A True American Patriot, Ray McGovern, Calls Out Rumsfeld - Video Inside

A True American Patriot, Ray McGovern, Calls Out Rumsfeld
Thanks to www.thinkprogress.org

Click Here

Fucking brilliant. And they were kickin' him out for asking a question!!!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/04/rumsfeld.ap/index.html

One question I'd like to ask would be "How's the PNAC plan working out?"

That's my hero.

Can you believe Rumsfeld tried to put the WMD blame on the troops sayin they put on those suits on in Kuwait because they also thought WMD's were there? Unbelievable. Talk about a new low.

Prisonplanet's take

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/050506rumsfeldlies.htm

"The crowd, which is always carefully selected to ensure majority support for whichever Bush administration talking head takes the podium, applaud Rumsfeld's answers and are also heard to cheer the attempt to remove McGovern from the room..."

"Audiences that are not pre-screened for subservience produce a very different reaction. Such as the Washington Nationals baseball crowd, 80% of which booed Dick Cheney even as he walked out on the field with injured Iraq veterans..."

Yeah... that's why Ray asked, "Is this America?"

Rumsfeld Heckled by Former CIA Analyst
Rumsfeld Challenged on Iraq, Heckled by a Former CIA Analyst and Others, During Atlanta Speech

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1924021

By SHANNON McCAFFREY

ATLANTA May 4, 2006 (AP)— Anti-war protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him in a question-and-answer session of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence.

"Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?" asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst.

"I did not lie," shot back Rumsfeld, who waved off security guards ready to remove McGovern from the hall at the Southern Center for International Studies.

With Iraq war support remaining low, it is not unusual for top Bush administration officials to encounter protests and hostile questions. But the outbursts Rumsfeld confronted on Thursday seemed beyond the usual.

Three protesters were escorted away by security as each interrupted Rumsfeld's speech by jumping up and shouting anti-war messages. Throughout the speech, a fourth protester stood up in the middle of the room with his back to Rumsfeld in silent protest.

Rumsfeld also faced tough questions from a woman identifying herself as Patricia Robertson, who said she had lost her son in Iraq. Robertson said she is now raising her grandson and asked whether the government could provide any help.

Rumsfeld referred her to a Web site listing aid organizations.

President Bush seldom faces such challenges. Demonstrators usually are kept far from him when he delivers public remarks.

Rumsfeld has been interrupted by anti-war demonstrators in congressional hearing rooms as he has delivered testimony to lawmakers in recent months.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has had direct confrontations overseas. These include demonstrators who called her a murderer and war criminal in Australia in March, and throngs of anti-war protesters who dogged her every move in northern England in April.

Demonstrators were kept far away from Rice during a visit last week to Greece, where riot police confronted a violent street mob that smashed shop windows in protest of U.S. policies and Rice's role in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?" asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst.

"I did not lie," shot back Rumsfeld, who waved off security guards ready to remove McGovern from the hall at the Southern Center for International Studies.

THAT'S IT?!? That's all ABCNews has to say?

Fucking McMedia.

I can watch this over and over.

Here's every article we have written by Ray McGovern.


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.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Ex-CIA+analyst%3A+Rumsfeld+%27should+have+owned+up%27+-+May+4%2C+2006&expire=-1&urlID=18142899&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2006%2FPOLITICS%2F05%2F04%2Fcnna.mcgovern%2F&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.

[size=+2]A Liberal Thug Called William Arkin[/size]

[size=+2]Washington Post Blogger Rushes to Rummy's Defense Against Ray McGovern[/size]

[size=+2]By DAVID SWANSON - Counterpunch
[/size]

[size=+3]W[/size][size=-1]aPo's William Arkin has posted a blog with the headline "Rumsfeld Didn't Lie, But He Should Still Go."[/size]

[size=-1]He quotes Rumsfeld's exchange with Ray McGovern and then writes:[/size]

[size=-1]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.[/size]

[size=-1]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?[/size]

[size=-1]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?[/size]

[size=-1]It does? OK, what's the answer? To either question. Did he lie? And if so, why?[/size]

[size=-1]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.[/size]

[size=-1]Why is it?[/size]

[size=-1]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.[/size]

[size=-1]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[/size]

[size=-1]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.[/size]

[size=-1]Does it not abuse the English language at this point to even entertain the possibility that "Rumsfeld didn't lie"?[/size]

[size=-1]Arkin presses on:[/size]

[size=-1]Oh, of course, and it shows, it really does.[/size]

[size=-1]And to impeach them and remove them from office. May I mail you a copy of the US Constitution?[/size]

[size=-1]And that's even true, when the person accused HAS NOT BEEN LYING.[/size]

[size=-1]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.[/size]

[size=-1]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.[/size]

Rumsfeld's heckler
The story behind Ray McGovern

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/193hqlnl.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.