We all decry the hypocrisy on the right. But what about when we practice it ourselves?
Robert Parry, the former Newsweek and AP reporter who broke the Iran-Contra story as well as the story on how the chronologies of Iran-Contra were rewritten to hide Reagan's knowledge, goes after Democrats today for their refusal to act on important facts.
(More below the fold)
Parry opens with a story about Bill Clinton not wanting to investigate his predecessors for the criminal activities surrounding the illegal Contra war and the arms to Iran deals that helped fund it. Clinton didn't want to go after the Republicans because he needed to be able to work with them to get legislation passed.
Parry notes that yesterday's Washington Post article makes the same argument - that if the Democrats do manage to get a majority in the House or Senate, they should not pursue censure or impeachment because they need to work with the Republicans to get legislation passed.
But Parry goes on to make the case that the political goodwill Clinton thought he would get from not going after his predecessors never materialized anyway, and in the end, it was the public that suffered from the Democrats' cowardice:
Clinton's failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush's inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father's presidency fondly.
If the full story of George H.W. Bush's role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family's reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush's candidacy would not have been conceivable.
Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right's political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.
I'm very distressed by the DLC's "leadership" since its birth. With friends like these, who needs Republicans? If I were a Republican, I'd leave the party and set up something like the DLC to be a stalking horse in the opposition party, a way to mislead the party from within. I'm not suggesting that's what happened. I'm suggesting only that it might as well have happened that way, for all the "good" they've done for our party. After we elected DLC candidate Bill Clinton, our party, for the first time in forty years, lost control of the house.
So what good did Clinton and the Dems do by aiding and abetting the coverup of Republican misdeeds?
As Parry so eloquently puts is:
Clinton's approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.
Yet, Clinton - and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats - view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.
Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton's folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.
Hear, hear.