Please read this article about John Kerry by David Corn

[frank frankly]

Corn is a pleasure to read.

Kerry is not, in my opinion, a limited hangout.

Consider: if John Kerry is a limited hangout, what does that make everybody else since none of them talk about US Geopolitical drug running?

And how about Kerry on the evironment? Who else is talking about it the way he does and always has?

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040315&s=corn

<snip>

Kerry's inquiry widened to look at Cuba, Haiti, the Bahamas, Honduras and Panama. In 1989 he released a report that slammed the Reagan Administration for neglecting or undermining anti-drug efforts in order to pursue other foreign policy objectives. It noted that the government in the 1970s and '80s had "turned a blind eye" to the corruption and drug dealing of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, who had done various favors for Washington (including assisting the contras). The report concluded that "individuals who provided support for the contras were involved in drug trafficking...and elements of the contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers." And, it added, US government agencies--meaning the CIA and the State Department--had known this.

<snip>

In the fall of 1992 Kerry released a report on the BCCI affair. It blasted everyone: Justice, Treasury, US Customs, the Federal Reserve, Clifford and Altman (for participating in "some of BCCI's deceptions"), high-level lobbyists and fixers, and the CIA. The report noted that after the CIA knew the bank was "a fundamentally corrupt criminal enterprise, it continued to use both BCCI and First American...for CIA operations." The report was, in a sense, an indictment of Washington cronyism. In the years since, there's been nothing like it. Senator Hank Brown, the ranking Republican on Kerry's subcommittee, noted, "John Kerry was willing to spearhead this difficult investigation. 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."

While Kerry was in the middle of the BCCI muck, Senate majority leader George Mitchell asked him to assume another difficult task: investigate the unaccounted-for Vietnam POWs and MIAs. For years so-called POW advocates, like billionaire Ross Perot, had claimed American GIs were still being held in Vietnam, and the highly charged POW/MIA issue was the main roadblock to normalizing relations. Working closely with Senator John McCain, a Republican who had been a POW, Kerry got the Pentagon to declassify 1 million pages of records. His committee chased after rumors of American soldiers being held. He took fourteen trips to Vietnam. This was a hard mission: How could his committee say there were absolutely no POWs still captive in Vietnam? Yet anything less could keep the POW controversy alive.

[sangh0]

1. But, but, but

Kerry never takes a strong and/or controversial position!! He's all about flip-flops and straddling issues with compromises.

[DemMother]

2. great article

I read it last night. I've long been an admirer of Kerry. This article also reinforces my belief that Kerry won't fold when the going gets tough.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

3. Do you understand what a "limited hangout" is?

A "limited hangout" is the spook version of the criminals "copping a plea". Basically a lesser crime is admitted as a means of bolstering your arguments as to why you are innocent of a greater crime:

"Yes officer, I DID break in to the house, but the owner was dead when I got there!"

is essentially the same as:

"Yes, the CIA DID support drug runners, but we never actually ran drugs ourselves!"

The most important aspect of perpetrating a "limited hangout" is to make it seem real. You have to convince people that you DIDN'T want to confess to this crime, but were forced to.

In the CIA drug running case, which would be more believable: After a long investigation, Kerry eventually comes out with a damning report that is soundly criticised and argued by his peers, or ALL politicians saying the same thing at the same time?

Was Kerry involved in a cover-up? Probably not. More likely is that he genuinely thought he had gotten to the bottom of the issue. Even MORE likely is that he HADN'T.

[frank frankly]

5. good points, but then who isn't a complete robot?

DK isn't talking about CIA drug running on the stump

Edwards isn't making the BCCI part of his presentations

Who else even tried to do what Kerry did?

And I do read From The Wilderness, so I do have an idea of a limited hangout...although your spin, or version of it, is one I had not previously considered! Nice...

:Hi:

[pippin]

4. only reinforces my opinion of him

as an opportunist ; walk in, talk big, and takeover when it's either safe to do,so or when some one else has done the ground work. But that's the way evidently to succeed and rise to the top.

[frank frankly]

6. pippin, read the article and see that he initiated the Iran Contra & BCCI

I don't think your version of JK fits at all.

[yowzayowzayowza]

7. Some people will never be satisified.

Even the repukes were impressed with his efforts:

Senator Hank Brown, the ranking Republican on Kerry's subcommittee, noted, "John Kerry was willing to spearhead this difficult investigation. 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."

Sad.

[frank frankly]

8. kick

:kick: