It doesn't get much more brutal than this piece in the Washington Post.

[seafan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021403102.html">Hillary's Unappealing Path in the Post is a must read for anyone who is undecided about a presidential choice.



Speaking only for myself, I just do not want a return of all of the backbiting ideological battles, the reminders of the ugly, rehashed scandals of the 90's or the unrelenting feelings of distress, disgust and betrayal of democrats (with a small "d") since then.


As I posted in late 2006, after Robert Parry's brilliant piece, Democrats, the Truth Still Matters! hit our consciousness, I feel it ever more strongly today:

It's because of this shrouding of Iran-Contra that we are facing it again, in a MUCH more virulent form. The Bill Clinton years were merely a temporary detour from the BFEE's rampages. And because of this, the BFEE hated him.

Just like in 1991, now we are again mucking around in Iraq, we have a catastrophically inept and disliked pResident, a witches' brew of Iran-Contra criminals concocting more chaos, and this time it's global.

And just like in 1991, we are getting crushed under debt, a failing economy and crippling tax break giveaways to the wealthy elite.

And just like in 1991, a despised administration is robbing us of our ability to survive and raise our families, and then sending our kids off to die.


Never before has the way out of this catastrophe been clearer. We MUST fully investigate and expose these convicted/pardoned/otherwise felonious players from the Iran-Contra debacle, because they are once again infesting our government.

We have not yet learned our lesson from those terrible years of criminal activity by these people, so now we are being given *another opportunity.*

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I want to cling to the hope that we will elect a president who, through the ultimate direction of investigation and legal prosecution, will FINALLY hold those responsible for lying to America about IranContra and the October Surprise hostage release, BCCI money laundering, the secret arms deals with Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, and George HW Bush's involvement in all of it. George HW Bush, to this day, still receives a daily CIA briefing.


I want to hold George W. Bush and his lieutenants accountable for their lies that stampeded our country against our will into a trumped-up, illegal invasion of a nation that had not harmed us on September 11, 2001.

I want to have confidence that criminals such as these will not ever be allowed to hold positions in our government again.

I want our Department of Justice investigated and cleaned out of all Bush loyalists, hacks and enablers of the most unconscionable betrayal of the American justice system.


We have been robbed of our liberties, civil rights, human rights, our treasury, the lives of our soldiers, our system of justice and world reputation.


For the past 30 years, and most especially the past 7, we have suffered the biggest heist in America's history.


I want to believe that our next president will examine and hold accountable those who have betrayed America in these ways, yet are continuing to pop up in positions of power in our government over and over again, to foment more aggressive invasions, ideological imperialism and murder of innocents. Paul D. Wolfowitz is just ONE example.



The Clintons had 8 years to hold those people accountable. They failed.

I don't want a repeat of it.



Give me a president who will expose and hold accountable those who committed these egregious and shameful acts against our country, so that we may finally move forward in a way that restores our nation, our people's will to survive and prosper, and our children's dreams for the future.

[MNDemNY]

1. BHO will not expose, or hold accountable, he will "reach across the aisle...

and bend over. Bi-partisanship.

[chimpymustgo]

3. You better believe it. BHO is as bought and paid for as the Clintons. Is Gore the answer?

Edwards might have done it but the corporate media got rid of him quick fast and in a hurry.

I truly think Al Gore might be our only hope.

[MNDemNY]

4. Certainly not either of these two.

[rodeodance]

5. and I will agree with you on that one!

[tridim]

6. Prosecuting BushCo crimes won't require "reaching across the aisle"

We already have proof that the Clintons don't punish the Bush family, you have no proof that Obama will do the same.

[MNDemNY]

11. "hope for change?" Good one.

[burythehatchet]

20. "Hill '08...Hope-less"

[Avalux]

53. How do you know? It's prudent for him to not disclose what he would or wouldn't do at this point.

Why give anyone ammunition against him? I actually think he'll do it, but then I'm a kool-aid drinker.

[blm]

58. We 100% KNOW Clintons won't. We KNOW Senate will with a President Obama

cooperating with access to documents needed and in ways that the last Dem president would NOT.

Think about your criticism of Obama. If THAT is what you fear based on what you THINK Obama will do as prez, then WHY ON EARTH would you support someone you KNOW will continue to protect and actively coverup for BushInc?

[pbca]

2. Do you know why the Clinton's did nothing?

http://www.dldewey.com/columns/menaf.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mena,_Arkansas

http://www.ncoic.com/clinton.htm

[stillcool]

23. thanks...

I've never come upon that last link before. Very well written, and it can be such a complex subject. I've been reading about it for years, and while I understand the drug interactions, the actors participating in the Middle-east part of it, and the BCCI still find me with my eyes glazed over.

[jasmine621]

39. And for sure, Obama will hold this administration accountable for

its illegal behavior, right? :sarcasm:

[QC]

24. You know, I've been wondering when Mena would come up.

It was the only bugeyed, extra-chromosomed, knuckle-dragging, pecker-sniffing Republican talking point, circa 1998, that some Obamazombie had not dragged onto DU.

Glad to see it has finally arrived.

[KittyWampus]

32. there's a huge difference between the knuckledraggers who claim Clinton was behind the whole thing

and those of us who wonder how it is Clinton had not one clue drug trafficking was going on. Especially since Clinton didn't seem to appreciate Kerry's investigations into the corruption going on in his own state.

[Mme. Defarge]

7. Good summary ...

"Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination -- and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules."

[pnwmom]

8. Edwards should tell Obama he'll endorse him in exchange for

the job of Attorney General with full authority to go after these thugs.

I don't trust Obama to do this without a pit bull working for him.

[Window]

Works for me.

Edwards as AG definitely works for me.



Peace:thumbsup:

[Clovis Sangrail]

9. I seriously doubt either BHO or HRC will go after these people

[bigtree]

10. this from a conservative's pov - Gerson was called "the conscience of the White House" by admirers

I'm not going to read this . . .

Michael John Gerson (born May 15, 1964, New Jersey) is an Evangelical Christian<1> op-ed columnist for The Washington Post and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.<2> He served as President George W. Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, and as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006. A member of the White House Iraq Group, Gerson was called "the conscience of the White House" by some admirers.

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

[JimGinPA]

12. This Is One Of My Main Reasons For Supporting Obama...

I know Hillary would never go after these thugs & crooks. I pray Obama will.

[Whisp]

19. Hillary and Bill ARE one of those thugs and crooks.

they protected the scum of the earth IranContra/BCCI guys from getting justice served upon their vile, reptilian heads.

and some of these scum roam about the halls of government today, still doing havoc. They should be in Prison. but no, bill and hillary had another plan and it had nothing to do with justice.

[chimpymustgo]

44. There's always hope, I suppose. But no real reason to believe BHO will go after them.

He's got a few debts to pay himself.

[Adelante]

13. That is surely a brutal piece nt

[KoKo]

57. It was written by a Repug from Bush II Administration....of course it's brutal...

:rofl: That's what Repugs do....brutality. They are a Crime Family and Gerson is one of them.

[WilliamPitt]

14. If that's your litmus test, prepare for bitter disappointment.

None of the (D) candidates current or former would ever investigate the Bush administration if they won the Oval.

Congress may nibble around the edges, but that's it.

They didn't investigate Nixon after he left. Or Ford. Or Reagan. Or Bush Sr. The GOP had Congress after Clinton left, and didn't investigate after his departure.

It won't happen. You need to find a new litmus test, because neither Clinton nor Obama will do what you wish.

It is what it is, and has ever been.

[Cha]

18. I'm sure you're right..

but, we also know for sure that the clintons did not do it before and they won't investigate the son.

[seafan]

21. When even Pat Buchanan starts to sound like a progressive, anything is possible(!)

I am ready to see some new and wonderful history in the making for this country, and I'll never stop fighting for it.

[WilliamPitt]

15. P.S. Gerson is super right-wing.

Our source material on DU is getting curiouser and curiouser:

Gerson, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, served as a policy adviser and chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush from 2000 to 2006. Before he joined Bush's presidential campaign in 1999, he was a senior editor covering politics at U.S. News & World Report. He is the author of the book "Heroic Conservatism" and a contributor to Newsweek magazine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/biographies/michael-gerson.html

[paulk]

30. check out post #2

some of the things being posted on DU

come straight from FR

or worse...

[stillcool]

16. The only chance I see...

of anything being done to usurp the power out of the hands of the invisible government is to get we the people so thoroughly engaged in the political process that we force the will of the people on elected officials. That isn't likely, but it certainly isn't impossible. We definitely need a leader that can provide us an avenue to at least try and stake our claim to our government. How else will anyone ever be held accountable for anything?

[chimpymustgo]

17. Al Gore.

nt

[stillcool]

43. When I look at Al Gore...

as a legislator, and as a Vice President, it is apparent to me, that getting elected is not enough. He himself has stated that it is not only the individuals in this current administration that are responsible for the havoc they've wreaked, but the institutionalized power that has given them a free reign. If he himself believes that he can be more effective outside of government than in it, to me that speaks volumes about the enormity of the problem we have.

[Stephanie]

22. Great article. The narrative idea cost Gore in 2000.

Gore was the privileged prince, coasting into the WH as the heir apparent. Bush was Prince Hal, the prodigal son, the unlikely hero.

Gerson's conclusion is on the money.

Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination -- and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules.

Unlikely -- but it would be a fitting contribution to the Clinton legacy of monumental selfishness.

[KoKo]

56. As long as you know Gerson is a Repug Speech Writer for Bush

then it's okay if he makes statments about Hillary puncturing the baloon of Democratic idealism.

Shouldn't you be asking..."What does Gerson know about Democratic Idealism?"

:shrug:

[HeraldSquare212]

25. Since the Clintons have been in the WH, I think they'll guard executive privilege and such more

closely than Obama. All Presidents eventually gravitate toward protecting the institution of the Presidency; hopefully, Obama at the beginning will at least be more open to letting information out that the Clintons. He would probably cooperate more with Congressional investigations; I think the Clintons would fight subpoenas, etc., right from the get-go.

[ProgressIn2008]

26. Yes - "Give me a president who will expose and hold accountable

those who committed these egregious and shameful acts against our country, so that we may finally move forward in a way that restores our nation, our people's will to survive and prosper, and our children's dreams for the future."

That's exactly where I am. No accountability = no healing, no change. No justice = status quo. Well put.

[QC]

27. Did anybody happen to notice who wrote the WaPo piece?

Does his name ring a bell at all?

[bigtree]

28. post #10 Any critic is welcome here against Clinton, doncha know?

[QC]

31. True, even the guy whose pretty words got the Iraq War rolling.

I never imagined that I would come to DU and see people like Michael Gerson, Charles Krauthammer, Peggy Noonan, and Tucker Carlson treated as prophets, or hear words like Hildebeast, harpy, and Billary, or run across Mena conspiracy theories, but here we have it.

DU has officially become Free Republic, thanks to Obama and his movement. I guess this is the unity we've been hearing about--unity with the fascists.

[bigtree]

33. audacious, isn't it?

[QC]

35. Audacious hypocrisy, one might say.

This kind of thing is why I suspect that many members of The Movement are either closet Republicans or useful idiots.

[Straight Shooter]

37. Free Republic? Probably not. But it is a slippery slope.

Gerson. Really. Gerson? Jeez.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

34. When did he start writing for the WaPo?

I remember a couple of years ago he left his gig as bush's speech writer, but I didn't know he'd landed a new one as a columnist at the Washington Post. x(

[desi]

36. Aw who cares that he was a Bush speechwriter?

He may even write President Obama's Inaugural address. (I don't need that tag do I?)

[Medusa]

29. We saw what happened to this country when we gave a Bush

the chance to occupy the White House for a 2nd time. Hillary can't even run her own campain well, how the hell is she going to run the country? I'm not for making kings (and queens) out of 2 families. This is a country of over 200 million people and the only ones we can find to occupy the white house are Bushes and Clintons? We can do better. It's time for a change from the "ruling" families of American.

[LWolf]

38. Pointing out that one is unappealing

doesn't make the other more appealing.

Frankly, they are BOTH on unappealing paths.

[nomorewhopper]

40. WOW did you read this paragraph from the WSJ....

Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination -- and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules.

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

55. That is how I feel,

being one of those millions of new voters who finally sees an inspiring presidential candidate.

[desi]

41. The OP's Wonderful source

Prior to joining the Bush Administration, he was a senior policy advisor with The Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy research institution.<5> He also worked at various times as an aide to Indiana Senator Dan Coats and a speechwriter for the Presidential campaign of Bob Dole before briefly leaving the political world to cover it as a journalist for U.S. News & World Report.<6> Gerson also worked at one point as a ghostwriter for Charles Colson.<7>

In early 1999, Karl Rove recruited Gerson for the Bush campaign.<7>

Gerson was named by Time as one of "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals In America" in the magazine's February 7, 2005 issue of the magazine, listing Gerson as the ninth most influential.<8>

Speechwriter

Gerson joined the Bush campaign before 2000 as a speechwriter and went on to head the White House speechwriting team.

"No one doubts that he did his job exceptionally well", wrote Ramesh Ponnuru in a 2007 article otherwise very critical of Gerson in National Review. Bush's speechwriters had more prominence in the administration than their predecessors did under previous presidents because Bush's speeches did most of the work of defending the president's policies, since administration spokesmen and press conferences didn't do that, Ponnuru wrote. On the other hand, he wrote, the speeches would announce new policies that were never implemented, making the speechwriting in some ways less influential than ever.<9>

There is a gap between every administration's rhetoric and its actions, David Frum, a former speechwriter for Bush, wrote in late 2006, "but seldom has it gaped as wide as in this one. As someone involved in the making of those words, this gap has greatly troubled me."<10>

On June 14, 2006, it was announced that Gerson was leaving the White House to pursue other writing and policy work.<11> He was replaced as Bush's chief speechwriter by WSJ chief editor William McGurn.

Criticism from other speechwriters

At least two speechwriters who worked under Gerson in the White House have criticized him for exaggerating his role as the sole speechwriter of some important speeches. David Frum mildly criticized Gerson for taking disproportionate credit for Bush speeches when interviewed by Bob Woodward for a book. Former speechwriter Matthew Scully blasted Gerson in an article in The Atlantic Monthly for exaggerating his role to the point of denying that other speechwriters had collaborated on many of the important speeches of the Bush presidency.<7>

[Spider Jerusalem]

42. The source was the Washington Post...

which is not noted for its right-wing extremism.


And attacking the messenger rather than the message is a tactic of weakness; if you can argue what Gerson says in the article, by all means do so, because it would be enlightening to hear a balanced rebuttal.

[bigtree]

45. He's Bush's speechwriter for fuck sakes.

[QC]

47. But as long as he's down on Billary he's fit to quote.

That's the new rule around here: no one can ever be too dishonest, right wing, or downright evil to be called on as an authority figure if doing so might benefit Obama or make a Clinton look bad.

[Spider Jerusalem]

48. You should bother to actually read what you're responding to.

Quoting myself: 'If you can argue what Gerson says...by all means, do so; it would be enlightening to hear a balanced rebuttal'. So it's Michael Gerson saying it. I don't regard him as being exactly a trustworthy figure on the basis of his associations, myself, but you don't dismiss something by saying 'Oh, that's nonsense, just look who said it'...you REFUTE IT, if possible, with a reasoned response. Attacking the messenger instead of responding to the message is a sign of either intellectual laziness, or an inability to refute. Which is it?

[QC]

46. The article was written by Michael Gerson. n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

49. Uhhhh...Obama has already said he will will not hold these thugs accountable! He wants to "move on"

and stop all the bickering, hollering and fighting. Obama has already said they will never pay for their crimes. He told me so himself...he's my Senator.

[TheDonkey]

50. That Post article is scathing. Ouch

[VotesForWomen]

51. i don't want to go back to the 90s. elect O and the repugs and corporate masters will all play nice!

and people say O supporters aren't naive.

[K Gardner]

52. That last paragraph was blistering...

Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination -- and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules.

[respublicus]

54. Wash Post is right-wing mouthpiece. If Clinton was bad why Scaife attacked him? It's like JFK - only

it was character assassination instead of a bullet

[Johnny__Motown]

59. OMG, character assassination instead of a bullet. you should be ashamed of that

Honesty, that is simply shameful