Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HOZ
Geezus murphy. You guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
If he(Rumsfeld) didn't want to answer the question he could have let the security take the guy away. But instead told them to let him stay. Wow....really got to him there!
And questions coming from an ex-CIA guy that believes in various Jewish-world domination conspiracies. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061601570.html
Friday, June 17, 2005; Page A06
In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.
....
"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."
Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his "candid answer."
At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks. |
Nice bunch of attempted arm waiving from the local neo-con ######. How about putting the quotes into context shall we?
You left out a very important part, framing the McGovern quote.
"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."
There was the motivations of the war, plain and simple. No WMDs. No link to Al Qaeda. No freeing the oppressed or bringing democracy. It was all about protecting the interests of the neo-cons (who happen to be very pro-Israel, and they are not afraid to promote that themselves). It certainly was not for the good of the American people, who have seen their country divided, their deficit swell to almost unmanagable levels, see fuel prices rise to prices that make it difficult for some to travel to work, etc.
Also, you missed a very important part of the article... TWICE! Early on the writer stated
"The session was a mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war." he later finished up with the following summation.
"The glitches and the antiwar theatrics proved something of a distraction from the message the organizers aimed to deliver: that for the Bush White House, as lawyer John C. Bonifaz put it, the British memo is "the equivalent to the revelation that there was a taping system in the Nixon White House.""
But hey, the arm waiving was really effective, as usual.