Posted on 05/08/2006 1:54:08 AM PDT by Sam Hill
By now we have all heard about the dramatic showdown between Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and the former "CIA analyst" Ray McGovern.
Indeed our one party media has portrayed McGovern as a hero for confronting Rumsfeld over his damnable lies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
And McGovern has been everywhere crowing over chastisement of Rumsfeld, such as he did here to Paula Zahn on CNN:
MCGOVERN: 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.
Leave aside the easily discovered fact that Ray McGovern is a America-hating anti-Semitic lunatic. It turns out that McGovern himself believed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he would use them against the US.
In fact before the war McGovern (like Joe Wilson) used Saddam's WMDs as his argument why we should not invade Iraq.
Here is a memo McGovern and his VIPS group wrote to the President of the United States on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, courtesy of CommonDreams.org:
CIA Veterans Speak Out
Friday, February 7, 2003
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Secretary Powell's presentation at the UN today requires context. We give him an "A" for assembling and listing the charges against Iraq, but only a "C-" in providing context and perspective.
What seems clear to us is that you need an intelligence briefing, not grand jury testimony. Secretary Powell effectively showed that Iraq is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for not cooperating fully with UN Security Council Resolution 1441. That had already been demonstrated by the chief UN inspectors. For Powell, it was what the Pentagon calls a "cakewalk."
You have said that Iraq is a "grave threat to the United States," and many Americans think you believe it to be an imminent threat. Otherwise why would you be sending hundreds of thousands of troops to the Gulf area? In your major speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, you warned that "the risk is simply too great that Saddam Hussein will use instruments of mass death and destruction, or provide them to a terror network." ...
Terrorism
Your intelligence agencies see it differently. On the same day you spoke in Cincinnati, a letter from the CIA to the Senate Intelligence Committee asserted that the probability is low that Iraq would initiate an attack with such weapons or give them to terrorists... UNLESS:
"Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."
For now, continued the CIA letter, "Baghdad appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical/biological warfare against the United States." With his back against the wall, however, "Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons-of-mass-destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
Your Pentagon advisers draw a connection between war with Iraq and terrorism, but for the wrong reasons. The connection takes on much more reality in a post-US invasion scenario. ...
Chemical Weapons
With respect to possible Iraqi use of chemical weapons, it has been the judgment of the US intelligence community for over 12 years that the likelihood of such use would greatly increase during an offensive aimed at getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
Listing the indictment particulars, Secretary Powell said, in an oh-by-the-way tone, that sources had reported that Saddam Hussein recently authorized his field commanders to use such weapons. We find this truly alarming. We do not share the Defense Department's optimism that radio broadcasts and leaflets would induce Iraqi commanders not to obey orders to use such weapons, or that Iraqi generals would remove Saddam Hussein as soon as the first US soldier sets foot in Iraq. Clearly, an invasion would be no cakewalk for American troops, ill equipped as they are to operate in a chemical environment.
Casualties
In his second inaugural, Abraham Lincoln appealed to his fellow citizens to care for those who "have borne the battle." Years before you took office, our country was doing a very poor job of that for the over 200,000 servicemen and women stricken with various Gulf War illnesses. Today's battlefield is likely to be even more sodden with chemicals and is altogether likely to yield tens of thousands more casualties. On October 1, 2002 Congress' General Accounting Office reported "serious problems still persist" with the Pentagon's efforts to protect servicemen and women, including shortfalls in clothing, equipment, and training. Our troops deserve more effective support than broadcasts, leaflets, and faulty equipment for protection against chemical and biological agents.
No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is irrefutable or undeniable. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond violations of Resolution 1441, and beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.
/s/
Richard Beske, San Diego
Kathleen McGrath Christison, Santa Fe
William Christison, Santa Fe
Patrick Eddington, Alexandria
Raymond McGovern, Arlington
Steering Group
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Unsurprisingly (given his close coordination with McGovern and other VIPS members by this point), Joe Wilson IV was promoting the same exact line in the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times at exactly the same time:
John Conyers, Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern.
A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose
Leaving Hussein no hope will trigger his worst weapons, U.S. envoy in historic '90 meeting warns
By Joseph C. Wilson
LA Times Op-Ed
February 6 2003
Saddam Hussein is a murderous sociopath whose departure from this Earth would be welcomed everywhere...Desert Storm was a just war, sanctioned by the international community and supported by a broad multilateral coalition. Today we are on the verge of another conflict with Iraq, but unlike Desert Storm, the goals are not clear -- despite Secretary of State Colin Powell's eloquent argument for war in his address Wednesday to the United Nations Security Council...
During the Gulf War, we were always acutely aware of the need to be confrontational on the issues at hand but to leave Hussein, a proud and vain man, a way to save face...
There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.
And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.
Hussein and Aziz both told me directly that Iraq reserved the right to use every weapon in its arsenal if invaded, just as it had against Iran and later the Kurds.
The fact that thousands of men, women and children had died in these attacks fazed them not one bit. In fact, Aziz could barely be bothered to stop puffing on his Cuban cigar as he made these comments, of so little importance was the use of chemicals to kill people.
It is probably too late to change Hussein's assessment, and that will make any ensuing battle for Iraq that much more dangerous for our troops and for the Iraqis who find themselves in the battlefield.
The assertion that Hussein might share weapons of mass destruction with a terrorist group, however, is counterintuitive to everything I and others know about him. The Iraqi leader is above all a consummate survivalist.
He acts as if he expects the people around him to die for him, but he has long known that every terrorist act, and particularly a sophisticated one, raises the question of his involvement and invites blame. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose. In his mind he is Iraq, Iraq is Hussein, and as long as he survives, Iraq survives.
After then-Secretary of State Jim Baker made it clear to Aziz on the eve of the Gulf War that the United States would destroy Iraq if weapons of mass destruction were used, Hussein did not use them. He is not stupid, and for him living is better than dying in vain.
Now, however, if he feels his death is inevitable, he may well arm extremist groups in an attempt to have a last, posthumous laugh.
Along with our drive toward war, it should also be made clear to Hussein that -- in the little time remaining -- he still has a choice.
We should do everything possible to avoid the understandable temptation to send American troops to fight a war of "liberation" that can be waged only by the Iraqis themselves. The projection of power need not equate with the projection of force.
Both Ray McGovern and Joe Wilson were arguing that the US should not invade Iraq because Saddam would use his weapons of mass destruction against our troops and give them to other terrorist nations.
Of course now McGovern and Wilson both claim that they and everyone else knew Saddam had no WMDs. They now both claim that Rumsfeld and the rest of the administration were lying and ignoring the massive intelligence to the contrary.
But isn't it peculiar that they believed Saddam had WMDs just a month before the war began? And why are they now trying to demonize those who held the same beliefs they did?
Just as McGovern said about Rumsfeld. "He should have owned up to it, if he wants there to be a modicum of trust."
Except, unlike Rumsfeld, McGovern is a lunatic that nobody should trust.
And, you know, it's not polite to say this, but that was a bald-faced lie. "
An "analyst" who doesn't know the definition of a lie.
The left has ALWAYS demonized any opposition in this manner.
They are Evil (of biblical proportions) and I draw less and less derision with that assertion as time goes on.
This "analyst" IS NOT a good man with a different opinion, rather he is a God-damned liar, operating out of pure malice and rage and concerned only with his own ends.
You really don't want to know. It's more than anyone can imagine.
These people are anti-American one-worlders employing Bolshevik Theater Tactics.
The Mohammetans are their "useful idiots" by which they hope to neutralize the United States, which is the only real road block to their one-world vision.
On the other hand, the Mohammetans are using the Left as their useful idiots, by which they also hope to neutralize the United States, which is the only real road block to their one-world vision.
Whichever of the two of these groups of drooling fanatics wins this race gets to line-up the other group in front of trenches and mow them down with belt-fed machine guns.
This man seems less stable than Cindy the Ditchwitch.
One of these days, someone in the old media is going to find out about computers and internet and those top-secret, new-fangled search engine technologies like Google and Lexis-Nexis. And then he'll tell his friends, and the next thing you know they'll be fact-checking and pointing out glaring inconsistencies and deliberate misrepresentations.
Nah. Their heads would explode.
...Another anti-truth, anti-freedom Democratic Crime Syndicate operative at work.
BTTT!
Thank you!
I'll forward this.
Good point!
Kudos, thanks, bookmark, and
BTTT!
save
Pretty embarrassing that the media billed this as a legitimate challenge to Rumsfeld - IF the Bush Administration had the gumption to point it out. Because they don't, the McGoverns may be running the CIA soon.
Ecellent work!
Thanks for the ping.
Pinz
BTTT
Yet, none of this seems to come forth in the despicable MSM.
Hopefully, some day we will see who has been funding these vile creatures.
My bet is on George $oreA$$ via one of his hate America so called non profits.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
