What kind of Democrat or citizen would DISCOURAGE investigations of How/Why of war?

[blm]

Does that sound like accountability or open government to you?

The protection of secrecy and privilege has been killing our democracy. How many of us want to continue down that road?

[Jackpine Radical]

1. What are you talking about?

[blm]

3. There are still some Democrats who say they don't want investigations into

how and why Bush took us to war. It's like the whole backstory doesn't even exist publicly.

[SaveElmer]

6. Can you point to examples?...nt

[Sanity Claws]

7. Really, who?

Lieberman is not a Democrat.

[babylonsister]

10. Spill, blm. You opened this up for discussion.

I know who you're talking about but can't find the thread.

[blm]

28. On Larry King Live after Bush's speech, Obama REPEATED that he doesn't support

investigations into how we got into Iraq.

I had heard him say it in other interviews the past couple months, including his appearance on LKL in December after the Iraq Study Group report was revealed.

It's been the subject of other posts but it seems to just slip by most of DU.

[Le Taz Hot]

58. I'm on this board most days and it slipped by me.

Probably because I avoid most candidate threads as they're like going to the Monsanto website to get environmental information. It's a bit, uh, skewed if you know what I mean.

I wasn't a big fan before but he's now in the "no way in hell" column along with Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Biden & Clinton. It's going to be another depressing primary/election.

[blm]

63. Here was his first claim in Dec that Iraq war had already been litigated'

I don't see how ANYONE camn claim that road to Iraq had already had legal examination, when it never did.

on LKL in December after ISG report came out.

He claims he has no interest in 're-litigating' it, but it was never LITIGATED in the first place.

>>>
First of all, do you agree with the vice president?

OBAMA: I think it is hard not to make the assessment that this has been a misconceived mission from the start, not just in execution, but in conception. In fact, actually, the military has performed brilliantly. The problem was the way we conceived the mission was based on ideology. It was not based on facts on the ground.

But the fact is, is that what I'm not interested in doing is re- litigating the decision to get in. I think that what the Iraq Study Group provides us an opportunity to do is to start looking forward on a bipartisan basis, to try to figure out how can we make the best of a bad situation?

It is still possible for us to arrive at a situation in which there is stability in Iraq, that it has not become a nest of terrorist activity .....
>>>>>

[snowbear]

2. This kind?

[IndianaGreen]

38. What a lovely picture!

I wonder if that's what Joe wears to the White House?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

72. looks cute in pink

thank god we didn't have him as VP

[muntrv]

4. Only faux news viewers would discourage investigations. Ya can't

interrupt coverage of Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan to bring you REAL news.

[babylonsister]

5. And what about discouraging investigations of Katrina? Lieberman, anyone? nt

[Der Blaue Engel]

8. I'm going to have to join the "huh?" chorus

Which Democrats are doing that?

[madfloridian]

9. Here is one who said "no digging around" about pre war stuff in 2003

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/615

Lieberman doesn't want to to see us "digging around anymore for who did what in 2003"

He said it at Aspen Institute last year.

So there's one.

[Tellurian]

12. So how do the Clintons get tied in with Lieberman?

All we've heard from blm is the Clintons are covering up with Lieberman
for the Bushes..How does this all play out?

You know, inquiring minds and all-


Just asking because I saw this posted elsewhere.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3054098#3057027

[madfloridian]

14. You will have to ask her, but I would say this connects.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com:80/madfloridian/562

And this article listed at your link. Proof? Not really. But why did so many huge major Dems from the Clinton administration support Joe against Lamont?

If they really wanted someone who would stand with us on the war, Lamont would have been their guy. But they stuck with Joe.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

These books should never have been closed. I used to think blm was beating a drum on this stuff, but as things have played out the last few years I sure see why it is upsetting.

[Tellurian]

15. Well no, those are separate issues.. I'm asking about the tie in to the Clintons...

Where blm says they are tied in with Lieberman in a conspiracy to cover up for the Bushes..specificaly!

And rather than an all day Robert Parry article, another *more credible* reference with proof of those accusations.
You know what I mean...Hard evidence, rather than a journalist's opine.

[madfloridian]

16. My target is Lieberman's refusal to investigate.

Talk to blm. I have noticed she usually has facts to back up what she says. I learned not to tangle with her too much.

So, I ask you why was it so important to keep Lieberman in office? Why did so many powerful Democrats genuflect to him in the general election? Why did they cheer him so passionate back in the senate.

Just speculation.

[Tellurian]

17. OK, we'll just have to wait for blm to surface

with something other than a consortium article or the writings of Robert Parry.

All the people I've spoken with regard Lieberman as teetering on the edge of disaster.
He looks to me like a candidate for a heart attack living with all that guilt.
After all, he's gone on and on as Holy Joe.. Karma has a way of taking care of these hypocrites.

Others will step in where he's failed. They always do..

[blm]

31. Lieberman is ONE Dem. Obama said he didn't want investigations into HOW we got

into Iraq and has said it more than once recently.

[madfloridian]

18. Wait a minute. You have not read the Parry article?

Then you can't really discuss the situation.

[Tellurian]

20. Not with you no,,

I'm primarily interested in the accusations of the Clintons tied in with Lieberman in a cover up
for the Bushes. You said you are solely interested in Lieberman and who and why democrats supported him
until he lost the primary..That doesn't seem to be a conundrum to me..

I'd like to see hard evidence in the accusations against the Clintons..
besides Consortium news and/or Robert Parry.. Those are heavy duty accusations.
I'd like to see hard evidence and PROOF of those accusations.

Like you said...We'll wait for blm.

[madfloridian]

21. Well, here is part of that article....

"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. Washington Post, May 10, 2006"

When does our party decide investigate anything at all. I can only post a few paragraphs, but you seem to want attack blm without reading the article.

The books were closed on important issues for our time. Things that might have kept this bunch out of power. And you don't even want to read the article.

I thought I heard another Dem candidate, Obama, say he did not think that Iraq should be investigated...but I can't find the proof now. I thought I heard it on Larry King. A passing statement. So I say I thought.

Lieberman doesn't want Katrina investigated either. We got real problems, and being honest is best.

[Tellurian]

22. Madflorian, all of what you posted is third party hearsay..

Paragraph #2...Doesn't mean I thing. Clinton tried to work with Republicans on a bipartisan level.
If the Bushes and their consorts committed crimes, they're not going to go away. Now, it's been stated here that John Kerry has done a thorough investigation of the Reagans and Bushes, why hasn't he come forward and prosecuted, seeing he has the evidence to uncover the dealings with Iran/Contra? hmm?

Paragraph #3...Seeing that paragraph was written pre-election. Are the Democrats giving anyone a pass on investigations? Democrats have been in power a little over a week and a half.. I'm sure you read the papers. Democrats are in full swing doing what they set out to do and promised to do..

So, Parry's credibility seems to be waining fast... Too much crying wolf is as bad as not crying enough..
But it does sell books doesn't it? And it give people something to talk about based on scurrilous conversations
with POLLSTERS, and a DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER.. propagated right here on Democratic Underground..shame on you!

Sweetheart, this is all third party hearsay that doesn't even come close to your constant accusations of a cover up. If in fact you know what those words mean and what it implies.

Clinton had a plan to bring the country into a time of peace and prosperity. And thats what he did, in spite of the tremendous pressure he was under. From day one and for 8 yrs thereafter, Republicans started their non stop attacks on both Hillary and Bill. They spent millions to attempt an entrapment plan with Whitewater...It didn't happen because there wasn't any crime committed. When that plan failed, they went the personal route. The rest I'm sure you are aware of all the way to his Impeachment.

I'd strongly suggest you and blm reading "The Hunting of the President" written by Conason and Lyons. I believe there is also a dvd for your purview. It's always a good thing to know what IS is and what Isn't.

In closing, if the paragraphs you've noted are ALL you have as evidence if you can call third party conversations evidence...btw...would be inadmissible in court...well, it's back to the drawing board with ya..until then..

I'd appreciate you putting a sock in your unsubstantiated bile. You're misleading people with nothing of substance to back it up.. Nothing that would hold sway with anyone, not even a poster with an IQ of 85.

This is a hurried response, it's late and I need to get to bed..
apologies for grammatical faux pas, spelling..etc..

cya-

[madfloridian]

24. Can you prove Parry's credibility is waning? You always ask me for proof.

I rather resent your attack on me and on him. I once wrote him about a fact someone got wrong in an article at Consortium. I gave him references. He wrote me back at once and took the fact out until he finished investigating.

That is credibility. And I have credibility also. A hell of a lot of it. Just because the DLC bunch here says I don't, doesn't take away from it. The attacks sting for a minute, but then they are over.

The attacks like this on me have gone on for a long time. There is a new system in place here for such cases. Trouble is then others can see the attacks, and not me. Solves nothing.

I do not lie, I do not post stuff that is not well-sourced. I will not be intimidated by being called a liar twice in one week. It just rolls off my back.

I have not been doing much posting about that group out of courtesy and keeping the peace. But this is twice this week my honesty has been questioned. I am keeping records, and I will post more than I did on the topic. If it does no good to stop...then why stop.

Lieberman is the one who is NOT investigating Katrina. Clinton said let's not investigate the Bush 41 administration. Let's just close the books.

I did not say that much in my post other than quote Parry...so attacking me like that is itself full of "bile."

It just makes me more determined to watch for hearings that really get something done.

I have been very supportive of our Democrats, and I have urged others to be that way.

Parry quoted Rosner, I went and found it. He did not misquote. Rosner apparently does not want the war investigated.

Good night, and I am not going to stop posting about why we are where we are today...stuck in Iraq with both sides dying and no good way out.

They owe it to us.

[Tellurian]

26. Is Parry more interested in his book sales or telling the TRUTH?

Can you prove Parry's credibility is waning?

Parry's quote:


"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.”

No where within Parry's quote does it state, as you and and blm have religiously claimed, that Clinton "closed the books" on or are covering up or obstructing any investigation into Bush's criminal activity..Clinton said, "those historical questions had to take a back seat to to his domestic agenda." Furthermore, Clinton was working with a Republican controlled Congress, who were trying to indict him from the moment he took office.

So, therefore, you are propagating in no uncertain terms, *untruths*...with not a shred of evidence to support your claims. Not even from Robert Parry. These are machinations that you flagrantly repeat over and over again until you yourselves actually believe *IS* the truth because if you keep repeating it enough times it will become a Truth. This is what is called a Republican talking point. Republicans make up rumors, and keep repeating them over and over again until a good percentage of the population believes it because it MUST be TRUE, they keep saying it over and over again.

Furthermore, as a point of information and in reference to the rest of Parry's article; here is a time line and link of what President Clinton was doing during his term in office. (besides running the country while the foundation was being laid by Republican sycophants to eventually get Clinton under indictment for some crime...ANY CRIME!)

You mustn't forget...Clinton had just beaten Bush Sr.in the Presidential election. Bush Sr. was bitter, vengeful and full of recrimination. He was about to unleash the mother of all investigations to "GET" Clinton..

Here Parry fails miserably to set the stage for what is about to come for the duration of the Clinton Presidency...and yes,I call his writings "shoddy" unscrupulous journalism when germaine facts are omitted to deliberately cast the subject in a bad light without all the facts being present, allowing the reader to come to their own conclusions.

Here is the time line of investigations during the Clinton presidency. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly...

And, before I post it. Query....Has Robert Parry ever considered the possibility and/or the reason for all the Clinton investigations....and his subsequent Impeachment and possible removal from office...placing Newt Gingrich in the Oval Office...was because Bush Sr. FEARED an investigation into the Iran/Contra Scandal and the prospect of his prosecution? answer below next paragraph..

aside:

(And, in case you suggest Gore would have taken his place...No, Gore was scheduled to be removed because he was UNDER INVESTIGATION for accepting a political donation at a fundraiser from the Buddhists in the Rose Garden...(against the rules to accept donations on White House property..)

I'll answer that for you..No Parry hasn't factored that possibly into his writings. This is an example, which to me, is creating reasonable doubt into the thoroughness, fairness and motive for Robert Parry's writings...and why I hold his writings as half truths and would never represent or promote anyone buying his misleading books.)

Time Line of the Clinton Presidency ...and link-

1992

The Clinton presidential campaign gathers information on Whitewater and Madison Guaranty. A report commissioned by the campaign claims the Clintons lost $68,000 on Whitewater, an estimate later adjusted down to somewhat over $40,000.

The Federal Resolution Trust Corp., investigating causes of Madison's failure, sends a referral to the Justice Department that names the Clintons as "potential beneficiaries" of illegal activities at Madison.

January 1993

Clinton's first term as president begins.

May 1993

White House fires seven employees in the travel office, possibly to make room for Clinton friends. An FBI investigation of the office ensues, allegedly opened under pressure from the White House to justify the firings.

June 1993

Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster files three years of delinquent Whitewater corporate tax returns.

July 1993

Foster is found dead in a Washington area park. Police rule the death a suicide. Federal investigators are not allowed access to Foster's office immediately after the discovery, but White House aides enter Foster's office shortly after his death, giving rise to speculation that files were removed from his office.

September 1993

First of three meetings in which Treasury Department officials tip off Clinton aides about the progress of the RTC investigation.

October 1993

RTC's criminal referral is rejected by Paula Casey, U.S. attorney in Little Rock and former law student of Bill Clinton.

December 1993

The White House agrees to turn over Whitewater documents to the Justice Department, which had been preparing to subpoena them. These documents include files found in Foster's office.

January 1994

Attorney General Janet Reno names New York lawyer and former U.S. attorney Robert B. Fiske Jr. as special counsel to investigate the Clintons' involvement in Whitewater. Fiske announces he will also explore a potential link between Foster's suicide and his intimate knowledge of the developing Whitewater scandal.

February 1994

Republican attorney Jay Stephens is appointed to head the Resolution Trust Corp.'s investigation of the failure of Madison Guaranty.

March 1994

Webster L. Hubbell abruptly resigns as associate attorney general after allegations are raised about his conduct at the Rose Law Firm. Two of Clinton's top political advisers call business friends and line up more than $500,000 for Hubbell, including $100,000 from the Lippo Group. Hubbell is later convicted of fraud and serves 18 months in jail.

Summer 1994

The House and Senate Banking committees begin hearings on Whitewater. Twenty-nine Clinton administration officials are subpoenaed or testify at congressional hearings. All are cleared of any wrongdoing.

August 5, 1994

A U.S. Court of Appeals panel refuses to re-appoint Fiske as special counsel, citing a possible conflict of interest because he was appointed by Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno. Kenneth W. Starr, a former federal appeals court judge and U.S. solicitor who worked in the Reagan and Bush administrations, succeeds Fiske as the independent counsel to investigate Whitewater-Madison matters. He reissues subpoenas for documents, such as the Rose billing records of Hillary Clinton.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm

<cont>

[Tellurian]

27. The Parry debacle...(cont)

(cont)

Jan. 3, 1995

The Democratic majority on the Senate Banking Committee releases a report finding no laws were broken in the Whitewater matter.

April 22, 1995

Starr interviews the Clintons privately.

July 18, 1995

The Senate Special Whitewater Committee, chaired by Republican Alfonse D'Amato, begins hearings on Whitewater and on Foster's suicide. D'Amato is also a chairman of Republican Bob Dole's presidential campaign. The hearings last 11 months.

Aug. 10, 1995

The House Banking Committee, chaired by Republican Jim Leach of Iowa, finishes its examination and finds no illegalities.

Aug. 17, 1995

A grand jury charges James and Susan McDougal and Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker with bank fraud relating to questionable loans.

Oct. 26, 1995

The Senate Whitewater committee issues 49 subpoenas to federal agencies and others involved in the affair.

Dec. 12, 1995

White House associate counsel William H. Kennedy III, who worked at the Rose Law Firm, refuses to release subpoenaed notes of a 1993 meeting between administration officials and the president's lawyers about Whitewater.

Dec. 20, 1995

The Senate votes along party lines to enforce the subpoena. The next day, the White House drops its claim to attorney-client privilege and releases the notes. They prove vague and do not reveal any illegality, but contain the phrase "Vacuum Rose law files WWDC Docs – subpoena."

Jan. 4, 1996

Hillary Clinton's billing records from the Rose Law Firm are found on a table in the White House residence book room after two years. Clinton aide Carolyn Huber says she found the bills in August 1995 but didn't realize their significance until coming across them again. The documents include copies of bills for Hillary Clinton's legal work, showing she performed 60 hours of legal work for Madison in 1985 and 1986.

Jan. 8, 1996

In a commentary titled "Blizzard of Lies," New York Times columnist William Safire describes Hillary Clinton as "a congenital liar." White House press secretary Michael McCurry said if Clinton were not president he "would have delivered a more forceful response to that on the bridge of Mr. Safire's nose."

Jan. 15, 1996

Republicans suggest billing documents may have been withheld from their investigation to disguise how much work Hillary Clinton had done for Madison Guaranty. The White House issues a denial.

Jan. 22, 1996

Kenneth Starr subpoenas Hillary Clinton in a criminal probe to determine if records were intentionally withheld. This is the first time a wife of a sitting president has been subpoenaed.

Jan. 26, 1996

Hillary Clinton testifies before a grand jury about the discovery and content of the billing records.

March 4, 1996

Whitewater trial of Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker (D) and the McDougals begins in Little Rock.

April 22, 1996

David Hale, the former owner of a government-funded lending company who has pleaded guilty to two felonies, testifies at Whitewater trial that in early 1985 then governor Bill Clinton pressured him to make a fraudulent $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal and asked that his name be kept out of the transaction.

April 28, 1996

Clinton testifies on videotape as a defense witness for just over four hours. He denies Hale's charge. The tape is played to the Whitewater trial jury on May 9.

May 26, 1996

Gov. Tucker and the McDougals are convicted of nearly all the fraud and conspiracy charges Starr lodged against them 10 months earlier.

May 28, 1996

The White House acknowledges that during four months in late 1993 it wrongly collected FBI background reports on hundreds, including prominent Republicans. Director of personnel security, Craig Livingstone, later takes responsibility.

June 17, 1996

"Second" Whitewater trial begins. Arkansas bankers Herby Branscum Jr. and Robert Hill are accused of illegally using bank funds to reimburse themselves for political contributions, including contributions to Clinton's gubernatorial and presidential campaigns.

June 18, 1996

The Senate Whitewater committee finishes its investigation. Republicans and Democrats remain divided in their respective reports on whether the Clintons committed any ethical breaches.

July 7, 1996

President Clinton testifies on tape for the second Whitewater trial.

July 15, 1996

Jim Guy Tucker resigns as governor of Arkansas.

July 16 & 17, 1996

Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey, named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Branscum-Hill trial, testifies about his role as the treasurer of Clinton's gubernatorial reelection effort in 1990. He says he never sought to conceal from regulators two large cash withdrawals he ordered.

July 18, 1996

President Clinton's videotaped testimony from July 7 is aired at the trial. In it, Clinton denies naming the two defendants to unsalaried state posts in exchange for contributions to his 1990 gubernatorial campaign.

Aug. 1, 1996

In a major setback for Starr's investigation, Branscum and Hill are cleared on four counts of bank fraud by a federal jury, which deadlocks on seven other charges.

Aug. 19, 1996

Former governor Tucker receives a suspended four-year sentence after his doctor testifies that he would likely die of liver disease if imprisoned. Tucker is placed under home detention and fined $319,000.

Aug. 20, 1996

Susan McDougal is sentenced to two years in prison for her role in obtaining an illegal loan for the Whitewater venture.

Sept. 4, 1996

Susan McDougal, who had considered cooperating with prosecutors, says she doesn't trust them. She enters jail for contempt of court rather than testify in front of a grand jury.

Sept. 23, 1996

An FDIC inspector general's report concludes Hillary Clinton drafted a real estate document that Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan used to "deceive" federal regulators in 1986.

Sept. 30, 1996

The General Accounting Office reports that independent counsels investigating President Clinton and his administration have spent more than $25 million. Starr alone has spent more than $17 million.

Nov. 24, 1996

Clinton's former campaign strategist for the 1992 election, James Carville, announces plans to attack Starr as a partisan hatchet man with a right-wing agenda.

Feb. 17, 1997

Starr unexpectedly announces he will leave his post as independent counsel in August to become the dean of Pepperdine University Law School in California. After much criticism, Starr reverses his decision four days later and resolves to keep his post until after the investigation is completed.

April 10, 1997

On a radio talk show, Hillary Clinton denies that hush money was arranged for former law partner Webster L. Hubbell. She says Whitewater reminds her "of some people's obsession with UFOs and the Hale-Bopp comet some days."

April 14, 1997

James B. McDougal is sentenced to three years in prison for his conviction on 18 fraud and conspiracy charges. Starr requested a reduced sentence for McDougal for assisting the prosecution.

April 22, 1997

The U.S. District Court extends the Whitewater grand jury's term six more months, until Nov. 7, after Starr says he has "extensive evidence" of possible obstruction of justice.

April 25, 1997

8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, overruling a lower court, says the White House must turn over subpoenaed notes to Starr. The notes, for which the White House claimed attorney-client privilege, were taken by White House lawyers when investigators questioned the First Lady.

May 2, 1997

The White House announces that it will appeal the decision on the subpoenaed notes to the Supreme Court.

June 23, 1997

The Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal, and the White House turns over the notes.

June 25, 1997

The Washington Post reports that Whitewater prosecutors have been questioning Arkansas state troopers about President Clinton's personal life, including possible extramarital affairs he may have had while Arkansas governor.

July 15, 1997

Starr's office concludes that Vincent Foster's death in 1993 was a suicide.

July 30, 1997

Susan McDougal, being detained for contempt of court, is moved into a federal detention facility after seven months in two Los Angeles jails, much of which she spent locked in a windowless cell 23 hours a day. The move comes a week after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit alleging that McDougal was being held, at Starr's request, in "barbaric" conditions in an attempt to coerce her to testify.

Sept. 30, 1997

The General Accounting Office announces that Starr had spent over $25 million on his investigation as of March 1997.

January 16, 1998

Starr receives permission to expand his investigation into whether Clinton and his close friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr. encouraged a 24-year-old former White House intern to lie under oath about her alleged affair with the president.

March 8, 1998

James McDougal dies just months before he hoped to be released from prison.

April 1, 1998

The General Accounting Office announces that Starr had spent nearly $30 million on his investigation as of September 1997.

April 16, 1998

Starr says there is no end in sight to his investigation, and officially declines the Pepperdine job, which was being held open for him.

April 23, 1998

Susan McDougal, finally serving her two-year fraud sentence after completing her 18-month contempt of court sentence, refuses yet again to testify before Starr's Little Rock grand jury.

April 25, 1998

Starr and deputies question Hillary Rodham Clinton about Whitewater for nearly five hours at the White House. The testimony is videotaped for the Little Rock grand jury.

April 30, 1998

A new set of tax evasion and fraud charges is brought against Webster Hubbell.

May 4, 1998

Susan McDougal is indicted on charges of criminal contempt and obstruction.

April 30, 1998

A federal judge dismisses the tax and fraud charges against Hubbell and criticizes Starr for going on "the quintessential fishing expedition."

Nov. 13, 1998

Starr brings a third indictment against Hubbell, this one alleging lies to Congress and federal banking regulators.

Nov. 19, 1998

During the first day of impeachment hearings, Starr clears Clinton in relation to the firing of White House travel office workers in 1993 and the improper collection of FBI files revealed in 1996. He also says his office drafted an impeachment referral stemming from Whitewater in 1997, but decided not to send it because the evidence was insufficient.

In conclusion, when the Clinton investigations are laid out end to end...It is not encumbent upon me to foster or give credance or quarter to any ruminations written by Robert Parry. Simply because his writings are based on the false premise of a coverup...and these two posts evidence the fact the Clintons were persecuted to discredit them, making it totally impossible to get any kind of an indictment or cooperation from a Republican controlled Congress in the hopes of investigating or prosecuting IraqGate or the Iran/Contra Scandal and the Bush family's involvment.

What does become apparent to me is the Bush family's intent in a pre-emptive strike, to destroy President Clinton's credibility, remove him from office in shame and disgrace. All this because they were in fear Clinton WOULD INVESTIGATE THEM for IraqGate and the Iran/Contra Scandal. The polar opposite of what Robert Parry purports in his books and writings.


...

[madfloridian]

34. We are aware of the timeline on Clinton. Parry stated a specific event.

He has proved himself to be quite credible, so I take his word for it. It is that Clinton chose not to investigate.

"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.”

Now we have some saying not to investigate the evils of how we went to Iraq, why the people were left on rooftops in Katrina.

I don't think your timeline changes anything I said. Clinton did not choose to investigate further what the Reagan-Bush admin did. Lieberman is saying let's not investigate what Bush 43 did.

[Tellurian]

35. You have accused Clinton of "Closing the Books" on Iran/Contra

and Iraq/Gate in a cover up in concert with the Bushes..

That event never happened and was NEVER written in Parry's book.
You might want to read the conclusion in post #27.

Every time you respond you add another twist to your assertion
in an attempt to deny you were dead wrong in propagating
falsehoods regarding a cover up against the Clintons, supposedly an
effort to protect the Bushes.

Nothing could be further from the Truth..so please STOP!

I'm going to close now...I've said all I'm going to say on the subject.

Have a Great Day!

[madfloridian]

36. "in concert with the Bushes.." Source, please, where I said that.

You are not credible when you say things like that. Please show me where I said that.

I don't mind a good discussion, but I despise misinterpreting.

I just did a search here on those terms. You are the only one who used that term "in concert with the Bushes.."

I don't like Clinton hanging around with them, but I think he was a big boy who made his own decisions. And his decision to close the investigations has hurt our country.

[AtomicKitten]

46. Brilliant compilation of data, Tellurian.

Thank you for taking on the arduous task of untangling the propaganda to get at the truth.

It matters.

[mtnsnake]

53. Bravo! Thank you,Tellurian, for clearing the good name of Bill Clinton!

:toast:

[madfloridian]

74. He/she did not address the issues. He just dismissed the author.

That is not fair play in anyone's book.

He/she did not address the fact that Clinton refused to go ahead with investigations of the Reagan/Bush bunch. He simply said I was not credible, said Robert Parry was not credible, said blm was not credible.

Then he/she said he is tired of it all and waved goodby.

That is called dismissal, not clearing up.

Heck, I can do that. I can take any author, any blog, any person, and I can say they are not credible.

It's easy. People do that to me all the time.

[DemBones DemBones]

50. Never mind! I found the answer. nt

[blm]

61. Your vigilance on many matters is ESSENTIAL and appreciated by many, mf.

And that is why you have become a target. Wear it as a badge of honor. The nastier they get with you the stronger the proof that you are doing something that MATTERS. Matters enough that they want to annoy you into stopping.

[blm]

30. I read Conason's book - it has nothing to do with what Clinton did FOR Bush after he

took office. Clinton's own book proves he had no interest in further exposing Poppy Bush's crimes of office. The FACT that CIA drugrunning was revealed in 1996 and Clinton's WH handled the downplaying of that story and the targetting of Gary Webb's credibility speaks volumes that you just don't want to hear.

[Tellurian]

33. You're confused...refer to posts # 26 & # 27

rather than ranting about charges I've addressed in the posts above.

Unless, you prefer to be in complete denial Parry's conclusions are erroneous
based on Parry's flawed premise of Clinton ignoring prosecution of wrongdoing by Bush Sr.

Parry's writings are tragically devoid of relevant facts.

And worse, your rantings claiming Parry said, Clinton "CLOSED THE BOOKS" on the alleged Iran/Contra Scandal.

Parry said... NO SUCH THING!

[blm]

40. Oh - so Clinton was lying in his book when he said Bush1 should have peaceful retirement?

And the smoking gun on Clinton is the FACT that he didn't mention ONE WORD about BCCI in his entire book, even though he inherited the 20 outstanding questions involving BCCI when he took office in 1993, like Bush2 inherited the Hart-Rudman Report on Global Terror when he took office.

And the other smoking gun on Clinton is the way the CIA drugrunning story was handled by HIS White House. They downplayed and denied it and targetted Gary Webb's credibility and his journalistic career - same way BushInc did and still does.

The CIA documents that came out two years later proved Webb reported the truth.

[mtnsnake]

42. Ya wanna talk about closing books...what about the one Kerry closed in Ohio

I've never gotten on his case for that until tonight, but listening to you post the same divisive spin about the Clintons over and over and over is enough to make one compare bookkeeping habits.

[blm]

43. You want to make the case that McAuliffe's Office of Voter Integrity that was charged with

securing the election process for FOUR YEARS, did their job?

You want to make the case that the Dem party's election legal team HAD a case to take to court on Nov. 3, but Kerry wouldn't let them make it?

Even RFK Jr. concluded Kerry had no legal evidence to make a court case to continue.

I notice you can't REFUTE the truth about what happened under Clinton and how it effected this nation in the long run, so you point to other matters even sans PROOF.

[mtnsnake]

55. Yikes, you sound like a lawyer and I feel like I'm in court!

I don't know if I've been charged with anything, but just in case, I plead not guilty! :smoke: O8)

I notice you can't REFUTE the truth about what happened under Clinton and how it effected this nation in the long run

Hey, it's hard to refute something that just doesn't seem to be out there for me to find. My bad, I guess. Besides, Tellurian did a nice job of taking care of business for me.

[Tellurian]

59. Kangaroo Court, no worries...

However,

Even RFK Jr. concluded Kerry had no legal evidence to make a court case to continue

Those conclusions were made 2 yrs.. post facto after the elections.

and, thanks for the compliment.... anytime-

[blm]

60. Hardly - Clinton's own BOOK was smoking gun - he wanted PEACEFUL RETIREMENT

for Poppy Bush and chose to NOT PURSUE any of the outstanding matters that he inherited.

So Clinton chose to ignore the twenty outstanding questions left reBCCI that he inherited when he took office in Jan 1993 - didn't even MENTION the BCCI situation in his book, just as Bush ignored the HartRudman Report on Global Terror that he inherited in Jan 2001.

And NONE of you have ever acknowledged the SMOKING GUN of CIA drugrunning story - Clinton was PRESIDENT in 1996 when the story broke, and his WH downplayed the serious matters in the story that was part of IranContra, and worked to discredit the reporter - just like BushInc does and did.

[Tellurian]

64. Well, strategically speaking..

Remember, Bush advertised to the World, he had a lock on the 2000 election. He told everyone who would listen, support "ME" for president ...give me all your money, sell your house. I'll make boodles of money for you because Uncle Tony and Grandpa Reni are standing in the wings waiting for Cousin Teddy to make my case in front of you.

Look for my ad in the NYT with my full plan of using 9/11 as the spring board to get to Hussein in Iraq. Then getting all our Oil buddies on board. You'll be in on the ground floor for 75% of the profit for the liquid gold buried beneath the sand in Iraq. This is a deal you can't afford to pass up!

We're handpicking the new puppet government and building a state of the art facility for R&R when you Execs come to visit and do business.

Hey, I've got the military at my disposal, it's a done deal.. Sign up. Theres more $$$ to be made than you can shake a stick at...think logistics, equipment, arms sales...etc..

---moron--

[madfloridian]

75. Well, when you go around declaring everyone "not credible"..

you might encounter that sometimes.

You dismissed me as not credible, said Robert Parry was not credible, and practically called blm a liar.

You attributed to me things I never said, and I when I asked you to prove them you ignored it.

[mtnsnake]

78. I did no such thing. Are you feeling ok today?

:shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

54. this is how your beautifully documented response

dispelling the BS is received ...

[Tellurian]

65. Can I add... LAH-LAH-LA-LA-LA to your graphic..

:hi:

[madfloridian]

83. I just wrote about trying to discredit people.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/943

People catch on after a while.

[karynnj]

32. I am not a Clinton fan, but there are easier explanations

here. As soon as te primary was over, the polls favored Leiberman. the Republican candidate was a joke and an embarrassment. (The type that even party loyalists would vote against.)

Given this there was way more than a 50% chance that even if the Democrats had a major effort for Lamont that Leiberman would win. The election results in the Senate were as good as it was likely to get - we won more seats than predicted 2 weeks ahead. In this case, had there been a huge effort to support Lamont, Leiberman could have prevented out taking over the Senate by switching to the Republicans.

Also, Bill Clinton went all out for Leiberman, who was someone who gave him very early support, in the primaries. He made a case of why Leiberman was better than Lamont. It would not be believable to make a passionate case the opposite way a month later.

[blm]

29. Obama said no investigations into Iraq war last week on LKL and he said it before

on LKL in December after ISG report came out.

He claims he has no interest in 're-litigating' it, but it was never LITIGATED in the first place.

>>>
First of all, do you agree with the vice president?

OBAMA: I think it is hard not to make the assessment that this has been a misconceived mission from the start, not just in execution, but in conception. In fact, actually, the military has performed brilliantly. The problem was the way we conceived the mission was based on ideology. It was not based on facts on the ground.

But the fact is, is that what I'm not interested in doing is re- litigating the decision to get in. I think that what the Iraq Study Group provides us an opportunity to do is to start looking forward on a bipartisan basis, to try to figure out how can we make the best of a bad situation?

It is still possible for us to arrive at a situation in which there is stability in Iraq, that it has not become a nest of terrorist activity .....
>>>>>

[Morgana LaFey]

19. He's also backed off campaign promises to investigate Katrina

in his role as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/we-were-right-about-joe-l_b_38615.html

[oasis]

11. Same ol' Joe whether it be Enron, Katrina or Iraq. "Let's not ruffle any feathers".(n/t)

[mtnsnake]

13. You've been making some strong accusations about Democrats

especially the Clintons.

Quite often, though, you haven't had the courtesy to mention names of the Democrats you're accusing. Most times you call them "coverup Dems". I asked you in another thread to mention just who it is you're accusing of these practices and I'll ask you the same thing here.

Stop beating around the bush.

[ContraCommando]

23. A republican in democratic clothing.

[blm]

37. Or someone re-assuring the DC establishment ahead of a presidential run.

.

[welshTerrier2]

25. has anyone in Congress questioned bush's MOTIVES for war???

some confuse saying bush lied about the need for war with challenging him on WHY he lied and WHY he wanted to go to war ...

it leaves on the table the idea that his cause was just but his means were not ... the truth is far darker than that ... neither his cause nor his means to achieve it were just ...

so i ask all who read this: has even one single member of Congress ever raised the question about whether bush's reasons for wanting to go to war were legitimate?

because i think he went to war for oil and greed and hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate profits ...

[welshTerrier2]

39. perhaps now, there is ONE BRAVE SOUL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3123411&mesg_id=3123411

where are all the others ?????

[mtnsnake]

41. Whatever you accuse Clinton of isn't 1/10th as bad as what your favorite candidate did

when he closed the final chapter in Ohio without even fighting, thus enabling the worst president in the history of the world to take a second term. Talk about closing a book...

There is nothing you can do or say to change the fact that Bill Clinton remains one of the best presidents ever, and THE best president since John F Kennedy.

[blm]

44. There would be no Bush2, except for Clinton's extraordinary kindness to Poppy Bush.

And YOU want to make a case that KerryHAD legal evidence to continue in court? Why didn't you share it with the Dem party's election legal team and RFK Jr? RFK said Kerry had no legal evidence to continue in court that day, just as the Dem legal team concluded.

If you have other legal evidence he could have used, please share it.

BTW - The Dem PARTY organization is in charge of securing the election process through their Office of Voter Integrity that was set up in 2001. McAuliffe wasn't in charge of debating George Bush and Kerry wasn't in charge of Office of Voter Integrity.

No matter HOW you pretend otherwise.

[AtomicKitten]

47. There would never have been a Bush2

if Kerry had run a better campaign and fought for the votes as he promised.

It's really as simple as that.

[Tellurian]

66. Excellent Point, AK..

And of course, you are 100% correct..

From the Land of WHAT IFS:

1. If Kerry had run a better campaign...

2. If Kerry had gone to Ohio himself, rather than taking someone's word for what IS/WAS.

3. If Kerry had done what all Republicans know how to do..STOP THE RECOUNT!

4. If Kerry had a Judge standing at the ready with a TRO in hand.

5. If Kerry had fought for us like he promised during his campaign.

anyone is welcome to add to this list.. of What IFS..

We wouldn't have had Bush for the next 4 yrs.

Otherwise, feel free to blame Clinton.. to soothe your denial.

[blm]

71. Clinton allowed a Bush2 to be running for office in 1999 - because in 1993 he chose

to not pursue all the outstanding matters on IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate, and in 1996, the CIA drugrunning story was covered up.

CLINTON did that. Gore didn't, Kerry didn't. CLINTON did it.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

You know it. You excuse it while you pretend that Bush2 occurred because of Kerry. You pretend that Kerry was in charge of securing the Democrats' Office of Voter Integrity from 2001 through 2004. He wasn't. Others were. Others you protect while deflecting blame to Kerry.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

52. Complaining about something

you helped bring about because of your incessant whining about being harassed and stalked is beyond ludicrous. I realize you would have preferred people be banned, but this total block function was intended to accommodate people like you that complain vociferously about being picked on when, in fact, you just can't stand being challenged.

You reap what you sow, blm. Enjoy.

By the way, it's "elicit" not "illicit."

[blm]

57. The Dem PARTY has 4 years to secure election process and strategize a national plan.

Dean is doing the job that Terry McAuliffe NEVER DID.

Why reply to ANY thread or post when you fear replies back? Besides, I civilly addressed attacking posters straight on. Accusing me of forcing the rule change is absurd. Your taunts are minor irritations at best.

[Tellurian]

67. Isn't it called cheating when you reply to your OWN posts?

ck #44..

Ahem?

[blm]

69. Unethical is blocking replies from those who have been targetted for attack.

You notice what you WANT to notice and avoid unpleasant facts you WANT to avoid.

[Tellurian]

80. Moi? No, I 'm posting an appropriate response to your O Bama spew

It's really inappropriate to be on a democratic board and Lie about democratic candidates.

Here is the answer to your blood curdling cry about O Bama not wanting to re-litigate how we got into the Iraq War..

The ANSWER IS clear that it has already been litigated and that O Bama's choice of words was perfectly correct.

After all, he is a an attorney. You probably won't be able to acquiesce and admit your shortcomings.I understand.

If nothing else, this post should prevent you from making a complete fool of yourself, illustrating how much you really don't know. I don't mean to sound mean. But it's really unfair for you to tarnish someones reputation at best out of ignorance or at worst out of willful deceit. Whateva..time will tell-

*********************************

repost courtesy of ripple:

Actually, it WAS litigated

There are two definitions for the term ‘litigate’:

1. To contest in legal proceedings

2. To engage in legal proceedings.

I think passing a piece of legislation could certainly be considered a legal proceeding, so that’s where I was coming from with my last post.

If you prefer the first definition, which I interpret to mean a court challenge, that occurred as well.

From the library of Congress:

www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31715.pdf

“Subsequent to enactment of the authorization but prior to the initiation of
military action, twelve members of the House of Representatives, along with a
number of U.S. soldiers and the families of soldiers, filed suit against President Bush
seeking to enjoin military action against Iraq on the grounds it would exceed the
authority granted by the October resolution or, alternatively, that the October
resolution unconstitutionally delegated Congress’ power to declare war to the
President. On February 24, 2003, the trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds it
raised a non justiciable political question; and on March 13, 2003, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, albeit on different grounds. The appellate
court stated that, although the mobilization of U.S. forces clearly imposed hardships
on the plaintiffs soldiers and family members, the situation was too fluid to determine
whether there was an irreconcilable conflict between the political branches on the
matter of using force; and, thus, the separation of powers issues raised by the suit
were not ripe for judicial review. On the delegation issue, the appellate court ruled
that the Constitution allows Congress to confer substantial discretionary authority on
the President, particularly with respect to foreign affairs, and that in this instance
there was no “clear evidence of congressional abandonment of the authority to
declare war to the President.” “he appropriate recourse for those who oppose war
with Iraq,” the First Circuit concluded, “lies with the political branches.” See Doe
v. Bush, 240 F.Supp.2d 95 (D. Mass. Feb. 24, 2003), aff’d, 322 F.3d 109 (1st Cir.
March 13, 2003), rehearing denied, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4830 (1st Cir. March 18,
2003).”

The fact that the lead-up to the Iraq war hasn't been litigated to your liking doesn't make Obama's statement inaccurate.

I respect your disagreement about an immediate withdrawal vs. phased redeployment. It's certainly a valid debate and one that's still going strong on the Hill- especially within our own party. The fact that Obama has a view that differs from yours (or the candidate you support) doesn't make his motives insincere.

Again, you mislead by claiming that Obama was trying to paint Kerry/Feingold as "cut and run" dems. That simply is not the case. In fact, if I might get back to my earlier point, one of the co-sponsors of that particular resolution voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq to begin with. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting something, but you appear to be giving that individual a free pass, while laying the blame on Obama for having a different opinion about how to fix a mess he didn't create- and one he predicted and strenuously opposed, in fact.

[AtomicKitten]

82. some folks consider

it a personal affront when others prove their outrageous accusations to be the BS that it is. My personal favorite is quoting from blogs, blogs to which they funnel information, example here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=119777&mesg_id=119778 a la BushCo who fed stories to the press and then quoted from the newspaper articles that ensued with the info that was spoon-fed them.

Propaganda is supplied to the blogs and then those blogs are cited as proof of some outrageous claim. Seriously lame. We've seen the tag-team assault against Hillary that has now turned to Obama. Fortunately the truth is the most resilient of commodities and will always find a way to surface.

[bling bling]

85. Fact-checkers are (curiously) never responded to.

Some people seriously just can't handle the truth. I'm glad to see posts like yours here keeping the discussion honest, at least one side of the discussion anyway. The other side prefers delusion which is usually why posts like yours go ignored while they dash about replying to everyone else who they still think they can trick into disliking every Democrat until only John Kerry is left.

That's a really sad way to get people to support someone. And it's sad that some people don't even realize how sad it is.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

95. Just a few months ago you swore I was a Green activist because I focus on corruption.

Why ARE the posters who key on corruption and open government issues considered such bad apples to some of you? Why are you surprised or bothered that ANY anti-corruptiom person is angered by Democrats who don't support investigations?

I point to ANY and EVERY Democrat who lets a Republican escape investigation. Obama wasn't even a candidate when I posted this. Many threads have been started over the last few years by posters angry about lack of investigation and oversight. Why do YOU choose to obsessively chase my posts down when there are so many who speak out about those Dems not supporting investigation?

You would have been one busy policeman when the Downing Street Memos came out and almost all of DU was activated to get investigations started.

[blm]

86. There was no legal INVESTIGATION into Bush's decision and Obama knows it.

Obama also claimed that Kerry-Feingold was 'precipitous withdrawal' and had no security provisions. Wrong.

Excerpts of S.2766 introduced in the United States Senate on June 21, 2006

Purpose: To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES--109th Cong., 2nd Sess.

S.2766

SEC. 1084 UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) REDEPLOYMENT OF TROOPS FROM IRAQ.--

(1) SCHEDULE FOR REDEPLOYMENT. -- For purposes of strengthening the national security of the United States, the President shall redeploy, commencing immediately, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, in accordance with a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel.
(2) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REQUIRED. -- The President shall consult with Congress regarding the schedule for redeployment and shall submit such schedule to Congress as part of the report required under subsection (c).

(3) MAINTENANCE OF OVER-THE-HORIZON TROOP PRESENCE. -- The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.

(b) IRAQ SUMMIT.--The President should work with leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that includes these leaders, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that engenders the support of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds by ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues, disbanding the militias, strengthening internal security, reviving reconstruction efforts and fulfilling related international economic aid commitments, securing Iraq's borders, and providing for a sustainable federalist structure in Iraq.

(c) REPORT ON REDEPLOYMENT.--

(1) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

[harveyc]

45. Let's end the Iraq war first, ok? n/t

[blm]

62. Investigating How and Why can stop escalation and further moves into Iran.

Falsely claiming the road to Iraq has already been litigated is a LIE, and we all know it.

[harveyc]

81. Sure we do ...

but what good is doing investigations right now if our soldiers are still dying in Iraq? Congress has the power to stop this war now, let's get our priorities straight.

[blm]

90. Stopping now IS the priority of those who also want Bush's decisions scrutinized.

Those not wanting to risk their political lives with investigations also side with putting off withdrawal for some months down the road.

Subpoena the WH and the Pentagon and the war profiteers for their early documents and we'll see a whole bunch of them scrambling to bring this war to a close to cover themselves.

[mentalsolstice]

51. Reality...let's try that first

I'm all for investigations...but my gut tells me (I'm a retired atty) that grounds for impeachment and conviction, based on the U.S. Constitution and law (statutory or precedent) is iffy at best. It's not like you're trying to prove a burglary and cover up, or perjury in a sex case. It's not that simple in this case, there's all kinds of "top secret" evidence, and international law will come into play. And as a former attorney, I can see where BushCo will stall the process from here to eternity.

However, we must investigate...and the world must investigate with us. Precedent is different on the international stage. I'm hoping we can get them on crimes against peace or humanity. However, to do that will take patience. It may mean they leave in Jan. 2009, and we don't see a resolution for another 5-10 years. At that point, we're on a world stage...and it will mean so much more than impeaching chimpy and sending him back to his pig farm to clear brush and ride his bike. It means the whole world has proven that THEY'RE wrong. It's probably only chance that Chimpy will spend his last days in a 12'x6'.

[blm]

56. Investigations aren't only for impeachment, they are for TRUTH in the historic record.

If investigation leads to impeachment that is one thing, but why stop investigations BECAUSE they may make impeachment inevitable? Besides, does anyone think either Bush or Cheney have the CHARACTER or BACKBONE to withstand impeachment? They would resign BEFORE, just as Nixon did - and Nixon had a helluva lot more character than either Bush or Cheney.

[Tellurian]

68. Theres nothing Nixonian about Bush and Cheney..

Cheney is pretty handy with a shotgun. Take his lawyer friend for instance.

How can you propagate your twisted fantasies to be anyones reality.
When you consistently demonstrate missing the mark by stirring the pot of mixed up facts to fit your byline.

[harveyc]

77. We are wasting time, leadership on the Iraq first.

The 800# gorilla in the room is the war in Iraq. Wasting time, right now, on talking about hearings, investigations, subpoenas and, yes, even the 100 hours agenda, is diverting attention from the Iraq war and our soldiers being killed. So far, 19 of our soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq since 1/4/07.

[blm]

79. Doesn't bother the no investigation crowd since they also voted against withdrawal

when it was actually being debated last June.

[Klukie]

70. An idiot with their own agenda.....

mabye even a presidential agenda. These type of folks probably have opinions on issues, but they never voice them for fear of alienating someone. The definition of a true politician. I understand that these guys are forced to play politics on many issues but to play with war, this one or any one, is unacceptable. Not investigating this war is as big a blunder as the war itself IMO. The question isn't... Do we investigate, it is... How can we not investigate. This is not just about going after an administraion that is equally aggressive as it is inept (or aggressively inept if you will), this is about lives, past , present, and future. How can anyone not demand that this catastrophe be examined thoroughly? An investigation is the only way we can ensure that the truth will come out. Unless there is forced sworn testimony, the truth will never be revealed. Without a true account of the lead up, preparation, and handling of this war, how can we be sure that it won't happen again?

[blm]

73. Thanks - and I agree with you completely. Because of EVERY cut off investigation

BushInc was able to grow and become stronger - from Kennedy assassination to Watergate, IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning. Had any or ALL of those criminal actions been fully vetted by the Democrats who had the opportunity to reveal more of the facts behind those crimes against the constitution, there would BE NO Bush2 administration to rise up in 2000 using their immense powers to wreak havoc on the world since then.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[madfloridian]

76. We know of two now who don't want to investigate the lead-up to Iraq.

I realize Obama used the word re-litigate or something like that. But Lieberman just plain said...he did not want to go digging around there.

We know of two, how many more think it best left alone why our country is in a war and bogged down with more deaths every day.

What Lieberman said:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/615

[bling bling]

84. Imagine that. Well, derrrr, I guess we should all turn our backs on Obama, then. Gee thanks!!

This is a typical stinky load of b.s. accusations whereby ONE sentence is highlighted out of in order to make a popular Democrat look bad and in turn attempt to make JOHN KERRY look good by contrast.

As a matter of fact, it's the ubiquitous, unescapable, never-ending disingenuous posts like this that bad-mouth all Dems but Kerry that have made the name John Kerry nearly become an aversion to me.

Is there no shame with the Kerry supporters? It's like starting to cross a line somewhere between loyal support and just bizarre lashing out with false accusations and misreprentations of other good Democrats.

I hope people don't take these kinds of threads at face value without putting them in proper perspective. Anyone who truly thinks John Kerry will win the Presidential election by telling America that he plans to enter office in January of 2009 and put our money and resources into long drawn out trials is truly out of touch with what America is looking for right now in a President.

Furthermore, any Democrat who takes the election process seriously will avoid such litigation talk on Larry King and elsewhere or they can kiss their presidential aspirations good-bye.

[blm]

87. Right, because the DC powerstructure has to be pleased FIRST by the new figures.

They already KNOW that Kerry is an anti-corruption, open government lawmaker so even the Dem side of that powerstructure wouldn't lift a finger to help him.

No one put words in Obama's mouth. He wants NO INVESTIGATIONS into Bush's war decisions. He said it a few times, so it wasn't a slip of the tongue. He also wouldn't sign the letter of inquiry for the Downing Street Memos. He just doesn't side with the idea of investigations - Fine. Just don't pretend that he's different then. Because there are PLENTY of Dems who shun serious investigation duties of the senate and congress. And there have been for many decades.

But, what is really the end result of blocking serious oversight?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

This is beyond Kerry. If it were Henry Waxman putting himself out there instead of Kerry, I would be heralding his candidacy - because this nation can only thrive again when HONESTY becomes the basis of its governance, and that will require an anti-corruption, open government lawmaker ascending to the oval office.

[generaldemocrat]

89. Doesn't surprise me to say the least....

this is consistent with a historical pattern of our pols letting each other off the hook. From Ford's pardon of Nixon, to Bush Sr.'s pardon of everyone who was involved in Iran-Contra, to Clinton's pardon of Bush Sr and his Iran-Contra crew.

When you've got guys like Elliot Abrahms and Robert Gates, both who have been implicated in Iran-Contra, coming back again and again to occupy positions in the government, and when criminals like Michael Ledeen (also involved in Iran-Contra)continue to influence our government, then it tells you that the system of accountability has totally failed.

We must not be afraid to uphold precedents. Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary is there for a reason folks.

[blm]

91. And it is accurate to say that 9-11 and this Iraq war wouldn't even have happened if

those outstanding matters in IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning were revealed and the books opened up to the citizens of this country.

There would have been no GOP takeover of congress and no impeachment and Gore would have had a landslide in 2000 and started to immediately lead this world into a era of responsibility on the environment.

Govt. corruption on the scale of IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning is NEVER a small thing, no matter how people want to pretend it is.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[EndElectoral]

92. There must be investigations and THEN impeachment

[Tellurian]

94. We'll be LUCKY if we can have an investigation, never mind Impeachment

This is what Bush has done to our Constitution.

Some call it a "shredding", I call it a "massacre"...

So all the screaming and yelling is in vain until this document is restored to it's original intent!

check here, if you dare:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/29/the_star_chamber

[NoSheep]

93. One who owns stock in the defense industry?