From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: BCCI and Jimmy Carter (again)
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 21:38:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.201414.25162@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug28.171312.19696@inel.gov>, dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
> 
> |> I will assume this is an appology for accusing me of saying unemployment under
> |> Carter was 12%, something I have not stated.
> 
> 	No, that was a separate posting. You should have seen it already, if 
> not, want to apologise again - I'm sorry that I said that Don Palmrose said
> that we had 12% unemployment under Carter, as I incorrectly stated.

That posting never made it to me, so I'll accept this.
> 
> |> Again, Alex has twisted some I have stated to mean something else.  What I
> |> reminded you of was the fact that you misinterpreted my postings several
> |> months ago and that Carter's dealings with BCCI was very suspicious.
> 
> 	Nope. This time I'm sure that you said it. It was before Clifford
> was indicted, and you claimed that Carter would be indicted with him, 
> referring to Clifford as "Mr. democrat" because of his connections with the
> democratic party. You may have been wrong, but you most definately wrote it.
> I think your claim was that it would be bigger then Watergate (although
> that might have been Mike Schwartz).
> 
> |> If Congress wants a special prosecutor to investigate Regan-Bush on the 
> |> "October Surprise" based on almost no evidence then it is just as proper and
> |> right to demand that Carter be investigated for his involvement with BCCI.
> |> That is it!
> 
> 	This is backtracking, but even so, there is no reason to suspect 
> Carter of helping BCCI, except for his connections with a charity that recieved
> BCCI funds. That relationship has already been explored, and Carter has been
> exonerated. It's not clear what you would have Carter investigated for, or
> where such an investigation would start.
> 

Much of the same was said about Regan and Bush concerning the "October 
Surprise" but the Democratic Congressional Leadership still wanted a Special
Prosecutor to investigate.  But yet Carter can be exonerated by the Justice 
Dept. and everything is forgotten.

> |> 				What I get adament about is when people like
> |> you are so quick to declare Regan or Bush are guilty based on no evidence 
> |> but will not accept any criticism or admit to the potential of wrong 
> |> doing by Liberals or Democrats like Carter.
> 
> 	"No evidance" is a little weak when talking about Iran Contra. Oliver
> North was convicted, and while that conviction was overturned, he was not
> proclaimed innocent - his technicality was equivelent to a miranda violation.
> At least one of the core orginizers killed himself rather then face trial,
> and judging from the newly released diaries of Casper Weinberger, George
> Bush was discussing the details of the operation at a time that he claims
> he was "out of the loop".

THEN WHY AFTER HOW MANY YEARS OF INVESTIGATION CAN WALSH NOT BRING ANY
CHARGES AGAINST BUSH.  IF THE "EVIDENCE" IS THERE, WHERE ARE THE INDICTMENTS?

ANSWER:  THERE IS NOT ANY EVIDENCE THAT CAN CONVICT, THEREFORE THEY ARE
INNOCENT ALSO UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, NO COURT CASE, INNOCENT PERIOD!

I have stuck to just the "October Surprise" and Carter's connections to BCCI
both of which are different from Iran-Contra.  Note: I did post something
explaining why I think that LT.COL North (ret.) should NOT be considered
a national hero, but maybe that didn't make it on the net.

> 
> 	"No evidance" might apply to october surprise, but calling for an
> investigation is no worse then having a congressional "scandle" that broke
> no laws and didn't cost the taxpayes a cent. Your right in that it would
> be fair to investigate Carter, but your wrong if you want to convict him
> first, and your wrong if you think that an investigation is being supressed.
> If you want to trash somebody for political purposes, its your responsibilty
> to set up the scene. If your party can't muster a smear campaign against 
> carter, thats not the fault of the democrats.
> 
> -- 
>                                Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
> The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
> encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
> witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
> 
> 

Then let's hear you say that it is equally as wrong for those to say Bush is
guilty for the "October Surprise" or even for Iran-Contra when no charges nor
has any investigation shown anything chargable either.  But that would be 
condemning your fellow Liberals or Democrats (if you fall into any of those
labels) and I guess that is something you cannot do.

Again, I have never said that Carter was guilty.  What I have said that it is
fishy and deserves a more detailed investigation than what the Democrats want
(a Grand Jury would be nice).  If the BCCI investigation is all over and no
more charges are going to be brought on anyone, Carter is off the hook.  But
I have not seen anything to indicate that the investigation is over.  So even
you must admit that new evidence could come up to implicate Carter than
has come out to date.  So Carter is not home free yet.  It is even more 
puzzling to me that the money given to him could well be from the profits made
by BCCI from their involvement with the drug trade (money laundering), Carter 
was "Mr Morality in all government actions", and I have not ever seen anything
about Carter giving such "tainted" money back as other politicians have done
when a shady money donation was given to them.

So, in summary, it is perfectly acceptable to smear Regan/Bush for something 
they have not been charged with and unacceptable to say the same thing about 
the questionable acceptance of millions of dollars by Carter? 

Once again the word hyprocracy comes to mind.  And who is really running the
smear campaign here?

I have also never stated the political party I feel more closely to, so saying
that my party (i.e. the Republicans) is another assumption on your part not 
based in fact again.  I am strongly against hyprocracy and strongly for 
integrity, no matter who the person is or their political party.  Which is one
reason why I wished there was a fourth national candidate running for 
President or a third party.....

Until next time,

Don Palmrose






========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush