Why DC Dems CAN'T admit election fraud & covered up Bush's 9-11 secret

[blm]

The ESTABLISHMENT Democrats in DC, represented on the 9-11 commission by Ben Veniste and Lee Hamilton knew that Bush and Condi WERE briefed about the imminent terror threat in July 2001, but why did they COVER IT UP?

Most DC establishment Dems now KNOW the voting machines can be rigged, but why ignore such a serious breach of our democracy?

Because they did not WANT John Kerry in the White House just as much as BushInc didn't.

Establishment Dems worked along with the Republican elite to BLOCK Kerry's investigations into BCCI. And BCCI is the root of everything happening today in the oil regions of the world. Old time establishment Dems were linked to the BCCI bank, too.

Bill Clinton - a wellknown policy wonk - somehow wrote his political story with NO MENTION of BCCI, at all.

Terry McAuliffe refused to lift a finger from 2001 thru 2004 to counter any of the RNC's tactics to suppress Dem votes, purge voter rolls and rig machines all over the country. He oversaw the COLLAPSE of the Dem infrastructure in crucial states like Florida and Ohio.

Now, we hear about Ben-Veniste and the other Dem 9-11 commissioners covering up crucial evidence against Condi and Bush.

WHY? Because Kerry is an Anti-corruption, OPEN Government Democrat, and they all KNOW it.

No wonder Max Cleland was pushed out early from his 9-11 commission post. Dem establishment didn't trust him to keep quiet.

No wonder election fraud and machine fraud can barely get any notice in DC - to admit there was widespread fraud and rigged machines, Bigname Dems would also have to admit that Kerry beat George Bush and SHOULD be in the White House. But how many of them WANT a President Kerry opening the books on IranContra, BCCI or the CIA drugrunning documents that are at the root of every policy that is in play today?

[mac56]

1. .....

:popcorn:

[Lasher]

30. .

:popcorn:

[mod mom]

2. Very interesting, but why did they deliver Kerry as their candidate? More

afraid of Dean than Kerry?

[blm]

6. THEY didn't lift a finger for Kerry. THEY pronounced his candidacy DEAD

in the media for months.

You forget that corpmedia presence was PULLED off Kerry's campaign in summer 0f 2003 after he submitted his senate resolution against the FCC's media expansion decision. Dean was given a PRESS PLANE by the corpmedia - an unusual move for the early days of ANY primary campaign.

Alot of the squabbling between the two camps was media perception where differences were exaggerated. Dean's camp was used, Kerry's camp was used.

You also forget that Kerry had to mortgage his home, because his money dried up over all the claims his candidacy was dead. If the establishment Dems wanted Kerry they would have directed money to his campaign during the final crucial months of 2003.

They did NOT.

And the point of a collapsed Dem party infrastructure that didn't secure Dem votes in crucial states was to assure that NO DEMOCRATIC win could be recorded, no matter who the nominee was.

[spag68]

13. I really like Kerry, however

I don,t think he needs to mortgage his home for funds, as I'm sure between he and his wife they could fund anything the want too.

[blm]

16. Election law says otherwise. Teresa couldn't give any more than I could.

And he DID mortgage his Boston home.

[karynnj]

22. Teresa can not give more than the limit for an individual

While I seriously doubt anyone will look at where McCain's money comes from - his wife is the wealthy one in their case too, Kerry would have been investigated. Both he and Teresa are very honest and they would not break the law.

[_dynamicdems]

58. His money is separate from his wife's from what I understand.

And their other properties are not in his name. Teresa owned them with her first husband, John Heinz.

[elehhhhna]

41. They let him have the nom but killed his campaign? Sounds about right.

[blm]

50. They didn't want him to have the nom, either - no money went to Kerry's

campaign in the last few months of 2003 from the Dem bigwigs. They thought they killed him off. He came back.

[The Count]

83. Oh, please, they crowned Kerry right after Iowa. It was a done deal.

Primary over. Party made.(Both parties, rather)

[blm]

84. I was talking about BEFORE the primaries. Kerry came back with NO HELP

from the bigname Dems in the last months BEFORE Iowa.

After Iowa, of course Kerry was going to win NH - just as he was expected to all along.

BTW - did you ever stop to ask WHY the press spent months under-reporting Kerry's strength on the ground in Iowa while it kept over-reporting the numbers for Dean and Gephardt in Iowa? They were manipulating those numbers, completely contrary to what the inside numbers were saying - that Kerry was stronger on the ground in Iowa than corpmedia was willing to report - it wasn't the storyline they were given.

After Iowa the writing was on the wall and THEN the Dem names came round.

[karynnj]

21. Although I do not agree in total with the op

Kerry was the real grassroots candidate of 2004. He was not the party favorite or the media favorite, the party dicouraged people from giving him money and the media was betting on the date he would pull out in 2004. He won Iowa and NH by campaigning there and making people believe in him.

Dean was far ahead in late 2003 after a huge burst of media coverage following his emergence on the internet and in the anti-war crowd. His numbers in Iowa went steadily down in January 2004. (The Kos post looked only at a couple of national polls. There was a daily tracking poll in Iowa.) I seriously think Kerry "won" Iowa the day he re-united with Rassmann, the man whose life he saved and Dean on the same day yealled at an annoying heckler who looked like he was in his 70s. These 2 stories played back to back on cable and network TV - and likely in Iowa tv as well.

[blm]

24. You forgot the series of debates where Kerry performed consistently while

others did not.

Undecided Dems make their decisions off the debates for the most part.

[karynnj]

26. That's true - and some were before the first primaries

Kerry did outperform all of them - which was harder to do as there were so many candidates.

[leftofthedial]

31. the establishment in DC

whether Dem, repuke, lobbyist, defence, intelligence or whatever . . .

is at war with the American people.

What happens at the convention is owned by the democratic process among the delegates. They can't steal votes there. Votes are verbal and broadcast on television.

[elehhhhna]

40. I thought so...

Kerry as frontrunner so early was quite shocking and weird, imo.

[blm]

48. not really.... many people thought Gore should've tapped Kerry in 2000.

.

[_dynamicdems]

61. It wouldn't be if you had seen him on the streets and the magic he

generated in those primary days. People in NH are very critical and they smell a phony a mile away. They found Kerry genuine and they voted for him. He did that on his own without any help from establishment Dems. It indeed must have shocked the Dem powers that be. And pissed them off too.

[_dynamicdems]

57. Actually, it was just the opposite. Kerry was the threat.

They didn't support Kerry until they had no choice.

I live in NH and remember John Kerry walking down streets and greeting people. He sat in living rooms and listened to the concerns of ordinary people long after the establishment Dems pronounced his campaign dead in the water. He brought in the men who served with him on his Swift boat to campaign in Iowa. He didn't give up no matter how much the media and the Dem party ignored him. And it worked. People like me listened to him and voted for him in the primaries.

When he had such a huge lead, there was no way the Democratic powers could come out against Kerry, but they did undermine him. They gave him luke warm support while damming him with the faintest of praise.

They didn't like Dean either, but I think they saw Kerry as more of a threat because he had the experience to actually win the Presidency. IF that sounds cynical, it is. There were Democrats with their eye on 2008. They didn't want to go up against George Bush (time of war, popular with his base) but they didn't want to go up against a sitting Democrat either. So it was to their benefit for Kerry to lose. Dean proved he was a good Democrat who cared about the country and not personal ambition because his support of his former opponent was genuine and strong.

Remember back to the campaign. Think about any Democrats who appeared on television and talked about Kerry being elitist, dull or not personable. Now compare that list to Dems considered in the running for 2008. Those of us who have had the opportunity to meet Senator Kerry know he's very personable, down-to-earth and funny. He's quick with an answer and not at all the way the media or even some of his Democrat "friends" portrayed him.

This is why some of us Kerry supporters are very bitter and touchy about criticism from the left: we have seen it be self-serving in the past. The recent hit jobs from both Clintons lately are a case in point. I've been seething over the statements both of them have made about Kerry and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the "loser" talk in the blogosphere was generated by supporters of Hillary '08.

Now I don't know if either of these people are actually running, but I'll tell you this: John Kerry had the opportunity in an interview to trash Hillary recently and he took the high road. The comparison blew me out of the water. I'll side with honor, thank you. The establishment Dems can go the way of the Dinosaur because integrity IS going to be restored to Washington in the end. Senators Feingold, Boxer, Durbin and others are the future.

[librechik]

3. no doubt about it--we need to infiltrate and take over our own party

just like Thom Hartmann says.

[elehhhhna]

42. YEP

[Cleita]

60. And how do we do that?

Really, how do we do that? I'm so all for it. But, how do we do that?

[_dynamicdems]

63. Elect the Democrats who don't capitulate with Republicans for one thing.

We've already started doing that.

Watch for Democrats who are overly critical of other Democrats or who seem to form cliques in Congress against any progressive legislation. These are the players.

[librechik]

99. go to your local Democratic party Headquarters and volunteer

run for elected positions in the party and don't stop until you are in leadership there. After that, you'll know what to do next!

[Cleita]

103. I do volunteer, but I am only one person.

I guess what I mean is how do we convert the moderates who have more in common with Republicans than true liberal Democrats. I think we need to figure out how to woo the Greens back who are true liberals.

[librechik]

110. the pendulum is swinging back

wait and see, there'll be a stampede of moderates over to the liberal side over the next few years (if we make it out of this mess alive) It's human nature;we crave congenality, not constriction.

[BelgianMadCow]

4. Well at the very least, the Q why some Dems allowed a cover-up

begs for an answer. Yours is one of many, and I think it is one of the more likely ones.

[mod mom]

12. Remember that investigation into Ohio? what a joke.

[blm]

20. Donna Brazile - head of Voter Integrity office of the DNC from 2001-2004

How did she do?

Why the heck are we even going back in with some of these same people? Because they promised to REALLY do their jobs this time?

[flyarm]

74. that witch is signed on with many PNAC'ers..she has got to go

if i never see her again ..i will be thrilled!

she is a huge detriment to the dem party!

fly

[BelgianMadCow]

37. Only thing that comes to mind is Conyers work on Ohio '04

and that was pretty respectable I think and returned a scathing indictment (figuratively speaking). So I probably don't know which investigation you have in mind.

[blm]

38. The Dem party probe where Donna Brazile was in charge of the report. But

the problem is Donna's credibility - she also happened to be the person put in charge by Terry McAuliffe of securing Dem votes and countering the vote suppression efforts of the RNC back in 2001.

You think she was motivated to tell the truth about how she and Terry did NOTHING for four years to counter the RNC's machine?

[BelgianMadCow]

39. dupe, deleted

dupe, got posting error...

[Solly Mack]

5. It's a safe bet to question anything Lee Hamilton is involved in

That's my rule of thumb regarding him

Lee Hamilton involved? Fully expect a cover-up.

I ain't forgetting or forgiving Iran-Contra. Justice has yet to be done.

[blm]

8. The way I see it, DC is STILL in cover up mode reIranContra and BCCI.

The emergence of terrorism as the BIG WAR issue for fascists makes you wonder if BCCI investigation actually pushed back the fascist agenda 10-20 years.

[Solly Mack]

10. Considering much the same people involved in I/C are back in power

it is safe to assume that old allegiances are back in play...it's not beyond the realm of reason to suggest a connection between what was done then and what is happening now...if only because the same people are involved.


I don't have any "theories" on what that means in regards to Kerry

I just don't trust anything that has Lee Hamilton's name on it

[blm]

11. But it's not just Hamilton, it's Ben-Veniste and who he represents in DC.

And Cleland's departure is beginning to look more like pushed out instead of leaving for personalreasons. His personal reason was probably that he was too honest.

[_dynamicdems]

64. I agree. They are afraid of a Kerry presidency.

His interest in the BCCI and the book he wrote linking international crime and terrorism must make a lot of pols nervous at the thought of someone like him being in the Oval Office. He's got the mindset of a detective and the heart of a prosecutor.

The guy was taught at an early age that it was all about public service. It is not about power with JK, it's about justice.

If you haven't read Richard Kerry's(his fathers) book yet, I think you'd enjoy it. The book, :Star Spangled Mirror" makes a fascination read and IMO it gives a different insight into John Kerry's perspective.

[fedupinBushcountry]

108. I agree also

My son whose first vote went to Nader in 2000, and proudly voted for Kerry in 2004, said he believes that Kerry was to good ( by that meaning to honest a politician) and why even some in the Dem party did not do every thing they could to get the truth out.

To him that is sad and to many young people in America they get it. He is afraid for the future of this country, and his generation.

[cosmicdot]

76. and, he's on the Advisory Council at the Nixon Center

to each his/her own ... but, frankly, as a Democrat, I don't think I would be comfortable around the likes of Henry Kissinger or anyone else on the Nixon Center Board and Advisory Council without having some common denominator/interests and/or level of comfort being associated with them. I would expect I would have to be compromised in some way 'to fit in' and/or 'be acceptable'. Of course, we find certain Democrats who network similarly with the Republicans at other 'nonpartisan' 'educational' 'tax exempt' think tanks funded by corporate money and interests, i.e. Council on Foreign Relations (Nixon Center's Pete 'Blackstone Group' Peterson/Leslie Gelb connection) http://www.cfr.org/about/people/board_of_directors.html
the Center for Strategic and International Studies
(Nixon's David Abshire connection)
http://www.csis.org/about/trustees/
the Aspen Institute (Kissinger)
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.612063/k.AE55/Board_of_Trustees.htm
etc.

Board of Directors
Honorary Chairman: Henry A. Kissinger

Chairman: Maurice R. Greenberg
Dwayne O. Andreas
Jeffrey L. Bewkes
Conrad M. Black <------- probably jail bound
Charles G. Boyd
Tricia Nixon Cox
Julie Nixon Eisenhower
Robert F. Ellsworth (Vice Chairman)
Leslie H. Gelb
Henry A. Kissinger
Eugene K. Lawson
Joseph I. Lieberman
John McCain
Lionel H. Olmer
Peter G. Peterson
Richard Plepler
Senator Pat Roberts
James Schlesinger
Brent Scowcroft
J. Robinson West
Dimitri K. Simes, Center President (Ex Officio)
John H. Taylor, Executive Director of Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace Foundation (Ex Officio)

Advisory Council

Chairman: James Schlesinger
David Abshire
Richard V. Allen
Christopher Cox
John Deutch
David Eisenhower
Susan Eisenhower
Evan G. Greenberg
Lee H. Hamilton <--------------------------------X
Rita E. Hauser
Josef Joffe
Donald M. Kendall
Peter Kovler
Charles Krauthammer
Robert C. McFarlane
Janne Nolan
Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
Alexei K. Pushkov
John E. Rielly
Peter R. Rosenblatt
William V. Roth, Jr.
Thomas A. Russo
Angela Stent
Marin Strmecki
Yuli Vorontsov

http://web.archive.org/web/20050205063607/www.nixoncenter.org/boardac.htm


I find it curious why a former DNC Chair would be a Trustee on Poppy Bu$h's presidential library foundation

http://www.georgebushfoundation.org/bush/asp/OverView/Trustees.asp

see: Robert S. Strauss
Washington, D.C. (Emeritus)


Bottomline: We the People need to retake control of this country.
We're somewhere between a plutocracy and corpotocracy and _____________.

[blm]

87. Fascism. Strauss and Hamilton were both tapped by Clinton, too.

Now why would Clinton not only close the books on IranContra for Poppy, but tap Hamilton (known for covering up Bush crimes) as one of his advisors for Iran and Iraq?

[INdemo]

7. Now this is pure BS

[blm]

9. Why? Because DC Dems are all over the machine fraud issue? Because they

are outraged that Ben-Veniste and Hamilton covered up such a crucial part of the 9-11 report before the 2004 election?

Because Terry McAuliffe did a great job of strengthening the DEm party infrastructure in crucial states? And countered the RNC tactics effectively for 4 yrs?

Please explain why YOU think it's BS. Because just saying it is isn't good enough.

[DancingBear]

14. Careful, you don't want to get labeled as one of those "defeatists"

The hardest thing to do is to look at a Democratic Party that used to hold true to the ideals of an FDR and realize that, for for the most part, it is nothing more now than a holding tank for resumes.

It IS corrupt, and the party HAS to be rebuilt.

Blindly pulling levers for anyone with a (D) next to them on the assumption that things will change (change being defined as deep-seated, not just the window-dressing that we have been led to believe actually matters) leads one exactly to where we sit today.

The belief that Conyers, Kucinich or anyone of that ilk (few as they may be) are going to gain credibility and power if the majority changes is a pipe dream. They are tolerated in this party, nothing more.

Remember, the current Democratic Party IS DC Dems - don't think for a moment that this is some kind of small-town subset.

I'll stay out of your Kerry rant for now (since I don't find him to be anywhere near the Mother Jones you paint him to be), but I am glad that folks are beginning to realize that the Democratic Party is in dire need of a soul, and it won't get one if we keep re-electing the same people who helped bury it simply based on a letter of the alphabet.

[blm]

15. Who IS the Mother Jones? All we have are the records of what has been

done and what HASN'T been done. Who worked FOR investigations and exposure, and who worked AGAINST those efforts. It was always pure invention of liars to cast Kerry as an establishment Democrat when that very establishment in DC actually OSTRACIZED Kerry for years in protest of his investigations into the financial dealings of high-powered global financiers connected to the dirty dealings of the terrorist bank.

People like Kerry, Waxman, Conyers, Kucinich and few others are consistently part of the Dem faction looking to OPEN up government to scrutiny that most politicians want to ignore.

YOU and I wouldn't even know HALF the info we know about the BFEE if Kerry had been the establishment Dem that some people claim.

[elehhhhna]

43. truedat. can't argue against FACTS

I'm not Kerry's hugest fan but I respect the man, and your post is deadtrue.

[INdemo]

19. Well for one Lee Hamilton and the others ccould only evaluate the info

given them. Some of this information was still classified purposely by the administration.

[blm]

23. They agreed to being silent without the classification.

And there is still the matter of Terry McAuliffe's strange negligence of election fraud issues, even after the 2001 fraud hearings - same with Donna Brazile.

And the overseeing of a COLLAPSED party infrastructure in states like Ohio, even though Ohio was IDENTIFIED as the biggest battleground for 2004 as far back as 2001. Too wrongheaded to be just a mistake - especially considering that McAuliffe was a Clinton man and Clinton is supposed to be the greatest political mind of the Dem party. So.......why would Ohio's infrastructure and election fraud problems not be a DNC concern for 4 years?

[Old and In the Way]

17. There is some truth to what you say.

I am very interested in our Democratic watchdog on the Committee (Ben-Veniste) explaining how this critical information got left out of the report. Hamilton has been a reliable whitewasher for the BFEE, I understand why he was chosen. Zelikov obviously was motivated to keep this information out of the report....but why did Ben-Veniste look the other way?

Anyway you slice, the 9/11 Report was not meant to get to the truth.

[blm]

18. Casts a new light on Cleland's departure, too.

Cleland was very much part of wanting Bush OUSTED in 2004 - they couldn't trust him to maintain the lie they needed. Why on earth did Bob Kerrey, do it?

[nashville_brook]

25. Vichy Dems? we don't have to be so pro-dem that our brains fall out

the Foley story might inform this -- i wonder what DIRT there is on Veniste and Hamilton that COERCED their allegiance to the R'pukes over the interest of the country.

[garthranzz]

27. Kerry's history supports this

He has consistently learned from his mistakes, been a vigilant investigator, and been "swift-boated" throughout his career. While far from perfect, he strikes me as one of the honest men who really believes in public service.

[Bushwick Bill]

28. You're getting there...

There are things both parties want to cover up. Some big players on each side. Look, the head of Pakistani intelligence directed a $100,000 wire transfer to Mohammed Atta before 9/11, and while he was meeting with Porter Goss on the morning of 9/11, it hurts to say he was also meeting with Bob Graham. I wonder why that didn't make it into the 9/11 Commission report? Part of me thinks that BushCo set up guys like Graham because having to address that issue would make him look bad, so that's how to ensure cooperation in cooked-up investigation of 9/11.

When Sibel Edmonds says she was at the juncture of drug money, money laundering, and campaign finance and that 10 high profile Americans are tied to the crime, I pray that is all Bushco/Repub types, but maybe not...

Max Cleland was right. The Commission was a total farce and to some extent a bipartisan coverup. The question is, what high-level Dems are going along with this bullshit? DLC types? Would a guy like Kerry really investigate this aggressively? I honestly don't know. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[blm]

29. Read BCCI books - Kerry is the ONLY Dem working to expose the creeps then

while most of DC and Dems were working to STOP him.

Kerry's remaining questions centered around Pakistan.

And Kerry parted with Clinton on the handling of the CIA drugrunning story, too. Kerry wanted the information released and the story investigated - Clinton administration let the story be downplayed and the investigative reporter was attacked as a liar.

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. I definitely think Bill Clinton tried to placate too many conservative

Democrats as well as the Republicans. It hurt everyone, in the end, especially his own self. We're behind him now, but if he continues this back and forth role, how long before he gets a reputation as fixed as Hamiltons?

[_dynamicdems]

66. Bill Clinton lost me when he said he admired Karl Rove. n/t

[Nevernose]

68. Admit it: you admire Karl Rove, too. We all do in some sick way.

Anyone that can put someone like George W. Bush into office is some kind of genius, even a diabolical one, and is therefore deserving of respect on SOME level.

Does he deserve to be clubbed to death by a gang of angry Iraq War widows? I'll cut the sticks.

Would I vote for his candidates? No, no, and no.

Would I let him date my daughter? HELL no.

Would I hire him as the manager of my campaign? Absolutely. When can he start?

[_dynamicdems]

71. No. Not me. Rove's dirty.

He started dirty and he's remained dirty throughout his career. The reason I don't admire him is because he wins by lying and manipulating. Drop all scruples and anyone can achieve more success. We are in real danger if we start to embrace evil because it has bested us a time or two. That's when we have to fight all the harder NOT to become just like them. Evil is only powerful because it recognizes no restraints. We can't defeat Rove by being like him. We can defeat him by exposing him for what he truly is: pure, unadulterated evil.

[The Backlash Cometh]

79. But here's the thing:

When you don't have to be accountable for the dirty tricks you play, but only admired for the results you get, what Karl Rove is doing will become the norm. Anyone with ambition, and no morals, can do it. You may end up with a society that is falling into ruins, like Rome, but, hey, that's not what people are focusing on, because a clever guy, like Karl, knows how to distract them.

Karl Rove exploited this country's weaknesses. He found a goldmine by exploiting the prejudices in his own people and, then used fear tactics to lead them around like they were monkeys with rings in their noses. "Admired" is not the right word. I don't know if there is just one word to describe Karl Rove, but I do know this: He couldn't have gotten away with the things he got away with if (1) We had agencies to monitor corrupt practices, and/or (2) We had a media that had reported everything they saw, when they saw it so that the public could express the necessary outrage to stop it.

Karl Rove is not a genius, but our society is just too dysfunctional to stop someone like him.

[_dynamicdems]

81. I agree with all but your last sentence.

Our country WAS too dysfunctional to stop someone like him.

Times are changing because we are making them change. Rove almost went to jail. That was a close call for Mr. Untouchable, Mr. Unaccountable. We need to keep up the pressure on the liars and the morally bankrupt who are destroying our democracy, and make them accountable to the American people.

[The Backlash Cometh]

86. I think everything is happening as it was expected to happen.

More than one group of people WANTED Bush to get that second term. They wanted him to proceed as far as he could into the Comma Wars. Then, when those Muslim countries were under control, Bush was going to become a sacrificial pig while the Democrats would be allowed to regain power to curry back international support. All the taint for the last 6 years would go to Bush. I've seen it before, the way city attorneys take in new city commissioners and tell them, "Don't worry, I'll take care of you," and the city commissioner does everything that is recommended, only to be dropped like an old oil rag once he's no longer useful.

Well, that's just a guess, but, hey, I could be right.

[klebean]

51. I'd love a reading list on BCCI

so I just went agoogling and came across a David Sirota article; here's the last paragraph:

Second, the BCCI affair showed Kerry to be a politician driven by a sense of mission, rather than expediency--even when it meant ruffling feathers. Perhaps Sen. Hank Brown, the ranking Republican on Kerry's subcommittee, put it best. "John Kerry was willing to spearhead this difficult investigation," Brown said. "Because many important members of his own party were involved in this scandal, it was a distasteful subject for other committee and subcommittee chairmen to investigate. They did not. John Kerry did."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

[blm]

77. So, what does the DC establishment do? They concoct a storyline that casts

Kerry as a poll-driven politician looking to make a name for himself, instead of the a lawmaker driven to expose and right the wrongs being committed. Once again deflecting attention from their actual crimes by attacking the messanger.

And there were too many in the media willing to promote that storyline over the years.

[The Backlash Cometh]

32. Most definitely, Kerry does have the anti-corrupt government history.

I just wish he would have understood that he was being victimized in the 2004 stolen election and come out fighing mad.

[noel711]

34. kick

[_dynamicdems]

67. It's pretty tough to realized you are being victimized when the people who

are supposed to have your back actually have knives in it.

[jazzjunkysue]

35. This explains everything. uber-kick and rec. Can we have some links?

[blm]

36. Here's one of the DU threads going on Dem commissioners staying silent.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/3/04418/8102

Ben-Veniste admits 9/11 Commission knew about Tenet briefings
by jennifer poole
Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:44:18 PM PDT

9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste "confirmed to McClatchy Newspapers" today that George Tenet had given secret testimony to the 9/11 Commission in January 2004 about his attempts to convince the White House about the urgency of the threat from bin Laden in the summer of 2001. Tenet told the 9/11 Commission he was willing to testify publicly about the briefings he'd given Rice -- and Ashcroft and Rumsfeld! -- in July 2001, and he'd even showed the commissioners slides from the PowerPoint presentation he'd prepared for the July briefings.

Ben-Veniste did NOT explain why the 9/11 Commissioners left these briefings out of their report -- or why he (as late as yesterday) was still lying about what the 9/11 Commission knew. Instead he:

referred questions about why the commission omitted any mention of the briefing in its report to Zelikow, the report's main author. Zelikow didn't respond to e-mail and telephone queries from McClatchy Newspapers.

snip>

Both Ben-Veniste and 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow gave the NY Times strong denials yesterday, in a story entitled, "9/11 Panel Members Weren't Told of Meeting," that the 9/11 Commission knew anything about the Rice briefing. Apparently, these quotes below were all lies:

snip>

Why did Democrat Richard Ben-Veniste go along with the coverup? Why was he still lying yesterday? Why did he stop lying today? Was it just the early version McClatchy story that made him realize the gig was up? (the first version of the story I saw earlier tonight didn't have the Veniste acknowledgment, just three senior intelligence agency officials confirming that Tenet's 2004 secret testimony to the 9/11 Commission took place.

What else did the 9/11 Commission lie about?

snip> much more


Links to all articles are provided in the dKos story.

[jazzjunkysue]

56. Thanks. I almost think Foley is cover for this larger issue.

Maybe the GOP didn't realize there was so much there, there, and attempted to distract from the 9/11 comission and intelligence report and woodward with a little pedophile story- Not knowing about the $100,000 and the cover ups.


Ooops.

[dailykoff]

72. Yes. Congress voted to suspend habeus corpus rights last week

to give the Chimperor power to declare anybody in the world including you and me an "enemy combatant" and lock us up without further ado.

And it doesn't look like there's all that much there. Evidently Foley's pages were already cruising gay bars when he started hitting on them so they weren't exactly babes in arms.

[blm]

78. Foley certainly is taking up the airwaves when much BIGGER NEWS happened.

.

[seabeyond]

44. dems certainly didnt help kerry out one single bet n/t

[KoKo]

45. Was BCCI Kerry's "last stand" against the Powers that Be? Is that what

you are saying? Corrupted Senate trashed him so bad that he couldn't do any more...but he fought the hard battle by running for President in '04?

If he get's elected in '08 who will he bring on board to do the Massive Investigations that needs to be done to through the folks who've thrived since Nixon, in JAIL or to the International Criminal Courts?

Who will support Kerry to do this? Where are his supporters for Impeachment. If he doesn't have alot of help he will be treated like Carter and Clinton. No investigations of what went on before and a sluggish or "crash and burn" Presidency?

How do you think he can overcome the ESTABLISHMENT? :shrug:

[blm]

46. No. Unfortunately CIA drugrunning was during Clinton's time in office.

Kerry wanted those documents revealed and was one of the few lawmakers who supported Gary Webb when his investigative article was published. Clinton's WH downplayed the drugrunning story and Gary Webb was trashed as a fantasist in the LATimes. NYT and WaPost.

A couple years later and CIA documents that were obtained, backed up Webb's story, but you'd never know it from the little press that acknowledged it.

Clinton had to be protecting Poppy Bush on this, or allowed the program to continue when he took over. I don't know.

[_dynamicdems]

73. It does seem an upward battle, but if anyone is up to it, that person is

John Kerry simply because he won't give up or roll over (like Carter) or capitulate (like Clinton).

There are a lot of good Dems out there who could help.

I don't know if Senator Kerry plans on running in 2008 but the potential of a Kerry candidacy gives him a larger voice than he'd have if he were to say he wasn't running. And he's been using that voice to help Dems take back the majority in Congress. The schedule he's maintained for the past few years has been super human. He hasn't taken a breath for himself. Recently, the senator said, "I'll sleep when I die." The truth of that made me wince.

Come November, who knows what Senator Kerry will decide?

[dailykoff]

47. I'm sorry to say that I agree.

There seems to have been an awful lot of backstabbing from all quarters before, during and after the primaries. The DNC report on the Ohio election "irregularities" is one example.

[buddhamama]

49. there's another name associated with BCCI

who has also been vilified not given ample credit for the 'good' he has done.

i agree with the premise. We should hence forth refer to it sd "The Establishment".

[wisteria]

52. I have been slowly coming around to this POV.

I am now convinced, more than ever, that Kerry is really an outsider and a President Kerry would have changed Washington and America for the better. I hope he gets another chance to sweep the dirt out of Washington.

[joeunderdog]

53. Wasn't there a Pope killed for the same reasons?

Sure, he was a good Catholic and all, but he wanted to look at the numbers that didn't add up.

[_dynamicdems]

54. Wow! Thank you for posting this!

I couldn't agree more. Both sides come down on Kerry because he can't be bought, cajoled or intimidated. He's honest and that's something that makes quite a few folks in Washington more than a tad uncomfortable.

[autorank]

55. blm, I'm a big fan of yours. This is hot as a $2 cook stove...KR

This is well worth serious consideration. It wouldn't surprise me at all. There is a confluence of interests for those in power and comfortable and that meand the exclusion of those who seek change. Why? Because change means those in power will certainly be exposed and probably lose their jobs. It's simple self protection. This is a serious theory and I hope it gets some real digging going. Thanks!

[AtomicKitten]

59. your theory is rich in extrapolation and Kerry-based in thrust

as usual - which explains the audacity in suggesting election fraud is perfectly okay with some Democrats that you clearly blame for Kerry not being in the White House. According to your theory, Kerry acquiescing to the 2004 election fraud with barely a whimper makes him complicit in his own defeat.

The 9/11 Commission was a joke but I think you are being rather random in your assignment of blame.

[blm]

80. WHO was in CHARGE of SECURING Dem votes BEFORE election day?

Terry McAuliffe.

Who was in charge of Voter Integrity office for the DNC? Donna Brazile and Terry McAuliffe.

You want to claim Kerry was responsible for HIS part of the 2004 campaign AND took on the responsibility of what Terry McAuliffe did or did not do from 2001 thru 2004?

[AtomicKitten]

91. election fraud

If you feel justified blaming two people for not stopping the pervasive and insidious election fraud, then be prepared for people blaming Kerry for folding like a cheap suit in 2004.

Blaming is fueled by unfair assertions.

[blm]

92. The four years of McAuliffe and Brazille NOT countering GOP efforts to

steal Dem votes for four years was the reason Kerry was STUCK in the position of having to concede that ONE DAY after the election.

The people who blame that act are stupid or are purposely trying to deflect blame from the four years of Dem party stewardship where nothing was done to secure the Dem votes...... and I don't mind saying so.

[AtomicKitten]

93. stupid is as stupid does

Blaming is stupid (not to mention, as I've already pointed out, fueled by unfair assertions), and having insight into that is another matter altogether.

[blm]

94. Unfair? You want to submit your findings that McAuliffe and Brazille did a

great job at countering the RNC's efforts for four years through their Voter Integrity office?

That vote stealing by Republicans was REDUCED in 2004 compared to 2000?

That DNC built a strong party infrastructure state by state throughout the four years between elections?

I am so fair, I will GLADLY await your findings that prove my assertions were unfair.

[AtomicKitten]

95. again with the exaggerations

People that have their kickers in a twist almost always have an exaggerated view of the facts.

I have never said anyone, and in this case in particular neither McAuliffe nor Brazile, did a great job on election fraud; in fact, the Democrats have failed in that regard en masse.

Well, Rush Holt tried valiantly, but I digress.

The culprits for the rampant election fraud are the Republicans. I realize you are disappointed Kerry isn't in the White House but if you are going to apportion blame, you better give him a heads-up because he might find some coming his way too, although I am quite certain you will vehemently disagree. Funny how blaming works, isn't it?

Again, blaming is stupid (your word) and pointless because it is rendered moot when it is used as in this case in a one-sided, unfair, and assaultive manner. But feel free, as always, to knock yourself out doing just that.

[blm]

96. You SAY it's unfair but never manage to point out anything unfair that was

said - it would only be unfair if it was inaccurate. What I said is NOT inaccurate.

[AtomicKitten]

97. no, your accusations are not accurate

McAullife and Brazile are not solely responsible for solving the insidious, rampant election fraud - and your assertion that they are is grotesquely unfair and offensive to those trying to maintain an iota of fairness.

And now you are just beating a dead horse.

[blm]

98. They were IN CHARGE of the ORGANIZATION that was in place to counter

the machinations of the RNC. And were especially armed with the knowledge gleaned from the hearings on the 2000 election fraud. They were SUPPOSED to KEY on the issues of fraud.

How did they do?

What did they do?

And if they did anything of substance, wouldn't DU have heard about it at some point between 2001 and 2004?

[AtomicKitten]

100. are your fingers broken?

You have access to Google.

It is not my inclination to assist you in your absurd rant because you are clearly incapable of reasonable discourse as illustrated by (1) your beliggerance TYPING IN ALL CAPS because you feel your posts MUST BE EMPHASIZED and (2) the gross exaggeration of your allegations, which is ironic since in your world, Kerry appears to be the lord savior jesus h. christ and all others have failed him in his quest for the throne.

Whatever. Good luck with that.

[blm]

101. Caps only on words EMPHASIZED. Typical use of caps. I detect that you are

struggling to come up with evidence for why YOU believe the DNC did the job they were charged with between 2001 and 2005.

And your increasing frustration in being unable to provide that evidence is causing you to resort to nasty personal attacks as a cover. It's OK - I have high tolerance for that.

No pressure. When you DO manage to come across some information that makes your case, many of us would welcome that thread.

[AtomicKitten]

104. where's the personal attack?

I defy you to point to even one. This is yet another of your outrageous accusations. In fact, you called me stupid, but I'll let it slide because you clearly are incapable of dealing gracefully with anyone that isn't bamboozled by your outrageous allegations and denigration of many in the Democratic Party that are perceived to stand in the way of your candidate of choice.

Accusing people of personal attacks is really a lame way of dealing with those that disagree with you.

DU has a delightful feature called ignore.

[blm]

106. The attacks pepper your entire post.

>>>>
It is not my inclination to assist you in your absurd rant because you are clearly incapable of reasonable discourse as illustrated by (1) your beliggerance TYPING IN ALL CAPS because you feel your posts MUST BE EMPHASIZED and (2) the gross exaggeration of your allegations, which is ironic since in your world, Kerry appears to be the lord savior jesus h. christ and all others have failed him in his quest for the throne.
>>>>

If you can't see it, maybe that's part of the problem.

And for the record, I never called you stupid - I said the stupids are those who attack Kerry as the target for all blame for conceding an election, when he had no legal evidence to continue in court.

I said they are either stupid or deliberately attempting to push blame onto Kerry to deflect from the poor performance of the Dem party infrastructure that failed ALL Dem voters and any Dem candidate effected by their poor performance.

[AtomicKitten]

109. according to DU rules, not so

What I wrote was not a personal attack. I addressed the thrust of your message. DU is very clear about that differentiation and, if you have further questions about that, I would encourage you to inquire of the mods.

What you don't seem to comprehend is how offensive your attacks on Democrats are to some people here. You make some really outrageous allegations, and the absolutism in your allegations renders them completely over-the-top. When you present inflammatory, hyperbolic arguments that are downright offensive, you are completely unapproachable. It is your interpretation of material you've read, often from inflammatory sources rather than in an historical context. On the other hand, I know of several people (revealed in PMs) that hold back their lack of fondness of Kerry because of what they witness from your camp, either organized boycotts or attacks, or maybe just because they don't want you and your camp to dislike them. I have a hard time understanding how you can control the conversation in that way. There is something terribly wrong with that picture.

[blm]

111. Heh - if anyone has a lack of fondness for the Democrat who has fought to

expose more government corruption than any other lawmaker, then that certainly is THEIR lack of historic context, isn't it?

My claims are NEVER from inflammatory sources. They are historic and based in reality. You don't like Robert Parry - too bad. I trust his observations over any other source - he went toe to toe with BushInc and has investigated them to the point that he was targeted by them. Same with Kerry. But, it seems there is no "historic" appreciation of that work while some of you heap praise on those who did NOTHING to get necessary information to the American people.

And if you have "historic" knowledge that the DNC did their job to secure the Democratic votes from 2001 thru 2004, all you have to do is post the positive ACTIONS they took that proved effective in 2002 and 2004.

You seem to have no problem in attacking Kerry for the aspect of the campaign he had no control over, but cannot bring yourself to even acknowledge the poor performance of the DNC and its leaders for the job they WERE charged with for four years.

[AtomicKitten]

112. the problem with your argument

is that you employ exaggerated rhetoric. First of all, the only complaint I have ever lodged against Kerry is that I feel (as do many others) he gave a weak, late response to the Swift Boat Liars, and that he did have control over contrary to your claim. Others disparage him for conceding almost immediately, but I tend to give him more grace in that regard. Stealing the election by such a wide margin made that a very, very difficult call.

BTW your discussion of election fraud is not a revelation by any stretch of the imagination and has been explored by Greg Palast, Dr. David Dill, Rush Holt, BradBlog, BBV, and many, many others including some here at DU, to the current Rolling Stone articles by RKF, Jr. However, your allegation that Democrats were complicit in some way in the election fraud is outrageous and there is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate such an offensive claim. Sour grapes doesn't count.

Regarding your allegation that the DNC did 'nothing' on election fraud, one would think the exaggerated allegation itself would perhaps provide you a window into the possibility that perhaps that statement just might not be correct, but I guess not. The fact that I don't believe you will give an inch regardless of data doesn't predispose me during my busy days to knock myself out on your behalf; Google is available to you.

However, I confidently stand by my statement that your claims against some Democrats are outrageous extrapolations arrived at by disliking someone and working backwards, inflammatory, and are usually stated in such unequivocal terms with use of superlatives such as 'nothing' and 'never,' and are thus rendered false right from the get-go. That in contrast to shall I say your apologist to the point of oblivious opinion of Kerry makes you someone people stay clear of for the most part, particularly when they see how you and yours deal with that which is perceived to stand in opposition to your opinion.

Because the truth, whether you like it or not, is that many, many Democrats have been working hard to safeguard the vote (lack of success does not mean lack of effort), including those you have maligned, and secondly, John Kerry has demonstrated that although a decent man made catastrophic mistakes during his campaign that preclude the risk by many of supporting another go in 2008. *** Those statements stand alone because they are reasonable assessments of the status quo and, if you don't like that (borrowing from your admonition above), too bad.

I know how important it is for the Kerry clan to have the last word, so, it is yours.

*** On edit: To be clear, that is in the primary; of course most Democrats will support in the general election the candidate that is chosen by a consensus of Democrats in the primary.

[blm]

113. Then LIST all the actions taken by office of Voter Integrity who worked so

hard for four years to COUNTER the vote suppression of the RNC and its operatives.

I didn't say they were complicit in the vote stealing - I said they were INACTIVE for four years when they were made fully aware of the methods at the 2001 hearings.

They didn't take it seriously or they didn't care enough about 2002 and 2004 to work at countering the fraud.

And if I am wrong, then you should have no problem citing the many actions you believe they took. I, for one, have not seen anything substantive in that 4yr stretch of time.

[dailykoff]

114. Nice work blm.

Some people seem to have the anti-Kerry message drilled so far into their brains they may never get it out.

[AtomicKitten]

115. others pay attention to history and current events

and process that without a predetermined agenda (i.e.., apologist versus antagonist)

He made a lousy candidate in 2004 and, if you don't believe me, refer to polling here at DU and see how much support he garners.
And, no, I won't do that homework for you either.

[gulfcoastliberal]

62. And they covered up the testimony on Able Danger. Very important.

The commission listened to the testimony regarding Able Danger and how it was shut down, then deleted it.

[faithnotgreed]

65. strongly agree that a certain % of dems want to keep (corrupt) status quo

i think their world is too deeply insular and comfortable to allow real truth in or even care enough to take in what is happening

the other small % of dems going along with this tragic bizarre farce are straight up corrupt
anyone not working for and talking about election fraud and all the rest are NOT representing the country or democracy

a handful are actually working for this country and that incl john conyers and henry waxman and just a few others
as dismayed as i am with kerry at least he keeps plugging along and trying to bring some attention to the tremendous damage being done
i wish he went A LOT further but i dont see many others speaking up aside from a press release or two so the bar is pretty low

[w4rma]

69. DLC, not "establishment". Ben-Veniste was out voted, also. (nt)

[tblue]

70. RFK Jr. said 100% of Repugs are corrupt and

75% of the Dems.

THIS has been our problem all along. Makes a lot of things make sense.

[BeFree]

75. How many?

The question is: How many of the establishment Dems would want a "Good Government" person such as John Kerry as the president.

Well, no more than a handful, fer sure.

Thanks, blm, for continuing to bring into the light why we even have to have a Democratic Underground. The above ground Dems want nothing less than total control... they don't care on whit for real democracy, they just use government for their own benefits and to hell with the rest of us.

We've the weight of the free world on our shoulders and I understand why anyone would shirk that awful burden. But as long as we can we will continue to speak for Liberty and Justice for All.

[The Count]

82. Oh, yeah. cuz kerry would never sell us out - oh, wait, he did! Concession

of a won election pretty much did it. "We are at war" he said , can't have this squable about election now....
Earth to blm: we were betrayed by them all - a little bit by each. Ben Veniste, Kerry - you name them.
No good guys in this particular story.

[blm]

88. Baloney - BushInc wouldn't have had to work 24/7 suppressing Dems votes,

purging voter rolls, and rigging machines all over the country if Kerry was taking a dive - - But, Terry McAuliffe thanks you for pointing the finger at Kerry when HE and Brazille were the ones in charge of Voter Integrity issues for the four years before election day.

But, why bother dealing with the REAL issues of election fraud when it's much more expedient to just blame Kerry.

Kerry was guilty of what ANY Dem nominee would have been guilty of in 2002 and 2004 - trusting that the DNC had been doing its actual job to protect and serve Dem voters and candidates from 2001-2004.

According to you, Kerry threw the election and Bush DIDN'T steal it.

With your logic, the Dem party shouldn't lift a finger for four years between elections, because the only person who is charged with counting votes is the Dem presidential nominee - party infrastructure can just wait till June 2008.

[Cocoa]

85. Kerry is the definition of an Establishment dem

I don't see that as a slam against Kerry, but it's a fact.

[blm]

89. This excerpt from 2002 New Yorker profile sees it differently - Kerry was

ostracized BECAUSE of his investigative work.


>>>>

When John Kerry arrived in the Senate, in 1985, his first challenge was to figure out how to coexist with Kennedy. There were two possible strategies. One was to settle back and take a seat on the Appropriations Committee, a sure ticket to perpetuity in the Senate. The job of appropriators is to decide how to spend federal money; as politicians, they tend to be as blowsy and lugubrious as the bills that stumble out of their committee. Obviously, this was not the sort of career John Kerry had intended for himself, and so he chose the Foreign Relations Committee, which, by the mid-eighties, was not nearly as glamorous as it had been during the Vietnam era. The public was no longer very interested in foreign policy; and for a politician it held little practical allure—no taxing, no spending, no hardware to buy, no regulations to set. “But it was about war and peace,” Kerry said. “We were entering an illegal war in Latin America. One of the lessons of Vietnam was about lying, about people who hide the truth from the American people, and there was a real parallel in Latin America.”

Kerry started a series of investigations into the Reagan Administration’s involvement with the Nicaraguan Contras, a guerrilla group opposed to the left-wing Sandinista government. His subcommittee on narcotics and terrorism revealed that Oliver North, a junior Marine officer assigned to the White House, was in charge of funnelling arms to the Contras; and suggested that some of the C.I.A. operatives who supplied the Contras were flying narcotics back to the United States (a fact that the C.I.A. finally acknowledged almost a decade later); and then that Panama’s dictator Manuel Noriega had been involved with the arms-running, the drug-running, and the C.I.A. From there, Kerry began to investigate Noriega’s money-laundering operation, which was run through the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, in the Cayman Islands. The B.C.C.I. trail led to its partner, First American Bank, in Washington, D.C., which was represented by Clark Clifford, who had served every Democratic President from Harry Truman to Jimmy Carter. “John wasn’t a very popular guy when he called Clark Clifford to testify,” David McKean, the committee’s chief investigator at the time, said. “Most of the other members of the committee were uncomfortable with it. I remember that one senator cornered Kerry in the elevator and said, ‘What are you doing to my old friend Clark Clifford?’ But those hearings were the first real look at how terrorists, drug dealers, and international criminals conducted their business.”

Indeed, Kerry was soon about as popular in Washington’s political community as he’d been in Massachusetts. “He was a very driven, very relentless guy, and that could be off-putting to his colleagues,” Timothy E. Wirth, who was a senator from Colorado at the time and later became Kerry’s friend, recalls. “He was an outsider. In fact, you never saw him around much, with good reason—he was up in Boston with his girls. My sense is that Julia wasn’t always reliable during those years, and John took a lot of responsibility for raising the kids. He would rush up there for every school play and soccer match. You had the sense that he was a very lonely guy. He was being hacked to death by the Globe, and others, and he never had anyone to share it with.”

>>>>>

[faithnotgreed]

90. kicking

[David Zephyr]

102. RFK's article in Rolling Stone simply floored me.

Your post, blm, and your suggestions are plausible and troublesome.

Ohio was stolen just as Florida was stolen.

And, in both cases, the rig was set in motion long before the election.

RFK asks if the midterms are about to be stolen.

I hate to say it, but I'm beginning to believe it may already be fixed.

[blm]

105. Think about this - what was the purpose of the election fraud hearings

after 2000? To make us all aware of what vote suppression tacticsa were in play before and during the 2000 vote, right?

So....what was done by the DNC and their office of Voter Integrity to COUNTER all those tactics from 2000 and stay alert to the new ones?

Did you ever hear of any substantive action being taken throughout the 4 years they were charged with the task?

How could it have gotten WORSE in 2004, not better?

And why was 2002 not examined and counter measures and adjustments made before 2004?

Instead, we all get "explanations" from strategists that we knew were simply untrue - The Religious right was more motivated. Values Voters carried the election for Bush. Democrats were too far left and pushed centrists to Bush.

Kerry got 60 million votes - and if the RFK article is as correct as we think it is, he got 65 million votes. Which means BushInc knew he won big, but also Dem establishment people know it. Which is why they will not come out and deal with the machines.

Clinton said RFKs article was compelling and that every one should read it and that he now thinks Kerry won Ohio - BUT - he said it only ONCE in answer to a question at a speech he made to ALTERNATIVE PRESS. He has never made that statement again, no mainstream media ever heard it, and none of his strategist team has ever cited election fraud as a factor in 2004 - it's always about speaking to southerners, values voters, and moderates.

I don't think there will be massive rigging this election cycle - because the numbers are too bad, and it just won't be believed - plus, they fear getting caught in this charged atmosphere. I do expect rigging where they think they cann pull it off with little scrutiy to save some seats in Texas and SCarolina, and other strongholds, but nothing as widespread as 2004. They could use this to dispel the idea that it is part of their gamebook. In time for 2008.

This 9-11 revelation was a shot to the heart. I expected some whitewash, but THIS MUCH? Put it all together and it just doesn't add up - there were too many Democrats carrying imporatnt gameballs that they were in charge of carrying for the entire Dem party and this country. Hard to believe how many were dropped deliberately.

[Ksec]

107. I do believe the establishment Dems are up to their elbows

in cahoots with the corporate money machine..