Hay Gang - THIS is why it's important to keep doing what we're doing:

[blm]

This poster was one I replied to with my standard defense of Kerry after he submitted Skull and Bones as the reason Kerry conceded in Ohio.

After a couple exchanges he admitted he was young and didn't really know much about recent history (something we see in alot of the young who only activated over Iraq war).

A few of us directed him to some real history and he just posted this on kg's thread:

nam78_two (500 posts) Mon Aug-21-06 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
13. I have some questions about Kerry

Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 09:13 PM by nam78_two
I have recently been reading up on Iran Contra, BCCI etc.-I just knew the general outline before.

Kerry comes off as a real frickin' hero in all that I have been reading. Why did his campaign never talk about this stuff-this is baffling to me ?
I saw maybe one Salon article about all this stuff in the whole time.

The guy has a real backbone and what comes across is true integrity. How did they allow this man to be painted as a wishy-washy person with no principles??

How do these Repuke pigs get away with this time after time after time...tarring and feathering one highly respectable nominee after another....its baffling to me...

I always liked Kerry but his work on the Iran-Contra/BCCI stuff makes him a real hero. Too bad even so many lefties have a "meh" attitude towards him.

The more I learn about Kerry the more dejected I get about what might have been ...
Very frustrating looking at all the amazing people -Kerry, Gore etc. who might have been prez and then looking at what is the prez. .

Oh and good on him for the reporter stuff !
>>>>>

Kerry and his OFFICE need to see this.

[kerrygoddess]

1. Thanks BLM!

It is important that we keep doing what we are doing. As a matter of fact, we need to start coordinating more and develop some strategy as we discussed months ago after the Birthday party.

[blm]

2. And thank you - this poster turned around in a matter of two weeks, just

by hearing some real history.

Maybe compiling all the important historical facts and references would be the ideal forum page for ANY site.

[whometense]

3. wow.

Great job!! It's so exciting to be able turn the people who are willing to listen with an open mind.

[sandnsea]

4. For purposes of discussion

First, I am not not not arguing with anything you're saying there. I just want to flesh out this one teensy deelio of the 80's. Daniel Ortega. We didn't hear much about him during the campaign. I wondered at the time whether we would have if the campaign had started pushing Iran/Contra and BCCI. Does anybody think his support of Daniel Ortega, who turned right around and played kissy-face with the USSR, would be an effective counter to Kerry's BCCI and other drug work of the late 80's. If so, would it be worth our while to flesh that out a bit more.

In addition, if I understand correctly, Kerry was pro taking Noriega out. The left often cites Noriega and that aspect of the "drug war" as a bogus set up and Kerry gets hammered on it, along with his support of the Columbian drug war.

So I've always wondered if the 2004 campaign didn't think this was opening a bigger can of worms than he could benefit from. Not to mention the Ollie worship - or Kerry smearing St. Ronnie for political points.

Is there a way to get the good out without being simultaneously buried by more swiftboating from the right?

[blm]

5. Except that IranContra and BCCI are directly linked to the issue of TERROR

and its funding. What happened in regard to other issues is meaningless as they had nothing to do with Mideast terror, and IranContra and BCCI do.

What was the biggest issue in 2004 and will be in 2008? Terrorism. Not whether a South American leader lied to a couple young senators. What happened in that doesn't make a dent in the seriousness of IranContra and BCCI and how they relate to today's issues.

[sandnsea]

8. I'm talking about what the attack would be

and why the campaign might have chosen not to go there. I certainly understand the relevance of BCCI etc which is why I said I wasn't arguing that point at all.

I disagree, however, that Ortega would have been a blip compared to BCCI. People barely understood BCCI when it was going on, let alone trying to rehash it today. Pictures of meeting Daniel Ortega, that's simple to understand. I'm just asking if there's any way to really simplify BCCI so that it would way overshadow any perceived mistake he made on Ortega.

[blm]

10. I think that just the fact that Bin Laden family was part of BCCI would

peak the interest.

I disagree that BCCI is too complex now because it was complex then. Post 9-11, people in America can easily GRASP that financing terror is a REALLY bad thing and look back and realize that Kerry was being OPPOSED in his investigation into terror networks then by the entire Bush administration, many of who are part of the Bush2 administration.

A picture with Ortega from 1985 will get you a bigger Huh - Who he, and what does he have to do with terrorism?

[sandnsea]

12. The Bush & Bin Laden families are connected

Hasn't mattered yet. People seem to have decided Osama is the black sheep, every family's got one.

In any event, if you don't think it was Ortega, why do you think the campaign chose not to highlight Kerry's work on BCCI and the rest of it? I haven't been able to understand it, I'm just throwing ideas out there.

[blm]

15. Most people still don't know about the Bush and Bin Laden connex in the

general public - and they also don't know that when the bank was forced to close, Usama lost millions of dollars.

But, most importantly they don't know that BCCI was ESSENTIALLY ALL ABOUT TERRORISM AND ITS FUNDING NETWORS. If they even try to recall, it's always a "banking scandal" totally unaware of what was actually involved.

I think that many political operatives for the Dem party were absolutely uninterested in bringing up BCCI since it was an enormous sore point for the DC estabilshment for so many years, including many Dems. And I also think bringing it up would beg the question, Why were the books closed on this? Hell, Clinton never even MENTIONS one word about BCCI in his book.

[sandnsea]

19. Well I suppose

it could be that people have forgotten so much from that time, or never knew anyway, that you could talk more about money laundering and terrorists and if they tried to drag up old dirt it could be dismissed with "who?". I definitely think we have to talk about other ways to catch terrorists besides "fighting them over there".

Speaking of which, I spoke to an old family friend yesterday, friends of my parents that I grew up with. I've known them since I was 4 years old. Anyway, she's got Alzheimer's and has to go into a facility, he just can't take care of her anymore. So he's talking to me and one of his grandson's is joining the military, argh. I'm thinking to myself, don't say it don't say it, and out it comes - "better to fight them over there". AAACKK!!! And that's where we have to have an easy comeback because most all of us have people we love very much who we aren't going to get into a spitting match with. I let him talk a little bit and then I did just have to sort of laugh and say I hate Bush. The only thing that I could interject without feeling like I was picking a fight was that the terrorists were everywhere and I didn't think we were doing enough to get them all over the world. We could agree on that. That's where the money laundering and that sort of thing could really be part of a comprehensive alternative strategy that Democrats could get behind. Also, Hackett did a great job on Matthew's show yesterday, terrorism is a strategy not a philosophy. We have to have a strategy to defeat the philosophy primarily, and stop attacks while we're trying to defeat the philosophy. That seemed to be pretty simple and a good way to put it. And again, the money laundering and Kerry's work seems to fit right in there.

[karynnj]

14. I also don't think Harkin and Kerry were necesarily wrong on Ortega

In the late 60s, one point often made was that Ho Chi Ming had called on America after independence and was rejected. The fact that after Reagan blew him off, he allied with Castro doesn't mean we couldn't have kept him more moderate - and avoided war, which would have been Kerry and Harkin's goal. (The RW thugs that Reagan got in were brutal.)

[sandnsea]

18. Well, much like Chavez today

I don't think a politician who was meeting with Chavez shortly before Chavez defended Iran's nuclear ambitions would have much of a chance of winning anything. Certainly not the Presidency. Until the Democratic Party can express a national security policy that can frame communication as a strength instead of appeasement, I don't think that perception is going to go away. And the national party just doesn't seem to be willing or able, or maybe both, to do it.

[karynnj]

21. I completely agree with you

and realize that your post was not that they were wrong in an absolute sense, but that it would be a liability politicly in the current environment. I also see your point that because the Contras were fighting the same guy, the two are connected.

It also is likely this IS another case where Kerry was right, though this instance likely can't be used as the country is unaware of what was done in its name. His approach had to be better that the RW atrocities that controlled large parts of Central America in the 80s. The stories of the killings of the indian population in Guatamala and the murders of priests and nuns engaged in trying to help the people of Central America are horrible and are the actions of the RW people Reagan/Bush put in. I'm not white washing Ortega, but in a way Kerry's position there is not far from his Chavez position today. For Kerry's speech on Latin America earlier this year:

"The fact is that far too often, we have sent mixed messages when it comes to supporting democracy in Latin America. This Administration sat by and watched as mob violence drove presidents from office in Bolivia and in Argentina. They even encouraged a president to flee in Haiti, and immediately recognized a government named by a military junta in Venezuela. There is no question that Hugo Chavez has undermined the democratic process in his country, supported narco-terrorists in Colombia, and provided massive assistance to Castro’s repressive regime in Cuba. But when we countenance mob rule or military force to oust an elected president -- even objectionable leaders like Chávez -- we lose the credibility necessary to become a true force for democracy. In fact, our policies have been so unpopular that opposition to the United States has become a rallying point for some of the very politicians we would most like to see defeated."
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=254305

His position here parallels his position in the 80s, just as Bush's parallels that of the Reagan/Bush administration. W supported the coup in Venezuaela, just as they supported the coup against Ortega. Kerry in both cases was against the US pushing to oust an elected government. Here, he spells out problems with Chavez - in the 80s, he likely had problems with Ortega as well. Chosing to work with Ortega could be matched by the fact that the Bush people in the mid 80s were giving chemical weapons to Saddam and funding and arming OBL.

It is Bush who has an inconsistent position - democracy is the perfect solution in the ME, even if elections lead to an Islamic state in Iraq, Hamas in Palestine, and Hezzbolla members included in the government in Lebanon, but it is not the answer in Venezuela. How is Chavez worse that the leader of Hamas?

[ProSense]

35. I don't necessarily think that's the case!

Look at the situation with Lebanon, with Bush refusing to talk to Syria and Iran to resolve the situation. Many people, right and left, acknowledge that such diplomacy is the needed. Kerry has said repeatedly that diplomacy means talking not just to friends, but also to leaders in North Korea, Iran and Syria. That's diplomacy.

[sandnsea]

38. Frame communication as a strength

"frame communication as a strength instead of appeasement," Yeah, I agree with that. Unfortunately the national party doesn't do that which is a huge part of the problem in both convincing folks that Dems have an alternative plan and that Dems are strong on national security. That's what I'm saying, be prepared to reframe Daniel Ortega because I think they would attack him with it if he started pointing to BCCI and Iran/Contra drug/money laundering as evidence of his strength on fighting terrorists.

[ProSense]

44. Exactly! There is too much

fear mongering and hypocrisy and not enough diplomacy!

?

[ProSense]

46. A further point is that

BCCI/Iran Contra was an investigation. The dynamics are quite different from straight foward diplomacy. An investigation sometimes requires engaging nefarious and seedy characters to get to the truth. Diplomacy tries to build consensus and compromise. At the end of a criminal investigation, the guilty party goes to jail. I think international investigations like the one undertaken by Kerry, involved both to a large degree.

[TayTay]

6. Geez, that takes me back

St. Patrtick's Day roast, Boston Globe, 3/17/86

(Former MA Sen Pres Bulger) He rapped everyone, from the Kennedy family to the governor to The Boston Herald and The Boston Globe. About 800 people packed the club for the traditional pre-parade corned beef fest. The laughter rose louder than even the boisterous Irish music.

Bulger thanked Kerry for "having come all this way from the far end of his district, Nicaragua." He then invited Boston University president John Silber, who recently traded barbs with Kerry over US policy in Nicaragua, to join him on stage.

US Rep. Chester Atkins took the microphone to say he'd heard Silber, known for his political conservatism, planned to hire deposed Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos as a teaching fellow.

"He's going to run a seminar with Kevin White on using leftover campaign funds," declared Atkins. (White, the former Hub mayor, is now a BU professor).

Laughs became loudest when Bulger introduced two candidates in the 8th Congressional District fight -- James Roosevelt and Joseph P. Kennedy 2d.

"And you must be Prince Charles," Bulger said, turning to Joe Kennedy. "I saw your uncle on Soviet TV," he said, referring to Sen. Edward Kennedy. "I thought he was surrendering." Bulger warned the younger Kennedy that he was beginning to have a "Kerry accent" and that the two were even starting to look alike: "blue shirts, blue suits, a lot of teeth."

St. Patrick's Day, 1988 Boston Globe 3/21/88

Of Lt. Gov. Evelyn Murphy, he said: "Now there's a lady in waiting. When Dukakis goes, Evelyn, you and I will make a great governor." Before the laughter faded, he added, "You can take care of the ceremonies. I'll handle the rest."

Secretary of State Michael Connolly, one of Bulger's favorite targets, tried to disarm the Senate leader early with a joke on himself. "I'm late because my spaceship crashed down at the L Street bathhouse," Connolly said, referring to his reputation as being the "Secretary of Space."

Connolly's tactic didn't work. "That was a battle of wits," Bulger said. "It was very unfair of me -- my opponent was unarmed."

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) towers over Bulger, but the Senate president's introduction quickly cut him down to size. "Ladies and gentlemen, straight from Managua, Nicaragura, you've followed his career in People magazine: the junior senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry."

"You're not intimidated by the television cameras, are you?" Bulger asked Kerry with mock concern.

And Bulger recalled the first time he met Sen. Edward Kennedy, at a luncheon at Locke-Ober with former Judge Francis X. Morrissey "and other giants of the past."

Sorry, I always remember laughing at these. Bulger was a little tyrant, but he was a funny little tyrant.

Geez, the Globe couldn't even spell Nicaragua. Nevermind understand what Kerry was doing there.

[sandnsea]

11. Things haven't changed all that much I guess

Yeah, you guys really do like your politics rough and tumble. lol.

30 years of proxy wars, yeah I understand what Kerry was doing in Nicaragua. But I don't know what he can do now that the history has been written and half the Democratic Party probably agrees that Reagan toughness "ended the cold war". That's kind of what I mean, how do we flesh out BCCI and 80's money laundering and terrorism without dragging up all the conventional wisdom that isn't so flattering, whether it's right or wrong.

[TayTay]

23. Sandy, who's 'your guy' here?

One of my all-time favorite Kerry articles comes from way back in 1992. It was written by the wonderful and insightful former BGlobe writer John Aloysius Farrell (who was, hands down, the best writer on the Globe Kerry bio):

From: THE AVENGER LOVE HIM OR HATE HIM,
SEN. JOHN KERRY HAS ALWAYS BEEN A MAN ON A MISSION.
HIS ARDENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE POW-MIA ISSUE REVEALS A POLITICIAN WHO COVETS THE NATIONAL STAGE - AND MAY BE POISED TO TAKE IT.

Boston Globe, THIRD, Sec. SUNDAY MAGAZINE, p 12 02-09-1992

By Globe Staff John Aloysius Farrell

Where others see danger in braving the briar patch, Kerry sees opportunity. He has calculated the potential acclaim should he succeed where others have failed. If he can release the POW-MIA families from the pain of uncertainty, free the nation from this last, nagging psychic fetter of that dirty Asian war, and help open Southeast Asia to American trade and democratic reform, the political payload could be nuclear. "I see the multiplicity of things coming together there," Kerry says. Says someone who knows him well: "Read his Silver Star citation. It is the essence of John Kerry: Attack, attack, attack."

But if the seduction of risk and the thirst for glory set Kerry on his latest campaign, so do other motives that can also be traced to his Vietnam experience. There is a reason that Kerry has carved a career as an avenger: against the war in 1971, against organized crime as a prosecutor, against government corruption and hypocrisy in the war on drugs, the Iran-contra affair, and his latest target -- the money-laundering activities of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, better known as BCCI. Vietnam left this son of privilege (St. Paul's prep, Yale, Skull and Bones) transformed.

"He has an idea of what he wants to be in the Senate, which is different from his colleagues'. He has a broader view of things than just perpetual reelection. . . . He is willing to take risks," says former aide Jack Blum, who worked as the chief investigator for Kerry's crusades. "I had a sense of a man, looking at his personality -- how he was driven, totally, without a need to stop -- that a lot of that was a Vietnam veteran syndrome, a postcombat stress.

"It is a terribly conflicting kind of thing for him," says Blum. "You come home and discover that people who are running the war are just interested in covering their ass; meanwhile, real people are dying real deaths. For the intelligent people who wound up in the real stuff of combat, like Kerry, this was a very searing business." Blum says Kerry's involvement in the POW-MIA issue is a direct result of his wartime experiences "and the need he feels to resolve what he . . . couldn't resolve then, and is still driven by."

"I felt betrayed," Kerry says. The need to expose government duplicity snakes through his public life. And so Kerry was ready to be moved by the arguments of the relatives of missing men: that a heartless government abandoned its fighting men in the rush to shed the political liabilities of the war in 1973 and then covered up its cruelty for almost 20 years.

In the time since Vietnam, Kerry has had too many POW-MIA families beseech him, watched too many of the awful black flags hoisted at fire halls, and listened to too many POW-MIA roll calls at the start of Little League baseball seasons not to bend finally to the insistent call. A year ago, long before the latest round of phony POW-MIA photographs raised the media and political stakes, Kerry had set in motion a plan to bring some sort of closure to the American experience in Vietnam.

"As one of the soldiers of that particular period, I feel it more, sure," says Kerry. "There is an obligation owed to everybody who served in Vietnam, everybody who was affected by Vietnam, and every American. And it pisses me off that they lie. It pisses me off that we are sitting here, 30 years later, struggling to get information to people. That is not what government, in my view, is meant to do. I'm angry about it."

Consider in this light another tale from the combat zone. On March 13, 1969, just two weeks after Kerry won his Silver Star, his little fleet ran into a minefield and was ambushed by the Viet Cong. Explosions rocked and disabled one craft, Kerry was wounded in the arm, and one of his men was thrown overboard. According to a US Navy history of the engagement: "All units began receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard." For his courage that day, Kerry won the Bronze Star with combat "V" and one of three Purple Hearts he earned in the service of his country.

Kerry the warrior believes that a nation and its soldiers enter into a compact, a larger, grander version of the intense ties of loyalty that bind small military units together and lead young lieutenants to risk their lives on behalf of a buddy thrown overboard. Politicians choose the paths of their careers. Some become leaders of ideological causes. Some are savvy legislators. Kerry has chosen to spend much of his political life in a long-running series of scraps to ensure that government doesn't break such compacts with its people.

"He has a sensitivity to integrity, particularly when it comes to trusting government," says Bob Muller, director of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. "It comes from his Vietnam experience, in which questions of integrity are paramount. He's been given a lot of hot potatoes. A guy less steadfast would roll with the punches and let it slide."

Kerry has well-chronicled flaws: He can be self-indulgent, self-certain, and self-centered. But if the Silver Star shows Kerry as a man of zeal and ambition, his Bronze Star says the senator may be something rarer in Washington: for all his flaws, a man of honor. Such men don't leave buddies behind. Not on the Bay Hap River, not in the halls of Congress.

The Avenger. Hyperbole, no doubt, but still. Who is this guy? I have read here and on the blogs the phrase, "let Kerry be Kerry,' in relation to all the consultants and such who worked for but never 'got' Kerry in 2003-2004. So, what is there to 'get'? Who is this guy? What do you think he will do, going forward?

If Kerry wants to pursue this, he will. What else does an Avenger do? o get the liars, the deadbeats, the incompetents and the fakes and expose them and make them pay for what they did. Stand up for what you feel is right. What else is there?

[sandnsea]

28. I don't even know what you mean

And the Globe piece you posted below, written at the time, doesn't help either. It's one thing to give a 4 month Senator a pass, it's another for a Presidential nominee. JK wants to drag up BCCI and all that that entails, fine, they'll drag up that he was a Communist dictator appeaser. No big deal I guess.

[blm]

29. Except BCCI relates to everything happening TODAY - Ortega doesn't and

can't even be stretched to be significant to today. Bringing up BCCI would HELP the American people to better understand what is involved in dealing with terrorism in a REAL WAY.

Ortega would make people's eyes glaze over because there's no there there and has nothing to do with the terrorism. BCCI is all about terrorism and their global financial networks. It was a SIX YEAR EFFORT. There is no comparison and I don't get why anyone would believe it is.

I think Kerry will be fully prepared to engage on this when the time comes - and I will bet that he listens more to what we are saying about this than those self-serving Clintonites who don't want BCCI to be spoken of at all.

[sandnsea]

30. Yes, dealing with perceived dictators does

I'm not even saying Kerry did the wrong thing, I'm talking about the conventional wisdom of the time. We lost the spin wars then too. I can't understand why you guys think negotiating with an enemy of St. Ronnie could be perceived as no big deal. As far as I can tell, most people think we were supporting freedom fighters in Nicaragua and haven't thought of it much further than that. I think their response to Kerry & BCCI would be an Ortega attack and we never seem to win those things, that's all.

[blm]

36. Because the SAME terrorists being protected by Bush1 then are our enemies

today. Daniel Ortega WHO?

And like I said - I doubt Kerry will be listening to Clintonites much in 2007 and 8, and will be more prepared to make the case about HIS REAL WORK on terrorism and the right way to deal with it. George Will's column is a good sign that the case can be made to even stubborn conservatives.

[TayTay]

34. The trips to Nicaragua led to Iran-Contra

They was a direct line from those early trips to Managua that led to the investigations on IRan-Contra.

That is how it unfolded. Why would I or anyone else want to renounce that?

[sandnsea]

37. I'm not saying renounce it

I'm saying be prepared to answer the Daniel Ortega part, the attack that I would think you know would come the very instant he started referring to that era and those scandals. It is all tied together and it just seemed to me that in 2004 there was a sort of agreement to avoid the whole thing. I can't believe people think that between Vietnam and Madam Binh, and Ortega, there wouldn't be a whole new shit storm to deal with.

[TayTay]

39. You deal with the argument head-on

Take the argument on it's merits. Kerry tried to talk diplomacy and get America out of it's covert war against the Sandinistas. (Ahm, that's consistent. He's a big on diplomacy guy.) The government lied in the way it talked about the issue with the American people and the way in which it covertly funded the Contras. The government lied. Ahm, that makes Kerry's actions defensible, in my book. (His actions related to carrying out the law of the United States and in upholding the Boland Amendment, which was the law of the land at the time.)

[sandnsea]

40. The government lied

Now that's a frame that would resonate. Perhaps innoculate by connecting that set of lies with Iraq lies. I know it's been done a bit on the left with Negroponte, but not enough in the mainstream. That's the kind of thing I was hoping somebody would come up with.

[TayTay]

41. Sandy, the point of asking

"who's your guy here" begs this question. This is what Kerry does. It's what he's always done. This is him at his best, when he's challenged and when there is a clear cut cae of government lying and irresponsibility. That's what's in that article I cited. That's who this guy is at his best.

Ahm, go get em, sir.

[sandnsea]

42. In our view

But the exact same things that I see as exposing some of our more horrendous dealings with foreign countries over the years are the things that a large portion of the country see as near traitorous activities. It's all well and good to say Kerry does what he thinks is right no matter where it leads, but that argument doesn't amount to a hill of beans if 80% of the country has a completely different perception on what those fights were about. A lot of people, probably no 80% but a lot, don't even have an idea that we might have been doing the wrong thing with the Contras, even if they believe illegal arms trading happened. I think most of the country is inclined to believe whatever the governing powers say to them, it would seem most people believe Reagan was right on everything he ever did internationally and the Dem/DLC faction helps perpetuate that. So while Kerry certainly saw things in Latin America that concerned him, which led to the exposure of Iran/Contra, BCCI and Noriega, most people wouldn't connect any of that to seeing Kerry meeting with Daniel Ortega when Reagan was trying to overthrow him. People really do compartementalize like that.

Connecting lies told then to lies told now, now that's something that can have people rethink what they thought they knew about Nicaragua and understand what Kerry was up to when he met with Ortega. It can even be minimized as just a fact finding mission, meetings like he's had all around the world in recent years.

[TayTay]

43. Again Sandy, you will never get all the people

We have opposition. We will always have opposition. The current crop of neocons fundamentally see the world in a different way than you and I might. We cannot convert them or change them. Period. That is why we have elections and courts; we settle disputes in those ways.

40-45% of the country believes as you say. It is worthless to go after these people ON THEIR TERMS. This is what has been learned since 1994. We lose when we begin the argument by conceding their points. We do not concede their points. At all.

The argument you cite above works for the opposition. When put in their way, they always win because they hav defined the rules of the discussion. There is no real argument in saying, "Anyone who went to Nicaragua must be a Commie." The argument is settled in the statements contained therein. You will not 'get' these people. They are not yours to 'get.'

We basically fight about 10% of the population who votes in America. 10%. Those are the people who are open to an argument on the merits and one that is not contaminated with preconceived notions. Those are the people you frame the arguments for. You cannot get the other 40-45%. They are not yours to 'get.'

[sandnsea]

47. In Nevada? In Colorado? In Tennessee?

Those numbers may be true in Michigan or Oregon, but I'm not so sure they're accurate in some of these states that have gone red in recent years. What if 40-45% of those states that we need to win the electoral vote believe the way WE believe, and 50% or more are the ones you say we can't 'get'. When the country has more states like that than states like Oregon or Michigan or Massachusetts, then we still aren't going to win at the national level or have a majority in the Senate. So it just isn't enough to dismiss them as 'ungettable'.

We've also been conceding the point for 25 years, hell we just conceded the point on "vote for war". I don't support that either. That's why I'm even bringing it up. I have a feeling if Iran/Contra or BCCI came out of John Kerry's mouth, Daniel Ortega commie sympathizer would come out of whatever Republican opponent's mouth.

Look at it another way. Kerry's money laundering bill was part of the Patriot Act, other Dem legislation that we tried to pass after OKC was too. But we couldn't use any of that because our left attacked on the Patriot Act, as did the extreme right. How the HELL did we let our party get spun as weak on terror when Republicans are the ones who refused to implement these laws in the 90's.

So I was just asking how we could be pro-active with this for once. Connecting the lies at that time to the lies now is definitely one way, as well as pointing to JK's long history of international fact finding missions and meetings with leaders of all types. I think dismissing it as "we won't get them anyway" is a mistake and might be what the swiftboaters banked on when they made their attack.

[ProSense]

48. IMO, this is how it happened.

The media pushed the message in the same way they pushed the war and Iraq-9/11 link. But worse, they didn't push the Democrats' message. Take George Will's admission about Kerry's position. I remember when the NYT article about Kerry's position on fighting terror came out. I read it and was floored, but the media seemed to brush it off. In fact, the snide media ass-holes almost seemed to ridicule it because big bad cowboy bush was fighting the real war on terror in Iraq. The NYT staff was fumbling through explaining their apology for ramming WMD down Americans' collective throat. The entire episode was ridiculous, but it was easy for the press because the could play on the sentiments of people still angry about the 9/11 attacks. War was instant gratification, never mind that it was unjustified.

I still think people underestimate the impact the media has because they somehow think that if the media doesn't report the Democrats' message while aggressively promoting the GOP's, the Democrats can simply get around the media. There are ways to do it, but these methods will never be the same as 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. inside people's homes.

That's the reason for the constant calls to get the word out and share the message. Democratic politicians have to take advantage of every interview and opportunity to voice their concerns in the media. Then there is the call to hold the media accountable for bias. It's a lot, multifaceted, but it can be done. One of the problems is that it becomes too easy for the media to try to portray Democrats as angry and pandering (like the LA Times editorial on Wal-Mart). One would think the Democrats caused Wal-Mart's problems.

[sandnsea]

49. Well yeah

And that's what they did in the 80's with the Sandinistas. That's why I bring it up. They'll do it again. I think it's great to promote all the work Kerry has done on prosecutions and international crime and money laundering and terrorists. But because we know what the media does, we also need to be prepared to deal with Daniel Ortega, that's all I'm saying.

I just looked at the Wal-mart op-ed, ick. Wal-mart shoppers may vote Republican, that doesn't say what Wal-mart employees do. Once the shoppers connect billion dollar profits with taxpayer funded labor costs, they may start singing a different tune. As long as we don't get intimidated into conceding the debate as "anti-business".

[karynnj]

45. Exactly

People from Reagan's administration went to jail for breaking the law with respect to Iran/Contra, Kerry didn't. Kerry was demanding accountability.

They were bring in DRUGS, "Prosecutor" Kerry wanted it stopped.

The poster BLM quoted in the OP was right Kerry was a hero here. (I understand that just as in Reagan's time they wanted to frame it as wrong, but it wasn't.)

The question is parallel to today, do we ignore it was wrong to invade based on lies and close our eyes to abuses. I think this past is so long ago that it should NOT be in the forefront. Solutions to today's problems will be in the forefront. Of all the Kerry "images", the one that might be seen as cleaning up the mess is the righteous prosecutor determined to clean up the "town".

[TayTay]

33. But Sandy he wasn't

That was about accountability and responsibility. That is defendable.

There will always be people who hate you. They will always be out there. In fact, if you do your job well as an investigator, a whole lot of really powerful people with media megaphones will really friggin hate you for the rest of your life. They will never drop it, never let it die and will see to it that everything that can be done to discredit, embarrass and harass you is done.

So be it. Ahm, you cannot appease such people. You violate your own moral code and reason for being in doing so.

Kerry is who he is. He cannot disown any of the things he has done. (Nor would he want to, he is proud of his accomplishments.)

The REthugs and their media enablers do what they do. You can't stop them, you can't appeal to the 'angels of their better nature,' you can't try and blunt what they say. They do what they do relentlessly and mercilessly, like a machine.

Kerry should be Kerry, own his past accomplishments and tell the truth. The Right Wing spin machine will do what it does, no matter what Kerry says or does. I think he should be his own self and do what he does best, continue to point out the lies and deception that is going on.

You can't change Druggie Limbaugh and make him see the truth and stop repeating lies. It's not going to happen. Ever. You don't get all the people to your side. You get enough of the people.

[blm]

24. Sirota did it well in his Wasington Monthly piece in Sept 2004.

.

[TayTay]

25. This is what Democracy Corp said Dems need to do.

Tell me if this event remotely sounds familiar?

Points of Engagement

To make news and get heard, Democrats have to be advancing ideas and critiques that are newsworthy, real, that force a comparison, and ultimately, lead people to an overall conclusion about the choice in the election. Here is where we would start.

1. No congressional pay raise for the life of the next Congress (2 years), until the minimum wage is raised. Democrats should keep raising the ante – attacking the Washington insiders that are indifferent to what is happening in the lives of ordinary Americans. They should renounce the pay raise that puts Democrats outside of Washington, and give up perks. Linking that to an increase in the minimum wage or a rising income for ordinary Americans shows they understand what is happening in people’s lives. (In multiple polls, this is our strongest reassurance and strongest offer in future policies.)
   
   
2. No more Terri Schiavo all-nighters in the next Congress, until Congress does something about gas prices, health care costs and creating American jobs. We believe voters are open to an even bolder statement – no more debates about changing abortion and gay marriage, either way; no more constitutional amendments; and no more Terri Schiavo all-nighters for 2 years, until Congress does something about high gas prices and American jobs. (In one test of this message, 63 percent said they were more likely to vote Democratic, including 45 percent saying “much more likely.”)
   
   
3. Congress should reclaim its oversight role and use its investigative powers to see how $9 billion went missing in Iraq, look at the no-bid contracts to Halliburton and poor services to our troops, all at great expense to U.S. taxpayers. This is Democrats’ strongest message on Iraq that shows an attention to cost and government waste. It is also believable and contentious. (Note that Democrats win this argument decisively, even when the Republicans attack this effort as undermining the morale of our troops.)
   
   
4. Repeal the orgy of corporate tax breaks and wasteful spending projects to save $75 billion, with the money dedicated to reducing the deficit and to cutting college costs by making tuition tax-deductible. Voters are very alert to the fiscal mess of the country and strongly support this idea to reduce spending and taxes, and to stop passing our bills on to the next generation.


These all have the virtue of creating points of engagement. They all take the debate to the economy and financial pressures facing Americans. And they all lead to a conclusion that we need a new direction – a strong America that works for everyone.

Ahm, this is tailor made for Kerry. He should point to his background as an investigator, use all that righteous anger, direct it at the Rethugs and move to kick some ass. (It's what, IMHO, he was born to do. This is who he is.) Embrace this part of your past, it's true, it needed doing, and we need more people willing to do that now. (Now even more than then.)

[ProSense]

31. The BCCI, Iran Contra

investigations are shining moments. Senator Kerry is a leader in fighting international crime and in his knowledge of how terrorists operate and should play it up. No doubt Senator Kerry will play this up when people like Richard Clarke acknowledge that he is at the forefront in this area. From Kerry's Senate site:

Fought International Crime, Corruption and Drug Trafficking. John Kerry chaired the landmark hearings that uncovered the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) scandal - the largest banking corruption scandal in modern times. He led hearings which provided evidence that Haitian military officials were involved in drug trafficking to the United States. He also led hearings on corruption and drug trafficking by Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, and introduced legislation requiring the Reagan administration to cut off foreign aid to Panama because of drug-related corruption within its government.

Uncovered Government Corruption. John Kerry went on a fact-finding mission to Nicaragua and presented his findings to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Based in part on John Kerry's groundbreaking findings, the committee reached a consensus decision to investigate the Contra guerillas and their connection to drug trafficking in the United States. The resulting investigation uncovered the Iran-Contra scandal, a scheme that diverted profits from illegal arms sales to Iran to support the Contra guerilla fighters in Nicaragua.

This was a fascinating case, executed brilliantly and widely praised for its scope and challenge to the status quo.

[karynnj]

7. I also think there that the idea of

the government allowing drugs to enter the country and allowing the country to be flooded with cocaine - a root cause of the destruction of some inner cities - is too awful to be believed.

Kerry's work was good. Kerry's book, The New War, makes a strong case for why a global (international) effort is need to fight these global crime networks. It goes beyond the problems caused by drugs themselfs to these criminals essentially buying off officials then effectively buying entire governments. A subset of these crime networks is terrorist networks. (I just read the book and it is amazing.) I would bet that the full Iran/Contra stuff will be played down, but the BCCI stuff played up.

As to Noriega, the left is likely against taking Noriega out because GHWB did it. Noriega was reputately a US operative who at some point became a liability. He seemed to have been hated by the people of Panama. (We visited a rainforest and Panama City a few years ago and there is still damage from bombings in one of the poorer sections of Panama City.) I know it was Kerry's evidence of drug running that was used as the reason for going after Noriega. I never read anything about his views on that invasion though. This would be a good subject to know more about.

As this is one root of Kerry's understanding of terrorism - which is still a major card that he holds - the BCCI / New War / drug and crime fighting will likely be given more attention. Probably linked thematicly to Kerry's time as a prosecutor. (Look at the other Democrats - none have military experience, foreign policy expertise and a strong background on fighting terrorism. (It may be that terrorism is Kerry's global warming - and in reality it is perceived to be the more significant issue.)

[sandnsea]

9. I thought it was

terrorism is Kerry's global warming that is. I'm just trying to figure out why the campaign didn't play that up and the only thing I've been able to come up with is Ortega.

I think the left just hates the war on drugs, and some libertarians too. They don't want to believe bad things go on as related to drug dealers because that might challenge their belief that it's all victimless adult fun.

[fedupinBushcountry]

13. Wasn't it the BCCI

that brought out names of both Republicans and Democrats that had their hands in the operation and Kerry was looked down upon for that?

[karynnj]

16. Also, one of the only areas of Bush success in the WoT

is that they have had some affect in drying up some of the money. Yet the campaign rarely mentioned that all the money laundering stuff was Kerry's written and fought for for a decade. All I can think of is that it was connceted to the Patriot Act's unpopularity.

Does anyone know if any of that legislation or the Kerry agreements had any impact intrnationally that contributed to London'd success?

[ProSense]

17. This stuff is fascinating!

Kerry was in excellent form during this period, the level of backstabbing and deception that he had to put up with (and that was among the so-called good guys) and stay focused.

I have some information bookmarked, here are two articles:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/121499b.html
http://www.moneylaundering.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?id=3001



I take it back: it wasn't rare form, it was Kerry's natural abilities shining through.

[karynnj]

22. These are great -

[ProSense]

32. They are!

The thing about this is that it was a fight against an international establishment, and a timid investigation was not going to bring down these crimininals.

At first, Kerry's audacity cost him. Within weeks of taking office in 1985, he was off to Nicaragua, accompanied by reporters on a 36-hour, self-appointed fact-finding mission with another freshman, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. Congressional Democrats had accused the White House of exaggerating the communist threat posed by the Sandinista regime. So the two senators were publicly castigated when -- just days after meeting with Daniel Ortega and other leaders of the regime -- the Sandinistas climbed aboard a plane to Moscow to cement their Soviet ties.

Secretary of State George Shultz declared that Kerry and Harkin had been "used" by the Nicaraguans, and he ridiculed them for their naivete in "dealing with the communists." Kerry was called "silly" in the Boston press.

During this time, North was an obscure White House aide, a man with a ramrod-straight disposition, short cropped hair, patriotic zeal, and unflagging allegiance to President Reagan. North had secretly begun to organize a complex scheme to raise money from wealthy conservatives, foreign nations, and eventually from the proceeds of secret arms sales to circumvent the Boland amendments and keep the contras in the field.

Word that something was afoot began to seep into Kerry's Capitol Hill office, which had become a magnet for tips from left-leaning journalists, activists, and conspiracy theorists drawn to the senator's antiwar history and his criticisms of Reagan's Central American policy.

Kerry worried that a repeat of Vietnam -- with a White House misleading the public -- was in the making. "A central part of my campaign had been the notion that I would bring to the Senate the experience of the Vietnam period, which cautioned me against the kind of illegal activities we were hearing about, and the things that were going on," Kerry recalls. "Literally, I did do an ad hoc investigation."

The Vietnam skipper who once beached his boat to kill an enemy guerrilla assembled a combative and single-minded crew inside the Russell Senate Office Building. Kerry's scrappy staff had minimal Washington experience and, like Kerry, little desire to fit in with the normally genteel style of the US Senate. In his choice of aides, like the senators he sought out as partners, Kerry was eclectic.

"John formed nonconventional alliances," says former chief of staff Frances Zwenig. "You can't pigeonhole him. He likes feisty people who are fighters like him."

Another former chief of staff, Ronald Rosenblith, offers a telling description of his own personality: "I piss people off sometimes. I annoy people. All I know how to do is tell the truth."

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml

As with Vietnam, there were those who wanted to see this effort fail!

[MH1]

20. I made this post when I had the opportunity

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MH1/74

Highlighting good things people said about the way Kerry pursued those investigations. It was an active thread so I figured a lot of people might see it and be reminded how hard Kerry has worked on this stuff throughout his career.

As for Ortega, I agree we need to understand that better. I think what he and Harkin tried to do with Ortega was well-intended, but Ortega really knifed him by meeting with Krushchev so soon.

Yes, we could all probably use a history lesson on this stuff.

[TayTay]

26. That can be defended.

Read me:

IT'S UNFAIR TO CRITICIZE KERRY ON NICARAGUA
BOSTON GLOBE, THIRD, Sec. OP-ED PAGE, p 17 04-23-1985
By Globe Staff Robert L. Turner

Many commentators have attempted lately to use the history of Vietnam to produce lessons about Central America, particularly Nicaragua.

The fact that contradictory "lessons" have been drawn by different people is easy to explain. The places, the situations and the times are very different.

Indeed, if history is to be a teacher in Nicaragua, the history of Nicaragua would be much more instructive than the history of Vietnam.

But there is one lesson that Washington should have learned from Vietnam but clearly has not, and that is the utter bankruptcy of challenging the patriotism and good intentions of people who disagree with policy.

Sen. John F. Kerry has been the target these last two days of a free-for- all assault by leaders of the Reagan Administration that has been so strident and spiteful it seems almost certain to backfire.

Secretary of State George Shultz said yesterday morning the cease-fire proposal brought back from Nicaragua Saturday by Kerry and another freshman senator, Thomas Harkin of Iowa, is a "fraud," adding his belief that the senators had been "used" by the Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

"It looks that way to me," Shultz said. "I'm sure it's quite a problem for us when senators run around and start dealing with the Communists themselves."

On Sunday, former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger also told Kerry, in effect, to mind his own business. "With all due respect to Congressman Kerry, he's a congressman and not Secretary of State," Kissinger said.

The official State Department response called the proposal "meaningless, essentially a call for the opposition to surrender."

Other "high officials" were more personal. One was quoted as calling the move an 11th-hour stunt. And another was quoted as saying: "What we're seeing here is propaganda and disinformation and an attempt by some members of Congress to represent the Sandinistas' interests." This "key White House foreign policy adviser" called the proposal an "effort to lobby Congress and present a phony peace initiative."

It must take a lot of courage to accuse a US senator of being a representative of a foreign government when you know you're going to be quoted anonymously.

It is fair to say that Kerry's performance on this issue does not make him an instant frontrunner for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In the first place, much of what Kerry and Harkin brought back is a restatement of positions long held by the government in Managua, though some elements deserve fresh attention. And it is also true that Kerry is new to this arena, having served less than four months in the Senate, and also that he has shown himself over the years to have an abiding affection for TV cameras.

But none of this calls into question Kerry's motives this past weekend, or the potential usefulness of what he did, or his legitimacy in playing a role.

Kerry is a member of the Senate, the legislative body designated by the Founding Fathers as the one having a particularly strong role in determining foreign policy. As such, he has one more vote on these matters than either Kissinger or the "key White House foreign policy adviser." Indeed, though a freshman, Kerry is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Shultz' charges are an outrage - the more so since he wrote to House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. only a week ago encouraging congressional travel to Nicaragua, which he said "has contributed to a better understanding" of the conflict. "Therefore I strongly encourage members of Congress of both parties, and regardless of their views on Central America, to visit not only Nicaragua but all the countries of the region."

The Administration's charge that the proposal is timed to influence today's vote on increased aid to Nicaraguan rebels is obviously logical, but Reagan's own recent cease-fire proposal and his radio address last Saturday surely had a similar goal. If there is really nothing new in the plan brought back by Kerry and Harkin, Reagan should accept it gladly as proof of Sandinista intransigence.

Kissinger's remark is a flashback to the Nixon Administration when he often said that diplomacy should be left to the experts, like himself, and that critics were helping the enemy.

Kerry is not new to this. By coincidence, it was exactly 14 years ago yesterday that he spoke to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as a Vietnam veteran against the war.

[MH1]

27. This context is especially helpful:

Shultz' charges are an outrage - the more so since he wrote to House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. only a week ago encouraging congressional travel to Nicaragua, which he said "has contributed to a better understanding" of the conflict. "Therefore I strongly encourage members of Congress of both parties, and regardless of their views on Central America, to visit not only Nicaragua but all the countries of the region."

The Administration's charge that the proposal is timed to influence today's vote on increased aid to Nicaraguan rebels is obviously logical, but Reagan's own recent cease-fire proposal and his radio address last Saturday surely had a similar goal. If there is really nothing new in the plan brought back by Kerry and Harkin, Reagan should accept it gladly as proof of Sandinista intransigence.

Excellent find, TayTay!

[beachmom]

50. Noriega is STILL in the picture in Nicaragua unfortunately

A friend of mine is going down there to be an election observer, and at this point, polls show something very disturbing -- Noriega is running for president and appears in the lead. My friend told me a little about who is running -- from the hard left (Noriega), hard right, and moderate right. The moderate left guy died of a heart attack recently, which is extremely unfortunate. This leaves us rooting for the moderate right candidate as the least bad person.

Noriega is totally with Chavez, and if he wins, he'll be making a lot of noise. No one will invest in the country, which is the second poorest country in the Americas (Haiti being the poorest), if Noriega wins. Chavez is very bad for Venezuela, btw. My friend is a lot more knowledgeable about that region of the world than I am (he's fluent in Spanish and is dating someone from South America) -- with all of the oil revenue coming in, Venezuela's economy is only so-so. As bad as corporate abuse, corruption, and exploitation of workers are, it is very disturbing what Chavez is doing there -- essentially nationalizing companies out of the blue which translates to no foreigners wanting to invest because of the unpredictability of the government. No investment means no jobs and no economic growth. I like moderate left politics, but hard left politics are very bad for the people. Hard leftists prey on poor people's suffering, throwing them a bone once in a while, yet not structuring the economy for growth, which in turn will leave the people more dependent on the government than ever. I fear what will happen in Nicaragua if Noriega wins.

If you guys are interested, I'll keep you posted on the situation in Nicaragua from my friend who goes there in September, and will stay through the election in November.

[TayTay]

51. Panama or Nicaragua

Noreiga was in Panama. Nicaragua had Ortega. (Who has turned capitalist, last I heard.)

[beachmom]

52. Yes, you are correct -- I meant Ortega

But why would Noriega come up in regards to Iran/Contra, which was about Nicaragua? Or is it that Noriega is related to BCCI? This stuff IS confusing (and being fair to me, I was only in high school/college when all of these events occurred, and I wasn't all that engaged).

Here is a small recent article about Ortega. In it, they mention a rumor that he had just visited Castro. I don't think he's moderated much. And I am relying on my friend as well as someone who was thinking of buying a house there, but will wait until after the elections. If it's Ortega, he will NOT buy a house.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900932.html

[TayTay]

53. The curiosity about Ortega and that trip there in 4/85

led to Iran-Contra and the investigations. Kerry went to Nicaragua to facilitate a peace process, then got accused by the Reaganites (the early neocons) of interfering in their foreign policy. (As though Kerry as a SFRC member had nothing to do with foreign policy. Sigh!)

After this interest in Central America came out, people came to KerryStaff with info on the overall picture of what was going on in that region. (There were on-going investigations in Florida on this by state and federal agencies.) So, the interest in what was really going on with the Sandinistas, who were leftists backing Ortega, who was a Marxist, led to interest in what was going on with the Contras who came out in Honduras and Panama. (Ruled by Noreiga, who also got a cut of the drug money. Noreiga had/has the goods on a lot of people in the US government who had 'dirty hands' in operations there.) Noreiga was bought and paid for by the Reaganites (or Bushites.)

This stuff is difficult to boil down into a few sentences. This was about secret operations and involved the CIA (disinformation) agents, foreign and domestic, who had double or triple identities and who were masters of deception. (Deception is what they did for a living.) Untangling the threads is a lot of work. All sides in the actual countries involved were, in a sense, bad guys. Corruption taints everything it touches and warps perception, especially when nothing is as it seems.

[karynnj]

54. Because Noriega was complicit in the drug and gun running

He was also a CIA informant. He was another example of a totally bad guy pushed into power with our support.

I was old enough to have followed these events - but they were very poorly covered. I can see I need to find more to read on Orteiga (from critics and proponents). While the left ignores the flaws in left leaning candidates, moderates as well as conservatives here ignore that the status quo when the right leaning government was in was intolerable for all but the wealthier people. (I met an American school teacher who spent summers running a small school in Nicaragua. For some kids, this was all the education they had. She saw flaws in Ortega, but not as many as the people who followed him. I really wish I could remember better what she said.)

[TayTay]

55. Pretty good article about this.

Remember, Kerry did not get the Iran-Contra hearings. He was a junior Senator and the DC establishment didn't trust him not to sensationalize the event. (Which wound up being screwed up beyond belief anyway. Everyone got immunity, then the couldn't be prosecuted cuz they had immunity. Thost that didn't get immunity were pardoned by Bush I. Sigh!)

Ortega led to Noreiga who was a paid CIA consultant. Follow the links. Anyway, as compensation to Kerry for not getting on the Iran-Contra official panel, they gave him Chairmanship of the Narcotics, Terrorism sub-committee. Apparently, he made the most of it and continued to follow the threads on the money.

BANK LINKED TO DRUG MONEY
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, Morning Final, Sec. Front, p 1A 10-12-1988
By Mercury News Wire Services

Washington

An international bank, nine of its officers and 75 others have been indicted on charges of laundering more than $32 million in cocaine proceeds for the infamous drug cartel based in Medellin, Colombia, federal authorities announced Tuesday.

The government also said it had subpoenaed records from about 40 U.S. banks in what could become a broad expansion of the investigation.

''This is the most important money laundering case in U.S. Customs history,'' Customs Commissioner William von Raab said.

The indictments follow a two-year undercover sting operation -- dubbed Operation C-Chase because the principal currency was the $100 bill, or C-note -- conducted by Customs, the Internal Revenue Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration and other agencies.

Nine of the key suspects were arrested over the weekend after being invited to what they thought was going to be a bachelor party.

The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), with headquarters in Luxembourg and offices in 72 countries, was indicted on charges that it had helped launder about $14 million through an elaborate system of money transfers involving branches in the United States, France, England, Panama, Uruguay, the Bahamas and Luxembourg. Authorities did not account for the remaining $18 million of the total allegedly laundered but said further charges may be brought.

'First time'

''It is the first time an entire international financial institution and its top managers have been indicted,'' von Raab said at a news conference with Department of Justice officials in Tampa, Fla.

David Rowe, an attorney for the bank in Miami, said, ''We haven't had a chance to absorb the contents of the indictments. But the bank has indicated to us that it has always attempted to abide by the laws, rules and regulations of the United States.''

The bank, owned principally by Saudi Arabians, is the world's seventh-largest privately held financial institution.

Indictments returned by a federal grand jury in Tampa named high-level managers of the bank in Los Angeles, Miami, London, Paris, Nassau, Bahamas, and Panama City, Panama.

Also indicted were 75 alleged drug traffickers and money launderers, whom the government said had worked unwittingly with undercover agents to funnel cocaine proceeds to Medellin drug lords through BCCI and other entities.

Forty of those indicted were arrested in Tampa, London, Paris and other cities in the past few days. Among those arrested were the director and assistant director of the bank's Latin American division, its European regional manager, its country managers for France and the Bahamas and its chief officer and others in Panama.

Also arrested was fight promoter Felix ''Tuto'' Zabala, who was ordered held without bail in Miami on Tuesday on six counts of marijuana smuggling and money-laundering.

Linked to Noriega

BCCI was identified in Senate hearings last February as one of the principal vehicles used by Panama's leader, Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega, to launder drug payments. There is no mention of Noriega in the indictments. But the Senate narcotics subcommittee led by Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., has been conducting an inquiry into the bank and last week subpoenaed Amjad Awan, assistant director of BCCI's Latin American division in Miami, one of the bank officers named in the indictments. The subcommittee questioned Awan in closed session about services BCCI performed for Noriega, informed sources said.

Asked whether there was a Noriega link to the latest case, von Raab said: ''This is not a one-day story. We're going to be looking at many, many elements.''

Gonzalo Mora Jr., 33, of Colombia, was charged with running a Medellin-based organization that laundered narcotics proceeds from California, Florida, New York, Houston, Chicago, Detroit and Philadelphia.

Mora and eight other C-Chase targets were invited to Tampa for the ''wedding'' of two undercover Customs agents last weekend and wound up being arrested on the way to what they thought would be a bachelor party. Customs spokesman Michael Sheehan said the suspects were put up at a resort hotel, taken to the fake party in limousines and then nabbed as they stepped off elevators.

'Out of a movie'

According to Sheehan, one of the startled suspects exclaimed: ''This is like something out of a movie. I didn't think you guys did this sort of stuff.''

Federal officials recently have emphasized the role of money laundering in facilitating the narcotics trade. Because illicit drugs are sold for cash, federal officials said one of the biggest problems drug traffickers face is how to ''launder'' or transfer millions of dollars into secure overseas bank accounts without being detected by the government.

According to the indictment, the sting began in July 1986, when undercover agents represented themselves as professional money launderers and penetrated the Mora organization.

In December 1987, officials of BCCI in Panama allegedly proposed using the bank's branches for a worldwide laundering operation. Undercover agents taped meetings in Miami, Paris and London, establishing that ''bank officials knew that the money they would be laundering was drug-related,'' the government charged.

Under the alleged principal scheme, bank officials placed drug money in a certificate of deposit at one of several branches abroad; next they created a loan at another branch and permitted the drug traffickers to withdraw the funds; then the bank repaid the loan with money from the certificate of deposit.

The government froze all the bank's domestic assets while federal and foreign agents searched bank offices in the United States, Paris and London.

PHOTO

[beachmom]

56. Thanks for all the info!

Obviously, the goings on in Latin America are not an area of expertise for me, and I'm just learning things as I go. But since my friend is going to Nicaragua plus all the heroics of John Kerry in the '80s, early '90s, it has sparked my interest. Just as an aside, George Bush gives lip service to democracy while attacking a country and bringing only chaos to it. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter actually does the hard work of helping countries who are persuing democracy on their own. My friend is a volunteer for the Jimmy Carter Center.

[nam78_two]

57. Hey I just saw this post!

I think there is a misunderstanding here...

I did post that BCCI stuff in some thread but I never said anything about Kerry/Skull and Bones :shrug:

And I am a she not a he :).

I think you are confusing me with someone else...I have always liked Kerry-no turn about required...
I am quite certain I NEVER said anything about Kerry conceding Ohio because of Skull and Bones...that never even occurred to me....

(Edit: I read about Kerry/BCCI in Rob Parry's book "Lost History" and in Gary Webb's book "Dark Alliance"-long been a fan of Gary Webb-its widely speculated that Kerry losing might have been tha straw that broke his back :(. And I am not ignorant :P)

[blm]

58. Oh well, that happens - replies end up attached to the wrong post.

You answer one post and it ends up on another. Someone's Skull and Bones post got in the middle of yours and mine, I'd guess.

Heh - oh well - at least you see how you inspired us anyway.

[nam78_two]

60. Funny thing is I have always been a strong Kerry supporter

:)....
I only just discovered this forum!

He is just the type of legislator I have most respect for...determined and honest...
I would be thrilled if he decided to run again.....

And keep spreading the word on him :toast:

[TayTay]

62. Well, stick around, pull up a chair

we love welcoming other supporters of Kerry to this group.

Hang out with us once in a while. It's a great group.

:patriot:

[nam78_two]

63. Neat-I'll be sure to!

:patriot:

[whometense]

65. So happy you found us!!

We're a very friendly group - if a bit singleminded. ;-) Please come back often!

[globalvillage]

66. Welcome!

Now that you've found us, don't be a stranger.
We have a great group here. Lots of fun, bunches of info, and tons of respect for each other and for a certain Senator. It's a good place to hang out.

And it's always great to hear another new voice!

:hi:

[TayTay]

59. Came in in the middle of the movie here

Ahm, what happened? There are no skull and bones references in the OP here, ahm, what's up?

And welcome to the KErry forum, :patriot:

[nam78_two]

61. This bit :)

This poster was one I replied to with my standard defense of Kerry after he submitted Skull and Bones as the reason Kerry conceded in Ohio.

I just felt compelled to post cause I saw my user id and I really like Kerry so I wanted to clarify that I never bitched about Kerry and Skull and Bones :)...

[blm]

64. I'm sure the wrong reply ended up between our posts - it happens alot

and does add to some confusion at times.

Heh - you should see what some people go through when the reply goes to the wrong post. Heh.... alot of...HUH?