From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: BCCI and Jimmy Carter (again)
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 14:59:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.075007.23090@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>
> 
> >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.
> 
> 	Ok. It would be wrong for anyone to convict Bush or Reagan in the
> October Surprise or Iran Contra scandles, or even presume them guilty at
> this point. In Bushs case, the ongoing investigation may yet lead to 
> incriminating evidance (re: Weinbergers notes) so I wouldn't go so far 
> as to say that he shouldn't be investigated, at least to exaust the current
> leads.
> 

Well, you can now see my point on this to a certain degree.

> >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).
> 
> 	For what purpose? Tarnishing Carter serves no political purpose, and
> the justice department looked and left already. Everything is a matter of
> public record, go see for yourself.
> 

Because there is the clear sign of impropriety especially when it involves a
former President who made it a point when in office to be above reproach.  I
distinctly remember his Chief of Staff (I want to say his name is Lance, but
it is not clear to me at this time) having to resign due to his involvment
with a Georgia banking scandal.

> 
> 	BCCI was a big bank with billions in assets. A small part of this came
> from money laundering, and a small part came from the CIA, and a whole bunch
> was the result of legitimate business. They operated internationally for 12
> years after Carter recieved the gift without a hint of impropriety. Why should
> Carter have suspected that the money was tainted? Since then, the charity 
> has probably spent the money, and doesn't have it to return.
> 
> 	Your grasping at straws to make an analogy, you should probably just
> hang it up. There are plenty of democratic scandles with out inventing new
> ones. Its worth noting that the republicans, who have the most to gain from
> these things, has not tried to push the Carter/BCCI connection, maybe they're
> on to something.
> 
> -- 
>                                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
> 
> 

My complete impression was that BCCI donated to Carter's charity to such an
extent that it allowed it to even exist.  BCCI then used Carter's name all 
over the world to get extra business, some may have even been done illegally.
And yet Carter never questioned this whole deal?  IMO he either knew how they
were using him ('cause of being a politician for soooo long, he knows how the
system works) or he's one stupid dupe to be used like that by BCCI.  Thus, the
potential for illegality has not gone away IMO.

To me the analogy is clear.  It is not about "inventing new" scandals, it
is about the hypocracy of "certain politicans" to be screaming about how 
"guilty" Bush is when they clearly over-look the impropriety in behavior of
one of their own.  Finally, maybe the Democrats should follow the example of
the Republicans by not attacking someone in the opposite camp when there have
not been any convictions nor even any charges brought against the leaders of
the opposition.  It is clear to me that this is being done only to try to win 
the White House via slander and the Republicans have and will continue to 
respond in kind.   So much for an election based on the issues and the needs 
of the nation (like there has been one based on the issues and such in the
last 30 years).

Once again, Alex, we have come full circle on this issue.  I see no
more need to whip this dead horse.  I will hang it up more so for the time
constraints and not because I am "grasping at straws".  I will be the perfect
gentleman and leave you with the last word, if you choose to take it, as long
as it is also done in a gentlemanly way.


This nation's humble servant.... (  ;-)  )

Don Palmrose
"Life is short, so laugh hard..."




========== 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