| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2002 9:04 pm Post subject: |
| American Politics Journal
Dec. 2, 2002
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
Kissinger's Revenge!
For years, Dr. Strangelove has wanted to get back at Clinton, who
exposed the former "statesman's" role backing brutal Chilean dictator
Augusto Pinochet... and now he has his chance
by Tamara Baker
Dec. 2, 2002 -- SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA (APJP) -- In a move in keeping
with the fox-guards-henhouse modus operandi of Team Bush, Henry
Kissinger has been tapped by George W. Bush to head the September 11th
probe.
Bear in mind that the Clinton White House, right up to its last hours in
office, kept very close tabs on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
Upon taking power in January of 2001, George W. Bush and his advisors
were far less careful and watchful.
This is shown by details such as outgoing Clinton advisor Sandy Berger's
having told incoming Bush staffer Condi Rice that she would be spending
more time on Al Qaeda than any other issue -- a warning ignored by Ms. Rice.
It's also shown by Clinton's having ordered spy submarines to patrol the
waters nearest Afghanistan -- submarines that George W. Bush took off
that patrol when he assumed power.
And of course, we have John Ashcroft's refusal on September 10, 2001 to
give the FBI the anti-terror tools it needed.
And let's not forget the scores of warnings the Bush circle ignored
about a possible terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
However, it's very likely that Henry Kissinger will, in spite of these
facts, choose to blame Bill Clinton, not the lax pre-9/11 Bush Cabinet,
for the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
This is because Kissinger has a score to settle with Bill Clinton -- a
very deep one, one that goes back to 1999, as this Consortium News
article points out (http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/050899b.html),
and about which I have
written for APJ in the past
(http://www.americanpolitics.com/20001024ClintonChile.html).
In order to aid British efforts to prosecute Kissinger's good friend and
ally, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, as a mass murderer,
President Clinton forced the CIA to release tens of thousands of secret
documents detailing, among other things, Kissinger's intimate role in
helping Pinochet overthrow, then murder, the democratically-elected
Salvador Allende in 1973, along with information concerning the murder
of Chilean exile Orlando Letelier and American citizen Ronni Moffitt
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20001113/).
Kissinger didn't like it when Bill Clinton exposed Dr. K's ties to
Pinochet's bloody, brutal regime.
Now's his chance for revenge.
Does anyone doubt that he'll take it?
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
American Politics Journal
Dec. 2, 2002
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
Kissinger's Revenge!
For years, Dr. Strangelove has wanted to get back at Clinton, who
exposed the former "statesman's" role backing brutal Chilean dictator
Augusto Pinochet... and now he has his chance
by Tamara Baker
Dec. 2, 2002 -- SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA (APJP) -- In a move in keeping
with the fox-guards-henhouse modus operandi of Team Bush, Henry
Kissinger has been tapped by George W. Bush to head the September 11th
probe.
Bear in mind that the Clinton White House, right up to its last hours in
office, kept very close tabs on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
Upon taking power in January of 2001, George W. Bush and his advisors
were far less careful and watchful.
This is shown by details such as outgoing Clinton advisor Sandy Berger's
having told incoming Bush staffer Condi Rice that she would be spending
more time on Al Qaeda than any other issue -- a warning ignored by Ms. Rice.
It's also shown by Clinton's having ordered spy submarines to patrol the
waters nearest Afghanistan -- submarines that George W. Bush took off
that patrol when he assumed power.
And of course, we have John Ashcroft's refusal on September 10, 2001 to
give the FBI the anti-terror tools it needed.
And let's not forget the scores of warnings the Bush circle ignored
about a possible terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
However, it's very likely that Henry Kissinger will, in spite of these
facts, choose to blame Bill Clinton, not the lax pre-9/11 Bush Cabinet,
for the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
This is because Kissinger has a score to settle with Bill Clinton -- a
very deep one, one that goes back to 1999, as this Consortium News
article points out (http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/050899b.html),
and about which I have
written for APJ in the past
(http://www.americanpolitics.com/20001024ClintonChile.html).
In order to aid British efforts to prosecute Kissinger's good friend and
ally, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, as a mass murderer,
President Clinton forced the CIA to release tens of thousands of secret
documents detailing, among other things, Kissinger's intimate role in
helping Pinochet overthrow, then murder, the democratically-elected
Salvador Allende in 1973, along with information concerning the murder
of Chilean exile Orlando Letelier and American citizen Ronni Moffitt
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20001113/).
Kissinger didn't like it when Bill Clinton exposed Dr. K's ties to
Pinochet's bloody, brutal regime.
Now's his chance for revenge.
Does anyone doubt that he'll take it?
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
Who In Hell is Tammy Bruce?
By Jeff Koopersmith
Dec. 2, 2002 -- Washington DC (APJP) -- Recently I've lately been
peppered with mail pleading with me to look into one Tammy Bruce -- who
I must admit I have spied a few times on FOX News, but knew little about.
I heard she "poses" as a liberal on various cable news shows, but
blathers on more like a right-wing nut.
When a reader wrote me a couple weeks back asking, "Who in hell is
Tammy Bruce, And when will she - please, please, PLEASE - pass through
the digestive tract and sphincter of media detestation and into the
septic tank of television history?", I popped the term "Tammy Bruce"
into a Web search engine.
What I found amazed me.
She's written a book. She seems slightly schizophrenic about almost
everything in life. She's not terribly good looking. She has people that
hate her enough to create entire anti-Tammy-Bruce web sites -- complete
with unflattering pictures of the pundit. She is a self-described
lesbian, a past officer of the National Organization for Women,
pro-choice, but voted for Reagan and was proud of it.
I also discovered that she lives in Los Angeles, which immediately made
her suspect.
But the crowning achievement of my Google search was finding her columns
on that lunatic Chris Ruddy's web site that is laughably called
"NewsMax."
There is nothing newsy about NewsMax -- and certainly nothing Max about
it either. It's a great source of half-truths, innuendo, crazed
conspiracy theory, and pathological, obsessive Clinton-bashing.
Suffice it to say that when I saw Bruce's piece "Skippy Reads The News"
-- a mean spirited and poorly written diatribe aimed at Aaron Brown of
CNN -- on Ruddy's site, I knew why Steve Young had asked me examine her
folds (pardon the pun).
I can't recommend that you read Ms. Bruce. Her command of the language
is less than limited and her perspective is filled with ill-placed
detestation. In two words, she's a malicious dog.
First, Ms. Bruce chose to attack CNN -- not for becoming a clone of FOX
News Channel's all lies all the time format and content, but because CNN
wasn't living up to FOX News Channel "standards."
After one stops laughing at this, one is carried forward -- much as a
novice embalmer is attracted to a corpse -- to read further. In just
her introductory paragraph of the "Skippy" piece, Ms. Bruce insults --
cruelly -- Ted Turner, Connie Chung and CNN anchor Aaron Brown (renaming
him "Howdy"), claiming that the trio she mentioned have caused "a
catastrophe so vile that Christiane Amanpour would not cover it."
Ms. Bruce never makes it clear what the "catastrophe" is -- but then
again, her style, which lacks even a scintilla of aptitude, would not
leave much room for this.
Bruce claims that when she "wants" news she watches FOX News Channel and
especially Greta van Susteren -- another FOX clone who cut her teeth
(pardon the pun) on O.J. Simpson's murder trial and most recently
underwent painful cosmetic surgery which should have moved her to a
courtroom as a plaintiff against her plastic surgeon.
I preferred the old Greta -- tough-jawed as she was -- although I must
admit I would not go to FOX News Channel or Greta if I "wanted" news.
Greta, as I write, is interviewing Lynne Cheney, a woman I consider --
with great reason -- to be one of the most dishonest people who has ever
claimed to serve this country, but instead served herself. Greta feeds
one Larry-King-softball question after another to Cheney.
Disgusting.
But this appeals to Bruce -- and as "hard news."
Bruce opines that Fox "beats" CNN in rating wars because they deliver
"fair and balanced news." One wonders whether Tammy has her head up her
proverbial behind. Where does she hang out? The Green room at "The
Factor?" Only a naive high school student would mention Roger Ailes'
sham news programming in the same sentence with a criticism of CNN's
"inspired leftist tripe fashioned as objective news gathering."
It's enough to make one vomit -- through uncontrollable laughter.
Bruce goes on to lie once more claiming the "we" are tired of being
taken advantage of and frankly lied to (allegedly by CNN) and implies
that FOX is beating CNN in ratings because it is "better" than CNN.
Better?
In what way?
Bruce seems not to know that FOX News Channel has few "reporters" and
almost no newsgathering capability. It does not need them because Fox
is a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week ultra-right wing "operation" launched
by Neonazi Roger Ailes, a former nobody in the Reagan Administration and
the Frankenstein who created blonde blowhard and former liberal turned
fascist Chris Matthews. FOX does not gather news -- it copies it from
wire services, misrepresents it, and then broadcasts it as propaganda --
usually in support (and in awe) of George W. Bush, in defense of the
Republican National Committee, or as a cover for the filthiest of
American corporations -- NewsCorp, its parent, being one of them.
What was Ms. Bruce's evidence about Aaron Brown that made it "crystal
clear" that Fox is better than CNN?
Get ready to guffaw.
It was because Aaron Brown -- who Bruce calls "the dreaded
Clueless-But-Sanctimonious-Anchorman" -- did not know the NAME of the
Beltway Sniper for TWO WHOLE MINUTES after FOX News Channel announced it!
Of course! That makes SUCH sense! How stupid could I be? It is
impressive, is it not? FOX reported something unimportant two minutes
BEFORE CNN! That's an Emmy if I ever saw one.
For comedy.
My guess, of course, is that CNN has what the industry calls "fact
checkers." FOX, of course, does not need fact-checkers to protect its
viewers from erroneous news reports -- it produces false news reports as
a matter of course.
Thus it wasn't unusual that CNN waited for 120 seconds to announce two
names that mean nothing. After all, FOX called Al Gore the winner in
Florida before it learned that the Bush family had some skanky
helter-skelter in mind for the "Scum Shines" state and, later, the
United States Supreme Court. FOX does not deal in facts -- it deals in
half-truths and slant.
Roger Ailes -- the chief culprit at FOX -- has already been called on
the carpet by the United States Congress for this type of ersatz news
"reporting."
Ms. Bruce tries. She even used the tired old trick of alliteration when
she described -- over dramatically of course -- how Rita Cosby broke
into Greta van Susteren's show "breathless" with the names of capital M
Muslim, capital M Miscreant John Muhammad and his "Jamaican" accomplice
Lee Malvo.
What is funny about Ms. Bruce's commentary here is that she claims "we"
the nation were waiting with baited breath to find out the names of
these two murderers.
"We" weren't. I really don't see what the two psychos' actual names had
to do with anything.
What "we" were waiting for was to know the police got their men and that
we were safe to go to the Social Safeway in Georgetown without getting
shot. The "names" of the two had little or no news value at all save
for their family, friends and acquaintances who were hurt by the news.
No one else cared, and if one launched a poll today perhaps 0.2% of the
American public would be able to name one of them -- let alone both.
Bruce then naively suggests that CNN should be watching FOX News
Channel. She is so patently ill-informed that she does not know that
CNN always watches FOX, CNBC, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC World, Al
Jazeera, Reuters, Associate Press -- and all their wires, all the time.
By the way, Ms. Bruce -- FOX watches CNN. That's just standard best
practice stuff. Are you a moron, or a paid hateful little nobody who
picks up a paycheck from the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife or his toadies?
For some reason Ms. Bruce wants us to know that Aaron Brown's high
school nickname was "Skippy," claiming the name "reeks of nothingness."
That's a strange thing for a "nobody" to say, especially a lesbian
nobody who should know the repulsiveness of hate-filled name-calling all
too well.
Ms. Bruce also conveniently forgets the demographics that FOX News
Channel relies upon for its high ratings: the masses of do-nothing
Americans that populate the rust, corn, and porn belts of America, the
dumbest of the dumb Americans who spend time sullying their double-wides
and drinking 2.6 cases of cheap beer each week before and after beating
up their wives and kids. Roger Ailes -- a master of Hitler's Big Lie
Theory -- knows who to suck up to, John Locke's Masses of Asses.
I imagine that Ms. Bruce will also appeal to the holier-than-thou
televangelist clique -- until, of course, they find out she's a lesbian
and is proud of it. Then they'll probably be calling for her lynching.
Even more embarrassing is Bruce's own stupidity. She tells us that Rita
Cosby broke the "news" regarding the sniper's names to van Susteren --
but then goes on to say that Greta van Susteren "stunned" the TV world
(the TV "world"?) by "rocketing" to number one in a time slot that
competes with nothing -- including Aaron Brown on CNN. She quotes -- of
all co-morons -- Matt Drudge (is he still alive?), conveniently
forgetting not only that FOX fired Drudge for being an incredible ass
but that Drudge is also one of the most untrustworthy pseudo-writers in
America.
Bruce goes on to call Aaron Brown "Ted Baxter on valium", which she does
not capitalize as a brand name nor "r" as a registered trademark --
something Roche Products, Inc. could sue her over.
She calls Brown's demeanor "golly-gee" -- but forgets to mention that
she poses as a spokesperson for Democrats when in fact she's a card
carrying shill for hate peddlers with neither liberal bona fides nor
progressive credentials nor Democrat documentation either. Ms. Bruce is
either a petty streetwalker for the right or a junior high school
malefactor with absolutely no grip on reality. In some circles she
might be described as a sociopath.
Bruce is so inconsequential in fact that she picks on CNN for asking
what Brown's Jamaican citizenship had to do with his murderous
criminality -- especially when that criminality has not yet been
established. Remember, even though the evidence presented to us suggests
strongly that Malvo and Muhammad are guilty, we still live in a land of
laws... or do we? Has Ms. Bruce heard of innocent until proven guilty?
Perhaps not -- especially since she supports van Susteren.
Bruce claims that "everyone" else "gets" why it's important that Malvo
comes from Jamaica. Gee, I don't get it -- and I've had eight years of
postgraduate education and have spent 30 years in Washington, New York
and Los Angeles.
Let me guess... is it because he's black? Is it because Jamaicans enjoy
their Ganja? Is it because Jamaica is the spawning ground for Al Qaeda
members? Stupid people? Angry people? Suspicious, angry black people
with accents? From a sniper proving ground?
What is it, Ms. Bruce? I just can't guess.
Oh, I do get it! It's because we Americans are small-minded and bigoted!
Bruce doesn't waste a moment conveying her narrow-mindedness and hatred
for Muslims. She claims that Aaron Brown "exposed himself" as a "man"
(I find the choice of the word "man" interesting because of her sexual
persuasion) that wanted to save "us" from our racist, Muslim-hating selves."
Yet she does not go on to say that she is not a racist Muslim-hating
cretin herself. Instead, she says "Yes, we learned once again, that a
Muslim had probably murdered another bunch of people, with his illegal
alien buddy."
Bruce piles one idiocy upon another writing that she has a right to
"think critically" -- but obviously having no idea what this means. She
tells us that Roger Ailes would encourage "us" to decide for ourselves!
When I read that, I laughed out loud. This woman is beyond far-fetched.
Bruce implies that the nation "would view the world realistically,
leaving you [Aaron Brown] all alone in your pit of nonjudgmental,
morally vacuous, faux serenity."
Well, here's a wake up call for you, Tammy:
You are irrelevant.
You couldn't write your way out of Bob Jones University English 101.
You are repugnant.
You are not easy to look at, either (just don't ask Greta for advice on
a decent plastic surgeon).
You are a disgrace to women everywhere, an embarrassment to lesbians
everywhere, and a humiliation to the National Organization of Women --
who unthinkingly elected you the president of their Los Angeles Chapter
once upon a time.
Of course, your appearance on that scene marked the end of NOW's
viability, did it not?
Talk about "Oops!"
It's you, Ms. Bruce, who are alone.
Most likely forever.
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
From: Susan L.
Re: Another disappeared commentator
Date: 12/1/02
Don't forget Vincent Bugliosi. He used to appear on a lot of shows as a
legal expert, but, because he had the guts to call the felonious five
Supreme Court justices "criminals", Bugliosi has been exiled to media
Siberia. I don't think even Donahue would book him -- one of the many
reasons he's tanking on Cable.
When are mainstream liberals going to learn that you can't make nice
with the right wingers in politics or the press and expect fair play in
return?
As my husband likes to say, "Kissing the ass of the beast, doesn't save
your life, it just guarantees that you'll die with a bad taste in your
mouth."
Keep shining light into the dark corners.
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
American Politics Journal is the longest-running political commentary on
the Internet. For over a decade, our commentary has been read by
America's most powerful decision shapers and opinion makers. We tear the
lid off the funny business that passes for politics, press coverage,
justice and punditry in America. We pull no punches. We speak truth to
power. And we even manage to find a chuckle or two in the process!
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
For permission to reprint American Politics Journal in full or in part,
call (212) 501-9150 or contact JJ Balzer at editors@americanpolitics.com
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
American Politics Journal Copyright (C) 2002 American Politics Journal
Publications, Inc All rights reserved. ISSN No. 1523-1690
All materials contained herein are protected by United States copyright
law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed,
published or broadcast without the prior written permission of the
authors and American Politics Journal Publications, Inc. You may not
alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of
the content. This message may not be reproduced in full or in part
without the advance express written consent of American Politics Journal
Publications, Inc. However, you may print this material (one
machine-readable copy and one print copy per page) for personal use. | |  | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2002 9:07 pm Post subject: Did the Israelis Know about 9/11 Beforehand? |
| It seems clear that the Israelis were shadowing the highjackers at least when they were in Florida at the flight school and probably elsewhere and, if nothing else, the placement of the Mossad agents near the WTC would seem to indicate they knew what was going to happen and when. Did they plan it, or have an Arab agent convince those who carried it out to do it? None of us can say, for sure. Surely, they benefited from 9/11, as even Netanyahu admitted almost immediately afterward. At this moment, the two governments are so entwined, and since it is quite evident that the Bush administration received a kick start from 9/11 which now enables the US to do whatever it pleases and to whom with most of the world terrified into acquiescence, it is too much to believe they are simply taking advantage of an unforeseen situation.
Re Iraq, I don't think Hussein has really ever been a threat to Israel. he talks a better game than he performs. Just before the Gulf War, Rabin was negotiating with Saddam over a deal in which Iraq would be willing to take in the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from Lebanon, Jordan, Syria etc. Israel's real fear or target is Iran, and Israel hopes that the US will go after Iran next. Israel is still suffering from the humiliation of having its vaunted IDF forced to retreat from Lebanon after a well deserved ass-whipping by Hezbollah which the Israelis like to blame on Iran. | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2002 6:21 am Post subject: Christopher Hitchens on "Buchanan & Press" abo |
| The following is from "Buchanan & Press" (transcript from http://www.msnbc.com):
Upcoming, folks, we’re going to have Chris Hitchins (ph) here who thinks Henry Kissinger is a war criminal.
Do you believe that?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: We have here in the studio Chris Hitchens, who is not a happy camper on the fact that Henry Kissinger has been named to head up the commission to investigate 9/11, what happened there.
Chris Hitchens is a columnist with “Vanity Fair” and has a book out on someone I admire greatly and that is George Orwell; “Why Orwell Matters” is his latest book. He had a book out on Henry Kissinger earlier which was non-complimentary.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, AUTHOR: “The Trial of Henry Kissinger.”
BUCHANAN: “The Trial of Henry Kissinger” by Chris Hitchens.
HITCHENS: It’s Christopher, actually.
BUCHANAN: Christopher, I’m sorry.
HITCHENS: I won’t call you Patrick if you don’t.
BUCHANAN: Look, I served for, I guess, six years in the White House with Henry Kissinger. The entire time he was...
HITCHENS: We all remember those years very well.
BUCHANAN: Well, I know. I supported the war in Vietnam. I thought it was an honorable cause. We inherited it. We tried to extricate our troops; at the same time we saved South Vietnam and Cambodia from the horrors that were visited upon them. And my disagreements with Henry are that we weren’t firm enough, tough enough, early enough. We should have done the Christmas bombing in the first 10 weeks we were in office.
HITCHENS: Well, that may be, and if you’ll give it to me, I’ll do half an hour with you any day on Indochina but to the point about Henry Kissinger just for now, he lied to Congress, whatever you think of it, about the bombing of Laos and Cambodia. He made a very specific, very detailed successful attempt to deceive Congress and the public and the press about a measure of foreign policy. You can say you’re proud of it. I disagree with you.
Kissinger may have been proud or not but he was waging an illegal, unconstitutional war and repeatedly deceiving Congress on a major matter of policy.
Now here’s my point now: Should such a person be put in charge of an investigation which involves a honest accounting?
BUCHANAN: He did not lie.
HITCHENS: He then originates the idea that those who protested this illegality should be subject to illegal wire taps, to surveillance of themselves and their families. This begins the plumbing operation which leads to Watergate, which is why you don’t work for the guy anymore.
BUCHANAN: Let me say this. Look, everything you’ve said, those were accusations that were made at that time about Kissinger misleading Congress, about Nixon misleading about the Cambodian bombing. Nixon was never impeached. No article of impeachment was ever brought against him for any of that.
HITCHENS: He did a bargain. He worked out a plea.
BUCHANAN: I worked with Ollie North and John Poindexter, who were charged on this basis, but he was never charged. And the only one who has charged him, as I know it, is the indicter right here, Christopher Hitchens, and you’ve got no people backing you up anywhere. You’ve got the president of the United States honoring Henry Kissinger. You have no dissent on Capitol Hill.
HITCHENS: I think that’s wrong twice actually.
First, as Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, someone who accepts a pardon is admitting to an extent their guilt. Mr. Nixon avoided prosecution or impeachment by copping a plea. The first articles of impeachment drawn up in the House, however, were for the illegal bombing and the secret bombing of Cambodia.
That’s all true.
Now, you say I have no supporters on the idea of prosecuting him and that’s not true. On Memorial Day of last year in Paris, Mr. Kissinger fled town when he was served with a summons by a French judge, asking for his help, only his help as a witness.
BUCHANAN: OK.
HITCHENS: ... in a disappearance, torture, kidnap and murder in Chile. The judges in Chile and the magistrates in Argentina are looking for him as a material witness, and he’s refusing to answer their questions.
He can’t travel without advice. There are many countries he can’t travel to at all. The guy is a wanted man for crimes.
PRESS: Wait a minute. Hold it.
HITCHENS: ... for crimes of terrorism. As well as crimes against humanity.
PRESS: Let’s get up to date if we can.
HITCHENS: I’m trying to bring you up to date.
PRESS: I am, too. To this commission, this president. This commission which George Bush opposed for 14 months until Congress said, if you want a Homeland Security Bill, you have to have this commission.
HITCHENS: Yes.
PRESS: And so...
HITCHENS: Appointing Henry Kissinger is the next best thing.
PRESS: And so he appoints Henry Kissinger because he wants to kill any honest investigation?
HITCHENS: It shows the president’s contempt for what he’s already announced his contempt for. He says, “OK. If you want to have-I don’t want to have a commission and I’ll show you how badly I don’t want one. If you have to have one, you can have Kissinger in charge of it. Will you take this insult or not?”
The Democrats apparently said yes. This is the contempt for public opinion, for the courts.
BUCHANAN: You’ve got 12 members on the commission. You’ve got George Mitchell as co-chair. Everything’s going to be-all of these guys are going to go in and cave in and cover up? Even you don’t believe that.
HITCHENS: Well, you remember, I think I remember Mr. Mitchell’s role in the Iran-Contra investigation, for example, where he said in the account of it that he wrote, he said, “We didn’t want to call her in case she cried and made us look bad. We let people off because we were afraid of finding out the truth.”
(CROSSTALK)
PRESS: We’re going to take a break.
HITCHENS: There’s a reluctance to find out the truth and if you appoint Kissinger there is an announced official reluctance to find out the truth.
PRESS: We’ll talk more if we can, Christopher Hitchens. When we come back: Should Henry Kissinger do what the “New York Times” says and get of his consulting business for the next eight to 10 months? We’ll talk about that on BUCHANAN & PRESS. We’ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PRESS: And welcome back, Pat Buchanan and Bill Press here.
As head of the new commission on 9/11, President Bush has appointed former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a move that did not meet with universal applause. One of those who is not applauding at all, Christopher Hitchens, our guest, who has written a book about Henry Kissinger, “The Trial of Henry Kissinger.”
Christopher, would you feel more comfortable with Mr. Kissinger’s appointment if, as you first suggested, and the “New York Times” following your lead this morning suggested, Henry Kissinger suspend all ties with his worldwide consulting firm, Kissinger and Associates and God knows what clients?
HITCHENS: I don’t know whether I’d feel more comfortable. Probably not. But it deserves to be said that Kissinger acts as a middleman between dictatorships and the corporations who love them and that’s his living.
PRESS: Including Saudi Arabia?
HITCHEN: Indonesia we know about. We have China; we know he was representing Coca-Cola to China at the time he defended the Chinese communist’s party’s massacre of the students in 1989. He’s sided with bureaucrats as friends and allies before (ph).
Here’s the thing. If you are a client of Kissinger & Associates you have to sign a confidentiality agreement. It may not be said who. I think he should be forced to say who his client list is now. I think that is a requirement of disclosure.
And I think it should be pointed out that in his intermediate career of historian, he borrowed or I would say he stole all the records of his time at the State Department and wove them into three very profitable books.
BUCHANAN: What do you mean? You have all these accusations...
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: You suggested he be indicted.
HITCHENS: Excuse me. Again, you are mistaken.
BUCHANAN: All these crazy judges want him as a material witness. Is that the same guy in Spain?
HITCHENS: The judge in Paris is a very celebrated judge.
BUCHANAN: OK. Is that the same guy who was...
HITCHENS: Judge Neuvos (ph) is a very respectable-The judge in Chile voted for Pinochet in the referendum.
Of the documents Mr. Kissinger took, appropriated from the State Department, he has been successfully sued for their return. It took a long time.
They were originally taken from the Rockefeller state home. And he had no right to do that. He made three volumes of memoirs out of this.
On four occasions I can prove to you the negotiations with China
or Vietnam, the negotiations with South Africa and Angola, the
negotiations with Indonesia, he falsified, completely, probably falsified declassified documents, falsified the record.
So that is three careers as a master of deception. And Bush wants him to chair the most important inquiry American society has.
BUCHANAN: I’ve had my dissents with Henry Kissinger, but...
HITCHENS: Finally, finally.
BUCHANAN: Well, I did in the White House. But the whole country
disagrees with Christopher Hitchens. Not a single voice has been
raised from Capitol Hill.
HITCHENS: What about me?
BUCHANAN: He’s going to chair the commission.
You’ve got nine guys on it, you’ve already said...
HITCHENS: I don’t mind if it’s only me. That’s why you’ve invited me.
BUCHANAN: Sometimes even paranoids have real enemies. I mean, who...
PRESS: Even Walter Isaacson wrote a book about Kissinger and he said he’s the perfect man for the job because he knows so much about U.S. intelligence agencies. Was Walter all wet?
HITCHENS: Well, Walter’s book is very good and I borrowed a lot from his book for mine, but it is a foolish remark for him to have made because as the Church Committee, the last inquiry into American...
BUCHANAN: The Church, the one that gutted the CIA?
HITCHENS: Henry Kissinger was at work with the nastiest bits of U.S.
intelligence when they were breaking the law and did not make a full
disclosure to the Church Commission.
BUCHANAN: You know, some of the reason we had 9/11 was because Church and all those guys gutted the CIA, gutted the FBI.
HITCHENS: Pat, that isn’t true.
BUCHANAN: Sure they did. It is not more ridiculous than what we’re hearing right now.
HITCHEN: You can’t gut an agency that’s already gutless like the CIA, which was already in bed with the Saudis and the Pakistanis, didn’t care to report on their activities to the president. Doesn’t have a suspicious mind now about these kind of activities. And that’s why they’re eviscerating such a thing as requirements.
PRESS: Christopher Hitchens, thank you for being here. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:41 am Post subject: Mitchell Declines 9/11 Post, Hamilton Steps In |
| Mitchell Declines 9/11 Post, Hamilton Steps In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Joanne Kenen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Citing time pressures, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell said Wednesday he would not serve on an independent panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, and former House Foreign Affairs chairman Lee Hamilton was named to take his place.
Mitchell, a former Democratic senator from Maine, agreed two weeks ago to serve as vice chairman of the commission to be headed by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
The commission is charged with investigating possible intelligence, aviation security, immigration or other policy lapses related to the 9-11 attacks.
Mitchell said he had decided he could not take on the part-time but demanding position while also juggling his responsibilities at his Washington law firm job.
Mitchell said in a letter to Democratic congressional leaders he was declining the post reluctantly but said it would "require more time than I anticipated and more than I now can commit to." The 10-person panel has not yet begun work.
He also dismissed any suggestion that there were conflicts of interest between the commission and his legal work.
Since leaving the Senate, Mitchell has taken on high profile peace missions in Northern Ireland and the Middle East.
Kissinger's selection by President Bush sparked controversy, both because of his policy-making role during the Vietnam war and the bombing of Cambodia, and because he is now a high-priced private international consultant. He has stated publicly that there are no conflicts between the commission's work and clients at his New York-based consulting service.
The commission was established in the recently enacted law that created the new Department of Homeland Security.
House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri and Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said they had asked Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat, to be vice chair instead of Mitchell.
Hamilton, a respected voice on foreign policy, played a key role in investigating covert arms sales to Iran in the 1980s and is now the director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
The other Democratic appointees are Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, a wounded Vietnam vet who was defeated in the November elections that made homeland security an issue; retiring Rep. Tim Roemer of Indiana, an early sponsor of legislation calling for a 9-11 commission; Richard Ben-Veniste, a Washington lawyer and former Watergate investigator; and Jamie Gorelick, vice chair of Fannie Mae and former deputy attorney general under former President Bill Clinton. All have some defense or intelligence background.
Earlier this week Republicans named former Sen. Slade Gorton of Washington state as one of their appointees. The rest must be named by Dec. 15. | | | | *Mutt American | | Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 3:58 am Post subject: |
| | Dancers are the way to figure it out? Well, if we were to count up Jewish dancers (5) and Arab dancers (tens of thousands), then it still comes down to the Arabs doing it. | | | | Guest | | | | *Mutt American | | Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:38 pm Post subject: |
| | Arabs did it. Israelis did not. That's what we need to know. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 4:31 am Post subject: |
| | *Mutt American wrote: | | Arabs did it. Israelis did not. That's what we need to know. |
Wow, a "Mutt American" (who is a Zionist Jew) tells us that the Israelis didn't know anything about 9/11 beforehand, and "we all believe him". NOT!!!! | | | | Guest | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
