Hillary Clinton has no chance of winning--she will not win the nomination and if, by hook and by crook, she does, she will not win the presidency.
Finally, she's bad news. Why? The deadly 3R's--
More
I found Hillary Clinton out. I am not happy with what I found. The last straw came when she vowed to obliterate Iran if it attacked Israel. Then she attacked Move-On for being against the invasion of Afghanistan (they were neither for it or against it).
(Everyone's ganging up on Obama because he said people were bitter because of the bad economy and were turning to guns and God. Memo to Obama: you should have said people are bitter because the damn Democratic Party, just like the Republican Party, is a friend to the rich and hostile to the poor and middle class.)
Sure I'm bitter...bitter about Clinton's millions, McCain's beer heiress trophy wife, Obama's boyish good looks and gift of gab.
Then there's the bitterness I have about the billions CEO's have accumulated and spend on crazy luxuries life Lear jets, and 400 million dollar yachts, and Bush's insane war which will cost 3-5 trillion and, yes, I'm bitter because I can just about afford my cat food diet and now I worry that Purina might be bought out by some hedge fund. But, please,don't mourn for me, organize.
Heck, I'm bitterness incarnate. But, I decided to move on. I started a group supporting Obama for president. It's called "Bitter People for Obama." Bitter as I am, I think he would be the best president ever.
Ah, China, is beginning to have the look and feel of an Iraq type scenario. The Dalai Lama is our Chalabi, The Tibetans our Shiites and the CIA/AID/NED pumps money like mad into Tibetan exile groups as it did to the Iraqi fundamentalist exiles training in Iran.
The US always deals harshly with threats to its hegemony. China and Russia alternate as the perceived evil empires that want to do us in. Indeed, both of these countries have severe issues around human rights and battling people who don't agree with them but so does the USA. Fellow sinners, don't be so quick to toss the first stone.
It's money down the drain, anyway. The USSR collapsed after being bled dry in Afghanistan...could happen to us as we spend our last oil dollars supporting another medieval, fundamentalist, "lord of the serfs" in the guise of the Dalai Lama. It seems that the George Bush crowd and assorted neo-cons are hell-bent on going down fighting and taking the rest of us with them.
All the Shiite militias in Iraq (except for Sadr's) trained in Iran. There, they were helped/armed/trained by our CIA. Badr militia (trained in Iran) is really the Iraq Army as well as the fiefdom of the ruling Iraqi political party. And it was Iran that brokered the peaceful resolution of the Maliki /Sadr battle in Basra.
When the President of Iran visited Iraq the other week it was a state visit and the man was kissed on both cheeks by al Maliki.
So...to review..CIA /Iran trains all Iraq Shiite militias except for the Sadr one. Our man in Baghdad (that would be Patreaus) says the Iranians are troublemakers and are behind Sadr, AQ and the roadside bombs.
Our other man in Baghdad (al Maliki) loves the Iranian ruling party.
So, sometimes the Iranians are our allies and sometimes they are our enemies. Confusing ? Big Question: Why did we build such a deadly house of cards in Iraq?
Possible answer:
There's no logic to what Team Bush does. As the crazy but smart like a fox Chalabi noted to author Mark Danner: "The American tragedy in Iraq is that your friends in Iraq are allied with your enemies in the region, and your enemies in Iraq are allied with your friends in the region."
Theater of the Absurd! General Petreaus, based on his collection of data, says things are going well in Iraq. Could be better, mind you, but we're on the right track. Deaths are down, bombings are down, mortar attacks are down, now up...
Problem 1: There is no independent collection of data in Iraq. Knowing how the Bush team operates, it is probable that the facts were fixed around the policy
Problem 2: The Bush Administration is already on record for creating its own reality.
Problem 3: The Dick Cheney Doctrine–if something has a 2% chance of being true, then by God –it is true.
Petreaus-Crocker follies–just like the fictitious war reports stemming from General Westmoreland in Vietnam, not to mention the fictitious Weapons of Mass Destruction data reported by Secy of State/General Colin Powell, Pentagon views on reality are rose colored.
It seems George Bush is trying to keep his house of cards (Iraq) upright until he leaves office and if the Dems win the presidency and the US leaves the place, he can blame the ensuing chaos on them, --if they do leave and if there is, indeed, chaos.
Another mortar attack in Baghdad, this time killing 3 American soldiers and wounding 31, according to the New York Times online story of April 6th. Our man in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, the top commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, noted of the battle ''where we have criminal elements that are threatening the security and peace of the people of Iraq, we take action.” It’s mind-boggling that the country that invaded the place (that would be the US) is complaining about the locals taking up arms against us. Hasn’t out presence in Iraq become rather hopeless? In a few days time General Petreaus comes to tell the Congress what a splendid little war we have. Hasn’t it become obvious that this country cannot repair the pottery that was once Iraq and by staying is only creating more chaos? The time is long past for us to leave.
The New York Times is the New York Post for college grads. It titillates: it posts lurid pictures of Spitzer's hooker, hires Kristol just to piss people off and send off piles of letters-the editor,and, finally, selects pro-war crazies to review the Iraq war and why, you ask?
Clicks, fans, Yes clicks. You click the page and the neo-con Sulzberger gets ad money. Seems like some hedge fund wants to buy the Times and they like the digital version of the paper. So, the more crazies Sulzberger puts on your screen, the more clicks, the better the Times does.
You want reality, good reporting, screw it, just click and shut up!
The Clintons are rather rich, don't you think? Remember, Bill started out dirt poor, became the governor of Arkansas-- which paid diddly-squat and now they're both raking it in. Is it any wonder that Hillary refuses to be pulled off the feeding trough? Can't we have a government without the rich ruling? This oligarchy got to go! Perhaps we can have democracy. You know, basically a house of representatives that represents the people. No Senate --it lopsidedly represent small states better than large states andplease out with the life appointed supreme court and please get rid of that vestige of monarchy, the president.
In actuality we have a monarchy/oligarchy. Certainly Bush has taken on Kingly powers.
The “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.” MLKing
Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence
Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam
Delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
April 4, 1967
At Manhattan’s Riverside Church
That’s all there is; that’s all you need to know on this the 40th anniversary of his death.
All the candidates have spoken on Israel-Palestine: They are all AIPAC supporters.
Senator Obama addressed AIPAC in March, 2007. He voiced continued support for military assistance to Israel and for not pressuring the Israeli's on negotiations with its neighbors. Obama in his Pastor Wright speech castigates the Palestinians for the troubles in the region and notes that Wright mistakenly ," sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. " Obama was also a Lieberman supporter in the Lieberman/Lamont battle.
McCain travels around the world with Lieberman. Enough said?
Clinton --ever since she was called on the carpet for embracing Arafat's wife she has been pro AIPAC all the way.
Furthermore, every day Israel builds more settlements in the occupied territories. Any sane person could see where this is going--the creeping erasure of the Palestinians. Or as former Israeli Premiere, Golda Meir said long ago--there are no Palestinians.
Moreover...
Foreign policy-wise not much will change with Obama or Hillary. We still have the axis-of-evil who run US foreign policy: Wall Street/Pentagon/Florida Cuban exiles--stick in AIPAC for a quartet-of-evil.
"Did Cheney's visit have anything to do with al Maliki's attack on Basra?"
Of course. Cheney/Bush are the rulers in Iraq--Maliki a puppet and Sadr, someone who wants us out of there. Hence the battle. Cheney saw Sadr gaining influence and a strong contender to win upcoming vote in Iraq. Cheney doesn't want to leave the place. Along with McCain he'd stay for 100 years. Plus, he doesn't care what people think. He's the guy who said “so" when told most people want us out of there.
To that I can only say what I said yesterday:
Fellow imperialists, Max Boot fans, assorted neo-cons and oil users--look at it this way:
We're getting sucked dry by the fight in Iraq--3 trillion down the tubes! Our military uses more oil there then Iraq is sending back. We're just like the old USSR who went broke fighting in Afghanistan. And who is benefiting from our empire's decline? Why Russia, China, India.
Wise up saps! It's time to end the Hamlet stay/go paralysis and leave the joint.
As for our prospects for leaving, I do not have much hope:
Foreign policy-wise not much will change with Obama or Hillary. We still have the axis-of-evil who run US foreign policy: Wall Street/Pentagon/Florida Cuban exiles--stick in AIPAC for a quartet-of-evil.
