|
Advanced warning fox { April 12 2002 } Fwd: Sept. 11 advanced warning -- Fox News Network (fwd)
>Fox News Network
>
>SHOW: FOX HANNITY & COLMES (21:31)
>
>April 12, 2002 Friday
>
>Transcript # 041203cb.253
>
>Interview With Wayne Madsen and Rep. Mark Foley
>
>GUESTS: Wayne Madsen, Mark Foley
>
>BYLINE: Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes
>
>BODY:
>THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE
>UPDATED.
>
>COLMES: Welcome back to HANNITY & COLMES. I'm Alan Colmes.
>
>Still ahead tonight: Should colleges forget about American history and focus
>on African history? And who said "We will enter Jerusalem victorious. We'll
>raise our flag on its walls. We'll fight you with stones, with rifles, and
>with missiles"? HANNITY: The Iraqi missile.
>
>COLMES: Iraqi missiles. Stick around. We'll tell you the answer to that.
>
>But first, is it possible that the Bush administration knew about the
>terrorist attacks on September 11 before they happened and failed to warn
>anybody? Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney thinks so -- in an interview
>with a Berkeley radio station, accused the Bush administration of
>deliberately covering it up so they could make money off what she called
>America's new war.
>
>(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
>
>REP. CYNTHIA MCKINNEY (D), GEORGIA: 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. 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?
>
>(END AUDIO CLIP)
>
>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.
>
>Congressman Foley, welcome to the program. I think she should have the right
>to say what she wants to say, even if we think it may be a little out there.
>Charlie Norwood has asked for a boycott of Cynthia McKinney until anti-war
>statements are retracted. The Southeastern Legal Foundation wants
>congressional sanctions for what she said. I think that's going too far.
>
>Should she be punished for saying something, ludicrous though it is? Should
>she be punished for that?
>
>REP. MARK FOLEY (R), FLORIDA: Well, Alan, I think we all have a
>responsibility as members of the United States Congress to use our words
>judiciously.
>
>And I think what she's done here is absolutely crossed the line. There's a
>difference between trying to determine what the CIA knew before September 11,
>where there may have been warning signs. We should be looking at all of these
>things. I don't disagree that we need to investigate things prior to and
>after. But the allegation that somehow Mr. Bush and his associates knew about
>this and did nothing, simply so a Carlyle Group in Washington could profit by
>these acts, is simply ludicrous. It's insulting. It is asinine.
>
>HANNITY: Congressman Foley, welcome back to the program. Sean Hannity here.
>
>FOLEY: Thanks, Sean.
>
>HANNITY: By the way, it was good to see you in your home territory last
>weekend in Palm Beach.
>
>FOLEY: Thanks, Sean.
>
>HANNITY: Good to meet your mom, by the way, very nice lady.
>
>Look, it's more than this. This country is at war right now against terror.
>This president has been doing everything he can to fight this battle. Without
>any evidence whatsoever, she makes this reckless and irresponsible comment.
>
>What should Congress do in this case? She's one of 435 people that is
>supposed to lead this country in a responsible way. What should Congress do?
>
>FOLEY: Well, we really have to look at what she's done on the record.
>
>I did not disagree that Barbara Lee -- when we had the vote on the war
>itself, she had a right to say what she did. She had a right to vote the way
>she did. But now we've gone past a right of defending your party, or at least
>your values and your views, to making an outrageous attack, which is both
>libelous and slanderous, against some credible companies and people. So
>either put up the facts or retract your statement.
>
>HANNITY: You're right.
>
>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.
>
>(CROSSTALK)
>
>HANNITY: We will pick this up in a minute.
>
>COLMES: We will continue this line of questioning in a moment. The debate
>continues.
>
>Later, should college students learn more about African history and less
>about American history? That debate is ahead tonight on HANNITY & COLMES.
>
>(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
>
>HANNITY: Also coming up tonight: Why would a school want to teach less about
>American history? We'll tell you -- radio talk host Ken Hamblin among our
>many guests.
>
>All right, I want to go back.
>
>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: It really is.
>
>And she may have been speaking to a Berkeley crowd. And she may have thought
>she was talking to the right audience. But, again, our statements are
>weighed. The people that listen to our voices may respond and say, "They have
>credible evidence." So, all of the sudden, in the national media, Cynthia
>McKinney is making allegations that our president somehow is sitting there
>
>(CROSSTALK)
>
>HANNITY: She's saying he's a traitor that sold us out and sold us out for
>money. And I asked Mr. Madsen 40 times tonight, give me evidence -- no direct
>evidence, no answer to a direct question.
>
>And this is a level of irresponsible -- it's almost on the verge, it's become
>so predictable. Social Security -- "Republicans have a secret plan to destroy
>it after the election."
>
>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: Cynthia McKinney did not say that she didn't believe the president
>had knowledge. She said she's not aware of any evidence showing the president
>personally profited from attacks. She didn't distance herself from the
>knowledge aspect of what she said. But I'm going to move aside, because we're
>not going to agree on this. I think she was absolutely wrong to say it.
>
>But, Congressman Foley, the idea of investigating whether what happened
>between the FBI, the CIA, the INS, a lack of communication, looking at
>relationships between the oil industry and current policies, between the
>defense industry and current policies, there is where I think she had a
>point. And shouldn't that be investigated? Shouldn't we see why we had
>private energy meetings, what the relationship is between these energy
>executives and the vice president and Halliburton and the Carlyle Group?
>Doesn't that make sense?
>
>FOLEY: Well, no, Alan, now you're trying to make an assumption that somehow
>all of that ties together. I will agree...
>
>COLMES: No, I'm saying investigate it.
>
>FOLEY: If Cynthia McKinney had asked for an investigation -- and all of us
>want to get to the facts -- of what was known prior to, who was given
>information, where did this lead us, and what shall we learn from it in the
>future, I would be standing beside Cynthia McKinney saying: "Let's go. Let's
>proceed."
>
>COLMES: So, you'd be willing to investigate the INS, the CIA, willing to
>investigate the oil companies, their relationship to this administration, the
>oil people in this administration, and what their relationship is to these
>companies? You would stand behind that?
>
>FOLEY: I have no problem with any investigation, but let's not make a
>comparison between people who have been killed and people who are profiting
>from their death. I think this is the outrageous part of it. I will look at
>those situations, but I will not accept Cynthia McKinney's bald-faced lies
>and the kind of reprehensible statements she's made.
>
>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.
>
>And coming up, powerful debate: Should historically black colleges be
>teaching the history of Africa instead of American and European history?
>Radio talk show host Ken Hamblin will join us, and the man who wanted the
>portrait of George Washington torn down from city hall in New York, the fiery
>Charles Barron -- straight ahead.
|
|
