A New York Times editorial on May 7th is titled "The Soft Bigotry of Iraq," and begins:

"Whether out of blind loyalty or blind denial, most Congressional Republicans are prepared to back up President Bush's veto of the Iraq spending bill."

Whether out of blind loyalty or blind denial or corrupt corporate interests, the New York Times pretends to be writing only about Republicans, while building into its editorial the assumption that the Democrats, too, must retreat in the face of a veto. The Democrats, as we all need to be constantly reminded, are in the majority, yet the Times' editorial arrives at this as its penultimate sentence:

"The final version of the spending bill should include explicit benchmarks and timetables for the Iraqis, even if Mr. Bush won't let Congress back them up with a clear timetable for America's withdrawal."

"Mr. Bush" won't LET Congress pass a bill demanded by the vast majority of Americans? Why, because he might veto it again? If he vetoes enough of these war spending bills, Americans will get what they wanted anyway: he'll have to end the war.

Pelosi Has Started Phone Tally for Impeachment- CALL NOW!!! House Speaker Pelosi's office is taking calls voting for Impeachment of Bush/Cheney at 202-225-0100. Folks, each of you who have been wanting impeachment, need to commit right now to ask at least 10 others to call and ask each person to commit to asking 10 others to call and so on. It needs to happen fast and NOW. Let's BLITZKREIG the Speaker's office with demands for impeachment of Bush AND Cheney. Please make a call, and thanks so very much.

Palast is the author of Armed Madhouse, released last week in a new, expanded edition, in paperback - the newest addition to the New York Times list of non-fiction bestsellers.

Before his untimely death in a plane crash, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown said,

"I'm not Hillary's mother-f****** tour guide!"

That wasn't a nice thing for a member of the President's cabinet to say about the First Lady, now my Senator, Hillary Clinton.

And it's probably not polite for me to bring it up now.  But if I don't, surely the Karl Rovarians will - if Senator Mrs. Clinton nails the Presidential nomination.

Bill Clinton used to say that, once he became president, he finally earned more money than his wife.  That was a carefully crafted bit of modesty to show Bill as an aw-shucks regular guy versus Richie Rich-kid George Bush.

But Bill's cute remark raised a question in my mind:  How did Hillary get that big ol' salary?  And another question arises:  how has she stayed out of prison?

I read Alexander Cockburn's column on your web site, and he got a bit of information wrong.  He wrote, "There isn't a Democrat who doesn't believe Ralph Nader sank Al Gore in 2000, whatever the actual truth may be."  Actually, this Democrat believes Nader had nothing to do with sinking Al Gore's candidacy in 2000.  Even Gore himself has acknowledged that he failed to convince enough voters to go with him over the Shrub.

At any rate, I think next year's primaries will produce some surprises as the anti-war movement gains even more strength.  Barack Obama lied during the first debate, saying there was "no dispute" that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and that Tehran has admitted such.  Except Reuters reported back in November that the White House had brushed off a CIA draft report saying there is no conclusive evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.  Tehran has consistently denied having a weapons program.  If the so-called front-runners are bent on channeling George W. Bush, they'll find their campaigns ending sooner rather than later, as voters turn away from militarist candidates.