ouch ... an ugly editorial about the Clintons - is it fair or not fair?

[welshTerrier2]

this is a very, very ugly editorial ... i am NOT posting it because i support what has been written; i am posting it because it needs to be discussed ... i have no idea whether the allegations are true and take no position on them ... it would also be useful to hear from General Clark's supporters about the specific incident referenced in the editorial ...

here's the deal, folks ... either there are evil forces at work trying to trash Democrats and create dissension OR we really have a cancer growing inside our party and we cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend we're one big happy family ... this needs to be discussed ... avoiding the situation is not an answer ...

i'll excerpt the highlights here ... you would be far better served ignoring my selections and reading the full article so that you can decide for yourself ...

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1003-24.htm

Clinton Democrats Want Money More Than Votes

But for the Republicans to lose the House or the Senate, the Democrats would have to win, and to date the party of the opposition has still not discernibly entered into opposition. Indeed, the Democratic Party, dominated by Bill and Hillary Clinton, often behaves as though it's trying to squelch the passion for throwing out the Republicans. <skip>

We've heard the stand-pat argument ad nauseam -- the supposedly "pragmatic" anti-anti-war position. The Democrats, it's said, can't be seen to be "weak on national security." But now we have the decidedly mainstream National Intelligence Estimate saying that the U.S. presence in Mesopotamia encourages terrorist attacks and America hatred: an unoriginal observation but very useful campaign ammunition for nervous Democrats.

Nevertheless, the party bosses still think it best to avoid gestures that might fire up the anti-war movement. A perfect example of the Democrats' Iraqophobia occurred in East Hampton, N.Y., in August, at the height of the Clinton-driven fundraising season. Simultaneous with the boss couple's swing through the richest precincts of Long Island's East End, a Clinton lieutenant, Gen. Wesley Clark, appeared at a separate fundraiser on behalf of six out-of-town Democratic House candidates, all veterans of the military.

Invited to help promote the event, a local group of anti-war veterans wanted to display panels of photographs -- inoffensive head shots only -- of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the group was told that Clark and the six candidates would cancel if any such photographs were posted, so the pictures didn't go up. <skip>

Why this self-defeating strategy? Well, the Clintons and their allies don't see it that way. For the ex-president and the junior senator from New York, fundraising always comes ahead of vote getting (even Rupert Murdoch has joined the Hillary cash wagon), and the big money is evidently counseling caution on Iraq. Centrist Southern Democrats and the party's fundraisers-in-chief, the Clintons have never been comfortable with class issues or had much use for labor unions. After all, NAFTA and PNTR finished off organized labor as a serious political force in the United States.

Moreover, Hillary probably thinks she'll run better for president from the minority, co-starring with her husband in a Restoration drama. If, miraculously, the Democrats win the House this year, many of the new Democratic committee chairmen will be to the left of the Clintons, and might start causing trouble. At judiciary, John Conyers Jr. (D.-Mich.) wants to explore impeachment of Bush, which dredges up Monica Lewinsky. At Ways and Means, Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.) could try to raise the income-tax rate on the Wall Street plutocrats who fund the Clintons. Meanwhile, John Murtha (D.-Pa.), the leading congressional critic of the war, might become majority leader and press hard for withdrawal from Iraq, which would force the Clintons into a corner: They criticize the management of the war but not its alleged goals.

Who needs the bother when Hillary's pro-war, anti-populist platform works well enough to keep the money piling up for 2008? It's a great way to maintain control of a minority party, and to keep it that way in Congress.

[AtomicKitten]

1. ah, come on

You know what the verdict will be here at DU. No sense being coy about it.

The Clintons are considered for the most part to be the dual-headed anti-Christ.

on edit: Yes, I read this in its entirety earlier and have digested its content with consideration of the source.

[welshTerrier2]

5. it's not a poll ...

is it fair to say that Bill Clinton has strangled labor unions with his globalization efforts? how have his pro-globalization policies effected American workers? what is his and Hillary's council about the party's "defense posture" and position on Iraq and is that position consistent with majority of registered Democrats?

the point is that there is much to discuss here ... i'm staying out of it but i think it's important to discuss ...

i understand Hillary isn't popular on DU ... that's why i'm not wasting my time with a poll ... if you like the Clintons, make a good case ... i'm listening ...

[Tellurian]

39. The simple fact of the matter is MacArthur's Article..

IS irrelevant now that the Chessboard has been dumped on the floor and a new game and strategy is in play.

Right now Republicans are in a World of hurt! Die hard Republicans I've know for years..are claiming they
are NO longer Republicans but INDYS.. They WILL Vote, they WILL NOT stay home as the Party line has suggested.

They are tired of Republican politicos embarrassing them and want to see them GONE as if they never existed
in the first place.

The Democrats have the best chance in the world for a Landslide sweep in all Congressional sectors \
right down to the Gubernatorial State Races.

Viva La Democracy!

:dem:

[Frances]

2. Give me a break

Foley was writing disgusting emails to teens, then giving money to the Repubs, then the Repubs looked the other way & of course Limbaugh says that Pelosi is the one who should resign.

Woodward says that Rice ignored a major warning about Osama.

Colin Powell says that Bush fired him.

And you want to trash the Clintons.

[welshTerrier2]

7. did i say i wanted to trash the Clintons?

ummmm, no, i clearly did not ...

how's this sound to you? let's never discuss anything negative that anyone ever says about the Clintons because whatever they say must always be wrong ... let's only talk about the "cheerleading" topics ... rah, rah, rah ...

[RiffRandell]

15. Exactly.

This Op is as bad as the repukes obsessing over the Clintons!

They claim they "want a discussion" but just want their usual cheerleaders to say "good post!"

[cali]

31. Your post exlempifies

a certain common mentality here that pisses me off. First of all, why the fuck shouldn't the OP discuss the Clintons or anyone else, he/she feels is germane to the current political situation. This is a political board. It's not up to you to question people about what they post. Second all, the OP was not trashing the Clintons. He/she made that perfectly clear.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. When Bill and Hill came on the scene where was the party? Ray-Gunned

How soon we forget.

[stillcool]

4. not ugly...just plain...

[MannyGoldstein]

6. I'm Happy To Discuss

But reality is reality. The Clintons are all about triangulating and getting money - theres's really no other thread that comes close to explaining their behaviors. Living by the Triangle has worked for them personally, but has lost many elections for other Dems (have you noticed that our asses have been getting kicked regularly sine 1994?), and driven the "Democratic" Party so far to the right that Eisenhower, a Republican President, would currently be considered to the LEFT of Kucinich (who is about as left as Democrats get these days)!!!

Healthy conversation is always good. But it must start with an honest asessment of reality.

[Frances]

8. The reality is that without Bill Clinton's magnetism

Bush * would have had a second term and we would have lost the House in 94 anyway. The Repubs had the money, the media, the know-how and willingness to exploit people's fears and prejudices. I grew up in Alabama under George Wallace, so I ought to know. By the way, the Northeast is losing population while the South is gaining. That explains a lot of the shift in the House.

[orpupilofnature57]

10. Exactly, ShrubCo with a 20 yr run we'd be eating soylent greens

[laugle]

44. IT'S....IT'S PEOPLE!!!! Sorry, I couldn't resist!!

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Let's Suppose That You're Correct

(Which is not at all clear - HW's popularity ratings were awful, and we were in a recession.)

But let's suppose that you are correct. The argument comes down to whether we should fight for our principles or adopt the other guy's principles, which seem to be attractive but we know to be awful.

By embracing traditionally-Republican principles, the "Democrats" have savaged the Middle Class, disemboweled the Constitution, and started a ruinous war. And all the while, they've gotten their asses soundly kicked - as Truman said so succinctly, "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time".

The CLintons have bamboozled a lot of people into believing that Triangulation as a strategy, rather than as an occasional expedient, is somehow helpful. But observable, measurable reality tells me a different story.

[blm]

12. I doubt it - Bush1 was heading to impeachment on IranContra and Iraqgate

revelations.

The further consolidation of the media didn't happen until 96/97. And THEN it went gangbusters against ANY Democrat.

[orpupilofnature57]

14. No way Bush 11/22/63 would go down for Ray-Gun crimes , ex-cia heads

don't go down ,they get their idiot kid elected president

[blm]

16. Those crimes in IranContra and Iraqgate were BUSH'S crimes -

why do you think the Reagans hated Poppy? Nancy blamed Bush's covert dealings with tarnishing Ronnie's legacy.

[orpupilofnature57]

17. They know more than me, check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_Commission

[blm]

18. Poppy pardoned a whole slew of IranContra figures to save his own ass.

And Iraqgate was ENTIRELY Poppy's crimes - he was the one dealing with that region in the WH, during Reagan's terms and his own.

Reagan was handling Russia and Europe for the most part while Poppy was left to his oil region dealings and South America.

[orpupilofnature57]

23. Kick ,I believe one of the most corrupt men in modern America

Is Poppy ,Shrub has all he can do to wipe his ass, His father is contemptuous,and the face of Friendly Fascism.

[blm]

32. So then you should agree that Clinton screwed up BIGTIME by closing the

books for Poppy Bush - because all it did was STRENGTHEN BushInc and the GOP and their chances to get through their fascist agenda.

Closing those books on IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning also set the stage for 9-11 and this Iraq war.

[orpupilofnature57]

43. Shit Ya ,Bill Clinton was a brilliant manager but by letting Shrubs dad

off the hook it enabled the machine of ShrubCo to thrive.

[karynnj]

28. I seriously doubt this

I remember 1992. First, by early summer, GHWB had approval ratings below 40 (about 8 points lower than his son) Perot hammered Bush, then looked like a lunatic, then dropped out then returned. The people percieved to be stronger Democratic candidates had sat it out because in late 1991, it looked like Buah coun't be beat. I think Harkin or Tsongis would have ended up in aout the same place.

[bobbieinok]

65. Harkin was constantly trashed by M$M as 'the labor candidate'

I'm NOT saying it's bad to be for labor; I'm saying M$M wanted everyone to think labor and unions are bad and Harkin is bad b/c he supports them.

And didn't Tsongis have to drop out b/c of major health issues?????????

[nannah]

9. the fellow who wrote the article is the publisher of Harpers

which makes him credible in his perspective as Harpers and L. Lapham have addressed this idea of classism or elitism as being integral to current politics.... or we can call the Clintons corporate democrats, and their values are at heart very similar to many repubs. Imagine the clintons and bushs as dance partners both enjoying the dance and the music.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Yes

1. Your Franklin quote is excellent - we should also keep in mind what Franklin said moments later:

"there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

I am sad to report that I think of these words often in recent years.

2. You are absolutely on target re: the Bushes and the Clintons being made of much the same stuff - witness how they are drawing so close to one-another.

[Donna Zen]

19. Defend the triangulationists

I can't. There is a vast difference between reasoned compromise, and the political philosophy of the DLC. I have no idea what the Clintons are thinking, other than, they want to return to the WHouse. I suppose there are plenty of Democrats looking forward to that moment; I am not among them.

Nevertheless, to refer to General Clark as anyones lieutenant is both a slam and a lie. I don't doubt that Wes Clark and the other vets did not want to use pictures of "dead soldiers" at a political event. Wes was asked by the Young Turks why he didn't use his winning of a war during the 04 primaries. He said that no one should brag about anything as horrible as war. Lao Tzu would agree with him:

Weapons are tools of violence,
Not of the sage;
He uses them only when there is no choice,
And then calmly, and with tact,
For he finds no beauty in them.

Whoever finds beauty in weapons
Delights in the slaughter of men;
And who delights in slaughter
Cannot content himself with peace.

So slaughters must be mourned
And conquest celebrated with a funeral.

This had nothing to do with Hillary. In fact, as far as Hillary raising all of this money, Wes has said that anyone raising money now for a presidential run does us "a disservice." One other thing: if the Clinton's were so interested in Wes Clark, where was Clinton when Wes was being smeared as being fired? Clinton knew that this was his falling for a right-wing hit, not Wes Clark's problem. But Clinton kept his mouth firmly shut.

Wes Clark may very well like the Clintons, although I would say that we only know what the General says publicly, and Wes likes all Democrats publicly. I doubt that Hillary or Bill would ever come to the defense of Michael Moore.

From the sound of the article, it sounds as if the writer has a "favorite" that is not named Clinton or Clark.

[welshTerrier2]

22. that's a more than fair response, DZ ...

in fact, i'll go you one better ... Hillary supported the invasion of Iraq; Clark did not ...

btw, just for the record, Lao Tzu was thousands of years ahead of his time ... many people are unaware of his big push to promote mass transit ...

Lao Tzu is best known for his famous line: "the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" ...

but the full quote is: "the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step so it's much too far to walk ... you're better off taking the train" ... i may have made that up ...

[Donna Zen]

26. One better:

How about "he had talked to her before the vote."

I think many people are stuck with the meme in their head that Clark was "Hillary's stalking-horse." Of course this makes no sense. It is illogical to think that someone who quit every job they had to enter a race very late just to satisfy the Clintons. Wes Clark said when he dropped out, he had to decide if he would make his mortgage payment or pay his secretary. The writer is just stuck with something in his head that was repeated endlessly. He is smart enough to think it through. Oh well.

Anyway, I'm stuck with the translations of Lao Tzu that are available on the web, but this is one chapter that I think about often:

30. Violence

Powerful men are well advised not to use violence,
For violence has a habit of returning;
Thorns and weeds grow wherever an army goes,
And lean years follow a great war.

A general is well advised
To achieve nothing more than his orders:
Not to take advantage of his victory.
Nor to glory, boast or pride himself;
To do what is dictated by necessity,
But not by choice.

For even the strongest force will weaken with time,
And then its violence will return, and kill it.

Yes, it is amazing that this was written 1000s of years ago. It seems we're not doing so great with "lessons learned." Paul Rieckhoff was part of that Long Island fundraising trip, I would guess that many of these folks objected to pictures of the dead. It is too bad that this proved divisive.

[orpupilofnature57]

24. Al Gore maybe ? oh thats right to straight lace ,uptight competent

We'd die of shock.

[wiley]

64. And we all know who that favorite is.

[Donna Zen]

66. I don't know

I would suspect that someone this involved in politics has already formed at least one, maybe more, allies. I haven't investigated the man's background, nor will I. His right to his opinions is not the question. I objected to the inaccurate reporting based on unsubstantiated rumors.

After watching Moyers' program last night, especially the concluding talk with Ornstein and Franks, I'm more convinced than ever that we need to reform the Democratic Party. Since I have intention of becoming a republican--ever--they can reform their own damn party. But this wishy washy bullshit we have forced down our throats cannot stand.

Weird the Ornstein is being so forthcoming about congress. He may have an ulterior motive since the AEI is not a friend of our current Constitutional form of government. And yet, he seemed honestly distressed. We need to watch that one closely.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Sooooo the Clinton raise money, hey? Ooooh, how terrible!

And Wes Clark is their Lieutenant (guess he gets a demotion, Hey?) cause he appeared at a "Separate" fundraiser for Six Candidates (most whom were veterans, i.e., Eric Massa) and are running with a platforms in where they bring up Iraq as often as possible.

General Clark has told all who listen that Iraq should be the point of discussion during elections...which runs counter to MacArthur's statement here.... Nevertheless, the party bosses still think it best to avoid gestures that might fire up the anti-war movement."

Clark to Dems: Speak out on Iraq
September 28, 2006
By Paul Giblin | East Valley Tribune
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=75255&source=rss&dest=STY-75255

.....and Wes Clark is one of Charlie Rangel's best friends (and apparently, Rangel is now a threat to the Clintons), John Murtha is an adversary to the Clintons (but Wes Clark was standing next to him just this weekend).....and impeachment of Bush by John Conyers wouldn't be good for Clinton, cause of Monica?

I think that in fact, this article stinks based on the timing. Why dog out the Clintons 30 days prior to an election.....and call them money grubbing and insinuate that they are trying to lose the election? And why in the fuck drag Wes Clark into it?

I normally respect the Author, but he ain't my patron saint! In this case, he's theorizing, and not using good examples to boot! I think that this time round, Mr. MacArthur's theory is all wet!

[RiffRandell]

21. Great post! n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

25. It's like what Gov. Cuomo said distancing yourself from the label 'Liberal'

It's the same thing with the Clinton's ,it's denying part of Us , our identity.

[Lurking Dem]

57. thank you for

addressing this drivel.

I'm amazed anyone falls for this crap.

[wisteria]

27. Sadly, it all seems plausible. The Clinton's are all about power and

money and in our party, being the big money getters goes a long way in determining clout. I have held the belief for a long time, that as long as the Clinton's are around pulling the strings, our party will not progress in a positive manner. It also means that all of our grassroots efforts are wasted and in some cases not even welcome. IMO, and I stress, this is my opinion, mentioned because I am concerned about our party, the Clinton's, in the long term, are bad for our party. I think they need to fad away if we want to maintain the party for the people. The Clinton's are corporate Democrats.

[WCGreen]

30. Like Kucinich isn't....

He is so pure and just and right....

COme on, it's time to grow up and see the world for what it really is...

People are ambitious....

They work toward goals...

Some make... Most don't...

[wisteria]

34. The Clinton's go beyond ambitious IMO, and I don't need to have

anyone tell me about the real world. The world may be a dirty place, that doesn't mean we should keep throwing dirt at it and not try to clean it up.
Kuchinich wasn't part of my response. I was referring to the Clinton's.

[WCGreen]

52. For many here, Kucinich is a pragon of virtue....

I just wanted to remind people that DK has his own demons just like every other political person...

[KoKo]

36. Interesting Editorial. Yes, there's a cancer in the party.

Actually it's taken it over and we have to live with it until we find a way of cutting it out. :-(

Why is Donna Brazile and the rest of the has beens still out there as spokespersons for the Party? After all this time...and all those losses...they are still there...along with Carville and Begala and the rest.

[karynnj]

37. Because the Clinton people in the party and media,

have tried to make the last two men selected to lead the party outcasts. Remember that Emmanuel's DCCC in a survey of Democratic leaders listed Carville, but not Kerry. Kerry got a low double digit % of the total via write in, while Carville was at 1% or 2%. The fact that the choices were as they were as telling as the results.

My biggest problem with this is that Gore and Kerry are actually out speaking as leaders on real problems. Gore's campaign on global warming is doing a phenomenal job in changing people's minds and making this a voting issue. Part of Kerry's (and Feingold's) Iraq exit plan - calling a summit - was passed as part of the defense bill. Kerry's real security speech is an excellent way to take over the terror issue. These are what the party needs to be speaking about.

In additional, other Democratic voices should be heard as well.

[paulk]

40. politics is all about power and money

whether it's the Clintons or Kerry or Bush or whomever.


I'm glad that you stress that it's your opinion that the "Clinton's are bad for the party", because there are legions of Democrats out there who don't agree with you - and that you risk alienating if your opinion came to be seen as just, let's say, the usual internecine pre-primary sniping that is so popular here at DU.

[wisteria]

50. Sure, power and money count, but there should be passion also

to make changess and take our contry forward.
As for the Clinton's, I call them as I see them. Again, IMO, they have had there time to run the country and they should be satisfied and move on. We need new direction and new ideas.

[WCGreen]

29. Give me a fucking break.....

If it wasn't for the Clintons, the GOP would have been in control of everything since 1994...

[blm]

33. I don't believe that's true, WC. I have very strong recall from that time

and the years before.

Walsh HAD the evidence that Poppy arranged for Iran to keep hostages till after election. Poppy was also about to be exposed more in Iraqgate scandal - where he funneled arms and billions of our tax dollars to Saddam for years after Congress stopped aid to Iraq.

Bush was set to be impeached in 93 if he had stayed in office - and why he pardoned all he did before he left office.

No way would the GOP have recovered by 94 election day or even by 96. This is why it makes it all the more puzzling that Clinton wanted all of the Bush scandals to go away quietly and urged Walsh to bring his case against Poppy to a close. Clinton also downplayed Iraqgate in his DOJ, offering instead to cut deals that did NOTHING to pursue the real crimes committed by Bush1.

[BootinUp]

42. Its an interesting theory but in the end just more of blm's fantasies.

intended to attack the Clintons.

from the OIC report:
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/part_ii.htm
______________________________

The Investigation is Closed and Reopened: The Bush Diary

In September 1992, Independent Counsel reported to the special D.C. Court of Appeals panel that appointed him that the investigation was complete, barring unforeseen developments at the upcoming trials of Weinberger and Clarridge. The full resources of the OIC then became trained exclusively on the trial of pending cases and on drafting a final report.

On December 11, 1992, the White House unexpectedly informed Independent Counsel that President Bush had not produced to the investigation previously requested diaries relevant to Iran/contra. The review of Bush's diary notes, and the circumstances surrounding his failure to produce them earlier, required the investigation to re-open.

On December 24, 1992, President Bush pardoned Weinberger, who was to be tried in less than two weeks, and Clarridge, scheduled for trial in March 1993, as well as four others already convicted.

During late December and January 1993 the diaries were produced. They did not justify re-opening the investigation. Independent Counsel's efforts to requestion President Bush about Iran/contra matters were thwarted by Bush's insistence that the questioning be limited to the subject of his failure to produce his previously requested diaries. This limitation was unacceptable to OIC, which over the course of its continuing investigation had gathered significant new evidence about which it wanted to question Bush.

President Bush was the first President to grant a pardon on the eve of a trial. The question before Independent Counsel was, and remains, whether President Bush exercised his constitutional prerogative to pardon a former close associate to prevent further Iran/contra revelations. In the absence of evidence that the pardon was secured by corruption, Independent Counsel decided against taking the matter before the Grand Jury.
______________________

Read it for yourself.

http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

How was Bush going to be impeached when the OIC ended the investigation without the evidence you just made up? What makes you think the public even saw Iran/Contra as an impeachable offense? I don't recall it ever getting that hot for Bush or even close. Win or lose he still would have pardoned the gang and the investigation still would have ended.

Nice try though.

[blm]

45. Clinton said in his own book that he could have pursued matters related to

IranContra, but chose not to.

And the pardons themselves could have been pursued. And any pursuit of evidence or in any courtcase as evidence presented could also lead to more evidence discovered.

BTW..... Lee Hamilton was also not doing the Democrats any favors on Iran Contra.

And I am not the only person who faults Clinton's decision on IranContra - and I can safely say that Robert Parry knows a heck of a lot more about it than anyone here at DU.

Published on Thursday, May 11, 2006 by Consortium News
Hey Democrats, Truth Matters!
by Robert Parry

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 didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s 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 Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t 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.”

Clinton’s 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. Bush’s 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 DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s 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 CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s 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 hadn’t 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 CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s 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 wasn’t 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

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t 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.

Clinton’s 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. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

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

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s 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, Clinton’s 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 nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s 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 Clinton’s 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.

[BootinUp]

46. What you write in that post amounts to squat. Didn't even address

the facts on Iran Contra investigation. Didn't address the fact that the OIC after 6 years had no evidence that would lead to an impeachment. Didn't address the fact that the Dems had only 57 seats in the Senate and couldn't convict on articles of impeachment even if the house was stupid enough to try.

Furthermore, Clinton did authorize further investigations of Bush. They amounted to nothing.

You and Mr. Parry can spin that little quote anyway you want, it doesn't change the facts.

[blm]

47. There was new evidence and the matter of Bush withholding the diaries.

As his failure required the investigation to reopen - sez so right in the part you posted.

And this last paragraph is a bit of a contradiction, and the first part sounds strained. "They did not justify re-opening"......"limitation was unacceptable to OIC.....had gathered significant NEW evidence about which it wanted to question Bush."



>>>>>

On December 11, 1992, the White House unexpectedly informed Independent Counsel that President Bush had not produced to the investigation previously requested diaries relevant to Iran/contra. The review of Bush's diary notes, and the circumstances surrounding his failure to produce them earlier, required the investigation to re-open.

On December 24, 1992, President Bush pardoned Weinberger, who was to be tried in less than two weeks, and Clarridge, scheduled for trial in March 1993, as well as four others already convicted.

During late December and January 1993 the diaries were produced. They did not justify re-opening the investigation. Independent Counsel's efforts to requestion President Bush about Iran/contra matters were thwarted by Bush's insistence that the questioning be limited to the subject of his failure to produce his previously requested diaries. This limitation was unacceptable to OIC, which over the course of its continuing investigation had gathered significant new evidence about which it wanted to question Bush.
>>>>>


OIC was being pushed along, even knowing they had more to do......Robert Parry has researched this extensively.....Clinton even admits that he wanted it dropped.......... Why you can't admit this happened is your business, I guess.

[BootinUp]

48. The OIC "Office of the Independent Counsel" did not report to Clinton!

Clinton had nothing to do with closing that investigation.

[blm]

49. He closed the BOOKS when there WERE avenues to pursue. YOU are not

an investigative reporter who worked the case for years. You take the dry read and don't examine any further or factor in the dynamics surrounding the issue at the time.

Walsh has said he didn't find any appetite for pursuing the case further from the Clinton WH, and Clinton admits it himself. Clinton set the tone - and the tone was get it over with and let's move on.

[BootinUp]

51. I can't find any Walsh quotes implicating Clinton and plenty

where he lays the coverup squarely on Reagan and Bush.

You talk about dynamics. Dynamics are important. People weren't even interested in Iran Contra in 1993, especially once Bush lost the election. Even before he lost it was not the dominant issue. The economy? recession? yeah that was the issue.

One thing you fail to grasp, even though Reagan and Bush broke the law with Iran Contra and Iraqgate, there was still support for those policies on the right. In order to nail a President you need a higher level of outrage on both sides of the aisle, or in the majority of the public and it was never there on Iran/Contra. And impeachment was never on the table.

[blm]

58. Impeachment was never on the table for REAGAN. Walsh was still discovering

new aspects of the dealings through the delayed diary turnovers of Weinberger and Bush1. ANY of those could have led to Bush's impeachment had the process of questioning been initiated.

[karynnj]

60. I've read that Impeachment was never on the table

because it was thought that bring down a second President (Bush) so soon would look like the Democrats were keeping people from having the Presidents and policies they voted for.

Iran/Contra was an incredible violation of our constitution. You are correct that the RW glorified the action - picturing it as fighting communism. Iraqgate never made it into the nation's consciousness and, like supporting the Afghanistan Mujahadim, as our proxy, to fight the Soviet Union may well have been seen as a smart way to control areas without investing US troops - though it is against every thing the US proports to stand for.

The question though is should it have been investigated once Clinton was President. I agree that it should have been. Bush was no longer President, so impeachment was not the issue. The US government routinely does many things at the same time. Here, the justice department itself could have investigated and put out a report - investigated and written by CAREER people, not the political leaders. Under Reagan and Bush, this was extremely difficult to investigate because their justice departments stonewalled legitamate requests for documents. (Even Senator Lugar, as Republican as you can get had little success getting documents.) No one in the Justice department would be working on economic policy. (and there was no Republican help on Clinton's tax increase bill.)There were aspects, that today very few people know of or believe, that an investigation would have brought to light.

I also agree that an investigation would have likely made it harder for people who supported RW thugs in Central America to be confirmed to high positions. Especially when people learn that they allowed cocaine in this country. (Makes Nancy's "Just say No" kind of repulsive)

[BootinUp]

61. Well Iraqgate was investigated

Janet Reno issued a report in 1995 clearing the Bush admin of Iraqgate loan scandals.

If you are saying Clinton should have begun a new Iran Contra investigation (the 6 year old one was closed, kaput), I think it flies in the face of the political dynamics at the time as I have already pointed out, and furthermore the Congress did not reauthorize the IOC statute in 1992 which in my view is symbolic of the country wanting to move past the investigations. No one but the wildest partisans would have supported restarting that thing.

As to my point on Impeachment that was in reply to the original argument by blm see #33.

The cloud remains from the coverup it is something that cannot be denied, the wrongdoing that is. What more do you want and at what cost? The pardons were a done deal, the implication is clear that Bush and Reagan both shielded themselves.

[WCGreen]

53. I remember it very well, having run for congress in 92...

I also remember that Clinton felt his agenda was more important than being vindictive...

[blm]

59. Except it wasn't a matter of vindictiveness - it was a matter of law and

the constitution.

[Q]

35. "even Rupert Murdoch has joined the Hillary cash wagon"

Many DUers were pissed that Nader was 'taking money from Republicans'...and here we have Mudoch throwing money at Hillary. Why? It seems the Right is willing to support (d)emocrats that support Bush's phony 'war on terrorism'. Lieberman is another example.

We're actually talking about the 'third way'...which has sold the 'party of the people' to the highest bidder. The highest bidder in this case are the international corporations that are reaping record breaking 'war' profits siphoned from the national treasury.

[BootinUp]

38. I don't read their stuff, seen to much right wing crap there. n/t

[rinsd]

41. Ahhhhhh commondreams where the principled loss is all important

Much easier to bitch about the condiiton of the world when you forfeit any hand for the slightest deviation of purity.

Fuck them. I'll be glad when there's a Dem majority and they can crawl back in their hole.

[Singular73]

54. lol

Yeah, lets change our strategy (however flawed), when everything is going our way.

Good idea.

[wiley]

55. Ouch. Another one of your posts.

[oldboy101]

56. The Clintons know how to make friends and get things done.

Many folks here at DU do not care for the Clintons because they are not seen as being progressive enough. However by being more centrist they have more appeal to people at large. Coming from Arkansas Bill had to be centrist to win election as governor and of course later as president.

Hillary learned back in 1993-94 that she could not shove her Health Care reform package down people's throats. I hear for example that Hillary in the nearly six years she has been in the Senate has reached out to the Republican senators so successfully that she now has a good working relationship or at least the respect of 49 or the present 55 of them!

George W. Bush claimed to be "a uniter, not a divider" when he ran for election in 2000. We have all seen what an outright lie that was! Our nation has not been so polarized since the Civil War. I see Hillary as a TRUE uniter, a very smart lady who knows how to get things done!

The Republicans are scared to death of her as a potential presidential candidate in 2008 and will do anything they can to undermine her. I do believe she will be an electable candidate and if she wins she can do much to reconcile our divided nation. We Democrats can either support her or back some more progressive candidate who cannot win.

[Mz Pip]

62. Raising money is a bad thing?

Please tell me how we can win elections on idealism and ideas alone.

Hillary isn't my first choice for 2008 but I will support her if she is the candidate. Whoever the candidate is lots of money will be needed to defeat the enormous war chest of cash that is the GOP.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[xxqqqzme]

63. John R. MacArthur -

'...In 1993 he received the Mencken Award for best editorial/op-ed column for his New York Times exposé of "Nayirah", the Kuwaiti diplomat's daughter who helped fake the Iraqi baby-incubator atrocity.'...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._MacArthur