Franken mentioned JK's investigation of BCCI

[ginnyinWI]

He was talking with Joe Conason about how the * family has been related to the UAE for decades and continues to be: Carlyle is very interested in maintaining good business relationships to the government of the UAE, and then Joe mentioned the BCCI, the "bank of crooks and criminals" which Harken used to rescue itself from bankruptcy. Conason's article in salon: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/02/24/ports_controversy/

Anyway, Franken chimed in about how it was John Kerry who investigated BCCI, way before 9/11, before terrorism was on everyone's minds. I think Al still holds Kerry in high regard--repeated it twice for emphasis--that JK was way out ahead on this issue. Am I right?

I'm sure only know the tip-of-the-iceberg about all of these nefarious money connections! I could tell JK already knew a lot about it because he got that letter out to Snow so fast! But he's been otherwise silent on this: I wonder what he's cooking up? I can't believe he's not working on something!

[JI7]

1. one of the biggest mistakes of the campaign

not bringing this up because some thought it was too complicated for the people.

[karynnj]

3. at the time, it could have really back fired

Bush was running on having kept us safe from terrorism. Kerry's work was blocked not just by Bush 1, but wasn't pursued by Clinton's justice department. Clinton didn't back Kerry on getting his legislation on international funds laundering implemented and ignored eveything he wrote. In Clinton's book that came out one month before Kerry's convention, when listing Kerry's accomplishments and why he hoped he'd win in 1996, he mentioned nothing about Kerry's investigations, the POW/MIA chairmanship, or his knowledge of foreign policy. Clinton would have been the ideal person to bring it up.

Kerry bringing it up, would have given Bush more room to blame Clinton for 911(though Bush was clearly to blame - Clinton had stopped some attacks on his watch) and it could have completely splintered the Democratic party - causing the Clinton people to sit on their hands.

Remember that the 911 commission spread the guilt widely and focused really on no one - almost as if they thought it was too hard to contemplate holding any American responsible.

[JI7]

4. now that you mention this, it was probably the real reason it wasn't

brought up.

but another thing is that blaming Clinton hurt Kerry also. and other Democrats. people view that as the Democratic Party failure, not Clinton's failure. everytime they went out there and spread the lie about Osama offered on a silver platter, it hurt Kerry and other Dems. and that's what makes me angry about Clinton's relationship with Bush even more. it's preventing Clinton from really defending his administration on these issues and hurting us as a result.

this also shows the weakness of governors who don't have experience in national issues when they become President.

[ginnyinWI]

7. Governors

That is a good point. I think voters are now less inclined to put up with the on the job training they need on international issues. Clinton and Bush were maybe the last governors we'll see take the WH for a while. It may have been part of Dean's problem, come to think of it. The American public has been jerked into awareness since 9/11 that international relations do matter. It may be that more of our candidates are going to be coming from Washington from now on.

[karynnj]

8. That was the first issue I remember that hurt Dean

that he had no foreign policy experience. He countered with the fact that others had no executive branch experience, but that took less weight.

[JI7]

9. especially since Kerry was Lieutenant Gov

[FreedomAngel82]

11. He did bring up his book in the first debate

Go and read the transcripts. He did bring up his book "The New War" and all that in the first debate.

[karynnj]

2. Interesting ...

I wonder what Kerry is cooking up as well. I hadn't realised that Abu Dhabi was part of the UAE too - they had a whole section in Kerry's report! The odd thing is that the people spreading the "you're just anti- Arab" have to know all of this is there.

THis might be a good time for Kerry's BCCI/terrorism stuff to come out. It's far enough before an election that it could surface and become at a vague level common knowledge. The problem is that neither Clinton or the Repulicans will want this out. But, it really seems that if Kerry and Hillary are both in the primaries - with Bill speaking of Kerry as weak - Kerry will have to in his typical calm fashion lay out all he did - before anyone else was concerned - and how Clinton wasless concerned.

[ProSense]

5. Sure is.

I went back over the report chapters. It's highly relevant, but this deal stinks so much only a mention of it needs to be inserted into the debate. By these standards, Libya will be eligible to control our airports in a couple of years (five years after abandoning their WMD program and making payments to victims of terrorism).

[ginnyinWI]

6. And it makes me wish I were able to be a fly on the wall

and hear some of the Repub senators' reactions to this. It seems to be a great big F.U. from * to all of them--he's gonna go for his money and leave them all twisting in the wind--he doesn't need to get elected anymore!

I also think it took him by surprise--the strong reaction--because he's been so used to getting away with crap. And I do think it will be bad for them no matter what they do now, because he's the leader of their party and whatever happens to him happens to them! How does that go--when you lie down with dogs...

[TayTay]

12. It also shows how distracted Rove is with the Plame stuff

It's Rove's job to look out for potentially embarrassing stuff and fix it before it becomes a problem for his boss. Rove has been unable to do anything like be a lookout for Bush and spot potential problems and diffuse them for a long time now. (He is the Rethug's chief political guru and the alleged 'genius' of the Rethug movement. How come he didn't see this coming? Because Rove has his own problems and is not paying attention.)

The ports deals is, of course, it's own issue and draws in a lot of important things. But it is also a monumental political failure that has fractured the base of the Rethug party. This is yet another symptom of an Administration in meltdown and an Admin that can't find it's own arse with both hands and a flashlight. (Oh dear Lord, please just let this continue for at least 6-8 more months. That's all I ask, that the naked incompetence and blind arrogance continue through the mid-terms. That's all.)

I completely agree that this is a perfect time to go over what happened in BCCI. That amazing investigation was, in many ways, a window into what has happened in the world since the Nixon Admin.

[ProSense]

13. That and spying too.

Illegal spying is a big headache for Bush. Americans are not down with it, and the full extent of it is still unknown to many in the public. And as Kerry just pointed out again, Bush clearly broke the law.


Rove headache
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2479775&mesg_id=2479775

[ginnyinWI]

19. Rove's in over his head

He's good at smear politics, but this other stuff--he's all maxed out. I don't think he's been much help lately. Especially when * keeps digging them in deeper and deeper. And breaking the law. He needs a dozen lawyers to be able to keep up.

[FreedomAngel82]

10. Maybe he is and he's not giving anyone clues

Remember things are different now than when he closed BCCI with the neocons more out there and Karl Rove around, so he has to becareful. Kerry is a very good prosecutor so hopefully he's working on something but being quiet about it and will spring out of nowhere like with the filibuster deal with Alito (even though it failed).

[JanusAscending]

14. This is my own "gut reaction"

I agree he's quietly working on some strategy, but I think he's staying silent on this issue to allow the Repub's to devour themselves as they throw the "shrub" to the wolves. I'm sure you've all noticed who's doing most of the bitchin'!! Bushes BASE!!! If we come out too strong on this I'm afraid Bushes "spinners" will turn it back on us, as Bush himself already tried to do in his remarks the other day; (paraphrased) Why weren't we upset that the Brits were running our ports, and now get all up in arms about the UAE taking over?!!!! Well, duh.....I for one didn't even know a British CO. was running them!! But the UAE Govts. (not companies) will take ownership!! This is a big difference. Hi All!!:hi:

[karynnj]

15. Also, at this point his position is best

- The administration didn't do a careful study, they didn't use the 45 days, and on the radio Kerry mentioned 6(?) departments where the head said they didn't know about it. (Incredibly incompetent and lazy - on a very important issue - the cause sounds Katrinaish.)

- The people who were really involved in the decision included cronies of the company, who likely have a vested interest (How Abramoffish!)

-He demands transparency and review. This sounds all quiet and polite, but I agree with the Kos poster's comment that "with Bush's boat sinking, Kerry tossed him an anvil".

This is a very adult position - No matter what comes out- Kerry said nothing he needs to back track on here - and he links the characteristics of the approval process on something that affects security to two of the worst flaws people are beginning to see. (Hillary already to some degree back tracked - one problem for her is that this woke up the country - and supposedly this is the remainder of a 30 year lease signed in 2000 to a British company. Clinton would have approved it.)

When the actual situstion is vetteed, his BCCI and transportation committee background will make him a natural person to speak on this. The party should designate him - especially because the daily spoke of port security in 2004, but they will likely go with the true "live shots" of the party.

[JanusAscending]

16. Agreed!!

Love that."Bushes boat sinking and Kerry tossed him an anvil!!":rofl:

[ginnyinWI]

20. other reasons the UAE isn't totally trustworthy

They haven't been our ally nearly as long as the UK. I think it's only been since a while after 9/11. They've got such a recent history of being associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Money for the 9/11 attacks was run through their banks, and then they stonewalled about giving access to said accounts. Same thing with A.Q. Khan--he ran nuclear shipments through UAE ports!

Then there is the not recognizing Israel thing. I do think we should continue being their ally, but not to the extent that their government can own our seaports. There is a difference between being a new friend (UAE)and being an old, long-standing friend (UK).

[ProSense]

17. Kerry on port security (among other things) is

a great rebuttal to Wyden:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=72307&mesg_id=72307

[ProSense]

18. The ports deal really stinks

The lies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2480398&mesg_id=2480398

And the power grab:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2480322&mesg_id=2480322