Obama Camp - Fight it out on the Open Government issue against Bushes AND Clintons.

[blm]

Obama should FIGHT THIS CAMPAIGN OUT on the Open Government issue against Clintons AND Bushes.
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html


And since McCain was on board with Bushes it effects him, too, so it will be a great set up for the general, especially since Keating was also part of BCCI's outstanding matters that Clintons deep-sixed throughout the 90s as they carefully protected the secrecy and privilege of the illegal operations set up by GHWBush, Jackson Stephens, Dubai and Saudi royals, Marc Rich, Bin Ladens, AQ Khan, James Bath and many other operatives.

Clinton's spokespeople will get buried on on the open government issue by Obama's supporters and spokespeople - spokespeople who shouldn't concern themselves with protecting Clintons for the sake of the party, anymore. This is the ONLY way to root out the corruption and closed government that has hurt our nation. Clintons have already shown they side with BushInc when it comes to matters of secrecy and privilege. Time to side with CITIZENS for a change.

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


Expose the powerplayers who serve BushInc, both Republicans and Dem powerplayers, Obama camp. The voters WANT Open Government and corruption rooted out - Go for it. The Carvilles of our party serve the same agenda as the Matalins in the GOP.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


What has closed government EVER done for this nation? It led us directly to Bush2, 9-11 and this Iraq war. It is trying to take us into war with Iran.

There is NO CHANCE of Open Government with either McCain or Clinton, so Obama camp should ATTACK THEM BOTH on this issue.

FORCEFULLY.

[k8conant]

1. blm, you've hit the nail on the head

The big difference here is still "Yes, WE can" and "Yes, she will" I really want the Democrats to be the party of the people again and not support the back-room conniving of the Clintons and the Bushes and hangers-on.

[blm]

2. Dems who KNOW Clintons protect Bushes and support them anyway have no right to complain

about what the Bushes have done to this country.

There would BE no Bush empire today if more Democrats supported HONEST Dem lawmakers who worked to EXPOSE BushInc and its powerful operatives instead of the Dem powerplayers who scorn open government as they protect the Bushes and the fascist agenda.

[blm]

3. Fight Secrecy and Privilege of Bush-Clinton-BushInc.

^^

[antigop]

4. K&R. Thanks, blm, for your continued focus. n/t

[blm]

8. Those of us who understood 9-11 even before it happened need to help other citizens realize

there is great consequence to allowing government to stay closed in order to protect the secrecy and privilege of the corrupt and powerful elite.

[antigop]

28. unfortunately, many people on DU don't care n/t

[blm]

42. I see that reality every day here at DU. Still makes me sad.

It seems like such a waste of one's CITIZENSHIP if you aren't working to preserve open government.

[Window]

5. ..

[HCE SuiGeneris]

6. Your insight and analysis is consistently

spot-on. Thanks for continuing to push for truth.

K & R

[blm]

7. Thanks.

This is the last chance we have for Open Government and any TRUE DEMOCRAT is a fool to side with Closed Government that protects secrecy and privilege.

[TheZug]

9. Yes. The Bush/Clinton elite are only interested in power.

[blm]

23. And the power of the Coverup - they both need it at this point.

.

[redqueen]

10. I agree he should start hammering on that issue.

He shouldn't start using waffle words about righwing spew about her... or praising McCain over her... but he should start hammering her on her vote against open government.

[blm]

12. Not just the votes that protect closed government but the overt PROTECTION of Bushes

throughout the 90s that led us directly to Bush2, 9-11 and this Iraq war.

The Bushes became MORE POWERFUL in the 90s, but when Clinton took office they were at their weakest, most vulnerable point, their most EXPOSED, and could easily have been FULLY exposed which would have ended the possibility of any Bush re-emerging from the ashes let alone the jail they'd be confined to for years.

Deep-sixing all the serious matters of Poppy Bush's illegal operations helpd only the Bushes, their elite partners in these operations like Jackson Stephens, Marc Rich, Dubai and Saudi royals, Bin Ladens and AQ Khan....and came close to destroying the Democratic party permanently.

[redqueen]

13. They'll just say "Oh, that was Bill, not Hill."

*sigh*

[blm]

16. Except Hill now has to protect Bill, along with BushInc. Their legacies are intertwined.

.

[redqueen]

18. Yes, logic.

Something that if used correctly would have prevented us from ever trying to nominate someone with as much baggage as she has.

[blm]

24. I'm still amazed by those who know this but can't escape their conditioning.

They defend Clintons still as we all used to - but once presented with the facts and reality of their protection of BushInc, the devotion to them now is just creepy.

[redqueen]

25. *sigh*

I don't get it, either.

[bigtree]

11. these old rags?

Those are what Clinton haters put on when they don't have a THing to wear.

[blm]

14. Why do you hate your duties of citizenship so much? Why do you hate Open Government?

Why do you want Bushes to be protected into the next decade?

[AtomicKitten]

15. The only problem I foresee is that the Dem Congress has been

negligent in doing oversight of this administration and much of John Q. Public is oblivious to the wink-wink relationship between the Clintons and the BFEE. In other words, Obama's case would have been much stronger had the Congress been doing their damn job and provided the public airing out of the sheets of this administration and its co-conspirators in this war.

McCain argues that the epic mistake of launching this illegal, immoral war is the past, and Hillary Clinton will be cheerfully compliant in putting that behind her as well because neither of them want their complicity in this fraudulent mess rehashed.

Obama needs to come out swinging and include Hillary in his scathing rebuke of this administration. Instead of calling it the Bush-McCain war, he should start referring it to the Bush-McCain-Clinton war.

That's a start.

K&R

[blm]

17. Bush-Clinton-BushInc. Open for business since 1980. Jackson Stephens' staked this company

along with WalMart and brought the terrorist bank BCCI into this country.

Nothing to see here but the Fascist Agenda. You're either FOR it or AGAINST it.

What will Democratic citizens choose?

[AtomicKitten]

19. Obama needs to define that choice and then go at 'em Chicago style.

"What are you prepared to do? .... You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! And that's how you get Capone."



* Thanks for your perseverance in the face of such strident opposition to the truth. :)

[blm]

22. I actually wish none of this NEEDED to be repeated. But look what happens when people

and especially Dems, forget how we got stuck with Bushes and their fascist agenda AGAIN when they should have all been in jail by the mid 90s.

[karynnj]

20. BLM, I've often supported you on the facts, but I don't see how this could win the election for us

It will likely take decades before the majority of people would accept the truth of what has been done in their name. In every country, people buy into the idea that they are good people and that their ways are right. A candidate forcing people to accept that all these things happened won't work.

Only now are most people accepting that "it was a mistake" to invade Iraq. However, I am convinced that if you phrased the question "was it morally wrong to invade Iraq" or "did it violate international law" to invade Iraq, we would be nowhere near a majority. In fact, this past December, I finally asked a very close relative, why in addition to having voted for Bush, she was a couple of years later so obviously angry when Senator Kerry's name was mentioned. I thought maybe it was that she believed some of the lies - but in fact, the reason was that he constantly attacked Bush on "having mislead us into war", when she thought that as we were at war he shouldn't have suggested it was wrong. She had a huge problem with the comments that it was not a war of last resort - ie not a just war.

Now, consider that someone suggests that the country, you love and trust has been essentially an outlaw nation for the last approximately 50 years - for most people their entire adult life. Most people will reject the messenger - it's easier. I do agree with you that it is essential that we the people put in a President who cares enough and is strong enough to make the changes needed. I see no signs that the Clintons will do what they did not do in the 1990s - or the 1980s, for that matter. They had to know something was happening in Arkansas - for the Governor of Arkansas to question it would have put his future career at risk, he would have had to have the courage of a John Kerry - fighting to end the war in 1971, fight the contras, and fight BCCI. He didn't then and she doesn't now. We need to hope that when in office - Obama will.

In 2004, I thought of Kerry as almost the "stealth" agent on this. He could not and did not run on what he fought against the government on the Contras and BCCI. On BCCI, he mentioned only the international crime part of it. He never spoke of how this foreign bank with terrorist ties had co-oped people in both parties and had extended their tentacles into our banking system. We were and are a very traumatized country - exposing all he knew of the complicity of many administrations - would force people to see extremely unpleasant truths that they could no accept even in a time of strength. Emotionally, rejecting the messenger is just so much easier.

Consider what the RW did with the Durbin comment on torture or even the Kerry comment on people being traumatized when soldiers who can't speak their language knock on their doors in the dead of night. Both those comments were based on well known rather simple facts. The things you speak of are not common wisdom and they are complicated. I remember having a very hard time completely accepting even that the US allowed cocaine into the country to support the Contras. This was in spite of trusting Kerry and distrusting anyone involved with the Contras.

In 2004, what I hoped was that Kerry would win and shift away from that type of foreign policy. I would hope that his Justice Department would meticulously investigate it and issue a report either in the transition period if he was not re-elected or late in his second term. Why that timing? Having changed the policy, the damage would not be continuing and addressing this woeful history would mean no capital to deal with the agenda he had. I really think this is the only way this will end.

[blm]

21. Because most people don't AGREE ANYMORE on Iraq war and how to fight terrorism and

are better prepared to understand that closed government HAS been a disaster for us in the long run.

Before they couldn't SEE the longer term effect - now they can.

They KNOW closing government protects the powerful elite and the lobbyists that serve them.

Obama already staked out some of this territory in the debate where he said cameras would be put in the rooms that were once closed so the public can SEE legislation being negotiated and see who carries water for what interest.

That was his strongest point in that debate.

This is DEFINITELY the area to hit Bushes, Clintons and McCain because it is their weakest point.

[Skwmom]

26. Great idea.

[blm]

27. Thankyou - This battlefield is the one to win on - for all of us Dems AND our country.

.

[antigop]

29. kick -- hope someone from the Obama campaign is listening. n/t

[blm]

30. Spread the word. We can do this.

.

[antigop]

31. OK, I'm in. Whom should we spread the word to? N/t

[blm]

33. Other sites for starters. And any of our contacts in webmedia or Obama camp.

.

[antigop]

34. OH, okay -- I've already passed the word. I thought you might have someone specific. Thanks. n/t

[blm]

35. It would be great if a KO would talk about this issue - but I think we need to force the issue

first within the campaign and blogosphere.

[jlake]

32. I agree. Hammer it Obama!

If he can deliver on the open government promise - I would be very pleased.
Hopefully he can push Hillary in that direction as well.

[blm]

36. I wish Hillary COULD be pushed there, but she can't at this point.

What's she going to do? She can't open the books since Bill spent much of the 90s protecting that secrecy and privilege. He became complicit. They HAVE to continue to protect the Bushes as their legacies are now intertwined.

[AtomicKitten]

37. kick

[Amonester]

38. Kick

:kick:

[blm]

41. Your pictures will be a goldmine for the general campaign against McCain.

.

[Zhade]

39. Thank you for continuing your service to this country.

Man, to think how much we used to argue...

[blm]

40. Arguing from earnest positions is what America should be about.

Period. When faced with the same facts, people CAN come together, which is why many establishment powers WANT to keep us from those shared facts.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

43. Even better, tie Hillary and Bill to MCCAIN on appearances of influence-peddling

for personal and political gain. At URL http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics , the NYT has a great picture of and story about Bill Clinton and Frank Giustra, who apparently used Clinton's influence to get a huge uranium contract in Kazakhstan he was not qualified to handle. In return, Giustra gave Clinton's library $100 million and Clinton's Foundation $31.3 million!

How is this any different from McCain's problems with Vicki Iseman and the "highly unusual" letters McCain wrote to the FCC for Paxson Communications the last time he ran for President, while taking flights with Vicki on Paxson aircraft and taking "contributions" from Paxson?

The best DU thread I've seen on this kind of stuff, replete with great MSM links, is at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4896791 .

[blm]

45. Absolutely it worrks against McCain, too. That's why I said Keating was also part of BCCI matters

that were never fully dealt with throughout the 90s because of Clinton deep-sixing those matters to protect so many powerful figures involved.

[NoFederales]

44. Damned good idea. How about some SUNSHINE!! K&R

NoFederales

[blm]

46. I agree - a damned good idea that would be too hard for media to ignore played against

BOTH Clintons AND BushInc.

[blm]

47. Last kick for ACTION.

.