Kerry Accomplishment

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Kerry Accomplishment
41
Tue, 08-31-2004 - 8:19am
There have been several questions on what Kerry has done. I thought this might help.

From Washington Monthly

Follow the Money

How John Kerry busted the terrorists' favorite bank

by David Sirota and Jonathan Baskin

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

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

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

More than a decade later, Kerry is his party's nominee for president, and terrorist financing is anything but a back-burner issue. The Bush campaign has settled on a new strategy for attacking Kerry: Portray him as a do-nothing senator who's weak on fighting terrorism. "After 19 years in the Senate, he's had thousands of votes, but few signature achievements," President Bush charged recently at a campaign rally in Pittsburgh; spin that's been echoed by Bush's surrogates, conservative pundits, and mainstream reporters alike, and by a steady barrage of campaign ads suggesting that the one thing Kerry did do in Congress was prove he knew nothing about terrorism. Ridiculing the senator for not mentioning al Qaeda in his 1997 book on terrorism, one ad asks: "How can John Kerry win a war if he doesn't know the enemy?"

If that line of attack has been effective, it's partly because Kerry does not have a record like the chamber's dealmakers such as Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) or Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Though Kerry has been a key backer of bills on housing reform, immigration, and the environment, there are indeed few pieces of landmark legislation that owe their passage to Kerry.

But legislation is only one facet of a senator's record. As the BCCI investigation shows, Kerry developed a very different record of accomplishment--one often as vital, if not more so, than passage of bills. Kerry's probe didn't create any popular new governmental programs, reform the tax code, or eliminate bureaucratic waste and fraud. Instead, he shrewdly used the Senate's oversight powers to address the threat of terrorism well before it was in vogue, and dismantled a key terrorist weapon. In the process, observers saw a senator with tremendous fortitude, and a willingness to put the public good ahead of his own career. Those qualities might be hard to communicate to voters via one-line sound bites, but they would surely aid Kerry as president in his attempts to battle the threat of terrorism.

From drug lords to lobbyists

Despite having helmed the initial probe which led to the Iran-Contra investigation, Kerry was left off the elite Iran-Contra committee in 1987. As a consolation prize, the Democratic leadership in Congress made Kerry the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations and told him to dig into the Contra-drug connection. Kerry turned to BCCI early in the second year of the probe when his investigators learned that Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega was laundering drug profits through the bank on behalf of the Medellin cartel.

By March 1988, Kerry's subcommittee had obtained permission from the Foreign Relations Committee to seek subpoenas for both BCCI and individuals at the bank involved in handling Noriega's assets, as well as those handling the accounts of others in Panama and Colombia. Very quickly, though, Kerry faced a roadblock. Citing concerns that the senator's requests would interfere with an ongoing sting operation in Tampa, the Justice Department delayed the subpoenas until the end of the year, at which point the subcommittee's mandate was running out.

BCCI, meanwhile, had its own connections. Prominent figures with ties to the bank included former president Jimmy Carter's budget director, Bert Lance, and a bevy of powerful Washington lobbyists with close ties to President George H.W. Bush, a web of influence that may have helped the bank evade previous investigations. In 1985 and 1986, for instance, the Reagan administration launched no investigation even after the CIA had sent reports to the Treasury, Commerce, and State Departments bluntly describing the bank's role in drug-money laundering and other illegal activities.

In the spring of 1989, Kerry hit another obstacle. Foreign Relations Committee chairman Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), under pressure from both parties, formally asked Kerry to end his probe. Worried the information he had collected would languish, Kerry quickly dispatched investigator Jack Blum to present the information his committee had found about BCCI's money-laundering operations to the Justice Department. But according to Blum, the Justice Department failed to follow up.

The young senator from Massachusetts, thus, faced a difficult choice. Kerry could play ball with the establishment and back away from BCCI, or he could stay focused on the public interest and gamble his political reputation by pushing forward.

BCCI and the bluebloods

Kerry opted in 1989 to take the same information that had been coldly received at the Justice Department and bring it to New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who agreed to begin a criminal investigation of BCCI, based on Kerry's leads. Kerry also continued to keep up the public pressure. In 1990, when the Bush administration gave the bank a minor slap on the wrist for its money laundering practices, Kerry went on national television to slam the decision. "We send drug people to jail for the rest of their life," he said, "and these guys who are bankers in the corporate world seem to just walk away, and it's business as usual…When banks engage knowingly in the laundering of money, they should be shut down. It's that simple, it really is."

He would soon have a chance to turn his declarations into action. In early 1991, the Justice Department concluded its Tampa probe with a plea deal allowing BCCI officials to stay out of court. At the same time, news reports indicated that Washington elder statesman Clark Clifford might be indicted for defrauding bank regulators and helping BCCI maintain a shell in the United States.

Kerry pounced, demanding (and winning) authorization from the Foreign Relations Committee to open a broad investigation into the bank in May 1991. Almost immediately, the senator faced a new round of pressure to relent. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Democratic doyenne Pamela Harriman personally called Kerry to object, as did his fellow senators. "What are you doing to my friend Clark Clifford?," staffers recalled them asking, according to The Washington Post. BCCI itself hired an army of lawyers, PR specialists, and lobbyists, including former members of Congress, to thwart the investigation.

But Kerry refused to back off, and his hearings began to expose the ways in which international terrorism was financed. As Kerry's subcommittee discovered, BCCI catered to many of the most notorious tyrants and thugs of the late 20th century, including Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the heads of the Medellin cocaine cartel, and Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. According to the CIA, it also did business with those who went on to lead al Qaeda.

And BCCI went beyond merely offering financial assistance to dictators and terrorists: According to Time, the operation itself was an elaborate fraud, replete with a "global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad."

By July 1991, Kerry's work paid off. That month, British and U.S. regulators finally responded to the evidence provided by Kerry, Morgenthau, and a concurrent investigation by the Federal Reserve. BCCI was shut down in seven countries, restricted in dozens more, and served indictments for grand larceny, bribery, and money laundering. The actions effectively put it out of business what Morgenthau called, "one of the biggest criminal enterprises in world history."

Bin Laden's bankers

Kerry's record in the BCCI affair, of course, contrasts sharply with Bush's. The current president's career as an oilman was always marked by the kind of insider cronyism that Kerry resisted. Even more startling, as a director of Texas-based Harken Energy, Bush himself did business with BCCI-connected institutions almost at the same time Kerry was fighting the bank. As The Wall Street Journal reported in 1991, there was a "mosaic of BCCI connections surrounding since George W. Bush came on board." In 1987, Bush secured a critical $25 million-loan from a bank the Kerry Commission would later reveal to be a BCCI joint venture. Certainly, Bush did not suspect BCCI had such questionable connections at the time. But still, the president's history suggests his attacks on Kerry's national-security credentials come from a position of little authority.

As the presidential campaign enters its final stretch, Kerry's BCCI experience is important for two reasons. First, it reveals Kerry's foresight in fighting terrorism that is critical for any president in this age of asymmetrical threats. As The Washington Post noted, "years before money laundering became a centerpiece of antiterrorist efforts...Kerry crusaded for controls on global money laundering in the name of national security."

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

Second, the BCCI affair showed Kerry to be a politician driven by a sense of mission, rather than expediency--even when it meant ruffling feathers. Perhaps Sen. Hank Brown, the ranking Republican on Kerry's subcommittee, put it best. "John Kerry was willing to spearhead this difficult investigation," Brown said. "Because many important members of his own party were involved in this scandal, it was a distasteful subject for other committee and subcommittee chairmen to investigate. They did not. John Kerry did."

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 12:21pm
Just something to consider here:

One, sometimes we say things we should not say...Maybe Kerry was in Cambodia, maybe he was not, but what if after he stated that he was, certain people in say the CIA or the FBI, or the Pentagon went to him privately and said....Sorry Kerry, but you still cannot talk about that. Trust me, not as far fetched as it sounds, and this really puts Kerry in a pickle, as he cannot clear away the cloud of contradiction in that case.

Secondly, oft times, you have to know what is going on behind the scenes to really understand why our elected officials vote for and against the same bill in what might seem like flip-flopping. Anyone could make those allegations against every congress person or Senator in Washington, because it happens everyday for very good reasons. For instance, common knowledge that various officials routinely try to tack on their own favorite pork barrel program to a bill they know needs passed. Sure, makes great fodder for the Repubicans right now, but is it really truthful and accurate if you are really being fair minded?

No Child Left Behind....lots of people who supported it now oppose it for some good reasons, primary one being that it was never properly FUNDED.

NAFTA...a good idea that ended up getting corrupted and has to be reversed. IE, something serious wrong with it when the World Court can sue us for enforcing our own trade policies...something no one counted on when it was originally passed.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 12:30pm
Even Dick Cheney has voted against the same weapons bill as Kerry. I find it really disgusting that they still use that bill against Kerry. Even in the convention. Looks like they have no shame.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 12:50pm
Yes, if one were to look carefully at Cheney's voting pattern you would see a number of inconsistancies as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in voting for a particular bill is it not their job to propose ammendments and changes to said bill? If a senator thinks it is flawed and their proposals for changes are ignored, then sometimes they vote against the bill. This does not mean that they disagree with the spirit of it.

A voting record from my understanding, is much more complex than a cut and dried, black and white simplistic look at voting patterns. Unfortunately it maks for good election fodder. It works very well too because most people can't be bothered to get into the details.


iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2003
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 12:55pm
Kerry sure is a uniter. He's united the Democrats, Communists, Socialists, Nazis, and Muslims against America.

He's a deserter and a traitor. Worse than Clinton.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 1:10pm
We all know Bush and the Republicans have no shame, and it sickens me to think, that supposed Christians claiming to have such high moral standards are willing to stoop so low in supporting Bush. I could understand the politicians, but how all of these voters that are supporting him can live with themselves, and condone such evil,lies and debasements of everything that true Christianity is supposed to represent is beyond me.


Edited 9/1/2004 1:12 pm ET ET by iv_mysticdreamer
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 1:33pm
That does not explain how Kerry tries to explain his voting record.

He is for something that he is actually against, even though he voted for something while being against it.

The Iraq war is a perfect example.

First he voted against the first Iraq war, but said publicly that he was for it. Wrong John...you voted against it. Just because it is popular in the polls you cannot change your mind for that reason alone.

Due to his mistake the first time, Kerry votes for the second war. He then went on to campaign against the war because Howard Dean was stealing Kerry's approval in the Democratic Party, and needed to switch his position to take the nomination away from Dean. Now, Kerry, seeing that people feel he is weaker than the President when it comes to dealing with terrorists says that he thinks Bush did the right thing, and would have sent the troops in even knowing 100% that there were no WMD's. This guy's opinion is like spraying a machine gun across an empty field, hoping to hit something.

If you can truly say that Kerry is a man of conviction based on this, then all the power to you. I think he is nothing more than a political opportunist, that changes his mind according to the polls, and it appears that the facts in the matter support me.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 1:44pm
One, the fore-gunner (Steve Gardner) on his own boat (PCF-44) says that they were never in Cambodia. Again, who knows who is telling the truth, but since Kerry keeps changing his version of the story, who sounds more believable?

Two, Kerry historically has taken both sides of an issue, especially during re-elections (note the one against Governor Weld), and he seems to take the side that seems to be the most popular amongst the voters, even if he is truly on the other side, or has voted on the other side.

Three, No Child Left Behind is not about funding, it is about trying to figure out what is going wrong in the schools. As it has been pointed out, especially in the NYC public schools, money is not the answer. The NYC public schools spend an average of $11,000 per year per child for education. Catholic schools or private schools spend an average of $5,000 per year per child for education. The passing rate amongst the public schools for the proficiency exams....60 - 65%. The passing rate amongst private / Catholic schools....88 - 92%. This is just one thing to show that money is not the answer to every problem.

Four. NAFTA was never a good idea, in principal. In theory possibly, but not the way it was thrown together, and to think, there are reports of CAFTA possibly coming to life in the very near future. I guess some of our politicians dont learn from their own mistakes.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 2:07pm
It puzzles me as well. I cannot claim I know Christianity in great depth cause I am a hindu, but I am sure sure spirituality is about faith in your god not about being judgemental about others. I would think what values you want to have is up to you and not the govt.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 2:49pm
Love it sometime if you have some links if you would be kind enough to share them...would be interesting to know more about the Hindu faith, and I freely admit my ignorance of it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 4:41pm
Hinduism is very complicated. It has a basic philosophy, but it can be interpreted in many ways. Hinduism is also about culture and traditions along with the teachings of scriptures and holy book the Geeta. Hinduism is also about the way of life. Here are some links, hope you find them helpful, Though I haven't gone thru the websites and I usually find some points on many articles on hinduism that I do not agree with. But I am always fascinated by my religion because I learn more about it every time I read an article about it.


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/9410/hindu1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism