This news struck me as I recall when investigative journalist Allan Nairn shared some recent history with the audience of Democracy Now! about how the Clinton administration continued George H. W. Bush’s policies and backed a CIA effort that supported the military junta there (see some of his reporting from then). These were thugs and rapists (those were Clinton’s own accurate labels for them) which Clinton ironically now takes some credit for opposing — but only after years of paying them, and perhaps with much more effort than was necessary, if he hadn’t supported them to begin with.

Emmanuel “Toto” Constant, the founder of a paramilitary group that came be known as FRAPH, and whose activities were supported by Bush and Clinton administration officials, is now in jail in the US. He’s spent the better part of the last decade living in New York City, where the US once tried to deport him on immigration charges — except to let off the hook by Clinton while he was still president. Later, when Haiti requested his extradition, the US, under George W. Bush, refused to comply. Constant has threatened to expose his CIA connections. He’s in jail not for human rights violations, but for being recently convicted in a fraud scheme.

Noam Chomsky recounted some of the same history at the same time, during the 2004 coup, and drew a comparison between the history of US involvement in Haiti with the US occupation of Iraq that was taking just taking hold then.

This is history Bill Clinton is entwined with, of which I’ve seen no refutation that extracts him. It should put into question the credibility of putting him in this position, however you weigh his current efforts of doing good — efforts which are now politically convenient. Their efficacy and their function, latent or otherwise, to whitewash this past need to be considered.

Updated: Jeremy Scahill has compiled his own sense of this history and accounts of first-hand reactions from journalists and activists working in Haiti during the Clinton era.

In January of 2003 I attended a press conference held by the Joe Foss Institute, commemorating the recent passing of their namesake and announcing the launch of a program where veterans were to go to schools and talk of their service in hopes of inspiring children to want to join the military. Foss was concerned that “there might be an exodus of draft age Americans in the event of war,” according to literature being handed out at the time.

The event, which included a luncheon that I missed, was reportedly attended by then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Representative William Janklow. I saw neither Wolfowitz nor Janklow; it is my understanding that Wolfowitz left before I arrived and I don’t know about Janklow. Honorary spokespersons for the effort included John Glenn and Oliver North, as well as Jack Kemp. They were made available to the press for a question and answer session.

The backdrop was a specious drumbeat for war with Iraq and I was skeptical of the most of the named figureheads of this organization’s effort. So were my producers, who worked daily to surface news about Iraq and policy critiques to widen the debate on the prospect of a war which had not yet started but seemed fated to some. (An aside: The body of work aggregated and produced by Peace Watch and others, including the Institute for Public Accuracy, where I also once worked, is evidence to me that there was reason to be unconvinced of claims before the war and that the lack of persistent skepticism in some media and on the Hill wasn’t merely a case “if we knew then what we know now.”)

When the press conference opened-up, I was allowed the first question.

I was already nervous and uncomfortable under hot lights in a black turtleneck and was now caught off guard at the invitation to be the first voice heard from the scrum. I squawked out my question, “What confidence should American youth have in these individuals, when it comes to examples of matters as far as life and death go….” I went on to paraphrase my understanding of Wolfowitz’s, Kemp’s, and North’s seemingly hypocritical relationship to the concept of honor-bound volunteer service to one’s country in wartime. I didn’t even touch the veracity of the claims behind the current push for war and the endorsement some had given it.

I didn’t say it so well, and I couldn’t have said it all, but this is what I had stacked-up as the evidence for my question:

My attention was primarily on the invited attended of Paul Wolfowitz, who reportedly attended and probably did so in his capacity as a DOD official, who was also among the vanguard of the neoconservative movement, who never served in war but was an architect of the looming war from his early participation in PNAC.

Then we had Oliver North, a man who had been convicted of crimes with regards to the Iran-Contra scandal, which reminded us of the government’s potential to institutionally deceive the public about its foreign policy and military activities. The convictions against North were later overturned on technicalities, not for lack of evidence, but for the eerily convenient inability of the DoJ to execute a prosecution of a White House official by the book.

And Kemp, to me, had a George Bush-like track record in the military. Serving in the reserves he had a relatively easy burden compared to those activated and later drafted as the Vietnam War began to heat up; it seemed convenient that he was dismissed from service for having a bad knee. No risk of being activated, excluded from being drafted.

That might have been unremarkable, except that he then went on to play professional football while the war raged, before running for Congress. Now here he was, riding on that credibility as part of an effort to encourage others to join the military as a war built on even more transparent distortions and lies than Vietnam was looming, while the largest popular protest against an American war was shaping-up before it was to start.

It didn’t come out of my mouth that well, but that was where I was headed.

The room fell silent for an awkward moment.

Gus Grant, the chairman of the Foss institute, was MCing the event and responded with a coverall response, trying to save anyone from feeling obligated to directly answer my question. “Let me say I’m very proud of everybody at this table and all of their achievements.”

The luncheon attendees clapped in praise of this retort.

I was taken aback — had Grant just lumped John Glenn in with Oliver North? (I wasn’t thinking of Jack Kemp much.)

Glenn seemed amused, possibly by my obviously nervous question and by the response as well.

North just turned red and pursed his lips for a moment.

And I felt like I was about to collapse.

But then Kemp bit.

He spoke up and spoke directly to me and said he’d like to answer my question, but after the press conference. He said he’d like to talk to me directly, he’d be around. It almost seemed friendly, but with a look as if to say “you’ve got it all wrong, son.”

Now my focus was exclusively on Kemp. My actual question had not been answered, and they had moved on, but Kemp had promised to be available. I was still nervous, but looking forward to him sharing his point of view.

But then half-way through the press conference he got up, he said he had to leave for a prior engagement or something like that. He apologized to Grant with nary a glance towards me and he hurried out. I chased him through the lobby of the Press Club as he walked briskly to the elevators. I asked the question of his military service again, if he’d clarify. As I caught-up he simply said “I served. I served, I served in the military.” You can hear the elevator chime on the tape. Kemp stepped into the cab and the elevator doors snapped behind him.

“But not on active duty, and how could you go on to play pro football if you weren’t fit for war?,” I should have asked.

Just as I could’ve been sharper in expressing my grasp of the facts and the rationale of my query, the original question as asked might have been disarmed completely by Kemp. If only he weren’t running away from me hadn’t been apparently disingenuous about his availability and wanting to set the record straight.

It was surely “gotcha” journalism, but I think it was an appropriate attempt to sting — risking being proven remarkably wrong with a direct and detailed answer from the very subjects of my inquiry — and current events further justified challenging the qualifications of advocates of militarism.

At the time of my questioning we had just seen Kemp’s alma mater, the US House of Representatives, forfeit their power and responsibility to declare war and hand it over to President Bush. The same broadcast that aired my encounter with Kemp also included Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee talking with Peace Watch about her attempt to repeal that move, but barring a miracle cross-aisle flip (which did not happen), we had seen the majority of this body join the ranks of the “chickenhawks.” Kemp, North, and Wolfowitz simply seemed way out ahead of them.

For a public figure to advocate a path others should take, his own fidelity to that idea, particularly when he had opportunity to demonstrate it, is fair game for inquiry and challenge. Kemp did not seem to think so that afternoon. Those who don’t demonstrate such action when it comes to war, but advocate war and others to fight are what some call “chickenhawks.” On that day Jack Kemp appeared to be trying to outrun that label rather than face it straight-on.

When asked by Hatch, Panetta seemed to confirm an assertion by Senator Hatch (to quote a reporter paraphrasing the exchange) that “all major countries and intelligence agencies believed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.” (We don’t have But this is plainly not true. We can start with the Downing Street Memo and demonstrated that the British were skeptical, but of course their political leadership was playing along. Even the Washington Post, in the lead-up to the war, published the news of leaks that were were internal arguments at CIA.

Charles Davis noted that Panetta (and Senator Evan Bayh) misrepresented a National Intelligence Estimate with regards to Iran.

This is just like the Clinton and Bush administration habits of mis-stating how and when UN weapons inspectors left Iraq, of ascribing motivation without providing evidence, and of ignoring past admissions by the government that debunk prior false statements.

If we were there, we would have liked to ask some follow-up questions and have these statements directly reconciled with the public record.

It turns out Panetta doesn’t like those either.

Whatever solace you choose to take from vague but perhaps seemingly more progressive statements by Panetta on torture tactics, we remain worried that he doesn’t know or has chosen to deny the actual facts of recent history. Even if given the benefit of the doubt, we believe clear language and contribution of additional hard fact to eliminate controversy is the way to go. A confirmation hearing would be the place to demonstrate this skill.

I am not encouraged as the two hundred and thirty two years old litany of complaints echoes through my head and I compare them to the nature of the recent news an analysis (see the clippings at the side) relating to the same issues in this country today. From the latest uses of the police and the military and intelligence, to the further co-opting of corporations, to the short-sighted capitulation of politicians who have proclaimed solidarity with the principles of of this document and our Constitution, we seem to be going backwards.

Washington is so full of contrasts between principles and actions — that is, hypocrisy — that one becomes weary rather than more indignant. One feels foolish to get riled up sometimes. The culture encourages the belief that to repeatedly ask for such discrepancies — obvious to all who bother to look — to be reconciled is to be “biased” (like everyone else, and therefore hardly worth paying attention to) or merely to pedantic to be relevant.

But if today has any meaning at all, then it is to raise such things in even higher relief. Perhaps it is the inherent nature of the State?