Would Hillary sweep Plamegate under the rug, the way her husband did with Iran-Contra, if elected?

[rudy23]

I think this is a fair question, since we haven't heard where Hillary stands on the Plame affair.

[ElizabethDC]

1. Where do the other candidates stand on the Plame situation? n/t

[Zensea]

2. Good question and yet

also a clever way to avoid the first question.

[ElizabethDC]

6. I don't have an answer to the first question

b/c it's impossible to know what would happen.

[Skidmore]

3. The only thing I think Hillary can be counted on doing is

to preserve Hillary's career. This woman will not do a damned thing to rock any boat.

[durrrty libby]

10. You some kinda psychic or her mama?

[Skidmore]

11. Just not a big Hillary fan.

[durrrty libby]

17. Well don't let common sense cloud your prejudice

[Skidmore]

22. I don't believe she will do anything that isn't

middle of the road and safely quasi-conservative. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. She'll wait till the other ducks all line up first.

[ElizabethDC]

24. Pushing for universal healthcare was really middle-of-the-road and quasi-conservative

:sarcasm:

[Skidmore]

26. She would never have been in the position to do that work if

Bill hadn't appointed her to do so.

[ElizabethDC]

27. It's irrelevant how she got to do it. It still wasn't quasi-conservative. n/t

[durrrty libby]

32. You should learn a bit about her during her college years

She is no wallflower or Bill pushover.

[Cha]

40. And you're someone

who has been paying attention.

[leftchick]

4. of course she would

it is a huge issue with repercussions about the reasons for the invasion. You know of course we can't go there. It will be about "moving on". :eyes:

[leftofthedial]

5. almost certainly

she serves the same oligarchy as the bush cabal. they find it useful to install a gang of thieves in the White House periodically to steal our money and eliminate our rights, so they'll prefer sweeping the evidence under the rug.

[WiseButAngrySara]

7. Undoubtably. Have you read the letters of support for Libby?

Several of them were life-long democrats, and almost all of them appeared to be quite wealthy. I'm sure she is well funded by many, although this is speculation on my part. She is too much in bed with the PNAC NeoCons, IMHO. Precisely why she will not get my vote.

[Bullet1987]

8. Of course!!

Why do you think Bush Sr. and Clinton are such good friends? Clinton let him off the hook by sweeping Iran-Contra under the rug. Now, if Clinton gets elected, she'll let his son off the hook the way her husband let his father off. But Plamegate isn't even as big as Iran-Contra was and there are bigger fish to snag Bush with than that.

[WiseButAngrySara]

16. Politics make strange bedfellows. I have never liked it. ....n/t

[seemslikeadream]

9. What happens when unresolved scandals take a back seat to a domestic agenda?

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

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.”

[IChing]

19. Thanks on why this matters and the connections of Bush/Clinton

Iran contra was not pursued

[WiseButAngrySara]

23. But Monica was pursued? ....n/t

[WiseButAngrySara]

21. These same people didn't give Clinton 'a pass' on what

appears to me retrospectively, to be a minor moral (or minor oral infraction!)infraction. Compared to the clearly impeachable crimes of B*11 and Cheney, Clinton's sexual mistakes seem like pablum. It has to be money. Why else would he ignore their true crimes when he was clearly targeted by them for much lesser offenses!

[EFerrari]

12. Why stop now. n/t

[applegrove]

13. I don't think it is a fair question. Why would she ever want to keep a lid on

it. That doesn't make much sense. I'm sure she'd like to know who forged the Niger documents too.

[rudy23]

15. You woulda thought the same thing about Iran-Contra, but look what happened there.

That's why I don't think Hillary will want to hold the Bush administration accountable.

[applegrove]

18. I don't know what you mean. Iran Contra went on while Reagan or GH Bush were

in power. Ollie North got into trouble. What does that have to do with Hillary Clinton?

[rudy23]

20. Her husband is the one who did it. If you want to argue that that isn't relevant, I'd disagree.

Husbands and wives, especially in a couple like Bill and Hillary Clinton, tend to have a significant amount of influence on one another. It would also be an unprecedented thing for a husband and wife to have each served the country as president. I think this is a valid concern.

[applegrove]

25. Did Bill Clinton drop the Iran Contra investigation? I don't remember.

Didn't a report come out and all? Didn't Mrs. Coors testify about wanting to give more money than she did to the whole operation?

What more was there the Clintons' didn't uncover?

For sure the Clintons were not prepared for a special prosecutor who would investigate under every leaf over the course of 5 years and 75 Million dollars. I think they were surprised at that. And then recently Ken Star apologized for the whole investigation.

I do not doubt that Hillary Clinton would investigate the Niger link if she wins. I'm also sure she will take the advise of whoever she places as head of the CIA.... on that matter.

[blm]

39. There were outstanding matters still on IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate when Bill

took office. And the CIA drugrunning revelations came out in 1996, which should have brought MORE RENEWED scrutiny to IranContra.

But - this article explains the RELEVANCE of those past decisions to most everything happening today.

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

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.”

[karynnj]

36. North got into trouble because he lied before Kerry's committee

The problem was after the issue exploded, the House and the Senate both had show hearings (Kerry was not let on the committee, because he was a Freshman. Those committees offered immunity and so people like North got off on technicalities.

(In 2004 it was ironic that the felon, Ollie North, was able to sit in judgement on Senator Kerry on Fox News, without disclosing that his legal problems were because of Kerry's excellent investigation of wrongdoing.)

[leftchick]

30. very fair question

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1056988#1057054

[ProudDad]

14. Of course

the upper classes and their minions like Hillary always do the work of keeping the wool pulled over the sheep's eyes...

[Individualist]

28. She's DLC

'nuff said.

[durrrty libby]

37. Ooooo da dirty word. How lame, if that is all you got

[Individualist]

41. The only thing worse than a neocon is a neocon enabler

"This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way."

www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is...

...and their supporters posts are transparent.

[William769]

29. It seems the better she does in the polls the more smearing goes on here at DU!

Boy she must be way ahead!

[rudy23]

31. Yeah, that's what it is.

:sarcasm:

[rinsd]

33. Then what is it then? Why does Hillary deserve singling out?

Have other candidates made statement on Plame?

[rudy23]

34. This is fair. They all deserve to be called out for their reticence.

I guess I'm a bit more worried about her because her affiliation with-

Bill Clinton, who swept Iran-Contra under the rug
James Carville, who signed a letter to Judge Walton supporting Scooter Libby

[dflprincess]

44. And let's not forget how friendly Bill has gotton with Poppy

That alone makes the idea of another Clinton presidency less appealing to me.

We'll get another cover up "for the good of the country". :sarcasm:

[karynnj]

35. She didn't sign John Kerry's letter demanding WMD phase 2 be done

and asking that they review the DSM in that context. You would think that anyone who voted for the IWR because of manipulated intelligence and the lies of people likel Powell would be the first to demand this be done.

[aquart]

38. Ask her. Not us. Her.

Unless all you want to do is attach a Bush scandal to her. Is that all you want to do?

But thank you for your concern.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. What role will the next President

have in this matter?

None.

A prosecutor has been appointed, and has done his investigation. I don't see what the next President - whoever it is - would have to do with this?

[Kansas Wyatt]

43. Hillary would paint the mountain of elephant shit pink and call it.....

Cotton 'Patriot' Candy.

She is not loyal to all of the American people, only a select few.

[durrrty libby]

45. Wow, keep your day job. That is so lame

[Kansas Wyatt]

46. The same bunch are ruining this country due to the Clinton's failures.

And she is NO friend to working people by employing anti-union people. Your foolishness is LAME.