...to confirm what has become patently obvious to anyone with a pulse who hasn't been brainwashed by Hillary's vile momentum.  The trail of slime is unmistakeable without Bill coming behind her to try to tidy it up.

Where were your allegations when Bill Clinton was running for President the first time?

by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 151 diaries, 478 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:54:52 AM

  (0+)

We should evaluate candidates based on their own strengths and weaknesses, not those of their spouses.  Mr. Zeifman's article is relevant to the discussion about why Hillary Rodham Clinton should not be President, but it would not have been relevant to Bill Clinton's 1992 Presidential campaign.  I have always thought that Bill Clinton was/is an unethical, self-serving opportunist, but I reluctantly voted for him twice.  If Hillary Rodham Clinton wills her way to become the Democratic Presidential nominee, I will vote for her in November, but she exhibits most of the unethical traits of her partner, and I do not respect her.

by Blaine Kinsey (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 181 comments [80 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:36:18 AM

  (0+)

I don't understand why you would not vote for someone who you do not respect. I'd prefer to not vote than to vote for someone who I couldn't respect. To each his own. I'm just curious as to your reasoning.

Blessed be!
Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:10:39 AM

  (0+)

Although I would prefer to have Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination for President, I would vote for Hillary Clinton because there will never be  a potentially successful candidate for President who agrees with my political views, and I think that Hillary Clinton as President would be more tolerable than John McCain as President.  Barack Obama has potential, but he has been disappointing as a Senator.  I was thoroughly disgusted by the Hillary Clinton ad about the 3:00 A.M. telephone call because it imitates the Republican fear-mongering.  If Hillary Clinton receives a telephone call at 3:00 A.M., it will probably be from James Carville asking Hillary if he can wash her feet with his tongue.

by Blaine Kinsey (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 181 comments [80 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:20:25 PM

  (0+)

"keeping Nixon in office through 1976 would make it a shoe in to elect a liberal democrat"  OR herr feuhrer´s little matron is a closet globalist with close ties to the rethuglican uber-lords and will do any old thing in this vloody veelchin voild to further along the new world order agenda. Stay tuned for more attacks and counter-attacks in the "War Of The Corporate Titans"

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:59:58 AM

  (0+)

Maybe this is a Pelosi Tactic. The longer Bush is in there, the better the chance of getting Hillary elected. That is, if he decides to leave January 20th.

Did Clinton get big money in '92 because he was shifty about what would be the outcomes of NAFTA and the FCC decisions on media ownership?

In other words, is the Clinton morality subject to political influence?

We are looking at a war of the roses, with the Bushies vs. the Clintons. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..... I'm over it. Let's see what kind of things Obama will do....

by GitarChris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:22:50 AM

  (0+)

Now, the dems don't want to proceed with impeachment because they fear it will lessen the chances of a Dem win-- same thing they were thinking in '72-74.

But, in spite of operatives  like Hillary, sabotaging the constitutional machinery that  kept the balance of justice intact, Tip O'Neil and others managed to make the impeachment happen-- and a Dem won anyway in '76. 

This information shows that, even with impeachment hearings under way, there are so many possibilities, so many ways that people can sabotage and block the process.  

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM

  (0+)

On an interview Nader said he was told by a congressman that "if we move on impeachment they will bomb Iran and declare martial law"  It is quite possible that our supposed representatives fear the "crazies" as much as the guy on the street. I dont buy Conyer's lame excuses, or Pelosi's for that matter. The failure to impeach is treason, plain and simple.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:48:53 PM

  (0+)

It's total BS - they're going into Iran anyway, so the ploy works - use Iran as an impeachment block and than bomb Iran anyway - look what's going on - Fallon fired, more naval ships being deployed, Betrayus falsely claiming Iran was behind Green Zone attack, cheney all over the region stacking the deck - the Democrats are being played for the fools that they are

I'll bet good money that before the election we bomb Iran - depending on what happens with the economy (it will crash) and the further pressure an Iran attack will cause there could be a very real possibility that bush will declare a "national emergency" and impose Marshall Law and suspend elections. But in reality it doesn't make any difference if the farce of election goes off or which one of these corporate shills become the next POTUS - this country is done for ...

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 6:29:17 PM

  (0+)

Easy, don't give up so easily, go have a nice garden salad and back it up with some fresh O.J., take a 1-hour break from the com-pu-tron, 20-minute walk, 1-2 quarts of clean cold water, and gain a fresh perspective on all of this. Rep. Conyers et. al. have the means at hand to basically end this little party, I like Paul, Obama, and ME,(as in 'me, myself and I') for this Selection, against Hillary 'cause I think she's into some kind of side business, against McCain for essentially the same reason, Barack, well, he's a little weak on the immigration issue, but lesser of several evils here, I watched the video of the Medford town hall and he was standing tall for that, still trying to sell some kind of healthcare thing, but I also think he's a fairly shrewd character, not nearly as liable to end up signing over the deed to the ranch as it were, Paul's kind of my favorite, he's concurrently re-running for Congress as WELL as for the Office, I like his style, comma, he's running as a Republican, and they're having 'money problems' of some kind in that Party, so, I still offer my services for the position on an hourly basis, $8.10/hr, try-before-you-buy, Congress already getting the paperwork ready to throw me right back out the door on my duffle bag if I blank up as a mandatory pre-condition on my part to even accept the job, and I want to to do a couple different things, like an impeachment hotline, 1-800 IMP EACH, and if I DO get this gig, I'm going to be the little annoying tsetse fly of fiscal responsibility and public accountability, and do my mortal best to pave a path for Congress to do what they probably should have been able to do these last 20 years, but have been boxed in by psuedo-royalist administrationers, and a batallion or so of highly trained, well-entrenched attack lobbyists. In short, I want to spearhead an effort to get us back in the practice of using our system of representative government, in which Representatives are truly free to re-present(see? It's In The Name) the issues of the People in their sessions rather than just being strong-armed into being a rubber-stamp entity that essentially has no choice BUT to over-spend the federal budget, year after year after year after...you get the idea.

If you support that kind of concept, if you're ready for a 'novelty candidate', then Vote For Bert! I'm not official, yet, gotta get the paperwork turned in, but I've got 'til the end of August 'cause I won't run as Democrat OR Republican, I'm going Independent, all by my lonesome, 'cause I haven't even heard back from the Independent Party in MY state. So, vote Ghost Rider! Vote for Bert! Write my name down on a chunk of paper, and tape it up on the wall or something! NO graffiti, let's get off to a GOOD start, here...

LOL

Bert08

by truthtruffle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 111 comments) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:05:05 AM

  (0+)

Bush has any number of ways to create a national emergency. Imposing Martial Law allows the suspension of elections. With those out of the way, he can dismiss Federal, state and local government employees who resist his agenda. Anyone who objects could go to jail as an enemy combatant.

If Iraq is any example, the US can kill any number of Iranian non-combatants. The US lacks the power on the ground to defeat and to occupy Iran.

If the US attacks Venezuela, she might have an easier time of it.

Bush can not trust any candidate to pursue the mission. 

by Jason Paz (68 articles, 88 quicklinks, 112 diaries, 1386 comments [97 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:29:46 AM

  (0+)

I certainly am bothered by the same politics as usual and the same old politicians.  I hope if there is anything we have learned in the last decade it is that Government must be made more open and accountable to the people.  We clearly must be ever vigilent and constantly demanding this of our Congressional representatives to ensure we have the government we want instead of having the government that currently serves us.

Given their proclivity, it appears most politicians today are less interested in openness and accountability than in re-election and control.  Until voters convey to politicians their re-election depends on their performing their duties and service to the public, and until we shut down the means by which openess and accountability are circumvented, nothing will change.  Let's hope this fall marks a turning point and a new beginning for us all.  Vote out with the old politics, and usher in a new age of openness and accountability in the pollitical process.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:40:21 PM

  (0+)

In 74 it was not yet apparent that the US was losing its place in the economic sphere, and voters were not sure about a smoking gun. It's hard to opine as to whether "the establishment" was more or less "unbought and unbossed" then than it is now.

Many citizens are waiting for the war to end, for the economy to improve, and for Bush to ride off into the sunset. It's generally agreed there are powerful interests who support what the president and his nominated successor stand for--holding the process back.

I've thought of how public opinion, or rather popular media, can get off of dead center on the impeachment question. Democrats do not gain by playing gutter politics regarding the Bush/Clinton cabal. If we stay with the subject of Hillary's qualifications, is there traction? Question to Mr. Zeifman: Does the fact that Hillary had not passed the bar at the time of impeachment investigations help or hurt her in furthering this subject? It's spoken (by Carl Bernstein on C-Span) and in written form which has been published by OEN, if I recall. I have not seen the matter come up much in the blogosphere.

by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1851 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:52:10 PM

  (0+)

Hillary was 27 years old at the time! I made a few mistakes too, at that age---I was a Republican.

by Merylr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 19 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:54:48 PM

  (0+)

She may still have been one. Of course, with her role as a leader in the DLC, I think, that in her heart, she still is.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 1:20:51 PM

  (0+)

Do your notes have the date on which you terminated her employment?

Was it before or after Nixon's resignation?

Thanks for your information.

by jf (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 1:08:53 PM

  (0+)

It is interesting that during the watergate investigations part of the objective was, "to avoid a Senate impeachment trial, in which as a defense Nixon might assert that Kennedy had authorized far worse abuses of power than Nixon's effort to "cover up"- the Watergate burglary (which Nixon had not authorized or known about in advance).

In short, the crimes of Kennedy included the use of the Mafia to attempt to assassinate Castro, as well as the successful assassinations of Diem in Vietnam and Lumumba in the Congo."

There must be a smoking gun, in the form of slime on the part of democrats in Congress and the Senate that have prevented any movement on Impeachment.  It's the only rational explanation to the ineptitude of the corporate representatives. 

by August Adams (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 585 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 1:24:35 PM

  (0+)

...there is no real evidence that proves Kennedy used the mafia to attempt an assassination on Castro. The CIA were using two of their bosses though, Giancana and Traffaconi, two men who actually despised the Kennedy's. Also any speculation about Kennedy and the mafia came from J. Edgar Hoover, a devout enemy to the Kennedy's and vice versa.  Further, Kennedy despised the CIA as much as Hoover and in fact chastised them for murdering Diem. It is even speculated Kennedy wanted to disband the CIA prior to his own assassination.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 3:44:12 PM

  (0+)

Nixon saw the handwriting on the wall and resigned.   I do not think he ever felt that he was guilty of anything other than poor judgement and probably felt that he could have beat conviction by the Senate (it takes 67 votes to convict as Bill Clinton knows and is thankful for because 55 senators voted to convict him).  In Nixon's Presidential Library in Yorba Linda there is an entire wall of information devoted to Watergate and from what I read Nixon was not happy with what happened to him.  Personally, I thought he got what he deserved. 

Nixon was a master politician.  The only one better is probably Bill Clinton.  Nixon knew that if he resigned he would help himself, the Republican Party and the country.  He knew if he stayed on Kennedy, although he was still being politically hurt by his desertion of a young woman drowning in a car he was driving, would probably walk into the presidency.  Although the Republicans did not win in 1976 Nixon's resignation had a lot to do with them winning later.  

Just think what would have happened if Clinton had resigned like Nixon did instead of going to trial in the Senate.  He was guilty.  He was disbarred.  He had to cut a deal with a prosecutor on his last day in office to keep from being indicted.  He finally paid off Paula Jones for what he did to her.  Only some Republican Senators and all the Democrats who didn't even take the time to read the pile of evidence against Clinton (he committed some major crimes - that is why he was disbarred, why he paid off Jones, and was why he was threatened with indictment) kept him from being convicted of the articles of impeachment and being removed from office.  Clinton rolled the dice and won.  Politicians in Washington know all this and will be hesitant to impeach another president in our life times.

What is weird is that Hillary played a role in a threatened impeachment of one president and a significant role in the impeachment another.

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:35:17 PM

  (0+)

...this is a real eye opener. It justifies my recent turn to supporting Obama. Makes me glad I did it!  That said, what happens if by some miracle(or technical flaw, manipulation etc) she wins the nomination? Do we simply abandon her, vote for McCain or not vote at all? Do we vote for Nader? What on earth will we do then? Simply allow the neocons to retain power?

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 3:09:49 PM

  (0+)

If Hillary is the candidate, then the neo-cons have a win-win scenario. 

If Mcain wins, they have a dimwit mental defective who they can control through the VP (who will surely be a neo-con).

If Hillary wins, they have a POTUS who will do whatever they want for the chance at a second term and the opportunity to remain "The First Woman President of the United States" and not get impeched by the neo-cons and blue dogs in the House and convicted in the Senate.

Oh, and if Obama is the candidate, then they bomb Iran and declare Martial Law when all hell breaks loose.

Gosh, to be a neo-con in 2008 -- so many options... so many ways to totally screw the American People, retain power, and line their pockets with our children's inheritance.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:01:15 PM

  (0+)

And from some of the other contributions in rebuttal to this article, I'm beginning to have some doubts.

I will agree that Obama's chances look better. But what I really find disturbing in all of this are the recent hateful smears on both democratic candidates since they do far more to serve the neocons then they do either of the democratic contenders or the democratic party.

I am very impressed with Mr. Zeifman's credentials. The fact he supported Adlai Stevenson and was a Roosevelt Democrat even endears him to me. But as one person in here asks, why now? Why wait 38 years to smear Clinton during the most crucial presidential election in US history? 

Another notion or two also comes to mind. Like the reverence of Tip O'Neill, the biggest democrat yesman to the Reagan administration. Also his push to get Gerald Ford appointed asap. That appointment was one of the worst travesties in US political history. The accusee appoints his pardoner and Mr. Zeifman considers that a good thing? 

Lastly comes the Kennedy/Mafia smear. No sir! I am beginning to have some serious doubts. 

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:51:58 PM

  (0+)

on another thought, maybe that's why the dems haven't yet declared Obama the victor. Another note is the dem vs dem infighting. It almosts makes one think they are afraid to inherit the very real mess that's coming, Iran or not!

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:26:28 PM

  (0+)

is that McCain will go to meet his maker (satan) and Ron Paul will be in the drivers seat. Its time for that imprecatory prayer folks. so get down on those old prayer bones and pray as if your lives depended upon it, they do.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:13:40 PM

  (0+)

Now if we could only fit Dennis Kucinich in there!

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:21:09 PM

  (0+)

Why wait 34 years to write this hate mongering piece?   Isn't that a long time to carry a grudge?  The best notes in the world cannot possibly make any human remember all the details of any event that happened so long ago.  For all that we know this old geezer might be in the early stages of alzheimers or just plain forgetful in his old age...... or maybe he is just making it up as he goes along.

Are you just jealous that this woman finally gets a chance to run for president?   Perhaps this is just another republican effort to keep the 'little woman' in her place?  

I don't think I will ever be able to figure out the hatred of Hillary Clinton all the while tolerating everything done by pRes Cheney and his little hand puppet, George Bush.

by magginkat (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 3:57:09 PM

  (0+)

I just noticed the sub-title to this article:

Hillary as I new her in 1974

by magginkat (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:00:40 PM

  (0+)

someone might actually think it was in the biblical way,,,YUK.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:07:59 PM

  (0+)

" A second objective of the strategy of delay was to avoid a Senate impeachment trial, in which as a defense Nixon might assert that Kennedy had authorized far worse abuses of power than Nixon's effort to "cover up"- the Watergate burglary (which Nixon had not authorized or known about in advance). In short, the crimes of Kennedy included the use of the Mafia to attempt to assassinate Castro, as well as the successful assassinations of Diem in Vietnam and Lumumba in the Congo."

Bingo--this is why Nancy Pelosi is immovable. She blames it on winning, yet the Dems won after Nixon and the Republicans after Clinton, so where's the evidence?

Another commenter asks "where's the smoking gun?" We are fond of smoking guns these days and in the case of Democratc enabling of Bush policies, we have a smoking arsenal. Not a SINGLE impeachable offense could have occurred without active (and collusive) Democratic agreement.

The proof of that pudding is the ease with which a slim Rep majority sailed through six years and a slim Democratic majority cannot even find the courage to de-fund this war.

Same narrow majority--entrely different outcomes--both of them in the interests and support of George Bush.

Lastly, as for the slam at Hillary, what politician has less than this to cover in thirty years of political activism? Too little, too late, too unimportant, Jerry.

by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:11:17 PM

  (0+)

and at the same risk that you took in being verbally chastised, I feel we should also see some of the other things Hillary did in her pre-marriage years. Of course this does come from a first lady's biographical page, but I feel in all fairness it's worth a look.

Occupation before Marriage:
As a young woman, Hillary Rodham worked as a babysitter both after school and during her vacation breaks, sometimes watching the children of migrant Mexicans brought to the Chicago area for itinerant work. She applied to NASA and was stunned when she was told that girls were not accepted for the astronaut program. Although she was active in young Republican groups and campaigned for Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964, she was inspired to work in some form of public service after hearing a speech in Chicago by Reverend Martin Luther King. She worked at various jobs during her summers as a college student, once in a canning factory in Alaska, in 1969. In 1970, she secured a grant and first went to work for the Children's Defense Fund. The following summer, she first came to Washington, D.C. working on Senator Walter Mondale's (Minnesota Democrat) subcommittee on migrant workers, researching migrant problems in housing, sanitation, health and education. In the summer of 1972, she worked in the western states for the Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern's campaign. During her second year in law school, Hillary Clinton volunteered at Yale's Child Study Center, learning about new research on early childhood brain development, as well as New Haven Hospital, where she took on cases of child abuse and the city Legal Services, providing free legal service to the poor. Upon graduation from law school, she served as staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In the spring of 1974, she returned to Washington as a member of the presidential impeachment inquiry staff advising the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives during the Watergate Scandal. After the Nixon resignation in August of 1974, she became a faculty member of the University of Arkansas Law School, located in Fayetteville, where her Yale Law School classmate and boyfriend Bill Clinton was teaching as well.
 

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:32:31 PM

  (0+)

very good points! 

by lena (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:35:00 PM

  (0+)

The reader can take it for what it's worth, and should read between the lines.  I find it most significant that the reviewer's skepticism doesn't seem to be backed up with any contravailing facts or even quotes from other sources.  That tells me the reviewer is completely dismissive, but the author's account couldn't be compeletely ignored.

I think Mr. Zeifman's account, and the review by Mr. Dallek, deserve close, careful reading and follow-up investigation.  See, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/reviews/matthewdallek.htm

 WITHOUT HONOR
In 1973 Jerry Zeifman, chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, decided to keep a diary of the "extraordinary events" surrounding the impeachment of President Nixon. Now, Zeifman draws on that diary to give us Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of President Nixon, in which he accuses government officials of obstructing the impeachment inquiry. Their reason? Not any sympathy for the besieged Richard Nixon, but a desire to protect the reputation of John Kennedy. Zeifman's book will surely excite conspiracy buffs on the lookout for sinister coverups in high places. But those wary of such unsubstantiated theories (myself included) will find Zeifman's book an unconvincing, if imaginative, tale of intrigue.

Zeifman's theory goes something like this: John Doar, Hillary Rodham, Bernard Nussbaum and other Kennedy loyalists investigating Nixon obstruct his impeachment "to cover up malfeasance in high office throughout the Cold War." The scheming starlets are abetted by Peter Rodino, a weak, corrupt chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who is afraid that Nixon might expose his own Mafia ties. Rounding out the list of conspirators is Burke Marshall, Robert Kennedy's assistant attorney general, who orchestrates the bogus investigation in the hopes of keeping Nixon in office, which will, he believes, help Ted Kennedy win the White House. Using a variety of dubious legal strategies -- still with me? -- Doar and his co-conspirators do everything they can to avoid putting the president on trial, a strategy, they hope, that will prevent Nixon's lawyers from revealing the "crimes of Camelot."

The lack of evidence makes this theory hard to swallow. Zeifman's most reliable source -- his diary -- contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations. The book's jacket cover, which promises readers "truths even more startling than those brought out in Oliver Stone's movies 'Nixon' and 'JFK', " does not help matters. Perhaps the book's publicists forgot that "Nixon" and "JFK" were, after all, only Hollywood movies.

by leveymg (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:28:18 PM

  (0+)

This wonderful post only confirms what I have long suspected, she was the ace in the hole for the militarist establishment that surprise, surprise after much theatre managed to annoit the two front runners post 2004 in McClinton to follow the change agents Bush-Cheney. Just an illusion that we don't live in a sham democracy although thanks to the internet the truth is now spreading that it is all one great big lie.

Our republic ended for all intents and purposes with that triangulation of crossfire in Dealy Plaza when the bastards seized control once and for all.

We probably won't be able to win this in the short term but we can all take some degree of satisfaction in exposing the grand fraud of this sham democracy and it's pocket media kingmakers for all to see.

Keep pouring it on and getting every bit of information on the criminals who run the game out there so that they can no longer hide behind the facade of legitimacy.

Everything is a lie and everything is connected.

Just my two cents

EE

by Ed Encho (12 articles, 20 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 438 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 6:31:28 PM

  (0+)

Hillary and Bill's association with the Asia Society is what endeared them to their CIA handlers who thought they were the couple for the future. This FACT is what prompted the action around the Nixon impeachment. Remember how "out of character" that detente seemed?  

Really, people do not appreciate the role of Maurice Strong nor the potential gravity of UN Global Agenda 21, of which Bill and Hillary are the handpicked promoters of the new World religion/global regioning that has been cultivated and nourished over a very long period of time.

I continually point out that William Clinton signed Executive Order 12919, dated 3 June 1994 and it morphed into BuZh's exec order(s) mostly notably as Executive 13303. I do wish people would check this out.

In light of this, everything starts falling into proper perspective and the idiotic glances at "politics" just vanish. Why waste a vote?  Any president will follow the agenda, only the tactics have varied under Dick's slimey presence during the past seven years.

FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE and the rules of engagement for Operation Falcon are the only real changes in the outward look of the lesson being taught - THEY are in control at US taxpayer expense!!

There was test driving the war on drugs and getting all the civil liberties for victims suspended -- using the War Measures Act, but finding out how well demonization of a whole segment of society would work out on in the United States.

The torture agenda was tested out here, in Canada, on Mohawks standing up for their rights in Oka in 1990 - seriously, you should see what they did there to demonstrators.

What people fail over and over to perceive, is the average person is taught to think from election to election and BELIEVE In political parties, but does not understand the dynastic concepts in which THEY think. Bush Clinton Bush Clinton is no accident, and as she says, she has been PROMISED the job of ruling empire.  She has the endorsement of no less than the Baroness Rothschild, the Bilderberger who is SO happy to have likable, Commander in Chief HiLIARy presiding over us all.

Because I am an antinuke activist, the Clintons have been on my tail for over a decade - My case is just not as well known as some others, but believe me I have suffered - so does Leonard Peltier greatly although he is resigned to his fate, more or less. But hey!  us native activists are less than human, eh? the loss of our civil rights don't matter "all that much" to some.  Just an element that gets in the way of "economic development" .. people who LOATHE enslavement and boot licking.

Marginalized, depersonalized, way too out there SPIRITUALLY, without a minister on which to hang our personal stars like Obama.  We think in circles, not boxes.  A spirituality that must not exist .. 

Nothing this woman does surprises me nor Peter F. Paul in the least, I assure you.  Nothing. The media complicity in shutting up our "cases" is just business as usual to US.   (He has got enough friends and allies to make a movie though - my book about it all was THROWN AWAY last year.  wonder why? They waited until I was in a hospital to do it, btw.)

People like HiLIARy are indispensable to the powers that be who have no intention of going "down with the ship" in the brave new world the Clintons wish to rule over.  THEY sit in their cozy little dens and laugh at everyone as they watch The Play.  Hilary is owned by Robert Rubin and you can see the pics of her and her "associates" on many sites - child pornographers, heads of drug cartels, the Great CIA players of our times. Also those rightwingers she accused so heartedly of "ending Bill's career". Right. There are pictures, we "conspiracy theorists" don't make this stuff up ..

If you think The Play is over just give a google to this

Frank Giustra William Clinton

and ask yourself:  how many MORE nations are going to get rogue nukes as a reward for doing the Clinton dance steps?  How many more DANGEROUS nuclear power plants are you going to see going up?

HiLIARy is so much more than an impeachment blocker. Trust me on this.

And I am not the only one who knows either.

Even the guys at Free Republic KNOW, they keep extensive files on EVERY THING HiLIARy.

There is no way she is going to step away from the microphone.  None.

She lies - she is a Bilderberger and she WAS caught out up here in Ottawa by Canadian citizens.

But don't ask about that publically, you're likely to get tasered.

Right now, the US is close to having to evacuate Baghdad -  maybe just day's away now that Chevron rocked the boat trying to get the "interim" oil concession.  Things are a bit crazy therefore in the neocon PNAC world. The US forces are going to have a terrible time keeping up supply lines in upcoming days to 750+ KNOWN US  military bases, most of which have about 1200 personnel in them. The NATO summit is "on the table" .. and Putin is doing a fan dance for the benefit of the press.  So what's next? Anybody's call.  Cheney is busy leaning on Saudi Arabia and everyone else he can. The poodle dogs of US hegemony are about to topple (notably Pakistan for one) .. 

Always watch what the magician is doing with the OTHER hand .. and, yes, it is, as the British say, all of a piece.

Solution: Push for impeachment with all of your might, work on building a strategic coaltion with ALL groups .. enviromentalists (crimes against humanity), Ron Paulites, impeachers, citizen's arresters, 9/11 truthers, independents, victims of the NOLA disaster, anti racist, women who remember the original premises of feminists almost forgotten now, global resisters from around the world must finally come together and IGNORE the media blackouts and learn to work TOGETHER, accepting no other redress than total airing of ALL the secrets, toxins and SLUDGE. Think seven generations ahead and forget the election "racket". We need a tent city built that holds a million people until the insanity stops in DC. The madman strategy (built around Hillary now) of the transglobal agenda must be stopped dead in its tracks. Take a look at the proposed US budget for next year, under the skillful eye of Tom Murtha if you need more evidence.  Next year is the year for biochemical weapons to be used.  Despite being BROKE, the US is still embarking on its hidden agenda in earnest.

We need to be insulating our homes and businesses, building solar power initatives, stopping the destruction of the land, learning how to grow heritage seeds, being with our young people .. not carrying on as if the hidden agenda did not exist, because it does.

Now is the time and we are the ones that we have been waiting for. Remember this - this is the Seventh Generation.  There are leaders among you, mostly notably your SELVES.

I turned off my idiot box along time ago.

by ladybroadoak (39 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 394 comments) on Friday, Mar 28, 2008 at 1:48:57 AM

  (0+)

Ms. Hillary is a republican Lite. She has authorized Iran as a terrorist country with her vote. Her voting record was always sink with Bush for the most part on the Iraq quagmire.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain except on the prochoice front and healthcare. Her latest idea for the economy isn't surprising with her very close ties to Citigroup.

It's clear as day that she is a very power hungry person and I am just sick and tired of the Bush /Clinton dynasty.

My prediction this election year is if Hilary is the nomination, then America will witness more 3rd choice candidate voting than ever in USA history. I'll be one of those 3rd choice voters in that case.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:25:00 PM

  (0+)

It says he wrote the book in 1995, not now; he's just brought out some of the work from the book now.

I think it's well within the scope of a presidential campaign to inform us about a candidate's career, from start to present. It's not the same as a smear, even if it combines fact with opinion. Readers ought to be able to tell the difference.

Both Hillary and Obama are entrenched in the military/industrial system. Their platforms differ very slightly, and both stem from the same unchallenged assumptions and practices of the Democratic elite. However, they do differ significantly from the platform of John Edwards, whose proposals literally frightened Wall Street conglomerate lobbyists, a fact which went unnoticed by all American media but one: Forbes, interestingly enough. He wanted out of Iraq ASAP; he had good ideas for fixing the financial crisis, he meant it when he said he would not hire any lobbyists in the White House, and he was serious about fighting poverty. He alone of the top three had a true vision and the integrity to carry it out. Unfortunately the country's vision was not so clear; so thrilled by skin color and gender, they didn't even notice him being shoved out of sight. When is the last time a former senator and VP candidate - whose ticket very nearly (some believe may have) won - received so little media attention for over a year? It's no coincidence. THe other two stole shamelessly from his ideas, then distorted them, and still they won't put them into action once elected. Skin color and gender mean nothing; in fact they are too often exploited, worn as masks by a public official who has no intention of delivering on public expectation: consider Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice; Nancy Pelosi; sadly, John Conyers, and many others. This makes life difficult for all of us - we must listen, not look. Listening means more than hearing a persuasive speech.

Because Edwards' record was evidently too clean to properly smear, he was simply erased from AP coverage, hence from just about every leading paper and TV station as well (not to accuse AP of being the ringleader, but they were quite obvious about it). It should be a matter of interest that his supporters and delegates are not happy and are not going to readily migrate to another candidate. He impressed many Republican voters and would have easily defeated the archaic McCain hands down with his common sense and truthful speech.

But without Edwards, the country has been duped yet again, sadly.  

by lena (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:27:32 PM

  (0+)

My wholehearted agreement with lena, the identity politics has erased any critical understanding of policies and issues. Edwards and Kucinich each had more heart, feminism and soul than Hill and O put together!

Even more disturbing than their deficiency is the nastiness they now exhibit in bashing each other. And even though both are senators and attorneys, neither will voice opposition to the erosion of Congress' authority, for they hope to occupy the "big seat" of the expanded presidency W has afforded them.

What I keep looking for on OpEdNews ICH and other sites is the path out of danger, I do believe the scenario that, if cornered by righteous impeachment proceedings, the real life "Pinky and Brain" will truly nuke Iran and call off elections.

So for whatever reason Hill didn't proceed vigorously to impeach Nixon, or did more than was appropriate to adjust the rules, these acts reflect judgment errors within a time context and a state of personal maturity. I know I was a different person in '74, and I could forgive these lapses.

What I cannot forgive is Senator Clinton allowing NY citizens to endanger themselves at "ground zero", rescuing Wall Street with their bare hands, and the many hawkish heartless votes and statements since, which continue that preference for big business over the "little guy".

I recall feeling sorry for Nixon as his hour was up, and thinking he had had the misfortune of getting caught for what they all probably did. Maybe that was what motivated HR. But rather than go back and reconstruct that era with its relevant aura, I ask what a senator and a candidate can and should do and say, right now to distinguish himself and make a difference.

The mischief stirred up in the last few weeks by the "3 pigs" in the middle east, is echoing from the foreign press, and Germany and France are kissing the kosher papal ring in anticipation of playing a part in the drama.

So where is the loud and clear "NO" from the Democrats as the war whistles begin piping in from the fringe?  Hillary seems aroused by the violent options, recalling dangers from her past, and Obama who chairs a Senate committee on European affairs, is oddly silent, as if overwhelmed by facing the opportunity to actually do something in the role he is in at the present.

Lets all stay focused on the dangers: McCain is an explosive, bigoted warmonger, and Hillary is a violent, desperate power-junkie.  Unfortunately, the mania also known as Obama is a phenomenon which is larger and more ambitious than the rather green and timid human it possesses.

Somehow, we need to see some leadership capable to steer us out of the valley of deadly shadows this spring, before the election...before the conventions,even...and certainly before the "crazies" blow the place up!

by ladyguru (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 36 comments) on Thursday, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:41:27 AM

  (0+)