💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › conspiracy › CN › cn11-30.txt captured on 2020-10-31 at 22:36:37.
View Raw
More Information
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 11 Num. 30
=======================================
("Quid coniuratio est?")
--------------------------------------------------------------------
AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD -- 10/26/97
===================================
Abbreviated Transcript of C-Span Interview
------------------------------------------
Portions of remarks made by London Telegraph newspaper reporter
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (AEP) during an appearance on C-Span,
October 26, 1997, appear below. By way of introduction, here is
a partial review by Conspiracy Nation of Mr. Evans-Pritchard's
new book, *The Secret Life of Bill Clinton*. (ISBN:
0-89526-408-0)
Let's get two things straight: (1) the London Telegraph
newspaper is *not* a "tabloid"; it is a *broadsheet*. It does
not feature pretty girls in bikinis on page 3; it is a respected
British newspaper having a circulation of about 1 million readers
per day. During the years immediately before World War II, the
Telegraph sided *with* Winston Churchill and *against*
"appeasement" of Nazi Germany on the march. (The London Times,
however, sided with the Neville Chamberlain "appeasement" policy
which, we know, was a big mistake.) The London Telegraph
newspaper has been around since 1855, and anyone who regularly
visits their web site knows they consistently do excellent
reporting on a wide variety of issues. (2) Just because Ambrose
Evans-Pritchard is British does *not* mean he is therefore with
MI-6.
Reacting to Evans-Pritchard's book, *The Secret Life of Bill
Clinton: The Unreported Stories*, one Internet commentator
called the London journalist a modern Alexis DeTocqueville. This
is an apt description: Evans-Pritchard, visiting our land,
travelling through it, and jotting down his observations, gives a
keen outsider's sketch of the United States, as it is, in the
mid-to-late 1990s. Do not be misled by the title of the book.
- The Secret Life of Bill Clinton* is not about "Clinton bashing,"
- per se*, but portrays the larger situation of an elite class --
Democrats and Republicans -- full of decadence, corruption, and
snobbery, and stubbornly resisted by the common people of the
United States. The heroes of AEP's book are the ordinary people
who, against all odds, have successfully "monkey-wrenched" the
plans of their "betters" to "manage" the country. Yes, there
have been defeats. But AEP's larger point is that, even in
defeat, there has been a wide-ranging RESISTANCE which has most
definitely slowed the enemy's advance. And there have been many
victories in some of the minor skirmishes, too, detailed in Mr.
Evans-Pritchard's book.
The one critique I have of the book is in its coverage of the
Oklahoma City bombing(s) case. It carefully demonstrates the
ineptness and even cover-up occurring in the so-called FBI
"investigation," but the author does not come to grips with one
aspect of the case: the fact that explosives must have been
placed directly *on* the support pillars of the doomed Murrah
Building. (We know this from expert analysis done by Brigadier
General (retired) Benton Partin.) Since charges were placed *on*
the support pillars, the next question (not noticed by AEP) is,
"How did the 'rogue terrorists' involved gain access to the
building?" Unfortunately, Mr. Evans-Pritchard misses that in his
otherwise good analysis.
The book, as is to be expected (since it is written by an author
who has achieved cult status amongst researchers into the hidden
ways of the U.S. government), breaks a lot of new ground. The
book gets the "gears turning" in one's mind. Aspects of
revelations Evans-Pritchard has surfaced may, circumstances
permitting, be touched on in future issues of Conspiracy Nation.
But this underground news outlet can not possibly cover the
entire eruption of previously-suppressed information provided by
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. People routinely ask, "Gee, Conspiracy
Nation, but what can *I* do?" What can you do? Buy this book
and keep it on the best-seller lists.
Transcript
----------
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard interviewed on C-Span, 10/26/97
-------------------------------------------------------
C-SPAN: Why is Oklahoma City such a focal point of the book?
AEP: Well, I think something that hasn't been reported to the
American people is, many of the families have filed a number of
lawsuits against the federal government, alleging that [the OKC
bombing(s)] was a sting operation or, at the very least, that the
government was negligent -- had some responsibility for what
happened, perhaps had a degree of prior knowledge. It was a
broader conspiracy, and they haven't been told the full truth.
The families [of the victims], many of them, are very angry.
One family in particular, Glenn and Kathy Wilburn, who lost 2
grandchildren in the daycare center, conducted their own private
investigation for 2 years. And they feel that the government
covered up the true story; that it was a broader conspiracy, and
that it was probably a sting operation that went disastrously
wrong, and they've not come clean about it.
C-SPAN: Mr. Evans-Pritchard is a reporter, based in London. He
spent some time here in Washington.
AEP: I did four-and-a-half years as the Washington correspondent
for the London Sunday Telegraph. And I've now returned, and I'm
writing about European affairs for the Daily Telegraph in London.
C-SPAN: Last Monday, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote
this piece, "A Sting Operation Gone Awry." And he talks about
Andreas Strassmeier, "a former West German army lieutenant
illegally in the U.S." Who is he, and why is he important to the
bombing?
AEP: Tim McVeigh telephoned him 2 days before the bombing, after
he had called the Ryder Truck rental agency. And that's how he
got drawn into the whole question of the bombing in the first
place. [Strassmeier] spent 8 years in the German army. And he
told me he'd had intelligence training and he'd done some
intelligence work in the German army. And he came here with the
intention of working undercover for the U.S. Justice Department.
And he admitted that to me. So it's quite significant that he
should figure as a character in the extended McVeigh circle.
He's also been named by an undercover informant of the ATF, Carol
Howe, as somebody who's stirring up race war and a terrorist
campaign against the U.S. government. Now with his background, I
find it very hard to believe that he's a genuine neo-Nazi
terrorist (which is how he presented himself.) I suspect that he
was here on some kind of undercover mission; whether it was for
the German government, or the United States government, or both,
I don't know. My own conjecture (I can't prove it) is that he
was a joint asset, penetrating the neo-Nazi far right.
C-SPAN: You devote a fair amount of your time to a lot of the
conspiracy theories we hear, on this network, and read about from
time to time in different publications. Vincent Foster: Was it
suicide, or was it murder?
AEP: Well, I don't answer that question. What I say is, Kenneth
Starr's investigator, the prosecutor he appointed to re-open the
case, came to a different conclusion. He told Kenneth Starr,
after a 4-months investigation, there was serious evidence of
foul play. His name is Miquel Rodriguez. He went to Starr. He
told Starr what he'd uncovered during his investigation using the
grand jury. And Ken Starr looked the other way! He didn't want
to hear it! He didn't want to deal with it. So Rodriguez
resigned and went back to California. And that is the only time
that it's ever been seriously investigated. After that, it was
all damage control.
So I don't feel that Ken Starr has the authority to deliver
the report that he's delivered. I don't think he answers any of
the questions; it's just a re-hash of the Fiske report, which was
incredibly weak. And he selectively uses witness testimony to
support his case. And the people who are familiar with the
archive of documents in this case are amazed that he's just
ignored a colossal amount of evidence. And he's ignored what the
crime scene witnesses said.
C-SPAN: So what is your conclusion about the Clinton presidency
so far?
AEP: In terms of the scandals, or in terms of its general
performance?
C-SPAN: Well, in terms of this book.
AEP: My conclusion is that he's a very, very corrupt man. And
it's partly a generational thing. I think that the current
generation in power (not just in America, but in most industrial
countries) has lost its honor code. It's lost its integrity.
Bill Clinton is the emblem of that.
C-SPAN: You write that, "If President Clinton eludes justice, at
least it can be said that his destructive influence has been
checked." Checked by whom?
AEP: Well, the good side of this book (it's not all negative) is
that the ordinary people of America have held the line: we've
seen it with the families in Oklahoma; we've seen it, in other
people, throughout the book, who are *resisting* the abuse of
power, in their little corner. Not always successfully, but
they're impeding what I consider to be a decadent and dishonest
leadership class from dragging this country down in terms of,
into a Banana Republic. The ordinary people are the ones who are
going to save America and not allow it to go the way that other
countries have gone when its democracy has been threatened by
internal decadence.
C-SPAN: Briefly, *why* did you write this book, and who were
your sources?
AEP: There are very few un-named sources in the book; almost all
of it has got named sources. So people can make a judgement for
themselves, on how they want to evaluate it.
I first got dragged into this morass when I started going to
Arkansas and talking to ordinary people there. And it became
quite clear to me that a lot of very bad things had been going
on for the last 10 or 15 years. It had become a haven of
narcotics trafficking. And the more I looked into it, it seemed
to me the political machine in Arkansas was involved. And
there'd been a lot of mis-use of the criminal justice system:
people had been intimidated, people had died. And I started
looking into these issues and I... Well, there was no going back
after that. I got drawn right into the middle of it.
C-SPAN: Explain this picture [on book cover]: why was it taken,
and why is it on the cover?
AEP: Well, I can't answer that, because I've only just seen it
myself. I came over from London on Thursday night. I've never
seen the book before.
C-SPAN: The picture, of course, of First Lady Hillary Rodham
Clinton whispering into the ear of President Clinton. Was that
taken at the White House?
AEP: I must find out. It's terribly negligent of me not to know.
C-SPAN: You, in a number of instances, use the term, "abuse of
power." Who has the power? And who's abusing it?
AEP: It's about... It's more than just Clinton. It's about the
whole power structure in the United States.
C-SPAN: But who, specifically?
AEP: The Justice Department. The FBI. The political class as a
whole.
C-SPAN: So who's calling the shots?
AEP: Very good question. It appears that [these things are]
orchestrated by the highest levels of the FBI, FBI
Counter-Terrorism in Washington.
C-SPAN: Did anyone in the Clinton White House, either current or
former, co-operate with you on this book?
AEP: [Slight chuckle] They stopped co-operating with me quite a
long time ago.
C-SPAN: Why?
AEP: I think they found that they couldn't really "spin" me.
C-SPAN: You're now back in London. Did that have any direct
relation on this book?
AEP: If I was an American journalist (and I'm pretty critical of
the American press)... But I can see all the constraints that
they're working under. It's quite difficult to challenge the
entire power structure. (Which is what I've done in this book.
It's not just attacking Clinton; I'm pretty tough on the
Republicans as well.) You kind of "burn your bridges" and you
lose your friends. It's very difficult for a journalist to write
that type of book about their own country; they can't continue to
operate and function, as a journalist. If I did this in London,
about the British power structure, I really couldn't continue to
work there. So, leaving [America] sort of made it easier.
C-SPAN: How does all of this connect to the President?
AEP: Well, he's... All these things have happened under his
watch. Waco happened under his watch; it's the worst... it's the
Wounded Knee of the 20th century. It's the worst abuse of power,
in terms of number of people killed as a result of an act by the
government. And he never dealt with it! He, instead of heads
rolling and people being brought to account, he went out and
tried the victims.
And so that set in motion the militia movement. It set in
motion, to some degree, the domestic terrorism that the United
States now suffers from (including the Oklahoma bombing.) This
happened under his watch! (Although there are deeper forces that
have been at work for many, many years, that contributed to
this.) I'm not sure it would have happened if Paul Tsongas had
been elected president.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
For related stories, visit:
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html
http://feustel.mixi.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those
of Conspiracy Nation, nor of its Editor in Chief.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New mailing list: leave message in the old hollow tree stump.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc?
(1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et
pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9