Latest Intelligence reports says: Bush Oversimplified Iraq Intelligence. In essence the Bush Administration lied to the American people on the IRAQ issue. Apparently McCain who supported the IRAQ war from day-one must not have read the intelligence reports as well.  Here is an except:

June 5 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell exaggerated and oversimplified intelligence about the threat Iraq posed before the U.S. invaded the country in March 2003, according to a Senate report.

In their speeches, Bush and his deputies failed to note disagreements among intelligence agencies and made too much of links between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al- Qaeda, said the report, which the Senate Intelligence Committee released on its Web site this morning.e report also found that some administration statements on Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological weapons capability jibed with U.S. intelligence at the time.

Read more here .  The whole Senate Intelligence Committee report can be found on their the web site as well.

While McCain had previously signaled that the war in IRAQ will be over in 2013, the Independent, UK is reporting that Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors. The Independent is also reporting that:

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

Furthermore, the paper stated that:

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

Read more here.

Quite an interesting piece from Donna Brazile...

The end of the Democratic primary season is within sight. With three primaries remaining in Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota, the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton will be decided by which candidate has won the majority of delegates to the Democratic convention. Perhaps those voters in Michigan and Florida, if the party's rule committee can come up with a fair solution, might have some representatives attend the party's convention in Denver. So where do the Democrats go from here?

Clinton has shown she's no quitter and will fight for every last pledged delegate and any superdelegates who are uncommitted. Since 2001, women like me have lived with the prospect that Clinton might one day seek the presidency. Given her name recognition, intelligence, ability to raise money and the party's hunger to win back the White House, many of us waited with bated breath for the last, highest and seemingly unreachable stained-glass ceiling in politics to be shattered. She may not break it, but some of us see the cracks.

Throughout this long and drawn-out campaign season, I have not wasted any opportunity to advocate for Clinton to be given every chance to achieve her goal. I never counted her out, but after June 3, I will count the delegates to see who is ahead and by how much.

There are some media reports suggesting that Clinton is now willing to extend the primary fight beyond the last set of primaries. That's just awful. No matter on which side of the fence Democratic primary voters have decided to stand, a convention battle is not in the party's best interests. Read more here.

Interesting poll observations....

The day after a Quinnipiac University poll of Ohio and two other battleground states showed several bad signs for Sen. Barack Obama, a new poll indicates a much brighter outlook for the Illinois Democrat. Quinnipiac had Obama losing by 4 points to Sen. John McCain; now, SurveyUSA shows Obama beating the Arizona Republican by 9.

In stark contrast to the university's survey, today's poll shows Obama winning among both white and male voters. He also comes within 4 points of McCain in crucial southeast Ohio; Quinnipiac had Obama losing by 20 in that area (although the polls may not be defining the region in quite the same way).

Read more here

Hillary Clinton may have scored a solid win over Barack Obama in California's presidential primary on Feb. 5 (as she frequently likes to remind folks these days), but a new L.A. Times/KTLA poll finds he would fare better than she in the battle with John McCain for the state in November (a result the Clinton camp won't be touting).

Obama led McCain in the poll, 47-40%; in a Clinton matchup with the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, she got 43%, he held steady at 40%.

One reason for pause for Democrats -- the margins for both of their candidates fall within the survey's error margin of plus-or-minus 4 percentage points (though in Obama's case, just barely).

Read more here

Winning Puerto Rico may not be that easy for Hillary Clinton if the Puerto Ricans get to know some interesting truths. In an article from CNN, it turns out that the one time first lady did in fact, opposed her husband's offer of clemency to a group of Puerto Rican nationalists saying they took too long to renounce violence. Read the full article here

Has Hillary truly broken international law with her comments on IRAN? Should the United Nations take the Iranian protest seriously? How about the Democratic party, should they call the Hillary camp. and ask then to offer a formal apology on this statement? Well, Ben Cohen, an editor of the political site 'The Daily Banter.com', thinks there is violation of international agreements based on the Charter of the United Nations. See the Charter here.

"Nobody seems to have noticed that Hillary Clinton has broken international law by threatening Iran with 'obliteration.'

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said in an interview with ABC. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Why are alarm bells not ringing? Read more here

Interesting piece! What goes around comes around.....Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones :-)

"John McCain has had a field day with Barack Obama's tenuous associations with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground who is now a Chicago professor.

Obama has said repeatedly that Ayers' radical past (he was involved in a handful of bombings in the 1960s) occurred when Barack was just a child, and he repudiates those actions. Nevertheless, McCain wants more."

Read more here

Yet another interesting piece, separating fiction from facts by By Al Giordano. 
I turn on the TV, read the political columnists (and a significant number of analytically-challenged bloggers, too) and all I hear is a bunch of white folk prattling on about their favorite narrative: “Obama’s losing white voters!”

They’ve swallowed the Clinton racially-obsessed spin, hook, line and sinker. Some, because they are gullible, haven’t an original idea in their little pea brains, and follow the pack of what everybody else is talking about. Others, because they like to toss around knowing falsehoods. Nary a superdelegate can go on Fox News without being berated by an anchorperson screeching (this is pretty close to an exact quote): “But your duty as a superdelegate is to select the most electable and that’s Hillary Clinton!” That these anchorpersons are Republican partisans openly cheering for Senator Clinton is our first clue of the game afoot. One of the major successes of Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos is that it has got all the right-wing pundits and reporters marching lockstep behind the effort to give Clinton enough oxygen to keep slashing away at Senator Obama, who remains the prohibitive likely Democratic nominee.

Read more here

Here is an interesting post on the indystar, I think the american people ought to know about - 
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=52da0849dc5f421eb12f82cfde1fc990&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=52da0849dc5f421eb12f82cfde1fc990&plckPostId=Blog%3a52da0849dc5f421eb12f82cfde1fc990Post%3a425c2489-90fb-45d6-ab57-ea442b885795&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest

The Story - 

In the landmark civil fraud case against Bill Clinton in Los Angeles, where the former President is charged with defrauding a Hollywood dot com millionaire to help Hillary Clinton obtain more than $1.2 million from him for her 2000 Senate campaign, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz ruled on Friday, April 25 that Hillary Clinton would not be required to testify in a sworn deposition as a material witness in the case until AFTER the November election!

While Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Al Gore, Ed Rendell, Barabara Streisand, Cher, Stan Lee, Brad Pitt, Mike Wallace, Larry King et al may be called to testify and be deposed starting in May, Hillary alone has been protected from explaining her role in her husband’s fraud charges.

In an astonishing ruling by the Judge, Hillary Clinton may NOT be deposed about her role in the illegal solicitation and cover up of the largest contribution made to her Senate campaign until after the presidential election. This is the same contribution Hillary denied knowing about or receiving when Lloyd Grove of the Washington Post asked her specifically about it and her relationship with the donor, Peter Paul, in August 2000. Its the same contribution her finance director David Rosen was criminally tried in May, 2005, or hiding from her and her campaign. Its the same contribution the FEC fined her campaign for hiding from the voters in three false FEC reports by her treasurer between 2000-2006. (www.paulvclinton.com)

Equally surprising as the ruling was the judge’s request to Hillary defense lawyer David Kendall to "say hello to his ( Judge Munoz") friend Bill, also a partner in Kendall’s law firm"
The decision to shield Hillary Clinton from civil discovery for an additional seven months, thereby delaying a long postponed trial, was made by the judge on his own, without any request by Hillary or her lawyer to make the ruling. No discussion was permitted by Paul’s lawyer before the decision was made. Judge Munoz’ unilateral decision effectively saved the floundering campaign and hopes of Hillary Clinton to win her party’s Presidential nomination!

Had Senator Clinton be forced to testify under oath, as a material witness and beneficiary of the fraud that her husband is being sued for before the Democratic Convention, her remote chances for being nominated the party candidate would have been unquestionably destroyed.

Hillary has never publicly commented on the case in which she was a defendant from 2003-2006. Nor has Hillary ever commented on the videotaped phone call she made to Peter Paul the day he began spending more than $1 million for her Senate campaign, the false statements she made through Howard Wolfson to the Washington Post denying working with Paul or receiving any contributions from him, the sworn Declaration she made under oath where she refused to deny any of Paul’s allegations, the role her White House aide Kelly Craighead played in coordinating Paul’s expenditures and befirending Paul’s Japanese business partner during a White House visit and many other unanswered questions of illegal conduct.

The illegalities detailed in Paul’s civil complaint and FEC complaint caused Hillary’s finance director to be criminally indicted and tried in 2005 by the Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity (the same group that prosecuted Scooter Libby) for hiding the cost of a fundraiser paid for by Paul. Paul’s FEC allegations forced Hillary’s campaign to admit to the FEC in October, 2005, that it violated FEC reporting requirements by hiding more than $700,000 received from Paul that Hillary personally said she never received.

Hillary’s sworn deposition is expected to reveal numerous illegalities directed by Hillary, with Bill’s help, to win and keep her Senate seat and avoid being accountable to the law. The judge’s sua sponte decision to delay Hillary’s deposition until after the presidential election denies the public’s right to know what a presidential candidate and a former president have done to undermine the Rule of Law and the Constitution by corrupting the Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity and its very Chief, Noel Hillman, federal judge A Howard Matz appointed by Bill Clinton (who deceived the jury in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director by telling the jury that Hillary was not involved in any way) and the FEC itself which aided and abetted Hillary filing a fourth false FEC report in January, 2006 that omitted any reference to the $1.2 million contribution the FBI and DOJ swore Paul made.

The Department of Justice prosecutor in the May, 2005 criminal case stated that $1.2 million was personally contributed by Paul at the request of Bill Clinton as part of an employment deal for Clinton’s post White House rainmaking services and was confirmed by FBI Special Agent David Smith as explained by Dept of Justice Prosecutor Dan Schwaber (pages 55,57,72) during the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in May 2005.
Hillary’s treasurer was later forced to admit filing the false FEC reports to hide more than $700,000 paid by Paul, and fined $35,000 (the only fine imposed on Hillary’s campaign) yet Hillary has never answered one question to the media or the courts about these charges!

In fact, Hillary’s sworn Declaration in response to Paul’s sworn allegations constituted a legal admission to Paul’s charges becauseHillary refused to deny any of the allegations!
Strangely, Hillary admitted to the Washington Post in August 2000 knowing that the fundraising event Paul produced and paid for in August, 2000 cost more than $1 million- yet Rosen was indicted on three counts of hiding this fact from Hillary’s campaign causing 3 false FEC reports to be filed!

The cover-up of the original felony violations of the federal election law committed by Hillary and Bill Clinton (they solicited and coordinated Paul’s $1 million plus contribution as a quid pro quo for Clinton’s post White House employment) have resulted in a corruption of every branch of the government by the Clinton’s- all in plain view of the public and with the collusion of the media and the government. Watergate seems insignificant in the breadth of its public corruption in comparison with what has become the mother of all coverups orchestrated by Hillary Clinton.