Andrew Ross does well, Fancy Nancy disgraces

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 above Andrew S. Ross' "Campaign question-5: Obama's latest racial problem" (San Francisco Chronicle) and it's worth opening with since so many in the media are refusing to call out the nonsense.

That one sentnece (there's more to it) just sums up everything completely. Some journalists can do that. They can write a lede that is brilliant. Ross has done that.

If you missed it, Fancy Nancy is off her rocker. (Seriously. C.I. got a call from a friend who is one of Nancy Pelosi's three best friends asking what was wrong with Nancy and not meaning regarding the Democratic race for the presidential nomination. C.I.'s reply was hilarious and true and, if there's a roundtable at Third, I will press for it to be included. C.I.'s reply explained a great deal.) Nancy heard about Thursday's snapshot, by the way, and was pissed. C.I. said (on the phone), "Well let's hope she doesn't read Third this weekend." C.I. has a blistering piece planned. Jim and C.I. have been outlining it all week. Jim will sometimes say, "Okay, but this needs to be in there . . ." And C.I. will stop him and say, "We aren't writing this for the readers, we're writing it for Nancy."

The phone call only resulted in other ideas of weaknesses to hit on regarding Fancy Nancy. (Who did a photo-op at a Food Bank today to try to look like she was still in touch with the people.) She's threatening to shut down the primaries. She's saying, in fact, that she will do that. So Nancy's about to find out how easy of a ride she's had it all these years. She's about to find out what it's like to be ridiculed and to have your weaknesses exposed.

Jim was questioning including one point and C.I. said, "We're including it because in 1998, Nancy said _____ to me and now her worst fear has come true ten years later. This isn't about reaching readers, this is about letting Nancy know what's coming."

It's a real shame Cindy Sheehan made a complete fool of herself by endorsing Nancy's chosen candidate (Barack) with all her little comments at Common Dreams and her 'pithy' little columns because if she hadn't done that, C.I. would swing the election to her in a minute.

And C.I. can do that. In the Bay Area, C.I. has that kind of power. (C.I. has power elsewhere but when you've put as much money into as many campaigns, as many charities, et al that C.I. has over the years, you have a war chest of markers you can call in. Add in all the friends C.I. has in the media everywhere but especially in the Bay Area.) It's a real shame Cindy Sheehan wasn't smart enough to say, "Wait, Nancy Pelosi is my sworn enemy. And Nancy's for Barack. Therefore, since Nancy's not about ending the illegal war, that means she wouldn't support a candidate who would so Barack is not everything the hype has made out."

Oh well, it was Cindy's own failures.

She wanted to be back in the Dem circles she walked out on, so she took Common Dreams and left comments bashing Hillary whenever she needed a pick me up. And she was welcomed and felt like it was old times.

There's also the fact that her pathetic friend David Swanson is nothing but an Obama groupie (and a fat ass) and as other avenues were shut down to her, she couldn't lose access from Swany Boy.

I had planned to sign up to volunteer for Cindy's campaign. Then she started posting those snarking comments at Common Dreams.

Like Jess, I've had it with her.

She's her own worst enemy. And again, this could have been her election to win. But she decided she'd be Nancy Pelosi's wet nurse and push Barack too.

Here's Howard Wolfson's "HUBdate: 'Top Candidate for Dems' :"

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.

As C.I. pointed out on the phone, if this were all sewn up, the way Nancy is claiming it is, Nancy wouldn't have the need to issue threats. (Favorite line, "If she wants war, she can have it. I made this area my home. She's nothing but a transplant and one who's gotten too big for her britches. No one will shed a tear as Nancy gets cut down to size.")

Closing 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 (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).

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

Nancy Pelosi says Kentucky is racist

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.

Remember when Nancy used to get called out? Wonder what stopped it? The Barack Lovefest in Panhandle Media. They're not calling Nancy out now, are they? They need her. So Amy Goodman finds anything to do except cover Iraq. Remember when Cindy Sheehan finally woke up to how she was being used? She's turned into another idiot all over again.




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

Bye-bye, Marjorie Cohn

C.I. likes Marjorie Cohn but I just saw the nonsense she wrote and I wouldn't be at all surprised if C.I. pulls the link to Cohn. It's bulls**t. I wonder if it's going to get the NLG pulled as well? I'm not looking forward to being the bearer of bad tidings. I saw her name and thought, "Oh, click on that! I can highlight her." I had no idea she was going to loony town.

I would assume Cohn is not a Democrat and I would assume she was part of the West Coast Socialist scene that knows better about Barack. (I'm assuming on both counts. She may be a Democrat. I doubt it, but she could even be a Republican.) The East Coast set is enthralled with Barack and sees him as their way to achieve Socialism. The West Coast set knows damn well he's supported by Big Media because he guarantees the US military bases in Africa.

Mike's stopped listening to Law & Disorder. All it took was Michael Smith showing up late for a live broadcast (pledge drive) and opening with a crack about Hillary -- who wasn't even being discussed. That lost them their Texas audience and I knew it would. Mike, who lives in Boston, was just going to wait until after the primary to listen to them but with Cohn's column (which I just told him off and he is red-faced with outrage), I'm guessing he may not be listening again. What's the point?

Really.

As they've chased off their audience, that's what they haven't learned. Marjorie Cohn (who is not a host of Law & Disorder) is an attorney who is supposed to be concerned with human rights. There is no need for her to be getting involved in a primary. (Especially if she's not a Democrat but she may be one.) Michael Smith's remarks lost them Tyler, Dallas and Houston in this community. I thought Michael Smith was about social justice. I thought he was about getting the word out on prison abuses.

Apparently, it was more important to him to stick his nose into electoral politics than it was to have the largest possible audience to speak to.

And that's true across the board. There will be no social movement in this country and it is because they couldn't stay out of a Democratic Primary.

They're going to be starting from scratch now, trying to build back up to the point they were, trying to gather an audience.

I would think Michael Smith would grasp that a segment of NYC already agrees with him on social justice and that he would be interested in reaching out across the country. Instead, he's alienated a large chunk of people who did like him, who were listening.

He -- and include Marjorie Cohn in this -- sold out to endorse a Ford Explorer or some such bulls**t.

It's really a shame because Marjorie Cohn was one of the women Hilda cited recently that she could still follow. When people see her latest column, they will be screaming for C.I. to pull the link. And considering what Cohn is suggesting, I don't doubt that C.I. will.

They could have stayed out of it -- the bulk are not Democrats and have no business in a Democratic Primary to begin with -- and built their audiences and educated them about the death penalty, about the need for a major overhaul of the court systems and the prison system.

But instead, they do not seem able to grasp the fact that Hillary supporters are not Republicans. And they keep insisting upon smearing Hillary and when they do that, it sends a VERY LOUD message to those fighting for Hillary that Marjorie Cohn or Michael Smith or whomever doesn't appreciate them, doesn't think they're smart and doesn't even like them.

When Marjorie Cohn falsely writes that Hillary's crossing her fingers someone's going to off the other candidate, it says: "This is the candidate and these are her supporters."

That may or may not be Cohn's intent. It doesn't matter. It is the message being sent.

It's really appalling, as someone who has listened to KPFA for years, to watch it and other outlets go out of their way to slant, to distort and to lie. I wouldn't be surprised if, after the elections, some Pacifica stations didn't lose their broadcast licenses. That would include KPFA which did a two hour 'analysis' of the debate and only invited on guests who had endorsed Barack and failed to disclose to their audience that all guests were Barack supporters.

Read the KPFA live blog from that night (the Texas debate). There were Hillary supporters on it. But KPFA lost those listeners I'm sure because they disrespected them, they insulted them and they LIED to them.

Marjorie Cohn has now done the same thing. If, in a calm moment, she really believes what she wrote, the woman's a crackpot. There was no need for that nonsense.

Amy Goodman's already lost a chunk of her audience and there are efforts to pull her off NPR stations due to the well documented ways in which she has slanted the show. (Had she been an NPR employee, she would have been fired for her first interview with Melissa Harris-Lacewell which violated every ethical standard in NPR's written ethics guide.)

Now Marjorie appears to want to spit on people as well. She may think she's going after Hillary and that's 'safe.' It's not safe. Hillary LEADS the popular vote. She has the Democratic base sewn up. Marjorie's nonsense just erected a wall between herself and any Hillary supporter. Is that really what the president of the National Lawyers Guild is supposed to do?

I kind of thought she was supposed to tackle issue -- not electoral politics -- and raise awareness of the issues and the organization.

I know the community and I know the reaction to Michael Smith showing up late (I didn't even hear that broadcast, it was on WBAI, but I've read about in all the community newsletters and know how outraged people still are) with a, "Things look wonderful from here," jazzy Bob Hope delivery as he went right into a 'joke' about Hillary.

For Marjorie it's even worse because she is a woman. If she really loathes Hillary, she should take comfort in Big Media saying Hillary's dead in the water. She shouldn't join the pile on. That's what turned the community on CODESTINK and Medea I-Need-Attention-Benjamin.

People aren't in the mood for it. If the situation was reversed, if Marjorie was up for something and Hillary delivered a speech condemning her on the floor of the Senate, the community would be outraged. They would feel that (a) if that's how Hillary really felt it still didn't need saying because there was already a pile up (and probably a sexist pile up) on Marjorie.

One thing that's really true about the community (which C.I. built, give credit where it's due) is that we do believe in basic fairness. It's why Greens in the community and independents are pulling for Hillary.

Marjorie just alienated herself from a lot of people by implying that (a) they're stupid and (b) they support someone so loathsome that she would wish or plot the murder of another person just to win a race. That's outrageous of Marjorie to suggest.

I didn't plan to write this long tonight. But I'm still reeling from that nonsense. Mike's saying they're all pulled tonight. He's talking to Jess and Jess (who is a Green) is saying, "Pull those f**kers from Third." Ty was saying, "Do it!" (Which means "C.I. do it" because C.I.'s the only one who knows Third's template since Jim, Dona and Ty flipped it.) That's going to be the reaction community wide. And you have to wonder if it's really worth it to these people doing their daily attacks on Hillary? Are they that self-destructive?

I kind of doubt that when C.I. pulls (C.I. will pull Marjorie's link and if the community's outraged enough, all the NLG links will be pulled) anyone else is going to be carrying announcements for NLG. I kind of doubt anyone will note for a full month that the next month the NLG has an anniversary gathering. I'm sure no one else will read their books or pamphlets and write about it online.

Regardless of how the primary turns out (forget the general election right now), a lot of people are going to have much smaller audiences and they're going to need to build all over again. Here's a hint to Marjorie and others, when Keith Olbermann's foaming at the mouth, it's not generally real news.

(I'll also add that C.I. pulled something about Hillary and Bill from the snapshot today because C.I. said, "I don't want to be accused of trying to influence it at the last minute." What C.I. dictated was wonderful. It was wonderful to hear, it would have been wonderful to read. And it was very favorable to Hillary and Bill -- but C.I. was writing of personal observations and didn't want that in the snapshot. It's amazing that C.I. tries to play it fair while all these alleged 'writers' and 'broadcasters' feel free to slime Hillary in any way they can -- and for the record, C.I. was addressing that and explaining what liars those people are. I told Jim about it and he's arguing for C.I.'s pulled section to go up at Third this weekend.)

Okay, I mentioned:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!



Here's 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.

Closing 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