do you think democrats are being blackmailed by Bush's illegal wiretaps?

[RainDog]

the only way I can understand democratic complicity in war crimes after the 2006 election that gave them a mandate to do this very thing is that Bush's pre-9-11 wiretaps were aimed at democrats in order to provide blackmail material on democrats to make them go along with the already-planned invasion of Iraq.

Obviously I have no evidence of this, beyond such tactics as a standard m.o. among republican mother fuckers, the fbi and the cia, etc. Now that he's dead, Frontline reported on J. Edgar Hoover getting blackmail material on as many pols as he could, esp. every president, to use to keep his power and to keep the govt off the backs of the mafia, who was, in turn, blackmailing Hoover with pix of him giving his male lover a blow job.

Before Bush took office, the neo-cons were barking about invading Iraq. -- they did so during the Clinton administration too.

When I think about the pictures I saw online of the hanging of Saddam Hussein, it makes me want to retch. It's barbaric. I know he was an asshole, but his murderers are no better.

I think that Junior had a personal vendetta against Saddam that he wanted to pursue since Saddam had threatened to kill Bush Sr. In his twisted little psycho-drama, Junior could achieve power over his father by killing the man who threatened him.. Jr. could show his dad that Junior is a mean little mother fucker who had more guts than his Poppy.

That's what I think of when I think of that Saddam hanging... that it was like a mob vendetta.

In fact, more and more I think the politics of the last decade have been feuds and maneuvers between powerful families - and not about any sort of democratic principles. The House of Saud and the House of Bush and the House of Hussein and the House of bin Laden.

Foreign policy that's more like a season of Dallas than governance.

If key democrats are being blackmailed (I can think of one right off that makes me wonder... no names, but sounds like Fancy Lugosi.) This is the only reason that makes sense to me about the issue of impeachment remaining off the table. Conyers, too. he huffs and puffs but nothing comes from it.

I do not understand why democrats do not understand that criminal charges against at least half a dozen, and more, really, members of the Bush administration are necessary to restore democracy in this nation. I keep hoping that they are stalling till after Bush is out of office so that he cannot pardon anyone, but I don't really put much hope in that idea.

maybe telecoms could be granted limited immunity in return for their records of calls that were of interest to intel agencies and the Bush administration. If there are democrats who are being blackmailed, they could then be put under oath to testify in criminal charges. this issue is more imp. than any single person's career or reputation.

I don't know if certain democrats recognize this.

[cali]

1. no, and I find the idea that all dems have deep dark secrets

that make them blackmail targets, amusing. What you seem to have trouble envisioning is anyone holding an opinion that differs from yours.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. This how some people rationalize the fact that those whom they admire are not

as rabidly ideologically and partisan as they are.

[Truth2Tell]

21. I think what you mean is

this is how some people rationalize the bizarre disconnect between what the people they admire (or once admired) claim to believe, and what they actually do.

[Fireweed247]

36. great answer!

Pelosi said Iraq was her top priority, but she has done nothing to stop it only enable Bush.

Conyers wrote the Constitution in Crisis, held basement hearings on Bush's crimes because the Dem minority couldn't get a real hearing, promised Impeachment hearings once the Dems took the majority in 2006, then once that happened he backed off immediately. Now he is the one stopping the Impeachment hearings.

In the case of Pelosi, judging from pictures, she seems to actually love Bush, so I do not think she is being blackmailed.

Conyers is really rude and arrogant toward the same people he promised Impeachment, has had people arrested, and has stated that no one is stopping him so I do not think he is being blackmailed either. He is just the manchurian 'opposition' which is why he has the job of 'leading' the judiciary committee. (Bushco couldn't just leave that up to chance!)

But Kucinich...I have no doubt he has been blackmailed. I still wonder what happened when he promised this Impeachment at the State of the Union 6 months ago then backed off with no explanation. And then there was the mysterious death of his brother Perry...

[RainDog]

43. Charges of war crimes are not rabidly ideological

If you think they are, you have a serious problem. However, it is so interesting that the first two replies at the top of this post are slurs.

If only you were as wise as you think you are.

[hlthe2b]

18. Rove's MO was to have detailed files on his political enemies...

dating back to his early career in Alabama. Rove learned from Lee Atwater, as well as those who created the enemies lists and dossiers for Nixon. To think he would not have taken advantage of any info gained from illicit wiretaps, is incredily naive, if you ask me. No, I don't think it explains every DEM who has inexplicably failed to fight back against the administration, but I don't doubt that the Bush* ilck has used it to the extent that they could.

[Andy823]

19. A lot of people

Have deep dark secrets Cali, including dems! I would not be a bit surprised that Bush's wiretaps got him some dirt on some of the dem leaders. It also could be that the big money that was going to the republicans for so long has finally found a home in some of the pockets of the dem leadership. Anything is possible. Of course if you have a better idea why they seem to be afraid to take on Bush, please let us know.

[cali]

27. well, of course a lot of dems have deep dark secrets, but all of them?

um, I find that a little hard to believe. Look, for various reasons, people like bernie sanders do not support impeachment. I highly doubt that it's because he's being blackmailed.

[RainDog]

44. my post wasn't about impeachment. it was about war crimes

that is mentioned in the first sentence.

I didn't go back and proofread, the words "war crimes" are right there. again, a more careful reading might make your posts more meaningful because they might actually address the OP.

And, again, no one claimed that ALL dems would be blackmailed. Again, if you would read the OP before spouting off your great pronouncements, you would see that I also said "key members." not all.

[Cronus Protagonist]

53. I love to see people arguing with "ignored"

Especially when it's about comprehension levels... it makes me feel a little warmer inside knowing that I don't have to see their stupidity any more, AND that I was correct in my assessment of who to put on ignore :)

[Raksha]

50. No, not ALLof them. Kucinich and Wexler, for example,

don't seem to be afraid of blackmail.

[baby_mouse]

46. It doesnt have to be a deep dark secret, it only has to LOOK like one.

Smoking dope, parking offenses, irate mutterings about fellow dems, clever tricks with money... all they have to do is spin it.

[ensho]

2. they've been bullied, bribed, blackmailed and threatened

that's the neo con way of doing business

[Individualist]

3. No. Their continuing complicity with this vile administration

convinces me they're taking their marching orders from DLC.

[ensho]

8. you think DLC = neo con?

that the neo cons have invaded the DLC?

[smoogatz]

10. They appear to be ideologically related, yes.

Even if they appear to be organizationally separate.

[ensho]

16. what does that mean? neo cons are criminals ideologically

so you are saying the DLC are not neo cons but are people that operate like neo cons?

[smoogatz]

22. They have pretty much the same agenda.

Which is to further the expansion of corporate power, and to promote the military-industrial state. They are a slightly softer shade of fascist than the neo-cons, but only slightly.

[Individualist]

14. Do an internet search

You'll find a mountain of evidence about DLC's agenda, such as:

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. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," Dennis Kucinich

The only thing worse than a neocon is a neocon enabler who tries to pass himself/herself off as a Democrat. :puke:

[cali]

11. really? so you think bernie sanders takes marching orders from the DLC?

Teddy Kennedy? Russ Feingold?

:rofl:

that's the trouble with silly broad brush simplistic statements.

[Individualist]

28. Read the OP again; it concerns complicity

Sanders, Kennedy and Feingold, like Kucinich, are progressives - not enablers.

[cali]

32. they all oppose impeachment. According to the OP and others

they're enablers.

[RainDog]

41. you obviously misunderstood my post

I did not say ALL democrats when I asked if anyone thought someone could have been blackmailed. specifically I mentioned Pelosi and Conyers. Pelosi's husband, from what I understand, has had some sketchy business dealings and Conyers had a bimbo eruption at one point.

I find your posts are disturbing sometimes because you create a strawman argument that I didn't make in my OP. Then you proceed to ridicule something that wasn't even said. My OP was a question, not a statement of fact. A speculation. As I remember from a few weeks ago, you have made pronouncements about other ppl who post on this site and then have to retract them because of your knee-jerk response. Perhaps you should read more carefully and know something about the person who posts something before you claim they mean this or that.

Yes, there are democrats who have a different opinion. I don't expect a blue dog democrat to have an identical pov. Pelosi and Conyers, on the other hand, represent fairly liberal constituencies.

However, I do expect democrats to have a basic respect for the Constitution, as Al Gore so eloquently pleaded for in the past as well. I do expect democrats, at least some of them, to refuse to be complicit in war crimes. If they are, as far as I'm concerned, they also deserve to face charges of crimes against humanity. The last 7+ years were not politics as usual and to pretend that it was is repulsive to me, no matter who does so.

What disturbed me greatly after the mid-terms was the Rahm Emmanuel version of why democrats took control of the legislative branch. He and others claimed it was not to impeach or hold Bush accountable, but to deal with domestic issues like the economy. That's simply wrong. The public opinion about Bush had already fallen to near-historic lows and support for the Iraq war was equally low.

The issue for democrats, ultimately, is whether they will hold this administration accountable or whether they will be lap dogs who fail to do their duty and thus require other nations who honor international human rights to try this administration for war crimes. (Impeachment is a minor issue in comparison, but is fitting. I don't expect to see impeachment, however.)

Philippe Sands has already made a tour of the U.S. as a British Int'l lawyer to promote a book that accuses members of the Bush regime with war crimes. He also said, repeatedly, that European nations want the U.S. to handle this themselves, but if they don't, whenever any of those charged enters a European nation, they may be arrested and tried. For the moment, both France and Germany have referred such cases back to the U.S.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V2XCkGjP5g

So ultimately, this isn't a matter of whether another democrat agrees with me or not. This is an issue of aiding and abetting criminal activities. Torture is a war crime. War profiteering is a crime. A war of aggression is a war crime. It doesn't matter what any democrat thinks. World legal opinion has already come down on what has occurred in the U.S. during the Bush administration.

which led me to speculate if someone was being blackmailed. because I do have a hard time understanding why someone who swore to uphold the Constitution, which states plainly that we honor treaties and things like the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles, would then choose not to do so when this nation and others have sent up the cry for leadership that has not been met.

[TheDebbieDee]

4. I agree. I think * has dirt on enough of them to keep the

Democratic Party impotent and immobile........

And everybody seems to forget all about the Anthrax attacks on Democratic Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle and other prominent Dems as well the anchors of the top three network news shows (Brokaw, Jennings and Rather).

These Anthrax mailings took place just days after 9/11 attacks. And most of them Dems fell into repuke lockstep shortly thereafter.

[Warpy]

5. I think it's more likely that they've been inside the DC beltway

so long that they've forgotten what the country is really like. I do know that too many of them run from the word "liberal" to the point that they have forsaken the center on many issues, most especially the war.

As long as the country is peaceful and the cash flow is positive, those old boys are not going to change, either.

We're about to live in interesting times, though.

[MiniMe]

6. Well, somebody sent Anthrax to Senator Leahy's office

back if 2001.

[smoogatz]

17. Somebody within the government, almost certainly.

They went after Daschle, too—Senate majority leader at the time. From Salon:

"While Daschle, the Senate majority leader, could have been chosen as a representative of all Democrats or of the entire Senate, Leahy is a less obvious choice, most likely targeted for a specific reason. He is head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is involved in issues ranging from antitrust action to antiterror legislation. Targeting Leahy seems to give more credence to the theory that the anthrax culprit is a domestic terrorist with personal grudges."


Time failed to add that Leahy is also an unabashed liberal, who led the charge against President Bush's most conservative Cabinet nominees, including Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Attorney General John Ashcroft. The senator from Vermont has also been one of the president's most outspoken critics since Sept. 11, as the administration has moved aggressively to curtail civil liberties in its war on terrorism."

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/11/21/anthrax/index.html

[cali]

29. yes, and it didn't stop him from subsequently saying that

he believed that bushco let 9/11 happen. It didn't stop him from investigating Gonzales. It didn't stop him from writing the Habeas Restoration Act. It didn't shut him up at all.

[PeaceNikki]

7. I concur with the opinion above. The notion that people with a different opinion of how to handle

the crimes of this administration are "lesser Democrats", complacent about atrocities, Republicans, ignore oaths of office, have "no balls", value elections "more than war" and now that they are "bring blackmailed" is outrageous.

[ensho]

12. why is it 'outrageous' to question blackmail?

the workings of blackmail can be quite crafty.

[cali]

31. it's just absurd to think that every dem who doesn't support impeachment

is being blackmailed, and believing such demonstrates an inability to understand that people can genuinely hold an opinion different from yours. Ugh to such self-centered, childish nonsense.

[hlthe2b]

34. I believe the only one saying "all" is you, Cali

Again, to think that those within the Bush* admin would not use EVERYTHING at their disposal to pick off any vulnerable Democrats, is incredibly naive, IMHO.

Why exactly do you think the Bushies* initiated illegal wiretaps PRIOR to 911, which has been documented, despite the seeming amnesia of the corporate media?

[RainDog]

45. Richard Clarke and Philippe Sands have talked about truth and reconciliation

committees in which people admit their criminal activities in return for amnesty.

so, I don't think I actually said that there was only way to do deal with these things. Again, Cali misrepresented the OP by talking about impeachment and all democrats. I didn't.

I said I wondered if they were waiting for the end of this administration as another possible reasoning. I really don't think my OP presented anyone's actions as all or nothing.

However, I do know that this administration is guilty of war crimes. they have admitted it. if our govt does not deal with this, others will, simply to set a precedent when they are expected to once again back an illegal invasion... their populations won't stand for it.

My question about blackmail was speculation, as I said, because Congress was equally as unpopular as the Bush administration because of their failure to do anything after the 2006 election. I would think that Congress would care about public opinion. Or maybe, via all the gerrymandering of the recent past, so many seats are so secure they don't worry about national public opinion.

It is clear, however, that the international community expects the U.S. to address the crimes of this administration because they are INTERNATIONAL crimes, not just local ones. In other words, other democracies don't give a shit why someone doesn't pursue this or that. They do care that it is pursued.

[smoogatz]

9. It's certainly possible, and well within the parameters

for Rove/Bush/Cheney, et al. In fact, I'd be surprised if they weren't eavesdropping on and blackmailing Democrats. Everybody's got secrets, no? That said, I think that for the most part the current Dem congressional leadership would be pretty spineless even if they weren't being blackmailed: they seem unable to make a distinction between upholding their oaths to protect the Constitution and creating the appearance, in the wingnut press, that they're pursuing a political vendetta in a time of war. Not that that's ever stopped the Republicans, of course. I think there's also outright collusion: a lot of Democrats are getting rich off the war and $4 gas, too--it's not just the Republicans whose family members sit on those corporate boards, etc.

[libodem]

13. Somebody somewhere

has someone, by the proverbial balls. Why else would there be such inertia, such apathy, such capitulation? I don't get it. History is going to reward those who stand up to this, Hitlerian, Nazi, gang of goons and thugs. If I had any public position I would want to be on the record that I was against these criminals. Dennis K. rocks and he will be made a Statesman Hero, for his public position against this mis-administration. That's how I would want my legacy remembered.

[ensho]

23. kick

nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. Blackmailed, theatened, bribed, and in some cases, I believe that

Trojan horses (As Al Sharpton called them, "Elephants in donkey jackets") have been elected. Whatever the case may be, there are a lot of compromised Dems out there.

[ensho]

24. kick

nt

[Richard Steele]

25. It's completely likely. Consider these 2 facts:

1: We know they blackmail people. There's a thread
currently here on DU about a CIA agent who has gone
public about exactly that.

2: Although they've clearly never cared about protecting
this nation from foreign enemies, they started illegally
tapping all our phones as soon as they moved into the WH.
They were recording our phone calls MONTHS before 9/11.

Doesn't take no rocket surgeon to see the bigger picture here.

[spanone]

26. possible, cheney and his stooge can wiretap anyone at will

[Truth2Tell]

30. I don't think they need to use blackmail.

They have enough Democrats in their corner ideologically without it. They have also been very crafty about including enough Dems in the knowledge loop - especially about the wiretapping crimes - that they have become effectively complicit. I think this was done purposefully.

The Bushistas must be laughing their asses off as Senator Rockefeller runs himself ragged trying to keep these crimes secret.

[Canuckistanian]

38. I think you've got it

They KNOW they're in trouble if ANYONE investigates too closely.

If this is really the case, it would be EXPLOSIVE.

[acmavm]

33. Nah. Some of 'em are making damn good money off this 'war'.

[Wizard777]

35. I wouldn't put it past Bush to use J. Edgar Hoover tactics.

[libodem]

55. ding, ding, ding

Just what I've been thinking as I've read through the comments. WE have a WINNER!!!

[librechik]

37. We know J Edgar Hoover did it

Why would we doubt that these people are doing it too? They have shown how vindictive and sneaky they are with the Plame Affair.

I don't know if they are, but it would NOT surprise me.

[kestrel91316]

39. He's probably threatening to have their children "suicided".

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Sinpler than that

and it is a combo of things

1.- Anthrax attacks, remember they have not been solved and all targets were dems or media

2.- Tour of secret prisons in 2002, when they basically said, ok, we have no problem with this... and they were briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques

This makes them accessories to the crime

We call this CYA

[underpants]

42. I've pretty much always thought that

or at least they THINK they might be blackmailed

that is the key to real politics not just making your opponent make the first move but making them do it for no real reason.

The lack of political ability in DC (this includes the GOP and the impeachment of Bill) is staggering.

[Hart2008]

47. So how else did they get the dirt on Spitzer? n/t

[ananda]

48. I'm absolutely certain that those Reeps..

.. are blackmailing people.

And of course some of them are Dems.

However, I think the main pressure on
Dems is corporate, along with the rightwing
attack machine aided by the presstitutes.

[Lugnut]

49. Yep.

If not they should be ashamed of themselves for abdicating their responsibility for protecting the Constitution.

[Disturbed]

51. "They were recording our phone calls MONTHS before 9/11."

Who else were the NSA & the Telecoms Illegally spying on?

:think:

[FreepFryer]

52. Yes, not all of them but enough of them. Of course Bushco would if they could.. and they can. (n/t)

[loyalsister]

54. I can see where that question would come from

But the balancing act of national politics is really delicate.
Particularly during a time of war.
The Dems have a long term goal that they have to balance with a war and a major economic crisis.
They want to capture the presidency and hold on to congress.
In order to do that they can't afford to disrupt a sleeping dog.
The opinions on the war are regularly heard without severe conflict. If they were to make any radical moves you would see something different and Dems would have to play defense.

Similarly, if they pursue impeachment and put themselves in the position of playing defense we sacrifice winning the presidency, getting out of Iraq, Universal Health Care, because public opinion turns against us as we lose control of the debate.

Why defense? Bush would win that battle. He would never be convicted and "like Clinton" would triumph over those who tried to take him down.

Impeachment should not be used so soon. It will be compared to what they did to Clinton and the seriousness of Bushes crimes will be diminished.

[unblock]

56. keep in mind that the subject of the blackmail might be the democrat's family

one might think, how can they "got the goods" on all those democrats? well, some democrats are actually pretty straight and narrow and it might be hard to catch them in a blackmailable circumstance.

but everybody's got friends and family and any administration that tortures without trial certainly would spy on politicians and their families enough to find something useful. most politicians would probably instinctively want to tough out any direct attack on their own reputation. claim the pic was photoshopped, whatever. they know politics is messy and they might even survive a scandal.

but these guys could easily threaten a democratic politician with destroying everyone they care about. they could get anyone fired or set up, destroy a marriage, cause legal/irs problems, whatever. go along with us, congressman, or one of our activists will accuse your son or cheating on his mid-terms! much more effective, at least according to hollywood :)

everyone's got a pressure point.