Just returned from a forum with Scott Ritter and Jeff Cohen

[Windy]

Interesting. Both feel that clinton is not interested in abandoning the unitary executive. They also point out that Clinton promulgation of Nafta and their support of media consolidation with the telecommunications act are troubling. They didn't see much difference between the policies of Bush and company and the Clintons when you examine their record.

Ritter specifically addressed Kyl/Lieberman and stated that labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization gave bush a platform to continue the drumbeat to war as it dovetails with previous legislation wherein the US government was given the authority by congress to combat terrorism and terrorists groups with any means at its disposal. He also stated openly and in a venue that was full to capacity, probably over 600 people, that Hillary's labeling of Kyl/Lieberman as a diplomatic move was a disgusting political tactic, like her Iraq vote in an effort to appease her potential democratic voters while stroking the republicans. (to vigorous applause) He also added that neither she or her husband have ever been against the war and that the drums for invading Iraq began to be pounded beginning in 1992 and continued throughout the Clinton administration. He stated that he was on the ground in Iraq at the time and knew this to be the case.

Just throwing that out there for those who may be interested.

[AntiFascist]

1. K&R, very important points n/t

[jackson_dem]

2. Obama also supports labeling the IRG a terrorist organization

Obama needs to be honest with folks and tell folks this.

Thanks for telling us about that forum. It must have been interesting. Ritter and Cohen are true progressive heroes. :toast:

[krkaufman]

14. Did I miss his name in the final vote?

On what do you base this comment?

[avaistheone1]

16. Obama missed the Kyle Liberman vote.

Not Present.

[gateley]

3. K&R nt

[FrenchieCat]

4. Yep....that 1996 Telecommunications act is how Clinton got himself

impeached in 1998. The sad part is that he didn't see that coming.

I did.

We can actually thank the 1996 act for our 2000 defeat, and everything that happened afterwards.

[elleng]

6. Frenchie. I don't get the connection

between Telecom act & impeachment.

[truedelphi]

15. The connection is this: the real powers that be asked Bill Clinton if he

Would not consider an all out war against Iraq.

He said no.

Six to eight weeks later, Monica Lewinsky's tale of sex as a Bill Clinton intern was given huge amounts of time spread across the news networks. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.

Every time you turned on the TV, there it was: Bill Clinton going out to the main drive of the WH and shaking hands with Monica and her beret right there, waiting to press his flesh. The image was looped and replayed dozens of times a day.

Now if we had a truly democratic sytem of television, perhaps there would have been one or two other overwhelming TV images so we would not have had this view of Bill the philanderer shoved down America's throat endlessly.

But he approved, rather than vetoing, the 1996 TelCommunications Bill and he ended up its victim.

[avaistheone1]

17. Fascinating. I wasn't aware of that.

Isn't corporate America beautiful?

[midnight]

22. Well then, Clinton saved millions of lifes,

and let the chips fall for having a relationship with a women who was not his wife. Now the poweres that be are looping Obama Clinton, and all the Republicans as running for the President. The powers that be are now selecting are new Repbulican President. The only one who will stand up to them is being silenced.

[truedelphi]

23. Agree with all you are saying except it's a shame that the Clintons

Had not as one of their major imperatives the notion of bringing about a democratization of the
media.

If this had been as important to Bill Clinton as say the race to the moon had been to JFK, we would be living in a different America.

Am I right in thinkg "the only one who will stand up to them" is Edwards?

[calimary]

24. It went farther back than that - when broadcasting was deregulated

at the tail end of reagan's second term. The Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time provisions were done away with, and it was the first blow struck against protection from corporate monopolies. That's when the reins were first removed on the limitations of how many radio and TV stations and newspapers that any one owner/company/corporation could own in the same market.

THAT'S when it all started. That's what gave limbaugh a leg up, and when he succeeded, the lemmings ran after him with 150-thousand wannabes trying to be the next him and outlimbaugh limbaugh. Because it allowed limbaugh to go on the air - unchallenged and unrebutted. The other side suddenly wasn't necessary. It was no longer necessary to present more than one point of view. You were no longer legally bound to offer opposing sides. You simply did not have to do that anymore. So limbaugh (and soon, many others) could go on the air and spout one note and there was no requirement to offer a counter note. So all you heard was his brand of spew. Soon enough, he was swaying hundreds of thousands of people to his view MAINLY BECAUSE THEY HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR ANOTHER OR OPPOSING POINT OF VIEW. It's like showing somebody the back end of a camel and nothing else, and then instructing him to draw the entire animal. It can't be done. And when it succeeded, everybody else got on the bandwagon trying to replicate that success for themselves. And the other view was left out in the cold - to atrophy and die.

By the time 1996 came around, the field had been prepared and fully fertilized (!) to accept that seed and allow it to take root and flourish.

But yes, Bill should have realized this. And he did end up its victim.

[truedelphi]

25. Well, I am glad that in the end you admit it -

Bill had eight full years in the WH to destroy what had come before him, and replace it with something good.

Not just try to alter it, but to accomplish the alteration.

[Hydra]

5. As an addendem to to my original response in the other topic

Not one of the candidates is interested in giving up the insane powers that the WH has grabbed. Not that it particularly matters- Speaker Pelosi herself told us that our opinions were not important nor desired.

I don't hear anything about repealing the MCA of 2006, rolling back the spying or the torture, or about meaningfully leaving the mid-east.

So, who will be the replacement pretend emperor?

[zalinda]

10. Which candidates are you talking about?

Because Edwards has said there would be no more spying on Americans, or torture.

zalinda

[aquart]

7. Of course she's not interested. NONE of them are.

But Congress won't be a Hillary rubber stamp. Too too too many would be delighted to bring her down or to leak her failings to the press. And what vindication for them if she's another Bush.

Right now, we have a Congress that will not impeach no matter what the crime, and a president with near absolute power. Which will pass unchallenged to the next president. Having failed to impeach Bush for mass murder and every other thing he's done, do you really think Congress would bring Obama up on charges?

I WANT the next president to be watched like a hawk. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We FAILED to rein in Bush's power. Do you really want that power in the hands of someone being praised as the messiah? Where it's a form of blasphemy to say...uh, don't do that?

I want an antagonistic Congress, not a rubberstamp. Our only real chance of that is Hillary Clinton.

[elleng]

8. Obama up on charges?

What do you have in mind?

[Donna Zen]

9. Confirmation is always good:

Considering that Clinton's advisers today are the same as they were then, Holbrooke, Feinstein, and O'Hanlon, all people who were for the war, it would follow that she agreed with them. Especially when one considers that she still values their advice.

The war in Iraq was planned for 12 years before it began. I guess one could call that inevitable.

Finally, the K-L was not a diplomatic move unless you believe in Easter Bunny.

Good to hear that Ritter is still speaking out. How else would these confirmations ever come out?

[MikeNearMcChord]

11. I hope NovaM does a rebroadcast with Mike Malloy and Scot Ritter

when they get together in Phoenix next month.

[avaistheone1]

18. I would enjoy that. Maybe it could be a podcast.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

12. K&R I agree - While we know the Clintons.--

We have absolutely no evidence Obama would have voted, let alone vote NO to WAR with Iraq!
When he actually did have a chance, to vote NO to WAR--
Obama and another candidate (McCain) played it politically safe--
and didn't show up!
He is a protege of Lieberman's and I have this sinking feeling he will pick him as vice president --would help him get Reagan GOP votes...
I'm worried he'll be another pushover for the Republican party, drug and insurance companies.
I found he may not be the way he portrays himself...

"The apparent contradiction between Sen Obama's political calculation to join the Wal-Mart-bashing lobby, and his wife's profitable role with a company that makes money from Wal-Mart"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/wobama13.xml

-- "This story is a big eye opener about Obama's philosophical commitment to healthcare.
His wife is earning $300,000 from a hospital administration job that essentially amounts to PR work--
--"Chicago University Hospital Regularly turns away patients with no health insurance and made numerous patient dumping settlements.
She provides a happy friendly famous face for denial of care and showing the indigent the door."
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_opinion_letters/2006/10/hospital_positi.html

"in response to a newspaper investigation, he said he was unaware that his broker had bought $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose leading investors included some of his biggest political donors."
He has also apologised for his "boneheaded error" in striking a property deal with Tony Rezko, a Chicago Democrat operative facing a federal indictment."

[Windy]

13. I'm not going to argue with you, but you are wrong. Read his positions

And Joe Lieberman would NOT be his choice for VP, maybe mccains, but not obamas.

[CoffeeCat]

19. Obama openly supported Ned Lamont...

...when he ran against Lieberman for the Senate spot.

Lieberman was Obama's initial "I'm here to show you around" guy. Lieberman
took Obama under his wing, but it appears that Obama had different (and
better ideas) and charted his own course.

There's no way in hell that Obama would pick Lieberman as VP.

[ShortnFiery]

20. This is significant!

"They didn't see much difference between the policies of Bush and company and the Clintons when you examine their record." :wow:

Now, who voted "yea" with regard to The Kyle/Lieberman Amendment?

[freefall]

21. Thanks for this post, Windy.

"They didn't see much difference between the policies of Bush and company and the Clintons when you examine their record."

Three years ago a friend of mine went to work for the Hillary Clinton campaign and I stated then that I would never vote for Hillary for President. Ritter and Cohen have explained my reason in a nutshell. Ralph Nader does a pretty good job of explaining as well.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/26/6641/

Peace,

freefall