OK...(And excuse me)

[ProSense]

:wtf:

Wyden calls for inquiry

By James Hohmann
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
last updated February 20, 2006 11:54 PM

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or.) joined a chorus of prominent Republicans and Democrats on Friday when he called for more congressional oversight and a bipartisan inquiry into the National Security Agency (NSA) domestic wiretapping program. Calling for a “new accountability,” the Senate Select Intelligence Committee member told Stanford Law students, at a panel sponsored by the Stanford Law and Policy Review (SLPR), that the executive must be more responsive to the legal directives of the legislature.

“I’ve got an election certificate to be something other than a potted plant,” said Wyden. “I have a constitutional responsibility for oversight.

Snip...

The Democrat chastised some in his party, including 2004 presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), for saying that the struggle against terror in the aftermath of Sept. 11 is not a war.

“Sen. Kerry made a big mistake substantively and politically when he said this was a kind of police action,” he said. “This is a war.”

Wyden said that the flexibility the president needs in wartime should be accompanied by what he termed a “new accountability.”

Snip...

Alluding to former President Ronald Reagan, Wyden said that Congress should “trust but verify” the claims of the administration. In order to do that, he said more members of Congress need to know the “nuts and bolts of operational details.”

http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=19483&repository=0001_article

Yeah, you fought the BCCI. Who the fuck is this guy to give Kerry counsel on fighting terrorism?

This is not a fucking war you fuck. Now that everyone sees that you can't fight terrorism with a gun, this fucking moron comes out with this bullshit.

Accountability? Start by holding Bush accountable. Kerry has been the voice of constant criticism pointing to the failures of the Bush Administration. Now people are going to start speaking up and point the criticisms at Kerry?

Bitch. Excuse the language.

[ProSense]

1. He doesn't even have the facts straight

"...Senator John Kerry for saying that the struggle against terror in the aftermath of Sept. 11 is not a war."

This is not a direct quote in the piece, but still.

When did Kerry, who fought the BCCI, say this? I've heard Kerry say that the elections and people's perception were impacted by the aftermath of 9/11.

[wisteria]

10. Kerry did mention in one NY Times article that we were conducting

the war incorrectly. He did mention that the handling of terrorists should be conducted similar to other police matters.Fighting terrorists isn't the same thing as fighting a country. if this is a war now, it is because Bush has managed to make it so by angering enough of the Middle East that they now want to fight America. When I find the article I'll post it.

[ProSense]

13. This one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=50218&mesg_id=52724

[wisteria]

15. Thats it! n/t

[ProSense]

2. And another thing.

Kerry did great in the primaries, but


Kerry gave a great speech at the Democratic convention, but


Kerry did exceptionally well in the debates, but


But? But where were the many of other Democrats? Where were they screaming about the failed war and failed fight against terrorism? Where were they when they should have been supporting Kerry? All the other candidates rallied around him. I saw Clark and Sharpton speaking on his behalf. I know Reid gave a superb thrashing to the SBVT on the Senate floor. Where were some members of Congress?


Let's get the record and see the comments, see who's been at the throat of the Bush administration since Bush entered the WH in 2000.

[karynnj]

4. Good points - Dean actually worked hard for Kerry and became a

good surrogate. Most of the other Democrats did pretty little. I knew Reid avoided Kerry in Nevada, so I'm glad to hear he did defend him. I never even heard about the Senate floor speech. What bothers me is that Kerry let all his opponents speak and was the first Democrat since 1980 to let Carter speak.

They spoke (and speak now, blaming Kerry) about the most important election in our life time, but it really does seem that in 2003 they wrote off 2004 and were waiting for 2008.

[wisteria]

14. I think so too. They figured they would let him try, but figured he

wouldn't make it. I think he did surprise them though when he came close. This is why, I think, they didn't criticize him as much right after the election. That and the mood of those of us who supported him. I'm sure, we all heard that Hillary and Bill were hoping he wouldn't make it because her time was in 2008.
Now we are seeing and hearing this crap. We can not get other messages out, but we manage to get the bashing comments made public.

Personally, I hope JK, does run and wins. He is by far the best candidate they have going so far.They are just to wrapped up in the game to see it. JK eclipses them all, Hillary, Warner,Bayh,Vilchack,Feingold and Biden. They just can't get past this notion that in order to win we have to give up some of our party ideals and pander to the South. Frankly, I am tired of being overlooked and taken for granted in their equation.

[karynnj]

3. These comments seem coordinated

I was never a conspiracy theorist, but it seems that the series of pot shots directed at Kerry, taken for no apparent reason, may reflect concern that he can sneak out another victory under the radar screen.

This particular attack is beyond stupid - it hands the issue to Bush, when Bush is on the ropes. That they are doing this when a man (or woman) with a calm demeanor could possibly gain the trust of a "battered victim" country which could lead to both victory and moving to a different path. We can't "out-war" the Republicans for two reasons.

1) They ARE very good at talking war and they are the ones with 4+ years of practice. John McCain is far more militant than anyone the Democrats have to offer. (If the Republicans could succeed in portraying Kerry as counter culture (which he wasn't) and to some people as a far left anti-war radical, Hillary won't be immune either - although she was neither of these things, she was closer than Kerry.)

2) More importantly, there is a fair chance that we would gain the "war-like" mantle at the point the country rejects it. Imagine a candidate Hagel with an intelligent exit plan in Iraq and a Kerry like War on Terror stance against a Democrat pretenting it's 2002.

I agree with you, that the Democrats need to be demanding accountability. Kerry had it right. The terrorists do operate more like criminals and they don't really have states. Attacking the failed states they are in will more likely increase their number, while killing more innocents than terrorists. The question is whether and when Kerry will try to use his BCCI past. (It addresses both fighting terror and clean government - one tricky point would be would Kerry risk damaging the Clintons, when Hillary may be the candidate.)

So, where can this be coming from - my guess is that it sounds like a variation on the Bill Clinton Kerry was weak on terrorism and war, while Hillary was strong. Why, because Bill said so. What's odd, knowing about BCCI is that they are almost daring him to argue his credentials versus theirs. It is interesting that it is 2nd tier Democrats throwing these bombs, leaving Hillary clean.

It bothers me that there are so many Democrats accepting Reagan military people and their ideas. I was surprised reading George Stephanopolis's book when he mentioned while discussing why he chose to join Clinton's team that one negative was that Clinton had been in favor of supporting the Contras. It almost seems that his foreign policy, while obviously not the neo-con lunacy of Bush, night be closer to a Reagan than a Kerry viewpoint.

[ProSense]

5. Exactly!

Does Wyden think that port security is fighting a war? It is security and enforcement. Is money laundering a war or is that a law enforcement function? These are huge issues in terrorism. These issues played a bigger factor in 9/11 than anything related to war. Terrorism isn't just the guy with the suicide vest.


On the "new accountability," that's what Bush keeps pushing, but he's already broken the law. And as these law professors (one was a law clerk for Justice Blackmun) point out, that argument is just an excuse (the issue requires serious addressing):

Of course, there may be powerful counterarguments that override these original intents/original understandings. Conditions have changed dramatically over the last two centuries. Advances in technology and communications might now require a re-allocation of power in favor of the executive branch. The dogs of war today may be too fast and powerful to be mastered by anything short of ample and inherent executive power.

This may be a fair position. But in order to adopt it, the Court must reject the original understanding and develop new policies for determining the appropriate scope of presidential power in times of international stress and conflict. That is judicial law making, pure and simple. It is also "Strike Three" for the strict constructionists.

From this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2470978&mesg_id=2470982

[beachmom]

16. But I do think it was correct to attack the failed state of Afghanistan

which was essentially financed by OBL and overrun by terrorists. The thing is is that as bad as Saddam Hussein's Iraq was, I wouldn't call it a failed state. The mistake was attacking a state that had nothing to do with 9/11, on what we now know were flimsy charges of having WMD that * insisted were going to be handed over to terrorists. THAT was the colossal error. But if another Afghanistan popped up, then I think it would be justified to go in and take down the government. But at this point, there are only two states that are deeply troubling: North Korea and Iran. And * is a total wimp on both, because he gambled everything on Iraq and lost. (When I say lost, I mean that we don't have the armed forces to fight another war, and it ends up that in the scheme of things Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not that big a threat to the U.S. -- a horrible regime, no doubt, but not a threat to the U.S.)

I am very worried about Iran, and it does upset me when lefties get all in a hissy fit worrying about what * will do with Iran. Have they actually READ the Iranian leader's statements? He is the scariest leader on the face of the Earth with radical views and someone who seems very capable of going to war, not worrying if he takes down the whole planet with him. *, on the other hand, is in a bizarre position of being both ally and enemy with Iran. Iran and the U.S. are unofficial allies in Iraq (propping up the Shiite majority government against the Sunni insurgency) and official enemies over the nuclear weapons issue and terrorism (a la Hezbollah). I think we already discussed this about how Kerry's response to the holocaust denial remarks and *'s oddly measured response. I actually think Dems are more agressive toward Iran, than *. Hillary recently gave a scathing speech on Iran, essentially going to the "right" of *. (By the way, why is being more agressive toward a country characterized as "right"? That is certainly not always the case. Foreign Policy has been and will always be a wild card depending on which party holds the executive branch.) My advice to all Dem contenders in '08 is to really think hard about Iran, and what can be done, because they're a very large threat to us and the ME region.

[karynnj]

25. I agree that we needed to go into Afghanistan

At that point, Afghanistan had given the terrorists a home to build their forces, train and plan. I should have mentioned this was an exception and different from the norm in that we could not work with Afghanistan to rollup the terrorists.

I agree with you on Iran - it's a mess. What is sick is that Bush effectively put him in office - by declaring that their election was not "real" and backing people calling for boycotts. Great, the pro-democracy people boycotted the election. The former President had no real authority compared to the clerics, but at least he was a positive. Iran was one of the first countries to offer condolances in the wake of 911. Bush really blew the opportunity to help them move in the right direction.

[beachmom]

27. Totally agree w/ you on how * blew it with Iran

From what I understand, though, the previous president, who as benign as he was, presided over incredible corruption. This is also an explanation of Hamas's recent victory in the Palestinian territories. I do think, though, that the American invasion of Iraq has made things worse, not better in the region.

[TayTay]

28. Kerry spoke about the terrorism links in Afghanistan

Jihad Inc paper chase
HERALD SUN (AUSTRALIA), FIRST, Sec. NEWS, p 010 09-26-2001

Keith Moor

US Senator John Kerry has also revealed there are strong indications bin Laden's al-Qaeda network profits handsomely from the opium trade.

Afghanistan has overtaken the Golden Triangle region as the world's biggest heroin producing area.

The United Nations estimates Afghanistan is responsible for 77 per cent of world opium output, with the Golden Triangle region on the borders of Burma, Laos and Thailand contributing a further 17 per cent.

Senator Kerry, a member of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said al-Qaeda militants were frequently used as heroin smugglers or as guards for smugglers.

He said heroin had the added attraction to bin Laden and his group that it often ended up in the US and contributed to their hoped-for downfall of the nation through such problems as addiction and crime.

"That's part of their revenge on the world," Senator Kerry said.

"Get as many people drugged out as you can."

What's really scary is that despite the American invasion of Afghanistan and the takedown of the Taliban, Afghanistan is back in business as the world's supplier of heroin. That money from drugs, drugs that are being produced under the US noses, is, in part, going to support the terrorist factions in the Middle East. 'Everything old is new again."

[beachmom]

31. On the bright side (sarcasm), the terrorists now have competition

The pharmaceutical industry!! Anyone see Frontline last week? Methamphetamine is MORE addictive than heroin, and sellers of ephedrin are indirectly profiting from the Meth craze that will be reaching a town near you here on the East Coast very soon. Go Meth, Go. Stop outsourcing illicit drug profits to Afghanistan, and do Meth, not heroin! Plus, it's even tougher to recover from, so it's a bit more of a cash cow for our beleaguered drug companies. Okay, black humor over. But really, it is a complete mystery to me, why anyone would try a drug known for destroying your life (heroin), and in the case of Meth, making you age 20 years in addition to destroying their lives. Why don't people stick to alcohol and fast food (and add huge quantities of chocolate in for good measure), and just kill themselves slowly, so that they can have their high without having to fund terrorists or drug companies while robbing my house to get more money for it? A question I have yet to have answered . . .

[whometense]

32. Is there

a primal scream icon? I guess this will have to do: :nuke:

[karynnj]

34. I never saw these comments before

why does the foreign press cover him better than the US press does? The comment on drugs being part of their revenge on the world is chilling.

Scary - that they bought our government, are selling us drugs and will soon possibly have access to the inner workings of our ports.

[MH1]

6. (delete...never mind) n/t

[TayTay]

7. Indian press: 12/22/04

India: Author Favors Probe Into Link Between Former BCCI Officials, UBL 'Network'
World News Connection 12-22-2004


Article by Wilson John: "Who paid for AQ Khan network?"



A year ago, around this time, startling revelations were tumbling forth from Washington about how a Pakistani rogue nuclear scientist, Mr AQ Khan, had set up a global chain of illegal nuclear trade with branch offices in Dubai, Malaysia, Germany, US, UK, Tripoli, Tehran, Baghdad and Pyongyang. The investigations carried out by the US intelligence agencies and officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) revealed the involvement of several people dispersed across the globe, and raised the spectre of terrorists tapping into the nuclear blackmarket chain. What the US agencies and the media failed to focus on was that the American taxpayer bankrolled the nuclear underworld.

A report prepared by Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi-based public policy think tank, on the AQ Khan's network, reveals how the CIA was aware that "Pakistan was diverting a large portion of its foreign aid to nuclear development programme". In 1993, testifying before the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, the agency said Pakistan had received $19 billion in aid from foreign countries and donor agencies like the International Monetary Fund. In a written response, the agency said out of $19 billion, $2.7 billion was not designated for any specific purpose, thus enabling Pakistan to spend it on its nuclear programme. Even if these figures are to be taken as real, they fail to explain the total amount spent by Pakistan on its nuclear development programme between 1974 and 1993--$19.85 billion.

There could only be two explanations for this accounting difference.

First, Pakistan spent the aid it received from various donor agencies and countries--about $19 billion according to CIA--almost entirely on the programme. This is highly unlikely, given Pakistan's critical foreign exchange reserves, a burgeoning defence budget and a perpetual and desperate need to find money to initiate development programmes, especially in water resource management. Add to all this, the scourge of corruption. Second, the money came from a more anonymous source, considering no less a crucial fact that $19.85 billion (1993) was only the official figure. It does not take into account the missile-to-nuke barter Pakistan had entered into with North Korea. Nor the money routed through the network to set up front companies in Europe, the US, Dubai and Britain, pay agents to procure nuclear materials and know-how illegally, and thereby more expensively, and ship them to Pakistan through various cut-outs and routes to avoid detection.

The question is how did the money reach the Khan Research Laboratory, the nuclear facility set up by the Pakistan and run by Mr AQ Khan. Most of the funds were parked with two less-known entities--the Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Science and Technology, set up in Islamabad to honour President Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Attock Cement Private Ltd (APCL), a factory off Dera Ghazi Khan owned by Ghaith Pharaon, a Saudi billionaire who owns, besides the cement unit, two oil refineries and a software firm in Pakistan. Both these organisations had a common link: Bank of Credit and Commerce International . The Institute was set up with a grant of $10 million from the Bank. The Institute's first director was AQ Khan, a close ally of President Khan from the days of Bhutto. Pharaon, declared a fugitive by the US authorities, was a close friend of Abedi who helped BCCI to secretly buy an American bank, First American, and introduce Abedi to the power brokers in Washington DC.

An independent investigation carried out by a US Senate Committee in 1992 would pin down the Institute and the cement factory as the conduits for the BCCI to fund Pakistan's secret programme for nuclear deals through the Black Network. Senator John F Kerry headed the Senate Committee, which unravelled the web of a powerful, anonymous financial underworld that stretched from the lanes of Karachi to the White House. The BCCI was not an ordinary bank. Nor was its owner, Agha Hassan Abedi. By 1977, the BCCI was the world's fastest growing bank, operating from 146 branches (including 45 in the United Kingdom) in 43 countries including Africa, the East Asia and the Americas.

From assets worth $200 million, the bank, by the mid-1980s, was operating from 73 countries with assets over $22 billion. Its rise was phenomenal and of the several reasons, the most crucial was Abedi's friendship with some of the most powerful personalities--President Zia, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan, President Jimmy Carter, the ruling families of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, billionaires like Ghaith Pharaon, Khalid bin Mahfouz and Saudi intelligence chief Kamal Adham, a key liaison man between the CIA and Saudi Arabia.

Among those who allegedly benefited from the BCCI were US Ambassador to the United Nations Andrew Young, Bert Lance, Jesse Jackson, former British Prime Minister James Callaghan, then United Nations Secretary General Javier Perez de Cueller, Jamaican Prime Minister Edward Seaga, Antiguan Prime Minister Lester Byrd; a large number of African heads of state; and many Third World central bank officials. An example of Abedi's influence could gauged from the fact that he lent his corporate jet to Carter after his retirement, donated $500,000 to help establish the Carter Centre at Emory University in Atlanta and donated heavily to Carter's Global 2000 Foundation.

It was the John Kerry Committee that, perhaps for the first time, hinted at the possibility of BCCI funding the nuclear smuggling network.

In its exhaustive report (available at www.fas.org), the committee quoted a CIA memorandum which stated that "the Agency did have some reporting (as of 1987) on BCCI being used by Third World regimes to acquire weapons and transfer technology". In its conclusion, the Senate report said there was "good reason to conclude that BCCI did finance Pakistan's nuclear programme through the BCCI Foundation in Pakistan, as well as through BCCI-Canada in the Parvez case. However, details on BCCI's involvement remain unavailable. Further investigation is needed to understand the extent to which BCCI and Pakistan were able to evade US and international nuclear non-proliferation regimes to acquire nuclear technologies." Years later, an Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) officer, Major Ikram Sehgal, would write (Gulf News, November 24, 2001) about the mysterious, daily remittances of $100,000 made by BCCI in Karachi to bank accounts in Canada till mid-1988.

With the collapse of the bank following the Senate investigations and death of Abedi in 1998, many of those who ran the BCCI escaped prosecution and vanished from the headlines but only to emerge later as honourable businessmen, high-profile bankers and traders, a few as key financiers of Osama bin Laden's network of terror. A 70-page intelligence report prepared by French authorities in October 2001 said Laden's network of investments was quite similar to the one set up by the BCCI "often with the same people (former directors and staff of the bank and its affiliates, arms merchants, Saudi investors)". The report identified dozens of companies and individuals who were involved with the BCCI and were found to be dealing with the bin Laden network after the bank collapsed.

This link has not been probed indepth and needs to be investigated thoroughly, given the recent disclosure by a former Al Qaeda senior leader about Osama bin Laden getting access to nuclear material.

[TayTay]

9. From 2001: ARticle in MiddleEast

SNIP

Indeed, although US authorities were on Bin Laden's trail before the 1998 bombings, the Treasury Department was unable to take any meaningful action against his financial assets because the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) decided that to provide information on these assets would tip him off and disrupt clandestine operations underway against him.

Still, even before the 11 September attacks galvanised governments around the world to move in concert against Bin Laden and his associates, there had been some early breaks for US investigators. One was information obtained from a former Bin Laden accountant, Mohammed bin Moisalih, who was arrested in Pakistan in 1997 and returned to Saudi Arabia where he co-operated with authorities on Bin Laden's activities.

Further information was forthcoming that year when Saudi authorities granted a pardon to another former key financial aide, Sayyed Tayib Al Madani, in return for his co-operation. A third break came on 16 September 1999 when German authorities arrested Mohammed Mamduh Mahmud Salim, the alleged financial brains in Bin Laden's organisation and his main weapons buyer, in Munich. He was extradited to the US and convicted of participating in the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa. Yet even these gains were not enough to produce any real headway in going after Bin Laden's sources of revenue.

Bin Laden was among a number of illegal organisations which had hidden accounts with BCCI

But, according to US officials, Bin Laden has suffered setbacks in this area - even if authorities did not know of them at the time. Senator John Kerry, who led an investigation into the UAE-based Bank of Credit and Commerce International after it collapsed in 1991, disclosed on 26 September that Bin Laden was among a number of illegal organisations, along with Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal and certain Colombian cocaine cartels, which had hidden accounts with BCCI.

"We have learned since from law enforcement and intelligence sources that when we shut it down, we dealt him a very serious economic blow because of the size of those accounts and his dependency on that flow," Kerry said.

From:
The labyrinthian money trail of Osama Bin Laden
MIDDLE EAST, p 22 01-31-2002
By Ed Blanche

[ProSense]

11. Yes! And what was one of the first things done after 9/11?

Freezing the assets of organizations linked to terrorists.

[TayTay]

12. Yup.

I have scads of this stuff in the archives. These networks were known and tolerated during the 80's and early 90's. Hell, why did Bush I want Noreiga so bad anyway? (To shut him up.)

[karynnj]

17. I'm amazed every time I see a list of people who

were "bought" at least to some degree by BCCI. I never heard Jesse Jackson and Andrew Young before. This also shows a much stronger Carter connection.

Kerry really did risk his future fighting this - and looking at all the evil connections (Bin Laden, Abu Nidal etc) - Kerry was clearly fighting evil. (This only makes all the DU and real world, "spineless", weak, and "S&B" stuff even more apalling.)

It's scary to see how many times Dubai is mentioned - I bet Kerry wouldn't have signed putting them in charge of US ports.

[TayTay]

18. Yeah, and yet who invited Carter to speak at the Dem Convention

for the first time since 1980. At least we know JK doesn't hold grudges.

[karynnj]

20. That he didn't insist on hauling Nixon before his POW/MIA

committee absolutely amazes me. Beyond not holding grudes, I can't imagine that he had the strength not to retaliate against Nixon when he had the power to do so.

It's bizarre that people may have actually held his lack of vindictiveness against him, feeling safer with the angry Bush.

[beachmom]

19. It really does make your heart sink, doesn't it?

I admire Jimmy Carter so much, so reading this really is heartbreaking. (And you know, he just came out in favor of the Arabs running our ports; odd statement indeed)

And what of the Bush family? I thought there were links between the father AND the son and BCCI. Is that true? Why did it go nowhere? There was a lefty freeper (in general, a jerk) who insisted that there was enough to take down the Bush family, but that Kerry did nothing. What of that? Did Kerry do everything possible, but was stopped by the powers that be? I can understand why the media does little reporting on this -- it would literally take down the ENTIRE establishment -- both Dem and Repub -- it would seem. Or am I blowing this out of proportion?

[TayTay]

21. I think it would take down everyone

And Kerry never had the power to do any of this alone. Don't forget, that investigation and the promise of any other investigations went away with the 1994 Rethug takeover of Congress.

[beachmom]

22. Oh. Okay -- I wasn't sure what happened. So 1994 was curtain time.

If it implicated Dems, too, why didn't the Republicans of 1994 (after all, they were SUPPOSED to be reformers) want to continue to investigate? Or was it more embarrassing to their side than ours? So what you're telling me was that the Republicans were never for reform to stop gov. corruption, waste, et al. It was a lie from the beginning to increase power to the richest and most powerful, while throwing a bone to the religious ground soldiers on occasion. I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm trying to cleanse my brain of 20 years of RW talking point bulls***. Maybe I need a little detox help . . .

[karynnj]

26. BCCI was extremely smart - they bought both sides

It's sad beyond words that so few people backed Kerry. (Republican Senator Hank Brown was the only other person who seems to have been involved. I know nothing about him or how involved he was on the committee.)

[karynnj]

23. I think you might be right - BCCI bought a huge part

of the American establishment, even if it extends only to the names we know.

It also made it very hard for Kerry to use what he did. He very likely did weaken Bin Laden more than anyone else in the US government and he did this as a Senator fighting his own party to do so and when that became impossible getting the information to Morgenthau, who was in a position to fight it. I really can't see what else Kerry could have done as a Senator, public official or private citizen. He stopped only when he had neither committee or supoena power. (Even then you could argue that his book was his last attempt to get the information out.) So - he (almost alone) held hearing, worked to understand the information (that had to seem like bad science fiction), tried to interest the justice department, and assisted where ever he could. Then he wrote a book.

He couldn't base his campaign on these issues - both because it shows that Clinton didn't do everything he could to roll up terrorism (nor did Bush I), although he did far more than W. Raising the issue that he was right, and perserved against everyone would likely have backfired. People wouldn't have wanted to believe it and it likely would have been turned around by Bush to prove that Clinton was to blame for 911 - forgetting he CUT money to fight terrorism in the first 8 months of his Presidency. Kerry would likely have been labelled a lunatic (more than Perot was).

It's odd that Kerry had already been fightly the root of the problem. BCCI was clever to buy off the American government (both parties). The reason they could do this was the insatiable need for money to stay in power. I don't think that people around Carter thought they were selling out America - and they likely thought it was more important to be competitive in the money game so they could win elections.

[TayTay]

24. I don't think Carter was actively involved in this.

People around him were. That sounds like damning with faint praise, but I don't think Carter knew Lance was that dirty and playing with funny money the way he was. I think Carter is a good guy, but he had blind spots. Lance and such were blind spots.

[karynnj]

29. I agree with you - I really can believe Carter was involved

although some of the people around him were. (Wasn't there an Altman involved? and Clark clifford - but he was more LBJ)

[karynnj]

37. meant * Can't * , not can

[ProSense]

30. Yes.

Carter was too trusting. IMO, it's his humanitarian instinct. That's why I think he comes off as bitter to some people, when in actuality he's just not taking any more shit (I'm getting tired of those asterisks).

[wisteria]

8. # 3, Rendell,From and now this unknown potted plant!

I am really beginning to see a sleazy pattern here, all alluding to what Kerry didn't and should have done and getting their facts wrong. Kerry has been taking pot-shots for not coming out like a stronger warrior and for not addressing the domestic issues more. So, exactly what do they think he was speaking about when he drew those large crowds?

I wrote Rendell and I think I will contact the jacka** too. I think they need to know this bullsh*t isn't going to work, we were actually paying attention in 2004.

[ProSense]

33. Post on this

in LBN:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2122061&mesg_id=2122061

[wisteria]

35. No one has mentioned the Kerry comments. I'm just going to let

it go unless I see some movement.

[ginnyinWI]

36. Kerry gets flack when he tells the truth

But he's right, it isn't a war at all. Wars, by definition, are between nations. Is OBL a king? Nope, and he doesn't have a nation either. He's a gang leader, a thug. And as for Iraq, we invaded and occupied them. They might have good reason to say they are at war with us--or some of them, anyway.

I think that calling it a war is purely political--the people will then cede power, because they've been frightened. And now it is part of our national dialog--the War on Terror. I think maybe we should have a War on Hate, or a War on Ignorance, or a War on Selfishness. Or a War on War. Then maybe something would get done about them! ;)