Bleah.

This is an AP wire report from April 12, 2002. Turns out she made her statement in an interview on a Berkeley radio station. (Gee, I wonder why a great investigative journalist like Palast didn’t turn it up in the Congressional Record?)

****************************************
Washington — Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them.

She added that “persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America’s new war.”

In a recent interview with a radio station in Berkeley, Calif., McKinney said: “We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?”

McKinney declined to be interviewed Thursday, but she issued a statement saying: “I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case.”
*************************

Note carefully that McKinney never denied having made that statement on the Berkeley radio station, and her official press release on the matter merely continued along the same lines: “I don’t know if Bush is profiting from 9/11, but a complete investigation might reveal that to be the case.”

Don’t you think that if Palast were correct that McKinney would have denied making that statement in the first place?

Oh, and Palast is deliberately lying when he says that no quote from McKinney can be found in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. (He shouldn’t say things like that when other people have access to LEXIS). Here’s the full story from the AJC:

***********************************
The Atlanta Journal and Constitution

April 18, 2002 Thursday, Home Edition

SECTION: DeKalb; Pg. 1JA

LENGTH: 507 words

HEADLINE: McKinney challenger eagerly steps to the plate

BYLINE: BEN SMITH

SOURCE: AJC

BODY:
Denise Majette took her first public swing at U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) last week after the incumbent she’s seeking to oust from office tossed her what looked like a political softball.

Political observers say McKinney may have handed Majette a hefty club when the five-term congresswoman suggested during a radio interview that President Bush may have had advance warning of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and did nothing to stop them.

Majette, who has been quietly building her campaign since stepping down as a DeKalb State Court judge in January, pounced on McKinney’s remarks, saying they “reflect her entire congressional career: careless, off-the-wall and unproductive.”

“Clearly she is more concerned with pushing her own far-out ideas than with representing effectively the citizens of the 4th District,” Majette added.

It’s not clear what lasting effect McKinney’s latest controversial remarks will be. The five-term congresswoman has repeatedly skated to re-election despite her history of making public statements that have outraged many constituents.

The McKinney-Majette exchange clearly marks the beginning of what is certain to be a heated 4th Congressional District election.

Merle Black, an Emory University political scientist, believes McKinney remains the odds-on favorite to win the election. But he added that the congresswoman’s latest remarks about the Sept. 11 attacks aren’t helping her cause.

During a recent interview with a California station, McKinney said, “We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on Sept. 11. . . . What did [the Bush ] administration know and when did it know it, about the events of Sept. 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?”

Last fall, McKinney attracted nationwide scorn and some praise when she sent a letter to Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal to apologize for then-New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s rejection of the prince’s $10 million gift for World Trade Center victims. Giuliani turned down the gift after Bin Talal suggested that the U.S. foreign policy was partly to blame for the terrorist attacks.

McKinney asked the prince to consider donating the $10 million to African-American charities.

Black said it’s unlikely that McKinney’s latest remarks will cause any new damage to her Democratic political base, but it could prompt increasing numbers of non-Democrats to enter the Democratic Party primary to vote against her.

“Without the intervention of large numbers of Republicans, the odds still favor McKinney,” Black said. “But if she continues in this vein, and every month you have something like this, it could undermine her support.”

But John Evans, president of the DeKalb County NAACP, suggested it’s wrong to conclude that McKinney has committed an atrocious gaffe. “Elected officials are fully aware they are up for re-election and they are fully aware of what they are saying,” he said. “She knows what she’s doing.”
***************************

And here’s a transcript from CNN on April 12, 2002:

CARLSON: Thanks for defending the Constitution, Paul.

And now, time to reveal our quote of the day. Buckle your seat belts.

This Congresswoman is a Democrat from the Atlanta area. She last made national headlines when she criticized Rudy Giuliani for refusing a $10 million Saudi donation for victims of September 11th, and said, U.S. Middle East policy was partly to blame for the attacks.

She is Cynthia McKinney. And she has a conspiracy theory you won’t believe — hopefully.

Here’s what she told a Berkeley, California radio station.

“What did this administration know, and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew? And why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?”

This is how the White House reacted.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: All I can tell you is the congresswoman must be running for the Hall of Fame of the Grassy Knoll Society.

I really don’t have anything to say that would lend any credibility to what she said.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Now, Paul, here you have Cynthia McKinney accusing, essentially, the president of being an accessory to mass murder, and doing it for profit.

Now, I can’t imagine a more revolting public statement, and I hope that you’ll right now on this show disavow her as a fellow Democrat.

BEGALA: Here. Sometimes you just have to get under the table, so — duck and cover. Yeah, that was nuts, come on, …

CARLSON: Well, you win (UNINTELLIGIBLE) points.

BEGALA: … Cynthia McKinney ought to know better.
*****************************************

According to NPR, her “loony” statement was made on the radio news show Counterspin. (Not incidentally, Counterspin is produced by an NPR competitor, the nonprofit Pacifica Radio Network.) I have the transcript; it’s on the web. Her charge that Bush knew about the September 11 attacks in advance and deliberately covered it up can’t be found.

What can be read is her call for a follow-up on the revelations from the BBC and USA Today on the information about a growing terror threat ignored by Bush . . . and whether the policy response – war, war, war – was protecting America or simply enriching Bush’s big arms industry donors and business partners. Fair questions. But asking them is dangerous . . . to one’s political career.

Of course, Palast isn’t right - the show was Flashpoints (3/25/02) (and the Fletcher School is part of Tufts, not Princeton - those little errors Palast makes do annoy me). Here is the transcript he mentions. Nowhere in it will you find the suggestion that George Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and let it happen in order to profit politically or economically. Yes, she did make the statement you have quoted several times, along with another one noting that many “persons close to this Administration are poised to make huge profits off America’s new war,” many of them being heavily invested in defense industries. That statement, however, does not seem to “accus[e], essentially, the president of being an accessory to mass murder, and doing it for profit.”

Here is a article I stumbled across while looking up the transcript, which I think summarizes the situation better than I can:

The truth was that McKinney quite accurately predicted — months before it broke in the press — that Bush had extensive intelligence on likely terrorist attacks and failed to act. And McKinney was equally accurate in saying that Bush insiders would reap windfalls from slaughter.

However, nowhere did McKinney ever link the two statements.

And, of course, we’re still waiting on the investigation into the intelligence breakdown…

Oh, yes, here are the specific paragraphs from the transcript:

…Moreover, persons close to this Administration are poised to make huge profits off America’s new war. Former President Bush sits on the board of the Carlyle Group. The Los Angeles Times reports that on a single day last month, Carlyle earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense Industries, the Army’s fifth-largest contractor. The stock offering was well timed: Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after the Sept. 11 attacks. The stock sale cashed in on increased congressional support for hefty defense spending, including one of United Defense’s cornerstone weapon programs.

Now is the time for our elected officials to be held accountable. Now is the time for the media to be held accountable. Why aren’t the hard questions being asked? We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, delivered one such warning. Those engaged in unusual stock trades immediately before September 11 knew enough to make millions of dollars from United and American airlines, certain insurance and brokerage firms’ stocks. What did this Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?…

At the time, I didn’t see anything particularly galling in McKinney’s remarks. I still don’t. But I’m ambivalent about her loss. She was a reliable vote, but there was very little else to recommend her. Majette - who, if her voting record is any indication, is as Republican as John Lewis - is as reliable a vote, and she doesn’t have McKinney’s baggage.

Now, if the Dems nominate someone like Lieberman, it’s another story entirely; the man can barely be distinguished from Bush.

I’m hoping the Greens will run a candidate who’ll be willing to do what Nader should have done in 2000 - make a deal with the Democrats (e.g., not campaigning in swing states in exchange for something the Greens want).

I can’t speak for Greens in general, but personally I find Kucinich very acceptable, and am distressed by how few “progressive” democrats seem willing to support him rather than the far less progressive Dean.

Palast doesn’t mention that article. And he never provides what Mckinney actually said on that radio show. Also…

“The September 11 X-Files” by David Corn
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=66

Corn criticizes her too. So I want that transcript of the radio appearance. Palast says in the Alternet article that she was on FAIR’s Counterspin radio show, but that CANNOT be true cuz she has NEVER appeared on that show. David Corn says it was MARCH 25 on some Pacifica show.

I like Greg Palast, and if he is wrong on this then that makes him VERY questionable.

Lastly, if McKinney never said it why didn’t she say “I NEVER SAID THAT!” Instead she gave a House speech that was basically damage control.

http://www.pacifica.org/programs/flashpoints/flashpoints_030415.html

And if you LISTEN to the interview, she doesn’t accuse Bush of murdering anyone. She said “Who else knew? And why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?”

Download the interview:
http://www.flashpoints.net/realaudio/fp20020325.ra

The McKinney speech and interview starts at 30:00

She is talking about ANYBODY that might have know about the attacks, not the Bush Administration.

You know, I hate to keep beating a dead donkey, but it seems silly to talk about what “Nader should have done” isolated from what “Gore should have done.” Gore and his handlers behaved like smug, bullying assholes toward the Greens once they deemed them a sufficient threat. And before that, they ignored them altogether. It would, obviously, take two to have danced this particular tango. And call me nuts, but somehow I’d expect the more powerful “partner” in the compromise “dance” to have put the idea out there. I’m just weird that way.

And you know, if Gore had lost anyway, it simply would be yet more excuse for the DLC to drag the party further into Lieber-land. I think they’ve got more than enough excuses, Thanks.

Bleah.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2003/06/index.html#001202

And TAPPED not only links supportively to said liars, but proceeds to talk about everyone involved (including Pacifica Radio) as if, being mildly left-wing, they are necessarily insane.

I’ve never thought that much of TAPPED, but I confess I don’t think I’ll waste much time on their website any more.