So we now know Ben-Veniste and Hamilton covered up for Bush on 9-11.

[blm]

On serious matters that would have effected the 2004 election in a VISIBLE way by putting Bush completely on the defensive for 9-11.

Why?

When you partner this with Terry McAuliffe not countering RNC efforts to suppress Dem votes for four years, and ignoring party infrastructure in states like Ohio, what SHOULD we be expected to think?

I am not a coincidence theorist.

[beachmom]

1. So what's up here?

Just to put the Clintons in power, they would sell Kerry down the river? I feel queasy to be on the same side as the wingnuts about the Clintons. Surely, there has to be more to it than this. I sure hope there is, because a betrayal of that proportion is just a bit too hard to take.

[blm]

2. Let's see - Clinton PUBLICALLY supported Bush from 2001 -2005 on most

of his foreign policy decisions.

Then he never mentioned ONE WORD about BCCI in his book.

Helped to cover up the CIA drugrunning story revealed in HIS term of office.

And Terry McAuliffe did NOTHING, even after the 2000 election hearings exposed RNC decites, did nothing to counter RNC's vote stealing efforts that were stepped UP after 2001. And completely ignored reports of machine fraud after 2002 election.

[karynnj]

6. I feel the same as you on this

I do see that at minimum, top Clinton partisans did a half hearted job supporting Kerry. Clinton himself should never have put his book out when he did. That was time Kerry needed to create a build up to his convention. (Kerry also lost a few weeks with the death of Reagan) It is also true that he denied Kerry credit on many things he did. Begala and Carville were useless supporting Kerry and they were key Cabe TV Democrats. Why Clnton didn't call them and tell them to shape up does beg the question.

In the real world, people don't see this - which is unfortunate. In my cicrle, I've found I can get people to see that Carville and Begala were dragging their feet, but people don't want to believe it of Clinton. At this point, it can be shown that Clinton was self centered, but it can not be proved that he wanted Kerry to lose. I 've spoken to few people - because the reaction was to say he could not have done more because of his heart surgery. (Meaning people completely miss the point that he may not have wanted Kerry to win.)

For the partisans, I think it was a case of THEIR return to power. There is no way a Kerry administration would have used the Clinton political people, such as Carville. It may be he was (and others weren't) so much out for Clinton as for themselves. This may also be why they came out with knives within days of the election and they and their allies have printed all these stories that tried to portray Kerry as claiming a leadership role that he doesn't deserve - and awarding it to Hillary. (Kerry's strength and dignity through this has been amazing.)

For Clinton, it may not just be a return to power. A Kerry Presidency would lead to Kerry biographies, giving more attention to Contra/drug running and BCCI bank dealings, even if he did nothing ever again on issues like them.

[wisteria]

3. Unfortunately, I would not put anything past McAuliffe or other Clinton

operatives. They made some powerful friends during their eight years in the White House. They did some favors and have been cashing in ever since. I hate to think ill of other Democrats, but I do of the Clinton's. IMO, it will be a great day for the Democrat party when they both have no more influence.

[blm]

4. Add the passing of urgent info from Carville to Matalin on election night

and this whole thing stinks more.

[_dynamicdems]

5. I agree. n/t