Rumsfeld Heckled by Former CIA Analyst (1 Viewer)

[KidRocks]

Gotta love it!

Rumsfeld, Rice, President Bush are all facing more and more hecklers as November approches. I've no doubt the Democrats are going to win the House back soon but will we win in 2008? Probably!











http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060504/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld

ATLANTA - Protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence in an unusually vociferous display of anti-war sentiment.

"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, during a question-and-answer session.

"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 in the middle of the room with his back to Rumsfeld in silent protest. Officials reported no arrests...

 

[Thorgasm]

See what happens when Rumsfeld isn't allowed to ask, and answer, his own questions?:lol:

 

[Stinger]

Gotta love it!

Rumsfeld, Rice, President Bush are all facing more and more hecklers as November approches. I've no doubt the Democrats are going to win the House back soon but will we win in 2008? Probably!

Hillary had one the other day......................so what?

 

[Pen]

For some reason, Rumsfeld's full response to Ray McGovern is not being covered and it certainly should be.

Rumsfeld claimed that he didn't lie about wmd's and that he never claimed to know where they were. This is an obvious lie in that he is recorded as saying it. So the press chooses not to report this bit of "news" and focuses on "hecklers" in the crowd.

Rumsfeld then tries to take the "upper" ground by claiming that the soldiers certainly anticipated wmd's because they were wearing biohazard suits. McGovern rightfully points out that this is a non sequitor. Stage managers then ended that discussion and "moved on".

Anyone else wondering what happened to our free and independent press?

 

[BWG]

For some reason, Rumsfeld's full response to Ray McGovern is not being covered and it certainly should be.

Rumsfeld claimed that he didn't lie about wmd's and that he never claimed to know where they were. This is an obvious lie in that he is recorded as saying it. So the press chooses not to report this bit of "news" and focuses on "hecklers" in the crowd.

Rumsfeld then tries to take the "upper" ground by claiming that the soldiers certainly anticipated wmd's because they were wearing biohazard suits. McGovern rightfully points out that this is a non sequitor. Stage managers then ended that discussion and "moved on".

Anyone else wondering what happened to our free and independent press?

Must be that 'Liberal Media Bias' I keep hearing about.

Particularly when the article has statements like:

"Just over one-third of those surveyed say they approve of Bush's handing of the war."

"Just over one-third of the public says Rumsfeld is doing an excellent or pretty good job, according to polling in March, while six in 10 said fair or poor."

(emphasis mine)

We can't be having any negative thoughts like two-thirds disapprove or two-thirds say doing a poor job, can we? :smile:

 

[Stinger]

For some reason, Rumsfeld's full response to Ray McGovern is not being covered and it certainly should be.

Rumsfeld claimed that he didn't lie about wmd's and that he never claimed to know where they were. This is an obvious lie in that he is recorded as saying it. So the press chooses not to report this bit of "news" and focuses on "hecklers" in the crowd.

He said "we" meaning the government, meaning the intelligence agencies. And they were telling they knew where they were stored. And they may have been stored there at the time for all we know.

This guy had no business making a fool out of himself with his loaded phoney question. Instead of harping on what we didn't find how about what we have found? PLENTY.

 

[NYStateofMind]

I note that this is the third former CIA employee who has taken issue with the administration's claims of intelligence supporting the war in Iraq.

Since these people are the very ones who supplied the intelligence, I would think that they would know better than any of us whether the administration had the intelligence in question.

I don't view this as heckling, I see it as these intelligence analysts defending themselves from false allegations. Apparently they don't like being used as scapegoats......imagine that!

 

[oldreliable67]

This issue is deserving of a thread of its own, but maybe this is a good place to get a discussion started...

A disgruntled group of former CIA agents/employees has formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Here is some background info on the group:

If there really is a war going on between the White House and the CIA (and even the Washington Post said exactly that) then the very first salvo of the conflict was fired on March 17, 2003 by one of the most unusual groups ever formed in the history of US intelligence.

Calling themselves Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), 25 ex-CIA officers threw down the gauntlet by calling on active duty intelligence professionals to damage the Bush Administration (and by extension, the government of the United States) by leaking the “truth” about the Iraq War:

"Invoking the name of a Pentagon whistle-blower, a small group of retired, anti-war CIA officers are accusing the Bush administration of manipulating evidence against Iraq in order to push war while burying evidence that could show Iraq’s compliance with U.N demands for disarmament.

The 25-member group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, composed mostly of former CIA analysts along with a few operational agents, is urging employees inside the intelligence agency to break the law and leak any information they have that could show the Bush administration is engineering the release of evidence to match its penchant for war."

[...]

The group said officials who act as would-be whistle-blowers can use the same method as those now handing out information—giving it over to members of Congress who can both protect them and show the entire picture.

“They have to basically put conscience before career,” said Patrick Eddington, a VIPS member and former CIA agent who resigned in 1996 to protest what he describes as the agency’s refusal to investigate some of the possible causes of Gulf War veterans’ medical problems.

The question that has always nagged at me is that given the flood of leaks from the intelligence community both in the lead up and the aftermath of the Iraq war, what role (if any) did VIPS members play in facilitating those leaks?

Several VIPS members, including Larry Johnson, Mel Goodman, and Ray McGovern have emerged this past weekend, being quoted extensively in stories about the McCarthy leak case. The fact that they are never, ever identified as belonging to this far left group (their email address is in care of Counterpunch, the notorious left wing rag published by Alexander Cockburn) is almost surreal. Johnson can be safely dismissed as a publicity hound. But McGovern and Goodman have made it abundantly clear that they have it in for the Bush Administration.

Are there any strong connections between VIPS members and reporters? Certainly they appear together at forums like this CIP conference where Dana Priest shared the stage with Mel Goodman. So Goodman is out front defending McCarthy who is accused of leaking to Priest. And there’s proof that Goodman and Priest have at least a passing acquaintance.

Could such an association – casual and innocuous – have any meaning beyond coincidence?

VIPS is a group that has urged their colleagues to leak. Why is it so hard to believe that they would help in accomplishing that fact by acting as a go-between with the press?

Source.

So what are to make of this group and their motivations? Are they apolitical intelligence professional interested only in doing the right thing? Some observers don't think so. William Sjostrom, writing in the Atlantic Monthly had this to say:

VIPS does not seem to have a website, but its email is vips@counterpunch.org, and their open letter appears to have been published at CounterPunch (run by Alexander Cockburn, the Nation columnist), an outfit whose staple is stuff comparing Bush to Hitler. VIPS also published an open letter in opposition to the war at Common Dreams back in February. The spokesman for VIPS is Raymond McGovern, a retired CIA analyst. McGovern’s email is also at CounterPunch. He is giving a briefing today with Rep. Dennis Kucinich. McGovern has compared the Iraq war to Vietnam, even saying that it could lead to nuclear war. He has charged that if WMDs are found in Iraq, they may well have been planted. He believes Tenet’s job is safe because if Tenet were fired, he would reveal that the White House ignored intelligence warnings pre-9/11. McGovern has urged CIA analysts to illegally release classified documents to show what he believes to be true, specifically citing Daniel Ellsberg.

Another member of the VIPS steering committee is William Christison, who among other things believes that the Bush administration is attempting to colonize the Middle East, jointly with Israel. He believes that the war on terror is being used to turn the US into a military dictatorship. He is also a backer of the left-wing UrgentCall, along with people such as Noam Chomsky, Barbara Kingsolver, Julian Bond, and Jonathan Schell.

Lets not forget that many of these same VIPS were the very same folks responsible for the CIA intelligence product on Iraq and the ME, about which you can draw your own conclusions.

 

[Stinger]

I note that this is the third former CIA employee who has taken issue with the administration's claims of intelligence supporting the war in Iraq.

Ahhhh I think this guy was in the Kennedy administration? But if you point is that when 3 out of tens of thousands of former CIA employees object to a policy then we should change it then I guess we don't need elections anymore and we certainly will never have a policy at all.

Since these people are the very ones who supplied the intelligence, I would think that they would know better than any of us whether the administration had the intelligence in question.

Why do you believe this man has anymore information than you?

I don't view this as heckling, I see it as these intelligence analysts defending themselves from false allegations. Apparently they don't like being used as scapegoats......imagine that!

It was a bogus sophomoric attempt to flame Rumsfield, pitting a question based on false premises.

No one lied about anything, time to face reality.

 

[Stinger]

Except that all we have found proves we did the right thing and these proclaimed analyist are wrong.

"Another member of the VIPS steering committee is William Christison, who among other things believes that the Bush administration is attempting to colonize the Middle East, jointly with Israel. He believes that the war on terror is being used to turn the US into a military dictatorship. He is also a backer of the left-wing UrgentCall, along with people such as Noam Chomsky, Barbara Kingsolver, Julian Bond, and Jonathan Schell."

Doesn't that alone tell you something?

 

[Captain America]

Sounds to me like another SwiftBoat Vets group. Except, I doubt Karl Rove is behind this one. :mrgreen:

 

[NYStateofMind]

You may try to dismiss McGovern as being far left and having it out for the Bush administration, that doesn't change the fact that he was factually correct and Rumsfeld lied. I'm not interested in hearing the party line response, we did the right thing, blah, blah, blah.... he said he knew where the WMDs were, yet now he lies and says he never said that. Caught lying....again.

Keep up the :spin: , maybe someone will buy it. Not me.:2wave:

 

[Thorgasm]

He said "we" meaning the government, meaning the intelligence agencies. And they were telling they knew where they were stored. And they may have been stored there at the time for all we know.

If they were stored there at the time, then why didn't we just let U.N. inspectors get them? We could have passed that info on to them. Why wouldn't they do that? There is a distinct difference between "think" and "know". I am not sure the administration is aware of that.

 

[oldreliable67]

You may try to dismiss McGovern as being far left and having it out for the Bush administration, that doesn't change the fact that he was factually correct and Rumsfeld lied. I'm not interested in hearing the party line response, we did the right thing, blah, blah, blah.... he said he knew where the WMDs were, yet now he lies and says he never said that. Caught lying....again.

Keep up the :spin: , maybe someone will buy it. Not me.:2wave:

The only problem with your attitude is that Rumsfeld was basing his statements on info provided to him by intelligence analysts. Whether those analysts were some of these very same CIA people or their peers or were from the DoD or other intel agencies, we don't know. But there is no doubt that the CIA analysts involved in producing the intel leading up to the Iraq war were simply not up to the task.

The allegation that Rumsfeld lied is true only if he knew his statements to be false at the time that he made them. Given the intel provided to him, that allegation doesn't seem to hold up.

Call it spin if you wish, but clearly, there is a politicized element within the CIA and among former CIA employees who are using their former positions and and knowledge of classified matters to seek partisan advantage (check out how many of the VIPS folks were contributors to Dem candidates and active in Dem politics). To be sure, there is nothing wrong with seeking partisan advantage, as long as you don't break the law in doing so, as some of these people apparently have done.

 

[Captain America]

I think you guys who are in the 32% of our population will be hard pressed convincing the other 68% that Bush Corp did not cherry-pick and manipulate intel in order to suit their Iraqi regime change agenda, given all the information out there. But don't let me get in your way. :roll:

If you intend on denouncing the VIPS as a politically motivated partisan group, then I expect to hear you bad mouth the SwiftBoat Vets as well. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

68% of us are really getting tired of you guys trying to blow smoke up our a** though. It's best to let sleeping dogs lie. I think it will only make your numbers drop even further.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Gill]

One other comment on McGovern... he is a proponent of LIHOP and/or MIHOP. This is one of the left's conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. In case you don't know, MIHOP is Made It Happen On Purpose and LIHOP is Let It Happen On Purpose. The tin foil hat people firmly believe that Bush either caused 9/11 or knew about it in advance.

I think that speaks volumes on the agenda of Mr. McGovern.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

He said "we" meaning the government, meaning the intelligence agencies. And they were telling they knew where they were stored. And they may have been stored there at the time for all we know.

This guy had no business making a fool out of himself with his loaded phoney question. Instead of harping on what we didn't find how about what we have found? PLENTY.

Plenty of what? Paper? The thought that Saddam had the wish to one day have WMD again sure is scary.:roll:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

One other comment on McGovern... he is a proponent of LIHOP and/or MIHOP. This is one of the left's conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. In case you don't know, MIHOP is Made It Happen On Purpose and LIHOP is Let It Happen On Purpose. The tin foil hat people firmly believe that Bush either caused 9/11 or knew about it in advance.

I think that speaks volumes on the agenda of Mr. McGovern.

Lets see a source. Just because someone disagrees with this Administration does not make them a nut. If that were the case, over two thirds of America would be nut-jobs. McGovern worked for old man Bush, I don't think he is some left wing nut job.

 

[Gill]

Lets see a source. Just because someone disagrees with this Administration does not make them a nut. If that were the case, over two thirds of America would be nut-jobs. McGovern worked for old man Bush, I don't think he is some left wing nut job.

Do you believe Bush caused 9/11 to happen or had knowledge it was going to happen??

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Do you believe Bush caused 9/11 to happen or had knowledge it was going to happen??

Absolutely not. So lets see a source that shows that McGovern does believe that.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Sounds to me like another SwiftBoat Vets group. Except, I doubt Karl Rove is behind this one. :mrgreen:

This bunch's swiftboating days are over. You cant swiftboat someone if practically the whole world and the majority of Americans believe you are a liar.

 

[RightinNYC]

Absolutely not. So lets see a source that shows that McGovern does believe that.

Ray McGovern is a straight up, no joke, cracked-out lunatic.

Here's some excerpts of his past statements:

Former CIA Analyst: Government May Be Manufacturing Fake Terrorism
A Government openly promoting torture, A President acting like a King cannot be trusted, must be impeached

He amazingly went on to suggest that if another attack took place we should not accept what the government tells us because it could be them carrying out the terror.

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

Describing a hearing before Congress:

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.

"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."

Perhaps even more importantly is this one little tidbit that the media keeps leaving out:

In their haste to list his credentials as a "Former CIA Analyst," they neglect to mention that he retired SIXTEEN YEARS AGO.

Yea.

This guy who claims to know so much about how Bush is awful hasn't seen a freaking classified document or been involved in any decision making process since 1990. He knows as much about the events of the past 5 years as you or I. What a joke this whole coverage has been....:doh

 

[Pen]

He said "we" meaning the government, meaning the intelligence agencies. And they were telling they knew where they were stored. And they may have been stored there at the time for all we know.

This guy had no business making a fool out of himself with his loaded phoney question. Instead of harping on what we didn't find how about what we have found? PLENTY.

No, he did not say "we."

Rumsfeld: ...it appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

McGovern: You said you knew where they were.

Rumsfeld: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and...

McGovern: You said you knew where they were. Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.

Rumsfeld: My words-my words were that-no-no, wait a minute--wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second....

At this point McGovern is heard to say, "this is America," and according to CNN, security guards attempted to grab McGovern and eject him from the room.

The transcript and video have gone viral and easy to find.

 

[NYStateofMind]

The only problem with your attitude is that Rumsfeld was basing his statements on info provided to him by intelligence analysts. Whether those analysts were some of these very same CIA people or their peers or were from the DoD or other intel agencies, we don't know. But there is no doubt that the CIA analysts involved in producing the intel leading up to the Iraq war were simply not up to the task.

The allegation that Rumsfeld lied is true only if he knew his statements to be false at the time that he made them. Given the intel provided to him, that allegation doesn't seem to hold up.

Call it spin if you wish, but clearly, there is a politicized element within the CIA and among former CIA employees who are using their former positions and and knowledge of classified matters to seek partisan advantage (check out how many of the VIPS folks were contributors to Dem candidates and active in Dem politics). To be sure, there is nothing wrong with seeking partisan advantage, as long as you don't break the law in doing so, as some of these people apparently have done.

Please read my post again. I did not say that Rumsfeld lied about the WMD being where he said they were, I said that he lied when he stated that he did not say he knew where they were. He is trying to deny what he said previously. This is not the first time he has attempted to lie about his previous statements, just the latest example.

It has nothing to do with my "attitude," a fact is a fact.

As far as all of the attempts to distract me (and others) from the fact of Rummy's lies by focusing on the politics of the messenger, nice try. The fact that the messenger happens to be a "lefty" doesn't change the fact that his message is accurate......while the "righty" guy stands behind the podium and lies.

 

[Stinger]

No, he did not say "we."



The transcript and video have gone viral and easy to find.

The original statement this luny was referring to was 'We know where they are' and yes we had suspected sited. We went to those sites and others after we removed him. Sure enough the places had been emptied and ransacked. Oh well, not surprising. Most of that came info came from UNSCOM. Now if you you want to start proving they were lying go ahead. It's a moot point. We know he moved material out of Iraq, we know he had WMD material that were never account for.