A double-header with Colbert roasting the Pres. with a torch.

It is a major mistake to assume anything said by anyone in the Bush administration is true.  The probability is that anything they say is untrue, so if they tell you it is Friday, you can be pretty sure it is Thursday or Saturday.

Rumsfeld has always been one of the biggest liars in the administration, a title he had to work very hard to earn.  Only George Bush is for certain a bigger liar.  (Scotty doesn't count - his job requires that  he never ever say anything true.)

I recall at the time, when Rummy made his statement that "we know where they are, they are north, south, east and west of Baghdad" (paraphrased as I remember it) I thought everyone would laugh as I did.  What Rummy said is that "they are everywhere except in Baghdad".  Then there is the case of the one place where everyone there did know about - the ammo dump with the thousands of tons of high explosives stored, where no effort was made to guard it.

It seems impossible that any military operation could be done without one single thing being done right, but Rummy seems to have done it. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, or Rice...you take your pick.  Each are liars without peer, with their lies being further amplified and piled high by FOX News, their own in-house propaganda organ, all of which is reminiscint of an old legal quote:

Truth and falsehood, it has been well said, are not always opposed to each other like black and white, but oftentimes, and by design, are made to resemble each other so as to be hardly distinguishable; just as the counterfeit thing is counterfeit because it resembles the genuine thing. Johnson v. Emerson, LR 6 Ex. Ca. 357 (1871)

So which of their statements are counterfeit and which are not?  Or maybe its hopeless confusion they are after.

This is nothing.

Did you ever see the video clip of Rumsfeld being sandbagged by a news show?

I can't remember the news show, unfortunately, but it went like this. It was maybe two years ago.

Rumsfeld was being asked if he had ever said that the nuclear threat from Iraq was "imminent".

Of course he denied he ever said that.

They were waiting for him.

IMMEDIATELY they put up on the screen the exact quotes from his previous press conferences and statements showing precisely where he HAD said that.

Rumsfeld was so DUMBFOUNDED that a news media organization would sandbag him that blatantly that he literally sat there for a good twenty seconds with a dumbfounded look on his face as nobody said anything.

It was hilarious!

That news show redeemed the media (for that day anyway.)

THIS is how these politicians - including the President - should be treated by the news media. When they lie - PROVE IT RIGHT THERE!

I know its been said before, but its sooooo true:

How can you tell when someone in the Bush administration is lying?

Their lips are moving.

Bushco delenda est

Is that the same Ray McGovern who talked to Ambassador Joseph Wilson about Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, and then just a few days later told an interviewer:

"We know that it was Dick Cheney who sent the former US ambassador to Niger to investigate. We know he was told in early March of last year that the documents were forgeries."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/062603B.shtml

Aren't these right-wing talking points that Wilson DENIES? McGovern says Cheney sent Wilson! McGovern says Wilson reported in March of 2002 that the documents were forgeries, even though the US didn't GET the documents until months later! Was he right (and therefore Wilson wrong) on either count?

This link doesn't even work.

Who cares what he said after everyone already knew? Rove/Libby/Novak are the ones responsible for that. McGovern also doesn't say that Wilson actually told him what his wife did. McGovern is former CIA, after all. I'm sure there are many avenues through which one who is tapped into the D.C. establishment can find out something like that.

Besides, Libby (and soon Rove, it appears) are getting prosecuted for lying to the FBI and grand jury anyway, not for the actual leak. So her status doesn't have any impact on whether they committed those crimes.

Ray is indeed "The Man," and in my view, he's been "the man" for the past nearly 4 years, when VIPS first started speaking out. I've written to him in years past to thank him for his patriotism and for his continued service to his country, and to all of us. He's been writing for years about these issues. Paula Zahn failed to undermine McGovern in her interview last night.

Ex-CIA analyst: Rumsfeld 'should have owned up'

'It's a matter of telling the truth,' man says after Iraq questioning

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.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/04/cnna.mcgovern

Come on, Critical Rhetoric, show us a little respect.  This is about as clumsy attempt at deflection as I've ever seen. 

Even if McGovern were Satan himself what's now written in stone is that Rummy is a liar. It's a no-brainer.

Neoboho

Jon: Parse this, rhetorically and psychologically.

"It's easy for you to make a charge, but why do you think that the men and women in uniform, every day, when they came out of Kuwait and went into Iraq, put on chemical weapon protective suits? Because they liked the style? They honestly believed that there were chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people previously. He'd used them on his neighbor, the Iranians. And they believed he had those weapons. We believed he had those weapons." Rumsfeld at Atlanta 5/42006

Why is he bringing the troops into the discussion? How are their actions or opinions relevant? They do what they're told to do. They believe what they're told to believe. How is their "honesty" probative on the question of whether he himself was or is being truthful?

Is it a character flaw? Is it out and out purposeful dishonesty?

July 6, 2004

Cheney's Cat's Paw
Porter Goss as CIA Director?
By RAY McGOVERN
Former CIA Analyst

There is, thankfully, a remnant of CIA professionals who still put objective analysis above political correctness and career advancement. Just when they thought there were no indignities left for them to suffer, they are shuddering again at press reports that Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL) may soon be their new boss.

That possibility conjures up a painful flashback for those of us who served as CIA analysts when Richard Nixon was president. Chalk it up to our naivete, but we were taken aback when swashbuckling James Schlesinger, who followed Richard Helms as CIA director, announced on arrival, "I am here to see that you guys don't screw Richard Nixon!" To underscore his point, Schlesinger told us he would be reporting directly to White House political adviser Bob Haldeman (Nixon's Karl Rove) and not to National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger.

No doubt Goss would be more discreet in showing his hand, but his appointment as director would be the ultimate in politicization. He has long shown himself to be under the spell of Vice President Dick Cheney, and would likely report primarily to him and to White House political adviser Karl Rove rather than to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Goss would almost certainly follow lame-duck director George Tenet's practice of reading to the president in the morning and become an integral part of the "White House team." The team-membership phenomenon is particularly disquieting.

If the failure-prone experience of the past few years has told us anything, it is that being a "team member" in good standing is the kiss of death for the CIA director's primary role of "telling it like it is" to the president and his senior advisers. It was a painful moment of truth when former Speaker Newt Gingrich--like Cheney, a frequent visitor to CIA headquarters--told the press that Tenet was "so grateful to the president that he would do anything for him."

The Whore of Babylon

One need look no farther than what has become known as a latter-day Whore of Babylon - the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of Oct. 1, 2002, the very title of which betrayed a politically correct, but substantively wrong, conclusion: "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction." And bear in mind that it was only several months after President Bush decided to attack Iraq that Tenet commissioned that estimate. Not unreasonably, Congress was wondering about the views of the intelligence community, and the White House wanted congressional acquiescence in the war it had decided to launch.

No problem. "Slam-dunk" Tenet, following White House instructions, ensured that the estimate was cooked to the recipe of Cheney's tart speech of August 26, 2002. "We know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," Cheney said, and the estimate Tenet signed gave belated endorsement--with "high confidence," no less--to that lie.

The intelligence process, of course, was not the only thing undermined. So was the Constitution. Various drafts of that NIE, reinforced with heavy doses of "mushroom-cloud" rhetoric, were used to deceive congressmen and senators into ceding to the executive their prerogative to declare war--the all-important prerogative that the framers of the Constitution took great care to reserve exclusively to our elected representatives in Congress.

What was actually happening was clear to intelligence analysts, active and retired. We Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity were not the only ones to expose it--as clearly and often as the domesticated US media would allow.

But what about CIA alumnus Porter Goss, then in his sixth year as chairman of the House intelligence oversight committee? Republican party loyalist first and foremost, Goss chose to give an entirely new meaning to "oversight." Even when it became clear that the "mushroom cloud" reporting was based mostly on a forgery, he just sat back and watched it all happen. Like Br'er Fox, he didn't say nothin'.

From Sycophant Tenet to Professional Politician

This is what CIA would get with Porter Goss at the helm. Appointing Goss would administer the coup de grAcntce to intelligence analysts trying to survive while still speaking truth without fear or favor. The only saving grace for them would be the likelihood that they would be spared "multiple visits" by Cheney to the inner sanctum where it used to be possible to produce unvarnished analysis without vice presidents and other policy makers looking over their shoulders to ensure they "had thought of everything." Goss, who has a long history of subservience to Cheney, could be counted upon to play the Cheney/Gingrich/et al. role himself.

Don't Throw Me in That Briar Patch

Last month when Tenet was let go, administration officials indicated that a permanent replacement would not be named until after the election. They indicated they wanted to avoid washing the dirty linen of intelligence once again in public. Evidently, they had not yet checked with Karl Rove.

The Democrats warn smugly that an attempt by the administration to confirm a new CIA director could become an embarrassing referendum on CIA's recent performance, but they miss the point entirely--and show, once again, that they can't hold a candle to Rove for political cleverness. The name of the administration's game is to blame Iraq on intelligence failures, and Goss already did so last week in what amounted to his first campaign speech for the job of director. Consider court historian Bob Woodward's book, Plan of Attack, which Condoleezza Rice and other officials have promoted. Rice has publicly confirmed Woodward's story about Tenet misleading the president by claiming the evidence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk."

While there is ample evidence of ineptitude on Tenet's part, his obsequious ejaculation in this now-famous vignette obscures the fact that President Bush had unleashed the dogs of war well before checking to see if there was any credible intelligence to justify doing so. As the election nears, it serves the administration quite well to keep the focus on intelligence shortcomings and to make it appear that the president was misled - on weapons of mass destruction, for example. And Porter Goss is precisely the right person to cooperate in this effort. I can imagine Rove laughing up his sleeve last week at word that the Democrats are urging Senate minority leader Tom Daschle (.) to prepare for extensive confirmation hearings this fall. (In my mind's eye I can see Rove musing, Bring --em on!)

The Senate Intelligence Committee Report

The report due out this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating intelligence performance regarding the long-sought-after Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is said to be scathing in its criticism of CIA. No problem. This too will help keep the focus where the White House wants it - the more so since committee chair and Republican stalwart Pat Roberts (R-KS) can be counted on to do whatever Cheney and Rove tell him to do. It was not until Roberts was instructed to give Tenet the cold shoulder that the latter began to see the handwriting on the wall.

As for Porter Goss, he was happy to let the Senate intelligence committee take the lead in investigating intelligence performance on key issues like weapons of mass destruction and, before he decided to promote his candidacy for director, he generally chose to keep his committee's head (and his own) down. With good reason. The myriad shortcomings in intelligence work appeared on his somnolent watch; by any reasonable standard, he bears some responsibility for impaired oversight - not only on Iraq, but on 9/11 as well.

The 9/11 Commission Report

Republicans handpicked by Cheney also dominate the 9/11 Commission, which is supposed to issue its report by July 26. Although commission chair, Thomas Kean and vice-chair Lee Hamilton have sought to appear nonpartisan, they have already caved in to White House pressure to alter the findings of commission staff.

At stake was no less an issue than whether the vice president usurped Bush's power as commander-in-chief in ordering the shoot-down of suspicious airliners on Sept. 11, 2001. The staff found no hard evidence to support Cheney's claim that he called Bush and got his authorization. According to Newsweek, 'some staffers flat out didn't believe a call ever took place,' and an early staff draft reflected deep skepticism.

The White House lobbied vigorously to change the offending passage, with spokesman Dan Bartlett insisting, 'We didn't think it was written in a way that clearly reflected the accounting the president and vice president had given to the commission.' Kean and Hamilton backed down and removed some of the offending language. 'The report was watered down,' one staffer admitted to Newsweek.

Watch for more watering down. By now Kean and Hamilton have doubtless been warned by the White House that if the highly controversial staff report that there is 'no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States' is allowed to stand, this would place further strain on the legal underpinnings of the war on Iraq. On March 19, 2003, the day the war began, President Bush sent a letter to Congress in which he said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'

Kean is already backing off. A few days after the release of the staff report he emphasized repeatedly that it is only an 'interim report.' He added that not only is it 'not finished,' but also the commissioners themselves have not been involved in it so far.

Democrat Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste does not see it this way. As Kean was talking to ABC's This Week, Ben-Veniste told NBC's Tim Russert, 'There was no Iraqi involvement in 9/11. That's what our commission found. That's what our staff, which includes former high-ranking CIA officials, who know what to look for (found).'

Ah, but what about the additional information that Cheney says he 'probably' has? Kean was quick to note that the final report will include whatever 'new information' becomes available. In other words, there are already ample signs that the Republican commissioners will continue to succeed in watering down findings critical of the administration, while highlighting those critical of intelligence performance.

Goss on 9/11

With respect to the various investigations into 9/11, Goss was thrust into the limelight by Cheney, who initially opposed any investigation at all. In February 2002, Cheney went so far as to warn that if Congress decided to go ahead with an investigation, administration officials might not show up to testify. When folks started talking about the need for a genuinely independent commission, though, Cheney acquiesced in the establishment of the congressional joint committee as the lesser evil and took reassurance from the fact that Goss could be counted on to keep the lid on--and, when necessary, run rings around co-chair Sen. Bob Graham, (D-FL).

Porter Goss performed that task brilliantly, giving clear priority to providing political protection for the president. Goss acquiesced when the White House and CIA refused to allow the joint committee to report out any information on what President Bush had been told before 9/11--ostensibly because it was "classified." This gave rise to thinly disguised, but eloquently expressed, chagrin on the part of the committee staff director, who clearly had expected stronger backing in her negotiations with White House officials.

As a result, completely absent from the committee's report was any mention of the President's Daily Brief of Aug. 6, 2001, which bore the title "Bin Laden determined to strike in US," even though the press had already reported the title and the gist of that damning piece of evidence. Small wonder that the families of 9/11 victims were outraged and pressed even harder for an independent investigation.

And a First for a Congressional Committee

The most notable (and bizarre) achievement of the joint committee was inviting the FBI to investigate members of Congress. In June 2002, Cheney called Goss and Graham to chastise them for a media leak of sensitive information from intercepted communications. A CNN report had attributed the leak to "two congressional sources," and Cheney was livid.

Goss admitted to being "chagrined" over Cheney's call. He and Graham promptly bypassed normal congressional procedures and went directly to Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking him to investigate the leak. Little thought apparently was given to the separation of powers between the executive and congressional branches, or the fact that Congress has its own capability for such investigations.

Next thing you know, the FBI is crawling all over Capitol Hill, questioning members of the joint committee that is investigating the FBI, CIA, et al., and asking members of Congress to submit to lie-detector tests. Shaking his head, Sen. John McCain (R-NM) noted the ludicrousness of allowing the FBI to build dossiers on lawmakers who are supposed to be investigating the FBI. He and others joined those pushing for the creation of an independent 9/11 commission.

That Goss and Graham could be so easily intimidated by Cheney speaks volumes.

Bottom Line

West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee is right in saying, "We need a director who is not only knowledgeable and capable but unquestionably independent." And politicians need not apply. Rockefeller would rule out "any politician from either party." But who pays attention to minority members these days--ranking or non-ranking?

Rockefeller might add, if only for the record, that another prerequisite for a director of the CIA is prior experience managing a large, complex organization. Tenet had none; neither does Goss.

There seems a better than even chance the Bush administration will nominate Goss, and use the nomination hearings as yet another forum at which to blame the Iraq debacle on faulty intelligence. And, as a bonus for Bush, if there is time before the election, it would seem a safe bet that Goss will be able to bring to heel recalcitrant analysts who are still "fighting the problem," still staring in disbelief at the given wisdom (given, apparently, only to the Pentagon and White House) that Iraq and al-Qaeda were in bed with each other. Nor should anyone rule out the possibility that Goss will see to it that 'weapons of mass destruction' are found--perhaps as an October surprise.

Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years, is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and a contributor to CounterPunch's unsparing new history of the Afghanistan/Iraq wars, Imperial Crusades. McGovern can be reached at: RRMcGovern@aol.com

For Rummy, lying is becoming a way of life. He had the chance to be a stand up guy; admit his past error, and repent. If he had done that the American people would be willing to cut him some slack. But Rummy chose the coward's way. He lied and denied.

So Mr. Johnson, this is your opportunity to take your own advice and "be a stand up guy" and admit your mistakes.

But I wont hold my breath. 

I never saw McGovern say in print (at the time) what Novak did.
Wilson may have told some people he considered legitimate and safe with the knowledge. No one says Wilson told anyone in the press, or anyone without clearance, that I have heard.

And I think Pinoccio ought to fess up too - yet, remarkably, Rummy still is a proven liar.

Neoboho

You are confirming my point: careful parsing of what Don Rumsfield's says and what he does not say, results in a much creepier picture than at first appears. Thanks to your quote, I think we can shed a little more light on his pathological slight of hand.

Don Rumsfield is affirming that it is possible for people to act honestly based on incorrect information. Look at the troops he says; they were duped, and you wouldn't dare call them liars would you? To ordinary viewers at home, it sounds like he's saying, "honest folk make honest mistakes," To which they respond, "who am I to question the honesty of the troops." I think most Americans buy that argument, change the channel, and go back to watching Friends or Seinfeld or something. That's what he wants, and he wants the story to end there.

However, he is doing all this affirming while NOT admitting he himself acted honestly on incorrect information. This is a very important "omission" that Rumsfield is betting most people will not notice. Curiously, if a person such as Don Rumsfield feels that he is just as vindicated as the trooper rucking through the desert, then why is he so demur? Since demur-ness certainly isn't a defining Rumsfield trait, this leads to the implication that perhaps Pentagon information wasn't vigorously vetted, or more damningly, that he really didn't believe it was true, and he non the less sent young men and women to war based on a claim "that everyone could agree upon."

A true warrior does not depend upon fakery to defend his people from harm. Every non-answer that Rumsfield provides leads me to believe that Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction was a paltry threat that was knowingly foisted upon the American people as scripture. And true to his arrogance, he expects America to bear it.

Yes, and who is in the driver's seat? The guys in charge are the ones in discussion.
No WMD under here...
If it weren't do tragic they should have been laughed out of town.

You said: "This is about as clumsy attempt at deflection as I've ever seen."

Ray McGovern was part of the lynchmob that wanted the Senate to remove President Clinton from office for giving misleading statements about a private, consensual relationship. When someone praises McGovern, calls him "da man," and lauds his credibility and expertise and truthfulness, I think it is relevant to see what kind of "man" he is. But I didn't bring it up because it wasn't directly related to the war in Iraq and thus might have been seen as a "deflection."

Ray McGovern thinks we fought the war because a Jewish conspiracy controls our foreign policy and wants us to help Israel "dominate" the Middle East. Howard Dean had the guts to denounce that view as being vile and anti-semetic. Again I think that is relevant when someone is singing the praises of Ray McGovern as "da man." But I passed on it and brought up two much milder points about McGovern, and still was treated here like the only rootbeer drinker in a room full of koolaid drinkers.

You said: "And all of this relates to Rumsfeld's clear lie how exactly?"

It relates to the praise of Ray McGovern in the initial piece that I was responding to. It has been clear for some time that Rumsfeld was wrong about Iraqi weapons programs. I think he really believed it at the time, so it wasn't really a "lie," but if calling an error a lie makes you happy, no big deal.

But it is a bit clearer that either McGovern misrepresented what Wilson told him about the trip to Niger, or Wilson later misrepresented what he did or did not tell people back in May and June of 2003 about his trip. Maybe you just don't want to hear that. On September 17, 2001, in the Christian Science Monitor, Ray McGovern gave HIS view of how the US should respond to terrorism. He said we should respond by being "less biased" toward Israel. Maybe you don't want to hear that either.

Rumsfeld said "I didn't say that" and transcripts and tapes show he did say that.  That is what is called "lying".

Neoboho

All I'm saying is Mr. Johnson's standing in the middle of a big glass house with a pocket full of rocks. In July of 2001 did Mr. Johnson "terrorism expert" lie about the threat we faced? Or, was he mistaken, based on the information he had, he made a judgment call and it was wrong? Since he won't confront that simple question, I don't think he has any business questioning the past judgements of others.

The rest of us are talking about Iraq, of course.

Johnson apparently made one mistake. I have made plenty. Bets you can claim credit for some. We aren't the ones in charge, nor was Johnson working and in the loop in 2001.

Keep trying.

Come on, Wallace.  I know you're smarter enough to know what a logical fallacy is.  Why the "shoot the messenger" routine.  I've lied in my career as a human being - that doesn't diminish my capacity to observe Rummy is lying.  you know, it's not a matter of his being duped by the WMD issue - it's a matter of him saying that "I didn't say that" and transcripts and tapes prove he's lying.  There's no excapt, the asshole is lying.  L-y-i-n-g.  Sheesh, get used to it.  

Neoboho

"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." Ray McGovern 19 Oct. 2005

Yeah Ray, you da Man! (not shooting the messanger, just questioning his judgement). 

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

That evening a friend e-mailed me about a call she got from a close associate in "upper management at CNN" to ask about me. She quoted the CNN manager: "We checked and double-checked everything this guy had to say, and he was 100 percent accurate." He then asked if those protesting the war "were getting organized or something." She responded, "Indeed we are and have been for some time, and it's about time the mainstream media caught up."

My Meeting With Rumsfeld
Ray McGovern

 

Indeed we are Ray. Indeed YOU DA MAN!