starting with howard wolfson's 'HUBdate: "Top Candidate for Dems"' (hillaryclinton.com):

Argus Leader Endorses Hillary: South Dakota's Argus Leader today endorsed Hillary, calling her the "Top Candidate for Dems...Clinton is the strongest Democratic candidate for South Dakota. Her mastery of complex policy detail is broad and deep, and her experience as a senator and former first lady matches that…Her resilience and determination never should be questioned. She has met or overcome every challenge or roadblock in her way, and there have been many." Read more.
Automatic Delegate Watch: Washington State Democratic Party Chair Eileen Macoll endorsed Hillary yesterday: "On the issues that matter most -- from establishing universal health care to improving our schools to ending the war in Iraq--she has never backed down and never wavered. Hillary has what it takes to beat John McCain this Fall and win back the White House." Read more.
Endorsement Watch: Puerto Rican music artist Ricky Martin yesterday endorsed Hillary: "These elections will have historic repercussions both in the United States and the world. Senator Clinton has always been consistent in her commitment with the needs of the Latino community…she has always fought for what is most important for our families." Read more.
"She's Going to Pull It Off" Hillary had "one of the best turnouts of her South Dakota campaign" yesterday at a stop in Huron, where supporters waited to see her “in a line stretching down the block.” One supporter said, “She's what we're for. She's against the war in Iraq…Hillary doesn't crack under pressure." Another supporter remarked, "We really think she’s going to pull it off in the end." Read more.
On the Air in Montana: Hillary began airing her first television ad "Only One" in Montana: "She's the only one in this campaign who voted against the Bush energy bill against six billion dollars to the oil companies, the only one taking on the insurance companies to guarantee health coverage for every American and she's the one who'll end fifty five billion dollars in giveaways to corporate special interests and cut taxes for the middle class instead." Watch here.
Previewing Today: Hillary travels to Puerto Rico to host a rally in Old San Juan.

now onto the disgusting michael pfleger. andrew s. ross (san francsico chronicle) gets it:

Apart from the appallingly racist nature of Father Michael Pfleger's remarks about Hillary Clinton, what is one to make of the congregation who seemed to lap it all up?

the remarks were and are outrageous and barack thinks he can get off with saying he's 'disappointed'? the man was part of his campaign, trecked through iowa for him. they've been friends for over 20 years.

this is not a blip, this is a pattern in the church barack obama elected to be a part of for over 20 years. jeremiah wright wasn't some loose canon, he was very much in keeping with the crackpot nature of that church.

of course they hired a p.r. firm to spin wright but they're going to have a much harder time spinning pfleger and shame on dick durbin for defending pfleger.

dick's just another wuss in a long line of wusses. he says the koran's being abused then he wimps out and apologizes. which either means he won't stand up for anything or he went running with bad information. either way, he looked like an idiot and it's becoming obvious that the reason for that is that he is 1.

1 of the things i love about c.i. is that c.i. is even keel. c.i. will get outraged for others but that's it. fancy nancy pelosi, the botox victim, has issued a threat via a mutal friend and c.i. issued the reply. c.i.'s perfectly willing to cut fancy nancy down to size and, unlike fancy nancy, not at all emotional about it.

when you piss c.i. off to the point that you provoke a response, it is not loud and angry. c.i. goes into terminator mode. it's very mechanical, it's very precise.

nancy's threatening a number of women right now. bellowing about how she will seek vengence if they continue to press for hillary. she honestly sounds like a crackpot.

nancy's irritated c.i. before but this isn't a pissed off mode. this is shut down to destory mode and nancy better think twice before issuing any more threats.

c.i. immediately ticked off all of nancy's political weaknesses, 1 right after the other, and asked the mutal friend to see if nancy really wants to go there.

an old friend (who is also an aquaintance of mine) was seeing us off and she heard the last part of the conversation. her immediate response was, 'do you want her to have a boil on the face?' i laughed so hard. she was serious though (and really does practice wiccan and is a member of a coven. i'm sure she's at work as i type on getting nancy some facial problem.) (and i'm not making fun of her, by the way. i don't think she can make a boil appear but i loved that she was willing to try. c.i. laughed when it was suggested and said, 'maybe a nice big herpe sore or a nervous twitch.')

so fancy nancy, our lady of botox, doesn't want hillary to have the nomination.

if you're shocked by that, it's because you don't know nancy's type. break the glass ceiling and then fret that another woman getting into the club means you're not the 'girl' anymore and you're not as special.

unless hillary drops out, i say take it to the convention.

and, like most women, i won't vote for barack if he's the nominee.

it sure is interesting that nancy's saying barack's going to be the nominee before the last 3 primaries take place. it's also interesting that she called democrats in the state of kentucky racists and thinks she can get away with that.

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

Friday, May 30, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, did the demonstrations take place as planned?, the media looks at their own pre-war behaviors, and more.

Late yesterday Canada's Liberal Party issue "Liberals Call on Government to Show Compassion for War Resisters."

The Liberal Opposition is calling on the Conservative government to support a motion that would allow conscientious objectors to apply for permanent resident status in Canada, said Liberal Citizenship and Immigration Critic Maurizio Bevilacqua. "Five years ago, the Liberal government made a principled decision not to participate in a war that wasn't sanctioned by the United Nations (U.N.). We should not now punish individuals and their families for making the same decision based on their personal principles," said Mr. Bevilacqua. The motion, which was passed by the Immigration Commmittee and is being debated in the House today, calls on the government to allow conscientious objectors, and their immediate family members, who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the U.N. and who do not have a criminal record to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada. The motion also stipulates that the government should not proceed with any action agains any war resister who currently faces deportation. "The government has a choice: it is not compelled to force these people to go back to a country where they may face prosecution under military law, or may be permanently branded for making a principled decision," said Mr. Bevilacqua. "Stephen Harper has indicated that, had he been Prime Minister in 2003, Canada would have participated in the Iraq war. I hope that the fact that Mr. Harper got it wrong at the time will not prevent him from showing compassion for those who made the right decision."

Kristen Thompson (Vancouver's Metro) reports that retired US Col and former US diplomat Ann Wright will be speaking in Vancouver Sunday "at an event honouring women war resisters". While Wright speaks up, many stay silent and 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).

Dropping back to this from the November 16, 2007 snapshot:Another reality that some (the press) has a hard time acknowledging is the number of service members electing to check out of the military on their own. AP reports that this year the desertion rate has jumped to "the highest rate since 1980, with the number of Army deserters this year showing an 80 percent increase" since the start of the illegal war. AP continues to deny reality by offering the claim that the US military does little to track down those who go AWOL or desert -- despite the mountain of public evidence to the contrary.As to the figure cited, September 21st, Nick Watt (ABC's Nighline) examined war resisters and noted the number of people being processed for desertion at Fort Knox "jumped 60% last year" (to 1,414 for Fort Knox -- US military figures) while concluding his report with, "If the total for the first six months of 2007 doubles by year end, it will become the highest annual total in twenty-six years." At 80% the total has more than doubled and not only is there another full month left in the year, it's also true that you have to be gone at least 30 days to be declared a deserter (unless you're Agustin Aguayo and the military wants to screw you over) and, in addition, the military figures have been 'lower' than they should be before (NPR caught that earlier this year) and the rolls aren't up to date for AWOL let alone desertion.

So last year saw the largest number of army desertions. What else did last year see? Australia's ABC notes that the deaths of 115 members of the US army were classified as suicides "in 2007, the most in one year since the service began keeping records in 1980."
Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "The study found a 'significant relationship' between the risk of suicide to the number of days a soldier serves in Iraq and Afghanistan. About one-quarter died while serving in Iraq of Afghanistan, the report found. The largest percentage of suicides occurred during the first three months of a deployment to Iraq or Afghnistan, the report found. The largest percentage of suicide attempts came during the second quarter of deployment." Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic (ICH) observes, "These traumas return home with us and we carry them, sometimes hidden, for agonizing decades. They deeply impact our daily lives, and the lives closest to us. To kill another human being, to take another life out of this world with one pull of a trigger, is something that never leaves you. It is as if a part of you dies with that person. If you choose to keep on living, there may be a healing, and even hope and happiness again, but that scar and memory and sorrow will be with you forever. Why did the recruiters never mention these things? This was never in the slick pamphlets they gave us."


Turning to Iraq where the big question today was regarding cleric Moqtada al-Sadr who had called a demonstration to protest the treaty puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki and Bully Boy are attempting to work out (on al-Maliki's side it may or may be presented to the Parliament for approval; however, the White House made clear that the Constitutional provisions on treaties will be ignored). With speculation over al-Sadr's base (eroding or not), would his call for a protest be met or ignored? Thousands turned out today in Baghdad and throughout Iraq; however Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) states the "turnout on Friday was lower than past marches" in Baghdad which al-Sadr's spokespeople said resulted from "the protests . . . [being] widely spread through the country . . . [and] security forces prevented marches in some areas." AP reports, "The outcry could sharply heighten tensions over the proposal. The deal is supposed to be finished by July and replace the current U.N. mandate overseeing U.S.-led troops in Iraq." Robert H. Reid (AP) quotes sheik Assad al-Nassiri declaring in Kufa, "We denounce the government's intention to sign a long-term agreement with the occupying forces. Our army will be under their control in this agreement, and this will lead to them having permanent bases in Iraq." Nicholas Schifrin (ABC News) describes the scene in Baghdad: "As American helicopters hovered overhead, young and old men and even children flowed out of their weekly Friday prayers and began burning American flags and chanting 'no, no to America' and 'yes, yes to independence.' The residents carried posters of Moqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric whose Mahdi Army has fought against U.S. soldiers and who is accused of carrying out much of the violence here." Shifrin notes that Baghdad, Kufa, Basra, Amarah and Nasarriah are known to have demonstrations. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "In Sadr City, followers set fire to an American flag and an image of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki in Saddam Hussein's green military uniform" while chanting, "A curse upon him who agrees! We are with you Sayyed Muqtada for liberating Iraq from the aggressors." The New York Times' Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Stephen Farrell (IHT, some version should be in tomorrow's Times) quote a Baghdad particpant who declares, "This isn't an Iraqi government, it's an American government. The Americans keep pressuring Maliki to carry out what they want. The agreement will only serve the Americans' interests" and they quote Parliamentarian Mahmoud Othman who feels the UN mandate should be allowed to run out (end of the year) and only then should any talks take place: "The negotiations now are not equal, and the results will be more for the benefit of America. To have a long term agreement with the Bush administration, which has five months to go, is wrong. The Iraqi government should wait fo rthe new American administration and then have an agreement with it." [Here it is at NYT but you know they vanish things so don't e-mail a day from now saying "It's not there!" if it's gone.] James Denselow (Guardian of London) observes, "Despite more than five years of state collapse, civil war and chaos the US still seems to believe that it is in a position to dictate what is best for Iraq. The deadline for the UN security council resolution 'allowing' US troops to be in the country expires at the end this year. US diplomats are today desperately trying to create a bilateral SOFA by the end of July in the face of wide-ranging opposition."

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

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala Province mortar attack that claimed the lives of 3 women and left two men wounded, while a Buhrz roadside bombing claimed 1 life. Reuters notes a Baquba bombing that claimed the life of 1 child and left two more injured during a soccer game.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports police Col Ali Kadhim Salman was shot dead in Basra and an "Awakening" Council member was shot dead in Hibhib. Reuters notes the US military states they shot dead 1 man in Tarmiya and 1 man in Tikrit -- both were 'suspects.'



Turning to the media and Iraq. Earlier this week, CNN's Jessica Yellin -- while discussing the Scott McClellan book on Anderson Cooper's program -- spoke of the pressure she was under as a reporter from higher ups. Yesterday afternoon, she posted at CNN to explain all those leaping to the conclusion that she was referring to ABC were wrong, she was referring to "my time on MSNBC where I worked during the lead up to the war. I worked as a segment producer, overnight anchor, field reporter, and briefly covered the White House, the Pentagon, and general Washington stories." Media Matters notes that on NBC's Today show, guest (and former host) Katie Couric and Matt Lauer disagreed about pressure from the administration during that period.

Katie Couric: Well, we have different points of view, and I'll start by saying I think he's fairly accurate. Matt, I know when we were covering it -- and granted, the spirit of 9-11, people were unified and upset and angry and frustrated -- but I do think we were remiss in not asking some of the right questions. There was a lot pressure from the Bush White House. I remember doing an interview and the press secretary called our executive producer and said, "We didn't like the tone of that interview." And we said, "Well, tough. We had to ask some of these questions." They said, "Well, if you keep it up, we're going to block access to you during the war." I mean, those kind of strong-arm tactics were ... really inappropriate.

Who's right and who's wrong? Try who's truthful on top of that. Couric is telling the truth. Lauer (Poppy Bush's golfing partner and so much more) is lying. Ava and I covered the reality of Today during the lead up to the war in 2006 ("TV: Katie Was a Cheerleader"). And to add that, while Couric and others pressed for more to be done (Today's staff fought like hell to present a wide ranging picture), Lauer didn't give a damn. You didn't get that story from Michael Moore and why the hell aren't we surprised?

Less noted was another telling moment. Todd Purdum (Vanity Fair) examines his own various reactions to the book and concludes: "I do know one thing: even the slightest distance from an all-powerful institution like the White House (or a big corporation, or The New York Times) can produce a sudden, even stunning, clarity of feeling about all that was wrong with the place, and a terrific sense of liberation at being freed from it."


Turning to US political races. Panhandle Media is a complete utter failure and they damaged not only themselves, they damaged the work of the few truly independent journalists who actually work. John Pilger is one of the few and you can view the hatred in the comments (some of which may be deleted when this goes up) his article (New Statesman) has received. Pilger's not doing anything different than what he has always done, be a journalist. But those who pretend to be his peers have so debased 'independent' media that the real independent journalists have to put up with nonsense from the Cult Panhandle Media built. From Pilger's article (and, note, Pilger would be just as harsh on Hillary and has been before):

On the war in Iraq, Obama the dove and McCain the hawk are almost united. McCain now says he wants US troops to leave in five years (instead of "100 years", his earlier option). Obama has now "reserved the right" to change his pledge to get troops out next year. "I will listen to our commanders on the ground," he now says, echoing Bush. His adviser on Iraq, Colin Kahl, says the US should maintain up to 80,000 troops in Iraq until 2010. Like McCain, Obama has voted repeatedly in the Senate to support Bush's demands for funding of the occupation of Iraq; and he has called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. His senior advisers embrace McCain's proposal for an aggressive "league of democracies", led by the United States, to circumvent the United Nations.

[ . . .]

Despite claiming that his campaign wealth comes from small individual donors, Obama is backed by the biggest Wall Street firms: Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse, as well as the huge hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. "Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors," wrote the investigator Pam Martens, "consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages." A report by United for a Fair Economy, a non-profit group, estimates the total loss to poor Americans of colour who took out sub-prime loans as being between $164bn and $213bn: the greatest loss of wealth ever recorded for people of colour in the United States. "Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign," said Obama in January, "they won't run my White House and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president." According to files held by the Centre for Responsive Politics, the top five contributors to the Obama campaign are registered corporate lobbysits.
What is Obama's attraction to big business? Precisely the same as Robert Kennedy's. By offering a "new", young and apparently progressive face of the Democratic Party -- with the bonus of being a member of the black elite -- he can blunt and divert real opposition. That was Colin Powell's role as Bush's secretary of state. An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US anti-war and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent.

Meanwhile Barack is in trouble despite the efforts of John McCormick and Manya A. Brachear (Chicago Tribune) to rescue him. Another crackpot Barack friend, mentor and supporter (as noted in yesterday's snapshot) showed their ass: Michael Pfleger. Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite maintains that she spoke at Trinity (Barack's church) Sunday as well (different services -- Trinity has mutliple services each Sunday) and writes: "We in the United Church of Christ are trying to have what we call 'A Sacred Conversation on Race' and I did not find Pfleger's sermon to represent what we in the UCC are trying to do in having a sacred conversation. Instead, Pfleger's sermon was a bullying rant that was disrespectufl of the members of Trinity United Church of Christ, disrespectful of Senator Hillary Clinton and really also disrepectful of Senator Obama" blah blah. SBT, you lost it. You were making sense and then you had to toss out poor Barack. Poor Barack's been friends with Pfleger since Barack first breezed into Chicago over a decade ago. Also, the members you are offended for, the video shows no booing. Clapping, yes. If SBT is not the most embarrassing person in all of this named Barack or Pfleger, that's only because Senator Dick Durbin had to butt into it. He told the Chicago Tribune, "I like Mike. He's my friend." You need to find some better friends, Durbin. He almost outs himself in his vast wordage. What's the difference between Jeremiah Wright and Pfleger? Pfleger's White and that's it. They both 'preached' hate speech. But Wright, according to Durbin, allowed for 'marvelous' opportunities because Barack dould say, 'What's he so angry about?' And a race conversation, according to Durbin, could begin. That conversation never took place. But here's where Durbin clams up -- obviously when you ask, "What's he so angry about?" regarding Pfleger, you can't point to this and that and everything else that was trotted out for Wright's crackpot theories such as the US government created AIDS to wipe out African-Americans. Pfleger's just a hate monger.

Jake Tapper (ABC News) quotes Cardinal Francis George of the Archidoces of Chicago in this statement: "The Catholic Church does not endorse political candidates. Consequently, while a priest must speak to political issues that are also moral, he may not endorse candidates nor engage in partisan campaigning. Racial issues are both political and moral and are also highly charged. Words can be differently interpreted, but Fr. Pfleger's remarks about Senator Clinton are both partisan and amount to a personal attack. I regret that deeply." All the links contain text (and most video) of Pfleger's hate speech yesterday. This was Barack's response: "As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that unites us. That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-thinking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause." That's not an apology.

Here's an apology Barack: "This will be the second time in two weeks I have apologized to someone over the actions of a Roman Catholic Priest. It is not a pleasant thing but it is the right thing. Rev. Michael Pfleger had no business giving any kind of sermon like the one he did ridiculing Hillary Clinton let alone giving a sermon anywhere else than in his own Parish at a Mass. This kind of grandstanding mockery of another human being is totally against the Catholic faith and the spirit of inclusivity and respect for all human beings that Catholics hold dear. He has sinned against God, Hillary, and his priesthood for which an apology is not enough. I hope he has scheduled a confession and a retreat to rethink his role as Priest would not hurt either. To Mrs. Clinton I apologize as a Roman Catholic and am embarassed by this priests words and actions. I have no idea his motivations but please do not take this man's view nor his words as that reflecting Catholics, or the Catholic Church." That's Catherine J. writing at Gather. She didn't do anything requiring an apology. She and Pfleger are the same faith. But she wanted to apologize and she offered a real and heartfelt one. That's an apology. What Barack offered was sop and insulting. His friend for over twenty years, his patron, his mentor, a part of his campaing (until weeks ago -- as all the media rushes to insist) trashed Hillary Clinton and others in despicable terms, in outrageous sexist slander and did so at Barack's church of 20 years -- to the applause and shouts of encouragement from Barack's church. He owes an apology. But he's never been forced by the press to apologize once. He's never apologized to anyone. "I regret . . ." That's not an apology, it's a declined invitation. That's Barack's buddy offering that hate speech. Barack steered $100,000 of tax-payer money to the crackpot's church. Yeah, he owes a big apology.

Pfleger thinks he can get away with this crap as well. CNN notes his 'apology': "I regret the words I chose on Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Sen. Obama's life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Sen. Clinton or anyone else who saw them." He doesn't regret anything. He thought he was cute as he minced around and did his little parody of women on stage. You can watch the video and see him grinning. (Liars at the Chicago Tribune tell you he was rushed off stage by organ music -- that's a lie. Watch the video. There is a time lapse and no organ music is played to tell him to wrap it up.) Foon Rhee (Boston Globe) reports the Clinton campaign's Ann Lewis declared on MSNBC, "I'm not sure what the 'if' was about" -- Pfleger's statements are "simply appalling."

John Bentley (CBS News) notes Senator John McCain (presumed GOP presidential nominee) stating, "I have known Sen. Clinton for a long time. I respect her, and I think that kind of language and that kind of treatment of Sen. Clinton is unwarranted, uncalled for, and disgraceful." Barack could have said that but chose not to. If it's a race between McCain and Obama in November, McCain's ahead currently because spoiled little princes aren't generally embraced by America. As Ken Dilanian (USA Today) points out, "Obama has not specifically addressed what Pfleger said about Clinton."

Hillary's still in the race and she's winning the popular vote. Fabien Levy (HillaryClinton.com) observes, "Wild weather did not stop residents of Huron from coming out to see Hillary on Thursday. Droves of voters turned out to see Hillary at Campbell Park, but due to inclement weather the event was moved into the Huron Events Center. Once inside, a packed house heard Hillary speak directly about the issues including our broken economy, the war in Iraq, veteran's affairs and universal health care." Huron, South Dakota, bit of trivia, is where Cheryl Ladd was born. So there's the trivia and now for the important take-away. The primaries will end with neither Hillary or Barack having enough delegates awarded (through primaries and caucuses) to calim the nomination. The race should continue to the convention in August. Some are trying to stop democracy, some don't trust the voters, some don't trust Democrats. Apparently, Democrats gathering together in Colorado this August is a frightening thought to Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Harry Reid. Oh goodness, the trio worries, what might they do! They might ensure that the people are heard. Shame on anyone who attempts to end this historic race before the finish line is reached. Michael P. Forbes (Austin-American Stateman) tells you what Pelosi, Reid and Dean can't and won't:

As the last primary votes are cast on Tuesday, some will want a coronation before the will of the Democratic Convention has been adjudicated.There will be very loud and very determined illegitimate calls for Clinton to bow out. They will cry of suspect pleas to party unity and ill-conceived suggestions that a prolonged nominating process -- one that rightfully should go to decisive balloting for president at the Democratic Convention from August 25-28 -- is harmful to the party. That's baloney. The excitement of this Democratic primary season as attested to by burgeoning party coffers and unprecedented levels of voter participation serve to reinvigorate the national Democratic Party after 12 years of Republican reign in Congress and eight years of a very unpopular Republican president. With daily reminders at the gas pump and in the grocery store of an ailing economy and two wars abroad, Americans are more than ready to put Democrats back in the White House. A national dialogue that continues all the way to the Democratic Convention on the attributes and abilities of Clinton and Obama and who is the Democrat most competent to be president is healthy for the political process and advantageous to the nation.


iraq
john pilger
the new york timesrichard a. oppel jr.stephen farrell
todd s. purdum
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
nancy a. youssef
john mccormickmanya a. brachear
jake tapper

why is nancy pelosi a democrat? she's the speaker of the house so her answer may surprise you. i'll get to that in a minute but let's start with howard wolfson's 'HUBdate: Why Hillary is the Strongest Candidate' (hillaryclinton.com):

Why Hillary is the Strongest Candidate: In a letter to all superdelegates, Hillary outlines her case for why she believes she is the strongest candidate: "I believe I am best prepared to lead this country as President -- and best prepared to put together a broad coalition of voters to break the lock Republicans have had on the electoral map and beat Senator McCain in November." Read more here. For additional information -- read the letter, memo, and general election matchup information here.
Swing-State Advantage: According to Gallup: "In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%...In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain…All of this speaks to Sen. Clinton's claim that her primary-state victories over Obama indicate her potential superiority in the general election." Read more.
A Champion For Native Americans: At a campaign stop in Kyle, SD yesterday, Hillary spoke to a "mostly Native audience of about 350 people" and pledged to fight for the issues that affect Native American veterans as well as all Native American families. "I will be your champion. I will fight for you. I will stand up for you. And I will work my heart out for you." Read more.
Puerto Rico Matters: Puerto Rico and its citizens are gearing up for a "chance for Puerto Ricans to shout to the world about what's important to them on primary day on Sunday." Because of its extraordinarily high turnout rate, it's possible that the number of voters that come out to vote on Sunday will be "about the same number that turned out in states like Missouri and New Jersey." Read more.
If You Watch One Thing Today: Staffers on Hillary's campaign describe their support. Watch here.
Previewing Today: Hillary hosts "Solutions For South Dakota's Future" events in Huron, SD and Watertown, SD.
On Tap: Hillary will host a "Rally for Puerto Rico's Families" in Old San Juan, PR.

so that's some hillary news and i have more but let's get to fancy nancy pelosi who thinks some 1 made her 'the decider' when no 1 did. she thinks she can shut down the race and that doesn't sound very democratic, does it?

but nancy's not much of a democrat. she told the san francisco chronicle (c.i. has link in snapshot) that she's a democrat because of economics. she then went on to praise republicans because she believes they get fiscal conservativism. (where has she been living the last 7 years?) she couldn't stop blabbing about her upcoming speech that's going to be on the need for fiscal conservativism.

she bashed china. repeatedly. the recent natural disaster that killed people? that was because of their repressive government. funny, people died in this country as a result of hurricane katrina and i didn't hear her talk about a repressive government in the u.s.

must be nice to snear at china for nancy. she's so out of touch she thought she was being cute by saying she'd always felt connected to china because when she used to go to the beach as a child (apparently back east because she is not a california girl), her parents would tell her that if she kept digging, she'd dig to china.

oh, that's so funny, nancy. you're so funny.

what an idiot. read one passage c.i. has in the snapshot and grasp that the woman cannot speak. she can't finish a sentence.

it's a real shame cindy sheehan decided to be a pretend candidate and not a real 1.

kat's grabbing where nancy calls a state racist so check out kat tonight.

i listened and just couldn't stop thinking, 'this is a supposed democratic leader?' i mean no reason we lose over and over.

she was pathetic throughout. she was racist, she was offensive, she couldn't string a consistent thought together, she has no desire to end the illegal war and really doesn't want to.

for nancy pelosi the iraq war is like roe v. wade, a way to try to scare up voters for a general election.

yes, she really is that pathetic and that's why she's supporting barack. but, poor 8th district, cindy sheehan supports barack as well.

maybe the 8th district can vote republican in their congressional election in november.

nancy pelosi thinks she's been put in charge of the democratic nomination and some 1 needs to walk her through reality. a hard task, i know, but some 1 better try.

this is from michael p. forbes' 'Clinton must take the fight all the way to Denver' (austin american statesman):

As the last primary votes are cast on Tuesday, some will want a coronation before the will of the Democratic Convention has been adjudicated.
There will be very loud and very determined illegitimate calls for Clinton to bow out. They will cry of suspect pleas to party unity and ill-conceived suggestions that a prolonged nominating process -- one that rightfully should go to decisive balloting for president at the Democratic Convention from August 25-28 -- is harmful to the party.
That's baloney. The excitement of this Democratic primary season as attested to by burgeoning party coffers and unprecedented levels of voter participation serve to reinvigorate the national Democratic Party after 12 years of Republican reign in Congress and eight years of a very unpopular Republican president. With daily reminders at the gas pump and in the grocery store of an ailing economy and two wars abroad, Americans are more than ready to put Democrats back in the White House.
A national dialogue that continues all the way to the Democratic Convention on the attributes and abilities of Clinton and Obama and who is the Democrat most competent to be president is healthy for the political process and advantageous to the nation.

if that solid argument seems familiar, ava and c.i. have been explaining those basics each week at third since january. super delegates vote in the convention. not until then. if nancy and coward dean try to shove barack down our throats by short circuiting the process, there will be hell to pay.

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

Thursday, May 29, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, US Speaker of the House Pelosi blames the US Senate for the illegal war continuing (that is not a joke), Condi tries to hype a tag sale, and more.


Today Waterbury Republican American notes that US war resister Robert Weiss was "sentenced to seven months in confinement" after being "found guilty of desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty, and missing movement through design" and briefly notes that Weiss had applied for CO status (seems surprised that he would then deploy to Iraq -- apparently, they're unfamiliar with the process) and that he self-checked out in December of last year. Though it's published today, the verdict and sentencing was May 13th and Courage to Resist noted it then. Then and now?

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 US war resister and Iraq War veteran Corey Glass was informed he had until June 12th to leave Canada or he would be deported. Eight days later and Democracy Sometimes! Amy Goodman still can't utter two words on her laughable show: "Corey Glass." Today Goody chatted up Norman Finkelstein about the 'horror' of being deported from a country whose government you criticize (Israel). Finkelstein's return to the US could mean imprisonment or even the death pen -- Wait. Finkelstein's deportation means nothing. He's risked nothing. Unlike Corey Glass, Finkelstein could not be imprisoned in this country, nor is he at risk of death (which is the maximum penalty for desertion). But there was Goody proving she can always be ever more useless. If you missed it, when she decided Democracy Sometimes! existed to pimp her candidate, she quit pretending to give a damn about the Iraq War.

While Goody stays silent, 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 (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=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 the US where Nancy Pelosi, Speak of the House of Representatives, launched an attack on the Democratically controlled Senate, blamed them for the continued illegal war, repeated slogans she was questioning only two years ago and much more. The Barack Obama for President Pelosi's interview had an appalling write up in the San Francisco Chronicle. That nonsense Pelosi offered was the least important thing about the interview. (Market based strategies sounds an awful lot like privatizing -- especially when Pelosi brags of speaking to private business. That's just one aspect of the interview that should have raised alrarms.)

On US withdrawal (partial) from Iraq, Pelosi declared "it is essential and it will happen and it will happen in my view with a Democratic president and that will begin in a matter of months and that is the optimism" she's feeling. Let the rest of us know when her feet touch back down to earth. A November election is nothing to pin all your hopes upon but that's the game Pelosi wants to play.

Apparently a Democratic president will be able to control that US Senate which keeps letting her down over and over. She explained to the editorial board and reporters of the San Francisco Chronicle that she's all for withdrawal dates, it's that Senate that keeps insisting on 'goals': "The house keeps passing these bills with deadlines or, to accomodate the Senate sometimes, goals. We just sent them another one we'll see -- they sent it back without the redeployment language, we'll send something back to them."

However, she wasn't done pinning the blame on the Democratically controlled Senate. She was queried if the "Democratic Congress had pushed as hard as they could"? She insisted,
"The House has always voted to have the redeployment of the troops out. . . . From the House we have always fought but the senate [let's voice trail off into silence]" I'm not really sure the best way for the Speaker of the House to conduct themselves is to declare war on the Senate semi-privately. Maybe a war between the two houses of Congress is what it will take to end the illegal war? If so, Pelosi needs to take her comments to a very public forum which, apparently, this meeting was not since it was not reported on. She further instead of the Democratically controlled Senate, "they are guarding the president's desk."

It's the sort of thing that might have once fooled people. Apparently the only fool in the room was Pelosi. She was questioned: "Why not put withdrawal dates in this bill with the Senate and just stand up to them and say, 'it's got to be this way, we're not going to give in'?" In stops and starts, Pelosi gave a response that appears below word for word minus a stammer or two. If you can find more than three complete sentences in the following, wipe your glasses.

Nancy Pelosi: Well they see, that's -- there is a bi-partisan majority for that in the Senate -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- but there aren't sixty votes and so nothing would ever get to the president's desk. And there just isn't a -- a -- that just won't happen -- it -- this has been the obstacle from day one. Every -- we've sent now maybe a half dozen times to the Senate. They will not. They will not and I don't think that there is a -- I don't, I don't believe as much as I have opposed this war from the start and have said from the start there is no intelligence to support the threat that this administration is claiming so it has been a misrepresentation from the start, I know that. But it is -- I don't think people would want to think, although we're sending the bill with conditions, that the money is supposed to be used for the redeployment of troops out of Iraq, that anybody's going to leave them high and dry. And that's just really the -- uh - - uh dichotmy -- if that's the word and -- and -- and exists in the mind of the Am -- they don't -- they want 'em out but they -- we can't leave them high and dry. We're saying this is the way we'll do it. We'll do it with the conditions that this money is used to bring them home uh to leave some of there to fight al Qaeda, if that's still necessary, to protect our embassy but otherwise -- and that isn't a lot of troops -- but otherwise they should be coming home if they don't go with these conditions --

Again, if you think you followed that, wipe your glasses and re-read it.

Apparently Barack loving has destroyed whatever was left of Pelosi's mind. (And I honestly thought, before I heard the thing played over the phone, I'd be able to say something kind about Nancy -- someone I've contributed to the campaigns of every time until this cycle.) First let's note that the Dem leadership (the same leadership that wants to push Hillary out fo the race for the presidential nomination) made sure Pelosi was undercut as the 110th Congress was beginning by saddling her with Steny Hoyer when she wanted John Murtha. So I will cut some sympathy for her on that. That's all the sympathy she gets.

Let's examine her remarks quoted above. She said:

Well they see, that's -- there is a bi-partisan majority for that in the Senate -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- but there aren't sixty votes and so nothing would ever get to the president's desk. And there just isn't a -- a -- that just won't happen -- it -- this has been the obstacle from day one. Every -- we've sent now maybe a half dozen times to the Senate. They will not.

So what? If Pelosi's correct that there are not (and would never be apparently) sixty votes in the Senate, so what? If the House stood firm, Pelosi is saying nothing would get sent to the White House. Well, Nancy, that would be one way to cut off spending right then. So would a filibuster in either house. And she's not stupid, she knows that. She's playing the public for stupid. Let's move on to another segment:


But it is -- I don't think people would want to think, although we're sending the bill with conditions, that the money is supposed to be used for the redeployment of troops out of Iraq, that anybody's going to leave them high and dry. And that's just really the -- uh - - uh dichotmy -- if that's the word and -- and -- and exists in the mind of the Am -- they don't -- they want 'em out but they -- we can't leave them high and dry. We're saying this is the way we'll do it.

Nancy's old enough to remember the US withdrawal from Vietnam. The majority of the public favored it. Didn't stop the critiques from the right-wing. Or the media. And nothing will. Pelosi's going to have to figure out whether Congress serves the people or not. She's offer a duality (another word she could have utilized) that doesn't exist among the public. Back to her nonsense:


We'll do it with the conditions that this money is used to bring them home uh to leave some of there to fight al Qaeda, if that's still necessary, to protect our embassy but otherwise -- and that isn't a lot of troops -- but otherwise they should be coming home if they don't go with these conditions --

If that's still necessary? When was it necessary? And Pelosi knows it wasn't. She says that in her opening remarks to the editorial board. But then she goes off and tosses off that sop. It's nonsense and if you don't grasp it, this is from PBS' NewsHour, November 8, 2006 (audio, video and text):


MARGARET WARNER: Now, the president said today also he wanted to work in a bipartisan way on Iraq. But then he repeatedly defined the goal as "victory." And he said at one point, you know, speaking of the troops, "I want them home, too, but I want them home in victory, not leaving behind an Iraq that's a safe haven for al-Qaida." And he said repeatedly that victory was leaving an Iraq that was self-sustaining and could defend itself. Now, can Democrats work with him and embrace that as the goal?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I mean, the point is, is that our presence in Iraq, as viewed by the Iraqis and by others in the region, as an occupation is not making America safer. We are not even honoring our commitment to our troops who are there, and we are not bringing stability to the region. So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down. The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?

Nearly two years later and Nancy Pelosi is tossing out sop that is no different than what Bully Boy was claiming in 2006 only she had the guts to call that out then. Today, she grabs a handful of sop and tosses it out herself.

There were glad times to be had by all. Favor impeachment (the issues is dead but still needed)? Pelosi thought it was a joke. Told that there were some more questions to be asked she responded -- with self-laughter, "Why did we not impeach the president!" Oh, that was funny -- for people who want to laugh at her. She made a fool out of herself with this statement as well regarding the Iraq War: "What is stunning to me is that you would have thought the president would have gotten the message and been willing to compromise in some way. But he basically said to us, 'I'm not doing anything'." Now interviewed by Margaret Warner back in November of 2006, she was full of herself over the fact that Donald Rumsfeld was leaving as Secretary of Defense but the reality was the 2006 mid-term elections had nothing to do with that and the White House and Rumsfeld were exploring that in September of 2006 and the determination was known by October of 2006. Does Nancy Pelosi really want Americans believe she was that 'naive'? Rumsfeld leaves and she just knows that's a sign Bully Boy's going to work with the Congress?

Here's some reality for Nancy and the Cult of Obama. Obama's probably not going to end the illegal war. Not only are his 'pledges' contradictory, they are in opposition to what Samantha Power told the BBC in an interview she gave right before she resigned from his campaign: that anything Barack said on the campaign trail was 'non-binding' and he'd make up his mind what to do after he got to the White House. If you listen to the interview, see where Pelosi seems really to want to end the illegal war. She never comes off that way. She doesn't know how many US service members have been killed in Iraq (the figure she gives was outdated), she's not sure of the number of the wounded. Nancy wants Barack. And, no, it's not to end the illegal war. If she wanted to end the illegal war, she had the power to do so from 2006 through today. She did nothing. She wasn't just a member of Congress, she controlled the House. She controlled it and she did nothing. And she told the American people that if they wanted to end the Iraq War they needed to elect Democrats in 2006. They did that. Both houses of Congress flipped, not just one. Both flipped to Democratic control.

Now Nancy wants us to know that if we'll also give her choice the White House then, finally, the illegal war can end. That's a lie. I don't loathe Nancy and actually was hoping to write something nice about her (when I got a call about the interview) but she's lying. She can lie all she wants, we won't help her out. She also better grasp that if she tries to shut down the race for the presidential nomination, she's risking her own Congressional seat, forget leadership of the House. Cindy Sheehan's running the most defocused campaign in the world (sorry if the truth hurts) and has lost her lead in Pelosi's internal polling but Nancy shuts down the Democratic race and Cindy gets a surge.

This interview with Pelosi should be big news. You can hear the audio here. It's not. And that's because there's no real desire to end the illegal war (or, for that matter, tell the truth). Amy Goodman's done nothing but impersonate Robin Leach for two weeks now. (Still hasn't mentioned "Corey Glass" to her audience.) Lifestyles of the Sad & Pathetic with Amy Goodman. Where's the peace movement? As Ron Jacobs (Dissident Voice) noted last week:

It is fair to say that the antiwar movement in the US is moribund. A movement that put a million people in the streets a month before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and has drawn as many as half-a-million protesters to protests as recently as January 2007 has failed to mobilize anything even near those numbers since then. Part of this is because of differences among the leadership of the two primary antiwar organizations, part of it is because many people opposed to the war have put their energies -- however misplaced -- into working for Barack Obama, and part of it is attributable to the belief that there is nothing one can do to stop the bloody occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Today Jacobs notes:

If cynicism concerning the possibility of the antiwar movement being effective is one prevalent opinion among the writers telling me that I'm wasting my time, then the other strain is the bunch who believe electoral politics will elect someone who will end the war. This exists in spite of the shameful record of the 2006 class of Democrats elected to do exactly that. Further examples of the Democratic Party's stance can be found in its' remaining presidential candidates' support for war on Iran and the almost unanimous support it has shown for the PATRIOT Act and other repressive measures introduced by the Bush regime. There is something tying these strains of thought together and that is a belief that there was a democratic government in this country before 2001. Those who believe that Obama may turn the tide if elected believe it is the Bush regime that has ended that democracy. So do many of the cynics.

My opinion, the peace movement is stronger than it was. Not because of 'leadership' but because around the country these 'leaders' are being rejected, these do-nothing 'leaders' who sidetrack and subvert the peace movement. Some of them are named 'Tom Hayden,' some of them have other names but their names are known on campus and their reputations are in tatters. I understand what Jacobs is writing about and agree with him in many ways. But he's writing about the decay at the top. The top needed to decay because so many of them were and are worthless. (And Ron Jacobs has done a very good job of documenting the student peace movement.)

Meanwhile, in Iraq, it's tag sale time. Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reports the Iraqi puppet government attempted to woo corporations that could take the country over -- claiming it in the name of various countries -- with a pitch based around the slogan "A New Beginning." The NewsHour (text only) reports that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki followed up today pitching a plea in Stockholm that "international sanctions" on Iraq be ended because they "were imposed on Iraq because of the previous regime" and requested that debts be written off. Where there's money to made from suffering, US Secretary of State Condi Rice is there. And she was in Stockholm pushing anything and everything that could allow the tag sale on Iraq. She spoke of "postive political and economic developments" in Iraq so possibly her official journey included an undisclosed stop at a hash bar in Amsterdam? Winding down her remarks, Rice declared, "But I'd like to say one final word, and that is about the Iraqi people. Because while their leaders have, indeed, shown courage and dedication, so too have the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people have been unwilling to give in to violent enemies. They have remained dedicated to building their democracy." Yes, they have and they are biding the time until the foreign occupiers leave their country with the hopes that democracy might then flourish. They express themselves loudly and repeatedly, in poll after poll, that it is past time for the US to leave their country.

Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has called for demonstrations tomorrow (and every week after) over the treaty that puppet al-Maliki and the Bully Boy are attempting to push through. This as the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports: "An angry Shiite militia commander complained Wednesday that 'we were duped' into accepting a cease-fire in Sadr City -- remarks that point to a potential rift within radical clearic Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia. The May 11 truce ended seven weeks of fierce fighting in Baghdad between U.S. and Iraqi forces and Al-Sadr's militia, which controlled Baghdad's Sadr City. Iraqi soldiers have moved into most parts of the city." Basil Adas (Gulf News) reports "Parties inside the Shiite bloc led by [Supreme Council leader Abdul Aziz] Al Hakim said Al Sistani promised Al Maliki of not interfering in the negotiations and distanced himself from the Iraqi-US security agreement." Meanwhile Anna Badhkhen (Christian Science Monitor) reports that not all in Baghdad are following the May 11th truce/cease-fire al-Sadr worked out with the US after the months long US assault on Sadr City and Badhkhen opens with: "Nadir Hamid Shamkhi has not stepped outside since March 24, when she retrieved her kidnapped husband's tortured body from a Baghdad morgue, buried him, and fled to her relatives' house in Risala -- a slum in southwestern Baghdad. Ms. Shamkhi is counting on the black Shiite flag that flies from her sanctuary's roof to protect her from the militants. But she is not certain it will."

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

Bombings?


Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing via hand grenade that wounded six people, a Sinjar bomber killed themselves and 16 police recruits with twenty-one more wounded, a Nineveh Province car bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left ten people wounded and a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 members of the Iraqi military.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Salahuddin armed clash where "Awakening" Council members were surprised at a checkpoint and 2 unidentified people were shot dead -- but for real 'justice' the "Awakening" Council then "executed" "at least 10 men." Before the military confirmation, Naji and Fadel reported yesterday on the coins and quoted Sheikh Mohammed Amin Abdel Hadi stating, "We say to the occupiers to stop this. This can cause strife between the Iraqis and especially between Muslim and Christians. . . . Please stop these things and leave our homes because we are Muslims and we live in our homes in peace with other religions"; while Falluja residents utilized "two words -- 'humiliation' and 'weakness'."

Corpses?

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

Meanwhile Leila Fadel and Jamal Naji (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the US military admits that one US marine was distributing coins in Falluja that contained Christian scripture engraved in Arabic; they quote MNF's Mike Isho: "It did happen. It's one guy and we're investigating."


Turning to US political races. David J. Kalbfleisch and Jason Wallace are member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and they are both running for the US House of Representative out of Illinois. Kalbfleisch is running in the tenth Congressional district and Wallace in the eleventh. They are both Green Party members and you know they will do everything to end the illegal war if elected. So when the same people attacking Hillary find time for other things, wait and see how many take the time to steer to you either candidate? (Answer: They won't. Both men are running against Barack's handpicked lemmings.)

As already noted, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke with the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday. A story was published, the interview was so much more interesting. "The convention is supreme," Pelosi stated dropping back to the 1984 race when she attempted to inform states (such as New Hampshire) that they would not be seated. "Ha! Ha! Ha!" was the response Pelosi received. The candidates (Gary Hart and Walter Mondale) voted to sit them and "the convention is supreme." The delegates didn't care what Pelosi told them, they knew they'd have to be seated. Despite sharing that tale, Nancy didn't seem to absorb it. She stated there must be a penalty for Michigan and Florida (but not for New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina). What was the penalty in 1984? There was none. Tell everyone that fact, Nancy.

"We cannot take this fight to the convention," claims Pelosi. What she really means is she wants to stop the race and she has a limited number of days to do that. What are we talking about? Pelosi: "Right now this is all under the auspices of the DNC, not yet the convention, that doesn't trigger until the end of June." That is correct, Pelosi, Dean, et al, lose all power to try to decide for Democrats as June closes. Pelosi and others want to shut down the process because, as she herself put it, "the convention is supreme." She can't control the convention, no one can. Equally true is that whatever IDIOTIC plan she and Coward Dean (Sugar N Spice's name for Howard) attempt to ram down Michigan and Florida's throats, if both candidates remain in the race to the convention, Florida and Michigan will be seated in full. Why is that? Neither Hillary or Barack would say say "no" anymore than Hart and Mondale wanted to tick either state off. That is what it will be and that's another reason Coward and Pelosi want to shut down the process, they're trying to keep the blood off Barack's hands. Pelosi's interview is a laugh riot. She starts talking about the Republican Party having no ideas (I agree with her on that) but then she's off talking about the Erie Canal. "We have to think in new, fresh ways" she also says. The Erie Canal? New and fresh.

In Barack news, TalkLeft, Big Tent Democrat has another video from Obama's church. The video's a YouTube one and we could post it here but we take trash to the curb, we don't post it. "Father Mike" (Michael Pfleger) presents a hate speech on Hillary -- filled with lies, distortions and apparently psychic ability. Someone call the Vactican -- I believe a heresy has been committed. What I know is that little stunt is exactly why Trinity was already in danger of losing its tax-free status. How 'spiritual' and 'refreshed' the kooks at Trinity must have felt after that non-stop, misogynist hate speech. Tennessee Guerilla Women steer to Janet Bagnall (Montreal Gazette) who observes, "Clinton's critics always describe the problem as her. They would never oppose a candidate because she is female, you understand, it's this particular woman they don't like ... because she's tainted, because she is married to Bill Clinton, because she's single-handedly destroying the Democratic Party, she's too feminine, too masculine ... there's no end to the litany of failings attributed to the first woman in U.S. history to wagea serious campaign for a presidential nomination.
The increasingly hysterical calls for her to withdraw from the contest started long before last week when she pointed out that it wasn't unusual to continue to campaign into the summer and even up to the convention itself. Her husband didn't nail down the 1992 Democratic nomination until June; Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning in June 1968." Take that
'feminists' Katrina vanden Heuvel and Betsy Reed (In 2007, the two faux 'feminists' published 491 men, 149 women.) Tennesee Guerilla Women notes the DC rally this Saturday:

A group of high-profile Hillary Clinton supporters, Democratic fundraisers and Florida Democrats is planning to hold a day-long rally Saturday outside the Washington hotel where the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting will be considering the fate of votes cast in the Michigan and Florida primaries to call attention to what they say is the exclusion of women's voices from the democratic -- and Democratic -- process and the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida voters.Announced speakers so far include National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy and Florida Democratic congresswoman Corinne Brown. Organizers say that they expect individuals to come in from 26 different states for the rally, as well as some major celebrity speakers, and that they are receiving logistical assistance or other support from the pro-Clinton United Federation of Teachers and EMILY's List. The group Florida Demands Representation, organized by James Hannagan, will also be there.

Meanwhile Lindsay Levin of Hillary's campaign notes: "Hillary has earned more votes than anyone in the history of the Democratic primaries, and she will lead in the popular vote with more than 17 million ballots cast when the primaries conclude on June 3rd. Not only is Hillary the top vote-getter, poll after poll shows she fares better against Sen. McCain in large swing states than Sen. Obama. She is the only candidate winning in the battlegrounds of Ohio and Florida. Hillary's candidacy has attracted a broad coalition of new voters. In fact, the highest increases in turnout have come among her core supporters -- millions of new women, Latinos and people over 45 voted in the primaries for the first time. In the coming days, superdelegates will have a clear choice: who is ready to serve as President on day one and who is best able to beat John McCain in November? When you look at her wins in the important swing states and her strength against Sen. McCain in head-to-head matchups, there's no question that Hillary is the strongest candidate."

Lastly, Bob Somerby continues addressing the vile and disgusting sexist nature of the press. That puts him way up on FAIR who refuses to EVER call out Keith Olbermann.

iraq
corey glass
robert weissron jacobsmcclatchy newspapers
leila fadel
karen deyoungthe washington postdavid j. kalbfleischjason wallace
anna badkhen

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