FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Defending Cynthia McKinney

by Wayne Madsen

[Editors’ Note: What follows is a transcript of an April 12 debate on Fox News’s Hannity and Colmes show between Rep. Mark Foley and CounterPunch contributor Wayne Madsen over Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s suggestion that the US government knew more about the 9/11 attacks than it had been letting on. One out of four was right. Guess which one?]

Hannity & Colmes

April 12, 2002

COLMES: Joining us tonight is Florida Congressman Mark Foley and Wayne Madsen, an investigative journalist who has worked with Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney for three years.

Now, before I defend Cynthia McKinney’s right to say what she said, Mr. Madsen, would you agree that to suggest that the United States or anybody in this country knew or — in the government had advance knowledge of this is preposterous?

Wayne Madsen, FRIEND OF REP. CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: I don’t think so.

I think what the congresswoman is asking is that, with the worst intelligence failure in the history of the United States, why cannot we have in this country a full independent congressional investigation of who knew what when. How was all this intelligence…

COLMES: I agree there should be.

MADSEN: Yes.

COLMES: But she went further than that. She accused the Bush administration, if not Bush himself, of knowing in advance, because he or his father would benefit because of The Carlyle Group, which we’ll get to in a moment. She accused him of having advance knowledge of this. Do you concur?

MADSEN: Well, you know who else is calling for an investigation in the financial

(CROSSTALK)

COLMES: But I’m not talking about an investigation. I’m talking about the accusation that the president — forget the investigation for the moment. I want to talk about an accusation that President Bush had advance knowledge. Do you agree with that?

MADSEN: Judicial Watch is asking for the same investigation of

(CROSSTALK)

COLMES: I didn’t say investigation, sir.

With all due respect, my question had to do with whether you concur that President Bush had advance knowledge of what happened on September 11. Do not use the word investigation, I beg of you, in your answer.

MADSEN: I won’t use it. All I’ll say is, let the facts come out. And that’s all Congresswoman McKinney is asking for at this point in time.

COLMES: Well, that’s not all she’s asking for. I would disagree that that’s all she’s saying.

HANNITY: Well, Mr. Madsen, I’ll go to you here. And I expect a direct answer to a very simple question. What evidence do you have that our president was, in any way, had any knowledge of these attacks? Do you have any evidence at all?

MADSEN: Sean, the evidence is out there. It was —

HANNITY: Wait a minute.

MADSEN: One place reported Salman Rushdie had been warned two weeks before September 11 not to fly. It was your paper, Mr. Murdoch’s paper, “The Times of London.”

HANNITY: What evidence, sir, do you have that links our president to that knowledge? Do you have any direct evidence, yes or no?

MADSEN: There is ample evidence out there reported in the media about advance knowledge of what happened on September 11.

Mr. Madsen, look, I don’t want you to tell me evidence is out there. This charge is against the president of the United States of America at a time we’re at war in a conflict. You’re making a charge that he has knowledge, prior knowledge of the September 11 attack. And I ask you, sir, specifically, what evidence do you have?

MADSEN: There was a warning that the congresswoman referred to from President Putin before the attack. ..

HANNITY: A warning to who?

MADSEN: … warnings from French intelligence, Israeli, to the United States, FBI and to the CIA. And I find it strange that, here we suffered the worst intelligence failure in the country’s history and George Tenet is still director of the CIA. Can you imagine if they were airliners that crashed into buildings in downtown Tokyo?

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: That’s a different issue, Mr. Madsen.

But, Mr. Madsen, an intelligence link or survey or something that came in does not represent — in any court of law, sir, does not represent…

MADSEN: Why does…

HANNITY: Hang on — enough evidence to convict — see, this is what’s going on here.

Congressman, I’ll throw it to you. This is just an irresponsible, irrational political assault on the president while we’re at war. That’s what’s so offensive here to me.

FOLEY: Well, in “The Washington Post” today, Cynthia says she has no evidence. However, if they would investigate, maybe some evidence would be turned up. So it’s like, what is she saying?

(CROSSTALK)

MADSEN: Why is the Bush administration against an investigation?

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: Mr. Madsen, you’re a journalist, sir. Would you even print this on this flimsy amount of evidence that you have here?

MADSEN: I’ve read the work of many journalists: “The Times of London,” the BBC, “Der Spiegel” in Germany. They have all been reporting the same thing about advance knowledge. Is everybody crazy? Are all these journalists not allowed to express their opinion?

COLMES: I agree with that. But the investigation aspect of it I think is something — maybe she has a point on that one.

I know you want to respond, Wayne. Go ahead.

MADSEN: Well, it’s typical. Attack the messenger.

I mean, isn’t it funny? The Republicans, when Bill Clinton was president, they dragged him into every possible conspiracy theory, except for linking him to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping. I mean, now we see the same people saying Cynthia McKinney has no right to her opinion. She’s out there. I think it’s nonsense.

FOLEY: Wayne, let me just say this. When they said that President Clinton launched the war simply to take away the Monica Lewinsky story, I absolutely refuted that and said that was absolutely wrong and unnecessary. I have not let false statements stand, whether they were Democratically directed or Republican directed. I think, in this particular instance, she has a fiduciary, as a member of Congress, to tell the facts and not lie.

HANNITY: Absolutely. Good line.

MADSEN: I think the Congress has a responsibility to investigate.

HANNITY: Congressman Foley — we’re going to give you the last word. Thank you for being with us, Mr. Madsen. Appreciate your time tonight.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

December 06, 2016
Anthony DiMaggio
Post-Fact Politics: Reviewing the History of Fake News and Propaganda
Richard Moser
Standing Rock: Challenge to the Establishment, School for the Social Movements
Norman Solomon
Media Complicity is Key to Blacklisting Websites
Michael J. Sainato
Elizabeth Warren’s Shameful Exploitation of Standing Rock Victory
David Rosen
State Power and Terror: From Wounded Knee to Standing Rock
Kim Ives
Deconstructing Another Right-Wing Victory in Haiti
Nile Bowie
South Korea’s Presidency On A Knife-Edge
Mateo Pimentel
Some Notes and a Song for Standing Rock
Bill Fletcher Jr – Bob Wing
Fighting Back Against the White Revolt of 2016
Peter Lee
Is America Ready for a War on White Privilege?
Pepe Escobar
The Rules of the (Trump) Game
W. T. Whitney
No Peace Yet in Colombia Despite War’s End
Mark Weisbrot
Castro Was Right About US Policy in Latin America
David Swanson
New Rogue Anti-Russia Committee Created in “Intelligence” Act
George Ochenski
Forests of the Future: Local or National Control?
December 05, 2016
Bill Martin
Stalingrad at Standing Rock?
Mark A. Lause
Recounting a Presidential Election: the Backstory
Mel Goodman
Mad Dog Mattis and Trump’s “Seven Days in May”
Matthew Hannah
Standing Rock and the Ideology of Oppressors: Conversations with a Morton County Commissioner
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
#NoDAPL Scores Major Victory: No Final Permit For Pipeline
Fran Shor
The End of the Indispensable Nation
Michael Yates
Vietnam: the War That Won’t Go Away
Michael Uhl
Notes on a Trip to Cuba
Robert Hunziker
Huge Antarctica Glacier in Serious Trouble
John Steppling
Screen Life
David Macaray
Trump vs. America’s Labor Unions
Yoav Litvin
Break Free and Lead, or Resign: a Letter to Bernie Sanders
Norman Pollack
Taiwan: A Pustule on International Politics
Kevin Martin
Nuclear Weapons Modernization: a New Nuclear Arms Race? Who Voted for it? Who Will Benefit from It?
David Mattson
3% is not Enough: Towards Restoring Grizzly Bears
Howard Lisnoff
The Person Who Deciphered the Order to Shoot at Kent State
Dave Archambault II
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Statement on Dakota Access Pipeline Decision
Nick Pemberton
Make America Late Again
Weekend Edition
December 02, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
The Coming War on China
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: The CIA’s Plots to Kill Castro
Paul Street
The Iron Heel at Home: Force Matters
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Timberg’s Tale: Washington Post Reporter Spreads Blacklist of Independent Journalist Sites
Andrew Levine
Must We Now Rethink the Hillary Question? Absolutely, Not
Joshua Frank
CounterPunch as Russian Propagandists: the Washington Post’s Shallow Smear
David Rosen
The Return of HUAC?
Rob Urie
Race and Class in Trump’s America
Patrick Cockburn
Why Everything You’ve Read About Syria and Iraq Could be Wrong
Caroline Hurley
Anatomy of a Nationalist
Ayesha Khan
A Muslim Woman’s Reflections on Trump’s Misogyny
Michael Hudson – Steve Keen
Rebel Economists on the Historical Path to a Global Recovery
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail