Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
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:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

Weekend Edition
September 30, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Henry Giroux
Thinking Dangerously in the Age of Normalized Ignorance
Stanley L. Cohen
Israel and Academic Freedom: a Closed Book
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Can Russia Learn From Brazil’s Fate? 
Andrew Levine
A Putrid Election: the Horserace as Farce
Mike Whitney
The Biggest Heist in Human History
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Sick Blue Line
Rob Urie
The Twilight of the Leisure Class
Vijay Prashad
In a Hall of Mirrors: Fear and Dislike at the Polls
Alexander Cockburn
The Man Who Built Clinton World
John Wight
Who Will Save Us From America?
Pepe Escobar
Afghanistan; It’s the Heroin, Stupid
W. T. Whitney
When Women’s Lives Don’t Matter
Julian Vigo
“Ooops, I Did It Again”: How the BBC Funnels Stories for Financial Gain
Howard Lisnoff
What was Missing From The Nation’s Interview with Bernie Sanders
Jeremy Brecher
Dakota Access Pipeline and the Future of American Labor
Binoy Kampmark
Pictures Left Incomplete: MH17 and the Joint Investigation Team
Andrew Kahn
Nader Gave Us Bush? Hillary Could Give Us Trump
Steve Horn
Obama Weakens Endangered Species Act
Dave Lindorff
US Propaganda Campaign to Demonize Russia in Full Gear over One-Sided Dutch/Aussie Report on Flight 17 Downing
John W. Whitehead
Uncomfortable Truths You Won’t Hear From the Presidential Candidates
Ramzy Baroud
Shimon Peres: Israel’s Nuclear Man
Brandon Jordan
The Battle for Mercosur
Murray Dobbin
A Globalization Wake-Up Call
Jesse Ventura
Corrupted Science: the DEA and Marijuana
Richard W. Behan
Installing a President by Force: Hillary Clinton and Our Moribund Democracy
Andrew Stewart
The Democratic Plot to Privatize Social Security
Daniel Borgstrom
On the Streets of Oakland, Expressing Solidarity with Charlotte
Marjorie Cohn
President Obama: ‘Patron’ of the Israeli Occupation
Norman Pollack
The “Self-Hating” Jew: A Critique
David Rosen
The Living Body & the Ecological Crisis
Joseph Natoli
Thoughtcrimes and Stupidspeak: Our Assault Against Words
Ron Jacobs
A Cycle of Death Underscored by Greed and a Lust for Power
Uri Avnery
Abu Mazen’s Balance Sheet
Kim Nicolini
Long Drive Home
Louisa Willcox
Tribes Make History with Signing of Grizzly Bear Treaty
Art Martin
The Matrix Around the Next Bend: Facebook, Augmented Reality and the Podification of the Populace
Andre Vltchek
Failures of the Western Left
Ishmael Reed
Millennialism or Extinctionism?
Frances Madeson
Why It’s Time to Create a Cabinet-Level Dept. of Native Affairs
Laura Finley
Presidential Debate Recommendations
José Negroni
Mass Firings on Broadway Lead Singers to Push Back
Leticia Cortez
Entering the Historical Dissonance Surrounding Desafinados
Robert J. Burrowes
Gandhi: ‘My Life is My Message’
Charles R. Larson
Queen Lear? Deborah Levy’s “Hot Milk”
David Yearsley
Bring on the Nibelungen: If Wagner Scored the Debates
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]