Ray McGovern: Why Obama is scared of CIA Director Brennan

[wildbilln864]

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Harry Truman's biggest regret was letting these Vipers ever form . JFK Called them out

[DeSwiss]

2. They must be turned-out.

- Or they will turn us out.

K&R

[longship]

3. Jesus fuck!

Do we have to rehash these loony JFK conspiracies yet again?

The extent that this film -- no, I did not watch it -- posits that JFK was killed by his own government is the extent to which it is utter bollocks.

[gregcrawford]

4. Well, if you didn't watch it, how can you pass judgement on it?

[Fred Sanders]

5. Some folks have not watched a single of many ISIS videos and have passed judgment.

Something in the OP about this McGovern fellow would be helpful before a look-see on YouTube.

[pocoloco]

11. Would "CIA Analyst" refresh minds?

Hasn't been that long ago.

[gregcrawford]

29. Specious reasoning , Fred...

... the facts of ISIS atrocities are not in question. The supposed "facts" of JFK's assassination, quite justifiably, are.

One of the most recent inquiries suggested that the backwards jerking of the president's body was an involuntary muscular reaction, rather than the response of a mass to the impact of a high-velocity projectile. Since the first shot was indisputably through his neck, severing the spinal cord, even the most rudimentary understanding of human physiology forbids ANY muscular reaction whatsoever; no nervous signal could have been transmitted to the musculature. He was hit a second time from the front.

I was an adult, though a young one, when that obscenity occurred, and I have never trusted a word that any government official has ever uttered since that day. I am also a lifelong gun owner with a first-hand knowledge of ballistics, and a fair understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion.

The rabid negative response to alternative theories about certain historical events has always puzzled me. But then, if one were to accept the possibility that factions within the government were capable of treacherous and despicable acts to serve their own malign agendas, then one would be obliged to do something about it, even if it were only to allow others to pursue inquiries to their logical conclusion. Some, with certain ostrich-like propensities, cannot abide even that passive accommodation.

Don't be an ostrich, Fred.

[JDPriestly]

37. Have you read the book, Ike's Spies. It throws some light on the

attitude toward intelligence during the Eisenhower era which immediately preceded the Kennedy presidency and assassination. I recommend it although if you know a lot about Enigma, WWII history and the history of Eisenhower's administration and the period following it, you may find it teaches nothing new. I really liked the book..

[gregcrawford]

39. Thanks, JD, I will check it out

Do you recall the author's name? The ladies at my favorite library will find the book for me.

[ancianita]

64. Stephen E. Ambrose

[maddiemom]

42. You don't know who Ray McGovern is? Where've you been in the last decade?

[bananas]

48. You'd like him, Fred - seriously. Ray is a real peace-monger. nt

[bananas]

49. Ray McGovern Confronts Rumsfeld

[Fred Sanders]

51. Thanks. I agree. A fine and courageous man. Name-recall is a failing of mine, basic OP info. was missing.

[longship]

8. All I know about it is JFK's image adjoining "Killed by the US Government"

That tells me enough. That claim is utter bullshit. And I do not have unlimited download here in the national forest of Michigan to find out that I am wrong about this hour long video.

I would gladly read a brief synopsis of what it says, though. And how I am wrong about it. After all, I admit that my evidence is thin. On the other hand, I will steadfastly stand on the undeniable facts that Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed JFK. That evidence is not thin.

[wildbilln864]

12. oh I see...

you judge books by their covers. Very wise. NOT!

[longship]

13. In this case, yes. But I would be pleased to be proven wrong.

[wildbilln864]

15. who are you kidding?

No you wouldn't.

[JDPriestly]

38. I recommend the book Ike's Spies to you as well as the book,

Endless Enemies by Kwitny. Neither is primarily focused on the Kennedy assassination although dealing with it. You can skip references to Kennedy if you find them offensive. But those books describe how our intelligence agencies worked in the world beginning in WWII when we basically found ourselves with very inadequate intelligence.

You might enjoy those books. The Ike's Spies book is especially fascinating to read.

[zeemike]

6. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

And another wise observation;
He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past.

[longship]

7. Well, like 9/11, JFK conspiracies have worn out their lives.

Or maybe one really ought to listen to Alex Jones, who hasn't yet heard a conspiracy he doesn't love.

[chapdrum]

9. Well at least

they tried to present alternative interpretations.
I think the average person (not an American, because he/she really could not care less) reading one of
David Ray Griffin's books on 9/11 would as a result at least have some questions about the official story.

[longship]

16. Let's get this straight.

There are no questions about who perpetrated 9/11. None whatsoever.

Four transcontinental airliners, filled with fuel, were highjacked by Muslim extremists, who took over the airplanes' cockpits by force. They killed the pilots and any other staff who got in their way. They then flew the airplanes into buildings. In spite of the multiple videos of the actual events, there are actually still some idiots claiming that the airliners were holograms. And the rest of the conspiracy kooks are doing mere mystery mongering. All of it is bollocks.

Just like the JFK conspiracy theorists.

[wildbilln864]

18. your post is riddled with false assertions!

Yet you expect to be taken seriously. That's a fucking hoot there!

[longship]

19. From the DU TOS.

Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.
Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

You might reconsider before rolling those dice again.

My best to you.

[wildbilln864]

31. you reconsider!

Let's start with your first assumption. "There are no questions about who perpetrated 9/11. None whatsoever.

Four transcontinental airliners, filled with fuel,"

They were not filled but they were about 25% full of fuel. They were also only loaded with a fraction of their passenger capacity.
Where else is your establishment approved version of the official conspiracy theory in err?

[Caretha]

60. Your fucking threats do nothing but make you look weak

[whathehell]

22. Forget it, dear, The Kennedy assassination occurred a half century earlier

and had zilch to do with 9/11.

I know you're too young to remember the the murder of JFK, I only wonder if you're old enough to recall the Twin Towers, let alone lecture anyone about it.

[longship]

25. I was a 15 year old paperboy in Detroit when JFK was assassinated.

My Junior High School called all the paperboys to the office and released us early so that we could get to the paper station for the "Extra" edition. I remember that horrible headline to this day. (The editor who approved it should have been fired.)

Many of my customers were on the street waiting for the newspaper. There were more than one who were in tears.

So don't give any of your bullshit presumptions.
They are, just like both the JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theories, UTTER BOLLOCKS.

Need I remind you of the DU TOS:

Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.
Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

(Emphasis mine.)

[whathehell]

26. Then you should know better..

but I can't help but wonder if you are who you say you

are, why you keep repeating the very British term of "bollocks".

[longship]

27. Because I like to keep people guessing about my true secret identity.

(Just kidding, but more likely ridiculing.)

I know better because I lived through it and I watched you young whipper-snappers dive deep into conspiracy hell on JFK, UFOs, Big Foot, blah blah blah, and ultimately 9/11. Hell, Alex Jones claims that the Sandy Hook shooting was an inside job. And how about those chem trails overhead?

None of the conspiracy arguments will convince me because it is all bollocks.

I use that term because it is precisely descriptive of the conspiratorial arguments.

[wildbilln864]

32. closed minded opinions are what's "bollocks"

n/t

[longship]

47. I have an open mind.

But not so open that my brains fall out.

So I tend not to follow conspiratorial thinking.

[whathehell]

43. Yeah, sure..

and this "young whipper-snapper" is 65 years old, so you're preaching

to the wrong choir.

For future reference, you might want to consider that believing

in ONE conspiracy doesn't mean you believe in all of them -- Just saying.

[zeemike]

14. The truth lives forever, only a lie can die.

But Alex Jones serves to keep a lie from being killed off by the truth by discrediting it.

[whathehell]

24. Sez you..

Did someone die and make you boss or something?

[whathehell]

20. If you don't like it, ignore it. End of story.

[longship]

21. Well, JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald.

I thought that was the end of the story. However, some kooks seem to have a different, more kooky story, just like the 9/11 conspiracy nuts.

BTW, this kind of crap is against DU TOS:

Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.
Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

[whathehell]

23. No shit, Sherlock, but virtually NO one who was actually living at

the time, or who has studied it believes it was anything so open and shut, and threads discussing the subject appear and have appeared on DU with some regularity and are certainly NOT TOS violations.

[wildbilln864]

33. a lot of kooks do indeed...

believe JFK was killed by a lone gunman. I'm not foolish enough to buy that shitload though. But you be my guest.

[whathehell]

44. LOL.

Touche.

[man4allcats]

34. In the video linked to by the OP (the one you admit you haven't watched),

Ray McGovern cites a JFK assassination text he considers definitive. That text by James W. Douglass is entitled JFK And The Unspeakable - Why He Died And Why It Matters. You should read it. I have. At least then, people won't be saying this about you:

http://youareanidiot.org/

[Peace Patriot]

35. Thank you, man4allcats! James Douglass makes an open and shut case against...

...the CIA for assassinating Kennedy. Douglass is a very meticulous and also very cautious writer. He makes it up the chain to CIA operations chief Richard Helms, but goes no further--for instance, to the CIA Director whom JFK fired, Allen Dulles. My guess is that Dulles was ultimately behind it, but Douglass doesn't go beyond the evidence. Douglass' evidence is utterly damning. There is no question left in my mind that the CIA did it.

Douglass furthermore fully explains WHY they did it and "why it matters." JFK was going around the CIA with secret, backchannel contacts with Krushchev and Castro to prevent a nuclear holocaust. The joint chiefs and the CIA of that era WANTED a nuclear holocaust. They believed that they could "win" such a war and they tried to force JFK's hand during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He resisted them. He then initiated the first treaty to control nuclear weapons (the Test Ban Treaty), sent wheat to Russia when their harvest had failed and engaged in other efforts to start creating a more peaceful world--policies that the Joint Chiefs and CIA considered traitorous. Furthermore, JFK was intending to present this world peace platform to the voters in 1964, and he would have won that election hands down, as LBJ did, in 1964, who also touted a peace platform, except that LBJ was lying. JFK would not have been.

Douglass doesn't think LBJ was a party to the assassination but he was a party to the coverup, and his reason was this: The CIA had designed the assassination so that Russia would be blamed, thus forcing Kennedy's successor, LBJ, to nuke Russia in retaliation. LBJ did not want to be cornered in that way. And this is why LBJ said, three days after the assassination, "Now they can have their war." He was speaking of the CIA and Vietnam. (He would not nuke Russia on the false charge of having killed Kennedy, but he would allow the CIA to have its war.)

ALL the puzzles of the assassination--why Oswald was sent to Russia; what Oswald was doing with his "Fair Play for Cuba" demonstrations; the Mexico connection; what Oswald thought he was doing in Dallas (protecting the president!); who Oswald's handlers were; why Oswald cried "I'm a patsy," when he was killed, and so on)--all are solved by Douglass. As I said, the case is utterly convincing. And what we have to realize, and deal with, is what has been happening SINCE THAT TIME--the foggy nightmare of "denial" that our country has suffered, the falsity of our political life, and the endless war that we have been forced into, against our will and against our better natures. This is how the "military-industrial complex" has come to rule over us.

[man4allcats]

46. Thank you for your reply, for a great summary of Douglass' text and

for your keen insights in your closing paragraph.

[JDPriestly]

36. That's only one of the interesting issues discussed. Sorry you missed an

interesting video. We don't have to agree with everything we read or hear. We don't even have to agree with everything we say. (Most people, especially most politicians don't.) But we should be open and curious enough to listen to opinions and ideas we don't agree with.

Interesting video. Sorry you did not open your mind to watch and hear it if only to enjoy the personality of McGovern who is a very interesting person who has lead an interesting life whether you agree with him or not.

We limit ourselves every time we close our minds to ideas and opinions different than our own. Life is too short to place limitations on our intellectual experiences. Ray McGovern is an interesting person who has clearly confronted the limitations of his profession and gone beyond them. He has kind of a deep but pained spiritual quality that is very interesting. Maybe it is because he knows more than he can express.

[KoKo]

56. ...!

[George II]

17. Is this McGovern clown friends with Richard Klein, author of the equally fictional "Blood Feud"?

[dinger130]

28. My sister

was working at The Dallas Morning News. She watched the parade and went back into the building. Within moments, the building was crawling with FBI or some other government entity IMMEDIATELY after the shooting.

Has anyone ever read "Dr. Mary's Monkey"?

[leveymg]

30. knr

[Peace Patriot]

40. This is an excellent--and wide-ranging--interview!

It's not just about the JFK assassination--not at all. It's also about the Martin Luther King assassination, and many other things, including Brennan's recent "reorganization" of the CIA which will put operations in charge of analysis (just what Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney wanted!), details about Allen Dulles (fired by JFK then put in charge of the investigation of JFK's murder!), about Harry Truman (who initially organized the CIA) and his published assertion, just after JFK's assassination, that CIA operations should be shut down, a discussion of the Anthrax scare and the FBI's wrongful targeting of a top scientist (who apparently committed suicide), a discussion of recent events in the Ukraine and the U.S. coup d'etat in Kiev (which initiated the crisis) and much more. (It even mentions the current tanoak poisoning in Mendocino forests by the Fisher family's logging company (the Fishers of Gap stores). It's early in the interview and I can't remember, just now, why it was mentioned.) It's also about General Betray-Us and other people who are "above the law" (unfortunately Hillary Clinton among them). It's about blatant violations of the 4th and 5th amendments by our government and its secret agencies. The general context is why a president would fear a CIA Director (why Obama would fear Brennan).

Ray McGovern mentions James Douglass' book ("JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters") and McGovern came to the same conclusion that I did, after reading Douglass' brilliant book: that the CIA did it--Douglass has proven it. It is an outstanding book and should be read by every American.

It's a rare pleasure to hear a media interview during which you feel that both the interviewer and the interviewee are trying to say what they really believe, and why, and are speaking about the most heart-rending and important issues that we face as a country. How refreshing! You may not agree with everything either of them says, but there is no question that this is serious thought from serious, well-informed people. Those who would dismiss it as "conspiracy nuttiness" are taking the easy way out. They don't want to think, themselves, or they have some other motive for wanting YOU not to think about what McGovern has to say.

Just as an aside--among many issues, stories and details--McGovern mentions his work as a CIA analyst during the Vietnam War. What he says is that he and other analysts were permitted to tell the truth in their reports for the Executive branch. indeed, it was their job to tell the truth. No president can function effectively for long without truthful assessments, based on facts (or at least that was Truman's idea when forming the CIA--to provide accurate information to the president!). LBJ ignored those truthful analyses at his peril. He was forced to give up a second term. Those particular truths eventually got published, in "the Pentagon Papers," and became public. But what I'm talking about is the internal truth, within our government. We take it as routine when government lies to us--they have done it so often! But when government lies to ITSELF, we are in far more serious trouble, and we only have to look at Iraq, today, to know how true that is. There are a lot of other examples--on economic, environmental, educational and other issues, and, of course, on foreign policy--but Iraq is the most dramatic. The disaster in Iraq is the direct result of our government lying to itself--promoting lies, devising lies, pushing lies onto us and others, but also, at all levels, and across the branches and agencies of government, lying to each other every day. The falsity of our government, within the halls of government, is itself a disaster.

I felt nostalgia for a time when truth WITHIN government was EXPECTED. That it would leak out to the rest of us, from time to time, was a plus. But, at the least, you felt, back then, that SOME government people were honest and that the truth would win out, in the end. I don't think that is the case now. I think that those within government--at all levels, in all agencies--are, at best, covering their asses and fearing for their jobs and/or looking forward to their pensions, and, at worst, are lying to themselves and to each other every day, on all crucial issues, including fundamental issues like who they really work for. Good people have been battered so savagely that either they've left government or they can't stand what they are obliged to do and can't wait to get out of it. There are no honest CIA analysts telling Obama that drones won't "win hearts and minds"--or, if there are, that is what Brennan's reorganization is intended to eliminate. Lying is the order of the day. And the weapons manufacturers, and oil corporations, and lobbyists and P.R. firms rule over the lies.

[canoeist52]

41. Excellent synopsis - and now that book is on my library hold list.

Threads like this are the reason I keep coming back here.

[CanSocDem]

45. K & R (eom)

[n2doc]

50. It is simpler than that

The Clinton's made over 130 million in speaking fees since Bubba left office. The President just wants his share of that sweet cash.

[WillyT]

52. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[GusFring]

53. Obama seems to trust Brennan, for whatever reason. If he feared him, why pass him

Over for Panetta in his 1st term?

[IkeRepublican]

54. McGovern is a disinformation spewer

Been at it for quite a while now.

[wildbilln864]

55. evidence?

[wildbilln864]

58. and a kick! n/t

[MinM]

59. Mondale on Blackmailing the President

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=32946

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x506138

[wildbilln864]

61. enlightening. thank you. n/t

[MinM]

62. BTW Mondale was on Final Jeopardy the other night ..

The clue was something like ..

Of the 5 living Vice Presidents which one served earliest.

I was pretty sure it was Mondale but I wasn't completely sure if he was still alive. He is.

[wildbilln864]

63. very cool! n/t