Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Brass tacks. Who are the Dem leaders BushInc trusts will cover up their crimes of office?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 01:05 PM
Original message
Brass tacks. Who are the Dem leaders BushInc trusts will cover up their crimes of office?
Edited on Sun Nov-19-06 01:13 PM by blm
And maybe that is a discussion that the party needs to start having BEFORE the primaries begin, especially since exit polls noted that most Americans believe corruption in DC is a major issue and are no longer willing to put up with the culture of corruption and coverups of corruption.

We all have seen how fragile this country's democracy is at this point - heck, before Katrina, we were just a few miles down the road from full on fascism.

The DC culture of covering up for each other brought us dangerously close to fascism - are we going to sit back and allow it to get that close ever again? THAT is the essential question for Democrats and all Americans.

This country needs FULL-ON SUNSHINE if it is ever going to regain its strength and security.

BushInc CAN happen again. They are a monster that will not go away until exposed to full sunshine.

"You know how many horror movies start this way?"



Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didnt pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Husseins government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clintons domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton didnt feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people, Sender told me in an interview. He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.

Clintons relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bushs administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, these centrist Democrats warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its non-interventionist left wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office, said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLCs dont-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clintons decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies never materialized.

Politicized CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush politicization of the CIAs analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a Presidents desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA directors job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

I told that the New Republic hadnt brought them enough votes to win a single precinct, the senior Democrat said. But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIAs politicization issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clintons confidence and after several CIA scandals was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to focus like a laser beam on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasnt on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided, Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.

Unexpected Results

Clintons generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didnt turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clintons failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bushs inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his fathers presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bushs role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Familys reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bushs candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Rights political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clintons tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nations fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clintons approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clintons folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Maybe the same ones that said that the public wouldnt' vote
for ANTI-WAR DEMOCRATS


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

snip>Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.

These sources said the two leaders have expressed worry that Pelosi is playing into Bush's hands by suggesting Democrats are the party of a quick pullout -- an unpopular position in many of the most competitive House races.

"What I want Democrats to be discussing is what the president's policies have led to," Emanuel said. He added that once discussion turns to a formal timeline for troop withdrawals, "the how and when gets buried" and many voters take away only an impression that Democrats favor retreat."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Those same strategists were surprised that corruption was an issue with voters, too.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. Sometimes I wonder
if DUers and Democrats really understand that corporatists (Republicans traditionally) are taking control of both parties. There is very little opposition in the opposition party. Corporatists very nearly own it all.

There was a Republican campaign manager type in the PBS Frontline documentary, The Betrayal of Democracy" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/info/1...
He admitted to misleading the public, "...and the public is easy to fool."
It seems even Democrats are easy to fool, judging by all the calls for moderation and cooperation.

We'll see what happens with the upcoming investigations. I'm trying to have hope with Conyers, Feingold, Waters, Jackson-Lee and others who hold the Constitution and Bill of Rights above cashing in on corporatism. They need our support.

Just say NO to DINO's!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. What I believe is that every DUer understands the import of the question but traditional
Edited on Sun Nov-19-06 02:33 PM by blm
loyalties make them queasy about what they KNOW is the answer.

So, avoiding the issue and any discussion is a way to preserve an innocence about the Dem party they want to believe in. I had that myself up until I read Bill Clinton's book and was horrified by with his lack of explanation for letting Bush1 off the hook for so many of his crimes of office.

He owed the citizens a decent explanation for his actions. More than just a few paragraphs about goodwill and Poppy's peaceful retirement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Paul Robeson is on CSPAN2 now (Amy Goodman)
and he says he is 100% FINISHED with this government of, for, and by the top 10%ers in America.

He says he's old, tired, and TIRED OF IT!!!
When this calm, diplomatic man is that pissed you know it's time. He's fed up too. And though the truth is painful, denial is disastrous.

He advocates a 3 party system where the current Dems would be the center. This could enable coalitions and a liberal representation for the first time since Reagan cheated Carter in the Iran debacle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. That's a shame - the Democratic party NEEDS the left or else it can't exist.
And the anti-corruption, open government Democrats NEED to get into the executive branch to preserve democracy's last best chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
7. Slow Monday morning kick.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC