Kerry: "Ahmadinejad...permitted the freedom...he denies to his own people, the right of free speech"

[ProSense]

09/25/2007

Kerry Statement on Ahmadinejad Visit

WASHINGTON D.C. – Senator John Kerry made the following statement today about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to the United States and his address at Columbia University.


“Today Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was permitted the freedom that he denies to his own people, the right of free speech. I hope the Iranian people welcome him home with tough questions about why he believes he should enjoy liberties his own people do not share,” said Kerry.


“I'm proud of the Columbia students and faculty today who reminded the world that this man engages in the cruelest forms of oppression to strengthen his brutal regime.


“Calls for 'research' and 'study' don't change the fact that this man is a Holocaust denier who trades in anti-Semitism. It is long past time for the world to renounce this bigoted revisionist history, and important for everyone to remember that this demagogue fronts the world's largest state sponsor of terror, aids and abets the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, and is illegally pursuing a nuclear bomb."

You can cherish free speech, criticize Ahmadinejad and not support war with Iran. Ahmadinejad is a demagogue, and denouncing him doesn't mean acceptance of Bush's disastrous policies.

[distantearlywarning]

1. John Kerry wants to go to war with Iran?

Must be his westernized biases talking.

[Renew Deal]

4. Where exactly did he say that?

Be specific.

[distantearlywarning]

17. Thought it was a crazy enough statement that it didn't need the smilie

Apparently I was wrong. It's getting too hard to tell sarcasm from the real thing around here anymore.

[Mass]

21. Read the rest of the thread and you will understand..

[SayWhatYo]

45. heh, so true.

[karynnj]

47. thanks for the explanation

I do agree the response should be seen as sarcastic especially as Kerry is unusually like to try to see things from perspectives other than the US culture.

[Poll_Blind]

95. Ya got that right! n/t

PB

[eridani]

104. "aids and abets the killings of Americans in Iraq"

That is a justification for war, and it is utter bullshit. Iraq now has the most pro-Iranian government it has had since its origin as a country. Iran want to overthrow this government because why?

[AlCzervik]

9. not every statement people make about Ahmedinijad imply support for going to war.

[thoughtanarchist]

12. The buildup is increasing.

You honestly don't recognize this as the launch of a new fall product line?

[AlCzervik]

15. maybe i'm in the minority but i don't really believe a war with Iran will happen

i know there is a group that would like it to happen.

[thoughtanarchist]

28. That's what I thought...

in 2003.

I was wrong.

[karynnj]

49. It would seem far more foolish than attacking Iraq was -

and that was unbelievable. Here, we have over 130,000 soldiers sitting next door in Iraq, a Shiite dominated country. We couldn't attack with soldiers - as we don't have many in reserve! That leaves bombing and I think we can guess the reaction in Baghdad.

[Lone_Wolf]

23. It is a big time propaganda campaign

The neocons and neolibs need their villain.

[peacetalksforall]

2. Who handed Kerry the drums?

[ProSense]

7. What drums?

A lot of people are freaking out on GOP fear, conflating the criticism of a guy who oppresses his own people with acceptance of Bush.

Kerry made the points, and he's said many times war with Iran is crazy talk.

[Unbowed]

16. Drums?

If you are implying that a Democratic Senator who is on the Foreign Relations Commmittee does not have the right to speak out on the Iranian president, then one must certainly ask, who gave you those drums?

[peacetalksforall]

39. We are talking leaders. Top leaders and representatives.

We gave the Iranian leader a chance to speak - why help beat the drum war by beating up on their leader and not on ours? Because he (and others of our representatives and candidates) must be diplomatic when it comes to Bush or Cheney?, but there are no rules when it comes to the leader of a country and people that might be taken out in the next few weeks or months?

When the US and Israel who together own a huge store of nuclear weapons get together to beat up on a guy that everyone already acknowledges is as attention grabbing as our President, who is it that suffers? The people of Iran don't deserve to have this corporate drum beating for war by making the people of Iran appear to be our enemy by beating up on a guest of the UN. The people of the U.S. don't have to have our representatives taking the mike to say something we already know.

I turn it around and I ask you why do all our representatives feel they have to denounce this equally faulted leader - it's not going to help with the fight against bombing Iran. It feeds the people in this country who want to bomb the hell out of Iran - a country that won't have their nuclear WEAPONS for several years yet (if they continue to pursue it).

The Iranian people are not Arabic, they share the religion with Arabs. Between religion and politics - the people just don't want foreign nations taking over their country or bombing it and they don't want to be subject to a nutty leader any more than we do.

So how does Kerry help us or the Iranians by lashing out. What points did it earn him - given that he certainly has the right.

Yep, all our representatives are playing "it's my turn now". Who are they playing to?

[karynnj]

54. Kerry has not been shy in criticizing Bush and Cheney

Did you watch the Davos panel on the near east that included both Khatomi, the former Pro-democracy President, and Kerry? His comments were measured and he criticized both sides - and suggested how to avoid conflict.

Kerry heads the sub-committee that overseas this area. He has been asked about Iran in many interviews and he has never been in favor of attacking Iran.

[Unbowed]

101. Points and playing. How terribly cynical.

And how terribly sad that you have come to believe the state of our world is a game to be played by politicians for points. I sincerely doubt, Kerry wants or needs your points.

The good senator is a global sort of individual. He actually cares about people in other parts of the world. How inconvenient of and for him.

Bush hates Ahmadinejad so all good liberals should look the other way when this particular oppressor oppresses. Having mutual enemies makes strange bedfellows, I presume? The difference is that Kerry does not hate Ahmadinejad, just his behavior. Bush hates the man and with good reason.

Ahmadinejad and Bush have much in common. They despise each other because they're in competition for title of biggest dickhead. My money's on our home grown dickhead. We've seen his lack of morality and conscience up close and personal and we know what he's capable of. Bush and Ahmadinejad should put aside their petty differences and embrace each other as the power-hungry, nationalistic, homophobic torturing assholes they both are, but that's just me.

[peacetalksforall]

44. Of course Kerry has the right to speak. He could have stopped after

he talked about the freedom of speech.

We host the U.N., then when enemies of Dick and George come to town we all pitch in to help set up the bombing?

I'm getting fed up with our leaders who jump at the opportunity to condemn someone else, but let the loss of whole body parts and souls of our kids, the prisons and the torture, the mercenaries, the debt undenounced while denouncing.

Where is their plan to save our nation? How are they going to vote for this Kyl-Leiberman addition?

[_dynamicdems]

66. Why should he have stopped?

So that he wouldn't offend anyone? That's just not going to happen. Kerry will speak truth to power every time, and that includes our own President.

Kerry's opinion about this man, has nothing to do with the Dick and George Show or whatever demented plans they are attempting to hatch. There is a HUGE difference between disliking someone and bombing them. Kerry made it clear that listening to this man was by no means condoning the terrible things he's done. HOW on earth could anyone possibly construe that as siding with the administration? Unbelievable. :eyes:

If you are getting fed up with leaders, who don't seem to care about the lives and limbs we are losing in Iraq, then by all means, let those leaders know it. Hint: they're the ones who voted against the KERRY/Feingold Amendment last year. They usually (but not always) have a big, fat "R" by their name.

[peacetalksforall]

92. The only thing I will admit is that I'm taking out my anger at our leaders

on him.

A guest of the University and the U.N. lands on our soil and we say things about the guest that apply to our Presidents. I want that bravery to come out against our Presidents = that's all - not sugar coated - he made a good statement about freedom then proceded to join those who are taking the spotlight.

I divide our world between sick and destructful leaders and the innocent people who have to suffer them. Their leader is just as bad as our leaders. But, it easier to attack their leader.

[_dynamicdems]

97. Well Kerry has been very outspoken in attacking Bush and his crew of thugs.

Kerry was the first senator to call for Rumsfeld's resignation. He has spoken out repeatedly against Bush, Cheney, Bolton, Rice, Gonzales Roberts and Alito just to name a few.

You should vent your anger where it belongs.

We have precious few leaders as it is, never mind leaders who are speaking out and taking a stand on issues of importance to all of us.

Kerry will speak out against ANYONE who promotes hate and oppression. See the above list.

While you are here criticizing the man, Senator Kerry is doing his job. He's got an ongoing campaign to stop the "Roadblock Republicans" who are voting with Bush and keeping our troops in Iraq. And what has he been working on today? Let me see: he's fighting for net neutrality, he's issued a statement on the threat of military crackdown in Burma and come out in support of Biden's Iraq Federalist Amendment and gave a kick-ass speech on the Senate floor regarding that amendment. This is just part of the senator's day, working for all of us. ALL OF US. That includes you. It's too bad all you can do is carp on him.

Unbelievable. If we treat leaders like Kerry this way, maybe we do deserve Bush after all. And you know what, if we keep this up, pretty soon, that's all we are going to get.

[karynnj]

51. He plays guitar, not drums

Kerry spoke out against this man's stupid comments long ago - way before Bush did. He also has been one of the few pointing out that the "President" in Iran does not control the country, the Supreme Leader does. Kerry also was on a panel in Davos with the former President of Iran, Khatomi along with others. The reason the current President even is President is that Bush persuaded many pro-democracy people in Iran not to vote as many candidates weren't allowed to run so it was not a fair election. (unlike in Iraq :sarcasm:)

[Renew Deal]

3. Kerry got it right.

:thumbsup:

[MBS]

19. I agree

Good statement :thumbsup:

[Unbowed]

20. I agree. Kerry's right on the mark about him. After listening to the Iranian President yesterday,

I was struck by the impression that he was as off his rocker as is Bush.

[MrCoffee]

5. "important for everyone to remember"

"important for everyone to remember that this demagogue fronts the world's largest state sponsor of terror, aids and abets the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, and is illegally pursuing a nuclear bomb."

so John Kerry is part of Rove/Cheney's plan?

[thoughtanarchist]

8. If I question those assertions, will I get Tased?

:dilemma:

[MrCoffee]

10. if you're lucky, the only thing you'll get is tased.

[thoughtanarchist]

11. ...guess I better not challenge the good Senator's word, then.

:scared:

[karynnj]

57. Has the Senator ever Tasered anyone or

even attacked anyone for a question asked. He has been in the public eye for 39 years and I challenge you to find ONE example. The fool in FL was not tasered by Kerry, nor did Kerry attack him - though he attacked Kerry several times in this rant. Kerry did not respond in kind.

[thoughtanarchist]

59. My heart's not really in it to take this side of this issue, but

you are right.

Kerry did not respond.

At all.

As this 21 year old kid was hauled off for no apparent reason.

And tasered.

I would expect someone that has been in a position of power for so long would not hesitate to assert himself had he thought an injustice was being done.

I was originally making a joke, I don't like to let sensational news skew my outlook. I usually concentrate on how a congressman / senator votes. That's what I pay them for. I have been an avid supporter of my senator for a long long time and you can look me up in the DU archives and you'll see that is no lie.

But this incident just brought Kerry's stock down a few points in my book.

Sorry, it just did.

:shrug:

[politicasista]

69. Want to trade senators?

You can have mine Corker and Alexander and I will take yours Kerry and Kennedy. Sounds good doesn't it? :hi:

[thoughtanarchist]

74. Not with you.

If you had Kohl and Feingold, I'd consider it.

:hi:

[Mass]

76. I doubt that Feingold and Kohl think very differently concerning Iran.

I was always very surprised by Feingold and Boxer's positions on this issue.

[thoughtanarchist]

88. Yeah, we kinda got off topic here.

dry humor + text medium = misunderstanding

[politicasista]

77. Thats cool, but

I was making a point that it seems you aren't appreciative of your senator. I would be. That's why I was saying that I would trade him and Uncle Ted for Corker and Alexander.

[thoughtanarchist]

84. I get it.

I'll start appreciating when I see some progress in the senate.

We're getting a bit off topic here aren't we?

Don't feel like you guys have to group hug me here, or bring me back into the fold. I've seen Kerry's primary challenger and he's not impressive enough to get my vote, I'm just not happy with how that scene in FL played out, OK?

[politicasista]

90. "I'll start appreciating when I see some progress in the senate"

Wow, you sure are greedy. So ending the war, climate change, health care for children, helping Dems win in 2006, small business, helping veterans, and corruption is not important to you?


It's important to REAL voters and REAL people that care about these issues, but that's not good enough for you. Never mind any facts posted from those above. You would just rather slam Kerry.


Too bad.

[thoughtanarchist]

94. Yes. Those things are important to me.

and most of that stuff has yet to be addressed.

Jeezuz, I'm the only fucker that cannot feel frustrated with the inaction in congress 'cause I'm from MA?

I know my senator. I know the votes where he makes a difference. I'm also watching when he skips out on the roll call. Ya, he's good, but he's not perfect.

Don't judge me as if I'm expecting too much. I just want the same as most everyone else here.

He has my primary vote, but I'm beyond the point where I'm fawning over him.
What more do you want from me?

[karynnj]

79. The problem is that you likely only saw his video

There was plenty of reason to evict him - he would have been evicted from any lecture, Broadway show, political rally etc. He was rude and would not even let the Senator answer the question. Especially after his mic was shut off, he needed to respect that the 699 other people did not come to hear him and they had rights too. Also consider those people cheered when he was taken out - no one booed the police or rushed to his defense. For a college event, that means it was likely pretty clear cut.

Kerry offered to the officers that he would answer the question, they opted to enforce their scjool rules and follow the wishes of the organization running it. Kerry's comment was likely intended to mean, don't do it on my account. It was their right and he was right at that point to drop his appealing for the kid. The other thing is that he knew that they might know more about him than he did - which was true. The other thing is that had they backed down, there is no reason to think he would have quieted down. If anything his rudeness excellerated. Kerry was far politer to him than many people would be. (Picture Clinton hit with someone asking about any Clinton lie.)

Kerry said he did not know the guy was tasered until he was out of the building. This is believable to me. The guy was over-reacting as he resisted the police when they were taking him out. When they were at very back of the room - somehow they wer moved from the aisle to between the last 2 rows. Think about that - would the police want him there or would they want him to continue straight out of the room? Who do you think wanted to remain in the room?

As to seeing it or hearing it - consider the logistics. He was on the floor surrounded by cops in the very last row. There is no way in a large auditorium, with the stage lights that Kerry could see anything other than a cluster of people. As to hearing - remember that Kerry was speaking into a mic - and you only hear some of what he says. Now Meyer's photographer, who was able to get the video to his web site within hours, was between Kerry and Meyer. That means their is a greater distance between Kerry and Meyer. An amplified Kerry would be a louder audio source than Meyer - even screaming. What you heard on the tape was nothing like what Kerry heard. The laws of physics are against it.

Consider everyone's motivation. Meyer wanted to create a scene to get attention. He wanted to damage Kerry - maybe by provoking him to respond inappropriately - he didn't. He was willing to damage one of our strongest voices on Iraq - the day after he decimated McCain. Pretty stupid. Don't say it was to get answers - that would have required actually letting Kerry speak. (He is now trying to profit from this per some reports)

Kerry was there to teach the students some of what he knows about foreign policy and Iraq - and if you heard Kerry's speech in teh Seanet this week - they are a lucky group of students. (Meyer of course called it "crap") He was also there to interact with teh students - something he does well. He has answers questions like those before - and would have here. It was Meyer who didn't want to hear.

[thoughtanarchist]

87. That's true.

All I saw was the video, and heard 6 hours of Randi frothing at the mouth about it. But I welcome all reliable info showing that there was more to it than that youtube clip.

[_dynamicdems]

81. As I recall, the senator said he'd answer the question the kid asked.

Senator Kerry was at the opposite end of the room from where the "tasing" took place. I've seen the video tapes and I can't even see much of what is happening inside the circle of campus security. Kerry didn't know until afterward that a taser was used.

I've got a few problems with this incident.

First: there have been outbreaks of violence at colleges across the nation, one shooting taking place just days after this event. Campus security is on high alert because of the rash of student shootings in recent years. It's a new fact of campus life. It's not pleasant but it is a real reason why security is necessary.

Second: the man (he's not a high school kid) was resisting arrest. It was not passive resistance or civil disobedience. He pushed and bullied his way past others who were in front of him to take the microphone and refused to relinquish it when the campus police asked him to. He was loud, disruptive and he was struggling and running all over the place to avoid arrest (or perhaps to make the filming of his arrest look better for the video cameras). Kerry was going to answer his question and perhaps it was unfair for the campus police to cut the guy off and ask him to leave, which is what they tried to do before he become belligerent. But this was their call, now your's or mine. He refused to leave, so they put him under arrest. He wasn't going peacefully. He struggled and he ran away from them. When they had him surrounded and contained, the student was warned to stop resisting. He continued struggling and yelled, "don't taze me, bro." Had he said, "Okay, I'll go quietly," he may not have been tased.

Third: it is a grave concern that colleges be kept as safe as possible and that security be trained properly. It is also a grave concern that power not be abused and that students are kept safe from brutality on the part of security. There is a fine line between protection and abuse that all police must struggle to maintain. There should be an investigation, a clarification of guidelines and possibly additional training for campus police. Should tasers be used on someone simply because they are resisting arrest? Where do they draw the line? I've had friends carried out of a building and arrested, but they weren't running around. They were just sitting there and passively resisting. This guy was big and he wasn't passive. Still, they probably didn't have to use a taser. However, I am not a member of law enforcement and I was not there. The guy was large and he was resisting. Campus security is on high alert these days and necessarily so. This guy was unarmed but they may have deemed that he was not acting rationally and that he should be taken in until he calmed down. Bottom line: guidelines and training are needed to know who is a bona-fide threat and who is simply a loud drama queen.

Forth: where is the line drawn between free speech and creating a disturbance? This is very similar to the gun issue. In America, we are given the right to bear arms and we also are granted the privilege of free speech. Both are subject to the rules of society for the protection to society. Limits on rights are necessary when they come into conflict with the rights of others. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater without being held to account for the free use of your speech. If your intent is deemed malicious, you have committed a criminal act.



EDIT TO ADD: Most colleges have a "Campus Violence Policy" and most of these include provisions regarding disruptive behavior.

[thoughtanarchist]

91. Perhaps I expect too much.

Of course the kid was an ass.

It makes it no less discouraging to see it played out the way it did.

Regardless, I was kidding.

It's kinda nice to see so many non-constituents that admire Kerry though. :)

[_dynamicdems]

98. Well, I was a constituent. Now, I'm a neighbor to the north.

Sorry that I didn't get that you were kidding. Sometimes I think everybody has gone stark, raving mad. It's more difficult than ever to separate the facetious from the serious around here.

It's all discouraging. The spin on this event was as discouraging as the event itself. The cretins were just waiting in the wings looking for any excuse to go off on Kerry again. It doesn't seem to affect him though. He just works all the harder.

[_dynamicdems]

68. I have a much better idea.

While I can't guarantee you'll get tased, you will certainly draw the attention of some heavy hitters. Go to a Bush appearance (IF you can find one that you can MANAGE to get into) and start saying you think he's lying, or just hold a sign (IF you can get the sign past the men in black) saying BUSH LIED.

Or you could try a McCain rally or even a Mittens rally.

Then you can come back here and tell us all just how respectful the folks there were of your opinion and your right to express it.

[LittleClarkie]

46. Not unless he goes around with campus security wherever he appears

I'm pretty sure he doesn't carry one around on his person. Though, you never know.

"Sen. Kerry, let me ask you about Skull and ... ZOT"

[thoughtanarchist]

96. Ah! Finally someone with a frickin' sense of humor!

:pals:

[bdamomma]

29. just one question

"and is illegally pursuing a nuclear bomb" this from Kerry's comment, no matter what we think about Ahmadinejad, didn't he not say this is not what he is pursuing.

[beachmom]

37. And you believe him? Ahmadinejad is a liar. Go figure. A dictator who lies.

The Europeans, no neo-cons, believe he is pursuing a nuclear bomb. I think he is, too. Kerry, a member of the SFRC, thinks so, too.

[onenote]

50. "didn't he not say this is not what he is pursuing"

If I can fight my way through the triple negative, I believe you are disputing Kerry's statement on the grounds that Ahmadinejad denied pursuing a nuke bomb.

Okay, and he also said that there are no homosexuals in Iran and that women in Iran are the most free women in the world.

Do you believe all of those statements and if not, which one's do you believe and not believe and why?

[bdamomma]

108. well let me clarify myself, didn't the IAEA say he did not have

anything as far as making a bomb? Are we to say that the IAEA is not telling the truth. And as far as Ahmadinejad, I do not put too much credence into what he says in all areas, because the Ayatollahs run everything out there. Haven't the IAEA given their assessment on this whole uranium enrichment programme?

[karynnj]

55. No - this is true

and no, Kerry is not part of Rove/Cheney's plan. Note too - he "fronts" that country, he does not govern or lead it.

[eridani]

105. Iran is not the world's largest state sponsor of terror

Kerry's own country hold that distinction.

[Kajsa]

111. What parts of those statements aren't true?

n/t

[Cha]

6. Kinda like bushit...bush gets to

go around sayin' all kinds of shit and stickin' his finger in people's eyes and when some of our citizens try to say something they get Fired, Censured, and fucking Condemned.

[Ganja Ninja]

13. How do you say "Don't taze me bro!" in Iranian? n/t

[Mass]

14. I am more interested by knowing how he will vote on Kyl-Lieberman than

by any statement where he is going to put what is politically correct.

Actually, the statement is better than the other ones I have read.

[RangerRK]

18. Is this a joke?

After a kid was tasered for speaking out as his event?

Will the hypocrisy ever end?

[ecstatic]

33. LOL. The irony nt

[karynnj]

58. Kerry has always been for free speech and dissent

In case you weren't paying attention. Kerry asked the police when Meyer first created a disturbance to let him ask a question after he finished with his answer to the interrupted student. Meyer then got the mic and went into a rude rant. When he asked the first question he did not let the Senator answer. He then continued ranting - even after his mic was turned off. Even then, Kerry told the police when they began to take him out that he would answer the question. The question is how long would anyone be allowed to take over an event that is not theirs. Meyer has the right to speak, but not at an event set up by others after they cut his mic.

The police had the right to eject him and he had the obligation to listen to them - he resisted. They probably should not have tasered him, but that will be up to an investigation.

The 2 people you can definitively say something about are:

Kerry - who gave this guy far more chance to speak than any other politician I can think of would have allowed.

and

Meyer - who wanted attention and got just what he wanted. How do you explain that it was his web site that had the first edited video up at a point I think he was still in jail? This was a stunt.

[Inuca]

62. The hypocrisy is all yours

YOu bring together apples and oranges and infer a meaningless conclusion.

Moreover, the "kid" was not tasered for speaking out. Had he only done that without acting up as a jerk, he would have gotten asnwers to his questions. But this was obviouly not what he really wanted.

[LittleClarkie]

67. What does that have to do with it?

Kerry didn't order the kid tasered. He is not commander and chief of campus police. How does that incident make Kerry a hypocrite.

What, you think the cops had orders from Kerry to attack the kid the minute he said "Skull and Bones"? :tinfoilhat:

[Kajsa]

113. What are you talking about?

Kerry wanted the student to continue.
The police dragged him out in spite of this.

Get your facts straight.

[here_is_to_hope]

22. His time has come and gone...

Never liked Kerry and never will.

[Mass]

25. Thanks for this comment.

DU is getting more and more surrealist. People dropping in just to put irrelevant comments in threads. You may wonder sometimes.

[here_is_to_hope]

70. Happy to make your day.

If you want more...
Kerry has always struck me as smarmy, pandering and elitist.
Oh, and a chickenshit.
I did vote for him.
For all the good it did.

[Mass]

73. So nice. Where is your GOP membership.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[here_is_to_hope]

114. Wow, another east coster with a huge hard on...

for telling DU'ers to go to freeperland because they dont agree with an opinion.
Be nice to your kids today.
Oh, and if I do meet Kerry I am going to yell him what a pussy he is and how his 'supporters' are as bad as Hillary's.

(no offense to pussy)

[blm]

30. Neither did Nixon, Reagan, Bush1, or Bush2. The anti-corruption, open government wing

of the Democratic party LOVES John Kerry - he uncovered, investigated, and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history.

So, of course, many don't like him for that - including the entire DC establishment powerstructure - both GOPs and Dems.

No surprise that they manipulated many on the left to take up their continuing and deliberate distortion of Kerry.

John Lennon and Hunter Thompson got to know Kerry, trusted him and loved him.

[Peregrine Took]

31. Just curious, but how do you manage to post on so many "Kerry" postings?

I almost always see your initials when he is being discussed and you are always very defensive of him.

Do you really admire him that much, are you a family member, or a staffer or what? This has been going on for years.

I'm not being critical, I would just like to know what inspires such loyalty.

Thanks.

[blm]

32. I've been following the corruption and terrorism issues since the 80s - we had ONE

champion in the senate - John Kerry. The rest of DC was mostly dead set against his investigative efforts - both GOP and Democratic powerstructures.

Anyone who really understands - ESPECIALLY SINCE 9/11 - the import of Kerry's work exposing the terror networks and the government corruption that nurtured and used them will always get Kerry's back because he is one of the few honest lawmakers in DC - PERIOD!

Try reading the last page of Kerry's BCCI report delivered in Dec 1992 to BOTH the Bush and transitioning Clinton WH.

After 9-11, I have ZERO tolerance for SPIN and LIES that are used by the powerful of both parties just to protect secrecy and privilege of the powerful elite.

Just read the 20 questions left unanswered, and it is apparent that had they been a priority for ANY administration, a 9-11 event would never have happened, and NO BUSH would ever be even allowed near the White House.


Matters For Further Investigation

There have been a number of matters which the Subcommittee has received some information on, but has not been able to investigate adequately, due such factors as lack of resources, lack of time, documents being withheld by foreign governments, and limited evidentiary sources or witnesses. Some of the main areas which deserve further investigation include:


1. The extent of BCCI's involvement in Pakistan's nuclear program. As set forth in the chapter on BCCI in foreign countries, there is good reason to conclude that BCCI did finance Pakistan's nuclear program through the BCCI Foundation in Pakistan, as well as through BCCI-Canada in the Parvez case. However, details on BCCI's involvement remain unavailable. Further investigation is needed to understand the extent to which BCCI and Pakistan were able to evade U.S. and international nuclear non-proliferation regimes to acquire nuclear technologies.


2. BCCI's manipulation of commodities and securities markets in Europe and Canada. The Subcommittee has received information that remains not fully substantiated that BCCI defrauded investors, as well as some major U.S. and European financial firms, through manipulating commodities and securities markets, especially in Canada, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. This alleged fraud requires further investigation in those countries.


3. BCCI's activities in India, including its relationship with the business empire of the Hinduja family. The Subcommittee has not had access to BCCI records regarding India. The substantial lending by BCCI to the Indian industrialist family, the Hindujas, reported in press accounts, deserves further scrutiny, as do the press reports concerning alleged kick-backs and bribes to Indian officials.


4. BCCI's relationships with convicted Iraqi arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian, Syrian drug trafficker, terrorist, and arms trafficker Monzer Al-Kassar, and other major arms dealers. Sarkenalian was a principal seller of arms to Iraq. Monzer Al-Kassar has been implicated in terrorist bombings in connection with terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Other arms dealers, including some who provided machine guns and trained Medellin cartel death squads, also used BCCI. Tracing their assets through the bank would likely lead to important information concerning international terrorist and arms trafficker networks.


5. The use of BCCI by central figures in arms sales to Iran during the 1980's. The late Cyrus Hashemi, a key figure in allegations concerning an alleged deal involving the return of U.S. hostages from Iran in 1980, banked at BCCI London. His records have been withheld from disclosure to the Subcommittee by a British judge. Their release might aid in reaching judgments concerning Hashemi's activities in 1980, with the CIA under President Carter and allegedly with William Casey.


6. BCCI's activities with the Central Bank of Syria and with the Foreign Trade Mission of the Soviet Union in London. BCCI was used by both the Syrian and Soviet governments in the period in which each was involved in supporting activities hostile to the United States. Obtaining the records of those financial transactions would be critical to understanding what the Soviet Union under Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov was doing in the West; and might document the nature and extent of Syria's support for international terrorism.


7. BCCI's involvement with foreign intelligence agencies. A British source has told the Bank of England and British investigators that BCCI was used by numerous foreign intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom. The British intelligence service, the MI-5, has sealed documents from BCCI's records in the UK which could shed light on this allegation.


8. The financial dealings of BCCI directors with Charles Keating and several Keating affiliates and front-companies, including the possibility that BCCI related entities may have laundered funds for Keating to move them outside the United States. The Subcommittee found numerous connections among Keating and BCCI-related persons and entities, such as BCCI director Alfred Hartman; CenTrust chief David Paul and CenTrust itself; Capcom front-man Lawrence Romrell; BCCI shipping affiliate, the Gokal group and the Gokal family; and possibly Ghaith Pharaon. The ties between BCCI and Keating's financial empire require further investigation.


9. BCCI's financing of commodities and other business dealings of international criminal financier Marc Rich. Marc Rich remains the most important figure in the international commodities markets, and remains a fugitive from the United States following his indictment on securities fraud. BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980's amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involving in U.S. guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's relationship with BCCI requires further investigation.


10. The nature, extent and meaning of the ownership of shares of other U.S. financial institutions by Middle Eastern political figures. Political figures and members of the ruling family of various Middle Eastern countries have very substantial investments in the United States, in some cases, owning substantial shares of major U.S. banks. Given BCCI's routine use of nominees from the Middle East, and the pervasive practice of using nominees within the Middle East, further investigation may be warranted of Middle Eastern ownership of domestic U.S. financial institutions.


11. The nature, extent, and meaning of real estate and financial investments in the United States by major shareholders of BCCI. BCCI's shareholders and front-men have made substantial investments in real estate throughout the United States, owning major office buildings in such key cities as New York and Washington, D.C. Given BCCI's pervasiveness criminality, and the role of these shareholders and front-men in the BCCI affair, a complete review of their holdings in the United States is warranted.


12. BCCI's collusion in Savings & Loan fraud in the U.S. The Subcommittee found ties between BCCI and two failed Savings and Loan institutions, CenTrust, which BCCI came to have a controlling interest in, and Caprock Savings and Loan in Texas, and as noted above, the involvement of BCCI figures with Charles Keating and his business empire. In each case, BCCI's involvement cost the U. S. taxpayers money. A comprehensive review of BCCI's account holders in the U.S. and globally might well reveal additional such cases. In addition, the issue of whether David Paul and CenTrust's political relationships were used by Paul on behalf of BCCI merits further investigation.


13. The sale of BCCI affiliate Banque de Commerce et de Placements (BCP) in Geneva, to the Cukorova Group of Turkey, which owned an entity involved in the BNL Iraqi arms sales, among others. Given BNL's links to BCCI, and Cukorova Groups' involvement through its subsidiary, Entrade, with BNL in the sales to Iraq, the swift sale of BCP to Cukorova just weeks after BCCI's closure -- prior to due diligence being conducted -- raises questions as to whether a prior relationship existed between BCCI and Cukorova, and Cukorova's intentions in making the purchase. Within the past year, Cukorova also applied to purchase a New York bank. Cukorova's actions pertaining to BCP require further investigation in Switzerland by Swiss authorities, and by the Federal Reserve New York.


14. BCCI's role in China. As noted in the chapter on BCCI's activities in foreign countries, BCCI had extensive activity in China, and the Chinese government allegedly lost $500 million when BCCI closed, mostly from government accounts. While there have been allegations that bribes and pay-offs were involved, these allegations require further investigation and detail to determine what actually happened, and who was involved.


15. The relationship between Capcom and BCCI, between Capcom and the intelligence community, and between Capcom's shareholders and U.S. telecommunications industry figures. The Subcommittee was able to interview people and review documents concerning Capcom that no other investigators had to date interviewed or reviewed. Much more needs to be done to understand what Capcom was doing in the United States, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Oman, and the Middle East, including whether the firm was, as has been alleged but not proven, used by the intelligence community to move funds for intelligence operations; and whether any person involved with Capcom was seeking secretly to acquire interests in the U.S. telecommunications industry.


16. The relationship of important BCCI figures and important intelligence figures to the collapse of the Hong Kong Deposit and Guaranty Bank and Tetra Finance (HK) in 1983. The circumstances surrounding the collpase of these two Hong Kong banks; the Hong Kong banks' practices of using nominees, front-companies, and back-to-back financial transactions; the Hong Banks' directors having included several important BCCI figures, including Ghanim Al Mazrui, and a close associate of then CIA director William Casey; all raise the question of whether there was a relationship between these two institutions and BCCI-Hong Kong, and whether the two Hong Kong institutions were used for domestic or foreign intelligence operations.


17. BCCI's activities in Atlanta and its acquisition of the National Bank of Georgia through First American. Although the Justice Department indictments of Clark Clifford and Robert Altman cover portions of how BCCI acquired National Bank of Georgia, other important allegations regarding the possible involvement of political figures in Georgia in BCCI's activities there remain outside the indictment. These allegations, as well as the underlying facts regarding BCCI's activities in Georgia, require further investigation.


18. The relationship between BCCI and the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro. BCCI and the Atlanta Branch of BNL had an extensive relationship in the United States, with the Atlanta Branch of BNL having a substantial number of accounts in BCCI's Miami offices. BNL was, according to federal indictments, a significant financial conduit for weapons to Iraq. BCCI also made loans to Iraq, although of a substantially smaller nature. Given the criminality of both institutions, and their interlocking activities, further investigation of the relationship could produce further understanding of Saddam Hussein's international network for acquiring weapons, and how Iraq evaded governmental restrictions on such weapons acquisitions.


19. The alleged relationship between the late CIA director William Casey and BCCI. As set forth in the chapter on intelligence, numerous trails lead from BCCI to Casey, and from Casey to BCCI, and the investigation has been unable to follow any of them to the end to determine whether there was indeed a relationship, and if there was, its nature and extent. If any such relationship existed, it could have a significant impact on the findings and conclusions concerning the CIA and BCCI's role in U.S. foreign policy and intelligence operations during the Casey era. The investigation's work detailing the ties of BCCI to the intelligence community generally also remains far from complete, and much about these ties remains obscure and in need of further investigation.


20. Money laundering by other major international banks. Numerous BCCI officials told the Subcommittee that BCCI's money laundering was no different from activities they observed at other international banks, and provided the names of a number of prominent U.S. and European banks which they alleged engaged in money laundering. There is no question that BCCI's laundering of drug money, while pervading the institution, constituted a small component of the total money laundering taking place in international banking. Further investigation to determine which international banks are soliciting and handling drug money should be undertaken.



Peregrine - THIS is what Democrats should be about - catapulting the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

And I WISH I was fortunate enough to work for the senator. Because SOMEONE has to be secure enough in the truth to not get distracted by the daily lie machine that the DC powerstructure employs at every opportunity to marginalize Kerry's influence on these issues.

[cali]

34. No. We didn't have ONE

It's different to say he was instrumental or led the fight, but acting like he was the lone champion on these issues, simply isn't true.

[blm]

36. In the tracking of terror networks and OUR government operations

that were part of the involvement, he was the essential figure that effort.

You are welcome to highlight whatever investigations done by others that also would have prevented 9-11. I pointed to the ones I know.

[whometense]

40. If someone else was on these issues

to the degree Kerry was, I'd like to know who it was, so I could be properly grateful. I'm serious about that. I hate the way supposed liberals dump on Kerry all the time, and marginalize him, and I'd hate to be ignorant of the efforts of anyone else who was working the way he did to end the funding of terrorism and the high level corruption supporting it.

[Bongo Prophet]

103. Maybe one other really strong fighter of the BCCI/Iran/Contra/Iraq Arms Nexxus that comes to mind

The late, GREAT Henry B. Gonzalez.
Calling for investigation till he was hoarse, from the floor of the House.
Pushing for investigations into arms dealing, especially how Saddam got arms from us. (He loudly called it Iraq-gate at the time when Poppy was riding high in the polls)
He even had a car-bombing attempt on him, and multiple threats.
He was the house equivalent of John Kerry in the Senate.
Two houses, two different styles, both effective and diligent allies of open government.


There are some others that are in the background a bit, Like Dellums and Wellstone, but Kerry and Gonzalez brought these issues up like no one else.
BLM knows her history on this, and is here on DU often enough to counter the ignorant ranting of the haters, who often don't have a clue as to the DEEP background of the ONGOING criminal enterprises underlying our situation today.

If not for those two, much of this would still be "crazy conspiracy talk" instead of factual historical record. We owe them thanks for that, or a modicum of respect, at least.

Thanks for your honest question, whometense - so many just want to sling feces, rather than share info and learn together.
You are like GOLD around here.

[blm]

109. Henry Gonzalez did for Iraqgate in the House what Kerry did for IranContra in the Senate.

Gonzalez is another hero - and I WISH he had been in the senate WITH Kerry.

In the House, we also had Joe Moakley and on CIA drugrunning c1996, it was Maxine Waters stepping up and joining Kerry's alarm.

[whometense]

112. Thank you!

And thanks for the answer. I'm a fairly recent attentive observer of the workings of Congress, and wasn't aware of Gonzalez's activities.

[Inuca]

63. And I hate onions and always will

both our statements are equally relevant. By the way, I also hate garlic, I really do.

[Zandor]

24. Nice to hear from a Democratic leader

Most pretty much agree with Kerry on Ahmadinejad.

[Mass]

26. BTW, for those who are more concerned by acting than whining, here is a thread about a call for

action against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment about Iran.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3545461&mesg_id=3545461

[Semper_FiFi]

27. K&R Kerry got it right.

I am glad he spoke out against the Cretin from Tehran. Ahmadinejad is evil and a filthy liar. I don't support going to war against Iran, but I hope Ahmadinejad is given the same treatment that he gives gays in Iran.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

35. Does Ahmadinejad make the rules in Iraq?

If not then he is not denying anyone the right to free speech, that would be the fault of those who make the rules.

[beachmom]

38. Just about. In the South of Iraq. That area of Iraq is under heavy

influence of Iran. And Maliki went to Iran and APOLOGIZED for the Iran/Iraq war just recently. Say what you will about Saddam's role in that war, it was an awful war on both sides, and many Iraqis are extremely angry that Maliki went and did that, especially since Iraq lost 800,000 people in that war.

So, yeah, Iran is making trouble in Iraq. But so is Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other Sunni countries. It's all a regional play where the stakes are getting higher and higher as each day goes by.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

43. Mea maxima culpa I confused Iraq with Iran..

But Ahmadinejad is in control of very little in Iran..

Far less so than bush is in control of here in the US.

[onenote]

53. You repeatedly state what Ahmadinejad doesn't do. So what does he do?

Sit around eating chocolates all day?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

80. I haven't said what he doesn't do...

I have said that he has little power.

If you disagree, provide evidence of what he *does* do please.

[distantearlywarning]

41. Does Bush make the rules here?

If not, then it certainly wouldn't be fair to dump on him every time something is wrong with this country.

In light of this new rationale, I vote that all anti-Bush sentiments on DU be immediately ceased under the new "Ahmadinejad-unfairness" rule.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

42. I guess you've never heard of "signing statements"

In which bush does indeed make the rules here.

[Zandor]

48. Kerry - lusting for war again

:)

[Snarkturian Clone]

52. Hey kerry, thanks for holding out and not conceding in that

election... :argh:

[LittleClarkie]

60. Which has to do with the subject at hand how?

?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mass]

72. You are entitled to your opinion. Allow me to disagree.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mass]

78. Good - Same here.

But, if you are here for more than empty bashing, call your senators against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

82. Nevertheless, it would be more pertinent if a knowledge of past history was evident

You may not have thought exposing the Iran/Contra scandal was anything even remotely great, but I thought it was pretty spiffy. It is said he was always to be counted on in 2006 for money for candidates in 2006 as well, which means he was a big part in our gaining a majority.

When he was a young pup, he once made a statement that is still quoted today by some, and he helped stop a war. That's pretty great. He's helped to start a war as well, so perhaps you think that cancels the first incident out. But he has apologized for that, and is not working to end the war.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against civilly stated criticism, especially when the person offering it has something to back up their statements.

But just calling the man an asshole and saying he's never done anything worth talking about ever doesn't really qualify.

As for comment above you, I reacted because there is a tendency by some to bring up their grievances with Kerry every time they see his name, regardless of what the thread is actually about. I don't think asking what the election of 2004 has to do with the topic at hand is such a bad question. And if this person is indeed new and not someone who's been lurking around for a while, they may not know how often the subject of the election has been brought up ad nauseum. When something is brought up over and over, even in threads that have nothing to do with the election, it tends to wear on a person.

Meanwhile, I wouldn't be too hard on some of the Kerry people here. You see, many of us got a chance to hang out with the man, and that tends to up our emotional investment.

Also, wanting to hold the Iranian president accountable for his actions is different from wanting to go to war with him. Don't over simplify.

[ProSense]

85. Your facts

are fu... flawed:

Kerry: First of all, I think the administration would be hard pressed to go to war with Iran right now, both physically and politically. Physically, because we're overstretched in Iraq and everybody knows it. And I think you'd have the generals and a whole bunch of people be unbelievably reluctant to just sort of pick some willy nilly fight with Iran right now. That's different if they should do something to provoke it. It's different if they do something aggressive and proactive. You have to respond and do what you have to do. But right now this administration needs to deal diplomatically more intelligently and rebuild its credibility so the world understands what the stakes are. And I will do everything in my power to make sure they don't run off half cocked and leverage some kind of a confrontation that's inappropriate.

Singer: Specifically the House Democratic leadership removed language that would that would say that the President has to come back to Congress. Would you like to see such language...

Kerry: No. Look, there's a constitutional balance here. The President knows the limits of the War Powers Act. The President has the authority to defend the nation. He's the commander in chief. If there's a legitimate reason for the President to do something, he doesn't have to come back to Congress to do an immediate emergency response. On the other hand if the President thinks he's going to walk up to it like he did with Iraq, he's got to think again, because there's no way the Congress is going to let that happen.

more

[eridani]

106. If he genuinely believes all that (and I hope he does--

--then why all the bullshit rhetoric?

[Snarkturian Clone]

89. Just cause you built the pyramids you think

you're allowed to talk shit? Bringing up post counts like freepers bring up sign-on dates? I don't care who the fuck you are and whatever great history you have on this site. If you're petty enough to bring up my post count, then you're not worth a floating turd.

[Snarkturian Clone]

86. I get reminded of it every time I see the name Kerry.

Sorry if it offends you. OK I'm lying I'm not sorry

[LittleClarkie]

93. I just asked. Why the hostility. And why would you wish ill upon someone you don't know

just because I support someone you don't support?

I don't care if we disagree, but can't we keep it civil?

[LittleClarkie]

56. The sad thing is that Kerry is the anti-terrorism expert, not the Bush admin

Which is to say that Kerry would be doing something about international crime, which is what he sees terrorism as, but what he WOULDN'T be doing is waging a conventional war against it.

He would likely be working diplomatically, as well as things like shutting down their flow of cash. There would be some violence involved I'm sure. But it wouldn't have been a war like we have now.

Kerry cares about ending terrorism whereas Bush wants to use terrorism to justify his actions.

That's the difference I think.

If Kerry had been president during 9/11 we'd probably still be in Afghanistan and never have gone into Iraq. And he would have recognized that given enough time, the young people of Iran would conduct a regime change on their own. He would not be saber rattling to the point that the people of Iran would vote for an asshole because it makes them feel safer.

His book, "A New War", is quite enlightening in this regard.

[AuntPatsy]

64. Good threads to be able to understand better

Ahmadinejad - Why The Hate Matters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1904541


What Ahmadinejad is and what he isn't

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1898277&mesg_id=1898277

[robcon]

65. I agree with Kerry

"I'm proud of the Columbia students and faculty today who reminded the world that this man engages in the cruelest forms of oppression to strengthen his brutal regime.

“Calls for 'research' and 'study' don't change the fact that this man is a Holocaust denier who trades in anti-Semitism. It is long past time for the world to renounce this bigoted revisionist history, and important for everyone to remember that this demagogue fronts the world's largest state sponsor of terror, aids and abets the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, and is illegally pursuing a nuclear bomb."

[lonestarnot]

99. So far, it's not been abolished.

:toast:

[wisteria]

102. Senator Kerry has a wonderful way with words, this statement is no exception. n/t

[CGowen]

107. "this demagogue fronts the world's largest state sponsor of terror"

Oh boy that is bad, really bad.



So we use PJAK/PKK, MEQ, Jundallah and others on Iran and call him the largest state sponsor of terror?

[Orsino]

110. Very well said...

...and an elegant framing.