Rank the Dem candidates in order furthest away from the Bush crime family.

[blm]

Using the names of the candidates currently campaigning, please rank them as who is least likely to continue the protection of the Bush family and their crimes of office and covert operations over the years. The last candidate you name will be the one you see as MOST likely to protect the Bush family.

Your list will be helpful for those of us without candidates at this time but who are looking to support open government Democrats.


The candidate list at this point (but in no particular order):

Dnnis Kucinich
Barack Obama
Mike Gravel
Christopher Dodd
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Bill Richardson
Hillary Clinton

Feel free to offer an explanation why you believe your preferred candidate is the Democrat LEAST LIKELY to protect an outgoing President Bush and the many dealings of his entire crime family.
Put simply - who is MOST LIKELY to hold BushInc accountable when they take office?

[Bitwit1234]

1. I don't know how any body can say any of those candidates

would support bush. All have made statements against him.

[k_jerome]

2. this poster has a personal grudge with the Clintons. nt.

[wyldwolf]

4. I would say it borders on an obsessive vendetta...

[blm]

8. My vendetta is AGAINST the Bush crime family and anyone who protects them.

I expect MOST people here at DU believe the Bushes should be held accountable for their crimes of office.

Don't you?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

7. Why would anyone say anything that absurd? Just because CIA was running drugs doesn't mean Clintons

were involved. It was the first Bush presidency who had a covert group running drugs and dumping them in the inner cities.

I don't recall anyone on DU ever claiming the Clintons were running drugs.

[blm]

6. GOP presidents have been let off the hook for their transgressions by incoming

Democratic administrations.

This is nothing new.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Here's mine.

Dennis Kucinich

Barack Obama

Christopher Dodd
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Mike Gravel

Bill Richardson
Hillary Clinton

I put the list into four groups, for lack of specific knowledge about each candidates "degree of seperation" from the bush crime family.

I may be wrong about some of the ones below Dennis Kucinich as to thier proper tier, but I am quite sure Kucinich would be the most likely to actively promote the rule of law, and the most likely to demand justice.

[Acadia Blue]

9. Economically HIllary supports NAFTA and the other crimes that

Bill gave to the Pugs to enrich CEOs and take jobs away from America. Imho that puts her close to Bush. I don't personally dislike her, but dislike the policies that she bought into with Bill, and have come to dislike Bill as I have seen the economic disaster that NAFTA and other programs he supports are causing Americans. I am sick of rich people stealing from those who don't have and moaning about their tax burdens. _____ all of them. Their filthy money and greed are making our country become like Mexico and HOnduras.....Oligarchy.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. Word!

[paulk]

48. HRC on CAFTA and NAFTA

does she really support NAFTA, at least is her position as cut and dried as you characterize it? You may be interested in this - because some of your beliefs about NAFTA (and HRC's position on free trade) are not based in fact.



CLINTON: I think it's about the changing world in which we find ourselves. I believe very much in trade. Trade on balance has been very good for America. But I don't see how anyone can look at what's happened in the global economy and not ask yourself, what are we missing here? Why is it that we have such a huge trade deficit with the world, particularly with China? Is it all because we can't compete? I don't think so. Is it because the rules are not being enforced? Is it because most other governments in the world take actions that maximize the positive impact of their trading relationships for their workers? I think so. And it's not just China, which is just the most egregious example.

I issued a report earlier this year about some of the problems we have with Canada, our very good neighbor and ally along our border. We have trouble getting New York agricultural products into Canada. And I believe that it's because the federal and provincial governments of Canada, they protect themselves. They protect their farmers. They are not going to just open their borders regardless of what NAFTA says.

I voted against CAFTA , because I looked at the facts and I thought we have no environmental or labor standards—something that I believe is within the rubric of free trade. Free trade doesn't mean trade without rules. It doesn't mean a race to the bottom. It's supposed to be based on comparative advantage, so the trading partners all improve their standard of living. If you don't have some rules that will create conditions for employees to be treated fairly, the money is all going to go to the pockets of the elite. I heard the other day that in Mexico, they are importing cheap labor from Central and South America. Meanwhile, you have all of these ambitious, motivated Mexicans leaving their country to get a better life in ours. There's something wrong with this picture.

TIME: Do you think NAFTA was the right thing to do?

CLINTON: I think NAFTA was, in principle, a good idea to try to create a better trading market between Canada and the United States and Mexico. But I think the terms that it contained, and how it was negotiated under the Bush Administration and the failure to have any tough enforcement mechanism, like pollution on our border with Mexico, for example—

TIME: That was your husband's Adminstration, wasn't it? Because I recall a lot of debate about it not having labor standards and environmental standards.

CLINTON: But it was inherited. NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton Administration. I believe in the general principles it represented, but what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain. Our market is the market that everybody wants to be in. We should quit giving it away so willy-nilly. I believe we need tougher enforcement of the trade agreements we already have. You look at the trade enforcement record between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration brought more trade enforcement actions in one year than the Bush Administration brought in six years.

For me, trade is who we are. We're traders. We want to be involved in the global economy, but not be played for suckers.

As we look at trade today, I don't think we can look at trade separate and apart from how we fix health care. I don't think we can look at it separate and apart from how we incentivize and pay for education, so we keep trying to improve the skills of our workforce. And I think that the budget deficit has mortgaged our future and the holders of the mortgages are governments like the government of China, so then it makes it even more difficult for us to get tough when it comes to trade. So we've kind of walked into this vicious cycle and we need to break it.

[oasis]

10. Why do you rush to rank Dennis Kuchinich first when he and Maxine Waters are

possibly withholding information about Bill Clinton's coverup for the Bushs?

Dennis is chairman of the Progressive Caucus and Maxine is a prominent member. Do you believe that she did not share with Dennis the information that she obtained while researching Gary Webb's expose, "Dark Alliance"? She had the text of Webb's investigation entered into the congressional record.

You need to shuffle Dennis near the bottom of the list until you are sure that he's not part of the larger coverup.

[blm]

11. I didn't rank - I listed names for others to share THEIR information on THEIR candidate.

I don't have a candidate yet.

BTW - how would you rate the candidates based on their likelihood of letting BushInc escape accountability?

[oasis]

13. Until one of them comes forward with the "blockbuster" information on Bush

they bear equal responsibility in hiding the truth.

[blm]

17. So who do YOU see as most likely to hold BushInc accountable for crimes of office?

Because I have no candidate. If you do, then you probably have a good idea who YOU believe is most likely to hold BushInc accountable.

[wyldwolf]

12. aha. The dots are being connected...

[oasis]

14. No matter how ugly it gets, we must open up the entire can of worms.

All elected officials who knew, but failed to expose the alleged Clinton "coverup" of Poppy's wrongdoings, must be held accountable.

[blm]

18. Put up a thread like that - I'll sign on to any action urging ALL Democrats to come clean about

what they REALLY believe about Clinton covering up for Poppy Bush and his crimes of office.

Heh - of course, there were MANY Dems even before Clinton who sided with Reagan and Bush on their contra dealings and would not support the IranContra investigations or BCCI investigation.

Sad, to me, that so many Dems even feel fear of retaliation from the Clintons - you did hear what McAuliffe said yesterday didn't you? Clintons will 'remember' who supports them and who doesn't. I'd bet Rove used that line a few times in 1999.

[Tellurian]

23. The tell-tale "Heh".. of defeat..

followed by a lateral move changing the subject.. erm.. give Carville a rest..next, McAuliffe-

So, after the discovery Kucinich doesn't quality for your vision of purity in government.--- are you preparing a presidential draft for Hugo Chavez?

[John Q. Citizen]

27. I would expect you would prefer Joe Lieberman? He sounds like your

crowd.

[Tellurian]

44. Actually, I put my money on Kerry...and you know what happened there..eom

[blm]

42. READ, oasis. I have no candidate yet. Kucinich was first on a LIST of candidates

that is clearly stated is not in order, as I am still searching for my next candidate to support in the primary.

However, I do take you at your word, and would support any action you have in mind to encourage ALL Democratic senators to throw off the shackles of loyalty and demand that Clinton reveal EVERYTHING about his protection of BushInc and his refusal to pursue the outstanding matters left to him re Poppy Bush's crimes of office.

Now - are you EVER going to answer the actual question or just keep poking at other lawmakers who had considerably less access to information than the WH had?

[John Q. Citizen]

21. Kucinich was elected to congress in 1997. The Repos have held the house

since 1992 until a month ago.

So the fact that Dennis hasn't gotten the chance to investgate the bush crime family relating to Iran/Contra has nothing to do with what you are implying.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was President soon after the scandle, and made the decision to NOT investigate any further. Since the President has resources like the FBI, The CIA and all the intel services at his disposal, it would be quite easy to do. Bill decided not to do it.

I think that was a big mistake.

What do you think?

[oasis]

26. Maxine and Dennis are in the Progressive Caucus. What has she told him?

As far as BC is concerned, he was far too busy juggling domestic and foreign affairs while fending off the VRWC. They were out to get him, but you know that.:think:

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Bill could have ordered the FBI and the CIA to make a report. He could have asked

congress to investigate.

Why don't you email Kucinich and ask him if he gotten info from waters? Maybe, since he wasn't in the house until 1997, and the Dems were in the minority, it never came up since they didn't have the power to investigate.

Look, Clinton was the President, he made his decision. Do you agree with it?

I don't.

[oasis]

32. The information is out there. What would it take for Dennis to get in front of a mike

and force the issue? If it's an issue of such magnitude, that is.

[John Q. Citizen]

35. That everyones fantasy, for sure. A lone crusader, doing the job the executive

is supposed to be doing.

If your suggestion were workable, the downing Street Memos would have had bush impeached three years ago.

i disagree with Bill Clinton's decision not to pursue Iran/Contra and BCCI.

Do you agree with his decision. (I've asked you this question now 3 times. Why are you ignoring it?)

[oasis]

37. "Downing Street Memos" please don't go there. Kerry was supposed to hammer

Bush non-stop on that issue. Considering whose thread this is, I wouldn't want to dwell on that subject.

As for Clinton uncovering Poppy's corruption and abuse, I would have applauded it.

Gotta get outta here for now. I'll check any further replys this evening.

[Tellurian]

15. Well, there it is...blm didn't like your answer because..

it was the Truth. Her first pick Kucinich is now tainted and painted with her broad cover up brush!

theres no where to run, blm- spin, spin, spin...

Thanks, oasis, for putting a finer point on the poison pen of blm..

[k_jerome]

19. his top guy got edited out. bwahahaha. nt.

[blm]

20. HAHAHAH..... I specify I have no candidate in this race.....YET.

I supported Kucinich for all his other races, though.

BTW - oasis NEVER ANSWERED the question posed. None of you are interested in answering the question posed, so why are you on this thread?

[John Q. Citizen]

24. It appears the Hillary cultists are stalking you, blm. I too noticed they never responded

to your OP

They just attacked you.

And then they moved on to attacking your presumed candidate with bogus uniformed BS. Apparently they didn't know that Kucinich joined the house in 97, long after the DLC lost congress to the Repos. Long after the Dems had lost subpoena power, or the power to schedule hearings in the House.

Exactly the same bogus uniformed BS they are always whining about in regards to their candidate.

[oasis]

30. "Attack"?. Post #'s please. One man's inquiry is another man's attack.(eom)

[John Q. Citizen]

33. I wasn't speaking of your unfounded charge against Kucinich, oasis.

I was taking about the personal attacks on blm.

[oasis]

36. I have never attacked

her in my five years here at DU. She's a hard working hero of mine as is Hillary, Al Franken, Amy Goodman and the late, Ann Richards.

I have seen no personal attacks on this thread.

[John Q. Citizen]

51. I wasn't referring to any of your posts, oasis, and one of the ones I was refering to is

now gone.

[blm]

40. I don't mind your inquiries, oasis - would love to see you answer mine instead

of trying to shift blame to other lawmakers WITHOUT answering any questions about what Clinton did or did NOT do.

[oasis]

22. I figure if heads must roll for covering up, let's not be "choicey", roll 'em all. (eom)

[John Q. Citizen]

25. How can you connect Kucinich to the lack of an investigation? He wasn't there

until 1997, long after the DLC lost the House to the Repos.

[oasis]

28. Is there a statute of limitation on Poppy Bush's criminal past?(eom)

[John Q. Citizen]

31. I don't know. 1992 to today is over 15 years. It's a shame Clinton let it go back when it was

relevant and he had the power to do something about it.

[oasis]

34. "Was relevant"?....."was relevant"? You'd better check with a certain

poster who is on a crusade to make this a campaign issue for 2008.

[John Q. Citizen]

38. It is relevant in the context of the OP, not in the context of taking effective action

on Iran/Contra or BCCI now 15 years later.

Hillary's supports always point to what they percieve as positive qualities of her husband's administration to make the case for Hillary now.

The OP was pointing out a negative quality of Hillary's husband's administration to make the case against Hillary now.

They both seem relevant to me.

How about to you?

[blm]

41. Those crimes ARE relevant today - everything BushInc is doing today is rooted

in IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate, and CIA drugrunning.

Had those crimes been FULLY EXPOSED, there would have been NO 9-11 and no Iraq war and no Plame outing.

[John Q. Citizen]

43. I agree, but those crimes are probably not prosecutable today, for a number

of reasons.

However, the failure of Clinton to follow up on those crimes in 1992 is relevant to the candidacy of Hillary today.

[blm]

45. Prosecutable - don't know because of the treason angle, but the revelations would

help EVERYONE in this country and around the world to better understand the manipulations of world leaders that encouraged, funded and armed global terror networks that have been used against each other and targeted innocent civilians to fuel their needed chaos.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. All of them

A new administration isn't going to get bogged down in prosecuting the crimes of the previous administration. They assume that the public is ready to move on.

[Tellurian]

47. God knows, this administrations crimes could bring down the WH

if they were ever prosecuted. Same family, same players. whats the difference!

[blm]

50. Well, you let the books be opened for reporters and historians and let the people

make an INFORMED decision about that.

Don't you think Bill Clinton wishes HE had let the outstanding matters he inherited be fully revealed? He knows full well now that he wouldn't have been impeached, Gore would've taken office, and 9-11 and Iraq war would NEVER have happened. But he made the decision to let it go, and that one decision effected all his future cooperation with Poppy Bush thereafter.

[Czolgosz]

46. I'm not sure I fully understand thr question, but from most progressive to least, the candidates are

Dennis Kucinich
John Edwards
Christopher Dodd
Barack Obama
Mike Gravel
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Bill Richardson

[blm]

49. I meant furthest away from Bushes that you wouldn't expect him/her to cover up

for BushInc's crimes of office.