• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran

#1
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (ret) states: "We’re going to wake up one morning soon, very soon, and we will be at war with Iran." An interesting and illuminating interview with a woman who clearly has the credentials to discuss American foreign policy in the Persian Gulf. For spazzes, those of you feeling lazy, or for those wearing beer goggles there is an MP3 recording of the interview at the top of the page.

Truthdig website
 
#2
This comes from that interview with the Lt Col:

And we don’t even have status of forces agreements with any legitimate government in Iraq to support those bases. They are illegal bases, okay. But yes, they’re gonna stay, absolutely, they’re gonna stay. And I’ll tell you, there are guys that have been with this administration for awhile, people, in fact one of the guys was an Air Force General that was involved with the Kurds ten years ago, he’s retired now, but he was actually the guy, his name escapes me for the moment, but he [Jay Garner] was [Paul] Bremer’s predecessor for a short period of time. And he was fired, and Bremer came in and took over in Baghdad as part of the reconstruction phase. This is in the Spring of 2003. And this guy gave an interview in Government Exec Magazine, February 2004, he said “we will be in Iraq, and the American people need to get with this program, we will be in Iraq like we were in the Philippines for anywhere from 20 to 30 more years. That’s the time frame that we’re looking at. And that is the life span of the bases that we’ve constructed there. Yeah, we are not leaving these bases, and a Democratic president, I don’t care who they are, will keep those bases there. They will justify them and they will use them and we love that. We love it. So it’s not about what the American people think is right or wrong, it’s not about if we got lied to, what matters is, they did what they wanted to do, and as Bush says, and as Cheney says, “it’s quite the success.” And this is very frightening. Because none of this has ever been admitted to the American people, it’s only been hinted at by people that know. And of course the facts speak for themselves. The facts are, we are in Iraq, we have the finest military installations in the world, the newest military installations in the world, and we’re not leaving them. We’re not turning them over to a Shiite government, we’re not turning them over to a Sunni government, we’re not turning them over to a Kurdish government. We’re not doing that. They are American bases. We’ve got our flag there. And this is kind of the way they used to do things, I guess back in the Middle Ages. Maybe the Dark Ages. A king decided he wanted to go do something, he went and did it. And this is George Bush. We call him an elected president. I mean, he’s operating much as kings have operated in the past.

Some people think Cheney is off his head when he says Iraq is a success.
But the above explains what Cheney really means by success. He is off his head alright and then again he isn't.
 
#3
I think these statements are even more interesting.

It is towards the end of Tony Blair’s long, long term of duty there as the Prime Minister. And the other thing is, the British very much oppose, in spite of the fact that there are some Rupert Murdoch newspapers in Great Britain, some conservative papers, pseudo conservative I should say, not truly conservative. Truly conservatives, true conservatives have opposed this adventure from the beginning. But in spite of the small, loud pro-war faction in London, most people in Britain recognize this for what it is. They have some experience in this kind of thing with, both in Middle East, particularly in Iraq years ago when they left in dishonor. Another time when they tried to occupy Baghdad, years and years ago, and also their experience with terrorism and movements of independents or what have you with Ireland, much more recent memory for many of the people in Great Britain. I don’t think Britain’s economy can afford it. Certainly they see the writing on the all, why get, why not get out now while George Bush is still there than be stuck with, stuck holding the bag when a Democratic president takes over and pulls the troops out abruptly in 2008, 2009. So I think there’s many reasons why they’re doing it. Some people say it is, it is because of Tony Blair’s concern over his legacy. If he doesn’t bring the troops home, his legacy will be that he left Britain in a quagmire. They are in a quagmire now and maybe he doesn’t want to leave office with that being on his record, a lot of reasons.
However, she is but a Lt Col (Retd) who may have had reasonable inside info but ultimately is nothing more than a citizen giving her analysis and opinion on things. She hardly counts as a whistle blower.
 
#5
Yes that to cheap seats.
It goes some way to explain how Britain can withdraw forces from Iraq without any open altercation with the U.S. Britain is not wanting to be part of the Iran war and our leaving Iraq may be very well taken as a sign that America wants to be free to hit Iran.
 
#6
reddog said:
Where is Sergy when you want him?
Ah ,Christ no. I've had whisky - it would end up with war! :biggrin:
 
#7
However, she is but a Lt Col (Retd) who may have had reasonable inside info but ultimately is nothing more than a citizen giving her analysis and opinion on things. She hardly counts as a whistle blower.
You wouldn't call her a whistle-blower? She was in the military for years and worked within a military capacity in the Pentagon for a number of years. Whilst she may be a citizen now, her past gives her the credibility to comment on these matters from a more esoteric perspective. Only time will tell, but I sadly believe that a wider gulf conflict is inevitable. The good old US of A is on its last legs as the dominant world power and is going to try everything it can to sustain its hegemonic status. I hope my opinions come back to bite me on the ass, big time.
 
#8
not_finished_yet said:
However, she is but a Lt Col (Retd) who may have had reasonable inside info but ultimately is nothing more than a citizen giving her analysis and opinion on things. She hardly counts as a whistle blower.
You wouldn't call her a whistle-blower? She was in the military for years and worked within a military capacity in the Pentagon for a number of years. Whilst she may be a citizen now, her past gives her the credibility to comment on these matters from a more esoteric perspective. Only time will tell, but I sadly believe that a wider gulf conflict is inevitable. The good old US of A is on its last legs as the dominant world power and is going to try everything it can to sustain its hegemonic status. I hope my opinions come back to bite me on the ass, big time.
My bold

She left in 2003
 
#9
Sven said:
not_finished_yet said:
However, she is but a Lt Col (Retd) who may have had reasonable inside info but ultimately is nothing more than a citizen giving her analysis and opinion on things. She hardly counts as a whistle blower.
You wouldn't call her a whistle-blower? She was in the military for years and worked within a military capacity in the Pentagon for a number of years. Whilst she may be a citizen now, her past gives her the credibility to comment on these matters from a more esoteric perspective. Only time will tell, but I sadly believe that a wider gulf conflict is inevitable. The good old US of A is on its last legs as the dominant world power and is going to try everything it can to sustain its hegemonic status. I hope my opinions come back to bite me on the ass, big time.
My bold

She left in 2003
She was, IIRC, detailed to work in the Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon- the people who cherry picked all the intelligence on Iraq and second guessed the real intelligence agencies. I believe she was there as a Public Affairs Officer- i.e. spin doctor. Her disillusionment with the way the Administration was pushing for war in 2002-2003 led her to resign. She was certainly one of the first to go public with what OSP was up to. She was interviewed on "Why We Fight" in 2005.
 
#10
She's a nutcase. She is associated with this guy- Lyndon LaRouche.
http://www.larouchepub.com/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1406272/posts
In reporting the myth that Doug Feith’s office created its own intelligence unit, he relied on Karen Kwiatkowski, who associated with the Lyndon LaRouche movement.

Kwiatkowski said on tape that she was Isikoff’s chief source.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq interviewed Kwiatkowski based on her press statements and found that she could not give a single example to back up any of her allegations.

Simply put, she had never been to the unit she described nor as a Morocco desk officer, had she attended any Iraq planning meetings. But Isikoff accepted her word without criticism and without asking the basic questions an investigative reporter should.
 
#11
Michael Rubin works at AEI, so you can guess which way they're going to swing- when PNAC folded up, that's where the neocons found their new home. He's also one of the main neo-cons pushing the Iran thing. Oh, and he's Jewish too, so if you do buy into the Zionist neo-con conspiracy thing you couldn't really consider him an impartial source.

What's more, for a scholar, he should really be able to do a better job of providing evidence to support his point (if he actually has any) because the best he can manage in the Op-Ed he wrote is a "he-said/she-said" piece. Hardly compelling by anybody's standards.

(Yes, LaRouche is a nutcase- I don't argue with you there, but what evidence do you have to link Kwiatkowski with him?)
 
#12
http://www.nationalreview.com/rubin/rubin200405180836.asp

Kwiatkowski did serve in the Pentagon prior to the war, as did I, as did approximately 23,000 others. But, Kwiatkowski was not involved in Iraq policy. Her reminiscences fall more into the realm of fiction than fact.
By her own admission, she started writing Internet columns while still a Pentagon desk officer. But, she did not know many of the people about whom she wrote. The Office of Special Plans consisted of a small number of active duty military officers, reservists, and civilians; both Democrats and Republicans. Kwiatkowski got ranks and services wrong. In rank-conscience corridors of the Pentagon and among military officers, such things do not happen.;/quote]

Upon her retirement, Kwiatkowski took her story to Jeff Steinberg, editor of the Executive Intelligence Review, the journal of Lyndon LaRouche's movement.
In her expose to the LaRouche organization, the substance of which was later published in The American Conservative magazine, Kwiatkowski alleged that there was a purge of desk officers within International Security Affairs. Not true. Kwiatkowski may have been upset that some colleagues received promotions when she did not.
Kwiatkowski has dishonored the U.S. military by using her Pentagon position to grandstand and legitimize fringe ideology. Like LaRouche, she rails against imaginary conspiracies and questions the loyalty of government employees who happen to be Jewish. While writing under the moniker "Deep Throat Returns," Kwiatkowski wrote, "The neocons must be squirming. Strategic placement of chickenhawks should have leveraged the full might and political resources of the United States to build greater Zion, resolve the Middle East, and award energy development contracts to all true believers." That Kwiatkowski would refer to her direct supervisor, Bill Luti, as a "chickenhawk" is ridiculous. Luti had a 26-year military career, including during the first Gulf War. Likewise, former National Security Council member General Wayne Downing — and everyone who served under his command in places like Panama — may take issue with Kwiatkowski's allegations. But to Kwiatkowski, facts do not matter. In subsequent essays, she alleged her colleagues were fighting for a "greater Zion" rather than for U.S. national security.
 
#13
Interesting stuff, worthy of consideration. Thanks for pointing it out. Now, if only we can find a corroborating source from outside the neo-con cabal. Let's face it, how many things has Michael Rubin been right about in the last 5 years? He went from AEI, where he helped dream up George's Middle Eastern Adventure; to OSP, where he helped sell everyone on the idea; to everybody's favorite people in Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority... and didn't they do a bang up job?

Do you think there's a chance that there may just be a little bit of Cover Your Ass activity going on?

By the way, here's what the non-partisan Sourcewatch has to say about her:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Karen_Kwiatkowski

Attacked by Rubin, John Gibson of Fcuks News, the Communications director of the RNC and the second dumbest guy in the Senate*, John Kyl (R-AZ)- to be honest I can't think of a way somebody can be better credentialled. ;)

Oh, and it was my mistake, she wasn't in OSP, she was in NESA- who had OSP looking over their shoulders morning, noon and night and feeding them talking points.

*The dumbest guy in the Senate, by bipartisan consensus (Just go to the Hawk and Dove at happy hour and poll the customers if you don't believe me) is Jeff Sessions (R-AL).
 
#14
This is a fascinating thread, one that explores the relationship between the servant of the State, the elected government, and the greater public interest.
That said, however, I feel that this subject could benefit from some boorishness and ignorance- which is where I come in :D
So, here goes: do you think that she would get it, or what? I reckon she bangs like a sh*thouse door in a gale...

 
#15
bernoulli said:
This is a fascinating thread, one that explores the relationship between the servant of the State, the elected government, and the greater public interest.
That said, however, I feel that this subject could benefit from some boorishness and ignorance- which is where I come in :D
So, here goes: do you think that she would get it, or what? I reckon she bangs like a sh*thouse door in a gale...

Sorry, but you've been beaten to it - the Republicans are driving policy, don't forget. :biggrin:
 

Latest Threads

Top