Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush says at MLK memorial groundbreaking that Big Dog has become his 'fourth brother'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:03 AM
Original message
Bush says at MLK memorial groundbreaking that Big Dog has become his 'fourth brother'
Edited on Mon Nov-13-06 11:08 AM by bigtree
November 13, 2006

Remarks by Bush at Ceremonial Groundbreaking of the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial


"Honoring Dr. King's legacy requires more than building a monument; it required the ongoing commitment of every American. So we will continue to work for the day when the dignity and humanity of every person is respected, and the American promise is denied no one.

This project has been over a decade in the making, and I thank those who have worked to bring about this day. I particularly want to thank my predecessor, the man who signed the legislation to create this memorial, President Bill Clinton. (Applause.) It sounds like to me they haven't forgotten you yet. (Laughter.) He's become, as you know, my fourth brother."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061113-2.html



I think I know Clinton enough to know that he hasn't gone over to the dark side or anything. This is an amazing display and example of keeping enemies close.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. Bush needs all the friends he can get now!
The next two years are going to be fun to watch IMHO...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lautremont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. I think it's an amazing display of
delusion, mixed with abject appeal to Democrats, mixed with sardonic jealousy, mixed with the misguided puppy-dog optimism that so often characterizes bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. by Bush? For sure. He's desperate for a friend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lautremont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. Whoops! Yes, by bush.
Whatever hardcore right-wing base he has left will flee into the night at that "fourth brother" statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StoryTeller Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
4. From what I've heard, they're closer than you might like to think:
There's information out there about how Clinton helped cover up a lot of Bush Sr.'s illegal activities and scandals. Flat out refused to investigate them once he got into office. Wanted to focus on getting stuff done, being bi-partisan, and all that. Paved the way for Bush Jr. to pick up where his dad left off. I can see why Bush might have brotherly feelings for Clinton in this case.

See an overview here:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I strongly object to the premise of Robert's article that Clinton covered anything up
Edited on Mon Nov-13-06 11:41 AM by bigtree
I think his failure to get investigations was a consequence of his decision to focus on achieving the domestic promises he had made during the campaign. He was sabatoged by party members, like Moynihan, over his health care initiative. The party lost seats afterward and kept losing until the majority was gone.

I don't know how Robert thinks Clinton could have initiated hearings to his satisfaction from the republicans any more that our minority leaders have been able to today. He did, however, use a lot of leverage from the hits he made on the Newt and the republican party, forcing compromises because of deft political sparring with the opposition. I just don't see how Clinton had a chance holding them accountable with our party in the minority.

Also . . .

I think this is a cheap shot:

"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 . . ."


I was there. I didn't view my two-term president as a liar because he tried to cover up an affair. I don't remember any significant effort to mislead on the publics' business. That's what counts to me.

I think Robert is piggybacking on the war against centrists that's being waged (I think disingenuously) by some leading members of the progressive movement. It obscures from his very important and correct point about the need for demanding more accountability from the Bush Family Evil Empire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. That's not the premise of the article - Clinton likely started off just wanting to
move forward, but the moment he made that decision, he would be stuck with the real life ramifications of that which was the same result as intentionally covering up.

The proof of that is how his administration handled the CIA drugrunning story which first broke in 1995.

However good his initial intentions were, he chose to stick with the pattern of protecting Poppy Bush and that hurt this country in immeasurable ways - especially 9-11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. okay friend. Not the premise. Why the harsh dig at BD about 'truth'? It hurt me to read that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Because Clinton DIDN'T realize how much that truth would matter down the road.
But, it is a shame, knowing how much Clinton DOES know now, especially post 9-11 - it really doesn't make sense ANYMORE that he continue protecting them. Is he waiting for Poppy to pass away before he feels comfortable speaking out? Is it his own legacy he fears will be ruined? I don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. lying about an affair?
brother :eyes:

I think he works with Bush to do the things he says, raising money and awareness for the causes they mutually support. It's shallow the way that folks discount the good work the have done TOGETHER.

That's all Clinton, in my view. Typical Clinton. He cares and he's not going to let petty politics stop him from reaching out to others who want to involve themselves in solutions to the problems we face.

The rest is CONGRESS' responsibility now. Not Clinton's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Not the affair - I'm not talking about the affair. I'm talking about IranContra, BCCI truths
and Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning truths. Robert Parry mentions nothing about lying reMonica - the entire commentary is about Clinton not factoring in the importance of truth about outstanding matters that would end up effecting his entire presidency, his impeachment, and laid the foundation for a return to Bush supremacy and events like 9-11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. I still don't see what Clinton could have done with the republican majority that dogged him
Edited on Tue Nov-14-06 10:49 AM by bigtree
throughout most of his terms.

This boggles me:

"Clinton not factoring in the importance of truth about outstanding matters that would end up effecting his entire presidency, his impeachment, and laid the foundation for a return to Bush supremacy and events like 9-11."

I just don't agree that he didn't factor in the importance of truth, leading to all of the rest you list here. I'm just not understanding how Clinton is getting blamed for all of this. Where is Congress' responsibility?

I do think others in our party, who rolled over when republicans insisted that there be an independent counsel for an old land deal where the Clintons lost money, bear most of the blame for whatever weakness he had to operate from under. If Democrats had stood by him and defended him against the assaults, he may have been able to keep the Democrats in the majority. They played his presidency out of power as much as anyone.

"Clinton's relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability . . . " is the statement by Robert in the article. That is just thrown out there like fact. I just don't agree, and I don't think he made the case on Clinton's culpability.

I don't think Robert demonstrates in his article, where the truth to Bush senior's involvement in Iran-Contra lay, or what Clinton could have done to pursue the extraordinary prosecution of the former president with something at hand which would have made folks say, 'yes there is something to investigate'. I don't see how he could have initiated the investigation without creating a ridiculous fuss, after which there was the very real possibility that he would not be able to produce anything which would justify his prosecution of the former president.

Robert is fuzzy on what Clinton was supposed to have known about Bush's guilt, and when he knew it. I don't think Clinton knows anything he can prove, any more than Bush knows of the situations where Clinton's credibility has been called into question.

I just think the line about truthfulness is a cheap shot. it's part and parcel of the right's attack on Clinton. It will be used, no doubt, to further disparage Clinton by his opponents. Robert is talking about fact-finding. A search for the truth. I think if Clinton was presented with evidence against Bush which rose to the heights that folks regard as high crime, he would have acted on it. I think his decision to not pursue a divisive and inflammatory investigation must have rested on the lack of clear evidence in hand to initiate such a prosecution. After we lost the Congress, the prospect of him succeeding with the republicans in power was moot.

Clinton never said he had evidence of Bush's guilt, and neither does Robert. Investigations are scrubbed all of the time when the evidence at hand is weighed against factors which would impede prosecution. Clinton wasn't running from the truth. It's more that he was unable to proceed without facts at hand which would have allowed him to garner the support he needed for such an investigation.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. Clinton HAD a Dem congress in 93 and 94 - GOPs didn't take over till Jan '95.
And many of the issues were still OUTSTANDING matters.

Parry argues CORRECTLY that had Clinton followed through on the outstanding issues at hand, there would have been none of the problems that dogged him later on, brought us a Bush2 presidency, or the backlash of 9-11.

Here's a sample of what was left outstanding in late 1992, just on BCCI - note that Kerry specifies these issues need further investigation - why did George Mitchell decide not to fund, and Clinton not get behind further investigation on these matters?

BCCI/Plame: JK's list of outstanding questions with names/corporations

This can help all those looking further into the entire connection. The global aspect of this is astounding and is undoubtedly the key to unlock every damn crime of the BFEE and their international cabal of fascists, financiers and terrorists.

The press in this country has done an amazingly poor job of educating the citizens.



Here is Kerry's list - FROM 1992 - of things which warrant further investigation:

There have been a number of matters which the Subcommittee has received some information on, but has not been able to investigate adequately, due such factors as lack of resources, lack of time, documents being withheld by foreign governments, and limited evidentiary sources or witnesses. Some of the main areas which deserve further investigation include:

1. The extent of BCCI's involvement in Pakistan's nuclear program. As set forth in the chapter on BCCI in foreign countries, there is good reason to conclude that BCCI did finance Pakistan's nuclear program through the BCCI Foundation in Pakistan, as well as through BCCI-Canada in the Parvez case. However, details on BCCI's involvement remain unavailable. Further investigation is needed to understand the extent to which BCCI and Pakistan were able to evade U.S. and international nuclear non-proliferation regimes to acquire nuclear technologies.

2. BCCI's manipulation of commodities and securities markets in Europe and Canada. The Subcommittee has received information that remains not fully substantiated that BCCI defrauded investors, as well as some major U.S. and European financial firms, through manipulating commodities and securities markets, especially in Canada, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. This alleged fraud requires further investigation in those countries.

3. BCCI's activities in India, including its relationship with the business empire of the Hinduja family. The Subcommittee has not had access to BCCI records regarding India. The substantial lending by BCCI to the Indian industrialist family, the Hindujas, reported in press accounts, deserves further scrutiny, as do the press reports concerning alleged kick-backs and bribes to Indian officials.

4. BCCI's relationships with convicted Iraqi arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian, Syrian drug trafficker, terrorist, and arms trafficker Monzer Al-Kassar, and other major arms dealers. Sarkenalian was a principal seller of arms to Iraq. Monzer Al- Kassar has been implicated in terrorist bombings in connection with terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Other arms dealers, including some who provided machine guns and trained Medellin cartel death squads, also used BCCI. Tracing their assets through the bank would likely lead to important information concerning international terrorist and arms trafficker networks.

5. The use of BCCI by central figures in arms sales to Iran during the 1980's. The late Cyrus Hashemi, a key figure in allegations concerning an alleged deal involving the return of U.S. hostages from Iran in 1980, banked at BCCI London. His records have been withheld from disclosure to the Subcommittee by a British judge. Their release might aid in reaching judgments concerning Hashemi's activities in 1980, with the CIA under President Carter and allegedly with William Casey.

6. BCCI's activities with the Central Bank of Syria and with the Foreign Trade Mission of the Soviet Union in London. BCCI was used by both the Syrian and Soviet governments in the period in which each was involved in supporting activities hostile to the United States. Obtaining the records of those financial transactions would be critical to understanding what the Soviet Union under Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov was doing in the West; and might document the nature and extent of Syria's support for international terrorism.

7. BCCI's involvement with foreign intelligence agencies. A British source has told the Bank of England and British
investigators that BCCI was used by numerous foreign intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom. The British intelligence service, the MI-5, has sealed documents from BCCI's records in the UK which could shed light on this allegation.

8. The financial dealings of BCCI directors with Charles Keating and several Keating affiliates and front-companies, including
the possibility that BCCI related entities may have laundered funds for Keating to move them outside the United States. The Subcommittee found numerous connections among Keating and BCCI-related persons and entities, such as BCCI director Alfred Hartman; CenTrust chief David Paul and CenTrust itself; Capcom front-man Lawrence Romrell; BCCI shipping affiliate, the Gokal group and the Gokal family; and possibly Ghaith Pharaon. The ties between BCCI and Keating's financial empire require further investigation.

9. BCCI's financing of commodities and other business dealings of international criminal financier Marc Rich. Marc Rich
remains the most important figure in the international commodities markets, and remains a fugitive from the United States following his indictment on securities fraud. BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980's amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involving in U.S. guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's relationship with BCCI requires further investigation.

10. The nature, extent and meaning of the ownership of shares of other U.S. financial institutions by Middle Eastern political
figures. Political figures and members of the ruling family of various Middle Eastern countries have very substantial investments in the United States, in some cases, owning substantial shares of major U.S. banks. Given BCCI's routine use of nominees from the Middle East, and the pervasive practice of using nominees within the Middle East, further investigation may be warranted of Middle Eastern ownership of domestic U.S. financial institutions.

11. The nature, extent, and meaning of real estate and financial investments in the United States by major shareholders of BCCI. BCCI's shareholders and front-men have made substantial investments in real estate throughout the United States, owning major office buildings in such key cities as New York and Washington, D.C. Given BCCI's pervasiveness criminality, and the role of these shareholders and front-men in the BCCI affair, a complete review of their holdings in the United States is warranted.

12. BCCI's collusion in Savings & Loan fraud in the U.S. The Subcommittee found ties between BCCI and two failed Savings and Loan institutions, CenTrust, which BCCI came to have a controlling interest in, and Caprock Savings and Loan in Texas, and as noted above, the involvement of BCCI figures with Charles Keating and his business empire. In each case, BCCI's involvement cost the U. S. taxpayers money. A comprehensive review of BCCI's account holders in the U.S. and globally might well reveal additional such cases. In addition, the issue of whether David Paul and CenTrust's political relationships were used by Paul on behalf of BCCI merits further investigation.

13. The sale of BCCI affiliate Banque de Commerce et de Placements (BCP) in Geneva, to the Cukorova Group of Turkey, which owned an entity involved in the BNL Iraqi arms sales, among others. Given BNL's links to BCCI, and Cukorova Groups' involvement through its subsidiary, Entrade, with BNL in the sales to Iraq, the swift sale of BCP to Cukorova just weeks after BCCI's closure -- prior to due diligence being conducted -- raises questions as to whether a prior relationship existed between BCCI and Cukorova, and Cukorova's intentions in making the purchase. Within the past year, Cukorova also applied to purchase a New York bank. Cukorova's actions pertaining to BCP require further investigation in Switzerland by Swiss authorities, and by the Federal Reserve New York.

14. BCCI's role in China. As noted in the chapter on BCCI's activities in foreign countries, BCCI had extensive activity in China, and the Chinese government allegedly lost $500 million when BCCI closed, mostly from government accounts. While there have been allegations that bribes and pay-offs were involved, these allegations require further investigation and detail to determine what actually happened, and who was involved.

15. The relationship between Capcom and BCCI, between Capcom and the intelligence community, and between Capcom's shareholders and U.S. telecommunications industry figures. The Subcommittee was able to interview people and review documents concerning Capcom that no other investigators had to date interviewed or reviewed. Much more needs to be done to understand what Capcom was doing in the United States, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Oman, and the Middle East, including whether the firm was, as has been alleged but not proven, used by the intelligence community to move funds for intelligence operations; and whether any person involved with Capcom was seeking secretly to acquire interests in the U.S. telecommunications industry.

16. The relationship of important BCCI figures and important intelligence figures to the collapse of the Hong Kong Deposit and Guaranty Bank and Tetra Finance (HK) in 1983. The circumstances surrounding the collpase of these two Hong Kong banks; the Hong Kong banks' practices of using nominees, front-companies, and back-to-back financial transactions; the Hong Banks' directors having included several important BCCI figures, including Ghanim Al Mazrui, and a close associate of then CIA director William Casey; all raise the question of whether there was a relationship between these two institutions and BCCI-Hong Kong, and whether the two Hong Kong institutions were used for domestic or foreign intelligence operations.

17. BCCI's activities in Atlanta and its acquisition of the National Bank of Georgia through First American. Although the Justice Department indictments of Clark Clifford and Robert Altman cover portions of how BCCI acquired National Bank of Georgia, other important allegations regarding the possible involvement of political figures in Georgia in BCCI's activities there remain outside the indictment. These allegations, as well as the underlying facts regarding BCCI's activities in Georgia, require further investigation.

18. The relationship between BCCI and the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro. BCCI and the Atlanta Branch of BNL had an extensive relationship in the United States, with the Atlanta Branch of BNL having a substantial number of accounts in BCCI's Miami offices. BNL was, according to federal indictments, a significant financial conduit for weapons to Iraq. BCCI also made loans to Iraq, although of a substantially smaller nature. Given the criminality of both institutions, and their interlocking activities, further investigation of the relationship could produce further understanding of Saddam Hussein's international network for acquiring weapons, and how Iraq evaded governmental restrictions on such weapons acquisitions.

19. The alleged relationship between the late CIA director William Casey and BCCI. As set forth in the chapter on intelligence, numerous trails lead from BCCI to Casey, and from Casey to BCCI, and the investigation has been unable to follow any of them to the end to determine whether there was indeed a relationship, and if there was, its nature and extent. If any such relationship existed, it could have a significant impact on the findings and conclusions concerning the CIA and BCCI's role in U.S. foreign policy and intelligence operations during the Casey era. The investigation's work detailing the ties of BCCI to the intelligence community generally also remains far from complete, and much about these ties remains obscure and in need of further investigation.

20. Money laundering by other major international banks. Numerous BCCI officials told the Subcommittee that BCCI's money laundering was no different from activities they observed at other international banks, and provided the names of a number of prominent U.S. and European banks which they alleged engaged in money laundering. There is no question that BCCI's laundering of drug money, while pervading the institution, constituted a small component of the total money laundering taking place in international banking. Further investigation to determine which international banks are soliciting and handling drug money should be undertaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. I said that. Clinton had a Democratic Congress for a short time
I don't think that just saying Clinton's focus on the prosecution of Bush senior would have made all of the rest go away makes it so. Robert can speculate, but I disagree that that specific prosecution would have made a difference or would have even been supported by the public, much less the Democrats in Congress who would have been needed to sustain such a probe.

Just listing all of the crimes that we both agree occurred, doesn't mean there was an effective path for Clinton to pursue the probe. Mitchell covering up crimes? I don't believe it.

And, it still doesn't excuse the 'truthfullness' charge. That was a stretch, as was any suggestion that Clinton's prosecution of all of it would have magically wiped away the prospects for impeachment, 9-11 . . . unbelievable hyperbole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. It didn't even have to rise to the level of prosecuting Bush1, just let the CITIZENS know
Edited on Tue Nov-14-06 12:37 PM by blm
for themselves what occurred, so they could more responsibly make their own decisions.

Do you think if voters UNDERSTOOD what Bush1 had actually done, that a GOP congress would have had a CHANCE to take over in 95?

And NO WAY would a Bush2 have even been a possibility.

And it's not a MATTER of believeing Mitchell "covered up" crimes intentionally - it was a matter of did they screw up by not being INTERESTED in having the truth be revealed because they preferred to concentrate on their own agenda and taking care of old business, no matter HOW SERIOUS was just inconsequential to them?

They made an INCREDIBLY BAD DECISION for themselves and for this country - and if they had had GREATER REGARD for informing the citizenry there would be no QUESTION that they would have pursued the outstanding matters.

And there was also the matter of the politicization of the CIA and FBI that Clinton also went along with - probably out of naivete and a misplaced trust in Poppy Bush's 'wisdom' as his predecessor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. A lot of of this was, in fact, 'out there'. You admit Kerry was making noise on this
Most of that 'old business' Clinton focused on was the peoples buisness. I'll spare you the recitation of his accomplishments for the American people that he achieved in his two terms. I think his and Mitchell's decision to pursue THAT agenda was a GOOD decision for America. The rest was an uncertain prosecution, inflamming republicans with no certain payout of nailing the objective, Bush senior. If it was such a slam dunk, where was Congress on this. There's more than the leadership. The committee members also dropped it. If it was such a slam dunk, SOMEONE would have continued to pursue it. There was no love lost between Democrats and Bush at the time.

Also, speculating that Bush would have been nailed is just that, speculation. Who the heck knows HOW the probe would have gone? The principals are still evading scrutiny, especially the ones overseas, like the Syrians. Certainly there were other factors which were more pernicious than Clinton's refusal to proceed which had more influence in covering up the info needed to prosecute this.

And, I still think the likelihood of prosecution is a major factor to be considered in deciding to proceed with such a high profile investigation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Many of the "accomplishments" achieved were DISMANTLED within Bush2's first term.
Edited on Tue Nov-14-06 12:57 PM by blm
The only reason we had a Bush2 was because Clinton made the early decision to downplay the crimes of Bush1.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. on that we will disagree.
But, I still value your committment to this issue, and your knowledge of it which far outstrips my own, and will ALWAYS value that, blm.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. And I adore you - as you well know - but Bush did destroy or dented considerably alot of the good
BC did accomplish. That's just another frustrating aspect to all of this.

Regards to you, bigtree. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
25. He says he loves Poppy
Just said it at some event in the last few weeks. Knowing everything he knows about them, seeing the mess Bush has made of everything, I don't see how he can stand to be in the same room with any of them. He could work with Jack Kemp or the Eisenhowers or even Nancy Reagan, why the goddamn Bush family for chrissake. I don't know what he's doing or whether it's intentional maliciousness, I do know I'm highly skeptical and don't much like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
26. Clinton did EXACTLY what centrist dems are intent on doing.
"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 this doesn't tick people off they aren't paying attention or are so deep in denial they can't see straight! That Clinton is so cozy with the * family is extremely suspect and should not be brushed aside, explained away, excused or ignored. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. I think it's a bullshit statement unsupported by the facts
Where did Clinton show low regard for the value of the truth outside of the sex affair?

Clinton was a thorn in the republicans' side. It must bug the shit out of them to have him endorsing ANYTHING they do. He's a Democrat. He's on our side.

The work that Clinton has done with Bush raising money for Katrina victims and the other efforts are to be praised. The petty backbiting invites the question: What have these critics done which comes even close to the contributions Bill Clinton has made to the nation and to our party?

Even more despicable and 'suspect' is the way so-called progressives are stepping on Clinton to elevate their own ideological platform, as if it doesn't have legs enough to stand on its own. Most of the criticism of Clinton is innuendo and second-guessing. The slap at his truthfulness piggybacks on years of republicans own use of the 'truthfulness' meme. I'm surprised anyone would want associate themselves with THAT.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #27
34. You VALUE the truth to the American CITIZEN by opening the books, not downplaying
their importance.

I think you are not fully getting what Parry means by that. The American people need TRUTH to make sound decisions as voting CITIZENS. Because Clinton downplayed and ignored the outstanding matters of Bush1's crimes and covert activities, the American PEOPLE were kept FROM THE TRUTH, and Poppy just became an endearing figure to many - MR. Points of Light and George Bush's "Daddy" and Barbara's "loving husband" instead of being remembered as the head of a CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. the way he uses the term is slippery, as if Clinton had evidence
Edited on Tue Nov-14-06 12:39 PM by bigtree
that he was deliberately covering up. I don't think he thought he had the goods to proceed against Bush. That's a far stretch from the cover-up Mr. Parry suggests.

Again, where was Congress on this? Would they have supported making this a national issue?

Also, where does Mr. Parry show that Clinton obstructed any investigation? Just refusing to proceed with the prosecution of a former president doesn't rise to the level of a cover-up. It may have just been a measure by Clinton of what was politically possible at the time. Mr. Parry doesn't even attempt to measure the mood or attitude of the public toward the certain circus the decision of Clinton to use his Justice Dept. to proceed with the investigation of the former president would have become. There was already the public rejection of the 'October surprise' investigation. I just don't think that piling this on would have gone as well as Mr. Perry imagines. He's acting as if Clinton had unilateral power to mollify all of the competing factions, many on our side of the political fence, in his young presidency, his motives virtually unknown, a new Democratic president. It was enough in the public's eye to defeat Bush after one term. I don't think they would have stood for a lengthy, no-holds-barred investigation without charging Clinton with overkill.

Mr. Parry addresses these issues by surmising that the public would be on board. I don't think that's a solid analysis of the political mood of the public or his own party at the time. That's not a trivial thing. Bill Clinton held the White House for our party for two terms because he had that support. That's not a trivial thing either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. People supported dumping Bush1 mainly BECAUSE of the stench of the cover ups
his administration had done.

I don't get where you believe Parry is blaming Clinton as knowingly complicit - you're defending Clinton against something that was never raised. Parry is gentle to Clinton by saying he did it out of goodwill and under the naive expectation that he would have won cooperation from the Republicans he expected to work with.

I think Clinton got played by his predecessor who he showed way too much deference to with the expectation it would serve his administration well to have a bipartisan alliance.

Didn't work out like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. okay by me if that's what he's saying. It doesn't read that way to me.
It reads like Clinton was to blame for a cover-up. If Clinton thought he HAD evidence of Bush crimes he SHOULD have prosecuted.

I think the jury is out on whether it's in our interest to have the example of the comity between the two to inspire us to put aside our partisan differences where we can to achieve results for the American people. That's the purpose in the relationship, I believe. It's not as if Clinton has shied away from scathing criticisms of both Bushes, away from criticizing their policies and actions.

And, they have done great good for the causes they represent and advocate together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AIJ Alom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
5. Or bird of a feather flock together, especially if they are members
Edited on Mon Nov-13-06 12:11 PM by AIJ Alom
of the Carlyle Group or have former cabinet members who are members of the Carlyle Group.

CORRECTION: Clinton is not a member of Carlyle. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Clinton a member of the Carlyle group?
first I've heard of this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AIJ Alom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. Not a member, but quite a few of his former cabinet members
are. His former FCC and SEC chairs who's names escape me at this moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patricia92243 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
8. He just meant that Bush Sr. had "adopted" Clinton, and was therefore Bush, Jr's brother.
Nothing to do with Bush Jr's warm fuzzy feelings for Clinton - in fact I'd say there is a LOT of hidden jealousy.

Poppy "adopts" Clinton and has to rescue his own son from the mess he has made in Iraq. Interesting comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I realize that
It sounded like a crack at Bill. Bush is in a dark place these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. That is what I think it is about. *ss has read or heard about those
of us who are joking about bush sr. favorite son. He is very jealous because that is what he wanted to be. Sour grapes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
12. His lips will soon become permanently affixed to every prominent Dem's arse.
We own him! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crankie Avalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
13. A shameless attempt at trying to associate himself with a popular president...
Edited on Mon Nov-13-06 12:00 PM by Crankie Avalon
...the Ass-Faced Weasel is looking to glom on for a little reflected regard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
15. Big Dog's not GHWB's fourth brother. He's the one kind of son he never had.
You know, the one who's not a felon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
19. Guck !
Nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
20. Does the Idiot Son pander much?
No matter how much he tries to associate himself with Clinton, I doubt any part of Clinton's high approval rating will rub off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
21. Sounds jealous to me, and resents his father's attention on Clinton.
I think Dubya tries hard to be his own man and quite obviously fails miserably each time.

The thing with his father and Clinton grates on him quite a bit, methinks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poofer Donating Member (194 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #21
32. I agree
100% and this isn't the first time he made a remark about Clinton and his dad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
22. I wonder what the memorial will look like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryOldDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
23. Oh, please
:puke:

And, no, George, we have NOT forgotten Bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katzenjammer Donating Member (541 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
24. I thought he originally said "fifth brother" and then corrected himself
No?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
28. So, can Clinton legally give him "Atomic Wedgies" now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
38. Far cry from the cocky
shit he was spewing when Clinton handed him the reins.

Clinton cuddles up to the chimple one at his own peril.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC