Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ray McGovern (former-CIA) Interview


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So the "deep state" = "the entrenched military and intelligence bureaucracies" + war-profiteering corporations that control the media = the MIC = the national security state = the shadow government. Is that about right? The shadow government being not as mysterious or other-worldly as it sounds. We know who they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was impressed by the contra-MSM take on Putin.

It's useful, too, that McGovern reminds us of the post-WW II realpolitik of George Kennan. Kennan's proposition of US dominance was the Manifest Destiny statement of the twentieth century, essentially bankrolled and propagated by the same aspects of our not-very-deep state that set Foster Dulles at its helm.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think it is. Think about when Eisenhower was told that Castro had to go. And the way they would do it is arming and otherwise equipping a rag-tag group of Cubans who would land at the Bay of Pigs. Eisenhower was a military man. He should’ve known better—“That’s not going to work”—and young John Kennedy comes in and he says, “Well, I don’t want to be soft on Communism, so if you think this will work, O.K. But for God’s sake, don’t you expect that I’m going to commit U.S military forces to this enterprise. You got that? Repeat. Can you repeat that, Allen Dulles? OK, you got it. All right, good.”



Now, they knew damn well that they wouldn’t be able to unseat Castro. And when Allen Dulles died, there were coffee-stained notes on his desk, which said. “Once we get on the beach, there is no way the president of the United States can refuse to support us with his military.”



This is the biggest load of crap I've ever read in my life, seriously! Let's wait till the guy is dead, then we can manipulate all the crap we want, in-fact, we'll even come up with a story of coffe stained notes on his desk, which desk would this be, his DCI at the CIA desk when he mustered out with his pension in 1963 and died in 1969? So, he still left his notes on a desk that he was suppose to clear out six years ago? Do I have stupid tattooed across my forehead? Ugh!


Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think it is. Think about when Eisenhower was told that Castro had to go. And the way they would do it is arming and otherwise equipping a rag-tag group of Cubans who would land at the Bay of Pigs. Eisenhower was a military man. He should’ve known better—“That’s not going to work”—and young John Kennedy comes in and he says, “Well, I don’t want to be soft on Communism, so if you think this will work, O.K. But for God’s sake, don’t you expect that I’m going to commit U.S military forces to this enterprise. You got that? Repeat. Can you repeat that, Allen Dulles? OK, you got it. All right, good.”

Now, they knew damn well that they wouldn’t be able to unseat Castro. And when Allen Dulles died, there were coffee-stained notes on his desk, which said. “Once we get on the beach, there is no way the president of the United States can refuse to support us with his military.”

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever read in my life, seriously! Let's wait till the guy is dead, then we can manipulate all the crap we want, in-fact, we'll even come up with a story of coffe stained notes on his desk, which desk would this be, his DCI at the CIA desk when he mustered out with his pension in 1963 and died in 1969? So, he still left his notes on a desk that he was suppose to clear out six years ago? Do I have stupid tattooed across my forehead? Ugh!

I'm thinking the coffee-stained notes story has its origins in either the Talbot or the Douglass book. If so - shows the importance of citing sources for one's written assertions. Because people bitch, and writers lose credibility.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think it is. Think about when Eisenhower was told that Castro had to go. And the way they would do it is arming and otherwise equipping a rag-tag group of Cubans who would land at the Bay of Pigs. Eisenhower was a military man. He should’ve known better—“That’s not going to work”—and young John Kennedy comes in and he says, “Well, I don’t want to be soft on Communism, so if you think this will work, O.K. But for God’s sake, don’t you expect that I’m going to commit U.S military forces to this enterprise. You got that? Repeat. Can you repeat that, Allen Dulles? OK, you got it. All right, good.”

Now, they knew damn well that they wouldn’t be able to unseat Castro. And when Allen Dulles died, there were coffee-stained notes on his desk, which said. “Once we get on the beach, there is no way the president of the United States can refuse to support us with his military.”

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever read in my life, seriously! Let's wait till the guy is dead, then we can manipulate all the crap we want, in-fact, we'll even come up with a story of coffe stained notes on his desk, which desk would this be, his DCI at the CIA desk when he mustered out with his pension in 1963 and died in 1969? So, he still left his notes on a desk that he was suppose to clear out six years ago? Do I have stupid tattooed across my forehead? Ugh!

I'm thinking the coffee-stained notes story has its origins in either the Talbot or the Douglass book. If so - shows the importance of citing sources for one's written assertions. Because people bitch, and writers lose credibility.

David, if there were any notes, let those who say they exist expose them,, like (I) expose my father's [notes] that I discovered. If these notes have been discovered, let them be published by those who say they exist, don't tell me they exist because Dulles wrote them, but no one knows where there are, that's like JVB telling me one of her stories, when I say something I have always found away to provide evidence, always. Perhaps, it's now, that folks are beginning to realizing that Scott is telling the truth.

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, for some of you who don't know, there is a difference between fact and fiction, what is visual, what you can see, and what you can't, between evidence and hearsay, between testimony and lies, between reporting the truth, and creative writing, between looking someone in their eyes for answers, and knowing when they are looking away from you.

Please learn to differentiate from all these, for the most part, everyone here, is pretty smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries folks, I'm really not being an ahole some think, truthfully, there will be a ton of information to pick apart in my update, some of it will, and I do say will be mind blowing only because the evidence is backed by facts.

I will give you an example of a "mind blowing" experience, late one evening while I was still researching my father and a person found in my father's address book, someone I [did not] report on, a person found in my father's address book, was just a name.

But, that name started to eat at me, and eat away, that I finally gave in, what I discovered shocked me, it was the only time during the years spent writing these books that I cried. I will tell you that it now brings together the whole VVAW and Flamingo Park conspiracy to assassinate President Nixon, this person who was with my father believed he was there to kill Vice President Agnew.

This was the only time I cried writing this book. What I have put together, I have done so, with passion, what I have said, comes from the heart, what I provide is the truth.

Hopefully, I will find a publisher who will be interested in reading what I have.

And,

For those of you thinking it's Frank Sturgis, you're way off, not even close. I'll tell you right now, no, it wasn't Frank who took that stole through the park with my father, but it was someone my father does have in his address book.

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand anything you write.

Paul,

Well said. And it's NOT because you are incapable of understanding - it's the ambiguous delivery. You are one of the better "thinkers" on this site.

Tom

PS

Scott,

Until you actually put out this alleged information, you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. Until your information is extant and passes the test of acceptance, it is still "alleged". One man's 'case closed' is frequently another man's 'case OPEN.' And no, this is NOT a Posner reference, note the lower case letters...

Tom

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until you two professionals can focus less on what I [just] write, and more of what I say maybe, just maybe, you two pros will learn something. You're hearing me, but you're not listening. Do you understand that concept, allow me to say that again, but this time a bit s l o w e r for you to understand. You're hearing me, but.... you're not listening...

Questions?

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...