Can someone redistrict me? I don't want Nancy Pelosi representing me. Yesterday she called Kentucky voters "racist" and insisted that 'people like that' exist there but not in San Francisco. I think the botox has gotten to her brain or maybe it's been too long since she was anywhere in San Francisco that wasn't her mansion or a telecommunications corporation headquarters.
There is racism throughout the country. In San Francisco? I'd argue it's predominately racism against Asian-Americans. (I'm not talking about Oakland or surrounding areas. I'm talking about my district, the one Nancy supposedly represents.) I'd also argue that surrounding areas are the most to openly demonstrate racism against Asian-Americans. But there's racism in San Francisco and Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, owes Kentucky an apology.
I was listening to the interview with C.I. and couldn't believe it. I was appalled by nearly every word out of Nancy's mouth including ther 'market' concepts that she's gotten from private industry (which she plans to implement in some public-private works mixture). I was appalled she thought she could get away with her little lie of being impartial while pushing Barack.
It made me think that maybe Cindy Sheehan's a big dope. She's supposedly against Nancy. But what does Cindy do? She does Nancy's dirty work for her -- like a servant girl -- by smearing Hillary. If Cindy truly did not respect Pelosi, she wouldn't be promoting Nancy's candidate of choice. Check out Rebecca tonight because she's grabbing some stuff from the interview (which Nancy gave to the San Fransisco Chronicle which kindly ignored all of her outrageous statements and just focused on Nancy in terms of the horserace). I guess Cindy Sheehan always wanted to play lady-in-waiting for Nancy after all.
Fancy Nancy thinks she can shut the race down. She cannot. This is from Michael P. Forbes' "Clinton must take the fight all the way to Denver" (Austin-American Statesman):
Sen. Hillary Clinton must take her campaign all the way to the Democratic Convention in August, and she must remain in the race until all of the convention ballots are counted.
It is those delegates voting at the Democratic Convention who shall determine the party's presidential standard bearer and no one else -- no combination of primary state votes, no cluster of superdelegates, no orchestrated group of party leaders nor any collection of Democratic talking heads.
Idle chatter to force Clinton to prematurely abandon her campaign is being driven by pundits, partisan bloggers, hopeful job applicants and other favor-seekers with an obsession to be on what may be viewed through a narrow political prism as the winning side.
But is it the winning side?
The effort to push Clinton out of the race ignores the right of Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida to be counted after they were disenfranchised because their states moved up their primary dates. Their participation must come at the Democratic Convention in Denver, where Michigan and Florida -- critically important swing states -- most likely will be permitted to cast official ballots to pick a Democratic nominee.
Wins by Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois have largely divided up votes cast in the Democratic primaries over these many months. And there are 795 superdelegates whose presidential preference is not locked up until votes are cast at the nominating convention. Neither candidate can claim the requisite number of delegates to be the nominee. That happens in balloting when Democrats meet in Denver.
It is Clinton who managed to win those critical primaries so necessary to a Democratic White House victory in November -- in states like Ohio, New Jersey, West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. The senator from New York had more than 14.5 million popular votes cast in her favor. She dominates with a core Democratic voter: blue-collar workers, those without college degrees, and older voters. Clinton must give voice to these constituencies.
Exactly. To the convention and Nancy better get ready for a really nasty campaign to keep her seat if she tries to cut off the race. There are a number of men and women who think it's time to call her out. Equally true is we all think our mayor Gavin Newsome should be our representative. It's too late to urge him to run. But unlike Fancy Nancy, he can stand up for gay rights -- not a controversial position in San Francisco but Nancy doesn't represent San Francisco, now does she?
That's why she's supporting the candidate (Obama) who used homophobia in South Carolina. She better be ready for the payback on that too.
This is 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.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
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
