DSM Basement CIA Witness shreds Bushagandist on Lehrer NH: link

[omega minimo]

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern appeared on Jim Lehrer Newshour with a Bushit artist on June 16th, after testifying before the House Basement Forum on the Downing Street Minutes chaired by Rep. Joseph Conyers. Rippin'!

VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY! :rofl:

The link also has streaming video, audio and transcript of a general DSM story by Ray Suarez.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june05/warmemos_6-16.html

The original "Downing Street memo"

MARGARET WARNER: So what do these memos from 2002 tell us about the timing of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq? To assess that issue, we're joined by two former CIA officials. Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years. He retired 15 years ago, and is now a member of the group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He appeared as a witness at today's Democratic forum. And Reuel Gerecht was a CIA Middle East operations officer until the mid-'90s. He's now a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Welcome to you both.

Mr. McGovern, beginning with you, okay, make your case, take the original Downing Street Memo from July 2003. How does that prove, as you critics charge, that President Bush that early, July 2002, had decided to go to war?

RAY McGOVERN: Well, let me first say that I'm not out to make a case. I'm a professional intelligence officer, retired, who has the ethos of just trying to find out where the facts lead me.

FACTS! <snip>

This is documentary. This is a secret minutes of this meeting prepared the same day; it's of a different species of all the other circumstantial evidence we have that the president had long since decided to do war. And so the circumstances, you can forget circumstantial, we have a flaming -- we have a smoking gun here, and we have something equivalent to the Nixon tapes on Watergate.

SMOKING GUN & WATERGATE! GADZOOKS! <snip>

MARGARET WARNER

...Isn't it possible that in fact these may be the head of British intelligence's assessment, but he was wrong?

RAY McGOVERN: No, I don't believe that that's possible at all. Who would know better than the head of the CIA as to whether the intelligence and facts were being fixed to fit the policy?

<snip>.

So the inspection regime was working. The US policy had been set. And it was set earlier than July of 2002. And there's lots of circumstantial evidence for that. But as I say now we have a document, an internal British document, firsthand. The fellow who wrote the minutes was there, it was prepared the same day. He sent to it all the people who there were -- there were 13. And there was no objection, and Tony Blair has vouched for its authenticity. He has not denied that this is an authentic document.

AUTHENTIC DOCUMENT <snip>

MARGARET WARNER: 
And one conclusion of the meeting is that Straw will "discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam." What does that say to you about the exercise of going to the UN and all those fronts, was that on the level?

REUEL GERECHT: Yeah. Well, I mean, I think what's going on there is, I mean, the British are trying to develop, they have a much more, what you might say legalistic ambition on the war. I mean they turn and want to have some law officers give them an opinion of whether a war is right and just.

<note by OM: on “much more, what you might say legalistic ambition” Mr. McGovern may be heard snorting with laughter off camera>

REUEL GERECHT: In the United States -- that is the duty and responsibility of the president of the United States and the Congress. We invest in them that responsibility and authority. I mean what's striking about the memos, I have to say, is the extent to which the bureaucracy in Great Britain, particularly the foreign ministry, is actually very hesitant about going to war, and you come away very much appreciating the boldness of Tony Blair, that in fact he agrees with President Bush, we live in a post-9/11 world.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Mr. McGovern, you're dying to get back in, I can tell.

RAY McGOVERN: No, I was just thinking that Reuel is of the school of Richard Perle, who right after the war started was asked about the legality of the war and he said, you know, sometimes you just have to violate international law to do the right thing.

SCHOOL OF PERLE AND OLLIE NORTH:
"SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW TO DO THE RIGHT THING."




:bounce::kick:
 

[DBoon]

1. Sometime the international legal community just has to try war criminals

to do the right thing

[omega minimo]

2. Impeachment is not a river in Egypt

Sometime the American public will connect the dots.......

Apples: Watergate and Iraq Nam/Halliburton White House

Oranges: Monicagate

How many more deaths will that take?

[jimshoes]

3. Love your apples

and oranges comparison. Kind of puts things in their proper perspective.

[omega minimo]

4. Something's rotten at the core

"Perspective." That's what we've lost, isn't it? When folks take their talking points and marching orders from the Euphemedia, Limbaugh the Hut and the TeeVee. We've been Roved bigtime.

Bring back THESE Talking Heads:
"This is not my beautiful country! How did I get here?! My gawd what have I done?!?!"

:kick:

[Jim Sagle]

12. Apples and oranges? More like mountains and molehills.

[omega minimo]

13. Can't see the forest for the clearcuts

[KansDem]

5. "... you just have to violate international law to do the right thing."

Yeah, the "extreme-right" thing...

[omega minimo]

6. And we're due

for an Extreme Makeover

The Constitution is flexed but not rent asunder yet :evilgrin:

[omega minimo]

7. Here ya go

:bounce:

[omega minimo]

8. !

:bounce:
:bounce:
:kick:

[magellan]

9. Outrageous

No, no, no, we CAN'T trust the chief of MI6 British intelligence with his "opinion" that George Tenet said Bush intends to remove Saddam come hell or high water. NEVER trust intelligence officials!

Too bad McGovern didn't point out that Blair had taken the same understanding from his April meeting with Bush** in Crawford. Indeed, a civil service paper detailing their April discussion had been specially prepared for this July meeting. It said, in part:

1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html

Funny how for being so "flat out wrong", the information in these British documents neatly describes numerous events that later transpired.

We did bomb the hell out of Iraq to prepare for the invasion starting months before Bush** even went to Congress; BushCo did treat us to an unreserved and effusive fear campaign about WMD and terrorists; Blair had to all but drag Bush** to the UN one last time; the weapons inspectors were not permitted to finish their job; there were no WMD, and no terrorists in Saddam-controlled Iraq before the war; and we are in a quagmire because BushCo didn't plan for anything past the Iraqis greeting us with flowers and candy -- MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

The documents also make a mockery of the Robb-Silberman Commission report that lays the blame on the intelligence agencies. Again and again the Brits bemoan the lack of persuasive evidence of WMD to legally justify their part in the war. Are we expected to believe Blair never mentioned these evidential concerns to Bush**, even after BushCo began publicly announcing the evidence WE allegedly had? Blair would have been on the horn to Bush** in a NY minute, raising the alarm over our intelligence...or asking Bush** to share. "Cheers, that's just what we need!"

Obviously that didn't happen. The British "intelligence" was just as worthless as the US "intelligence". Wonder why....

Then you have to ask yourself: what possible reason could George Tenet have for ignoring dissent from his analysts and feeding BushCo false intelligence that he knew would lead to war? And if he did have a reason, why have so many of those dissenting analysts since left or been forced out of the CIA? Why aren't they being promoted instead? Who REMAINS?

Better yet, what possible reason could Dick Cheney have for visiting the CIA upwards of a dozen times while this "intelligence" was being gathered -- visits McGovern characterizes as "unprecedented"?

And just how is it that the British and American intelligence agencies all failed in the same manner -- in FAVOR of evidence to go to war?

Oh hell, this started as two paragraphs. But there you go. Obviously it doesn't take a genius to see through the BS. It does, however, require a mind that isn't so lost in Bush** worship that it rejects critical thinking.

[Karenina]

10. Connecting the dots...

Fabulous post, Magellan! :toast:

[omega minimo]

11. Both Bush's put the war cart before the horse

when it came to Congressional approval-- it was clear both times that the Bush WH had decided to go to war and Congress damn well better go along, give them "permission" at the last moment. History has already been rewritten on Bush War I-- pundits harken back to "Bush had the support of Congress." Yeah, right.

"Funny how for being so "flat out wrong", the information in these British documents neatly describes numerous events that later transpired."

As for planning, remember Rummy talking pre-invasion about the need for preparation for a different type war, in tight, urban environments with un-uniformed combatants? To this day, the WH uses this as an excuse for their failings-- AS IF THEY DIDN'T KNOW AND SAY TO THE PUBLIC THEY KNEW that this is exactly what they would encounter.

I hope you got to see the broadcast or check the audio-video on this. The squirmy American Enterprise Institute clone had NUTHIN. It's clear when Smarmy McClellan, the thinktankers, Limbot et all can do NOTHING but dismiss and discredit the documents, evidence and testimony-- it's clear that they are in deep doo doo.