Clinton's Blind Eye to Voters

So, Hillary claims a victory in Pennsylvania. Who could have predicted that?

Maybe Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

"I’m not saying anything bad about my candidate but I– it is funny at New Hampshire that all the ones that were hand-counted went for Obama and all the ones that were machine counted went for Hillary."

That was Bobby talking to Bill McKibben on the March 8, 2008 broadcast of Ring of Fire Radio (approximately half way in).

Dear Bobby, he couldn’t keep down the ironic chuckles as his endorsee’s primary successes and his knowledge of methods of election theft were irrefutably dancing in front of him.

I’ve been paying attention to RFK Jr. ever since I read his Crimes Against Nature in 2004. With approximately 20 books on Bush under my belt leading up to that election, it was Bobby’s book that was the answer to NPR’s question, "What is the most important book to read before the 2004 Presidential Election?"

Bobby is a brilliant, funny, fearless and passionate speaker. Did you see him at Live Earth last year?

He would be one hell of a great endorser.

If his heart was in it.

But Hillary’s silence on the real voting issues that have been rampant in every state’s primary must give Bobby pause.

The fact that the world has suffered great consequences from the illegitimate certifications of the last two Presidential elections for George W. Bush and his psychologically unhealthy teammates – should be inspiration for legitimate candidates seeking election to demand that voters get to vote and get to have their votes counted.

In each and every primary.

Not just the ones where Senator Clinton won delegates by dishonorably campaigning after an agreement was made that the candidates would not do so.

Senator Clinton’s pretense to care for the voters who deserve to have their votes counted is revealed as rather selective by her silence on the continuous problems that have occurred in every state primary.

Starting with New Hampshire, problems with confusing new voter ID laws irregularly and sometimes illegally enforced, improperly trained poll workers, registered voters missing from lists, shortages of staff and machines and ballots, long lines, voter intimidation, and the stubborn clinging to voting machines that have long since proven to be hackable, unreliable, and unverifiable have resulted in people not voting, votes not counted at all, and incorrect and unverifiable vote tallies across the nation.

But Hillary Clinton has said nothing about any of that.

Perhaps it is, as Bobby suggests, that often the results of the these problems seem to help her get delegates.

Nor does she mention Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos – his urging Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries, even if it means they have to switch affiliation, and vote strongly for Senator Clinton.

Is this how she wants to win? Doesn’t she realize that the Republican have a reason to want Hillary to win?

Consider this: Remember that U.S. Attorney firing scandal? Remember that one of the replacements for U.S. Attorneys who weren’t cooperating with the Bush/Cheney/Rove agenda was a "friend of Karl Rove’s" (always a dangerous sign)? A little man named Tim Griffin was put in place as U.S. Attorney – where?

In Arkansas. Why Arkansas? Because that’s where he can research the history of Hillary Clinton.

Would he have done such a thing? Oh, yeah. As Greg Palast points out, it was Mr. Griffin who was behind the emails of caging lists sent out in 2004 - a detestable method of purging registration lists of tens of thousands of voters, voters who appeared to live in low-income, urban areas, homeless shelters, and military bases.

Griffin was sent to Arkansas for a reason. Republicans want Hillary for a reason. And those reasons are slimy – and do not bode well for, uh, democracy, America, the world, etc.

And Bobby knows this. I can’t imagine his endorsement is sitting well for him. It’s certainly not the subject of any of those impassioned speeches he’s so good at.

As Bobby said to Bill McKibben back in March, when Bill noted that in his town in Vermont where paper ballots were used Obama was popular, winning 175 to 68:

"He’s popular any place where they count the votes by hand."

Friday Questions for Diane, May 28, 2008

How can Senator Clinton proclaim herself the voter's advocate in Michigan and Florida -- then sit back while her backers attack Nancy Pelosi for stating her superdelegate vote will support the voter's choice?

***

Kudos are in order again for House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers, Jr. for paying attention to evidence that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat, was indicted and imprisoned on trumped up bribery charges, under pressure from Karl Rove. Conyers's committee will hear testimony from Siegelman personally in May.

Meanwhile, in another Judiciary/White House conflict, it was announced that the White House was not going to bother to try to locate the missing emails, because it was too difficult.

Is there no shame in that fortress?
***

Last Friday the Miami Herald reported that Roger Stone, infamous RNC operator and friend of Karl Rove, admitted to turning over information he'd gathered on Eliot Spitzer to the FBI last November, just weeks after he'd had to step down from his consulting job for the New York State Republican Party after he'd been caught making threatening phone calls to Eliot Spitzer's elderly father.

Stone was previously involved in the phony riot in Miami in November 2000 that shut down the recount, political stunts with Rove in Texas, and is considered by many analysts to be the anonymous messenger who delivered the two Texas National Guard memos to Ret. Lt. Col. Bill Burkett that were then handed over to Dan Rather's team -- thus bringing down Dan Rather, the 60 Minutes II team that revealed Abu Gharab, and discrediting the National Guard officer who witnessed the scrubbing of Mr. Bush's military records.

It seems to me that it is Mr. Stone, not Mr. Spitzer, who is more dangerous to society.

***

Last Friday the International News Service reported that following Vice President Cheney's visit to Saudi Arabia, the Saudis have held meetings to discuss how to deal with nuclear fallout from attacks on Iran.

The national media has reported that Cheney has backed down from his aggressive plans because of U.S. public opinion, but his "SO?" shows us how little regard he has for us.

Can he be stopped?

"Would you vote for Hillary", RadioWest asks

In response to RadioWest with Carl Bernstein discussing his biography of Hillary Clinton:

“Would you vote for Hillary?”

There was a time when I would have voted for Hillary for President, beyond a doubt, and if she becomes the Democratic nominee, then I still will. Whatever her flaws, I still find her to be very intelligent, capable, compassionate and wise, with honorable motives -- all qualities that have been sorely missing in the present administration.

However, the problem lies in her husband's legacy. Will she be able to move forward and act objectively, without the need to protect and/or defend the parts of his policies that, in retrospect, have not worked or have had negative, even dangerous, unintended consequences.

Most notably, there is the use of depleted uranium in U.S. military weapons. It didn't start with Bill Clinton. On the contrary, it began with Bush/Cheney, only it was George H.W. Bush and Dick Cheney as Defense Secretary, who first bombed Iraq on January 17, 1991, using penetrators made effective by the extremely hard heavy metal, which would burst into flames and sharpen on contact with its target, leaving tiny radiating particles in the air, and eventually making their way into the water and land, there in Iraq, as well as travelling upon the currents of the great dust storms that Iraq is famous for. The radiation, called "low-level", is no less intense or damaging for being "low-level" -- it just means that the range of the constantly emitting bursts is small, but once particles enter the body, by inhalation, the mouth or through an open wound, that emission range is perfect for attacking nearby cells as the particles work their way through. The kinds of cancers that occur depend on the size and solubility of the particles, and where they get stuck along the way. Doctors in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen the greatest increases in leukemia, and cancers of the liver and lungs, as well as the previously rare occurence of multiple separate cancers. With the sanctions against Iraq in the 90's, treatment was almost impossible, and losses were great.

Then, under President Clinton, there was the crisis in Kosovo and Bosnia, and NATO moved in, armed with U.S. and British weapons. In January 2001, the NATO countries exploded with stories of cancers suffered by the troops who had served in the former Yugoslavia, and demanded an investigation. The United Nations sent a team from the Environmental division and the World Health Organization. Meanwhile, the Pentagon squashed scientific evidence linking DU and medical effects. It was years later that those who were still paying attention learned that Dr. Keith Baverstock of the WHO, their best expert in radiation, filed a report in 2001 acknowledging enormously harmful effects, but, under pressure from the U.S., it was shelved.

Even more horrible, then, is the fact that the U.S. military, no longer capable of pretending to be unaware of the effects, still uses depleted uranium in its missiles, penetrators, shields, tanks, and more. Yet few in Congress are courageous enough to try to introduce and support legislation to stop its use or even seek testing for every soldier who serves in the Gulf. Congressmen Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Kucinich (D-OH) have been leaders in this effort. But even Democrats have been reluctant to take this on, even though the greatest use by far has been ordered by the two versions of Bush/Cheney, in 1991 and from 2003 to the present, because in between the Bushes is Bill Clinton, their most successful President since FDR.

I don't know that Senator Hillary Clinton would be willing to face these truths and stop what so many in the rest of the world recognize as the kind of long-term, boundary-less destruction that qualifies as a war crime. It is the ultimate torture -- to watch your loved ones, especially those who are most vulnerable -- your children, suffer through cancers and birth defects.

We need a leader who will end this.
And we need citizens who will demand to know what the candidates will do about it.

A Question for Carl Bernstein on KUER's RadioWest

Carl Bernstein appeared on KUER's RadioWest with Doug Fabrizio today. He is the author of the book on Hillary Clinton, A Woman in Charge.

And the question is:

Will Hillary Clinton be willing to tackle the atrocity of depleted uranium in our current weapons -- which would mean she'd have to acknowledge her husband's culpability in this? He continued what the first Bush & his Defense Secretary Dick Cheney started in 1991 in Iraq, when he bombed Kosovo & Bosnia, and Bush2/Cheney have continued to use them despite news in January 2001 that our European NATO allies were coming up with unusually high numbers of cancers, especially leukemia.

Hillary seems to be the least likely Democrat to stop the use of depleted uranium by the U.S. military.