Former CIA Officer (Uncut) 04-10-2025

Former CIA Officer: This Is ‘More Dangerous Than WW3’ | Ray McGovern

I think he’s smart enough to avoid that, because it would mean a regional war, and even more dangerously, maybe World War III. Iran has stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003, and has not renewed work on this weapon. But they also have a deterrent that they never had before, David.

These are hypersonic missiles. These are missiles that there is no air defense or missile defense against. Do they really have them? Yes.

We’re talking about the major geopolitical hotspots happening in the world right now. President Trump has recently threatened to bomb Iran if the country fails to agree to a nuclear deal. Earlier in March, Trump threatened military action against Iran over its support of Yemen’s Houthi rebels who have attacked U.S. warships in the Red Sea region.

Meanwhile, Israel’s fragile ceasefire with Hamas has broken down, and the war in Ukraine has continued to wage on with no end in sight. For now, we’re talking about all these regions with our next guest, Ray McGovern, founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity organization and a former CIA officer. Ray chaired the National Intelligence Estimates during the Reagan administration and prepared the President’s daily security briefing.

He was awarded the Intelligence Commendation Medal in 1990. Welcome back to the show, Ray. Good to see you.

Thanks, David. Thanks for letting me get my last gulp of coffee here. Yeah, coffee is very important.

I’ve got my Red Bull here in case I need it. You and me both, let’s start by talking about Ukraine. I believe Russian President Vladimir Putin had recently made an important announcement or speech regarding the situation.

What’s his view or overview of the current situation here? David, this was an amazing speech, all without notes, all sitting at a table in a submarine, the most sophisticated, most recently built submarine called the Arkhangelsk up in Murmansk, up in the northern part of European Russia. What he talked about was Ukraine, where we stand there, and how close he feels President Trump is in line with his desire to put an end to the whole thing. Now, just a little tweet.

What the tweet said was that Putin has gone out on a limb twice. What did he do? He said, hey, in my opinion, Trump is really sincere about ending this thing. Then he said again, next paragraph, in my opinion, Trump is really sincere about doing this.

Okay, well, that’s his opinion. Why does he say that? Well, he also says that there are some that say, quote, we’re not going as fast as some would like, end quote. So, long story short, there’s opposition within Russia itself.

He’s saying, why don’t you end the damn thing there, Vladimir Vladimirovich? All you have to do is keep going. Don’t keep this little attrition, attrition, attrition. Go for it, and then Trump will have to listen.

What Putin is saying is, no, we don’t want to rub their noses in it. Yes, we can do that. But if Trump is sincere, and in my opinion, he is, that’s the limb that Putin has crawled out on, we can deal on this.

The negotiations are going on. The US seems, at least seems up until just the last couple of days, frightfully urgent in getting this thing underway. The Russians, what do they need a ceasefire for? They have it all but one.

They’re going slowly but surely to the Dnieper River. They’re less interested in getting bogged down unless Trump, the dealmaker, is willing to give the kinds of concessions that are inevitable for the thing to stop. There’s been a lot of rhetoric about why Trump is so close with Russia, or why relations between the US and Russia are currently improving.

This is an article published by The Guardian. I’d just like you to comment on this, please, if you have any comments. It says here, the perfect target of Russia cultivated Trump as an asset for 40 years, says ex-KGB spy.

Donald Trump was cultivated as a Russian asset over 40 years and proved so willing to parrot anti-Western propaganda that there were celebrations in Moscow, says a former KGB spy. Yuri Shvets, told Washington, or posted to Washington by the Soviet Union in the 1980s, compares the former US president to the Cambridge Five, the British spy ring that passed secrets to Moscow during the Second World War and early Cold War. Now 67, Shvets is a key source for American Kompromat, a new book by journalist Craig Unger, whose previous works include House of Trump, House of Putin.

This is an example where Putin were recruited, people were recruited when they were just students, and when they rose to important positions, something like that was happening with Trump, Shvets said by phone on Monday from his home in Virginia. What is your reaction to this? Well, since it’s The Guardian, I would say it’s bollocks. It’s, what do they call it? We call it garbage.

They call it refuge or whatever. It’s just crazy. This notion that Putin is recruited by the US, that should have died as soon as they raised it to justify Hillary Clinton’s defeat back in 2016.

It didn’t die. As a matter of fact, it emasculated Trump himself to the point where he couldn’t work out a decent relationship with Russia, no matter how hard he tried, because he was hemmed in by all these charges that he was in Putin’s pocket. They’re ridiculous.

Now, he’s a deal maker, right? He sees that he needs to make a deal on Ukraine. On the Middle East, he’s very, very different, okay? Now, it’s a Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde sort of thing. He is enabling genocide in the Middle East.

He’s trying to come to a peaceful conclusion on Ukraine. It’s hard to piece this together, but that’s the way it is. On Ukraine, one can applaud him reaching out to Putin and saying, look, this other stuff is just trash.

I’ll do what I need to do. He’s got some good negotiators doing that, especially this real estate guy named Whitcock. On the Middle East, he’s just in Netanyahu’s pocket.

He’s doing what Netanyahu wants him to do in Yemen and elsewhere. And worse still, as an American, I have to say that enabling, arming, authorizing, defending genocide and do not blanch before the word, that’s just beyond the pale for me. So who’s committing genocide? Netanyahu’s government is committing genocide in Gaza.

Well, just to speak from the other side, I mean, people are arguing that they’re just acting out in self-defense. Do you agree with that? No, that’s nonsense. You know, they justify this by that attack by Hamas, but it’s clear from their own statements that genocide is what they’re intending.

And most recently, they’ve included a hunger, starvation as one arrow in their quiver. This is why the Yemenis are trying to express solidarity with the Palestinians. You know, it’s quite amazing when people interview some of the Yemeni, the Houthi leaders, they say, well, what’s in it for you? And it’s like they’re disoriented.

They say, well, there’s nothing in for us. We’re getting bombed to hell. This is a solidarity thing.

This is a matter of principle. People are being starved to death as tens of thousands of Yemenis were starved to death when Saudi Arabia and the U.S. were attacking us over the last decade. We don’t think that’s right.

And if somebody doesn’t come to the defense of the Palestinians, no one will. I wish that other Arab governments were not so much in the economic, well, debt to the United States, didn’t depend on them so heavily that they too would express some solidarity. And I think there’s a chance then that the Israelis would stop killing off the rest of the Palestinians.

Okay. We’re going to come back to Israel and the Middle East in a minute, but let’s talk about Ukraine. What was your reaction to Zelensky’s visit to the White House that was cut short because basically those two didn’t get along and didn’t agree on anything? Well, David, to be honest with you, I was a little embarrassed.

I said to myself, my God, you know, that’s no way to treat a visiting president. And then I learned the background. He visited high level senior Democrats before he ever went to the White House that day.

In the private conversations, he was pretty implacable in his demands. Okay. And so it was not so staged as a matter of the kind of response on the part of J.D. Vance and the president to say, look, he didn’t even say thank you for God’s sake.

And when Zelensky started saying, oh, you’re repeating Putin’s remarks or his comments, that was pretty much the end of it. What should the U.S. do to mediate this piece? I think Trump is trying to be a mediator between Russia and Ukraine. What should the administration be doing right now? Yeah, I found that odd, David, that he would put himself, the U.S., in the position of trying to mediate between Russia and Ukraine.

What the U.S. should do is what it did for just a few days, and that is halt all arms weaponry going to Ukraine and try to get people to realize that the game is up, that the U.S. understands that. If the Europeans want to give Zelensky the idea that there’s hope, that’s their business. It’s not our war.

It wasn’t Trump that got into this war. It’s really, really sorry, sorrowful, because Trump is right in saying that this was altogether unnecessary. What, millions of people killed because unnecessary? Yeah, that’s the fact.

So Trump can walk away as long as he stops the aid and as long as Putin gives him enough flexibility to claim that this is not an abject defeat, but a negotiated settlement. I think that’s going to come, but it looks like it’s going to be tough slogging for the next couple of months. What do you think the settlement might look like? What do you think the Russians will demand? What do you think the Ukrainians would concede? What do you think the U.S. would agree to? Okay.

Well, the context, David, is that Russia has won. It’s Russia’s neighborhood. No one should have thought that Ukraine could weaken Russia without Russia responding the way it did.

So it’s just a matter of how fast Putin decides to go to the West. He’s got the initiative now. Even he himself said four days ago, look, we can finish him off.

Finish him off, okay? But we’re not going to do that. We’re going to go slowly. And you know what he also said? He said, you know, some of the people say, why aren’t we going any faster? Now, that reflects some people in Russia that really want Putin not to go so slow and not to be fooled by European or U.S. diplomacy.

During the Minsk Accords that were supposed to be enforced by the French and the Germans, eight years they diddled Putin. And finally, the president of France and the chancellor of Germany said, you know, hey, Minsk, that was just a delaying tactic. The Ukrainian army was not worth a damn.

Then, after eight years, look at them now. They’re the strongest army in Europe, outside of Russia. So ha ha, that’s what we did.

Merkel and Hollande both admitted that about two years ago. My God. So the Russians are not going to sit for anything less.

And Putin actually said in the speech he mentioned before, I trust that this time there’s not going to be any succumbing to blandishments from the West. We need to do a deal that will last, a deal that recognizes our core interests. And our core interests are not to have a nuclear-armed or NATO-armed-to-the-teeth country right up on our border.

And that would be Ukraine. We don’t want that. We’re not going to get that.

It depends on how soon the West realizes this. And as I say, he’s got the upper hand. So, you know, his terms are the ones that are going to have to prevail.

And I think Trump is probably smart enough to figure out how to satisfy them while waving a fake leaf saying, well, we got this concession or that concession, Putin. And Putin is smart enough to give them such concessions. Take a look at, let’s shift gears now and talk about Iran.

Take a look at this clip of President Trump responding to basically a rejection by the Iranians to end or to start negotiations with the US. The secondary tariffs on Iran, we’ll probably give it a couple of weeks. And if we don’t see any progress, we’re going to put them on.

We’re not putting them on right now. But if you remember, I did that six years ago, and it worked very well, to put it mildly. And if the election weren’t rigged, you would have a situation where there would be no problem with Iran today.

But it was. Biden didn’t know what he was doing, obviously. And we have a very, very rough situation in the Middle East because of that.

You ended up with October 7th. And you would have never had October 7th. And you would have never had Russia going into Ukraine like once.

We’re going to make a decision on secondary tariffs. Is he implicitly blaming Iran for Russia entering Ukraine or the previous administration? Well, what did he mean by that? What he just said? Well, he’s a little irrational here, or maybe more than a little. He blames the Biden administration for everything.

When it was he, Trump, that got out of the nuclear deal that they had with Iran. In other words, that was carefully negotiated by the Obama administration. It was about the only foreign policy success that Obama had.

And then Trump came in, and in deference to people like John Bolton, got out of that deal. Now, there’s a sticky wicket here, okay? The justification that Israel has always used to attack Iran is that they’re getting a nuclear weapon, okay? And the annual threat assessment, barely a week old by all US intelligence agencies reads this way. Iran has continued to avoid, has stopped its work on a nuclear weapon as of 2003.

We reiterate that judgment. And the Supreme Leader has also said that the Iranians are not going to reverse that decision that he himself made in 2003. What am I saying here? I’m saying that if the Israelis say, oh, they get a nuclear weapon, well, you have the entire US intelligence community, all agencies of it saying, no, that’s not right.

He’s not working on a nuclear weapon. Is he working on uranium enrichment? Of course, but not to the point 90% where you would be able to have that uranium for a nuclear weapon. That’s big.

Now, if Netanyahu decides that he can mousetrap Trump by attacking Iran first and leaving Trump, quote, no alternative but to come and to support the Israelis, that’s the danger here. Because Trump well, they sent bombers to Diego Garcia. Today, the Iranians said, look, you send bombers to Diego Garcia, we’ve got missiles that can hit Diego Garcia.

It’s very volatile. But I think that Trump is smart enough to realize that a worldwide recession or depression, the Chinese and the Russians being very much against this and coming to Iran’s aid one way or another, that it’s a no winner. Okay.

And so Bolton isn’t around anymore. Some of the other crazies still are. But I think if somebody gets to Trump and said, look, Mr. Trump, this is what will happen if you join in an attack on Iran.

I think he’s smart enough to avoid that because it would mean a regional war and even more dangerously, maybe World War III. What do you mean more dangerous? Well, if you start exchanging small nuclear weapons, you have Pakistan there as well, you have India, you have a regional capability of this thing blowing out of all proportion. And it’s for Israel, of course, as most people think about 200 nuclear weapons, some of them really small ones.

And so the nuclear genie could be let out of the bottle in the last resort, because there’s no way that the Israelis, even with US help, can subjugate Iran in the way that the two of them did Iraq back in 2003. No way. Iran is not Iraq.

And I hope that Trump learns about that before he gets mousetrapped into supporting Netanyahu in what would be a real march of folly. Okay, but this is a statement from Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence. She believes that Iran currently does not possess or is building nuclear weapons.

Iran’s nuclear program, this is from Newsweek, has long been a focal point of US foreign policy with concerns of regional security and global nonproliferation. Speaking to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Gabbard stated that the Intelligence Committee continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003. If this is indeed true, Ray, then what? Well, first of all, can we assess the statement? And second, if she is right, then what threat does Iran pose to the US and its allies? That’s easy.

None. Now, the Israelis perceive that Iran might pose a threat to them. And so they’re trying to eliminate that threat.

One important factor here is that Netanyahu is in supreme difficulty within Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, okay? He’s on trial for corruption. Some of his lieutenants have been just arrested yesterday. So he’s got reasons other than strategic reasons to keep this thing going, even to widen it.

So the backstory on this, David, is very interesting from an intelligence point of view. And that’s the milieu out of which I come. What happened was this.

After my former colleagues, the analysts in the CIA, were corrupted by Vice President Cheney to lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And to say that Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda, you know, witnessed 9-11. So blaming Saddam Hussein for Al Qaeda as well.

After they put that into a national intelligence estimate, Bush, George W. Bush, the younger, was able to get congressional approval or a congressional kneehill upstart, not to prevent him from attacking Iraq, which he did. Now, one of the factors in that attack for Iraq was Israel. Was this in favor of US interests? No.

Who did they want to get rid of? Why did they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein? Because he was perceived to be a threat from Israel. And the Israelis were crawling all over the Pentagon, advising the people in charge there, Rumsfeld, on down. Yeah, this would be a great thing.

Remove him. Everything will be fine. They’ll recognize us.

We’ll recognize them. And besides, you’ll get permanent military bases and access to the oil. Well, you know what went down there.

So here we are in 2003, that happened. So somebody in some position of authority says, look, the neocons, the people who are responsible together with the Israelis for doing Iraq, they’re about to go after Iran. As a matter of fact, in the halls of the Pentagon, they’re sticking their chest out and say, real men go to Tehran, not Baghdad.

Okay. So what we need now is an honest intelligence estimate, not like the one October 1, 2002, which said Saddam Hussein, all kinds of weapons of mass destruction and ties with Al Qaeda. We need an honest estimate.

How close is Iran to getting a nuclear weapon? Okay. Now, they looked all over for somebody honest to manage that estimate. They could not find anyone in the CIA.

So they went to the State Department, the guy who headed the State Department Intelligence Unit, who, wise enough, during Iraq had taken copious footnotes from this national intelligence estimate saying, we don’t agree with that. We don’t. So they said, look, Tom Finger, would you share this estimate? Oh my God, I don’t want to do that.

I said, look, we’ll let you have your own people. We’ll give you a whole year to do it. We’ll have it sponsored by the Congress.

And so it will get out, whatever you decide. Now, that was 2007. They gave him the whole year.

He got some really very, very valuable information during that year. And in November 2007, they put out a unanimous estimate, all 15 or 16 agencies at the time. Iran has stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003, and has not renewed work on this weapon.

What happened? Well, Bush says in his memoir, he must have written these pages himself, that deprived me of the nuclear option. And this is a quote, for how could I possibly authorize a military strike on the facilities of a country that the intelligence community says has no active nuclear weapons program? Bummer. He wrote that.

Okay. So what I’m saying here is this all happened before. And what I find encouraging about that threat assessment, and the Tulsi Gabbard testimony that you just quoted, is that this time, the intelligence community is holding firm to that estimate.

Again, unanimous and expressed with high confidence back in 2007, that the Iranians stopped in 2003, by edict by this same Khamenei, and that has not changed. So if Netanyahu wants to have a pretext for going after Iran, he’s got to find something else, and nothing else is quite as persuasive as saying that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon. Let’s back up a minute, Ray.

You said that your ex-colleagues at the CIA lied about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Why? If you are right, why did they lie about this? David, I hate to tell you this. They all got promoted.

They all got bonuses for this, what I call the whore of Babylon, the 1 October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. We could tell from looking on from the outside, and we warned the president, this was baloney, that they didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, and we were proven right. Now, here’s a little factoid that not many people know.

There was a fellow named James Clapper, former Air Force three-star. He was put in charge of imagery analysis. It used to be done by the CIA, but it was ceded to the Pentagon.

He writes a book, and he acknowledges that he had imagery analysis before the Iraq War. When Vice President Cheney put a lot of pressure on the imagery analysis agency to find weapons of mass destruction sites, they identified maybe 200 possible suspect sites, but none of them were real sites. In a very telling sentence, he ends this paragraph by saying, I acknowledge my own involvement in this terrible misadventure in finding weapons of mass destruction that weren’t really there, period, end quote.

We knew that, but here is James Clapper in his own memoir, now that he’s left the intelligence business, saying, Cheney put on so much pressure that we found things, and this is a direct quote, we found things that were not really there. Oh, isn’t that nice? Well, that’s what happened, and the reason was they wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein. They knew that he didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction.

I know that chapter and verse. I can deduce other evidence to show that. We had recruited the head of intelligence.

We had recruited the foreign minister, for God’s sake, and they both told us there’s no active nuclear weapons program. So what I’m saying here is, you know, if past this precedence, this time at least, the intelligence community is telling the truth about Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and you know, unlike other religions, I guess, you know, when you’re talking about a fatwa, which is sort of a religious edict that says, no, weapons of mass destruction are not part of our faith, and you see that Iran did not use them during the long war with Iraq during the 80s, even though the Iraqis did, we have to believe that there’s something to this strange religious edict that makes them pause and makes them desist from doing what most people had assumed they were doing, but has not been proven. Well, let’s finish off on Iran.

So Trump said very clearly, if they don’t make a deal, they will be bombing, he said during a phone call with NBC News. All right. Let’s assume this path is taken.

I’m not saying it will, but what would the recourse from Iran be? What would they do, shut down the Strait of Hormuz, something worse? They have the capability of shutting down the Strait, of course, and causing economic havoc around the world, affecting China, in the first instance, but they also have a deterrent that they never had before, David. These are hypersonic missiles, okay? These are missiles that there is no air defense or missile defense against. Did they really have them? Yes.

How do I know that? They already demonstrated that. They fired them into Israel proper at a major airfield, and hit the airfield with several of these missiles as a kind of warning. Look, we have these things, you can’t defend against it, no matter what state of the art equipment you get from the United States, and we’re going to use them.

And not only that, David, but US troops in Iraq, still there, what, 3,000 or so, in Syria, what, 3,000 there as well, they are extremely vulnerable. And I would say that they will probably be hit as well, if not directly by Iran, then by Iran’s surrogates. So, if Trump does this, he’s starting a regional war, I hope he’ll stop shy of that, because if he’s a fellow who seeks facts, like he has on Ukraine, and realizes that he has a very poor hand on Ukraine, he’ll see that the same exists with respect to Iran and Israel, and will shy away from doing Netanyahu’s bidding, just because Netanyahu wants to, and is in severe political trouble inside Israel.

All right. Moving on now to the Middle East, we talked about the Palestine War earlier. So, on March 18th, the Israel-Palestine conflict broke down, fighting resumed.

Hamas has since agreed to an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire proposal, but that involves at least releasing five hostages. How likely is it that we see renewed ceasefire anytime soon? And more broadly, why was it broken, do you think? Well, it was clear from the outset to many of us that it had no prospect of lasting past phase one, okay? Now, when phase one ended, that was it, the Israelis hid out. And not only that, but during phase one, they prohibited trucks with food to go into Gaza.

That was part of the deal, okay? This is starvation. And this is why the Houthis said, look, you’re not fulfilling your part of the deal here. We’ll give you four days, say the Houthis, we’ll give you four days to live up, let those trucks in.

If not, we’re gonna cause all kinds of troubles at the entrance to the Red Sea there. Four days went by, the Houthis made good on their promise or their threat, and now they’re actually deterring or actually hitting some of the US naval ships that are in the area. So the Houthis are a strange breed, but as a matter of fact, they’re very principled and they’re used to taking it on the chin.

And if Trump bombs them 80 times that he has a day or two ago, that’s not gonna submit, that’s not gonna stop them from blocking the Bab al-Mandab straight there. And Israel is really in economic trouble, not having access to the Red Sea. Well, Israel has bombed Beirut on the 28th of March, and Trump wanted peace in the Middle East, and we’re getting the opposite of peace.

In fact, things are escalating. How likely is it that we’re even going to get peace under this administration? Well, it’s unlikely, David, and it’s not because Trump wants it or doesn’t want it. Trump has joined at the hip with Netanyahu and the Israelis.

It’s a phenomenon that I don’t completely understand, but I’ve watched for a half a century. I don’t know why the Israelis have this hold on US policy, but there’s no other explanation for some of the weird things we do, other than the fact that we’re joined at the hip with Israel and that Netanyahu has this kind of influence, not only with the administration, but with the Congress and with the media. So we don’t get a straight story from the media, and the American people are really kept away from knowing exactly how bad this is.

Of course, you know that the UN World Court has an indictment against two of the Israelis, Netanyahu and the former Defense Minister, for genocide. So, you know, it’s just that Americans don’t get this full story. I never thought that as an American citizen and a US Army officer, I would be living in a country that was not only blessing, condoning, but arming and enabling genocide of a whole people, like two and a half million Palestinians.

I don’t think genocide has to be six million. It’s very clear. The law says an appropriate measure of a whole people being killed is genocide.

Finally, let’s move on and finish off with the JFK assassination files. Let’s take a look at my screen here. President Trump has signed an executive order releasing documents relating to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Now, so far, nothing in the document has changed the long held findings that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination on November 22nd, 1963. Right, David? If you believe that, there’s a favorite bridge I have in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell to you real cheap. I was in the CIA when that happened.

Okay. I was a callow youth of some 24, 25 years old. Okay.

I never suspected that behind those turnstiles, which separated on every floor of headquarters building, the operations people from the analysts, I was one of the analysts, that they would be capable of doing that kind of thing. Well, I was wrong. Now, it’s clear to me from a lot of the research that was done, there’s one book out in 2008.

It’s by James Douglas. This one, this is the best. Okay.

And he dedicates this book. It’s JFK and the unspeakable. Okay.

He dedicates this book to two people, one of whom is Marty Schatz. Now, Marty Schatz wrote a book 30 years ago, and he called it history will not absolve us. And what is he saying? He says the evidence is out there.

It was out there very early on. Nobody would listen, not Noam Chomsky, not the nation magazine. Nobody would listen to this.

Nobody would look curiously at the Warren report. And what we have now is what Marty Schatz calls the concept of a false mystery. And the false mystery is, oh, all we need is some more information or some more research.

We know what happened. When I asked Colonel Larry Wilkerson, a good friend of mine, what do you think about the releases? He says, look, Ray, for God’s sake, all one has to do is read this book. This is the book that I mentioned before.

Martin Schatz, history will not absolve us. You read that. You got the answer, Ray.

The only thing missing is the names of the people who did it. So it’s a myth to think we need new information. People just can’t face up to the fact that something so horrendous could have been done by our own people.

Why? Because Kennedy was reaching out to the Russians. He had already concluded a limited test ban treaty. He had executed two orders to withdraw troops from Vietnam.

10,000, I believe, by the end of 1963, and the bulk of the rest of them by the end of 1965. He was giving away the world to Southeast Asia to the commies. Now you had people like Curtis LeMay.

You had also people like Alan Dulles, who had lots of reasons to get back at Kennedy. When I mention Alan Dulles, I’ll just say that he was the author of the Bay of Pigs invasion. They mousetrapped Kennedy on that one.

Kennedy said, look, this doesn’t sound really smart, but go ahead, but don’t expect any US armed forces to come to your aid. When he died, that is when Alan Dulles died, there were coffee stain notes on his desk saying, when the enterprise fails or shows signs of failing, the enterprise, of course, being removing Castro, there’s no option that the US president has, but he’ll have to come to our aid. Who became the person that picked the testimony, who ran the Warren Commission? Oh, it was Alan Dulles.

Anybody who suggested, oh, wait a second, back then, okay, 1964. Anybody who suggested, oh my God, now wait a second. Some people think the CIA might’ve been involved.

Why do you pick this? We know what the answer was. Conspiracy theorists. They’re conspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy theorists. Now that’s a favorite ploy use. It was first used then big time, okay? Now it’s not a, there was a conspiracy.

It was led by the CIA. I can prove it as Larry Wilkerson has said, Marty Schatz has proved it, and James Douglas has proved it. And it is a myth to say we need more research.

We need more evidence. That’s a false mystery. The mystery is solved.

No one, no one had the guts to look closely into the Warren Commission findings. If you believe that Oswald acted alone and the shot came from behind, well, as I say, I can sell a bridge to you in Brooklyn. Okay.

Well, thank you very much, Ray, for your thoughts. Appreciate your analysis. Where can we follow you and learn from you? Well, I’m on Twitter at RayMcGovern, one word, and my website is raymcgovern.com. I’m also on Facebook and all over YouTube because I do a lot of these interviews.

Yes. Well, we appreciate your time in educating our audience. Thank you very much.

We’ll put the links down below so you can follow Ray there. See you next time, Ray. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, David. Thank you for watching.

Don’t forget to like and subscribe.