Is Bush Sr. the most powerful man in the world?

[Pryderi]

I think he is. It was his machine that got his son made president. He has close ties with the Saudis, was the former director of the CIA and as a former president, still gets CIA information.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. naw, not even close

Even though I am no conspiracy theorist, there are a group of ultra-rich people far more powerful than he. For one thing, he is too public a figure. No president or former president would be in that top circle of power. Those folks stay deep, deep under the covers, never to be named. They are the power brokers, the real deciders, the financiers of revolutions and more.

Besides, even though his machine did get Boy George elected, the Boy is growing increasingly powerless.

[blm]

19. and all the people that BCCI books would've revealed - and why Poppy Bush and

Bill Clinton had to make sure that never happened.

Amazing to me that so many Democrats accept that Bill Clinton never even MENTIONS one word about BCCI in his book, even though he inherited the outstanding matters and questions involved when he took office.

[luckyleftyme2]

71. THE PROBLEM

OUR INTELIGENT AGENCY IS RIDDLED WITH LITTLE RICH BOYS FROM IVY LEAQUE SCHOOLS. MANY OF THE UPPER JOBS ARE PASSED TO PEOPLE COMPLETELY UN QUALIFIED TO HOLD THAT POSITION.
MANY OF THESE ARE LEFT OVER FROM THE COLD WAR WAY OF THINKING.
THIS IS THE CYBER YEARS!

[jobycom]

2. No way. Pat Robertson can leg press 2000 lbs!!!

[0007]

40. Hulk Hogan can lick Barbara.......

[Wickerman]

3. He is an errand boy

sent by grocery clerks.

[Uncle Joe]

4. No doubt, having been head of the CIA, he knows where the bones are buried. n/t

[Raster]

5. In a word, Yes. It was the Bush* machine that forced his half-wit failure of a first-born

on us as pResident. Even though bush* has probably lost two national elections, he still sits at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. George Herbert Walker Bush does not just have close ties with the Saudis, they are almost symbiots and somewhat clannish. The Bush* family, especially Poppy, have unprecedented access to the Saudi Royal family. The Bush* family actually uses their Saudi ties as a power base and a somewhat profit center. Any oil deal brokered with the Saudis probably has Bush* fingers in the pie. Any weapons deal the Saudis make with their American "friends" was probably facilitated to a degree by Bush*. Their relationship goes back at least two generations.

[Gato Moteado]

6. he was a puppet, just like chimpy is

nt

[Virginia Dare]

10. So, who pulls the strings?...n/t

[Poll_Blind]

17. I am not sure there is one puppet master or that that title exists...

...as something to be owned. Fortunes and influences wax and wane. I am now more than a little curious to see what I can dig up on who the most powerful persons or organizations were, say, 50 years ago though even that is likely to be well-shrouded. Sometimes history gives you little clues about the present and occasionally, the future.

PB

[Virginia Dare]

38. It's something that I puzzle over regularly as well...n/t

[luckyleftyme2]

72. A SMALL CLICK OF BIG BUSINESS OWNERS AND PLAYERS

OUR DOLLAR IS BACKED BY OIL,WE RAN OUT OF GOLD YEARS AGO. THEIR ARE TWO SETS OF PLAYERS,THE NORTH EAST AND THE SOUTH WEST.
TEXAS IS NOTED FOR OIL,NEW YORK FOR COMMODITIES AND BANKING.
RESEARCH NIXON,REGAN,BUSH AND NAMES WILL COME UP THAT ARE CONNECTED! THEY WERE ALL PUPPETS.

[Oleladylib]

7. Nope

[wyldwolf]

8. If the world elected a president, it would be...

Bill Clinton.

[blm]

9. The world doesn't realize how much Bill Clinton covered up for Poppy Bush or

how much Clinton has been working with Poppy to completely rehabilitate his reputation in the eyes of the American public.

Poppy Bush and his gang of New Order Fascists would have been exposed to a greater degree to the American public and the rest of the world if an anti-corruption, open government Democrat had been elected instead of a Coverup Democrat like Bill Clinton.

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 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.

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.'

[grasswire]

11. thank you

Parry is an American hero.

Clinton, not so much apparently.

[Marlie]

13. Plainly

The close relationship between Poppy Bush and Bill Clinton sickens me. Clinton was
my absolute hero and it's so sad when the realization sets in that you were
duped. I'd take him over the current resident of the White House in a minute but
I could never feel the same about Clinton. To me he's now become just an
exceptional politician not someone really worthy of admiration.

[blm]

15. I was the same, and gave him every benefit of the doubt until I read his book.

He chose to insult me and not explain why he never pursued the most SERIOUS matters of the day when he took office. It turned out to be one coverup after another. Leading us to Bush2.

[wyldwolf]

14. so he wouldn't get your vote?

[blm]

16. What good was his 8 years once Bush2 dimantled everything positive, wyldwolf?

Who did it benefit the most?

Bush1 would not have survived his second term and the people would have gotten a fuller view of what had been going on, much of it that led us into the events of 9-11.

[wyldwolf]

18. sorry. We were discussing a hypothetical "president of the world" campaign

... in relation to who the world's most powerful man is. Would he get your vote?

And just as an aside, do you also blame the Congressional Democrats at the time? They were in the majority the entire Bush I administration - but two years after Bush was gone. And the proper procedure is for House members to call for hearings and investigations.

Seems to me the same bunch in power then are the same ones people on DU are crowing about getting primo committee chairs.

[blm]

22. Clinton was handed BCCI report just as Bush2 was handed Hart-Rudman report.

You think Clinton didn't GET how IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate was all one huge connected operation? Someone had to clue in the top Dems in the senate and congress then that they would prefer those outstanding matters dropped.

[wyldwolf]

23. so you don't think the top Dems in congress knew? Is that your excuse for them?

I mean, we know Kerry knew, right? And we know Charles Rangel knew.

[blm]

29. Kerry asked for further investigation in his report. He was turned down.

The point is that SOMEBODY had to tell the top Dem senate leaders and congressional leaders that they wanted all Bush scandals dropped or played down.

Kerry was nowhere near a Dem leader - he was afirst term senator still being ostracized for his investigations, even by his own party.

Are you not familiar with this time period, wyldwolf, and what was actually going on at the time?

[wyldwolf]

31. So Kerry couldn't clue in the top Dems in the Senate?

... and we already know Rangel knew.

Assuming Clinton told congress to stand down is conjecture. The fact is, if you blame Clinton, you have to blame the Democratic congress as well. And I'm not sure you're ready to do that.

[blm]

32. Kerry TURNED in his report - he DID clue them in. Do you not KNOW this timeframe

and what was going on then?

If you don't, all you have to do is say so, and I'll consider that when I reply. I usually assume people at DU know more about recent history.

If you reread my previous post I do state that SOMEONE must have discouraged top Dems from pursuing Bush crimes any further. Kerry WAS turned down on the further investigation he said was needed. And you notice Clinton didn't write ONE WORD about BCCI in his book.

A Dem would have had to be blissfully unaware about that timeframe to ACCEPT what Clinton did back then.

[wyldwolf]

34. In post 22, you said someone had to clue in the top dems in Congress..

..for them to have taken action. We know Rangel was already clued in. Now you say Kerry DID clue them in.

It is pure conjecture on your part that Clinton told Congress (who he didn't have a solid relationship with) to stand down.

It could have been just as likely the House and/or Senate leaders. Right?

[blm]

36. Who becomes the lead Democrat when a Dem is in the oval office?

Who sets the agenda?

Surely you don't believe that the top senate and congressional Dems didn't discuss that agenda with Bill Clinton?

That's pretty naive. And if Cl;inton thought it was important, but Dems in congress didn't, then why didn't he discuss it in his book? Why did he instead say that he didn't PURSUE matters because he wanted Bush to have a "peaceful reitrement" for all of his service to the country and so Clinton could pursue his domestic agenda??

Which is it, wyldwolf? Was Clinton snookered by Dem leaders into letting go of Bush crimes or was Clinton the one telling Dem leaders what his priorities would be and how best they could help HIM?

[wyldwolf]

37. that would be the President, but again, that is beside the point

Placing the blame squarely on Clinton and saying the top Dems in congress were not aware of the charges and reports (even though we both know they were) to excuse them from culpability is a double standard. Because to admit this, you'd have to condemn several key Dem leaders right now.

[blm]

39. I didn't say they weren't aware - they KNEW, but let Clinton have his way for

the agenda HE was setting for them.

I don't let them off the hook, at all. They obviously didn't have access to what Clinton had, but they did have access to the report and THAT was buried.

[wyldwolf]

41. beyond your own conjecture, where is any proof they "let Clinton have his way?"

... and, even if true, how does that absolve them of responsibility?

During Kerry's investigations - 1988 or so - he fought his own party on the matter. 1988 - four years before Clinton. And members of his own party criticized him for going after Democrats.

But, no, Clinton gets all the blame.

[blm]

42. Clinton gets most blame ONCE he had the power of office and CHOSE to downplay

Bush's crimes in office. Clinton could have given greater access to documents that Kerry had tried to get during Bush1 but was blocked.

It was Clinton who controlled what happened once the CIA drugrunning story came out in 1995 - how did he deal with it? Or is that another serious matter that you are not familiar with?

When DID you get politically involved, or are you ONLY in to the politics and not the actual GOVERNANCE matters?

[wyldwolf]

43. so now he gets MOST blame. The Dem leaders aware of it FOUR YEARS PRIOR...

... and two years in... only get a little blame... But since Clinton isn't in office, I guess the logical thing to do will be to go after those "progressives" who suddenly find themselves in charge again. So when do you start?

And blm - your constant little swipes at my "experience" is really unnecessary. Unlike most people on DU, I've been involved a long time.

[blm]

44. I gave them blame REGULARLY on their actions DURING IranContra and BCCI and

always have maintained that they helped block the investigations where they could and certainly did NOT offer to help Kerry.

During IranContra, I have noted many times here that the Senate leaders gave in to pressure from Bush1 and wouldn't allow Kerry on the senate panel even though it was Kerry who worked alone for a year gathering the evidence.

Kerry parlayed getting blocked from the panel to being given access to another area suspicious to him - his investigation into BCCI.

What happened after Clinton took office is ALL on Clinton who instead of offering congress greater access to documents blocked by Bush1, clearly states in his own book that hedidn't pursue matters as he could have because he wanted Bush to have a peaceful retirement and that his own agenda would have greater bipartisan support from a grateful Republican party.

BTW - these aren't swipes - the point is that if you were unfamiliar with this timeframe, I would give you greater details in my answers. Some people are only involved in the political aspects and not into the actual matter of governance. Like the people who love the competition aspect of football more than they care about the actual skill involved with the game.

[wyldwolf]

45. I've only seen you blame Clinton. Are you blaming others by name?

[blm]

46. It was pretty much most every Dem in DC - and I've said it many times.

I would say that all of DC powerstructure was aligned against Kerry on IranContra and BCCI, including the Dem powerstructure in his own party. I posted many times that back then even Gore sided with Reagan-Bush contra policies - you may have missed those threads.

Why are you so keen on dismissing the certain power that Clinton had when he took office? And we all know that Clinton is not that naive - he knew IranContra was huge, so was BCCI, and so was Iraqgate - they all helped him get elected.

[wyldwolf]

47. I've never seen you mention anyone by name except Clinton... and...

..why are you so keen on dismissing the certain power that the majority party had four years before Clinton took office and two years after?

I've seen you post numerous times on Clinton but NEVER have I seen you call out any other Democrat by name.

[blm]

48. Because it was MOST OF the entire Dem party then - and I have SAID SO many times.

And anyone who has read my posts over the last few years knows darn well I have always said that. You are miffed because after the Parry article came out, I am tougher on Clinton - well - he DESERVES IT because of what he COULD have done and chose not to. Clinton had GREATER access and power than any Dem in DC and you want to cover up for it. BCCI report came out the end of 1992 - Clinton had the power to pursue it with even greater access to documents - he didn't.

[wyldwolf]

49. But certainly the top Dem leaders were "in the know."

Don't they deserve the same scrutiny? Why protect them with a generic "most of the Dems in DC" label?

If Clinton is more culpable than the Senate leaders of the time, surely they are more culpable than the 200 or so House members in office at the time.

[blm]

50. Baloney - I'm not going to name at least 100 Dems who sided against investigation

back then every time I post. And it wasn't just senators and powerful Congressmembers, it was Dem background powerpeople in DC, too.

And I do make distinctions about blame when I am posting preClinton era and postClinton era. Clinton is never even mentioned in my posts dealing with the political climate before he took office.

The blame AFTER he took office is mostly his - a GREAT deal of it because he HAD THE POWER. Let's not pretend he was naive about what was going on - there was some truth to his connection to Bush over Mena Airport being used for drugrunning operations of the CIA.

[wyldwolf]

52. ok. Name three or so still in office today

[blm]

53. You're getting nitpicky on details and LOSING THE OVERALL POINT - none in office today

made one bit of difference to what CLINTON DECIDED TO DO when he HAD THE POWER and chose to use it to COVERUP for Bush1.

You know it, but want to obscure the point with minutiae that has nothing to do with what Clinton did in early 1993 and throughout his term.
You want names of those who ASSISTED Clinton by agreeing to the downplaying of investigations? It had to be Mitchell and other senior Dems in power.

But would Mitchell have also agreed with Clinton if he had encouraged further investigation of Bush's crimes and offered greater access to documents needed? Absolutely.

So it all comes down again to CLINTON'S CHOICES.

[wyldwolf]

54. so you're a little scared to call out some liberal sacred cows?

[blm]

55. So you're insistent on MISDIRECTING attention away from Clinton's responsibility

and the power he had in 1993? OK - George Mitchell was the majority leader who set the agenda Clinton gave him. Tom Daschle was a staunch backup man to Mitchell. I have no idea how great a role that Robert Byrd played in 1993, but he had no stomach for investigations into corruption as senate leader before Clinton took office.

Now - how does that make ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE to what Clinton asked of the Dem senate and congress in 1993?

[wyldwolf]

56. So you're insistent on MISDIRECTING attention away from ANYONE ELSE'S responsibility

How about Nancy Pelosi - House Appropriations Comm?

Barney Frank - Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs Comm.

Cynthia McKinney? Sherrod Brown? Foreign Affairs...

Want more? Let's not forget Charles Rangel. He apparently knew everything. John Conyers?

Were they all clueless? Where was their courage?

And who gave into the pressue from Henry Kissinger to delete a portion of the report? Was it John Kerry?

I never pegged you as a supporter of the Arkansas Project, yet they push the same pulp.

[blm]

57. Clinton set agenda and Dem leaders went ALONG with Clinton, leader of the NO COURAGE PARTY

of 1993. The senate and congressional Dems weren't exactly used to working with a Democratic administration and were too eager to give him the tone he wanted.

And too many Dems were actually involved with supporting Reagan-Bush's contra policies, so they weren't exactly eager to go further, either - that would be Sam Nunn and Al Gore as two of the voices who likely weighed against further exposure.

I attribute blame as the specifics warrant - but it still comes down to CLINTON CHOSE TO LET BUSH OFF THE HOOK on all of his crimes, even those uncovered a few years later.


CLINTON'S CHOICE. How did it work out for the Dem party overall? The country? The 9-11 families? The world?

[wyldwolf]

58. Yeah - you're repeating yourself. Pelosi, Rangel, Conyers, Barney Frank...

All of them conspired with Clinton to let Bush off the hook, right?

[blm]

59. Conspired? No. Eager to please a Dem president and honor his agenda? Yes.

So - where is YOUR explanation of why YOU are eager to let Clinton off the hook and blame those with MUCH LESS POWER than he had?

Isn't that like blaming Lyndie England for doing as she is told and not Rumsfeld who set the tone?

[wyldwolf]

60. OK, I say "conspire," you say "eager to please." Results were the same...

... and I'll remind you of that each time you remind DU of this in every thread that mentions Clinton.

So - where is YOUR explanation of why YOU are eager to let Clinton off the hook and blame those with MUCH LESS POWER than he had?

LOL! I haven't, but I will cast blame where it is due. However, it was like pulling teeth to get you to admit others were complicit. At least you don't have THAT in common with the Arkansas Project.

[blm]

61. That's because you failed to read my MANY posts that blamed the Dems in power at the TIME

when I was posting specifically about that timeframe. And neither YOU or anyone else pulled teeth to do so.

I am consummately fair - and even waited until I read Clinton's book in 1994 before I heaped deserved scorn on him for covering up for Bush1 so blatantly. I actually expected him to have a good reason and a plausible underlying plan that would eventually result in the truth coming out. He didn't - and that plus the constant rehabbing of Bush1 and supporting Bush2 throughout his first term and then the Downing Street Memos denial was all just TOO Much for an HONEST citizen to bear.

[wyldwolf]

62. I've read plenty of your posts on the subject. But now we have other names to go with it.

So, in the future and in the spirit of fairness, when you discuss it I think it may be a good idea to say "Pelosi, Rangel, Conyers, Frank, and other Democrats were eager to please (or conspired with) Clinton on the subject."

[blm]

63. You attribute equal power to them when that is NOT accurate to say - they

weren't even senior Democrats then and likely had little access to the same amount of information that Clinton had.

Where is YOUR sense of fairness? I suppose you were satisfied with Lyndie England taking all the blame for following her LEADER'S agenda?

[wyldwolf]

64. Actually, no I don't. But you seem afraid to call out these "progressive" sacred cows.

[blm]

65. You WON'T blame Clinton for the power he had but you WILL blame less powerful

Dems for information they COULDN'T have accessed without Clinton's initiative?

HAHAHAHA - - - who shows REAL fear, here, wyldwolf - You ARE afraid to admit that Clinton MISUSED the power that he had and YOU choose to blame those with LESS access to crucial information than he had.

[wyldwolf]

66. LOL! blm, in our exchange, have I once denied you were correct? No...

...but my point is you're giving others a free ride. During war atrocities, soldiers don't get off the hook by saying they were following orders.

[blm]

67. Never gave a free ride to Dems in office then - you just didn't see those posts

referring to Dems blocking the investigations then or they didn't bother you the way the truth about what Clinton did bothers you.

[wyldwolf]

68. Again, you're making an assumption

I've never implied the truth about Clinton doesn't bother me. What DOES bother me is the double standard. But I'll take your word for it. I just missed the posts when you called other Dems on the carpet for it. But at least now, I know the names of some of those Dems present at the time.

[blm]

69. Well, that's why I asked you what you knew from then in the first place.

If I knew you really didn't know, I would have been more specific upfront, but I thought there was an outside chance you were just trying to be distracting.

Clinton HAD power in 1993 that NONE of them had for the entirety of their careers - not even Kerry who knew the most and worked hardest for 5 years prior to Clinton taking office to get the documents necessary into the public domain.

[Marlie]

21. Actually

A lot of the suffering our country, Iraq, etc. could have been avoided if Bill
Clinton had managed to control his libido while in office. He knew they were
gunning for him from the day he became President and yet he gave them the ammunition they needed. Everything was rosy when Clinton left office, Gore should have been a shoe in to win the election and only chose holy Joe as VP to get some religious dignity on the ticket because of the sour taste left in a good part of the Country because of Clinton's peccadillo. Grant it, it should never have come out, it was a private matter but it did and it made a terrible difference in the Gore/Bush campaign.

There is no way they could have stolen this election if it wasn't for the Lewinsky
mess thus giving us George W. Bush and hell.

[wyldwolf]

24. Actually...

Clinton left office with a better than 70% approval rating. Gore lost for running away from Clinton's economic record.

I only know of two kinds of people who blame Clinton's dick.

[Marlie]

27. I don't know about that

Right at the end, the MSM went ape over the pardon of that Mark Rich guy and
were really giving Clinton hell over that. I just remember the "restoring dignity"
routine to the White House which a lot of people unfortunately fell for. The economy was booming, the World was a peaceful place and yet the people voted for change.

Why? My God, Gore wasn't that bad of a candidate but have to admit the powers that be wanted Bush not Gore so their flaks went to work on Gore. No one wrote more letters or made more phone calls to my congressional representatives, newspapers, the media than I did in defense of Bill Clinton during the impeachment era. I fought for him like he was a member of my own family. Sorry, looking back I think my hero worship was misplaced and still feel Clinton let the country down so I guess I am one of the two kinds of people you referred to.

[wyldwolf]

28. I do

Gore's numbers increased near the end of the campaign, so if you want to claim (unfounded) that the Rich pardon had an effect on the election's outcome, it could only have been positive.

You know, Gore's running a lousy campaign and Ralph Nader had plenty to do with the loss in 2000.

[blm]

51. Rich pardon came right before Clinton left office.

.

[blm]

30. But had Clinton not covered up for Bush in 93, he could've had all the affairs he wanted

throughout his terms - and a Dem congress throughout that time period, too - with universal healthcare in place before the 2000 election.

[wyldwolf]

33. LOL! Ok... whatever.

[RethugAssKicker]

26. I think Chirac..... We should do a poll...

[Poll_Blind]

12. I don't think so. I kind of agree with antifaschits' comment.

  You don't have to be a psychologically-unbalanced person to realize that conspiracy is a common tool to engrave history. Not necessarily Trilateral Commission or whatever conspiracy but real conspiracy where like-minded individuals form groups to achieve common goals. When it comes to the level of money and influence available in the world George Bush Sr. still ranks very low, methinks.

  At most, he is an extraordinarily intelligent and cunning man who has utilized that intelligence to paw out a deeper den for the Bush's, something his father (and others?) began digging long ago. He, as another person pointed out, is likely to know "where the bones are buried" but this doesn't necessarily guarantee him power. The real power belongs to those who bury the bodies in the first place and have the resources to cover up the body so well only someone like him would know what marks the grave.

  I have no idea who "the most powerful man in the world" is but I would say I think that is something of a misnomer. Powerful men (and women) rarely achieve such heights through force of will alone though Rasputin is one who engineered his fate (both the good and the ill) almost-entirely single-handedly. But that is an exception and certainly the exception in politics. They rely on relationships and association with like-minded individuals so as to achieve a sum greater than their individual parts.

  I imagine those who sit at the top of world fortunes, industrial organizations or religions may have ideas about what, ultimately, they must pander to to get things done, but there's no guaranteeing that even among them there is any consensus.

  In comparison, for instance, Bush has nothing on the power Putin wields, in my opinion. There are other figures, I am sure, whose influence would make Putin appear a meek child, stealing a cookie covertly when mother's in the loo. Sun Myung Moon comes to mind, though he doesn't apparently have the penchant for killing as Putin does. Still, power is power and if one can exert one's will without firing a bullet or drawing a knife they are more powerful than someone who does have to resort to such measures.

  If there was some ultimate accounting of power in the world and the 10 most powerful humans' names were promulgated, I would be surprised if any of us were familiar with more than three of them. If I were in possession of such power one of the first uses I would put it to is to conceal the outward appearance of my power and work to get up lackeys in the ungrateful job of carrying out my presumably-evil (because that's the slant to this conversation) wishes.

PB

[htuttle]

20. No, Licio Gelli is

...either him, or Sun Myung Moon, would be my guess.

[grasswire]

35. who is Gelli?

And your suggestion of Moon is interesting. He does exert influence over an awful lot of the world.

[Nimrod2005]

25. No

[donsu]

70. he is one of the top powerful world criminals

nt