Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush Advocated Violent Overthrow of US Government - ? (323 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  One Bush advocated it , one did it. n/t (9+ / 0-)

    "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

    by java4every1 on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 04:04:15 PM PDT

    •  Well then, how about a Bush Crime Family tag? (6+ / 0-)

      ...now that The Sopranos is off the air, we certainly can substitute the Bush Family Saga to fill the void.

      A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. -Gore

      Remember, remember the 7th & 2nd of November, 00 & 04.

      by Dunvegan on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 04:21:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They couldn't have done it without help from (16+ / 0-)

      the Dem president who swept all the outstanding matters  pertaining to Bush1's crimes of office under the rug throughout his terms.

      Parry allows this article to be posted in full it is THAT important to the debate in this country, but here's an excerpt:

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

      Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!

      By Robert Parry
      (First Posted May 11, 2006)

      Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

      Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

      Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

      My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

      Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

      Clinton "didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people," Sender told me in an interview. "He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships."

      Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

      Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, "these centrist Democrats ... warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections."

      These Democrats also called on the party to reject its "non-interventionist left" wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

      "Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office," said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking. [Washington Post, May 10, 2006]

      Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

      •  who's to blame (6+ / 0-)

        Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

           Is there such a thing as party integrity?  If there is and parties have an obligation to root out from their midst those who sully their good name, why is the author blaming Clinton for failing to do what the GOP was morally obligated to do?  Who had the greater burden to clear the record: Clinton or the GOP?
          Clinton put legislative success - getting "the work of the people done" - ahead of righting a historical record.  The GOP put party solidarity and the perpetuation of a distorted historical record ahead of party integrity for partisan political purposes.  Which is the greater of the sins?

        •  Those outstanding matters were still CURRENT and (11+ / 0-)

          in fact, had they been dealt with we would have had NO turnover of Congress, NO impeachment, NO Bush2, NO 9-11, and NO Iraq war.

          No amount of wishing to see Clinton's honor in this can change the facts that he never even wrote ONE WORD about BCCI in his book, though it would have been one of the first reports he ever received when he took office - this would be like Bush ignoring Hart-Rudman Report on Global Terror.  No way, though, did a policy wonk like Clinton not read that BCCI report.

          CIA drugrunning report came out in 1996 and Clinton continued the stonewalling for Poppy Bush and his WH smeared the reporter Gary Webb, a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter. A 1998 court case forced the release of the CIA documents that proved Webb's report was accurate but that never made the media splash that occurred when the WH and rival media outlets smeared the reporter from here to eternity as a 'conspiracy theory nut' because official sources denied the story.

          Mark Rich was NOT just a wealthy tax evader, he was a NAMED FIGURE in IranContra and BCCI. I am not going to bother PRETENDING that Clinton didn't know this. The media was certainly helpful in trying to make it about money and Denise when it was actually Clinton pardoning another IranContra figure for Poppy Bush.

          •  I agree with this, Clinton was able to (5+ / 0-)

            manipulate enough peripheral policy to maintain the illusion of being a democrat but on core policy and ideology he was and is a republican. His interests are rooted in support for the same corporate oligarchies that drive the republican party.

            "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

            by java4every1 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:35:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Clinton a Republican? (0+ / 0-)

                Well, I guess so...but now what do we call those folks who fought every move he made the whole time he was in office and tried to drive him out of office?  Were they the Democrats...or mugwomps???
                This is nonsense!  You will not find any politician who does not support corporate interests because corporations are the largest employers in the country and as corporations go so goes the consumer economy. Support of the corporate structure does not mean that corporations ought to be allowed to screw consumers and destroy small businesses and polute the air, water and earth which is precisely what Republicans are willing to let corporations do and which Clinton fought against all during his presidency. If you don't believe me ask George Will or Rush Limbaugh.
                You can call anyone anything, but you cannot change the history, although you can make a fool of yourself by taking extreme positions that defy all reason and reality...but, of course, you win points if you are Karl Rove's man.   :-(

              •  I'll give Clinton credit on environment not (0+ / 0-)

                much else. The direction of corporations now is much like it was before the depression. It's a house of cards. Don't confuse the republican political class hatred of Clinton with the corporate support Clinton enjoyed. When they saw they could get even more with Bush the corporates went for it. That doesn't absolve Clinton. I believe we can and should defeat the republicans without deifying the Clintons. Of course you believe your governance should be decided by 'bodiless persons' who now hold more electoral power than your vote because all politicians support corporations? it is not so much me that defies reason and reality but in fact you are a player in the reason for an unnecessary, detrimental and hopefully short lived reality.

                "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

                by java4every1 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:56:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  somewhere a disconnect... (0+ / 0-)

                  Of course you believe your governance should be decided by 'bodiless persons' who now hold more electoral power than your vote because all politicians support corporations? it is not so much me that defies reason and reality but in fact you are a player in the reason for an unnecessary, detrimental and hopefully short lived reality.

                    Last I checked the voting rolls do not include corporations so these "bodiless person" still cannot vote.  

                  for an unnecessary, detrimental and hopefully short lived reality

                    I don't know what you mean by this.  If you think for a moment that the corporate structure and laws governing it are going to be changed in any significant way in the near future I want some of that stuff you are smoking.  Help me out here because you have lost me.
                   

                •  on track? (0+ / 0-)

                  The direction of corporations now is much like it was before the depression.

                  If "by direction" you mean making money, I agree.  If you look at the history of the distributionn of wealth in this country SINCE COLONIAL TIMES you will find that the rich are getting richer and the poorer getting poorer but that has nothing to do with corporations.  Corporations are not rich; the people who own them are!  It is they who are taking advantage of all kinds of aspects in this economical structure that gives the advantage to those who have over those who have not...the corporate structure being only one of MANY.

                  It's a house of cards..

                  Don't know what you mean by this unless you are into apocalypical things.

                  Don't confuse the republican political class hatred of Clinton with the corporate support Clinton enjoyed.

                  ,,,as does EVERY OTHER politician.  If you will check the timing of Clinton's corporate support you will find that a significant amount of it came AFTER THE ELECTIONS.  It's like buying a ticket on the winning horse AFTER THE RACE WAS RUN!
                    Their PRE-election money went to the opposition but after the elections went against them they quickly "helped Clinton pay off his election debts"...aka garnering a place at the bargaining table.  But if you think Clinton did not know WHO gave WHEN, you can bet his handlers did!
                    But, my friend, if you have your dagger out for EVERY politician that has supporters who make their money through corporations, you will have a lot of killing to do and you will need to take on the UNIONS as well, since they are, by your measure, "complicite in the corporate conspiracy."

                   

                  •  You would have held a high rank (0+ / 0-)

                    at Jonestown. Your vote is about as good as the owned message you've swallowed. Corporate influence on elections and policy goes far beyond the act of voting. The depression led to a lot of corporate regulation followed by the greatest expansion the economy had ever known. Of course people make money through corporations after all a corporation is simply a tool but it's a tool that has been badly abused and becoming worse.
                    read here:
                    And here
                    Obviously your too young to remember a time when others did not decide how productive you would be and for how little. Unions built this country. They created the middle class you exploit now. Even the experts know the economy is a pyramid scheme about to collapse. In any event, you can sit in your smugness until the walls cave in and maybe that's a smart approach since if your right it's inevitable.

                    "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

                    by java4every1 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:24:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  don't I wish (0+ / 0-)

                      Obviously your too young to remember a time when others did not decide how productive you would be and for how little.

                        Yeah, I guess so. Being the son of the secretary of CIO Oil Workers Union #227 with a mother who was a member of the Railroad Brotherhood and born in 1933 pretty much sheltered me from all the things you were exposed to such as the place organized labor has played in this country.  I guess I need to sit at your feet and learn.

                      Even the experts know the economy is a pyramid scheme about to collapse.

                        And while you are preparing my education you might make a list of the "experts" who know so much about the future of our economy.  :-)  

          •  no room for selectivity? (0+ / 0-)

            No amount of wishing to see Clinton's honor in this can change the facts that he never even wrote ONE WORD about BCCI in his book,  

              Was his book about his life or an exhaustive history of the office of the presidency during his presidency?  Know any publishers who want to print a 1,500 page book for academics and the well-informed, such as yourself, or a 500 page book that will pay back their investment and make a profit?  Do you really think that book publishers are in the public charity business?  ;-)

            No way, though, did a policy wonk like Clinton not read that BCCI report.

              Oh! I agree but writers are dependent on editors and neither you nor I know what went on between Clinton and his editors in regard to what went in his book.  If you used your standard for autobiographic integrity there would be zero books written by anyone who didn't die at 15 years of age.

        •  Particularly sad because righting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stonemason

          the political record is doing the most important work for the people.

          We aren't going to destroy the Republic by enforcing the Constitution, we destroy it by inaction, by being fearful of the consequences.

          by ghengismom on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:27:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yea! for historical record (0+ / 0-)

              And if you read that record as reported in Foxes in the Henhouse by Jarding and Saunders, for example, you will see the startling differences between what Democrats (including Clinton) have done for working people as compared to what the Republicans did (including Reagan).  It is record to be proud of not one to spark the intraparty fighting that seems to be the bread and butter of some folks.  It seems that there are people willing to denegrate those who achieved the good because they were not able to achieve the best.  I wonder if they hold themselves to the same stardards of perfection to which they hold others?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site