Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ray McGovern (former-CIA) Interview


Recommended Posts

I used to have a member on my forum who was a very nice person. Most of the time.

Quite bright. Most of the time.

Very patient. Most of the time.

A fairly good enough communicator. Most of the time.

But sometimes...not so much. Almost like he was a different person.

As it turned out, he finally admitted that sometimes he'd post after he'd been drinking. It made him impatient, cloudy in his thinking, adamant that he was right, slightly paranoid, all the while isolating himself away from like-minded people who could have been his allies.

But that was just him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I used to have a member on my forum who was a very nice person. Most of the time.

Quite bright. Most of the time.

Very patient. Most of the time.

A fairly good enough communicator. Most of the time.

But sometimes...not so much. Almost like he was a different person.

As it turned out, he finally admitted that sometimes he'd post after he'd been drinking. It made him impatient, cloudy in his thinking, adamant that he was right, slightly paranoid, all the while isolating himself away from like-minded people who could have been his allies.

But that was just him.

I do appreciate the moral of your story, here, thank God, I was not him. I don't drink.

As I've pointed out, true friendship starts in your heart, not in your head thinking what can I get out of this. Like I've said in the past, when I'm talking JFK to St. John Hunt and Roger Stone were not always best of friends, it takes a few martini's just so I can listen.

When we're not talking JFK or Watergate, we have a great time, and I don't need so many martini's.

People don't like me when we get into Kennedy's assassination or Watergate it's almost like politics and religion. I have never had an allied in neither, nor will I.

I don't point out truth just so no one follows up on what I say, I say the truth so everyone has the same opportunity to follow up on what I say, both conspiracy theorist and those who believe in the Warren Commission.

For more than eight long years, I have worked alone, telling the truth, why would I want someone I care about interfere with something I'm saying, he or she could make matters worst, take my first book for example, to many cooks spoil the broth, I should have taken a very hard look at it before it went out, therefore, it's no ones fault but mine, and I didn't. So much was taken out that the publisher believed it had no relevance to the story, what story? Whose story, I thought it was my father's story, not a JFK or Watergate book.

If I can first reveal all of my father's involvements, then the story comes together, but if the story has missing pieces how can I tell the story?

In closing this is not an attack on you or anyone else, my best allies is anyone "outside" of JFK and Watergate who are my personal friends, and anyone who wants to get to know me as a person and not judge.

If some folks think their way of discrediting me is through their intellect because I exert emotion, I feel sorry for you, if some folks believe I'm a xxxx because you have elected not to follow up on anything I've said, I feel sorry for you, if you believe the information I've tried to express to you is ego-driven, I feel sorry for you, but unlike you I will not judge, I will not provide false information against you, and I will always confront what I know to be BS because my only agenda is to tell the truth, but, I will pray for you and hopes that one day you will see, everything I have shared is the truth.

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Just copying the crib notes for all to read (from part 1 of the article):

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.”

Interesting. We’re well on from that now. It seems to me that in this question of the “deep state” we described informal interactions during a time that is no longer. This now seems to be very dangerously consolidated. A president in another context, who might be quote “reformist” can’t get anything done.

Well, John Kennedy had problems of the same kind, and he fired Dulles. And that was a no-no. You don’t fire people like Dulles. Kennedy embarked on a new course. He talked with Khrushchev, he had people, interlocutors, who talked with Castro, and, worst of all, he issued two executive orders, saying that 1,000 U.S troops would be pulled out of Vietnam by the end of 1963 and the bulk of the rest by 1965. He was going to give up Southeast Asia to the Commies, and God knows what would happen next with the dominoes falling and Indonesia, and my God… So he was killed by the “deep state.”

And there you have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Where in the chain of command was Adlai Stevenson?  He was the US Ambassador to the UN at the time.

What power did Stevenson have to direct McGeorge Bundy to call Gen. Cabbell and cancel the pre-dawn, B-26 airstrikes?

 

Where is the Commander-in-Chief in this (short) succession of events?

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...