On February 15, 2019 the New York Post
published an article under the title: “Omar's attack on Elliott Abrams was
cribbed from the anti-American playbook,” written by Jose Cardenas, a longtime
buddy of Abrams. In fact, both worked in Republican administrations on matters
relating to Latin America.
The article being a defense of Elliott
Abrams, I was curious to know, among other things, if Cardenas did a good job
playing lawyer, representing Abrams in the Court of Public Opinion. By the time
I got to the end of the article, I was reminded of an episode in my life when
my preoccupation and my goals were different from what they are now.
I had come to sense with a great deal of
certainty that the Canadian Jewish Congress, working with the bumbling security
apparatus of the country, was relying on the staff of a major newspaper — not
only to keep me from accessing the public square; which they had already
succeeded in doing, but also — to stain my reputation in the eyes of future
researchers who might discover the true story of a “democratic” human rights
record that wasn't good enough to serve as toilet paper for wiping Hitler's
ass.
I was not thinking of the internet at the
time, and my ambition was to write a book telling my story before I die. I knew
the book will never be published, but thought that a combination of
copyrighting it, and the existence of a legal record, would alert a future
researcher to the fact that the truth about this story is buried somewhere and
begging to be found. I wanted posterity to know the truth about human rights
practices in the democracies that are so deplorable, they are not good enough
to flush down Stalin's toilet.
To create a legal record, I sued the newspaper
in question, and while doing discovery with an official I had subpoenaed, the
lawyer would interrupt the official's response and answer the question himself.
I objected and the lawyer backed off a little, but then resumed answering the
questions again. I understood what he was doing. He wanted me to object once
more so that he may put his foot down and say, let's go find a judge in
chamber, and have him rule on this matter. And guess what. It would have taken
two or three hours before we got back to resuming the discovery. And during
that time, I'd be paying the court stenographer I hired to transcribe the
procedure. And as soon as we were back, he was going to interrupt again, and
ask that we go see the judge yet again.
And so, it occurred to me that I was not
suing because I thought I was going to win the case against a newspaper that
was owned by one of the richest men in Canada — one that bid to buy the Wall
Street Journal when it was up for sale, but lost to Rupert Murdoch. Instead, I
was suing to create a court record that will speak to future researchers when
I'll be in my grave. And so, I let the lawyer answer the questions as vaguely
and as slickly as he was doing. In reality, this would have served me better
than getting honest answers from the official, except that easy access to
internet publishing rendered moot that whole exercise. And the internet is
where I went to tell my story as I am doing now. So far, I have the equivalent
of more than thirty books, and I'll keep going for as long as I can.
I thought in retrospect that the defense
lawyer representing the newspaper wasn't smart because it was known at the time
that I was creating a court record for posterity, and he played right into my
hands. He knew I didn't have a chance in a million to win the case no matter
what the facts were and what the law said. So why not let the official answer
my questions truthfully, thus add a thin veneer of authenticity to their case?
This would have motivated future researchers to give some credit to the side he
was representing, but he blew that opportunity.
Back to the present. The idea of a defense
lawyer that isn't smart enough for the case he is handling, is what came to
mind when I read the Jose Cardenas defense of Elliott Abrams. Look what he did
and judge him yourself:
Given that the issue pertains to America's
declared intention to interfere in the Latin American country of Venezuela,
Representative Ilhan Omar wanted to know if Elliott Abrams, who was in charge
of a similar situation in the past, will want to perform in the same manner
this time as he did then. Any child will tell you this is the rational way for
a Congressional Committee to investigate an issue. But Jose Cardenas objected
with this: “Omar attempted to steer debate toward 30-year-old events elsewhere
in Latin America”.
In fact, there was a compelling reason why
Omar sought an answer to that question. You don't have to go far to find out
what the reason was because Cardenas himself described it. He said that Abrams
did not deny reports about a massacre in El Mozote in which civilians,
including children as young as 2 years old, were murdered by US-trained troops
who also bragged about raping 12-year-old girls before killing them.
Not only did Abrams not deny those
reports, he said that the US policy in El Salvador was a fabulous achievement.
The achievement being that America managed to effectuate a regime change in El
Salvador by installing a regime that was loyal to America. And Ilhan Omar
wanted to know if Elliott Abrams would be willing to have America perform in
the 21st century the way that it did in the last century. Again, a child will
tell you this is the rational way for a Congressional Committee to investigate
an issue. But Jose Cardenas objected to this approach as well.
But after objecting, the bumbling lawyer
confirmed that the question was a legitimate one, thus contradicted Elliot
Abrams who complained to the Chairman of the Committee that Omar was attacking
him. Here is how in his oblique style, Jose Cardenas confirmed that Abrams will
perform as savagely today as he did 30 years ago: “The irony is that the scorn
they [Omar et al] heap on him [Abrams] is not due to his failures, but his
successes”.
This is how Cardenas admitted on behalf of
Elliott Abrams that he views El Mozote to be not a failure but a success; and
he would happily repeat it in Venezuela. He will allow massacres as horrible as
El Mozote — where civilians, including children as young as 2 years old were
murdered — to be carried out by US-trained troops who might then brag about
raping 12-year-old girls before killing them.
Elliott Abrams would allow all this to
happen, if not facilitate it, because he believes it is the way to serve
American interests. What do you believe, my friend?