anyone know who greg palast is?

Interview with Greg Palast
By Mike Hersh
Feb 17, 2003, 22:57 PST

Email this article
Printer friendly page

Greg Palast, one of the top investigative reporters in the world, became frustrated that American media refused to support his work. So he crossed the Atlantic to work in the United Kingdom. There Mr. Palast observed the irregular 2000 Presidential Election and the major terrorist attack against the US.

After watching and waiting in vain for the American media to investigate these two monumental stories, Palast tired of waiting, came back home, and broke front-page stories. Front pages in England and Europe -- not in the USA.

The hard cover version of Palast's book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy exposed the shortcomings of the US media and hit the New York Times bestseller list.

Now Mr. Palast is back in the USA discussing politics, global economics and national security like no one else, touring in support of the newly released and updated paperback edition of his book. Here Mr. Palast responds to my questions about recent elections, 9/11, Globalism, and the US media's refusal to report on these critical issues.



2000 Election


How do you answer people who want us to "get over" the 2000 election?


What do you arrive at when you "get over" democracy? The arrogance of the current Administration is a direct result of seizing the White House without the votes ... they are convinced nothing can stop them, not even the people. They may be right.


What are the three most import things Americans should know about the 2000 election, but probably don't?


First, they fixed the election. Five months before the presidential election, Katherine Harris ordered the removal of 57,000 voters from voter rolls of Florida on grounds they were felons. In fact, 97% (minimum) were guilty of no crime except, in most cases, being black or Democratic. That's how our president was elected: a Jim Crow vote fixed by computer.


It was deliberate. The company that handed the state the rotten "scrub" list of innocent Black Democrats, ChoicePoint of Atlanta, TOLD the Republican state officials that the list was filled with "persons who are not felons" -- that's a quote from the files -- but the Republican operatives in Harris' office liked it that way.


Jeb Bush was in on it: his office ordered an ADDITIONAL bar to more than 40,000 OTHER legal voters, over 90% Democrats.


They're at it again: Florida admits these voters were purged wrongly, BUT STILL HAS NOT RESTORED THEM TO THE VOTER ROLLS.


What questions would you ask the Bush brothers, Katherine Harris and / or Clayton Roberts under oath about election 2000?

1. President Bush: You said the campaign was about 'character.' OK -- what kind of character are you [showing when you] take the White House KNOWING that you took the job by the exclusion of Black voters in Florida?


2. Kate: Once you were TOLD the lists contained innocent Black voters, why did you not immediately restore their civil rights. Why did you fight the NAACP when they sued, even though you ADMITTED thousands lost their vote wrongly?


3. Jeb: What was the deal you cut with Enron subsidiary Azurix to take control of the Everglades water shed? (I've investigated a whole lot more than the elections.)


How do you suppose they might answer these questions?

I don't have to guess with Harris. After I published a follow up story on the elections theft for Harpers, she wrote a shrieking letter calling me, "twisted and maniacal."

Clayton Roberts, Kate's bloodhound and until recently, head of Florida's elections department, already gave me his answer, on camera: He ripped off his microphone and did a 20 yard dash into his office. See the BBC footage on my website and the photos in my book.

Jeb: The next president won't say a word.


Are there any questions remaining?

Yes: why is the US press comatose?



What are the implications for future elections?

The horror show has just begun: in something called the "Martin Luther King Voting Rights Act" of 2002, they are "Floridizing" the entire national voting system. Each state will be required to computerize voting systems -- an open invitation to mischief.



Do you have any hope Americans will learn these facts?

No, except through the net and my book. For example, today, a radio station in Illinois canceled my appearance because they said, "after reading your book, we feel that our listeners will be too upset." That's true.


What can your readers do to make a difference to improve the voting process and inform the general public?


Tell the truth on 'em! If you've got lists, send out the word about this site, my site, www.GregPalast.com and -- and here's the craven commercial pitch -- buy my darn book ... the paper back's got the latest on the election.


September 11


Almost immediately after 9/11, Republicans sought to shield George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from any responsibility. What should Americans know about national security policy under this administration leading up to 9/11?


The rotten policy of snuggling up to the Saudi Arabian dictatorship has cost us a lot of American blood. As the new edition of my book discloses, the Saudis put the loot behind al Quida -- not with the idea of attacking the USA, but to push their extremist form of Islam.

The problem of the US turning a blind eye to paying off Al Quida is blow-back: you pay these guys to stay away from Saudi Arabia and, kaboom, they're flying into downtown New York with no intention of landing.



What are the three most import things Americans should know about the 9/11 attacks, but probably don't?


As I reported for BBC television news, the Bush Administration put a halt to investigations of suspected terrorists organizations in the US prior to September 11 -- afraid that the Saudis would be upset at looking into their funding of these groups.

More troubling is one of the groups was headed by US members of the bin Laden family. In addition, our award-winning BBC / Guardian report also disclosed that, in June 1996, Saudi Arabian billionaires and arms dealers met in Paris to offer funds to Al Quida. Among those in the meeting: a former business partner of George W. Bush.

Let's make clear what we found and we DID NOT find: We did not find ANY evidence that George W. Bush knew about the plans to attack the US on September 11. We DID find that our intelligence agencies -- the FBI, CIA and DIA -- were hamstrung by restrictions on their investigating leads which could have led them to information about Al Quida's plans.

The problem is that we didn't see what was coming because the Bush Administrations (and to a lesser, the Clinton Administration) refused to permit agents to follow leads about terrorist funding.


What questions would you like to ask George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, the FBI and CIA, and / or Colleen Rowley, under oath about 9/11?


1. What information did you receive from French intelligence or other sources about the meeting of arms dealers and Saudi financiers at the Hotel Monceau Royale in June 1996 ... and when did you forget it?

2. Where's Osama?


How do you suppose they might answer these questions?


The answer is always the same: attack Iraq.


Do you believe Bush and Cheney are stonewalling on 9/11 and if so, do you think they'll get away with it?


They do; they have.


Do you have any hope Americans will learn the facts?


No: As Dan Rather of CBS said [on] BBC's Newsnight, US newsmen are not allowed to ask the difficult questions for fear of getting lynched.

What can your readers do to demand a full investigation of 9/11 and help to inform the general public?


Ask the correct question: NOT did Bush know about the attack in advance -- that's highly improbable -- but what did he and the US government know about Saudi Arabian aid to terrorist organizations before September 11. And what are they going to do to end it?


The American Media


How do you explain the gulf between coverage in England and Europe vs. what US major media outlets report?


England's no paradise, but unlike Dan Rather, I don't fear for my job by reporting unpleasant facts -- so long as they are backed up.


This next question has a very long set up, so please bear with me?


I've researched the 2000 campaign and the media coverage of it. Republicans set out to brand Al Gore "a liar," and the media generally cooperated with them.

I've already seen media stories recycling these themes targeting Democratic challengers as dishonest, "not knowing who they are," and so on. Do you think the media will help the GOP impugn the Democratic nominee's character and integrity? Do you think this will work as well in 2004 as it did in 2000?


That's the least problem. The media is lazy -- reporters spend their time at press conferences and talk about the "horse race" -- so it's no wonder you get a lot of horse shit coverage.

The Republicans are simply better (i.e. have more money) at planting 'buzzwords' like 'character issue,' 'dishonesty,' 'malaise,' than Democrats. Because the US media thrives on buzzwords, not facts, all this "mood" reporting corrupts thoughtful discussion of candidacies. The result: we end up with auctions, not elections.


What can you say about George W. Bush's character and integrity?

What character? What integrity?


Do you have any hope American media's election coverage will improve?

No: the bleached teeth and brain-dead hairdo mannequins are taking over the tube. The networks are committed to android TV. We're screwed.

What can your readers do to improve the media or at least help inform the general public?

Turn off the TV! Turn on the Net. Read a friggin book already! Start with mine, of course.

good stuff. i've been on his email list for awhile now. his website is full of good stuff too.

his site hasnt been updated in a long time last i checked..