Terrorist group with ties to al-Qaida caught on tape giving money to Kerry campaign

P

Patrick Graham

Moderator
No doubt about it.. the terrorists are even paying Kerry's bills in the hopes he will return the favor if he gets elected.

I guess they figure they have nothing to lose...

The Democratic Party invited the leader of the terrorist organization to attend the Democratic National Convention in Boston this year. A recently released Dutch documentary "De Brooklyn Connectie" members of the organization donating money to the Kerry campaign and mingling with Democratic big wigs like former ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke and former NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark. A Washington Times article from 1999 outlined the relationship of KLA and Al-Qaeda.

Here's a link to some stills from the video

Kerry campaign accepted funds from activist linked to terrorist group linked to Al Qaeda

Here's an article that ties it all together

A militant from a group some have connected to al-Qaida and that many have claimed is financed in part by the international drug trade and prostitution rings, recently attended a John Kerry fund-raiser, where he wrote a check and later boasted about his getting "paid back" in future favors from the presidential candidate.

According to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, Brooklyn-based Florin Krasniqi, a member of the Kosovo Liberation Army, is featured in the recently released Dutch documentary "De Brooklyn Connectie" attending a Kerry fund-raiser with several KLA members, where he writes a check, and then makes clear he expects a quid-pro-quo for his donation.

"With money you can do amazing things in this country. Senators and congressmen are looking for donations. If you fund them and raise the money they need for their campaign they pay you back," Krasniqi says in the documentary.
 
Well, Bill Clinton bombed a sovereign country to put these thugs in power in Kosova - and he got a free pass from the current administration. Why should anyone get excited about Kerry's or anyone else's relationship with them?
 
I wish all outgoing presidents were jailed for racketeering, conspiring to commit a felony and aiding and abetting a known criminal agency (US Government). At some point we'll just start arresting the goons when they get elected.
 
Destructo6,

Fat chance eh? Nothing like getting away with a string of related crimes - including mass murder. But their guilt is shared with those whose complicity after the fact allows them to walk free.

Any wonder many people do not see our government as having any moral or legal basis to "intervene" in the affairs of foreign countries?
 
The report claims "The KLA is currently smuggling weapons into Kosovo as part of a plot to attack American and other UN peacekeepers, should the UN Security Counsel refuse their demand for Kosovo's secession from Serbia and Montenegro. The KLA is a terrorist organization with ties to Osama bin Laden and the Iranian government.
Click to expand...
Should we assume that claim of ties to Al qaeda is as accurate as the ones Cheney is making about Hussein being tied to Al Qaeda?
 
Can't Keep Up

PHP: 
Well, Bill Clinton bombed a sovereign country to put these thugs in power in Kosova
So, let's see: the repubs rip into Clinton for not taking decisive action militarily leading to our current dilemma with respect to terrorism. But, when he used air power to stop outright genocide in Kosovo, you claim he is a war criminal because the resulting government is not to your liking. And you totally ignore the fact that a republican admin put a genuine band of murdering thugs in power in Afghanistan which we had to go back in and depose. WOW. I could never spin around that many times without getting dizzy. :eek:
 
Fat chance eh? Nothing like getting away with a string of related crimes - including mass murder. But their guilt is shared with those whose complicity after the fact allows them to walk free.
Click to expand...
Be specific, who, what, and when. I suppose that is diametrically opposed to standard tactics: vague assertions.
But, when he used air power to stop outright genocide in Kosovo, you claim he is a war criminal because the resulting government is not to your liking.
Click to expand...
That's one way of putting it, I suppose. Another is dealing with an insurgency that originates from a neighboring country.
Should we assume that claim of [KLA] ties to Al qaeda is as accurate as the ones Cheney is making about Hussein being tied to Al Qaeda?
Click to expand...
I don't know about that, but I do know that the KLA was classified as a terrorist organization as far back as the Clinton administration.
 
the fact that a republican admin put a genuine band of murdering thugs in power in Afghanistan which we had to go back in and depose. WOW. I could never spin around that many times without getting dizzy.
Click to expand...

Another made-up fact brought to you by bountyhunter.
 
Destructo6
Be specific, who, what, and when. I suppose that is diametrically opposed to standard tactics: vague assertions.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton, used our military in an attack on the nation of Serbia, March 24 through June 10, 1999.

Vague assertions? I suppose everyone except you and Bill Clinton was aware that the "Kosovo Liberation Army" was the strongarm for a drug cartel ;)
 
Destructo6,

If you do not know who I was referring to as to those who share the guilt with Bill Clinton and his cohorts over the Serbian affair; it is those whose responsible duty it was to prosecute him - but otherwise gave him a free pass. They are as guilty as he is.
 
Why must you beat around the bush? Is saying it outright so difficult? Is it because making an unequiovocal statement reduces your wiggle room? It's really quite absurd.
 
"Should we assume that claim of ties to Al qaeda is as accurate as the ones Cheney is making about Hussein being tied to Al Qaeda?"

Sure....that makes them absolutely true!
 
Destructo6
Why must you beat around the bush? Is saying it outright so difficult? Is it because making an unequiovocal statement reduces your wiggle room? It's really quite absurd
Click to expand...

I'll give you a clue - although I thought you would know this one; the answer lies in the U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 2, Article I Section 3 and Article III Section 2.
 
7 clauses in Article I, Section 3 and another 3 clauses in Article 3, Section 2.

You're still beating around the bush. Which clause/section/article applied to which act?
 
Beating around the bush? I find it odd that it is not plainly evident, though perhaps not.

William J. Clinton, his administration, and supported by a substantial number of Congressmen, used our air force to bomb a sovereign country that resulted in the deaths of some thousands of people. All in support of a drug cartel - along with elements of the same terrorist group that supposedly, according to the Bush administration, hijacked four commercial airliners and flew them into buildings, and are the subject of a "war" in Iraq.

Article I, Section 2
"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Article I, Section 3
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

Article I, Section 3
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Article III, Section 2
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party ....."

Article III, Section 2
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."
 
So, you were specifically talking about Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 and Section 3, Clauses 5 and 6 as well as Article III, Section 2, Clauses 1 and 3.

But no US President is going to order the arrest of the outgoing president for things he did in office and for which the US Congress did not hold him accountable. As LAK has clearly pointed out, it's not his place in the system. Also, banana republics arrest their outgoing leaders on a regular basis, I would not want to see the same happen here.

All in support of a drug cartel
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go so far as to say "in support of", but rather "that benefitted".
along with elements of the same terrorist group that supposedly, according to the Bush administration, hijacked four commercial airliners and flew them into buildings,
Click to expand...
Are you saying that there were KLA members and/or Kosovar Albanians about those 4 plates in 9/11?
 
Destructo6
But no US President is going to order the arrest of the outgoing president for things he did in office and for which the US Congress did not hold him accountable. As LAK has clearly pointed out, it's not his place in the system. Also, banana republics arrest their outgoing leaders on a regular basis, I would not want to see the same happen here.
Click to expand...

The complicity of course lies with Congress (or a substantial part thereof) - and the President, under whom falls the Justice Department. Of course even though a President can not initiate an impeachment process on his own, he could open his mouth and speak.

I find your overall view on the subject inconsistant with your personal ideal of keeping all things clean. I do not compartmentalize morality between individuals as citizens of a nation and their leaders, and find the idea of a United States President getting away with manslaughter en masse with the complicity of Congress and a subsequent Executive branch incompatible with a system of law and a just government.

It is remarkable that it is widely accepted in some "conservative" circles that Bill Clinton attacked Serbia to "take attention off his personal scandals". More remarkable then perhaps is the indifference of these same "conservatives" to idea that the death of several thousand people in that country can go unpunished in the case of Bill Clinton - while Mr. Milosevic is the subject of a kangaroo court for defending his country against the same type of Muslim insurgency we face in Iraq.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "in support of" [a drug cartel], but rather "that benefitted".
Click to expand...

The Clinton administration can not have been ignorant of the origins and nature of the "KLA". The "political" elements of which have been given no insubstantial part in the ongoing administration of Kosova for the last ten years - while their militant elements continue to murder their political opponents. The nature of the KLA and it's operations were known to every government customs agency in Europe and Scandinavia among others, and there was piles of material published on the subject.

Are you saying that there were KLA members and/or Kosovar Albanians about those 4 plates in 9/11?
Click to expand...

No; the "KLA" - along with elements of the same terrorist group that supposedly, according to the Bush administration, hijacked four commercial airliners and flew them into buildings - were the antagonizers of Serbia. There has been plenty of material published on this subject as well.

So, back to Kerry and his alleged dealings with Al Kidya, and ... so what? Why should anyone give a dam in the case of a government that is habitually engaged in the subversion and destruction of sovereign countries at the hands of "terrorists" and international organized criminals - and complicit before, during and after the fact?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top