, plastic flip-flops and gym pants he rolls up to his knees. Finjan gives local residents what no one else apparently can: electricity."

In other Iraq news, Sonia Verma (Times of London) reports that "Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister told The Times that new exploration showed that his country has the world's largest proven oil reserves, with as much as 350 billion barrels. The figure is triple the country's present proven reserves and exceeds that of Saudi Arabia's estimated 264 billion barrels of oil. Barham Salih said that the new estimate had been based on recent geological surveys and seismic data compiled by 'reputable, international oil companies ... This is a serious figure from credible sources'." Verma also notes that Iraq's Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoshyar Zebari is calling for an investigation into "sexual abuse and harrassment of Iraqi workers" at the British embassy in Baghdad: "This is something the Foreign Office needs to investigate. The embassy has to conduct some investigation. The Foreign Office needs to be involved." Verman notes that this comes after allegations of Iraq abuse by KBR were investigated by . . . KBR which cleared itself of all wrong doing.

In the US, Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that yesterday's announcement by the Defense Department that 39,000 US servicemembers are being ordered to Iraq has a talking point from the Pentagon: "The deployments, which would indicate a plan to keep 15 combat brigades, or rougly 140,000 troops, in Iraq through 2009, don't mean that there won't be a reduction in troops before then, said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman." Pentagon spin. It's a Nixon type maneuver on the part of the White House: Pump up in the number in a foreign land so that, close to the election, you can announce "X number will be returning!" and the crowd cheers. After the election, they grasp that the numbers never really fell but the hope is you already influenced the election.

Turning to US politics where the Democratic primary contest continues [and will continue to the August convention unless (a) one candidate drops out or (b) the rules are thrown out]. A9 of today's New York Times is a full page ad entitled "not so fast . . . Hillary's voice is OUR voice and she's speaking for all of us" taken out by WomenCount PAC. (A version of the ad can be seen at Tennesse Guerilla Women from when it ran in USA Today earlier this month.) The text of the ad concludes: "Women risked all they held dear to make this country great. They put their lives on the line in all our quests for justice -- from Abigail Adams to Sojourner Truth to Susan B. Anthony to Eleanor Roosevelt to Fannie Lous Hamer to Barbara Jordan to Ann Richards to Dolores Huerta. And now, Hillary. We know that when women vote, Democrats win. Now is it the responsibility of our party to hear our voices and count all of our votes. We want Hillary to stay in this race until every vote is cast, every vote is counted, and we know that our voices are heard." (For more information on WomenCount, their e-mail address is womencountpac@gmail.com) William Branigin (Washington Post) notes the advertisement today, that Kentucky and Oregon's primaries take place today (Oregonians have until 8:00 p.m. their time to turn in their ballots if they did not mail them in) and that Puerto Rico (June 1st), Montana (June 3rd) and South Dakota (June 3rd) will be the final three primaries. Brian Montopoli (CBS News) notes: "There has been speculation that Hillary Clinton might drop out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination following today's primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, even as Clinton herself has insisted that she will fight on. Now her campaign has released a new ad in South Dakota, where voters don't have their say until June 3rd. It's a signal that Clinton has no plans to leave the race anytime soon -- one that the campaign underlines in its press release touting the ad, which notes that the spot 'comes two weeks before South Dakota voters head to the polls'." [The link has the text to the video as well as the video itself.] Howard Kurtz (Washington Post) weighs in with "Women are pretty ticket off these days." You think? Carolyn Lochhead (San Francisco Chronicle) reposts an e-mail which includes this: "I will not vote for Barack Obama. I will not stay home. I will go to the polls and proudly write on my ballot, HILLARY CLINTON. I want the DNC to count my vote as a protest vote. I want them to know I am tired of being a second-class citizen in my own country. This isn't about Barack Obama or John McCain. This isn't about Iraq or Iran. This is about a war, a war for our voice, our dignity, and our selves...I hope you will join me." A number will. Clinton Democrats note the latest poll of New Jersy Democratic voters finds "Only Sixty-five percent (65%) of Democratic Primary voters in New Jersy say they are at least somewhat likely to vote for Barack Obama against John McCain in November. Note that this is not just Hillary supporters, but ALL primary voters." A lot of people got tossed under the bus by the Obama campaign. A lot of Democrats still don't buy that he has 'experience' or 'leadership.' Lois Romano (Washington Post) reports: "Women of all ages and nationalities push against the rope line carrying books and T-shirts, posters and stuffed animals -- anything for her to autograph. They tote huge signs that shout 'Hillary Cares About Me'-- and they tearfully grab her hand to implore her to stick it out, to take her trailing campaign all the way to the Democratic convention in Denver." Romano quotes Hillary: ""I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press, and I regret that, because I think it's been really not worthy of the seriousness of the campaign and the historical nature of the two candidacies we have here." Link also contains video to Hillary speaking.

The groundswell is becoming so big it made the networks this morning when Geraldine Ferraro and Rachel Maddow appeared on NBC's Today this morning. Ava and I have covered the backstabbing 'Maddow The Mad Cow' (as MSNBC refers to her). This morning, she was selling it for Barack. While Geraldine Ferraro provided examples of sexism (even noting at one point that she was giving specific examples), Maddow played her usual wrothless role. Maddow is a lesbian and it needs to be remember that when Time produced that awful Ann Coulter cover story, Maddow refused to call it out. That was because the author of the Time piece (a man drooling over how 'sexy' Coulter allegedly was) was a friend of Rachel's and -- as she explained off-air at Air America, part of "the community" meaning the gay community. (John Cloud is out, he's not being outed in this.) So then she wanted to show solidarity. (Although she refused to tell listeners of her radio show that she knew the man -- she did, they're very good friends and he often uses the term "angel" to describe her.) But Maddow has never called out Barack's use of homophobia in South Carolina. When Maddow starts babbling on about "racism and sexism" and trying to play like she's a feminist, she needs to be stopped and asked point-blank: "Do you support homophobia? Then why is it okay for Barack to use homophobia and for you to stay silent?" For the record, homophobia is unacceptable in the feminist world. Rachel avoids that. When Ferraro brought up the brush of the shoulders being disrespectful, Rachel dismissed it (he also did a stabbing motion and flipped Hillary the bird in that same speech, Rachel didn't weigh in on those) and said she "saw this as his referencing" a music video by Jay-Z. Someone should ask Rachel to quote those lyrics on broadcast TV. It's highly unlikely that she could get approval to do so and there's something in those lyrics to offend everyone ("Middle finger to the Lord" might get the most complaints). Rachel was on to provide cover from a very real discussion and that's all she did.

Donna Darko posts various statements by women who've had enough of Barack's sexist campaign and don't intend to vote for him and we'll note this woman:

The sexism has been beyond belief. IMHO it began when Obama threw Gays and Lesbians under the bus last fall. Outside GL and Feminist groups there was very little understanding or concern. If someone wants to test how mysogeny will play out, first try it on gays. If you get away with it, then women are fair game. And you will probably get away with it.

Also raising questions in Jersey Girl Kristen Breitweiser (via Taylor Marsh):

Those who are responsible for putting Democrats in the broken place we are in right now with regard to Barack Obama had better own it to the end. Leave those bumper stickers on and wear those campaign pins until the bitter end folks because YOU OWN IT. And people are going to want to know whose to blame.



iraq
matthis chiroux
adam kokesh
the washington post
howard kurtz
william branigin
carolyn lochhead
the san francisco chronicle
kristen breitweiser
mcclatchy newspapers
nancy a. youssef
leila fadel
the los angeles times
alexandra zavis
caesar ahmed
sonia verma
the socialist worker
anna badkhen
nbc
today

starting with howard wolfson's 'HUBdate: Getting Out the Vote' (hillaryclinton.com):

Getting Out the Vote in Kentucky: Hillary attends "Get Out The Vote" rallies throughout Kentucky. Tonight, she will be joined by President Clinton for rallies in Lexington, KY and Louisville, KY. Bowling Green, KY: Yesterday, "more than a thousand people came to Western Kentucky University's south lawn to hear Clinton speak…Kentucky Speaker of the House Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green, introduced Clinton…He said, 'She has the ability to make our country great again.'" In the crowd, one supporter "said she came to the rally because she wanted to see the next president of the United States." Read more.
Mayfield, KY: "Take a vote from the crowd that turned out in Mayfield Sunday and Senator Hillary Clinton would be the next president. She got a spirited welcome from about 600 supporters outside the Chamber of Commerce Sunday afternoon." Said one local supporter: "It definitely has changed over the years and its gotten worse and I'm looking for something better.” Read more and more.
'Honk and Wave': In Rapid City, SD, volunteers have launched a "Honk and Wave" campaign in support of Hillary. "All of us are out here and we're going to be and we're going to support her to the very bitter end, when she wins on June third,” said one. Read more.
On Tap: Hillary will spend Election Night in downtown Louisville, KY.

the baby has a hillary button. pinned to a little outfit. it was a case today of grabbing for them and c.i. pinned it on. there were a few attempts to try to grab it and pull (presumably off) but i think it was just a case of wanting to be like every 1 else. i've never seen so many hillary buttons as i did today and i know some are not from the campaign. i'm not insulting that, i'm just pointing out that there are some really great hillary buttons out there and they're not all the official 1s.

after c.i. pinned it on (and for those not in the know, i don't give out my baby's gender or name here. my baby turned a year-old last month and that's probably more than any 1 needs to know, in my opinion), i saw the reaction from people we were speaking to (intensely positive) and thought, 'becky, use your head!' i should have pinned on a button when we 1st got to oregon. people love babies.

so we're in oregon and we is flyboy, the baby and:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
and Trina of Trina's Kitchen

and dallas and isaiah (and i'll be posting isaiah's comic in a moment). kat and trina arrived back (kat, trina, ava and elaine were in puerto rico over the weekend to work on getting the vote out there) looking fresh. elaine, ava and c.i. (who did every scheduled event) were looking less well. ava and c.i. still have that nasty cold from last month. but to credit to the 3, in 15 minutes, they looked picture perfect. in terms of elaine and c.i., that's something i've never understood. remember, i went to college with them. even back then, i needed 30 minutes to 1 hour to prepare for a date. they wouldn't even need 15 minutes if it wasn't necessary to shower and dry the hair. i don't know if any 1 reading watched the wonder woman show on abc in the 70s with lynda carter but the 1st time i saw that, i thought, 'that's elaine and c.i.! they spin around and boom, they're ready.'

the 3 of them and trina, dallas and isaiah are at 1 more thing and have another to do before the end of the night but kat and i came back to the hotel (and flyboy is out getting food).

this has been a lot of fun and i hope that doesn't make me seem non-serious to any 1. it's just been really great to see so much enthusiasm for hillary and also to spend so much time with friends.

can hillary win oregon tomorrow? i see a lot of enthusiasm. c.i. cautions me that we're mainly here to make sure that it's not a blow out for obama and that's being practical (very c.i.) but i really think she has a shot at winning.

maybe i'm dreaming.

what i do know is that it has made some difference in terms of people saying they weren't sure about sending in their ballots (or turning them in on election day by 8:00 p.m. - as c.i. always interjects when any 1 says that). they really felt like it was going to go to obama (and that goes to the media's selling of the hype). but there are a lot of people we've talked to in the last days that have sent in their ballots just because they realize the state is competative.

1 woman told me she was 82-years-old and 'if hillary doesn't get it, i'm not voting in november. that man and his friends have ridiculed women non-stop.' i hear ya!

there was a stupid article in the new york times today. actually it started on the front page. c.i. ignores the writer who is now on her 3rd name. but i was pestering and pestering and, finally, at lunch, c.i. said, 'hand it over.'

c.i. said the article treated gender like a minor issue even while covering it.

and that's really the truth. concrete examples were ignored. (of course, can't call out the media. but also from barack.) it was practically a summer's eve commercial, so hazy were its points.

c.i. also pointed out something i hadn't thought of. barack had 75,000 people in portland.

that's what's being reported.

who gave them that figure?

the barack campaign - only that's not in print.

as c.i. pointed out there's no reference to 'police estimate'. they're just running with the numbers barack supplies them with.

c.i. pointed out oprah's 'big' u.c.l.a. rally that was actually sparsely attended and staged like the pulling down of saddam's statue. the few outlets (in both cases) that ran the non-official photos showed a much smaller crowd. not even 1/4 of the stadium was full at u.c.l.a. barack's obviously learned a lot from the bully boy.

okay, here's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Endorsement"




doesn't john edwards make a 'lovely' cheerleader? he did all throughout the campaign. simp. pushing barack in debate after debate. what a loser.

i got to see isaiah draw that and let me talk about that.

it was whatever time it was. 8:00 a.m. est but we were in pst and the gang all had to wrap up (ava and c.i. were already in a cab going to the 1st event of the morning). isaiah wasn't sure he was going to draw a comic.

he had a number of ideas but nothing that really grabbed him. and he'd already done his comics for maria, francisco and miguel's newsletter. he had 1 idea he talked about. he was telling me about maybe a john edwards and barack obama cartoon. it would be disney's robin hood and edwards would be sir hiss (the snake) and barack would be the sniveling prince.

i loved it but could tell isaiah wasn't excited. so i just repeated what c.i. had said, that isaiah was in oregon to get out the vote and no 1 was going to be surprised that there wouldn't be a comic so don't even worry about it. our 1st event was after noon (due to sunday church schedules we didn't want to do anything during that and offend some 1) so we all went to sleep. i woke up and was walking around (really trying to wake up) and flyboy said, 'hey, this is for you.'

it was isaiah's comic and a note, he'd slid it under the door.

i loved it. i showered, put on mascara and lipstick (no 1 sees me without that, that's my 'natural') and hurried to isaiah to tell him it was wonderful. it was too.

but it wasn't this comic.

he was surprised i liked it. he started insulting it and i said, 'who are you? ava and c.i.!' (a joke because they hate everything they write.) he laughed and said, 'well hold on a second.'

he grabbed his paper and sketched a new comic (the 1 above) and the 1st 1 was good but this 1 was so much better. (the 1st 1 was only similar in that barack and john were going to prom together.)

so that's the story there. and i was surprised how quickly isaiah drew it. he said he was tired and just wanted to get it done. so that's the story.

(and elaine has the comic now and will be framing it when she gets home. she's got isaiah's originals in frames all over her home.)

speaking of great. i need to note 2 things. 1st, ava and c.i.'s 'TV: The return of I Dream of Jeannie.' if you were a bewitched fan, you will especially love this. they're taking on counterspin and washington week and this is hilarious. and i love the comparison of jeannie to joan kennedy (poor woman). 2nd up ty's 'Ty's Point of View.' ty's writing about the court verdict allowing same-sex couples to marry the same as any other couple in california. this was something that we were all supposed to work on and there was no time. it just ran out. ava and c.i. were in the cab on the way to their 1st event and they said, 'this has to be covered. we can't ignore this topic.' we all agreed but were all so tired. ty said, 'i'll write it myself as a solo piece.' when ava and c.i. made sure he was okay with doing that, they said, 'great!' ty said not to expect anything wonderful but they said it would be and they were right. ty wrote an amazing article. please read it if you haven't already.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, May 20, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Bully Boy orders more US service members to Iraq, VA issues, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Last week (see Thursday and Friday's snapshots), Matthis Chiroux, currently in the IRR (Individual Ready Reserves), publicly announced that he would not deploy to Iraq. Brittany Whitley (Opelika Auburn News) reports that "Chiroux will . . . return to Washington D.C. in an attempt to win an audience with a committee in Congress. He said the goal is to talk to Congress and build support for war resisters in the legislative branches of the government." Whitley and Beverly Harvey (The Dothan Eagle) report Chiroux's back story:

Matthis Chiroux had it all planned out after he graduated from Auburn High School in 2002. First, he would join the U.S. Army. Then, he would use his G.I. Bill benefits to enroll in college to pursue his dream of becoming a lawyer. After college, Matthis planned to become a public defender and dabble in politics. And the 24-year-old Army sergeant's dream was on track when he was honorably discharged last September. He wasted no time moving to New York City to attend college as a journalism and pre-law major. But less than six months after relocating, the Army came calling again. This time, they needed him to deploy to Iraq.

David Botti (Newsweek) posts a video of Matthis' statement from Thursday and notes that "he said his position as a military journalist exposed him to countless disturbing stories he was afraid to publish for fear of retribution by the Army." The Pentagon states that if Matthis does not report on June 15th, the next step is to list him AWOL.

Some war resisters are in Canada and they need support as well as they wait to see if the motion for safe harbor is going to come to the Parliament floor. You can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

We're going to pick up with a hearing last week. As noted Thursday and Friday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, chaired by Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee, and featured veterans offering testimony Thursday -- Iraq Veterans Against the War. The hearing was broadcast on CSPAN and KPFA (click here for KPFA's archived broadcast) and at Aaron Glantz' website The War Comes Home. Earlier (in March) Iraq Veterans Against the War held their Winter Soldier Investigation and it was broadcast live at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA over three days, here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday with Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz anchoring Pacifica's live coverage. (It was also broadcast at the IVAW site.) Allison and Glantz also hosted a live report on KPFA about the lawsuit against the VA on April 22nd.

Since Friday afternoon, the hearings were noted in the following: Trina's "Contentment in the Kitchen," Rebecca's "sergio korchergin speaks to congress," Betty's "A red day," Ruth's "Sgt. Adam Kokesh speaks to Congress," Kat's "Luis Montalvan," Marcia's "Vincent Emanuele testifies to Congress," Elaine's "IVAW's Vincent Emanuele testifies to Congress," Mike's "IVAW's James Gilligan speaks to Congress" and The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Editorial: The teachable moment." We'll pick up with Adam Kokesh's testimony on Falluja that can be applied to Sadr City, to Mosul, to any Iraqi city under assault:

At one point during the siege of Falluja, we decided that we were going to allow women and children out. We thought this was the most magnanimus thing we could have done. And yet our rules were to let only women and children out so any male over the age of fourteen . . . was turned away. So my responsibility during this time at certain points was to go out on the bridge and turn away families and, like I said, we thought this was the most magnanimus thing we could be doing; however, it was clear we were giving these families an impossible choice: whether they could stay together with their families intact or split their families up and hope that half of them end up with something better.

Kristofer Goldsmith testified about what he witnessed in Sadr City and how there were no efforts to inform then of Muqtada al-Sadr's role (in the "Sadr" City section of Baghdad). He noted "at the end of January 2005," "the humantiarian and rebuiling process . . . was supposed to begin with my units deployment. The soldiers of my unit were told that a cease-fire had been declared between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and American Forces in Sadr City as of October 2004" so there should be little incidents of violence. He testified to learning upon arrival that the residents of Sadr City were not pleased by the US presence: "Adults in the area encouraged children to throw rocks, bricks, trash and bottles of oil at US army vehicles and personnel." He spoke of seeing "huge piles of trash and enormous puddles of raw sewage" and how they would file reports (SWET Reports -- Sewage-Water-Electric-Trash Reports) documenting in words and photos "the lack of adequate clean water, the never ending presence of trash and sewage throughtout the streets, and the very limited few hours of electrical power provided" and there was never any improvement. The service members were told, by command, to tell the residents that improvements would be made and the improvements never came. He explained, "Throughout my entire time in Sadr City my platoon only brought supplies to a medical facility once, on March 10, 2005. The items we dropped off at the Sadr City Women's Hospital were a truckload of baby diapers -- we never provided any real medical supplies despite the fact that the hospitals and clinics in the area were in dire need of antibiotics and basic surgical equipment." Sergio Korchergin's testimony about Najaf would echo that with him noting, "While serving in Najaf, the only humanitarian work we did was painting a park for kids and after that we did not do any humanitarian work until we left."

Near the end of the hearing, Rep Waters explained the House vote on Wednesday:

US House Rep Maxine Waters: As a matter of fact, we just voted on a rule. . . . And that supplemental funder request was about $170 billion more dollars to continue the war. And we fought to try and separate the funding from other issues. We met with the leadership and we said, 'The members deserve an opportunity to vote up or down on this issue. Don't pile the funding up with a lot of domestic spending to make people feel bad that they're not supporting the extension of unemployment or they're not supporting other kinds of things. So we did get that. We advocated for that. They did separate it. So the funding resolution is going to be separate and for all those people who say that they want to end the war the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If they vote for this supplemental appropriation, they're not serious about ending this war. They have two other portions to the bill. Amendment number two where basically they have a lot of other conditions but . . . the first part of it is a little trickery because they say that there will be an attempt to start redeployment within thirty days with an absolute end -- the goal of an absolute end of the war, by December 09. I'm not nervous about that because that's too long. That's December 09. We have had some targets before. We've always been for getting out as quickly as possible. We know that it takes some time to wind down and move equipment and redeploy. And we've always thought six months was a reasonable amount of time to talk about doing that. We've even entertained the idea of maybe one year but now, you know, it's further out with this December '09. So I know that I'm voting against the first part of the war. I'm uncomfortable with it going to December of '09 and the third part, where there are some conditions, the separate amendment I could support. So I'm going to be talking with my colleagues before we take that vote to take a look at that second amendment that talks about of winding -- starting redeployment in thirty days. In thirty days of? Does anybody know in thirty days of what?

US House Rep Lynn Woolsey: The new president.

US House Rep Maxine Waters: Well see, that takes us to January, then thirty days, that takes us to February and then it goes on to the end of the year. That may be just a little too long for me even though I'm anxious to get some kind of language that talks about getting out. That's taking it a little bit too long. Now -- December '09, that's a little bit too long for me. But I wanted to share that with you so that you know when you are talking to members of Congress who are telling you all of these good things and how much they're supportive and against the war, you take a look at their vote today and see who's voting for that money to continue the kinds of things that you have described here to us.

Waters made that point last week. Today the US Department of Defense issued two press releases. The first noted "additional major units scheduled to deploy" to Iraq -- "one division headquarters and seven brigade combat teams consisting of approximately 25,000 personnel." The second noted that "four brigades from the Army National Guard" were being sent to Iraq -- "approximately 14,000 personnel who will begin deploying in the spring of 2009." That would make 39,000 the White House is ordering to Iraq The first announcement stated deployment would "begin in the fall and continue until the end of the year." The second has the White House scheduling deployments for a period of time when the current occupants will not be present. (Elections in November will result in a new leader being sworn in come January.) In terms of Waters' points quoted above, it needs to be noted that withdrawal is all the more complex (planning and implementing) if the numbers on the ground are increased. Equally true is that the numbers were already supposed to be reduced to pre-'surge'/escalation levels. That got tossed out this spring when it was noticed that, even after July, more US service members would be stationed in Iraq than were there prior to the 'surge'/escalation. Prior to that 'fix' that failed, there were approximately 130,000 US service members stationed in Iraq. As Kristin Roberts (Reuters) notes that before today's announcements the plan was for the number to fall from 155,000 to 140,000.

Returning to last week's hearing and focusing on testimony regarding health care or the lack of it.

Sergio Korchergin: When we all come back from Iraq and we seek help from our command they call us 'weak' and 'cowards'. The line for psychologists is almost a year long and the only thing that can help us is the alcohol and the prescription pills that they are giving out to us like candy to keep us down because it seems like doctors don't want to do their jobs and they just don't care. . . . The last thing I want to tell you about is a roomate who we shared a bathrooma with. A marine who was on a suicide watch for about afew months on and off. The last three weeks before we were deployed he was constantly on watch. A week before a family day -- when a family comes in and says good-bye to their marines before we deploy -- he was released from the watch so that he would not say anything to his parents and he did not say anything to them. About a month into deployment, he blew his brains out in the shower stall. Actions like that show the poor judgement of our command, just to have numbers for the troops and just to keep their own skins safe. The marines should never have gone to Iraq in the first place and nobody was held responsible for his death. If there's no care for your marines what care do they have for the people of Iraq when they give the orders?

We'll come back to the topic of the health care but we'll wrap up the hearing but noting the testimony of another Iraq War veteran. "Dear Ted, you are my hero," Luis Montalvan stated as he began his testimony delivered in the form of a letter to the late Ted Westhusing. "I did not get the opportunity to meet you while we served in the army together, but I feel as though I know you from your honorable life and tragic death. Just one month before returning to your wife Michelle and three children, you were found dead on June 5, 2005 from a bullet to the head. Investigators conducted -- investigations conducted by the army deemed your death a 'suicide' but the circumstances are highly controversial. I have spoken with your brother Tim and your father Keith and we are now close friends. Both Tim and your father believe that the army did not do a thorough investigation and covered up many of the aspects surrounding your mysterious and untimely death." Westhusing was bothered (to put it mildly) by corruption in the contracting in Iraq. Montalvan explained what he experienced, lack of weapons, lack of supplies. "I lost many friends in Iraq, American and Iraqi," he explained. He cited an Iraqi friend in Jordan applying for asylum (to the US) via the United Nations. PISCES system (Personal Identification Secure Comparsion and Evaluation System) was supposed to track immigration and emigration flow across Iraq. Gen Ricardo Sanchez and Bwana Paul L. Bremer sent a team to look into putting PISCES in place and the official word was that it would be done. Then came the story that the equipment wasn't in Iraq -- it was there as Montalvan discovered when he returned to Iraq in 2006 on his second tour and it had been there and it was never implemented.

On the subject of PISCES, it is a tracking device and one of the systems that raises concerns -- in the US -- about bio-chips. The US uses the system to some degree (and has for some time) and has tried to get India (they refused) and other countries to implement it. Those who have are generally the ones most dependant upon foreign aid. (Such as Uganda and Djibouti.) There are serious concerns about civil liberties with this program but such concerns haven't prevented the US government from trying to sell it and have it implemented. In Iraq, due to the refugee situation, it's 'best' for the White House that it wasn't implemented. Had it been, actual concrete numbers would have been readily available. But real numbers were never of interest to the White House as evident by The Myth of The Great Return. Bio-metrics do exist in Iraq and are used in, for example, Falluja to deny entry and only make life more cumbersome for Iraqis. If there was a use for them on a temporary basis that could be justified, it would most likely be during a continuing refugee crisis to provide statistical data.

Montalvan concluded his testimony by declaring, "I strongly urge you to please take measures to perhaps have a Congressional testimony to address these matters in entireity particularly the death of Col. Ted Westhusing." For more on Westhusing, you can refer here and here to two pieces by Robert Bryce (Texas Observer).

Sergio Korchergen was quoted above and he wasn't the only veteran informing Congress last week about the efforts to deny veterans the health care they need (and are due). The Veterans Administration is already in hot water over hiding the rate of suicides among veterans, now they have a new problem. CREW has published [PDF format warning] an e-mail the VA sent out:

Given that we are having more and more compensation seeking veterans, I'd like to suggest that you refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out. Consider a diagnosis of Adjustment Diorder, R/O PTSD. Additionally, we really don't or have time to do the extensive testing that should be done to determine PTSD. Also, there have been some incidence where the veteran has a C & P, is not given a diagnosis of PTSD, then the veteran comes here and we give the diagnosis, and the veteran appeals his case based on our assessment. This is just a suggestion for the reasons listed above.

Despite this being the latest revelation in an ongoing story, the New York Times noted it Friday in a tiny AP article. You can put it with CBS News' coverage of the veterans suicides (click here for text and video as well as links to past reporting, here for the PDF format e-mail Dr. Ira Katz sent out on the actual suicide numbers, and here for Congress questioning Katz and VA officials about the suicide numbers -- Armen Keteyian was the reporter and Pia Malbran the producer on those reports), with Korchergen's testimony and with Adrienne Kinne's testimony at Winter Soldier last March. Explaining after leaving the military how she did college internships at VA hospitals, Kinne shared that a study on PTSD and TBI resulted in a proposal to screen for the two.

And then they went to go to the next step, to actually make this happen. And I was actually on a conference call when someone said, "Wait a second. We can't start this screening process. Do you know that if we start screening for TBI there will be tens of thousands of soldiers who will screen positive and we do not have the resources available that would allow us to take care of these people so we cannot do the screening." And their rationale was that medically, medical ethics say if you know someone has a problem, you have to treat them. So since they didn't have the resources to treat them, they didn't want to know about the problem.

The latest e-mail is identified by Bonnie Goldstein (Slate) as having been written by "Norma Perez, team leader and psychologist at the Temple, Texas, Olin E. Teague Veterans' Center". The Fayetteville Observer issues a strong editorial on the subject of the e-mail CREW obtained asking of the the 'strategy' laid out to deny care: "Does it get more coldly than that? Actually, it does. 'Additionally,' the e-mail continued, 'we really don't or have time to do the extensive testing that should be done to determine PTSD.' Without the 'additionally,' and with the afterthought placed ahead of the suggestion, that might have left a little room for a limited discussion of, for example, the inadequacy of the VA's psychiatric budget. But the writer of the e-mail gave the play away in his or her first 11 words, and there's no hauling them back now. It was about money."

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?


Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad rocket attack that injured five people, a Baghdad bombing that left three people injured, a Baghdad bombing that is seen as an assassination attempt on "Major Ahmed, the chief police of al Quds police station" that wounded him and three bodyguards, another Baghdad bombing left two people wounded, a Tikrit car bombing left three people injured and an Al-Anbar Province bombing took place in a home following a search by police where, apparently, a husband made his wife put on a vest -- lined with explosives -- to conceal it and shortly after the police departed, the bomb exploded killing the couple. Reuters notes a Suq al-Shiyukh assassination (bomb placed under bed) of 1 "local Iraqi police chief."

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports three police officers were wounded in a Baghdad shooting and "an officer in the ministry of interior affairs" was wounded in a Baghdad shooting. Reuters notes 11 police officers shot dead in Ba'aj and they also note that (dropping back Sunday) police Lt Col Ahmed al-Nouri was shot dead in Baghdad.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 2 corpses discovered in Suwayra and 2 outside Rutba.

Turning to US politics, the Democratic race for the party's presidential nomination. Wah-wah-wah cried Barack Obama today. On Good Morning America (here for video) he attempted to dictate to the GOP what they could and could not do -- insisting they can say this or that . . . What a big baby. He really has had it too easy. He thinks -- he thinks he's getting the nomination and if he does that he can then dictate to a rival political party what they can do or what they can't. Grow up. Talk about not being ready to run for president. As with the Democratic race, he's saying his opponents "can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record." Uh, wake up Barack, the GOP isn't the love-sick John Edwards looking at you in debate after debate with cow eyes. He then declared that Michelle Obama was off limits. Grow the hell up, Barry. If you get the nomination, she'll be the subject of press the same way any other prospective First Lady is and it's always more difficult on the ones who have worked. As Rick Klein (ABC News) points out, the DNC "has aggressively targeted Cindy McCain over her decision not to release her tax returns, and DNC officials said Monday that they would continue to do so". Hillary Clinton survived it. Is Michelle unable to fight back? No, she can fight back so what's got him so worried? Larry Johnson (No Quarter) thinks it's the video of Michelle responding enthusiastically (to put it mildly) to a speech (let's not call them sermons) by Jeremiah Wright. That may be or, since he's mentioning "low class," it might be the shopping around of those 'side-boob' photos of Michelle looking ridiculous in that 'dress' that ____ selected for her to wear to the private party late last year. Those are pretty frightening pictures (and I thought so when they were sent to my cellphone last year during the party). They do not look First Lady-ish and, yes, they are being shopped around.

CBS and AP note Hillary's response to Barack's assertion (seemingly now withdrawn) that he will declare himself -- excuse me, that he will anoint himself the nominee Tuesday night: "You can declare yourself anything, but if you don't have the votes, it doesn't matter." And he doesn't have the votes. The delegates he's been awarded aren't enough to become the nominee -- same with Hillary. They are in a tie. Superdelegates -- in fact, all delegates -- vote on the convention floor. That should mean -- if both stay in the race and the DNC rules and guidelines are followed -- the nominee will be known in August of this year. Barack's apparently backed down from his desire to self-annoint and that has less to do with concern for letting the people decide and more to do with what Ava and I noted Sunday (and it was noted here last Wednesday) announcing you are the candidate in the midst of a tight race results in one of two things. 1) The DNC calls you out and the press laughs. 2) The DNC doesn't call you out and the GOP immediately argues that the Democrats have now named their candidate and have entered the general election in May, while the GOP will declare their nominee September 4th. In other words, general election funds will need to last for the Democratic Party from May through November while the GOP will only be constrained from September to November. And the DNC thought things were bad in 2004 when they announced in July and the GOP announced in September? The race is a tie and Hillary's now ahead in the popular votes.


Tomorrow, Molly Bingham and Steve Connors' amazing documentary is released on DVD, Meeting Resistance. As the press release notes:

Meeting Resistance is about the people and make-up of the Iraqi resistance. Since it was released in theaters last fall, we have shown the film in more than 80 U.S. cities, as well as to several key military audiences. We've made more than 200 appearances with the film to talk about our understanding of the conflict in Iraq and take questions from the audience. When the lights come up, we are greeted with the kind of silence associated with people trying to reconcile what they thought they knew with what they now understand. We've come to realize that our film is delivering a paradigm shift about the Iraq conflict--one audience at a time. There are two wars in Iraq. Meeting Resistance explores the first war, the popularly supported resistance to occupation, which contains the majority of the organized violence that is happening in Iraq. Using primary source material, critical analysis and cross-referencing, we crafted a film that tells the story of that conflict. The second war is the civil war--an internal political struggle being waged over competing visions of Iraq's future, of which the country's sectarian violence is a symptom, not a cause.

iraq
matthis chirouxbrittany whitleybeverly harvey
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
aaron glantz
kpfa
meeting resistancemolly binghamsteve connors
armen keteyianpia malbran
mcclatchy newspapers

starting with howard wolfson's 'HUBdate: Hillary in Oregon' (hillaryclinton.com):

Today In Oregon: Hillary hosts a "Solutions for the American Economy” event in Junction City, and participates a town hall hosted by KGW Newschannel 8 in Portland.
Hailing Passage of the Farm Bill: Yesterday, the Senate passed the Farm Bill by an overwhelming vote of 81 to 15. Hillary Clinton responded by saying: "By passing this bill, we have achieved an important step forward for farmers and consumers…Americans will have a real choice this fall - between a candidate who supports rural America and family farms and John McCain, who has threatened to veto this critical legislative priority." Read more and more.
Momentum in the Bluegrass State: As a sign of growing momentum in the state, the Clinton campaign announced its Kentucky Steering Committee, which is comprised of more than 100 former and current federal, state, and local elected officials that have endorsed Hillary. Read more.
Standing Up For Montana Families: Kalispell, MT Mayor Pam Kennedy endorsed Hillary yesterday. At a rally with former President Bill Clinton, she explained why Hillary is her choice: "Hillary Clinton has been standing up for women and families throughout her long career in public service. She is the candidate who best understands the issues facing Montana families." Read more.
Health Care For All: At a campaign stop at Dennis Jones' Farms in Bend, SD, Hillary pledged that she would fight for quality, affordable universal health care for all South Dakotans and all Americans: "I believe we need a plan that's not going to leave anybody out." Read More.
If You Read One Thing Today: "NARAL Pro-Choice America affiliates in key swing and primary states are openly distancing themselves from the decision…to endorse Illinois Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for president." Read more.
On Tap in KY: Hillary will campaign in the Bluegrass State this Saturday, May 17.

how did i end up in oregon by myself? that was an e-mail today. i'm not by myself. flyboy and my baby are here, first of all. betty was supposed to be here but when her parents decided to come as well, they couldn't get tickets. they could to kentucky, so that's where she is. but maria and francisco arrived friday morning and hilda will be here on monday. (ava, c.i., kat and trina will be back on monday.) in addition, the mother-daughter duo of marlene and goldie arrived this evening. so, i wasn't alone before, but i'm not alone now.

puerto rico sounds like fun. but, unlike the 1s who went (ava, c.i., kat, trina and elaine) i do not speak spanish and i wasn't keen on hopping on a plane friday, then flying back to oregon at the start of the week. since oregon is a primary about to take place, it made sense to stay here.

i also appreciated the faith c.i. and ava have in me that they were willing to let me lead in oregon over the weekend. oregon is a very close state. they vote by mail. however, as c.i. drilled into my head, they can be turned in in person. they have to be received, either by mail or in person, by 8:00 p.m. tuesday. i'm working the area around corvallis this weekend. it's not an area that's hostile to hillary and my main thing is making sure every 1 remembers the deadline and that they can send in their ballots right now or turn them in in person.

who ever wins, it will be close. this is a contested state that barack's assumed to lead in.

i do not see the young v. old split i keep hearing about in the media. i do see a class split. if you're attending college on mommy and daddy's dime and living it up, barack is your choice. if you're working class, hillary is your choice. i see that play out across the age spectrum, in fact. we spoke with high school seniors a lot this week and, time and again, that is the split.

what i see as a potential harm to hillary here is that the working class feels that the nominee has been chosen for them by the media. i do not hear that from the bulk of voters, but i do hear it often enough to know it is on people's minds. i mainly copy what c.i. said word for word throughout the week about owning your power and sending a message.

having had the very strong examples of c.i., ava and kat all week (and all last week), i would be comfortable soloing; however, i'm not solo and we're all having a lot of fun.

sergio korchergin testified to the congressional progressive caucus this week. he was among the members of iraq veterans against the war. he spoke mainly of his time serving in najaf and how they were encouraged to rough up citizens and 'told that everyone was an enemy.' sergio explained that 'while serving in najaf, the only humanitarian work we did was painting a park for kids and after that we did not do any humanitarian work until we left.' outside of najaf, he explained they were given 'drop weapons are the weapons given to us by chain of command so that if we kill someone we do not get into any trouble. ... the weapons did not come from any one else but the chain of command.' you should remember that when you read reports of 'insurgents' killed. sergio wondered 'where is all the money going that is given to the military? during the 1st deployment' he was giving a flap jacket from vietnam.

he talked about how when you return if you ask for help you're called 'cowards' and how prescriptions are dispensed like candy to shut people up. he spoke about a marine he served with who was on suicide watch who was taken off a week before deploying to iraq because it was family day and the brass didn't want his family knowing about it. they sent the unstable and in need of treatment marine to ira and, approximately 1 month into the deployment, 'he blew his brains out in the shower stall.' he talked about the message that sends, how they don't even care about their own marines so what do you think that says about what they really think of iraqis?

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Friday, May 16, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, an important DVD is released next week, what's up with Chalabi now, and more.


Starting with war resistance as Iraq Veterans Against the War noted yesterday (text, video)

Good afternoon. My name is Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, and I served in the Army as a Photojournalist until being honorable discharged last summer after over four years of service in Afghanistan, Japan, Europe and the Phillipines. As an Army journalist whose job it was to collect and filter servicemember's stories, I heard many stomach-churning testimonies of the horrors and crimes taking place in Iraq. For fear of retaliation from the military, I failed to report these crimes, but never again will I allow fear to silence me. Never again will I fail to stand. In February, I received a letter from the Army ordering my return to active duty, for the purpose of mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thanks in great part to the truths of war being fearlessly spoken by my fellow IVAW members, I stand before you today with the strength, clarity and resolve to declare to the military and the world that this Soldier will not be deploying to Iraq. This occupation is unconstitutional and illegal and I hereby lawfully refuse to participate as I will surely be a party to war crimes. Furthermore, deployment in support of illegal war violates all of my core values as a human being, but in keeping with those values, I choose to remain in the United States to defend myself from charges brought by the Army if they so wish to pursue them. I refuse to participate in the occupation of Iraq.

IVAW includes a link to an online donations form that people can select "legal fund" from and notes that thankyoumatthis@ivaw.org is the address to express support to Matthis Chiroux. (That's thankyoumathhis at ivaw.org ).

As for those war resisters who are in Canada need support as well as they wait to see if the motion for safe harbor is going to come to the Parliament floor. You can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

As noted yesterday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, chaired by Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee, and featured veterans offering testimony Thursday -- Iraq Veterans Against the War. The hearing was broadcast on CSPAN and KPFA (click here for KPFA's archived broadcast) and at Aaron Glantz' website The War Comes Home. Earlier (in March) Iraq Veterans Against the War held their Winter Soldier Investigation and it was broadcast at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA, here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday with Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz anchoring Pacifica's live coverage. (It was also broadcast at the IVAW site.) Allison and Glantz also hosted a live report on KPFA about the lawsuit against the VA on April 22nd. We'll focus on the second half of the first panel (which should get us through the second hour) and it was during this portion, after the veterans had offered their testimonies, that co-chair Maxine Waters first spoke and we'll pick up with this section.

US House Rep Maxine Waters: I have often wondered as I have read accounts of killings in Iraq of civilians, where they are described to us in the newspaper as 'some attack' or 'some killings' that have been executed because 'suspected terrorists' or 'suspected this' or suspected 'that'. And when I see women and children and civilians be killed, I often wonder who are those people? No one will ever be able to know what the true story is and they have nobody to stand up for them to say that they are innocent, that they are guilty of on crime. They just get killed and they die and that's it. And I wonder often times about those families and those children that we see getting killed in ways that you described here this morning. Mr. Goldsmith I want you to know I am so moved by your testimony that you had the courage to come here today and share with us what you have shared and say "This is how I thought a long time ago but that's not who I am today." That is very powerful, that is very moving. And I had to be contained up here by my leader . . . I just wanted to stand up and applaud and she said "Just be cool because we want to honor everybody in a special way."

US House Rep Waters was directing her last statements to Kristofer Goldsmith who testified last on the panel. Goldsmith presentation included visual slides. Juxtaposed were photos of him in uniform after completing basic training and him as a young child dressed up in a military uniform. He discussed specifically what his motivation was prior to deployment: to kill Iraqis, to kill Muslims. He spoke of the transformation he'd gone through -- which was what Waters was noting. He spoke of Sadr City (which will pick up at a later time) and, with time running out, noted US Senator and presumed GOP presidential nominee John McCain's opposition to the GI Bill US Senator Jim Webb is proposing. He said it wouldn't apply to him because he was he dishonorably discharged for attempting suicide so he wouldn't receive the benefit (due to the classification of the discharge) but it was sorely needed. Goldsmith would also note how telling his story was theraputic and how there are those who aren't able to tell their own stories: "It is very hard for us to find the courage to come up here and I would like to thank you again for hearing us."

US House Rep Maxin Waters: I don't like to make committments that I'm not sure I can follow or carry out but you're going to get your GI Bill, you're going to go to college.

Kristofer Goldsmith: Thank you.

US House Rep Maxine Waters: I want to tell you here and today that I'm on it, I'm focused. I don't know what I have to do but I'm going to get it. You're going to get it. I'm going to make that committment to you today. And whoever's standing in our collective way because, I know, that my collegues here share in my feelings about this. They [those opposed such as McCain] better get out of the way because we're going to get it. You have to have it. You must have it. And I'm so glad that you did not take you life, that it did not work. And I want you to know that no matter the disappointment, no matter the lies, no matter the experiences, there's some people here [in Congress] who believe in you, some people who are going to continue to fight to bring our soldiers home and some people here will stand up and fight for you no matter what the obstacles are. And I just wish you all would just defy this leader [Lynn Woolsey] and give him and everybody a big round of applause.

Rep Waters was referring to Rep Woolsey's explanation that this was a hearing and they would need to hold their applause. Also speaking was US House Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee who expressed her gratitude towards Kelly Dougherty for using her "anguish" to motivate greater change. Dougherty, who introduced the witnesses of the first panel, is an Iraq War veteran and the executive director of IVAW, the organization she co-founded. Jackson-Lee cited the testimonies and the need to end the illegal war.

US House Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee: And I feel a sense of urgency. I will leave the mike for a moment to go to the [House] floor to take some of the points you've made to offer them in my opposition to the war and what will be my vote to against any more funding for the war in Iraq. We made a personal committment that we will never vote for another cent. Sometimes we're blindsided. Sometimes they sneak it in or sneak it around. We try to be Sherlock Holmes and to find it and make sure we do not cast our vote. What I think I heard from Mr. Goldsmith was that there was this stop-loss policy of Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld and I think that what I've heard from my constituents that a general discharge -- in fact I think we heard that yesterday, about a general discharge -- now blocks everyone from their education benefits. So let me join with Congresswoman Waters to say this has to be fixed. Morphed. Refined. Distinguished. So that individuals who have for causes, for reasons, for tragedies, found themselves under this particular discharge do not have to suffer anymore. Let me also very quickly say that you are creating a movement. It pains me to hear that you are representing those who are shouting in the darkness. So maybe as we have had and I know that you have gathered but those hundreds of thousands need to hear our voice. Let us welcome them to Washington. Let's bring 100,000 of your members to Washington and let's call the roll on members of Congress to come and tell them why this war continues. I think frankly that should be the challenge today.

Along with explaining what needs to happen to pressure Congress into action (those weren't pie-in-the-sky words, she was offering serious advice), Rep Jackson Lee noted that the Act of Congress by which the illegal war was 'justified' has expired and referenced her own bill. The title of that bill is Military Success in Iraq and Diplomatic Surge for National and Political Reconciliation in Iraq Act of 2007. It notes that the Military Force Against iraq Resolution has expired and calls for the "Withdrawal of Armed Forces and Contractor Security Forces From Iraq -- Not later than October 1, 2007 or 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever shall occur first". It was referred to two House committees (Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Affairs) in February of last year. It remains in committee. The bill itself and Rep Jackson Lee's remarks at the hearing Thursday argues that US service members have done all that was asked of them and that it is time to withdrawal ("You have done everything we asked you to, Saddam Hussein is not there . . .").

As the first panel wound down, Rep Lynn Woolsey asked the witnesses to share how they dealt with their own grief. Jason Lemieux explained that after he returned from Iraq he sought PTSD counseling in Florida which was ended, not by his choice, when the counselor transferred/rotated. Today his focus is on attempting "to right to write as much as I can the wrongs I have done". Scott Ewing spoke of his work with IVAW and his academic work of providing him with a sense of direction and purpose. Kristofer Goldsmith explained his own history which included self-medicating with alcohol early on. He noted that seeking help at the VA requires waiting and waiting and waiting some more due to the long, long backup at the VA. In February, things improved for him when he was contacted by IVAW and began sharing his story with others. Geoffrey Millard noted that he puts on his black (IVAW) t-shirt every day: "I get to wake up every morning, put on that black t-shirt and work to bring the troops home, take care of them when they get home and make sure that Iraqis receive reperations. That is what keeps me going, gets my head off the pillow, every morning".

Rep Woolsey thanked them but noted that in terms of obligations and debt, "Moral debt belongs up here [Congress]. We thank you, you did the job you were hired to do . . . and you did it the best you could. The moral debt belongs to us."

Had the hearings received any significant media attention, that was the moment that should have been played. Woolsey was against the Iraq War before it started and has repeatedly called for an end and taken action to end it. But there was a member of Congress stating very clearly that the government held the moral debt. (Think of the Richard Clarke moment at the 9-11 hearings.) It was needed and it's to her credit (and her strength) that she made the statement.

Turning to Iraq, Nancy A. Youssef, Leila Fadel and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) report that CIA asset Ahmad Chalabi is apparently again on the outs with the US and they quote a "senior military official" saying: "That's it. He's out." Thug, would be dictator and journalist-go-to-guy Chalabi has been repeatedly counted out and always surfaced again. This time he is supposedly on the outs with puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki and supposedly to close to Iran (the latter charges have repeatedly dogged Chalabi in the last few years) but he denies he's any closer to the Iranian government than is al-Maliki.

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings that claimed 1 life and left five wounded and a Falluja car bombing that claimed the life of "1 baby, six months old" and left seven people (including a two-month-old baby) wounded.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Sadr City hospital personnel have seen 2 deaths and eleven people wounded as a result of the ongoing fighting in the US-led assault on Sadr City and, outside Falluja, 1 police officer shot and in critical condition.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 1 in Sirwan Lake.


On a different topic. Every year many, many movies are released. Most will never speak to anyone. A few will have a quality (a performance, a director's gaze, etc.) that will make it worthy of at least one viewing. Some should be firmly embraced because they are that important, that well done and that necessary. Molly Bingham and Steve Connors' amazing documentary Meeting Resistance, available on DVD Tuesday (May 20th) is one that deserves to be embraced and has been in limited theartical showings. These are excerpts from the press release:


"Meeting Resistance," is about the people and make-up of the Iraqi resistance. Since it was released in theaters last fall, we have shown the film in more than 80 U.S. cities, as well as to several key military audiences. We've made more than 200 appearances with the film to talk about our understanding of the conflict in Iraq and take questions from the audience. When the lights come up, we are greeted with the kind of silence associated with people trying to reconcile what they thought they knew with what they now understand. We've come to realize that our film is delivering a paradigm shift about the Iraq conflict--one audience at a time. There are two wars in Iraq. "Meeting Resistance" explores the first war, the popularly supported resistance to occupation, which contains the majority of the organized violence that is happening in Iraq. Using primary source material, critical analysis and cross-referencing, we crafted a film that tells the story of that conflict. The second war is the civil war--an internal political struggle being waged over competing visions of Iraq's future, of which the country's sectarian violence is a symptom, not a cause. "Meeting Resistance" is a journalistic documentary, not an advocacy or polemic film. Although we did not set out to challenge the narrative of the Iraq conflict--the one that has been constructed in Washington--our reporting eventually led us to do so. U.S. military's briefings in the Green Zone during 2003 and 2004 told journalists that the violence against American troops came from "dead-enders" and "Ba'athi die-hards," from common criminals, religious extremists, foreign fighters, and al-Qaeda--characterized as "fringe elements". While some might fit some of these descriptions, the vast majority of those involved are citizens from the core of Iraqi society. In time, we came to see the U.S. military's misnaming of the "enemy" as an intentional act--as a key part of their objective to control the "information battle space." They aspire to control the perception of the enemy's identity, and through the news media persuade the American public that these "fringe elements" of Iraqi society are the only ones who oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq. A military push (or surge) to isolate and eliminate them would accomplish a perceived "victory." The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq delivered to the White House in October 2003 was leaked in February 2006 by Robert Hutchings, the 2003-2005 chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Speaking in interviews, Hutchings revealed that the report said that it is composed of nationalists fighting for their country with deep roots in the society and that the U.S. military, if it remains in Iraq, will be fighting a counterinsurgency war for years to come, a conclusion that echoed what we had found in our on-the-ground reporting for "Meeting Resistance." If the predominant narrative about the Iraq conflict was truly based in reality, it would involve pointing out that the majority of Iraqis want a withdrawal of all foreign forces, and that the Department of Defense's quarterly reports to Congress, on average, show that from April 2004 to December 2007, 74 % of significant attacks initiated by Iraqis targeted U.S.-led coalition forces. Americans would also find out that half of registered marriages in Baghdad in 2002 were mixed marriages between Sunni and Shia, Kurd and Arab, Christian and Muslim, and many of the tribes and clans and families are, in fact, mixed between Sunni and Shia. Also, nearly all of the Arab Iraqis polled oppose dividing the country along ethnic and sectarian lines, and the vast majority demands that Iraq have a strong central government, not the decentralized powerlessness imposed by the American-influenced constitution. It is not that these points have never been reported, but the booming voice of "disinformation"--from which the Pentagon wants the American public to view the conflict--drowns much of this information out. Ultimately, our film has helped reveal the success of the Pentagon's strategy to obscure the real nature of the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, too many in the news media have been willing to allow that to happen. Throughout the world's history, there have been occupations--and resistance to those occupations. Why then do Americans have such a difficult time grasping that our troops are unwelcome by the vast majority of the Iraqi population? And why has reporting by our mainstream news media generally failed to recognize and draw our attention to this central, core aspect of the violence? Steve Connors and Molly Bingham are directors of "Meeting Resistance." Their film is distributed by First Run Features and available on DVD May 20th.


Changing topics again. Independent journalist, photo-journalist and artist David Bacon examines and explores the issues of immigrant rights frequently. At the Americas Program,
Bacon notes the massive rallies, marches and demonstrations for immigration rights in 2006 and 2007: "Yet today the federal government is taking actions that make holding a job a criminal act. Some states and local communities, seeing a green light from the Department of Homeland Security, are passing measures that go even further. These actions need a reality check." That should have been noted last Friday but time ran out. There's another piece I'd like to note but can't find. We'll grab it Friday and remember at Bacon's site, you have text and photos.

Turning to the US presidential race, Hillary Clinton is asking for your help: "Tell the Democratic National Committee to count the votes of Florida and Michigan." As Texas Darlin (TaylorMarsh.com) notes, Hillary's not losing and the calls of "Get out!" are coming about for just that fact. Jeralyn (TalkLeft) reports on a conference call with Hillary: "The number one message: It's the math not the map. In addition to the popular vote, the electoral map shows her with a cushion and Obama with a deficit. She has won 311 electoral votes to Obama's 217. While a few of her's like Texas and Oklahoma will be a challenge in November, many of his states will be: Alaska, Idaho, Utah, to name a few."
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
linjamin mulljenny yuen
aimeee allisondavid solnit
aaron glantz
kpfa
meeting resistancemolly binghamsteve connorsdavid bacon
leila fadelmcclatchy newspapers
warren p. strobelnancy a. youssef