I can watch this over and over.
I can watch this over and over.
Here's every article we have written by Ray McGovern.
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/Tru...vergence16.gif
Ray Mcgovern, D.C. Emergency Truth Convergence, July 23rd, 2005, Lafayette Park
McCarthyism: Mary And Joe
There Is Such A Thing As "Too Late"
Attacking Iran, I Know It Sounds Crazy, But...
Blowing Cheney's Cover
I Do Not Wish To Be Associated With Torture
Will The Whistles Blow Before We Attack Iran?
Juggernaut Gathering Momentum, Headed For Iran
The Empty Shirts, Courtiers, And 'Crazies'
Proof Bush Deceived America
Heck Of A Job Hayden!
J. Edgar Hoover With Supercomputers
Will Republican Senators Save The Republic?
Bush's Underwhelming Gesture On Torture
Cheney And Fried Rice In Hot Water
A Clear Strategy - For Disaster
Murtha And The Colonels
CIA V. Cheney
A Moral Barometer For America
Cheney's Chickens Come Home To Roost
Abu Ghraib: Command Responsibility
Plamegate: Dick Cheney's Role
A Torturous Silence
The Downing Street Fixation
Goodbye To Intelligence
Thanks Ray.
Thank you Ray from ova here as well.
Ex-CIA analyst: Rumsfeld 'should have owned up'
'It's a matter of telling the truth,' man says after Iraq questioning
http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.click...partnerID=2006
5/5/2006
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Hecklers repeatedly interrupted a speech Thursday in Atlanta by Donald Rumsfeld, and a former CIA analyst in a question-and-answer session accused the defense secretary of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence.
Rumsfeld denied lying and defended the basis for his claims about weapons of mass destruction and links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
CNN anchor Paula Zahn spoke hours later with the former analyst, Ray McGovern, a member of a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity that has been critical of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war.
ZAHN: Did you go to this speech today with the intent of challenging Secretary Rumsfeld?
MCGOVERN: I had no predetermined objectives. I just wanted to see what he had to say. But I did get very motivated when the first lady was ejected ... from the crowd.
ZAHN: What was it, then, that you wanted to accomplish by following her rather pointed question?
MCGOVERN: Well, you know, she talked about lies. And I get very upset when Donald Rumsfeld shakes his head and says, "Lies, gosh, lies. I hate it when somebody says that our president would tell lies."
Of course, she hadn't said the president; she said Rumsfeld. But he said that lies are fundamentally destructive of the trust, without which government cannot work.
And that's true. And I found myself really agreeing with that.
ZAHN: Essentially, what he told you is: I never said exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were. I was referring to, we had a pretty darn good idea where the sites were. ... Do you buy what he said today?
MCGOVERN: His words [in 2003] were: "We know where -- where the WMD are. They're near Tikrit and Baghdad, and north, south, east, and west of there." That's a direct quote.
And when he used that wonderful non sequitur by looking at the uniformed personnel in the front row and saying: "Well, they went in with protective gear; they certainly thought there were weapons of mass destruction there." Well, my goodness, of course, they did. Because you, Donald Rumsfeld, told them that they were there.
And, you know, it's not polite to say this, but that was a bald-faced lie. And ... he should have owned up to it, if he wants there to be a modicum of trust.
ZAHN: How much of an ax do you have to grind with Secretary Rumsfeld?
MCGOVERN: It's not a matter of axes to grind. It's a matter of telling the truth.
And we pledged, in my day at the CIA, to tell it without fear or favor, to tell it like it is. And, when I see that corrupted, that is the real tragedy of this whole business.
ZAHN: There was a point where it appeared as though you were going to get kicked out.
MCGOVERN: Yes.
ZAHN: Donald Rumsfeld encouraged whoever I think had their hands on you at the time to let you stay there. Does he get any credit for that today?
MCGOVERN: At first, I thought, "Well, that was rather gracious."
But, then I got to thinking, I was not abusing the privilege. I was simply asking pointed questions. And for the national TV audience to see me carted away for asking Rumsfeld to explain what any objective observer would call a lie, that wouldn't have been good PR.
So, yes, I'm glad he let me stay. But I think it was for self-interested reasons.
Done!
Paula Zahn And Ray McGovern
Thanks to www.crooksandliars.com
Click Here
I love Ray.
A Liberal Thug Called William Arkin
Washington Post Blogger Rushes to Rummy's Defense Against Ray McGovern
By DAVID SWANSON - Counterpunch
WaPo's William Arkin has posted a blog with the headline "Rumsfeld Didn't Lie, But He Should Still Go."
He quotes Rumsfeld's exchange with Ray McGovern and then writes:
"If the issue here is Saddam Hussein's connection to al Qaeda and his involvement in 9/11, to the 'bulletproof' evidence the administration claimed, and more important for America, to the likelihood that Saddam would have ever shared any WMD with terrorists -- the true strategic assumption behind the Iraq war and the justification for our entire WMD obsessed foreign policy today -- McGovern scored."No, he did not, because this was not a basketball game. This was a rare instance of someone acting as a reporter and questioning a member of the gang that lied this country into an aggressive war. And it was not "the adminitsration" that made those claims. It was individual people, including Rumsfeld.
"But if the issue is Zarqawi, and a spooked and reeling Bush administration worrying that they just don't really know what's going on in places like Iraq, that they can't rely on the great CIA, and that they can't predict what will happen, Rumsfeld scored."Again, this was not a basketball game. No scoring. Rumsfeld not only did not rely on the CIA. He created his own "intelligence" operation in the Pentagon called the Office of Special Plans. Has the Washington Post heard about this?
"Yesterday the Secretary of Defense was able to say without equivocation and hesitation that 'it appears there were not weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, but that is not the headline. Certainly we remember not too long ago administration officials saying that WMD were still to be found, that it's not over 'til it's over."Ponder for a moment the frame of mind of someone so unconcerned with the emergence of facts but obsessed with the statements of people in power that he imagines it is news that Rumsfeld admitted what the whole damn world knows. Amazing. Arkin has not said anything to suggest that Rumsfeld didn't lie, but he has explained the second half of his headline. Rumsfeld should go, he clearly thinks, because some powerful people have said so. What other reason could there be for anything to happen?
"In the end it comes down to McGovern's question: Why did you lie, not did you."It does? OK, what's the answer? To either question. Did he lie? And if so, why?
"A better question for McGovern, once he was given a chance to talk, once he was standing there on television, once he had Rumsfeld captive, would have been: Mr. Secretary, do you now see that you or the administration were wrong about Iraq's WMD or the characterization of Iraq as imminent threat?"So, rather than answering Ray's question which "it comes down to," Arkin is fantasizing about how much nicer it would have been had he asked a softball and let Rummy smash it out of the park.
"I know that Rumsfeld could have slipped away with some political answer. It is still a better question."Why is it?
"I imagine McGovern's goal yesterday was to get on the evening news. It was a spectacle, and McGovern wasn't really seeking an answer to any question: he already had the answers; he was just seeking to expose."Why imagine these things? You could ask Ray. Pick up the phone and call him. He might have some actual insight into what he was trying to do.
"The protestors screeching impeachment and 'lying' yesterday, as well as McGovern, can't accept that there is a difference between being wrong and deceiving."They can't? Have you asked them? And, by the way, what is your definition of screeching? Rumsfeld was not wrong. Rumsfeld was deceiving. How do we know this? It's not because Rumsfeld has admitted it, and therefore it's not for any reason you'll ever accept. It's because of the enormous quantity of evidence that Rumsfeld (the man who asked Richard Clarke on September 12, 2001, to find a way to attack Iraq) was bent on war with Iraq no matter what. The plans are laid out publicly by the Project for a New American Century. Each claim that Rumsfeld promoted, from the ties to 9-11 to the aluminum tubes to the niger uranium to the chemical and biological weapons was known by him to be false. See www.afterdowningstreet.org
This is a man who claims to be promoting freedom but has authorized detention without charge and torture. This is a man who claims to be helping the Iraqis, but has used napalm, depleted uranium, and white phosphorous on them as part of their liberation.
Does it not abuse the English language at this point to even entertain the possibility that "Rumsfeld didn't lie"?
Arkin presses on:
"They are so stuck in a mode of accusation and certainty they don't really think there is any point in political dialogue with the administration. Bush is Hitler, and with that he, nor Rumsfeld, deserves human courtesy. Human courtesy would mean understanding fallibility, fear, pride, the drive of false certainty in office. I'm not asking anyone to accept the war or the dominant national security orthodoxy, which I abhor."Oh, of course, and it shows, it really does.
"I just don't want the only answer to be pulling a lever every four years; there are alternatives, even politicians and the administration learns. We are here as citizens to teach and guide them."And to impeach them and remove them from office. May I mail you a copy of the US Constitution?
"In the end, my respect for the Secretary went up when he said, responding to another protester that accusations of lying are 'so wrong, so unfair and so destructive.'"And that's even true, when the person accused HAS NOT BEEN LYING.
"My guess is that the impact of the confrontation won't be for Donald Rumsfeld to seek forgiveness. More likely, the Secretary will just become ever more careful to say nothing at the podium or in interviews in the future."So, when a citizen challenges a cabinet secretary who has nothing to hide, the result is that our noble public servant then hides his worthy work from us. So, the proper behavior would be to obey, and then the facts would all come out? Suddenly I understand how the Washington Post operates.
"The best reason for Donald Rumsfeld to step down as Secretary is that he has become the debate, a lightening rod who can no longer continue to perform this important duty. America needs someone in charge of the military who can give candid answers without fear of having yesterday's candid answers thrown back in their face. America also needs to give its leaders a chance to be wrong. The implications such intolerance to error is to push human beings up against the wall, a place where there is no good outcome."So he's right, but should resign because we barbarians think he's a lying criminal. I'm sorry. If he had an ounce of honesty in him and were in any way wrongly accused, I would advocate for him remaining. Arkin, on the other hand, has just openly confessed to writing columns without content. There is not a word here on the topic of whether Rumsfeld lied. Arkin should resign immediately.
Rumsfeld's heckler
The story behind Ray McGovern
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...2/193hqlnl.asp
(Gold9472: Here's what the PNAC has to say about this.)
by The Scrapbook
05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33
The story line was compelling: A face-off between a beleaguered secretary of defense and a brave former intelligence professional. "Rumsfeld Heckled by Former CIA Analyst" blared the headline on the ABC News website. The AP reported that a "former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, asked [Donald Rumsfeld], 'Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?'" When we Nexised "Ray McGovern and Rumsfeld" last Friday, the day after their confrontation during Rumsfeld's appearance in Atlanta, 50 stories turned up.
What all but one failed to report was the relevant fact that McGovern is not simply a veteran of the CIA but a hard-left conspiracy theorist who blames the Iraq war on "O.I.L." As McGovern that night told MSNBC's Tucker Carlson, the only member of the mainstream media with the elementary curiosity to broach the subject, O stands "for oil; I for Israel; and L for logistics, logistics being the permanent . . . military bases that the U.S. wants to keep in Iraq."
McGovern's extremism on the subject is no secret. He was the star witness in June 2005 at a mock impeachment hearing organized in the basement of the Capitol by John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. As Dana Milbank reported at that time in the Washington Post, McGovern "declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by adminis,tration 'neocons' so 'the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world.' He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. 'Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation,' McGovern said. 'The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic.'"
Milbank further reported that "at Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations--that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an 'insider trading scam' on 9/11--that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks."
It was all too much for Democratic party chairman Howard Dean, who the following day joined the unnamed previous director of Central Intelligence in his low opinion of McGovern: "As for any inferences that the United States went to war so Israel could 'dominate' the Middle East or that Israel was in any way behind the horrific September 11th attacks on America," Dean pronounced, "let me say unequivocally that such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric."
In January, McGovern popped up again, this time as front man for an exceedingly unsavory group called Not In Our Name. According to the group's press release, McGovern served war crimes "indictments" from a "people's tribunal" on the Bush White House. Not In Our Name is a coalition formed in 2002 by the likes of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist party. It is commonly referred to as anti-war, but it's no such thing. Some of its constituent groups profess a deep belief in revolutionary violence--which is to say, they are pro-war, they just want the United States to lose.
The moral of the "Rumsfeld heckler" story is clear. So long as someone is trashing the Bush administration's Iraq policies, most journalists these days will happily sanitize the critic's unseemly views. As long as Cindy Sheehan was an attractive club to swing against the Bush White House last summer, she was portrayed simply as a grieving mother who had lost her son in Iraq. Which she was, but she was also, rather like McGovern, an enthusiast for the violent left who called Bush a "lying bastard," said that "this country is not worth dying for," and called the Islamist insurgents in Iraq "freedom fighters."
Rumors that McGovern will be lecturing on the Israel lobby at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government this fall appear to be unfounded.