Saturday, August 13, 2011

Totally Slimy, Nearly Great

I'll admit it, folks. I never much cared for Bill Clinton when he was President (I voted for Perot in '92 and '96). He always seemed pretty much like a slippery kind of fellow. But, now, I have to admit it. Mr. Clinton wasn't just a good President. He was a very good President (those on the far-left would disagree and point to things like NAFTA and welfare reform but, from my perspective/overall, I'd still say that he was very good). In fact, folks, if it wasn't for a couple of people named Monica Lewinsky and Yasser Arafat, he might even have gone down as a great one (that, and look at the two individuals who've succeeded him)...............................................................................................And it wasn't just a good economy (though, yes, that's probably the most obvious "accomplishment) that Mr. Clinton presided over. He also some major foreign policy and military accomplishments. Perhaps the most underrated of these was Mr. Clinton's spearheading of operation Desert Fox. Not only, folks, did this military operation decimate Saddam Hussein's stockpile of WMD/the manufacturing infrastructure necessary to create them, it also demoralized the Iraqis to the point that they had basically given up on creating more of them. And it isn't just me who's making this assertion. David Kay, Anthony Zinni, and Thomas Ricks (most notably in his book, "Fiasco") have all essentially said the same thing..................................................................................................As to why President Bush and his minions didn't see it this way, that, me-buckos, is an entirely different topic....Let's just say that the Bush administration (motivated by whatever) created their own scenario out of this data vacuum, cherry-picked the intelligence that best suited their needs, chronically engaged in group-think, and fell prey to the most rabid of neoconservatives; Perle, Feith, and Wolfowitz. And the rest, as they say, is history (President Clinton's leadership on operation Desert Fox, notwithstanding)....................................................................................................P.S. And as far as the National Intelligence Estimate that Saddam in fact DID have WMB being a "consensus", that's true, there was. But it was far from a unanimous opinion. The State department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the U.S. Air Force's Director for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe ALL had major doubts pertaining to this issue. Hell, folks, even the NEI itself had some doubts and caveats, if in fact you took the time to read it - which neither the Bush administration nor the Congress apparently did.

71 comments:

w-dervish said...

NAFTA and the financial deregulation that lead to the housing bubble and recession... THAT is Clinton's legacy, and the reason why I'd rate him a failure as president.

I'd still place the blame for the recession/depression firmly with the Republicans, however. Remember GWb's "ownership society"? Remember that it was Phil Gramm that shepherded these deregulatory bubble-creating bills through Congress?

Also remember that Rep. Frank warned of the potential danger of a deregulated subprime lending market, but "House Republicans blocked any efforts to legislate against it" and "Alan Greenspan refused to use congressional authority he'd been given in 1994 to regulate it".

Clinton was basically a moderate Republican.

w-dervish said...

Will: the Bush administration (motivated by whatever)

As far as GWb's motivations go... he desired the power that came with being a "wartime president". This slimy amoral a-hole wanted to invade Iraq even before he became president. IMO the bastard should have been tried and convicted of war crimes already.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You provide me some syrup from Mr. Frank himself and this is somehow supposed to persuade me? Check out this youtube piece and then tell me that this was a purely Republican fiasco youtube.com/watch?v=y4AORuXhnQA I dare you. Also, 90-8.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

According to Thomas Ricks (whose book, "Fiasco", is considered by many to be the definitive volume on the Iraq War), there wasn't a "war party" inside the Bush administration prior to 9/11. It was basically just Wolfowitz and Libby who were advocating for regime change early on and they were marginalized. The "smart sanctions" argument had won....Of course, when 9/11 came along, the neocons were finally then able to convince Mr. Bush that a more proactive policy needed to be instituted.

John Myste said...

Since I have been called a neo-con twice now, can someone please define that term for me?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I think that they were originally disaffected Democrats who didn't think that the Dems were tough enough on defense issues. Scoop Jackson's proteges such as Richard Perle and Bill Kristol's dad, Irving, I believe represent some of their avatars.

#37927 said...

Actually John, check out the PNAC crowd, who ALL wanted war with Iraq.

They pushed Clinton HARD for that war.

On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power.

Umm Donaldf Rumsfeld you say?

He is the reason Wolfowitz was allowed into the DOD.

Here is the list of the Signatories to Statement of Principles of the PNAC crowd.

Elliott Abrams Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy under Bush Jr

Gary Bauer

William J. Bennett

John Ellis "Jeb" Bush Hmmm a Bushie pushing for war with Iraq before 9-11


Richard B. Cheney Bush Jr's VP and architect of a lot of the shenanigans that got us into the war in Iraq.

Eliot A. Cohen member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, a committee of civilians and retired military officers that the U.S. Secretary of Defense may call upon for advice, since the beginning of the administration of President George W. Bush. (he helped found the PNAC crowd)

Midge Decter With Donald Rumsfeld, Decter is the former co-chair of the Committee for the Free World and one of the original drivers of the neoconservative movement with her spouse, Norman Podhoretz


Paula Dobriansky Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs from 2001-2009


Steve Forbes


Aaron Friedberg served from 2003 to 2005 in the office of the Vice President of the United States as deputy assistant for national-security affairs and director of policy planning.

Francis Fukuyama Member of The President's Council on Bioethics (2001–2005)

Frank Gaffney

Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan

Zalmay Khalilzad United States Ambassador to Afghanistan 2003–2005 then United States Ambassador to Iraq 2005-2007 then 26th United States Ambassador to the United Nations 2007-Jan 2009

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Cheney's right hand henchman is the shenanigans till Fitzpatrick convicted him of four felonies

Norman Podhoretz

J. Danforth Quayle Bush Sr's VP who couldn't spell potato

Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs 2001-2007

Stephen P. Rosen

Henry S. Rowen Secretary of Defense Policy Advisory Board., chaired the U.S. Dept. of Energy's Task Force on the Future of Science Programs


Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense, one of the main architects of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Vin Weber

George Weigel

Paul Wolfowitz Rumsfeld's right hand henchman in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Robert Zoellick, Trade Representative of the United States 2001-2005 then Deputy Secretary of State of the United States 2005-2006 then 11th President of the World Bank (2007–Present)

other PNAC crowd minions Bush hired;

Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State (2001–2005)

Seth Cropsey Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau (12/2002-12/2004)

Richard Perle Chairman of the Board, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (2001–2003)

Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller (2001–2004)

Randy Scheunemann Member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute


Bush didn't as much fall prey to the neo-cons as hired a hell of a lot of them to help him become a "great war pResident" in Bush's own words before he got selected by five supreme court people over the will of the majority of the American people.

John, considering the group of war criminals the PNAC crowd spouted I for one would cobnsider the neo-con tag an insult.

John Myste said...

#37927,

Oh, don't worry, I did, but for more simplistic reasons.


I considered it tantamount to calling me a conservative. Ouch.

Rusty Shackelford said...

As a conservative I'd be insulted if either one of you were ever even thought of as being anywhere right of center.

John Myste said...

Rusty,

Allow me to paraphrase for clarity:

"As a conservative, I have conservative faith and I would consider myself less than I am now, if either of you became conservative. The reason is this: as a conservative, I am very committed to the Biblical doctrine of guilt by association."

You are a wise man, sir. Fortunately, I don’t think you have to burden yourself with thoughts of the possibility.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Liberalism is like having a vintage car in the garage...every 15 or 20 years americans go take the cover off it,jump start the engine and take it for a ride.It does'nt take long to realize it never really rode worth a shit and still does'nt...so back in the garage it go's with the tarp over it.

John Myste said...

Rusty,

Liberalism is like having a vintage car in the garage...every 15 or 20 years americans go take the cover off it,jump start the engine and take it for a ride.It does'nt take long to realize it never really rode worth a shit and still does'nt...so back in the garage it go's with the tarp over it.

I guess you are right, Rusty, and yet, abortion is legal, the New Deal yet survives. The nation, by most conservative estimates, continues to become more liberal in policy, not less.

It is funny how liberalism only pulls out of the garage every few decades, and yet when it does, it changes the nation permanently.

Don't you wish conservatism were less impotent?

Rusty Shackelford said...

Good point John.Liberal's take to social issues like a pit bull would to raw beef.I once heard a discription of abortion....it allows a women to have sex with men they would never marry.

John Myste said...

I just love when conservatives and liberals can see the world through the same lens.

dmarks said...

the number person said

"considering the group of war criminals the PNAC crowd spouted"

Paranoid boobs love to rant about the PNAC. And there were no "war criminals" such as you speak of. Get real.

"in Bush's own words before he got selected by five supreme court people over the will of the majority of the American people."

Actually, Bush was elected in Nov. 2000. That is how the people voted. The Supreme Court let the actual election result stand. They did not "select" him.

Of course, anti-democratic boobs think it is only democracy when the people choose someone they approve of.

w-dervish said...

Gore = only person elected to the presidency who did not serve.

#37927 said...

Of course, anti-democratic boobs think it is only democracy when the people choose someone they approve of.

Which is why teabagistanies have been railing against the current President since he won by a real majority.

And why the far right fringe works so hard to prevent the people they disagree with from even voting. Cause if all Americans could vote (IE no voter caging, supression efforts from the right) GOPers lose.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Number guy is one of the left wingnuts who view the recall election in Wisconsin as a victory for them.Labor unions spent millions of their members money(without permission)and still got their ass kicked,in a state thats always been on the dem side....stupid bastards,still dont understand how idiotic their policies are.
They continue to tout Obie's election....unfortunately a Gallup poll today put his approval level at 39%.Obie is closing in on Carter territory.Hopefully we'll see the last of the clueless community organizer next Nov..

#37927 said...

Labor unions spent millions of their members money(without permission)and still got their ass kicked,

Let me get this straight, winning two republican held seats while losing NONE is getting their asses kicked?

Hope it happens more.

PS: I see you failed to mention the millions spent by Koch fronted; Citizens for a Stronger America, Americans for Prosperity, and The Club for Growth; who combined spent over $30 million while losing two long help Republican seats.

Funny how you spin things rusty. Lose two seats and claim victory.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

37927, Mr. Cheney must have been talking out of both sides of his mouth. This, in that during the 2000 campaign, he was still defending the 1991 decision to not attack Baghdad AND was tacitly endorsing Mr. Clinton's policy of containment, "we want to maintain our current posture vis-'a-vis Iraq.............Also it appeared (again, according to Ricks), in the summer of 2001, that Mr. Powell was winning the internal argument on how foreign policy was to be shaped in the future (realism, as opposed to idealism). Unfortunately, 9/11 and the persuasiveness of the neocons derailed this completely.

#37927 said...

Will remember what Cheney did with his super secret meetings with the Energy Task Force;

This tid bit might help you remember;

In July 2003, after two years of legal action through the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch was finally able to obtain some documents from the task force. Those documents include maps of Iraqi and other mideast oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, two charts detailing various Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a March 2001 list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts."

Remember Judicial Watch ain't no liberal group, they were front and center during Monicagate pushing for openness and truth from Clinton.

But, MARCH 2001, six months before 9-11 and Cheney is looking at maps of Iraqi oil fields. He went to the US Supreme Court to try and keep the American people from knowing he was looking at maps of Iraqi Oil fields six months BEFORE 9-11.

BTW; In January 2003, The Wall Street Journal reported that representatives from Halliburton, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron-Texaco Corp. and Conoco-Phillips, among others, had met with Vice President Cheney's staff to plan the post-war revival of Iraq's oil industry.

Sorry but the coinky dinks just keep piling up about Cheney and his merry band of wanna attack Iraq fools.
The PNAC crowd was in some ways, two groups with the same desire, for different reasons,

The pro Israeli (Wolfowitz, Feith, et al) people wanted Saddam removed because he helped the Palestinians.

The Oil men (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Khalilzad ET AL) wanted access to some of the largest undeveloped oil fields on dry land left on the planet.

w-dervish said...

Rusty: Obie is closing in on Carter territory...

Not down to GWb territory though. He'd have to sink quite a bit for that to be true.

Rusty: Hopefully we'll see the last of the clueless community organizer next Nov.

I'm hoping we'll see the last of the teabag Congress that is forcing Obama to bring back Hoovernomics... because we know what that lead to last time.

Anyone voting Republican is either clueless or eager for another Great Depression.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Number guy always makes my point for me....he calls the Wisconsin election a victory yet the Republicans hold the house,senate and the gov mansion...hell,I'll take those kind of defeats every election.What a donk.

dmarks said...

"Labor unions spent millions of their members money(without permission)and still got their ass kicked"

True. Labor unions thrive on bullying and stealing*... from workers. If the campaign contribution thing were left up to the workers, not nearly as much money would be spent on this.

* = Yes, it is stealing. It has been properly held to be illegal to divert regular union dues to political purposes and to deny workers choice in this matter.

dmarks said...

WD: Time for some actual history. Gore was elected to the vice presidency. Twice. He served.

He was never elected to the presidency. No amount of revisionist lies can make a loser into a President.

#327: "Which is why teabagistanies have been railing against the current President since he won by a real majority."

In fact, Obama won the exact same way Bush did in 2000: by winning enough states to get an electoral victory. "Real majority" has absolutely no meaning: that's the law. IF you want to change things and get rid of the electoral college, I might support you.

I oppose the Tea Party efforts to say that Obama is not the legitimate President. It is exactly as bad as the sore losers who denied Bush really won in 2000.

"And why the far right fringe works so hard to prevent the people they disagree with from even voting."

Not that relevant, really. The far right fringe has no power or say in any political issue. So regardless of what this tiny unheard from fringe might say, there is no effort to suppress votes.

"IE no voter caging, supression efforts from the right) GOPers lose."

There are no supression efforts from the right. Sorry, another left-wing myth busted.

Perhaps you are referring to the efforts to get rid of voter fraud, which have NO impact on legitimate voters. Only people who win through fraudulent votes would oppose getting rid of fraud.

dmarks said...

#32 said: "The pro Israeli (Wolfowitz, Feith, et al) people wanted Saddam removed because he helped the Palestinians."

Only an antisemite would use such wording. Saddam Hussein actually wanted to exterminate the Israelis, and all Jews. It was not "wanting to help Palestinians".

Of course anyone with any sense of human rights would oppose such genocide.

But now you are whining about Wolfowitz etc actually being in favor of the rights of Israelis to live, and how Saddam's active efforts to exterminate more than 5 million Jewish Israelis was just "helping the Palestinians".

Antisemitism has raised its ugly head in these comments.

dmarks said...

and finally, WD said:

"Clinton was basically a moderate Republican."

I'm not sure of whom you speak. But the most famous Clinton, the former President, was a left-wing Democrat.

I measure these things from the center, not from my own viewpoint. You are slandering a former President. He might slug you if you said this to his face.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: I'm not sure of whom you speak. But the most famous Clinton, the former President, was a left-wing Democrat.

I was speaking of BILL CLINTON, the subject of Will's post, which shouldn't have been that difficult to figure out.

dmarks: I measure these things from the center, not from my own viewpoint.

This is a lie... and part of the (successful) Republican attempt to move the center farther and farther to the Right... in order to shut out Progressives.

Free trade and deregulation are policies traditionally championed by CONSERVATIVES. I call a spade a spade -- and Clinton was a Conservative (despite the fact that Will lied in one of his latest posts and said the concept was "foreign to the extremes").

dmarks: You are slandering a former President. He might slug you if you said this to his face.

No, you are slandering Mr. Clinton -- by suggesting he'd punch someone who disagrees with him (and a person who voted for him at that!). If you suggested (to his face) that he might slug me (for what I said), I suspect he'd laugh at you and point out that his critics have said a lot worse.

If he were going to slug anyone I think it would be YOU... for denigrating his skills as a politician... the job of a politician is to convince someone of your point of view through oration, not violence.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Time for some actual history. Gore was elected to the vice presidency. Twice. He served. He was never elected to the presidency.

It appears as though you are the one who doesn't know his history dmarks. If a statewide recount had been conducted in FL it would have shown that Gore won. Gore won Florida and therefore the presidency. But the Supreme Court stopped the recount and anointed bush. Those are the facts your revisionist history cannot change.

I'll refrain from providing the links that prove this to be the case. We've had this discussion before and I've already given you the links. Clearly you've decided to ignore the facts and nothing I say will convince you of the truth.

That's fine, but don't pretend to school me as if I'm ignorant as to what really happened. I KNOW what happened... the presidency was stolen from Gore by the Supreme Court (with help from Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and ChoicePoint).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

He may have been looking at maps of oil wells, 37927, but, according to Ricks's book, "Fiasco", Mr. Cheney was making no efforts whatsoever to try and convince the administration to topple Saddam prior to 9/11 (even going as far as to endorse the Clinton strategy of containment). And unless we can read his mind, I'm probably going to have to stick with nonconspiratorial writers such Ricks, Richard Haas, etc..

w-dervish said...

Will: ...Mr. Cheney was making no efforts whatsoever to try and convince the administration to topple Saddam prior to 9/11.

Because he knew the American people would never go for it. Remember that PNAC correctly identified the need for a New Pearl Harbor to fool the populace into supporting their illegal war of choice.

#37927 said...


There are no supression efforts from the right. Sorry, another left-wing myth busted.


Out right LIE
Before the 2000 election, Florida officials purged approximately 100,000 registered voters on the grounds that they were convicted felons (and therefore ineligible to vote under Florida law) or dead. Many of those whose names were purged were "false positives" (not actually felons). But likely Gore voters based on both the race of the voter and where they lives, IE predominately democratic districts.

The issue returned to prominence in 2004 when Florida announced another planned purge, again based on a list of felons. The state government initially attempted to keep the list secret. When a court ordered its release, it was found to contain mostly Democrats and a disproportionate number of racial minorities. Faced with media documentation that the list included thousands of errors, the state abandoned the attempt to use it. Some of the voters improperly purged in 2000 had not been restored as of May 2004.

BTW the "official" Bush victory number is 537 votes.

You think if tens of thousands of LEGAL voters hadn't been illegally refused their constitutional rights by Katherine Harris, the outcome might have been different?

That IS suppression of the highest order, by republican state officials.

Wanna try again saying they don't do it?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I'm not talking about going public, wd. I'm talking about the fact that Mr. Cheney never tried to push this idea to the administration. Are you saying that Thomas Ricks didn't dig deep enough here? And what about Richard Haas? He was there and reported the same in his book (a book that was very critical of the Bush strategy).......Why the constancy with this evil, conspiratorial stuff?

dmarks said...

WD said: "No, you are slandering Mr. Clinton -- by suggesting he'd punch someone who disagrees with him"

I accept your point, that Bill Clinton (a left-wing Democrat by party affiliation and ideology) would not slug someone for disagreeing with him. Al Franken might, but not Bill Clinton.

Bill is neither violent, nor a Republican.
--------------

#32 said: "Out right LIE"

Perfect preface to your claim.

"Before the 2000 election, Florida officials purged approximately 100,000 [ineligible voters]"

Actually, 57,000 were purged. Without any regard to race.


"BTW the "official" Bush victory number is 537 votes."

True. That is how they really voted, despite bogus claims of voting fraud and claims of large numbers of eligible voters being disenfrnachised.

Joke claims from cranks that got laughed out of any courtroom by adults who actually know what they are doing.

"Wanna try again saying they don't do it?"

They never did, and don't wait to.

#37927 said...

I'm talking about the fact that Mr. Cheney never tried to push this idea to the administration. Are you saying that Thomas Ricks didn't dig deep enough here?

Yes because like all authors of the administration the only access they had to write about is what people would admit to them,

They were not in the room for the vast majority of deliberations.

Like with his secret meetings Cheney would say one thing for public consumption or print and things in private he fought hard from seeing the light of print or broadcast.

Remember they tried to sell they weren't positive they were gonna attack until March 2003 when we all know they were lobbying Blair for an attack in the summer 2002.

Makes many things they pushed on the spin meisters and book authors in a different light.

Rumsfeld had Feith faking intell in 2002.

Cheney was pushing the CIA for intell he wanted then also.

Cheney wanted it before 9-11 and worked to get what he wanted the truth be damned. Rumsfeld was Cheney's right hand man since Fords admin.

The only reason Rumsfeld was not in Reagan or Bush Sr admins was because how Rumsfeld out played Bush during Nixon and Ford's admins.

According to Bob Woodward's 2002 book Bush at War, a rivalry developed between the Bush Sr and Rumsfeld. "Bush senior was convinced that Rumsfeld was pushing him out to the CIA to end his political career."

The only thing Rumsfeld really did in the 80's was help sell Saddam weapons during the Iraq-Iran war, Bush Sr made sure he wasn't allowed in the admin.

But Cheney got Bush Jr to install Rumsfeld at DOD, like Cheney's daughter was installed at state to keep Cheney abreast of things there. Cheney knows how politics are played inside an admin. He was Fords Chief of Staff,(taking over for Rumsfeld when Ford made Rumsfeld Sec of Def) and Bush Sr's Sec of Def.

Cheney wanted Saddam taken down to get western access to the oil.

Too bad all he really did was give Iran the upper hand in Iraq. Of course allow China the access to buy the Iraqi oil leases, with all the US dollars they keep getting from the outsourcing during Bush Jr's admin.

#37927 said...

claims of large numbers of eligible voters being disenfrnachised.

Not a "claim" a fact the Government of Florida ADMITTED when they agreed to put those voters back on the rolls, even though they hadn't by 2004.

#37927 said...

You seem to be trying to frame the debate like with yoiur slimy attempt at throwing the anti semite attack around when facts are being provided.

The FACT Florida illegally purged legal voters from the rolls in 2000 is not in dispute. Over 55,000 have been proved to be illegally removed by Katherine Harris the vast majority being minority and mostly demographically democratic voters.

Keep spinning DM, but you have no true facts to back up your spin, just your dishonest attempts to push your ideological position.

Saddam was helping the Palestinians, he had no plans on attacking Israel like he had for attacking Iran 1980, or Kuwait 1990 or Saudi Arabia 1991.
Seems the FACTS say Saddam was more for killing Muslims like he persecuted the Kurds or Shia or other muslims of Kuwait Iran and Saudi Arabia eh DM?

Wanna try some more half baked spin, instead of the facts of what Saddam actually did do?

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Bill Clinton (a left-wing Democrat by party affiliation and ideology).

Wrong. On both counts. There is no "left-wing Democrat" party. There is a progressive Congressional caucus, but if Bill Clinton had been a member of Congress he wouldn't have joined it... because he's a third way conservative Democrat (essentially a moderate Republican).

I suggest you do your homework before further embarrassing yourself by continuing to insist Bill Clinton was something he wasn't.

Wikipedia defines the third way as, "various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of RIGHT-WING ECONOMIC and left-wing social policies".

Voltron said...

Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. Following an expose of the link between the two organizations in WorldNetDaily, the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress. Another officer of the Progressive Caucus, and one of its guiding lights, is avowed socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent.

The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.

"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an organizing document of the DSA. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."

Nevertheless, the goal of the Democratic Socialists of America has never been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism. Another song on the site was "Red Revolution" sung to the tune of "Red Robin." The lyrics went: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng. ..." Another song removed after WorldNetDaily's expose was "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."

Gee WD, THAT progressive caucus?

Voltron said...

This is an old list so members may have changed a little, but more probably they've added to their ranks...

The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.
This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com:

American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy

Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below

Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

#37927 said...

Nice attempt Volt at hiding the facts with your off topic cut and paste.

#37927 said...

You know the fact that Saddam murdered millions of Muslims in the middle east but never directly attacked Israel like he did Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, and the fact he murdered millions of Shia and Kurds, while DM screeches antisemitism here to spin his lack of facts.

Or are you trying to bury this fact;

The FACT Florida illegally purged legal voters from the rolls in 2000 is not in dispute. Over 55,000 have been proved to be illegally removed by Katherine Harris the vast majority being minority and mostly demographically democratic voters.

Voltron said...

Not off topic Zip. Was commenting on WD's "progressive caucus" post.

And yes I get your point, it was much more egregious disenfranchising felons than it was for the libs to disenfranchise the military votes.

Voltron said...

And regarding WD's rant about if they'd allowed a statewide recount Algore would have won,

What they didn't allow was the Gore campaign to cherry pick which counties to recount.
A STATEWIDE recount most likely would have been considered legal.

And really, they let the media do their own recounts afterwards. (made them pay for it too)
Do you really think if Gore had actually won, PMSDNC would have been quiet about it? We'd still be hearing about the thrills going up Tweety's leg....

w-dervish said...

Voltron: The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.

Bullshit. There is exactly ONE Socialist in Congress, not 70. There is also no Socialist caucus. This is the kind of nonsense you come across when reading World Nut Daily. I advise against taking anything you read on this website seriously.

I subscribe to their email newsletter... so I know just how crazy these nuts are. What's really funny is how they refuse to drop the birther conspiracy crap. Despite the fact that it's totally dead. At one point I was receiving several emails a day about Obama's "forged" birth certificate.

w-dervish said...

Voltron: Do you really think if Gore had actually won...

Gore actually won. A 1/29/2001 article from the UK's The Guardian says "Florida recounts make Gore winner".

Also, in an 12/6/2010 New Yorker article lawyer & legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin says, "...the FL courts, interpreting FL election law [ordered] a statewide recount... [the SCOTUS stopped the recount]. Recounts of the ballots by media organizations... suggest that Gore would have won a full statewide recount...".

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Secret meetings, 37927? If they were so secret, how do you know what was said at them? Look, I don't particularly care for Mr. Cheney, either. In fact, I find him borderline loathsome. But I think that we can go crazy with some of this conspiracy stuff. Here's a good link that puts some of this stuff in perspective; 911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html Maybe it'll help. Maybe it won't.

John Myste said...

Secret meetings, 37927? If they were so secret, how do you know what was said at them?

COL. People are just cracking me up today.

#37927 said...

If they were so secret, how do you know what was said at them?

I don't ....

You don't .....

.... and neither do the authors you hinge your argument on.

Which is why your argument falls apart when you frame it the way you did.

No conspiracy, but nice attempt at sliming a person you cannot openly debate again.

Why not admit you do NOT know everything and Cheney did do things he and his helpers will never admit to.

Even though they all telegraphed their intentions before 9-11 with the PNAC statements and letters.

#37927 said...

BTW volt, "world nut daily" isn't a reliable source, it is the sort of conspiracy lunatic fringe will commented on.
Remember they pushed the birfer issue long after it was shown to be totally bullsh*t, from the realm of bigots and tinfoil conspiracy clowns.

w-dervish said...

Will: Secret meetings, 37927? If they were so secret, how do you know what was said at them?

Seriously? You've never heard about Cheney's secret Energy Task Force meetings or how the public eventually found out about them? We know about them now because of a lawsuit filed under the FOIA laws...

From Wikipedia, "Most of the activities of the Energy Task Force have not been disclosed to the public, even though Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (since 19 April 2001) have sought to gain access to its materials. The organisations Judicial Watch and Sierra Club launched a law suit (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) under the FOIA to gain access to the task force's materials. After several years of legal wrangling, in May, 2005 an appeals court permitted the Energy Task Force's records to remain secret".

This isn't crazy conspiracy stuff, it's what actually happened.

w-dervish said...

Will: Secret meetings, 37927? If they were so secret, how do you know what was said at them?

According to Project Censored, "Documents turned over in the summer of 2003 by the Commerce Department as a result of the Sierra Club's and Judicial Watch's FOIA lawsuit... contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts".

Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts?? What in the world would cause Cheney to believe that the bush administration would have ANY input into who obtained Iraqi oil field contracts??

You're saying we absolutely can not reach any conclusions at all because we don't know EXACTLY what was said in these meetings?

That's utter nonsense. The fact that they refuse to disclose what they discussed proves something untoward was being discussed.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Because Cheney had access to a map of Iraqi oil-wells, wd, this means that he and dozens of other sinister individuals were planning an attack on Iraq prior to 9/11? God almighty, you making the case for WMD look good by comparison.............And I wasn't sliming anybody, 37927. I was just providing a link (that I'm sure you didn't even look at) that puts some of this stuff into perspective.

w-dervish said...

Will: Because Cheney had access to a map of Iraqi oil-wells... this means that he [was] planning an attack on Iraq prior to 9/11?

Clearly you would make a terrible investigator Will... you lack the ability to put 2 and 2 together. That was only one of many clues.

I looked at your link Will. When the author says, "Now, we're not saying that the PNAC didn't see 9/11 as presenting opportunities (in fact some of the members said publicly that it did)... he's right.

But when he says, "the New Pearl Harbor was to justify regime change", he's WRONG.

Because...

bush's biographer Mickey Herskowitz said bush wanted to invade Iraq BEFORE he was "elected" president.

Ron Suskind, who wrote "The Price of Loyalty" with O'Neill's help, says, "from the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime... Day one, these things were laid and sealed".

The PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" that bush IGNORED. Some say bush ignored the brief because he wanted an attack to occur (to give PNAC the New Pearl Harbor they desired).

The brief says (in part), "FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks..."

Philippe Sands, a human rights lawyer says (in his book "Lawless World") that, "Mr Bush told Tony Blair ... six weeks before the war started ... [of a plan] to lure Saddam Hussein into war by flying an aircraft over Iraq painted in UN colors in the hope he would shoot it down. ...the President made it clear that he had already decided to go to war, despite still pressing for a UN resolution". (this was after 9/11, but it shows how desperate bush was to invade Iraq despite the facts).

Conclusion...

The facts are very clear... The bush administration was planning an attack on Iraq prior to 9/11.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

a) Common dreams is a progressive think tank. No surprise here that they would want to take Bush down. b) Herskowitz was fired by Bush. No surprise here that he would say just about anything. c) According to Thomas Ricks (a Pulitzer Prize winner whose book, "Fiasco", continues to be the seminal work on the Iraq War), "What (Paul) O'Neil doesn't notice is that those who wanted to go to war (prior to 9/11) lost, and that those who supported 'smart sanctions' won......Wolfowitz and his allies - mainly Libby and a few others in the office of the new Vice President - were stymied by Powell, who talked not about regime change but about improving containment by imposing smart sanctions."......And according to the N.Y. Times's Bill Keller, "In all this, the President was following the instincts of his Secretary of State."......Couple that with the fact that Bill Kristol was even being critical of Mr. Bush, "Far from transforming containment into rollback, the White House proceeded to water down even the demands that the Clinton team had imposed on Iraq." No, wd, your evidence isn't unimpeachable.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Bush allowed the attacks on 9/11 to occur so he could have an excuse to wage war on Iraq? That is what you're suggesting here? Wow.......Look, I'm not saying that there weren't those in the Bush administration who looked upon 9/11 as a possible opportunity to further their own New World Order paradigm. But to suggest what I think it is that you're suggesting here.....

#37927 said...

The bush administration was planning an attack on Iraq prior to 9/11.

becomes;

Bush allowed the attacks on 9/11 to occur so he could have an excuse to wage war on Iraq?

No Vacancy

A pretty good description of what you did here will.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

This is what he said in his last comment, 37927; "The PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" that bush IGNORED. Some say Bush ignored the brief because he wanted an attack to occur (to give PNAC the New Pearl Harbor they desired)." Now, graned, he didn't say that he was one of them but he did kind of lay it out there.

w-dervish said...

Will: Far from transforming containment into rollback, the WH proceeded to water down even the demands that the Clinton team had imposed on Iraq.

No surprise there. The bushies ignored everything the outgoing Clinton administration told them was important. They said OBL was dangerous. The bushies ignored them. They said the Iraq situation could be handled through containment. The bushies ignored that too. So what? It doesn't mean they didn't want regime change.

Common Dreams didn't write the article about what Mickey Herskowitz said. "Award-winning independent journalist" Russ Baker wrote it and various sites published it. All Common Dreams did was look at it and say, "OK, we'll publish that on our website". This wasn't a part of a conspiracy to "take down" bush.

Also, Mickey Herskowitz is a pathological liar? That's a pretty strong allegation. What proof do you have to back that up? Apparently he (initially, at least) passed muster with the bush people who selected him to be GWb's ghostwriter.

Will (quoting Thomas Ricks): What O'Neil doesn't notice is that those who wanted to go to war (prior to 9/11) lost, and that those who supported 'smart sanctions' won.

So what? That all changed after 9/11... even though there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Will: Bush allowed the attacks on 9/11 to occur so he could have an excuse to wage war on Iraq?

Yes, I think that it is possible that is what happened. But I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

dmarks said...

"....The bushies..."

Hard to take anyone seriously using this in a supposed serious discussion. It's like that guy who always caled Obama "Obie".

dmarks said...

Will said: "Of course, when 9/11 came along, the neocons were finally then able to convince Mr. Bush that a more proactive policy needed to be instituted."

Yes. of course. Prior to 9/11, Saddam had been engaging in many serious and significant violation of the cease-fire agreements. This included blocking inspections, promoting and engaging in terrorism, and engaging in actual aggressive military attacks against us and the UK.

If it ever made much sense to let this continue, it make very little sense to let this continue happening after 9/11. 9/11 showed us the folly of letting terrorists keep attacking us.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Hard to take anyone seriously using this in a supposed serious discussion.

Clinton's people are/were called "Clintonites".

You don't like the term "bushies" and therefore my argements can't be taken seriously?

I don't take seriously your argument that I can't be taken seriously because you don't like the term "bushies". I don't care.

dmarks: It's like that guy who always called Obama "Obie".

Another thing you and Rusty disagree on. As I recall you two were previously in such harmonious agreement that you said OK to my suggestion that you and Rusty should "get a room".

You may have just ruined your chances of ever getting lucky with Rusty.

dmarks: 9/11 showed us the folly of letting terrorists keep attacking us.

This isn't the argument the bushies made in their attempt to convince the American people we should invade Iraq and topple Saddam. They didn't use it because it would have failed. dmarks would have been convinced but few others would have.

Instead they lied about WMD.

dmarks said...

"Instead they lied about WMD."

Actually, many WMD from the Gulf War were found AFTER the invasion. WMD that were specifically prohibited under the cease fire, WMD that were supposed to have been turned over. But Saddam stockpiled them.

The "bushies" told the truth about WMD.

John Myste said...

@dmarks

Actually, many WMD from the Gulf War were found AFTER the invasion. WMD that were specifically prohibited under the cease fire, WMD that were supposed to have been turned over. But Saddam stockpiled them.

I miss a lot of news, no sarcasm intended. I really do.

Can you point to documentation confirming this?

dmarks said...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

And here is one of many references to the revelations which came from Wikileaks.


The conclusion in the above link is a rather sound one:

"This isn’t exactly vindication of one of the arguments the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq, which was that Hussein had already begun stockpiling new WMDs and was working on nuclear weapons, but it is another vindication of the primary reason for restarting the war: Hussein and Iraq had violated the truce and refused to comply even after 17 UN resolutions demanding compliance. Hussein never had any intention of abiding by the truce, for whatever motivations one wants to assign to him. After the invasion, the US proved (through an armed-version of Wikileaks in Iraq’s diplomatic files) that the UN had allowed Hussein to grab billions in personal wealth by perverting the embargo in the Oil-for-Food Program, which would have given Hussein the means to fuel another WMD program as soon as the West withdrew from Iraq, and to restart Hussein’s dreams of pan-Arab dominance through military adventurism. In the end, there were no good options."

John Myste said...

Dmarks,

I posted a very similar comment on someone else's site the other day.

I did not claim that WMDs were found, as I considered it (and consider it) irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is, we do not really know Bush’s motivation for the war. We cannot. We do know his justification and it was clear from the beginning.

I am a far left liberal and also a bit of an isolationist. I did not favor the war. However, it irritates me when people endlessly call Bush a liar for invading Iraq, and then lie about the justification for doing it as they accuse him of being a liar.

Bush, of course, rarely challenges the bogus charge. He is an idiot, not a complete liar, though.

Thanks for the link. I will check it out.

w-dervish said...

First dmarks said...
The "bushies" told the truth about WMD.

Then dmarks said...
This isn't exactly vindication of one of the arguments the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq...

I was going to look up some info and refute that first comment (because it's complete nonsense), but dmarks beat me to it by refuting his own comment.

That being the case, I'll move on to other questions. The article dmarks links to says, "in the end, there were no good options". Actually there was an infinitely better option than going to war...

Continue the inspections indefinitely. The inspections were working... and would have cost less (in terms of money and lives lost) then the (illegal) invasion.

dmarks said...

WD: "The "bushies" told the truth about WMD."

Far from being "nonsense", it is true. Saddam did keep and have WMD on violation of the cease fire agreements, and there is good evidence that he sought to build more new ones.

"Actually there was an infinitely better option than going to war"

All a matter of opinion. I happen to disagree that letting one of the major terrorist kingpins in the world keep attacking us, as he kept WMD and sought to make more was a bad idea.

"Continue the inspections indefinitely. The inspections were working."

Did you read the Blix reports? I read the one from a few weeks before the major retaliation in 2003. Blix spoke of inspections that were supposed to have been completed a decade before. He said that compliance was improving. But after all this time, there was still no compliance.

dmarks said...

John: What do you think of the arguments by Christopher Hitches, who is not a "bushie" of any kind, but he did argue quite cogently for the need to retaliate against Saddam's regime and deal with the aggression and threats?

John Myste said...

@DMarks,

John: What do you think of the arguments by Christopher Hitches, who is not a "bushie" of any kind, but he did argue quite cogently for the need to retaliate against Saddam's regime and deal with the aggression and threats?

I thought they were pretty good so far as arguments I didn't read go, but I suspect they could have been better. I have not read some truly brilliant arguments, including some that may have been in rebuttal to Hitchens so far as I know.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Yes, wd, Bush did hire Herskowitz guy. But then he fired him. People who get fired tend to want to get back at the people who fired them. I would take what he said with a whole grain of salt.......And that quote from Mr. Kristol, he was CRITICIZING Mr. Bush. Mr. Neocon himself didn't think that Bush was doing ENOUGH to put pressure on Saddam.......And you know what, wd, they said the same thing about FDR; that he allowed the attacks on Pearl Harbor to happen so her could get us into WW2. THAT was bullshit and so is this thing about Bush letting 3,000 people die (with the potential of up to as many as 50,000) so he could invade Iraq. What's next? That Mr. Bush actually ordered the attacks? You're losing your mind, dude.