Nutjob Ray McGovern Heckles Rummy
Ray McGovern, the man who heckled Rummy on Thursday, has a trail of lunatic behavior a mile long... But, to the mainstream media, he's just your average "retired CIA analyst!"
Ray McGovern: "The Government May Be Manufacturing Fake Terrorism"
Ray McGovern, a certified nutcase, heckled Rummy Thursday in Atlanta.
In June of 2005, Ray McGovern blamed Zionists for starting the War in Iraq:
The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "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.Thank God that "Jews feel Democrats fundamentally believe it is important to make sure that American Jews feel comfortable being American Jews," or, that accusation by Ray McGovern would sound horribly anti-Semitic.
"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."
Via The Jawa Report...
McGovern was part of a travelling hate-America freakshow featuring accused pedophile Scott Ritter, Iraqi anti-US propagandist Faiza Al-Arji (whose "A Family in Baghdad" blog actually comes from Jordan), and professional America-hater Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Global Exchange and Code Pink.
McGovern speaking at Emergency Truth Convergence in 2005 and Camp Casey last year. (Jawa)
And, don't forget Ray McGovern's trip to the White House in January...
(This one is my personal favorite.)
Ray McGovern, a Bush Crimes Commission representative, hand delivers mock indictments through the White House gate on Tuesday January, 10, 2006.
Allah has the poop on this moonbat.
Update: Zombie has pictures of McGovern with Mama Moonbat.
LGF has a moonbattarama roundup on McGovern.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 5/04/2006 04:57:00 PM
120 Comments:
Sorry, but I cannot get over how the MSM misses the or an important part of almost every story. I undersand that to them the heckling of Rumsfield was the important part, but still.
If somebody that has done crazy things in the past says something based in fact, do the crazy things make what he said untrue? I am just curious, because I don't thats how it works.
But... but... he was SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER!!
OK, well, technically he was speaking crazy hyperpartisan lies to democratically elected officials at no danger to himself, and with considerable rudeness.
Gee, what a shock! We don't get to see what other statements this "Retired CIA Analyst" has made nor does the MSM give us a reference point to determine his credability.
william, are you saying that it is completely irrelevant to the credibility of his accusations and the context of the story?
Say you are selling your car, and someone who has been repeatedly convicted of fraud and forgery offers you a check for it before driving it off. Do you think his past record is irrelevant?
i agree, william. because a CIA analyst has some views that are out there (to some), he does not cease to be a CIA analyst. he quoted rumsfeld to rumsfeld, on the spot. he may seem loony to you, or in the past said loony things, but the news of this 'event' is what happened in that room, then, and as far as i can tell, it was a questioning of past policy inconsistancies regarding decisions that are still very relevant today. ultimately, it could have been anyone saying that to the Secretary, the identity of the man seems less than important, and an attempt to dodge the criticisms he presented. and when they call what transpired 'heckling' and not questioning (heckling comes with a negative stigma) the MSM isn't exactly putting the guy in a neutral light.
also, talldave: Rumsfeld was appointed, not elected. and he quoted the man himself, he didn't lie. his motives may have been 'dubious', but he wasn't lying.
Regarding how the mainstream media reporters miss things like this, I would say that there are only two posible explanations for it. One, that given reporters do not know how to retrieve such information from online sources like Google or Nexis. Secondly, that there is an agenda at work that calls for the suppression of information such as this.
Either way, it doesn't reflect well on the establishment media, and it does provide a clue as to why fewer and fewer Americans trust the efforts of the mainstream media. After all, who in their right mind would place any trust in a source whose employees are either lame brains or agenda-driven hacks?
r c dean:
i don't think that question really applies here. we are not being asked by anyone to take this mans's comments 'at his word' so his credibility seems less than important. an accused killer can speak facts while lacking credibility. does that make them less than facts? ultimately, we ARE being asked (repeatedly, by nature of his position, so this is not a criticism of him) to take Rumsfeld at HIS word. so, using your question, Rumsfeld seems to have a closer potential affiliation with the fraudulent check-holder than this McGovern dude.
I caught a little bit of this guys shctick on Olbermann.
The focus of Kieth's obsession was carrying this guys water, billing him as a long time CIA analyst (as opposed to left wing crackpot.)
Wonder if Kieth will examine whose water he is carrying next time...
Wonder if his 200,000 viewers (or 0.16% of 2004 voters) already knew this guy.
"because a CIA analyst has some views that are out there (to some), he does not cease to be a CIA analyst."
Ray McGovern is ,not a CIA analyst. He is a former CIA analyst. He has not, per his bio, been a CIA employee since 1990. That gives him veteran status, but not insider status. His access to inside information should be nil, since he has no official status or need to know.
Actually 480,000 viewers.
A couple of thousand more and he will pass Nancy Grace.
MSNBC's #1 news show...
snicker, snicker.
fair enough. ex-CIA analyst. my bad. however, the point is still valid. this wans't insider stuff. just quotes...
nothing is relevant to the story except what went on in the room yesterday. He called Rmmy on things he said and rummy did not admit, than news groups found the quotes and rummy well is a rummy.
the other thing what he said about Isreal might not be true ,but everyone knows Isreal is the elephant in the room on middle east US policy no one wants to talk about
And what does Ray McGovern's past have to do with Rumsfeld lying that he never said he knew where the WMDs were?
And what does his credibility have to do with his accusation? It's already been proven that Rumsfeld did say he knew where the WMDs were. What is this post trying to say, just because McGovern might have a shady past in spite of evidence supporting him, he should just be ignored?
Too bad Rumsfeld didn't really answer the questions.
When he didn't have the deer in the headlights look, he looked like a tired old man that couldn't really remember what he said.
So rather than answer he changed course.
What a pathetic creature-fading mental capacities, immoral, and who knows even with his diminished mind may still be the brightest bulb in the Whitehouse.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6581-2004Jun25.html
"9/11 Panel Links Al Qaeda, Iran
Bin Laden May Have Part in Khobar Towers, Report Says"
This is in contrast to McGovern's mistatement/delusion about the findings of the 9/11 report's findings.
Yeah, Israel is never mentioned. What you mean is that other people do not share your anti-semitic beliefs when you and your fellow moonbats trot out the "we're doing Israel's bidding line". Why not just get straight to the "gas the k*kes" part like you know you want to.
we are not being asked by anyone to take this mans's comments 'at his word' so his credibility seems less than important.
His credibility is all-important. His questions imply a certain set of facts that are pretty controversial. That is exactly the context where credibility is relevant.
By omitting his background, except for identifyin him as a (former) CIA analyst, the media is implicitly building up his credibility. If his background is irrelevant, why include any of it? Why only the bits of it that are favorable to him?
There must have been a different episode of heckling because Fox showed a very long clip of McGovern v. Rumsfeld, and I thought Rumsfeld responded quite admirably and credibly. He should be commended for his patience in letting this mental patient have his say and addressing his points substantively, instead of just going on to the next question.
And as far as the MSM failing to background check McGovern, I just assume that any person who wants to get up in a public forum and engage a government official (of any administration) in some polemicized rhetorical questions to be a fringe crackpot. McGovern's background is as much a dog bites man story as a Kennedy getting drunk and crashing his car.
I don't believe Rumsfeld lied in his replies to McGovern.
You do have to admire someone who worked for the CIA to get up and say "Hey! You lied when you reported what we told you as fact!"
Really, if Rumsfield's statements about WMD sites was innaccurate then whose fault is that?
It's also interesting how someone who hasn't served in the CIA since 1990 can be so definitive about how the "administration twisted intelligence" that he had no access to. Especially when people who did have access to it concluded that the administration did no such thing.
Be leery of anyone or anything wrapping itself in a "truth" label. Be doubly skeptical of anything calling itself "Emergency Truth". Emergency Truth sounds like "Truth Lite" or "Truth as dictated by the filter of expediency". Truth, if it is that, doesn't differentiate between difficult times and good times. That's propaganda's job. Any real truth is unchanging in nature, and is often unsparing and difficult to accept.
The Bible has a lot to say about Truth and the sort of people who claim it for their own, offering a pretty good insight into human nature. It's not surprising to me that so many of these truthteller types, convinced of their own truthiness, denounce it so bitterly.
McGovern's heckling proves once again that the creeping fascism in America mantra is a myth.
Too funny when mcgovern tried to prove al queda was not in Iraq only in the northern part.
This is the left. They have this habit of making stuff up just to prove themselves wrong.
The press cites his former role in the CIA which boosts his credibility. I think it is only right to shed light on his other activities, regardless of whether they enhance or diminish his credibility. I also think that his past activities are relevant in that they show that this was not some spontaneous event.
All I was saying is you could be the craziest human being in the world and still state facts.
In this case I see nobody arguing the facts of what he said, including Rumsfield.
What I see is people saying this guy is crazy. Fine, he's nuts. Now can somebody answer the damn questions he asked, seeing as how they are not crazy?
Jaime,
What does his credibility, or the spontaneity of the event, have to do with the basic point of his questions?
Your basic point is well taken, namely that the MSM either plays up or plays down the background of news-story protagonists in order to fit whatever narrative they have pre-selected. This is not exactly news, but a useful reminder nonetheless.
I don't think it strengthens your case, however, to spread the word 'nutjob' all through your post. That seems to me like name-calling rather than argumentation. Just point out the pattern of extreme positions in his history which should speak for themselves.
Rumsfeld (or Paula Zahn, who had McGovern on CNN later that evening) should have asked McGovern why he lied to Rumsfeld about the WMD, saying that he knew their locations. After all, it was the CIA who claimed that locating the WMD was "a slam dunk", and as a CIA employee McGovern should accept responsibility for what that agency did, n'est pas?
This is unbelievable. You are smearing McGovern based on loose association, yet you accept Rumsfeld's lies. Then you commend Rumsfeld for allowing the man to exercise his RIGHTS.
Hmm . . . I would be willing to bet you would also smear Joe Wilson in a heartbeat.
Lunatic? You mean as in batting 1000? Take a freaking look at who was right and who was wrong, then tell me who is INSANE.
Shoot the messenger appears to be the theme of many of the postings here. Anybody that dares question our supreme leader or his advisors is a heretic! Burn him at the stake! Ignore his blasphemy!
It's well known that Bush and his accomplices have been planning to invade Iraq since at least the '90s.
I am continually amazed at the blinders the war supporters wear. Despite the tons of evidence regarding their falsehoods, the conservatives, much like Moonies, just keep on believing.
It'd be great fun to watch if so many lives were not ruined for reasons still not completely known (WMD's being more a marketing theme than anything else).
NUTJOBS rush to Rumsfeld's defense.
Nut job is an understatement. For evidence of this guy's lunacy, all you had to do was see the guy last night on the Tucker Carlson show. He again spouted off about how the war in Iraq was caused by Israeli/Zionist influence (as in the Zionists hoodwinked the nation into war) and oil. And just to make sure no one missed it, he carefully explained that the OIL buttons the "protesters" were wearing stands for "Oil, Israel, Logistics". (The "L' part of it was a disappointment-couldn't they find something better?). That he is an ex-CIA analyst is actually newsworthy in light of his crankish views. It goes a long way in explaining why the CIA has become an international laughing stock. I would be highly interested to know just what you have to do to become a CIA analyst. Is it just me or is being a crackpot an important qualification for the job?
So that's the sum of the evidence that the career CIA analyst McGovern is a "nutjob," a "wingnut," and a "certified nutcase" with a "trail of lunatic behavior" - he opposes the war in Iraq, associates with former U.S. Marine Scott Ritter, and believes that oil and Israel were factors in why we invaded Iraq. All of that leads Instapundit to lament that "Big Media" doesn't do more of this -- namely, smear people with playground epithets and accuse them of being mentally ill if they engage in anti-war activism or if they question the President.
Neither Instapudnit, Gateway Pundit, nor Allah address the substantive point -- that Donald Rumsfeld told the country that he "knows" where WMDs are, and when confronted by McGovern with that false statement, denied that he made it. That fact is, of course, nowhere near as important as engaging in a vicious and frenzied character smear of yet another American who spent his entire career in service to his country and yet has his patriotism and mental health called into question by virtue of standing up to the administration. McGovern is in good company -- along with Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Joe Wilson, Howard Dean, Al Gore, the war critic Generals, and all of the other corrupt, mentally ill and/or unpatriotic Americans whose motives and/or mental health have been similarly maligned after standing up to the administration.
- Glenn Greenwald
Rumsfeld did a SPLENDID job responding to the "veteran" CIA analyst (LA Times). The Times must have MISSED McGovern's background, which is as relevant as Charles Lindbergh's unfortunate adoration of the Luftwaffe before WWII. Lindberg's views of who would win, and should the US get involved were crucial to anyone considering the "lone Eagle's" views (FDR finally branded him a "defeatist").
What a shame the LA Times ouldn't let me decide for myself if he was a "veteran" or similar to those who thought we had no business fighting the Nazi's who hadn't "done anything to us."
Rumsfeld was also masterful and fair in letting the guy have his say: which the LA Times obscured by saying that Rumsfeld "admonished" a security guard instead of just saying "when security sought to remove the man, Rumsfeld insisted that the man be allowed to finish his questioning."
If clueless Keith Olbermann hadn't played the tape so I could see for myself I would have thought Rumsfeld had been blasted off the stage by this McGovern.
ofcourse, attack the man's credibility, you cant refute his facts.. we had all better make sure to give this guy a serious flaming to scare any other 'nutjobs' from DARING to questioning our perfect imperial government
death to our freedoms (they support terroism!!)
ignorance is strength!
I'll have to chime in on the side that the MSM is not reporting the news fairly. The MSM reported on the heckling, but they did not report on Rumsfield's response.
Also, the heckler's background is relavent. To call someone a retired CIA analyst without noting that he has been out of the CIA for 15+ years is not accurate reporting. Also, not reporting that he has since been active with many left wing organizations does not give the proper context to the story for readers to make an informed decision.
McGovern did not say that Israel were "factors" in the Iraq war. He said that we went to war because the Israeli government and its Zionist allies in the US government manipulated the nation into war. This is of course anti-semitic drivel. I personally find the whole Bush lied theme boring. Find a single quote from Clinton or Tenet denying that Iraq had WMDs, find a single intelligence agency, hell, find a single Iraqi general. As to the substance of the Rusmfield statment, that echoes the alleged statements of the highest ranking Iraqi informant, Sabri, and other Iraqi informants that Saddam had dispersed chemical weapons in the Tikrit area among loyal tribes. To the extent this was wrong it was an error based on intelligence sources, not a LIE.
As usual, when I check up on what the lefties are screaming about, I find nothing but mendacity.
All the nutjob defenders keep offering up this quote as proof that Rumsfeld lied.
http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_03/alia/A3032803.htm
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
The interview is usually truncated here. But when one reads the rest, you'll see that Rumsfeld has qualified his position.
Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.
I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.
So, Rumsfeld is saying, there were WMD's stored at these sites, but we saw some trucks moving in and out, so they may no longer be there.
Could he be lying? Certainly. Is this quote proof of that? Of course not. If the WMD's were indeed carted off, then the assertion is correct. Credible evidence exists for this possiblity. Whether or not it is a probability is a matter of opinion.
But no, the lefties would rather stand up and scream liar at those with whom they disagree. The audacity to then snivel that others are "smearing" those who make these accusations takes a special type of shameless audacity that only leftists seem to posess.
Looks like a former hippie.
Bob,
What is the informed decision? He was using Rumsfeld's own words?
I am confused as to what his political affiliation has anything to do with you making an "informed decision" about what was said.
I think the link to this article below highlights what most on this board are complaining about. This article states:
www.breitbart.com/news
/2006/05/04/D8HD8B805.html
"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.
When security guards tried removing McGovern, the analyst, during his persistent questions of Rumsfeld, the defense secretary told them to let him stay. The two continued to spar.
The article states that Rumsfeld waved off the security guards and then answered his question. But the article never tells you Rumsfeld's response.
Did Rumsfeld answer the question? One would never know from this article, but some of the people responding to this post seem to assume that he did not answer the question at all.
The issue as I see it is the selective reporting of McG's background: only the facts that might build his credibility (rightly or wrongly), not those that might diminish it (ditto). Compare, e.g.
Headline 1: "Nobel laureate, Princeton mathematician, and universally acknowledged genius John Nash accuses Jews of controlling his left hand"
Headline 2: "Diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic John Nash accuses Jews of controlling his left hand"
They're both flawed; their truth or falsehood is not the issue, it's their incompleteness.
Publish all the relevant facts. Trust the reader to evaluate them.
-Naxos
always wondered where the 33% hung out...the truth HURTS folks...get your heads out of the sand...as always..I will challenge ANYONE here to once again explain what Iraq had to do with 9/11...answer NOTHING! The Iraq war was a PNAC job plain and simple...as always..you ATTACK THE MESSENGER without listening to what he has to say....
Takes a nutjob to know one.
And this place is filled to the gills.
WHY do STUPID LEFTISTS think that TYPING in ALL CAPS makes their POINT for them?
As for your CHALLENGE you may want to READ UP a bit on GEORGE BUSH'S statement FOLLOWING 9/11 concerning those who HARBOR AND AID terrorists.
THEN do some READING about HUSSEIN'S support of TERRORISM and GET BACK TO ME.
You can't ALWAYS expect OTHERS to do your work FOR YOU, John Q. I know that you are STUPID, but you can overcome this if you aren't LAZY AS WELL.
William,
The fact that McGovern has been retired from the CIA for 15+ years is HIGHLY relevent and an important fact to be an informed reader.
Are you seriously saying that the background of a person is not relevant? Then by all means let me give you some medical advice, since only my words are important and my lack of background are not relevent to you.
my thanks to the warden. Every timne I have heard this Bush lied yada, yada, yada, it turns out the money quote is taken out of context. The speaker, be it the President, VP Cheney, Condi Rice, or the SecDef here was making an extended reasoned discussion and the members of short-attention-span theater condense it down to some simplistic drivel. By the way, how does one go about smearing a serial liar like Joe Wilson, anyway?
Glenn, you are a serial liar and a fool.
The swiftboating of this man has begun.
I suggest EVERYONE HERE read Glenn Greenwald's post for the truth.
If you rely on this asshat you are in sad shape indeed.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
TallDave said...
But... but... he was SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER!!
OK, well, technically he was speaking crazy hyperpartisan lies to democratically elected officials at no danger to himself, and with considerable rudeness.
9:17 AM
hey peanut head.....................Rummy wasn't "democratically elected" and he should have been fired years ago.
Are you really this dumb, or is it an act?
Anonymous said...
my thanks to the warden. Every timne I have heard this Bush lied yada, yada, yada, it turns out the money quote is taken out of context. The speaker, be it the President, VP Cheney, Condi Rice, or the SecDef here was making an extended reasoned discussion and the members of short-attention-span theater condense it down to some simplistic drivel. By the way, how does one go about smearing a serial liar like Joe Wilson, anyway?
1:42 PM
Just what is the "money quote" in this instance?
not one person here has addressed the words(lies) of rumsfeld.
Here they are:March, 2003: "We know where [the WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Was he lying or just incompetant? Either way he should be GONE!
Here's an interesting snippet from Glenn Greenwald that I would like someone here to refute with facts.
Neither Instapudnit, Gateway Pundit, nor Allah address the substantive point -- that Donald Rumsfeld told the country that he "knows" where WMDs are, and when confronted by McGovern with that false statement, denied that he made it. That fact is, of course, nowhere near as important as engaging in a vicious and frenzied character smear of yet another American who spent his entire career in service to his country and yet has his patriotism and mental health called into question by virtue of standing up to the administration. McGovern is in good company -- along with Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Joe Wilson, Howard Dean, Al Gore, the war critic Generals, and all of the other corrupt, mentally ill and/or unpatriotic Americans whose motives and/or mental health have been similarly maligned after standing up to the administration.
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
I cannot tell if this Blog is a genuine conservative blog or a sarcastic blog making fun of backward conservatives. But let me just say that if you are real, you guys and girls are seriously fucked up. If I had to choose between you and Al Queda, I would have to go with Al Queda. Compared to you, they are positively enlightened. So if you are real, here is a big "fuck you" coming in hard from far outside of JesusLand.
Anonymous said...
I cannot tell if this Blog is a genuine conservative blog or a sarcastic blog making fun of backward conservatives. But let me just say that if you are real, you guys and girls are seriously fucked up. If I had to choose between you and Al Queda, I would have to go with Al Queda. Compared to you, they are positively enlightened. So if you are real, here is a big "fuck you" coming in hard from far outside of JesusLand.
2:10 PM
I'm just a genuine Liberal making fun of all Conservatives, Republicans, Dumbasses.....etc.
Before I go, I just want to say to all of you, the enlightened minds of this Conservative blog, are, in a word, dynamic!
Bye.
Wow, some mighty powerful stuff here.
"Ray McGovern: "The Government May Be Manufacturing Fake Terrorism"
Unfortunately neither in the linked piece nor anywhere else has McGovern made such a claim. He did claim that the government was manipulating the dreaded terror levels for political purposes. If that makes him a nutjob he's got pretty good company including, they guy who came up with the colored threat levels and ran Homeland Security for President Bush, Tom Ridge.
Yep, Rumsfield lied, he NEVER should have listened to the CIA analysis.
OOPS.. something just doesn't seem right. He listened to the CIA and now the nut he listened to is calling him a liar.
Oh well... logic is something lefties are devoid of.
Liberals are stupid liars.
Most of them are ugly too.
Oh, and also "accused pedophile" Scott Ritter.
What does he have in common with McGovern? That's right. Was accused of something but never prosecuted (for some reason.. what could it be..) and of course, unlike the author of this echo chamber, Ritter was right 100% in his prewar assesment of the Iraq threat.
I can see why he'd grate on you. Nobody likes to be shown as an impotent fool totally lacking a gag reflex.
not one person here has addressed the words(lies) of rumsfeld.
Here they are:March, 2003: "We know where [the WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
I did when I provided the full context of the interview above. I guess that makes you, by your definition of the word, a liar.
If had to choose between you and Al Queda, I would have to go with Al Queda.
Now we've reached the heart of the matter. Thank you for your honesty, but I must inform you that many of us have already figured out that this is what many on the left believe. I'm not sure why you believe that stating this insane belief is in any way a poor reflection upon those on the right, as it only exposes you for the irrational loon that you are.
Thanks for stopping by!
You guys are clueless, naive automotons. This sort of "Swiftboating" of McGovern isn't going to work because the truth is on his side. You Jesus Freaks, who ignore alll the evidence and STILL believe Bush's lies, are the nutjobs!!! Jesus would HATE Bush if he was around today. He'd really frown upon the killing of innocent Iraqis (especially the women and children). Face it, you don't really like Jesus and his "love & forgiveness" teaching. You much prefer the Wrath-of-God, Strike-Down-The-Wicked philosophy of the Old Testament 'god'.
Rumsfeld and Bush are LIARS and MURDERS (like Bush's wife who killed her boyfriend in the 60s!). Support IMPEACHMENT NOW!!!
"but I must inform you that many of us have already figured out that this is what many on the left believe"
Yeah, that one and the classic "The Buckeyes never lose in the shoe, in prime time, when it didn't rain the previous thursday, and when the stock market was down 3 pts the previous trading day".
HA HA AH AH HA HA HA AH AH HA HA HA HA HAH AHA HA HA AHA HA Rumsfeldgate
Even Anderson Cooper interviewed him. The sum total of McGovern's 'FACTS' are the fringe left talking points.
(1)NO al Qaeda in Iraq prior to war (which has been proven false--three training camps with thousands of jihadis through 2002! and Saddam gave them weapons and planted them around the country.)
(2)The Downing Street Memo! LOL
(3)Bush talking with Blair and the UN blimp episode! LOL
(4) By the time of the invasion 60-odd % of Americans believed Saddam had somethign to do with 9/11 (on 9/13/01--two days after 9/11--over 70% of people believed that according to a WaPo poll.)
etc etc etc
The guy is a loser.
Why is [the WMD] in brackets? That means Rumsfeld did NOT say WMD.
He was talking about sites where they would be.
Definition - Lie: A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.
Therefore, when a person makes an incorrect statement based on faulty information, it is not a lie, unless the person knows that the information is in fact faulty when they make the statement.
Since there is no evidence that Bush or Rumsfield were aware of the incorrect nature of the faulty intelligence that lead to many of their early statements, by definition, neither can be shown to be guilty of telling a lie.
Does the crazy pickle in people's minds? I wonder why he left the CIA? I also worry about the security at where Administration officials speak.
You know, you guys give America such a bad name. Wanna know why America is hated? Its because of smug, proud, backward, ignorant conservatives JUST LIKE YOU. Oh, but I forgot. You are right and everyone else is wrong. My bad.
When the real cultural war goes down in this country, we'll meet face to face to see who is right and who is wrong. Its gonna be a real pleasure to get medeiveal on your sorry ass. Bring it on!
"Looks like a former hippie."
Actually he looks a lot like Jeff Jarvis. But whatever.
All this prattle about the guy
asking the questions. What about
the questions put to Heckle the
Jackal?
It really is interesting that the ones who speak out are always made out to be nutcases while the crooks liars and murderers are allowed to stay in office.
Ayone who doesnt know Bush took us war based on lies needs new medication. And by the way who listens to the MSN anyway. Paid liars and sycophants, maybe they can still be prostitutes in the next Bush administration since the 2008 election results are already decided.
Government of, by, and for the insane, immoral and democratically challenged.
Enjoy the fun is only beginning!!
I'm not sure which made me laugh harder, this:
Jesus would HATE Bush if he was around today
Or this:
When the real cultural war goes down in this country, we'll meet face to face to see who is right and who is wrong. Its gonna be a real pleasure to get medeiveal on your sorry ass. Bring it on!
Heheheheheheheee. Someone must have watched Pulp Fiction followed by C-Span reruns of John Kerry stump speeches.
Nothing like an anonymous commenter making idle threats.
To the warden,
Glad to see your posts since they are some of the only coherent ones on here. Some of the messages left by the "anonymous" people are just idiotic. Their logic is simplistic at best.
I especially like the guy who keeps writing that no one has answered the questions that McGovern brought up. He seems to be missing the quotes you provided and the fact that Rumsfeld answered McGovern's questions on the spot.
Attack McGovern all you want, but Rumsfeld is on record (THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS, 03/30/03, http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_03/alia/A3032803.htm) as saying exactly what he claims he didn't. If Bin Laden claims our planet Earth is round, I don't go rushing to join the Flat Earth Society.
Bob,
The history of somebody is not relevant if they are doing nothing but quouting you back to yourself.
Yeah, if you weren't a doctor I wouldn't want your medical advice, but if I said to my doctor, "you told me to take X and it just made my problems worse" would my doctor have no liability in the issue because I, myself, wasn't a doctor.
That's ridiculous. McGovern just basically read DR back what he had said in the past. I don't care if it was f'ing koko the monkey, the basic point still remains.
There are cases when it the credibility of somebody matters, but that is when opinions are being stated, not fact.
If a two year old pointed to the sun and said, "sun" to you would you go off about how he is only two and just last week he crapped his pants. Screaming about what the hell could this two year old know, completely ignoring the fact that he rightly was identifying the sun?
>I cannot tell if this Blog is a genuine conservative blog or a sarcastic blog making fun of backward conservatives.
I was having the same problem.
I've read enough now to assume the Gateway Pundit crowd is serious, if you can call intentional ignorance serious.
Good luck.
several great points.
blog post characterized as ad homenimen (sp) attack.
Rummy said those things.
BushCo still demonstrates no accountability
It turns out that this "moonbat" was actually the guy who gave G.H.W Bush his daily intelligence briefing: http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29534
I doubt you can be crazy and have that sort of access to the President.
Would one of you guys look up the definition of "HECKLING" please...?
What does this ad hominem attack has to do with the issues at hand?
Rumsfeld said, he KNEW that there are WMDs. Turns out, there were no WMDs in Iraq and NOBODY could positively say that there are WMDs, because the evidence didn't support that view. If you only have an estimate that there might be dangerous weapons, but you don't say that but instead claim that you KNOW it and even their locations, is there anybody who wouldn't call that lying? Come on, be serious, guys...
Former CIA analyst McGovern opposes the war in Iraq (along with the VAST majority of Americans), he went to Iraq with former U.S. Marine Scott Ritter, and he believes that oil and Israel were factors in why we invaded Iraq.
Is that what makes him a nut? Am I reading this right? Obviously your drugs have finally kicked in.
Wow. All it takes here to get labelled a "nutjob" with a "trail of lunatic behavior a mile long" is to have opinions counter to the Bush administration and then to actually voice them?
And you seriously wonder why the MSM doesn't "cover" this? Maybe because they don't consider smear jobs to be part of their job description?
no matter what: how do you reconcile your conscience with this?
One thing seems to be certain in all the above comments: you have to separate rumsfeld, cheney, rice, bush from the CIA experts. the experts make the findings and they report to these people. so drumhellers revelation should add to your knowledge. you draw your conclusions based on his revelation.
or of course, you can go slander his character. I think this way you do great service to the nation indeed.
I'm quite stable; not on medication; frankly not a "nut" case, and I could have asked the very same questions, but with one difference: I couldn't have done it with as much clarity and calm as McGovern did.
He clearly unhinged the old man Rumsfeld, and most certainly called a lie a lie and a liar a liar.
If this is "heckling" from a "nutcase", I'd say he did a better job than I could have done.
Wow! Thoughtful post! "Nutjob!" That's great! Good to see that you can argue your point with all the insight of a kindergartener!
What use has CIA 'analysis' proved to be to the US? I mean its very useful to US enemies of course.
Long overdue time to shut down the agency and start again from scratch.
GWB's big mistake was not to do the the day after 9/11 when it would have been easy. Instead he gave them his full support, and they repaid us all with spite and demagogery. They have got to go!
Did you wingnuts know that Ray McGovern used to give the Presidential Daily Breifing to George Bush Sr.?
It seems that the entire CIA is pissed that Bush Jr. blamed his lies about Iraq's WMD on them.
It must be driving you Bush Jr. worshippers nuts now that he and his entire administration are being called on their lies.
wow... the moonbats are swarming tonight, aren't they?
William said...
If somebody that has done crazy things in the past says something based in fact, do the crazy things make what he said untrue? I am just curious, because I don't thats how it works.
9:13 AM
Answer to your question: No
BUT, If Hitler (I know Goodwin)had done this and the media reports him as a WWI veteran and former politician and leaves out the other relevant faucets of his life that might clue you in on how he views the world, it's an intentional attempt on the media's part to deceive people to his motives.
Now let's get this right. The CIA, a dysfunctional organization riddled with security risks, gives bad information to the White House. The White House uses that bad information, among other reasons which were not bad to justify the war. Then various security risks and conspiracy junkies associated with the same crowd from the CIA accuse the White House of using the bad information they supplied. This approaches the legal definition of Chutzpah which is "Killing your parents and then demanding the mercy of the court as an orphan."
it's possible McGovern could sue Gateway Pundit, Instapundit, and Michelle Malkin...
Somebody's gonna get sued....
You people perfectly illustrate why birth control is so important!
Hang on to your delusions.
Bush and Company will not accomplish anything as lame ducks!
That, considering his history, my well be a blessing!
You may want to get a score card to keep track of the indictments as well!
Republicans may well be the best thing the Democrats have working for them! Keep up the good work!
The country is depending on you!