Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In Iraq, Bush is fighting the wrong war on terror (Kerry was right)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 11:41 AM
Original message
In Iraq, Bush is fighting the wrong war on terror (Kerry was right)
Kerry used the law to bring down a terrorist network; Bush abused it to bring down America (and Iraq)!

Follow the money:

Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.

All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.

By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge.

Snip...

Make no mistake about it, BCCI would have been a player. A decade after Kerry helped shut the bank down, the CIA discovered Osama bin Laden was among those with accounts at the bank. A French intelligence report obtained by The Washington Post in 2002 identified dozens of companies and individuals who were involved with BCCI and were found to be dealing with bin Laden after the bank collapsed, and that the financial network operated by bin Laden today "is similar to the network put in place in the 1980s by BCCI." As one senior U.S. investigator said in 2002, "BCCI was the mother and father of terrorist financing operations."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html



In 1988, Kerry began an investigation of international drug connections as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations. He discovered that the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, a powerful global financial institution, was laundering drug money for Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and serving as banker for some of the world's most notorious terrorists, criminals and despots, including Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

At that time, I was the U.S. Commerce Department official responsible for Panama and other Latin American countries involved in the drug trade. I held a top-secret security clearance and read CIA reports bluntly describing the bank's role in drug-money laundering and other illegal activities. I was aware of Kerry's efforts to stop BCCI's activities.

I witnessed how Kerry met with opposition in Washington from powerful figures in both political parties. Even President George H.W. Bush, whose son George W. Bush received a $25 million BCCI loan for one of his oil businesses, pressured Kerry to drop the investigation. Finally, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Sen. Claiborne Pell, formally asked Kerry to end his probe.

Instead, Kerry gave his information to New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who launched a criminal investigation into BCCI. By 1991, the investigation exposed what Morgenthau described as "one of the biggest criminal enterprises in world history."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002062322_timashby14.html



Though the big newspapers pooh-poohed our discovery, Sen. Kerry followed up our story with his own groundbreaking investigation in early 1986 when Ronald Reagan was at the height of his power and George H.W. Bush was eyeing a run for the White House.

The Reagan-Bush administration did whatever it could to thwart Kerry's investigation, including attempting to discredit witnesses, stonewalling the Senate when it requested evidence, and assigning the CIA to monitor Kerry's probe.

But it couldn't stop Kerry and his investigators from discovering the explosive truth: the contra war was permeated with drug traffickers who gave the contras money, weapons and equipment in exchange for help in smuggling cocaine into the United States.

Kerry also found that U.S. government agencies knew about the contra-drug connection, but turned a blind eye to the evidence in order to avoid undermining a top Reagan-Bush foreign policy initiative.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/120905.html



After Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in November 1992, the Democrats lost interest in both the ongoing Iran-Contra investigation by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh and a congressional probe of secret contacts between Republicans and Iranians during the 1980 campaign, known as the “October Surprise” controversy.

On Dec. 24, 1992, Bush struck his own decisive blow against any hope those mysteries would be solved by pardoning six Iran-Contra defendants and drawing only a muted Democratic protest.

Clinton wrote in his 2004 memoirs, My Life, that he “disagreed with the pardons and could have made more of them but didn’t.” Clinton cited several reasons for giving his predecessor a pass.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided, even if that split would be to my political advantage,” Clinton wrote. “Finally, President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the matter between him and his conscience.”

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/031505.html



In 1988, Kerry successfully proposed an amendment that forced the Treasury Department to negotiate so-called Kerry Agreements with foreign countries. Under these agreements, foreign governments had to promise to keep a close watch on their banks for potential money laundering or they risked losing their access to U.S. markets. Other measures Kerry tried to pass throughout the 90's, virtually all of them blocked by Republican senators on the banking committee, would end up, in the wake of 9/11, in the USA Patriot Act; among other things, these measures subject banks to fines or loss of license if they don't take steps to verify the identities of their customers and to avoid being used for money laundering.

Snip…

In other words, Kerry was among the first policy makers in Washington to begin mapping out a strategy to combat an entirely new kind of enemy. Americans were conditioned, by two world wars and a long standoff with a rival superpower, to see foreign policy as a mix of cooperation and tension between civilized states. Kerry came to believe, however, that Americans were in greater danger from the more shadowy groups he had been investigating -- nonstate actors, armed with cellphones and laptops -- who might detonate suitcase bombs or release lethal chemicals into the subway just to make a point. They lived in remote regions and exploited weak governments. Their goal wasn't to govern states but to destabilize them.

The challenge of beating back these nonstate actors -- not just Islamic terrorists but all kinds of rogue forces -- is what Kerry meant by ''the dark side of globalization.'' He came closest to articulating this as an actual foreign-policy vision in a speech he gave at U.C.L.A. last February. ''The war on terror is not a clash of civilizations,'' he said then. ''It is a clash of civilization against chaos, of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.''

Snip…

By singling out three states in particular- Iraq, North Korea and Iran -- as an ''axis of evil,'' and by invading Iraq on the premise that it did (or at least might) sponsor terrorism, Bush cemented the idea that his war on terror is a war against those states that, in the president's words, are not with us but against us. Many of Bush's advisers spent their careers steeped in cold-war strategy, and their foreign policy is deeply rooted in the idea that states are the only consequential actors on the world stage, and that they can -- and should -- be forced to exercise control over the violent groups that take root within their borders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html?ei=5090&en=8dcbffeaca117a9a&ex=1255147200&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position=



In 1997, four years before Sept. 11, Kerry published "The New War," which was derived from his years leading the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations. In the book, Kerry described a changed global landscape after the end of the Cold War, with security threats coming less from nation-states than from shadowy criminal groups. Although it dwelled mostly on drug cartels and the Russian mafia, "The New War" also addressed the threat of Islamic terrorism and called for international cooperation to fight it.

"We should be the natural leaders of a world coalition against crime," Kerry wrote, "but we have yet to recognize the `new crime's' scale and sophistication."

This year as a presidential candidate, Kerry has offered a plan for energy independence that is notable not just for its sweep and technical detail but because it recognizes the destabilizing effect of resource shortages in the struggle for world security.

These three examples highlight John Kerry's core strengths: an ability to see complex problems in new, often prescient, ways and a willingness to seek collaborative solutions. Far from being wavering or indecisive, Kerry's worldview has been steadfastly informed by these values for as long as we on this page have known him. In complex and dangerous times, the United States needs a leader who can bring together people and ideas. For these reasons, the Globe endorses John F. Kerry for president and John Edwards for vice president in the critical election Nov. 2.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/10/17/kerry_for_president/




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. But Arlen Specter told us Kerry had a vacuous record in the senate.
Edited on Sat Jun-24-06 11:56 AM by blm
You mean...Arlen LIED?

You mean...that if the Senate and Congress took global terrorism as seriously as Kerry did throughout the 80s and 90s, we could have EXPOSED and STOPPED the global players long BEFORE a 9-11 happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. blm...
I would love your take on what Will Pitt says in this thread about Clinton's 1996 Omnibus terror bill and how republicans like Gramm gutted it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1497890&mesg_id=1497890

Sounds like Clinton's bill would have started to address Kerry's concerns but the repukes couldn't let that happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Repubs are TRAITORS to this country - they were PROTECTING Terrorists and
Edited on Sat Jun-24-06 12:49 PM by blm
the international financial networks who were helping them every step of the way.

Ask a Repub who he sided with when Kerry was working to expose the global terror networks in the 80s and 90s, Kerry or Bush1 and his cronies who were trying to block all investigation and exposure of the terror networks and their financial dealings.

It's a question that really goes to the heart of what they really believe - what side are they really rooting for - - - and why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ray of light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. this is an amazing thread! k & r !!!
Edited on Sat Jun-24-06 12:44 PM by ray of light
The media had all this info that they held back in 04? Now who thinks we don't have a facist media?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Yep it was there in 2004
but how much was it really the media's fault - okay, a lot I am sure - and how much was it incompetent political consultants... or consultants not doing their job well for whatever reason?

I swear the implications of that make me want to put my head on the desk and just cry. It s just too unbelievable that this stuff wasn't brought out in 2004. I must be missing something...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. The pundit class groomed by Clinton all those years would NEVER bring up
BCCI because it would cause people to wonder why Clinton closed the books on it. Bill never even MENTIONS the BCCI case in his book - - not once - - pretty unusual for a policy wonk to have never paid it any attention, wouldn't you say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Hmm. That's an interesting angle. I'll admit
I hadn't thought of it that way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Protecting Poppy - some agreement had to have been made back then.
There is no other explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. But BLM, it was only 957 pages long
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Heh - he wrote how IranContra helped him politically in 92, but he just
didn't think it was important enough to continue an investigation, so Poppy could retire in peace and couldn't even make ONE REFERENCE to BCCI in 957 pages?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. The funny thing is that both investigations are more interesting
than some of the really boring things he does write about - I have actually nor been able to finish the book because I get annoyed by how self centered he is and because I got little insight into things beyond what I had read or heard at the time.

(Oddly, my husband just bought "The New War" which I hadn't bothered to get as I thought it might be outdated. Although it's a very serious topic, I was surprised at how clearly a world (international crime and terrorism) that I had never thought of are explained. It also explained why Kerry's view of how to deal with terrorism was so different from everyone else's. His 1997 book is still ahead of where most people are - and I bet Kerry is well beyond what he wrote nearly 10 years ago.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. And BOTH investigations fully revealed would have PREVENTED 9-11
and this Mideast oil policy the US lives under.

You'd think after 9-11 that Clinton would have expected the American people would be more interested in hearing about the LARGER story re terrorism than what Clinton provided.

He actually should have given the American people more credit for CARING about the issue of terrorism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Absolutely...but also...
(and I am trying to understand here)... in other threads you've been critical of Clinton for "closing the books." I confess, I still haven't studied up on all this. I guess the omnibus terror bill of 1996 was something different than what you were talking about regarding Clinton. It sounds like he was on board with a strong approach in 1996 yet the repukes stopped it.

I am guessing that if you peel back the layers of almost every misstep of the 90's related to terrorism and international crime, we will find that there were repukes undercutting what Clinton wanted to do. Maybe he failed by letting them get away with it, I don't know.

I sure would like to see all this get more play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. The point about Clinton is that he could have made the whole terror issue
HUGE and outed the TRAITOR GOPs like George Bush and all of his cronies in ONE FELL SWOOP.

Thanks to his OWN FOOLISH DECISION TO CLOSE THE BOOKS FOR POPPY BUSH, he was stuck playing maneuvers against the GOP congress instead of sharing the truth with the country that would have dealt with ALL the Bushes and the GOPs who assisted them for GENERATIONS TO COME.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. There was also this:
9:54 PM 6/20/1998
U.S. halts probe of 1996 bombing in Saudi Arabia
FBI recalls its agents amid signs of discord with Persian Gulf ally
By PHILIP SHENON
and DAVID JOHNSTON
New York Times

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/page1/98/06/21/bomb.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
21. Al Qaeda attacked the US for one simple reason--bases in Arabia.
It has practically nothing to do with Palestine--if it did they would have attacked Israel.

It has nothing to do with hating us for our "freedoms." Otherwise they would have attacked Denmark which has more freedoms (like cannibas use and prostitution) than we do.

It started immediately when the US put bases on the holy soil of Arabia after Al Qaeda had spent a decade kicking the Russians out of Afghanistan. OBL never wanted ANY American help or troops in Operation Desert Storm, arguing that the Saudi government could fight Iraq themselves.

Even though Sec'ry of WAR Dick Cheney said "we wouldn't be in Saudi Arabia ONE DAY LONGER than was necessary" to win the first Iraq War, the bases and American staff were still there until 9-11.

Only then, too late, did we pull out from where we should have never been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. You're right!
The bombings in Saudia Arabia after the Iraq invasion should have made that clear, if by no other reason than the sheer animosity the Saudi population has for Americans, who live in fortresses there and cannot roam the country freely.

One of the key things played down in this entire al Qaeda/Iraq debate is that bin Laden considers Saddam an infidel because of his association with the West!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. Yup. That's what you get for playing nice . . . impeachment. The
Dems have to come to the unpleasant realization that Republicans are scum without honor and treat them as such.

Anybody "with them" is against us (like Bush said about rogue states). Even decent Republicans need to be punished just for supporting the party of greed, hate, power, and lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. It included a lot of Kerry's signature legislation
Kerry wrote the first U.S. law targeting money-laundering in anti-terrorism efforts. And it's referred to as the Kerry Amendment:


FINANCIAL CRIMES AND MONEY LAUNDERING

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This chapter provides a global assessment of money laundering and other financial crimes; a review of actions taken and a listing of continuing concerns; a prescription for future action; and, subchapters on about 200 nations and territories, including comparative rankings in terms of their efforts to control/prevent money laundering. The latter include the annual priority rankings, which for 1997 contain a number of upgrades, reflecting our heightened concern about the flow of illicit money through a financial system and/or a government's failure to take the steps needed to remedy these problems.

Snip...

Venezuela and the U.S. signed a "Kerry amendment" agreement in November 1990 for the exchange of information on cash transactions in excess of US$10,000. However, the agreement applies only to transactions in foreign currencies (including the U.S. dollar) but does not cover cash transactions in Venezuelan bolivares.

http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/le/docs/money96.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. OH! I LIKE THAT! "The wrong war on terror."
Wow! That's the hook, guys. Kerry isn't backing away from the fight, he's just trying to steer the country away from the collision course it's on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Imagine if the public were able to hear all this UNSPUN by media pundits
working to protect BushInc and their war profiteering paycheck signers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
17. "The wrong war on terror."
Crazy as it is, Bush is fighting it for whatever ulterior motive. The MSM must have a reason for ignoring that fact!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. MSM won't even bring up BCCI at all - they touch on ANYTHING ELSE but
as if there is a certified TABOO against any reference to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. He's fighting the war he wants, not the war he got.
:shrug: After all, it's all about what they want, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. Remember the redacted doc about 911 Attack?
References to Saudis were blacked out. Dems mostly ignored this. Most Dems were on board and still are regarding Iraq. They funded the Illegal Invasion and keep funding the Ilegal Occupation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. That was another issue that was FORBIDDEN discussion in the media -
anyone who brought it up received no follow up discussion. Think about how much discussion a blue dress got compared to Saudi connections to 9-11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
22. Indeed. You can't fight a conventional war against criminals
I rather agree with Kerry about that. They are criminals. Cut off their funding. Fight the poppy trade in Afghanistan, for one thing.

He was ridiculed for treating terrorism as if it were crime, and talking about bringing the problem down to the level of a nuisance. But isn't that what we would want?

All Bush is doing is creating more, not less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
24. The Bush administration is too busy
spying on Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-25-06 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
25. There are known ties between the Bin Laden and Bush family.
This is the reason a lot of us call them the Bush Family Evil Empire. The Mafia is nuthin compared to the BFEE! The Mafia deals in shakedowns, the BFEE deals in F-16s. The Mafia has union ties, the BFEE owns the Union.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. Good analogy - the BFEE has inserted its tentacles into every political
group it needs to manipulate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC