Blogs > Liberty and Power > Hastert's Implication

Sep 21, 2004 12:07 pm

Hastert's Implication

Near the beginning of September I posted a missive concerning Dennis Hastert’s implication that George Soros received money from drug cartels. It provoked a comment from one Tipton Cole pointing out that during the FOX television interview the Speaker did not actually use the word cartel. The Hillreported the incident this way; ”Asked if Soros had earned money from drug cartels, Hastert added, ‘Well, that’s what he’s been for a number years — George Soros has been for legalizing drugs in this country. So, I mean, he’s got a lot of ancillary interests out there. … I’m saying I don’t know where groups — could be people who support this type of thing. I’m saying we don’t know.’”

Technically, Mr. Cole is correct and I did put a word in the Hastert’s mouth. I did not see the show and misinterpreted the initial reports I read of the episode. However, in essence I am right because the interviewer used the word cartel and Dennis Hastert did not say no. The thrust of my original post asserted that either he did not know the difference between a drug reform group and a drug cartel or that he was deliberately smearing Mr. Soros. I stand by this assertion.

In retrospect I should have known that a drug warrior such as Hastert would not just come out and say something in a forthright manner. Historically, they have always lived by misdirection and implication. Here is one of the countless examples discovered during my research. In a 1928 book titled Dope the Story of the Living Dead, Hearst employee Winifred Black wrote the following on page 5, ”Just how much did Hickman, the California kidnaper and murderer know about dope? Nobody knows –yet. But the whole, cruel, outrageous, unnatural business reeks to heaven of dope.” The specifics change but the tactics remain remarkably consistent.

comments powered by Disqus