Memo to the media: Have you hosted on air the person who told Rumsfeld at military analyst meeting, "You are the leader. You are our guy"?
SUMMARY: In an audio recording of an April 18, 2006, Pentagon meeting attended by several media military analysts, one of the attendees tells then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that he would "personally love" for Rumsfeld "to take the offensive, to just go out there and just crush these people so that when we go on, we're -- forgive me -- we're parroting, but it's what has to be said. It's what we believe in, or we would not be saying it." He adds: "And we'd love to be following our leader, as indeed you are. You are the leader. You are our guy." Will media outlets try to determine if they have hosted the speaker?
Following the publication of the April 20 New York Times front-page article on the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon, the Department of Defense has released to the public numerous documents regarding the analyst program. One of the documents released is an audio recording of an April 18, 2006, meeting that several military analysts attended with then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. During the meeting, one of the attendees tells Rumsfeld, "[W]e get beat up on television sometimes when we go on and we are debating" and says that he would "personally love" for Rumsfeld "to take the offensive, to just go out there and just crush these people so that when we go on, we're -- forgive me -- we're parroting, but it's what has to be said. It's what we believe in, or we would not be saying it." The individual adds: "And we'd love to be following our leader, as indeed you are. You are the leader. You are our guy." The transcript released by the Pentagon does not identify the person who made this comment; the Pentagon has provided this list of "confirmed" "[p]articipants." Media Matters for America has documented the consistent unwillingness of most of the outlets mentioned in the Times article to discuss the military analyst story. Will media outlets try to determine if they have hosted the person who asserted that Rumsfeld was "our guy" and suggested that he would "parrot[]" Rumsfeld's statements?
The Times article quoted portions of the individual's statement.
According to the list released to the Times by the Pentagon, "confirmed" "[p]articipants" for the April 18, 2006, meeting with Rumsfeld and Pace included:
Jed Babbin
Lt. Gen. Frank B. Campbell
Dr. James Jay Carafano
Col. (Tim) J. Eads
Gen. Ronald Fogelman
Col. John Garrett
Gen. William F. "Buck" Kernan
Lt. Col. Robert L. Maginnis
Col. Jeff McCausland
Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney
Capt. Chuck Nash
Gen. William L. Nash
Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales Jr.
Maj. Gen. Donald W. Shepperd
Wayne Simmons
Capt. Martin L. Strong
Gen. Tom Wilkerson
The Times article reported that ABC military analyst William Nash was "repulsed" by the meeting and quoted him saying: "I walked away from that session having total disrespect for my fellow commentators, with perhaps one or two exceptions."
From the April 18, 2006, meeting:
UNIDENTIFIED 1: I'm an old intel guy, and I can sum all of this up, unfortunately, with one word. And that is "psyops." Now, most people, when they hear that, they think, "Oh my God --
RUMSFELD: Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED 1: -- "they're trying to brainwash [inaudible]."
RUMSFELD: "What are you, some kind of nut? You don't believe in the Constitution?"
UNIDENTIFIED 2: Well, he is.
[laughter]
UNIDENTIFIED 1: Some have characterized [inaudible]. But I would also disagree with you, sir, respectfully. You are absolutely brilliant in front of the camera. And anybody --
RUMSFELD: It's by acting. Because I don't spend any time --
UNIDENTIFIED 1: It doesn't matter. The point is that you are. And I think most of us would agree with that. And --
RUMSFELD: But I -- but -- but --
UNIDENTIFIED 1: -- to take the offensive is -- because many of us go on every day. We don't agree with everything the administration does, maybe with some of your decisions and -- but we get beat up on television sometimes when we go on and we are debating, and then we take the -- and we're all thick-skinned, or we wouldn't continue to do this.
RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm.
UNIDENTIFIED 1: But we would love -- I would personally love -- and I think I speak for most of the gentlemen here at the table -- for you to take the offensive, to just go out there and just crush these people so that when we go on, we're -- forgive me -- we're parroting, but it's what has to be said. It's what we believe in, or we would not be saying it.
[crosstalk]
UNIDENTIFIED 1: And we'd love to be following our leader, as indeed you are. You are the leader. You are our guy.
UNIDENTIFIED 1: Some have characterized [inaudible]. But I would also disagree with you, sir, respectfully. You are absolutely brilliant in front of the camera. And anybody --
RUMSFELD: It's by acting. Because I don't spend any time --
Was this lifted from a Saturday Night Live skit? ;>)
Has the media hit bottom yet? Echo...echooooo...
Not yet Open...
Fascist media never hits rock bottom. They just find new ways to spread lies. They're very creative.
The announcement of what has become a 'national disgrace' whereby embedded military analysts who just happen to be retired 'flag rank and subordinate officers... ARE parroted out like a ventriloquist's dummy to spout the war cries of their miltary-industrial complex (MIC) employers ought to make any American pause for a moment of reflection and realize just how far we have descended into madness.
The Pentagon, the Media, and Ike's nemesis, the Military-Industrial Complex who no longer just encompass the previously mentioned institutions BUT now we can add the alphabet-soup acronyms of numerous 'Think-Tanks' who think US preeminence and war making propensity are somehow sacred rights to unleash upon a world who in addition to being on the receiving end of US belligerence has NOW come to loathe US with the opinion THAT WE represent the greatest threat to peace in the world.
THEY learned their lesson well. Then last time the PRESS had a free reign to air the less than chivalrous aspects of the carnage unleashed by the 'Dogs of War' was during the Vietnam experience. It culminated when Walter Cronkite of CBS News, back when their was a CBS News told the American people on national television that the WAR our leaders were lying continuously about was lost. It just happened to be WHEN Cronkite was recently judged by the American people to be the most TRUSTWORTHY personage in America, Hmmm, Go figure.
War has become sport for America, like the Superbowl with announced strategies, tactics 'shock and awe' phraseolgy as well as commentaries about what the newest, most lethal and finest technology can do with utmost efficiency.
Now the Pentagon in addition to the MIC controls the flow of information on matters that deal with war. The former military Brass who are on the payrolls of either the defense contractors who are growing rich while the Nation sputters along in a moment of cathartic psychosis, both spiritually and morally 'CASH in big' for their combat and battlefront explanations all the while AMERICAN young are fed into a meat grinder for as John McCain reminds US... "A 100 years is OK with me."
You would think that AMERICANS when played like chumps by these snake-oil charlatans parading as military experts would come to know from WHO and where these cretins butter their bread.
Not so in the age of Fox News, CBS, ABC and MSNBC.
WE have only ourselves to blame. A nation of sheep is what we have become!!
Well done Navy...
Food for thought. ... A harvest indeed.
Excellent post! Where are the people like you to say what needs to be said? Where are the honorable men and women? We have, indeed, descended into a HELL of spineless liars who wear ribbons on their chests. How did they get these ribbons? How many men and women died because of their incompetence and servility to the President? How do they sleep at night? How can they look their own children in the face at night, tucking them into their beds? Why did they suck up to the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, two (men?) who know NOTHING about war or the military? GOD help us! Our country is being flushed down the toilet by such evil men.
This is off-topic I know, and all these MMfA articles have merit, but hasn't Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Levin, etc. misinformed people lately in some really off the wall way? It's their website of course, but I wonder if MMFA isn't getting too elitist to listen to these shows. Why Is This Not Here?
For example a couple of days ago (unless I dreamt it or hallucinated) I tuned into the middle of Limbaugh relating how H. Clinton once stopped the elevator in an airport and propositioned him. Couldn't that be made into an MMFA article, assuming it was untrue? There must be any number of such misinformation incidents to write about between all these shows.
Just occurred to me, if there were a site that just transcribed all these shows, maybe using some kind of voice recognition software, we could all be MMFA's for ourselves. The nonsense really jumps out at you when written down. Limbaugh has show tapes but smartly nothing written down at his site as far as I could tell.
In my observation, Limbaugh has in recent times descended even deeper into insanity. The other day Limbaugh alleged that Bill Clinton, using the mayor of Los Angeles to distract Limbaugh, recently tried to pick up Limbaugh's date at a function. Has that appeared on MMFA? If not, it should.
Irony, it's either insanity, or Rush is back on the dope, big time. I was taking a drive this evening, and tuned in GOP spokesnut Hugh Hewitt, who was introducing a "brilliant" monologue by The Oxymoron, building it up as one of the funniest things he'd heard on the radio.
Apparently, the wingnut obsession du jour was Bill Clinton standing behind Hillary last night, and not smiling.Rush got an email asking him to look at it from BC's perspective, which launched the drug-addled GOPedophile into one of the most bizarre lousy Clinton impressions ever heard.
It was a creepy mix of projection and strawmen, with Rush's version of Clinton (for some reason, addressing Limbaugh through the whole thing), whining about having a wife who wanted to be president, and how horrible that was for BC.If anybody can find audio of it, it is disturbing.
It makes me almost hope for a close election,as opposed to the blowout the Repoops deserve, as I'm seeing this dementia seeping into righty pundits as well as some of the more zombified posters here.I'm actually getting concerned for the ultra-conservative fringe segment of my fellow Americans.
Rush (Sybil) Limbaugh is a one man soap opera lately---the various demons in his head all fighting it out on the air---antiMcCain vs. antiClinton vs. antiWright vs. pro Hillary vs. pro GOP vs. anti poisoned-chalice vs. anti Dem, etc.---I get dizzy trying to figure out what he really means. The show does often sound like the ramblings of a lunatic, but I guess his fans are able to keep it all straight in their heads.
While I'm at it, I never see any James Dobson stuff here. I've tried to find his radio show and failed. I don't remember seeing much, if any, of the religious guys' broadcasts being highlighted here, but from what I've read they have a huge impact on the GOP electorate. There must be some good con-misinfo there---but maybe this would be considered bad form due to both being non-taxable organizations or something like that.
Eddy, I don't think I've ever heard Dobson on the radio, but I used to listen to a guy named Paul McGuire here in Southern California. He had an Evangelical call-in show(probably still on), and he talked politics quite a bit, but he made the Limbaugh audience look like a bunch of independent- thinking patriots.
I don't know if it was because he was small-time in audience size, or because of the religious angle, but I heard him toss out the most outrageous piles of lies you've ever heard, and never was questioned by his callers, or mentioned in the media as a propagandist.
The last Dobson item I remember on MMFA was during the Harriet Myers Supreme Court nomination farce. As I remember, it was alleged that he agreed to support her in return for assurance that she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.... or he told someone that she would vote to overturn it.... I forget the details. Maybe someone can refresh my memory.
LOL... What... Bill tried to entice the child by promising a trip to the zoo? ;>)
But considering Limbaugh's unfortunate luck with adult women one might correctly assume that he has resorted to another demographic for companionship. BTW, he sounded jealous when he insisted that Bill Clinton hit on his date. Perhaps he thought he was more deserving of Bill's attention. ;>)
The other day Limbaugh alleged that Bill Clinton, using the mayor of Los Angeles to distract Limbaugh, recently tried to pick up Limbaugh's date at a function.
Was Limbaugh's "date" a young boy he met while in the Dominican Republic with all those Viagra pills????
I was inspired to go find a link to my favorite picture of Rush Lmbaugh. Here it is:
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/1945/pig.jpg
BBaahh! Sorry all montanians have a weak spot for sheep.
You don't show up here often enough Navy Guy.
There are some indications more and more of the sheep are picking up on the con. Hope its enough. Dispite the GOP's money woes, there's a few tens of millions of money availible for swift boating du jour. The media is looking for an outrageous democratic convention. There'll be gate crashers doing their best to make it happen.
I expect the brass knuckles to be out before July. I'd recomend the faint of heart take a long vacation in Canada.
Do not go quietly into the dark. :-)
This is one of those items that is almost impossible to comment on,it leaves you speechless,or whatever the typing equivalent of speechless is.
It may just be the time the item was posted, but there's a conspicuous absence of wingnut defenders here. Even the ones who have morphed from purple Band-aid sporting Kerry mockers to Petraus-licking sacred uniform fanatics,
I am glad that,included in the item, is at least some representation of the honorable men who didn't go along (or traitors, as they'll soon be called)
Since we use our fingers to type, I would say "digitless" in place of "speechless.
Meanwhile, these Giants of Journalism won't even mention the real outrage perpetrated upon us by the Bush Administration's warmongering toadies.... are they stupid, corrupt, or just f***ing lazy?
...are they stupid, corrupt, or just f***ing lazy?
All of the above... Ironically, yesterday I heard Sean Hannity say that shows like his are doing the job that the MSM used to do, that is to dig deep and uncover the nasty stuff that's really going on, such as the Obama/ Wright (contrived) controversy. Funny, that we haven't heard one peep out of Hannity and others about the Pentagon cheerleaders.
Of those names listed above, these ones are mentioned in Darvid Barstow's article as being DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and/or MILITARY CONTRACTORS... again, this cannot be overemphasized: DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and/or MILITARY CONTRACTORS disguised as "military analysts", being promoted on NBC, Fox et al, to sell the invasion and occupation of Iraq to the American People, and in so doing, ensure the contracts that they receive, as DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and MILITARY CONTRACTORS.
"Jeffrey D. McCausland, a CBS military analyst and defense industry lobbyist"
"John C. Garrett is a retired Army colonel and unpaid analyst for Fox News TV and radio. He is also a lobbyist at Patton Boggs who helps firms win Pentagon contracts, including in Iraq."
There is this statement [abridged here] in the Barstow article: "...the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers... The largest contingent was affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN, the other networks with 24-hour cable outlets. But analysts from CBS and ABC were included, too. ...The group was heavily represented by men involved in the business of helping companies win military contracts. Several held senior positions with contractors that gave them direct responsibility for winning new Pentagon business."
Again, here are more of the names of those mentioned above, in MMFA's item, who were also identified in Barstow's article as "men involved in the business of helping companies win military contract", otherwise known as DEFENSE LOBBYISTS:
"General McInerney, the Fox analyst, for example, sits on the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government Solutions, a supplier of communication networks."
"Dr. McCausland, who works at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, a major lobbying firm where he is director of a national security team that represents several military contractors."
"Charles T. Nash, a Fox military analyst and retired Navy captain, is a consultant who helps small companies break into the military market."
"Timur J. Eads, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Fox analyst who is vice president of government relations for Blackbird Technologies, a fast-growing military contractor."
"Another analyst, Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who works in the Pentagon for a military contractor"
That's enough, even though there are more names from MMFA's list, who are detailed in Barstow's article as "men involved in the business of helping companies win military contract"
Personally, I don't care which of the names on MMFA's list said "heck of a job rummie", or is an azz-kisser or cheerleader or whatever (it's no crime, and neither is propaganda a crime)...
The thing of importance is that they were ""men involved in the business of helping companies win military contracts", DEFENSE LOBBYISTS being aired by NBC, Fox et al...
That's what it's all about.
That's the fact the networks are ignoring, until it goes away.
The part I noticed but hasn't been discussed yet is the military analyst saying:
"...It's what we believe in, or we would not be saying it."
Any administration is entitled to present it's case to friendly media and analysts and other politicians. Frankly I think this attempt a drumming up a scandal is but a tempest in teapot.
More than 4,000 dead. Tens of thousands wounded, many more who'll suffer PTSD.
From a war orchestrated from the White House, being sold to the public by those who not only get paid from the media outlets, but also from the very defense contractors who will profit so handsomely from the needless death and destruction.
When and if the true story of this shameful episode in our history are revealed I doubt many will be so proud to be Americans
My use of the words "tempest in a teapot" refer to the attempt at the NYT and MMFA to create a scandal here when there is none.
I am not minimizing the war in Iraq or the sacrifices our noble and heroic servicemen/women have made in defending our country and trying to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq.
These was a state-sponsored propaganda effort under the guise of independent, objective military analysis.
These people were presented by the media as military analysts.
In reality, they were defense industry lobbyists, executives and consultants who were moonlighting as Bush/DoD spokesmen. This was the part the media did not tell us.
Yes, the Bush Administration has every right to access the media and tell their side of the story, but the people have every right to expect that it not be done under false pretense.
This constitutes disgraceful and discreditable action, making this a scandal. I surmise that it's apathy toward the war that keeps it from becoming a scandal in your mind.
I disagree.
Although I can only remember seeing Gen. McInerny (sp?) on TV, if my memory serves me correctly, his comments were relegated to the military tactics during the invasion and shortly thereafter. I don't watch that much TV so I am not sure if he is are still being interviewed on TV. I remember some military types, although not all, being critical of the military at the time.
Like many people who have worked for the government, these analysts continue their careers in related industries. One of the guys listed helps startup companies so I wonder why he is even listed? We see former Congressmen, Senators, and (I do believe,) Presidents act as lobbyists and sit on boards. (Including Hillary and Obama).
so that when we go on, we're -- forgive me -- we're parroting, but it's what has to be said.
AA, it looks like "the part you noticed" is a desperate cherry-picking of a partial line that sounds honest to you. What he's saying is that he wishes Rummy would frame things so that these guys could appear to be saying what they believe, as they parrot the talking points.
Your blind loyalty and continued defense of these dirtbags is impressive, though.
"Frankly I think this attempt a drumming up a scandal is but a tempest in teapot."
Don't tell us.
Tell the families of fallen soldiers.
Tell the amputees at Walter Reed who are learning how to walk again.
Yea, but what about the GOOD news out of Iraq? ;>)
Seriously, the recent report about the number of suicides among war vets is VERY disturbing... Why isn't it a bigger story?
Nerzog,
Can you tell me where you got those figures?
Looking around I found that the suicide rate, (which is indeed tragic,) has risen to the point where it equals the suicide rate in general for males in the U.S. in 2007 according to the World Health Organization.
http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/
While the rate of suicide per 100,000 active duty U.S. soldiers was as low as 9.1 in 2001, in 2006 the index had risen to 17.5, and in 2007 it climbed even higher.
http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=672536
I am not discounting the fact that undoubtedly there are many psychological problems associated with being in combat. Nor am I attempting to minimize the tragedy that surrounds the individual deaths. I am only pointing out that some people may think the suicide rates are far higher because of the operation in Iraq than in the general population.
As an aside if you are interested, take a look at the WHO suicide rates for various countries. Some alarming statistics.
And what it revealed was stunning.
In 2005, for example, in just those 45 states, there were at least 6,256 suicides among those who served in the armed forces. That’s 120 each and every week, in just one year.
Dr. Steve Rathbun is the acting head of the Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department at the University of Georgia. CBS News asked him to run a detailed analysis of the raw numbers that we obtained from state authorities for 2004 and 2005.
It found that veterans were more than twice as likely to commit suicide in 2005 than non-vets. (Veterans committed suicide at the rate of between 18.7 to 20.8 per 100,000, compared to other Americans, who did so at the rate of 8.9 per 100,000.)
One age group stood out. Veterans aged 20 through 24, those who have served during the war on terror. They had the highest suicide rate among all veterans, estimated between two and four times higher than civilians the same age. (The suicide rate for non-veterans is 8.3 per 100,000, while the rate for veterans was found to be between 22.9 and 31.9 per 100,000.)
Julia,
I am curious as to your sources. Do you happen to have a source for your post?
I vaguely remember this coming up at least once before. It may have been when the CBS report came out. I do remember a number of flaws with the study. Looking around I found the following:
Yet here's something odd about the data: For the overall rates to correspond to the male and female rates, the veteran pool would have to be 62% to 64% female, and the nonveteran pool would have to be about 66% female. Check it out, for instance, with the lower bounds on the 2005 data: 11.1 x 0.63 (female) + 31.5 x 0.37 (male) = a bit under 18.7 (overall)...
...That can't be right. The VA reports that the veteran pool is only 7% female, which means that if the CBS News overall veteran and female veteran numbers are right, then the male veteran numbers would be 19.27 to 21.4 in 2005 and 18.06 to 22.5 in 2004, not far from the male suicide rate of about 17.7 per year (see WISQARS)...
..Note also that CBS reports, "One age group stood out. Veterans aged 20 through 24, those who have served during the war on terror. They had the highest suicide rate among all veterans, estimated between two and four times higher than civilians the same age. (The suicide rate for non-veterans is 8.3 per 100,000, while the rate for veterans was found to be between 22.9 and 31.9 per 100,000.)" The suicide rate for males age to 20 to 24 is about 20 to 21 per 100,000; what the suicide rate is for male veterans age to 20 to 24 seemingly can't be determined from the CBS numbers, given the apparent flaws I identified above...
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1195086841.shtml
If anyone finds any information with corrected figures or points out the error above, I'd be interested in seeing it. Suicides are tragic no matter what the number. I think it is important to know exactly what the rate of suicide among veterans actually is and how it compares to the general population.
ps. As an aside I found other reports of flaws in the CBS study but this should do until we can resolve the numbers.
The VA has not done a study. This study was done by CBS News. It was not based on suicides that occured at VA hospitals. Your contentions are unconvincing. There are many articles out there that show the VA has lied about the number of suicides of Iraq and Afghanistan war vets. As usual, your sources are suspect. I'm not an expert or statician, but it's obvious that anyone doing a modicum of googling can come up with many sources that talk about the alarming number of suicides of the two wars above. CBS did compare the numbers to non combat people who commit suicide. Please do your own research without going to partisan sources.
AA has a point. I think this tape just shows the mentality of the analysts who are supposedly impartial. So the generals are republican sycophants. Big deal! I already suspected this.
However, the fact that the administration actively recruited these people, limited access once said people criticized the administration, and THE MEDIA WAS COMPLETELY IN THE DARK ON POSSIBLE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND FERRITING OUT THESE AND OTHER BIASES are the real issues. That there was a campaign to actively deceive Americans (psyops) to get the public to invade Iraq (do as the administration says) and the media was complicate, now that's a story!
In this light, the fact that news corporations are by and large disregarding this release and all of the political fallout from this scandal is to me nothing short of criminal. I commend MMFA for disseminating such information and pointing out this gaping ethical lag in our journalistic community.
You need to read the NYT article, AA... and read the quotes from guys saying they did not give their honest opinions so they could protect their Pentagon contracts and contacts.
If the networks want to use these guys as analysts, that's fine... but they need to have detailed disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, the same way they need to identify political analysts as to their affiliations.
Yes, regarding matters of defense and space policy we definitely need to find leadership. For example, high resolution photos of the genocidal Myanmar Cyclone reveal conspicuous evidence of applied beam weapon formations, presumably to force high pressure cells as ameans of pushing the storm system as if with tugboats.
<url>www.freewebs.com/writingindependence/CloudCraters.pdf</url>
<url>www.freewebs.com/writingindependence/main.htm</url>
Nerzog,
Thank you all kindly for your comments as well as others. I have been a little reticent in my frequency of visiting these threads of late.
Call it despair, indifference or what have you, BUT for the first time in my life, I Feel a genuine FEAR for this NATION. All the admonitions from the Founding Fathers have fallen on deaf ears. Patriots who gave to US a chartered document with full knowledge that an informed citizenry would have to fulfill their role AS stewards of that blueprint, must be rolling over in their graves. A thriving Constitutional Republic could only be maintained BY a diligent effort to hold our public officials accountable.
That responsibility has been tossed to the WIND.
WE are like the Rome of old where the populace became more interested in the follies of the day RATHER than notice that corruption and deceit were all around them.
DR. Franklin did not mince words when he stated:
" Our constitution, said Franklin] will fail, as all such constitutions have in the past, because of the essential corruption of the people. He pointed his finger at all the American people. And when the people become so corrupt, he said, we will find it is not a republic that they want but rather despotism – the only form of government suitable for such a people.
Benjamin Franklin
The big question now is whether the networks were in violation of FCC laws.
If you recall all the noise at the FCC over unattributed use of video press releases a while back, the issue is that the broadcaster is using material that is paid for without attributing that fact.
Some of the Congress members have now pointed this out to the FCC:
http://www.rbr.com/media-news/washington-beat/7389.html
rych
20:1 says the voice on the tape is Wayne Simmons.
He loves his Rumsfeld. Semi-ironically...he threw McCain under the bus after McCain dissed old Rummy.
"UNIDENTIFIED 1: I'm an old intel guy..."
So we have the names. And we have the self-identification in that statement above.
Has the staff at MMfA forgotten even the most basic methods of investigative reporting?????
CHECK THE BIOS AND SEE WHO WAS "an old intel guy..." !!!!
I'd be surprised if there is more than one on that list.
(BTW, I'm pretty sure I already know who it is. Now you figure it out.)