  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With IranPosted on Feb 27, 2007
(Page 2) JAMES HARRIS: That was your former boss, the shock and awe campaign. I’m still shocked and I’m awed. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: [laughs] He shocked and awed all of us. JAMES HARRIS: As a means of understanding the level of deceit that you claim took place and I agree took place before the war. Because it, the things that are going on in and around Iran sound a lot like the things that went on in 2002… KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Sure do. JAMES HARRIS: And I always note Scott Ritter, because I spoke to him, and I couldn’t believe that we didn’t take the advice of people like him that were saying that there’s nothing there, there’s nothing. Can you describe for us a typical day, if we went in around March, we’re approaching that anniversary, we went in around March of ‘03. What was it like in The Pentagon? KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Well, I worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and up until mid February I was in Near East South Asia, which is the office that owns the Office of Special Plans, they were our sister office. And so Iraq is one of the areas. And there’s a great degree of excitement, there’s a, we didn’t know when we would invade Iraq, and many people thought it would be in February, late February, early March and it actually was like I think march 23 is when we actually conducted that attack on Baghdad and that kind of thing. Most people in the Pentagon, there’s 23,000 people work in the Pentagon. Most of those people were as in the dark as any of the Americans. They believed what they read in the papers, and what they read in the papers, particularly The New York Times and The Washington Post had been, for the most part, planted by The Administration. We know this now, the whole Congress knows this now, they’ve had a number of hearings publicly faltered, I think even the DODIG [Department of Defense Inspector General] just recently faltered, Doug Feith and his whole organization for planting and providing misleading stories, many of which were later leaked on purpose to the press. A friendly press, of course, Judith Miller was not hostile to the intentions of this administration. They wanted to go into Iraq, and they intended to go into Iraq. We did go into Iraq, and all that was really needed was to bring onboard the American people, and to bring onboard the Congress. But not necessarily to declare war. Congress has never been asked to declare war on Iraq. And they won’t be asked to declare war on Iran even though we will conduct that war. These guys had an agenda. In fact, one of the things that I did learn as a result of having my eyes opened in that final tour in the Pentagon is that neo-conservatives, their foreign policy is very activist, you could say that’s a nice way to say it, very activist, it’s very oriented towards the Untied States as a benevolent dictator, a benevolent guiding hand for the world, particularly the Middle East. And it’s very much a pro-Israel policy, and it’s a policy that says, we should be able to do whatever we want to do, if we see it in our interest. Now, Americans don’t see any value, most Americans, 75 percent of Americans want the troops home now. They don’t see any value to having our troops in Iraq. They didn’t see any value in that in 2002. But, they had a story sold to them, which was of course that Saddam Hussein somehow was involved with 9/11, had WMDs, and was a serious threat, an imminent threat, a grave threat to the United States. JAMES HARRIS: For those people that think somehow that government officials, even though you work for the government, were complicit in this effort to move into Iraq. I want you to be clear, as a worker there, you were doing what you thought was right at the time. Is that a safe thing to say? KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: We were doing, I’ll tell ya, there’s two parts of how the story is sold, how the propaganda was put forth on the American people, and how it’s been put forth on them today in terms of Iran. You have political appointees in every government agency, and they switch out every time you get a new president, and that’s totally normal. Usually those, the numbers increase after every president, they always get a few more. So Bush was no different. He brought in a number of political appointees: Doug Feith, certainly Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. But also a number of political appointees at what you would call a lower level, like my level - Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel level. And they’re not military officers, they’re civilians. And they’re brought in, and this is where the propaganda was kind of put together, this is where the so-called alternative intelligence assessments were put together by the civilian appointees of the Bush Administration. Most of which, in fact, probably all of the Pentagon shared a neo-conservative world vision, which has a particular role for us, and that included the topping of Saddam Hussein, and it includes the toppling of the leadership in Tehran. These guys are the ones doing it, they’re doing it. They’re putting all the propaganda, they’re spreading stories, planting stuff in the media. They’re doing that to people in The Pentagon, the Civil Service core in The Pentagon, which is about half of them, and the other half which are uniformed military officers serving anywhere from three to four, five years, sometimes tours in The Pentagon. We’re looking at regular intel, we’re looking at the stuff the CIA and the DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency produces. And that stuff never said, that stuff never said Saddam Hussein had WMDs, had a delivery system, was a threat to the United States. It never said that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 or that Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaeda. That intelligence never said that. JAMES HARRIS: Did they tell you to shut up? KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Absolutely! [Laughs] That’s a funny thing, and of course, here’s how it worked. Once the Office of Special Plans was set up formally, now they were informally set up prior to the fall of 2002, but formally they became an office with office space and that whole bit. And the first act to follow that setup of the Office of Special Plans, we had a staff meeting, and our boss, Bill Ludy, who was the boss of Special Plans technically, not in reality but on paper. And he announced to us that from now on, action officers, staff officers such as myself and all my peers, at least in that office, and I presume this went all the way through the rest of policy, but we were told that when we needed to fill in data, putting it in papers that we would send up, doing our job, as we did our daily job, we were no longer to look at CIA and DIA intelligence, we were simply to call the Office of Special Plans and they would send down to us talking points, which we would incorporate verbatim no deletions, no additions, no modifications into every paper that we did. And of course, that was very unusual and all the action officers are looking at each other like, well that’s interesting. We’re not to look at the intelligence any more, we’re simply to go to this group of political appointees and they will provide to us word for word what we should say about Iraq, about WMD and about terrorism. And this is exactly what our orders were. And there were people [Laughs] a couple of people, and I have to say, I was not one of these people who said, “you know, I’m not gonna do that, I’m not gonna do that because there’s something I don’t like about it, it’s incorrect in some way.” And they experimented with sending up papers that did not follow those instructions, and those papers were 100 percent of the time returned back for correction. So we weren’t allowed to put out anything except what Office of Special Plans was producing for us. And that was only partially based on intelligence, and partially based on a political agenda. So this is how they did it. And I’ll tell you what, civil servants and military people, we follow orders, okay. And we buy into it. And we don’t suspect that our leaders are nefarious, we don’t suspect that. They, they quite frankly have to go a long way to prove to us that they are nefarious. That’s how it worked, and I imagine it’s working much the same way there in terms of Iran. JOSH SCHEER: Obviously you’ve been in the military for quite a while. Has this every happened to your knowledge in any other [administration’s] Pentagon, where political appointees have the power to just control the… KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Sure, well sure, Vietnam is filled with examples. And Daniel Ellsberg’s information and his Pentagon paper that he released factual information that contradicted what political appointees at the top of the Pentagon were saying to Congress and saying to the American people. Yeah, this is typical of how it works. Now, having said that, most people who serve and wear the uniform or give a career of service to the military, whether civilian, civil service or military, we don’t think that our bosses will do that. We don’t think that our military will do that. But in fact history is full of examples of bald-faced lies being told to sell particular agendas. Often times those agendas include war making, certainly in Vietnam they did, under LBJ and a few other presidents. Look at the thing that Reagan did. I mean, I actually don’t dislike Reagan, he deployed very few troops overseas, but when he went in to that little island down there… what is the name of that island that he invaded, Grenada. [Laughs] Remember that? Remember the Invasion of Grenada. JOSH SCHEER: All eight hours? JAMES HARRIS: It was a short one. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: I mean, God, shortly thereafter, come to find out, well actually, some of the stuff they said about the threat and the Cubans and all that wasn’t really true. So politicians and their politically appointed military leaders will lie, historically do lie when it has to do with making war, particularly making a war that they want. And what has happened in the Bush Administration is the war that they want was Iraq. And the war that they want is Iran, and the war that they want is Syria, okay? That’s the war they want. They don’t want Vietnam. I don’t know why, they don’t want Vietnam, they want these places, this is what the neo-conservatives are particularly interested in. So we have war. And they make up stories and we’re seeing the exact same thing in terms of Iran, which is quite alarming because it seems as if we can’t stop this, we can’t prevent this. JOSH SCHEER: You were talking about these political appointees and pushing us into war. Why haven’t people like Paul Wolfowitz, I mean these guys seem to feather their own nests. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: [Laughs] That’s an understatement. JOSH SCHEER: They lead us into war, Mark Zell, Doug Feith’s partner was in bed with Chalabi. It falls apart and then it seems that these guys disappear into the woodwork. What happens? KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Well, a big part of what happens is these guys have top cover, the names of the top cover are Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. These guys like what Wolfowitz has done. And here’s the other thing. While we as American citizens do not like being lied to, particularly being lied to into a stupid quagmire that makes no sense. We don’t’ like being lied to. Congress doesn’t like being lied to. However, many in Congress, and certainly in this administration agree, and this is Democrats and Republicans, like the idea that we have gone into Iraq, we have built four mega bases, they are complete. Most of the money we gave to Halliburton was for construction and completion of these bases. We have probably, of the 150,000, 160,000 troops we have in Iraq probably 110,000 of those folks are associated with one of those four mega bases. Safely ensconced behind acres and acres of concrete. To operate there indefinitely, no matter what happens in Baghdad, no matter who takes over, no matter if the country splits into three pieces or it stays one. No matter what happens, we have those mega bases, and there’s many in Congress and certainly in this administration, Republican and Democrat alike that really like that. Part of the reason I think that we went into Iraq was to reestablish a stronger foothold than we had in Saudi Arabia, but also a more economical, a more flexible, in terms of who we want to hit. If you want to hit Syria, can you do it from Iraq? Of course you can. And now you can do it from bases that will support any type of airplane you want, any number of troops in barracks. I mean we can do things from Iraq. And this is what they wanted. So, yeah, we don’t like being lied to. But quite frankly, many people in the Congress, and certainly this administration, when they call Iraq a success, they mean it, and this is why.
We’re in Iraq to stay. And can we strike Iran from Iraq? Well, I don’t know if we’ll do that next week, but we can.
1
2
3
NEXT PAGE >>>
Previous item: We'll Lock Up Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free Next item: Ramadi Blast Details Diverge Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. |
Sarah Palin: Maverick or Just a Neophyte?
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By usrmodem, August 2, 2007 at 8:49 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I guess that incursion in Iran will be before election.
Report thisBy Bukko in Australia, May 10, 2007 at 4:36 pm #
Right you are, Jeannine, and it goes even further back than Carter and Nixon, to another Franklin, the Delano Roosevelt one. He was the guy who decided the U.S. should have a strategic partnership with the Saudi royal family, instead of any future democratic faction, in order to guarantee U.S. access to their oil. And America has been in bed with those head-chopping, women-oppressing kings ever since. You seem to know your history, though, so you’re probably aware of that.
The root of the problem is that the U.S. is an oil junkie. And just as a heroin junkie will hit their own grandmother over the head and steal her wedding ring to get a fix, U.S. politicians and the SUV drivers who vote for them will do whatever is necessary to satisfy their petrol jones.
Report thisBy Jeanine Molloff, May 10, 2007 at 10:04 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
One item has been omitted from this discussion; the involvement of both Democrats and Republicans in this travesty of justice. From the Carter era; a doctrine was established which called for the use of the US military complex to ‘secure’ oil reserves through the world. Such a strategy included the obvious use of military force through contrived wars claiming to secure democracy to those in oil rich regions. Jimmy Carter solidified this policy as golden and it was dubbed the ‘Carter Doctrine.’ So much for peacemaking. Any policy makers from this period on--cannot claim ignorance on the topic. They were knowing accomplices, even if the crime was nothing more than a lie of omission. This policy actually traces back to the Nixon administration, but Carter elevated the policy to the level of dictated doctrine. The mainstream media acted as a de facto propaganda agency pushing the same tired old spin. If we the public, want to enact any meaningful change--we have to take these pols off the pedestal and analyze their past actions and level of involvement. We have to hold these pols accountable for their actions. No more sacred cows. Just the facts. Verifiable and honestly documented. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO THE TRUTH. IT’S TIME TO TAKE OUR DEMOCRACY BACK AND REESTABLISH THE BILL OF RIGHTS. IT’S TIME TO HOLD THESE POLITICAL THIEVES ACCOUNTABLE. FRANKLIN WAS RIGHT; THOSE WHO BELIEVE THEY MUST SURRENDER THEIR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN SECURITY--DESERVE NEITHER.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, April 20, 2007 at 12:20 pm #
Quote *allen: “...if all this energy were devoted to securing Israel’s future, calming the Palestinians......”
Israel doesn’t have a future!
Report thisBy allen, April 7, 2007 at 9:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
it’s quite a revelation to skim thru these posts and notice nobody wonders if LtC K. knows what she’s talking about./ secondly, it’s a bit of a shock that most everybody assumes Iran will be nxt, which I seriously doubt, & finally if all this energy were devoted to securing Israel’s future, calming the Palestinians, etc. it would be a hopeful sign. But the fervor to eagerly want a war which isn’t v. likely, is sobering.
Report thisBy Bukko in Australia, April 6, 2007 at 12:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Steve, I think you’re looking in a mirror… But you’re doing a heckuva job, Burnie!
Report thisBy Steve Burnie, April 3, 2007 at 1:36 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
You people are idiots
Report thisBy paul kibble, March 27, 2007 at 6:06 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Comment #60761 by Joe:
GIVE WAR A CHANCE? That line worked for P.J. O’Rourke but sounds a little hollow coming from a keyboard commando willing to put everyone’s ass but his own on the line. Anyway, MISSION AACCOMPLISHED, since I believe that thing over in Iraq---the name may ring a bell---sort of qualifies as a “war” and after four+ years of constantly re-choreographed “cakewalks” to victory and thousands of bodies, there are some rumors (not all of them from lefty wingnuts) that things aren’t going quite as hoped ("as planned” would be the wrong phrase to apply to the Screwup in Chief and his enablers).
Speaking of chance, or chances, most of us with at least a pair of active brain cells knew the odds of a peaceful scenario in a post-invasion Iraq were minimal, just as we know that the odds of a peaceful scenario---globally, not just regionally---of a peaceful scenario in a post-nuked Iran are nil. That’s because there’s something out there called “history” and if you pay it a little attention, you may occasionally learn something from it . But then, “invincible ignorance” is a phrase of John Gregory Dunne’s I’ve had to use in this context before and, surprise, I’ve found another occasion to use it again.
Report thisBy Joe, March 27, 2007 at 11:26 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
War is hell, people die. we need to nuke Iran back to the stone age.
GIVE WAR A CHANCE
Report thisBy marie2, March 27, 2007 at 8:51 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I wish that our government would listen to us like Tony Blair’s administration listened to the British people. We are no longer sold by their lies and we don’t want to hear more that’ll falsely place us in Iran. We would like to see our tax money directed to more imporatant issues that will actually benefit our foreign relations such as foreign aid for global poverty in Africa. In reality only .16% of our federal budget is spent on this important issue.
Report thisBy Allen Thomas, March 26, 2007 at 5:12 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
now retired, I once had a career with the Fed, twd the end a supervisor. So, a ‘retired Air Force Lt. Col.’ comes fwd with all kinds of inside stuff, I wonder how she reached such a pinnacle. Frankly, i’m taking her inside story with a pinch of salt. and we can watch for her book, ‘blowing the lid off the inside workings of the Pentagon.’
Report thisBy Arnold J. Robbins, March 25, 2007 at 3:26 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Correction to my last e-mail - I meant to type “Iraq” instead of “Iran” in a couple of places near the end of the e-mail. This is the corrected version:
Dear Senator (Insert Name Here) or
Dear Congressmen or Congresswomen (Insert Name Here):
I never thought I would find myself writing a letter like this to you but after reading more and more news reports about what is happening in Iraq and hearing rumblings that the Bush Administration is quietly preparing to bomb and/or provoke Iran into war, I have no other choice but to ask for the immediate action of impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
I don’t care how you do it or what you do, but the Iraq war is a complete failure and a complete sham. The United States government, under the direction of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton to build four US Army mega bases in Iraq [i.e., See the DVD “Why We Fight” and the February 27th, 2007, interview with Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (retired) at ]http://www.truthdig.com.]
The intent is for the US to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq for the next 20 to 30 years. It doesn’t matter who is elected to run the government of Iraq - Shiite, Sunni or a combination of the two. The US government, specifically the Bush Administration and the Pentagon, have no intent in handing these bases over to the Iraqi government regardless of who is in power or whether the Iraqi situation stabilizes in the near future.
The Bush Administration went into Iraq not because of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and not to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein or because they really believed that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda. These were all just excuses to rally the American people to war. The Bush Administration invaded Iraq to establish a permanent US military presence in the Middle East and to have a strategic position from which to more easily strike out against Iran and other nations in the Middle East considered a direct threat to America or a direct threat to the stability of oil supplies in the region.
For what other reason have we, the United State’s taxpayers paid for four permanent US mega bases in Iraq? Now it all makes sense. The Bush Administration manipulated intelligence data to support the invasion of Iraq or if they encountered intelligence information contrary to their desire to invade Iraq they either ignored it or tried to character assassinate the people who were raising red flags (i.e., the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson to discredit Joseph Wilson’s report that there was no credible evidence to support that the nation of Niger was trying to sell yellow-cake uranium to Iraq so that Iraq could manufacture nuclear bombs.).
There is only one option left and it must be completed as soon as possible:
IMPEACH PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!
Sincerely,
Arnold J. Robbins
Report thisBy Arnold J. Robbins, March 25, 2007 at 2:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
A letter I just mailed to my political representatives. Feel free to copy and paste and make it your own!!! It all makes sense to me now and it is the most disgusting lie I have ever been witness to in my entire life!!!
Dear Senator (Insert Name Here) or
Dear Congressmen/Congresswomen (Insert Name Here):
I never thought I would find myself writing a letter like this to you but after reading more and more news reports about what is happening in Iraq and hearing rumblings that the Bush Administration is quietly preparing to bomb and/or provoke Iran into war, I have no other choice but to ask for the immediate action of impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
I don’t care how you do it or what you do, but the Iraq war is a complete failure and a complete sham. The United States government, under the direction of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton to build four US Army mega bases in Iraq [i.e., See the DVD “Why We Fight” and the February 27th, 2007, interview with Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (retired) at ]http://www.truthdig.com.]
The intent is for the US to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq for the next 20 to 30 years. It doesn’t matter who is elected to run the government of Iraq - Shiite, Sunni or a combination of the two. The US government, specifically the Bush Administration and the Pentagon, have no intent in handing these bases over to the Iraqi government regardless of who is in power or whether the Iraqi situation stabilizes in the near future.
The Bush Administration went into Iraq not because of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and not to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein or because they really believed that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda. These were all just excuses to rally the American people to war. The Bush Administration invaded Iraq to establish a permanent US military presence in the Middle East and to have a strategic position from which to more easily strike out against Iran and other nation in the Middle East considered a direct threat to America or a direct threat to the stability of oil supplies in the region.
For what other reason have we, the United State’s taxpayers paid for four permanent US mega bases in Iraq? Now it all makes sense. The Bush Administration manipulated intelligence data to support the invasion of Iraq or if they encountered intelligence information contrary to their desire to invade Iraq they either ignored it or tried to character assassinate the people who were raising red flags (i.e., the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson to discredit Joseph Wilson’s report that there was no credible evidence to support that the nation of Niger was trying to sell yellow-cake uranium to Iran so that Iran could manufacture nuclear bombs.).
There is only one option left and it must be completed as soon as possible:
IMPEACH PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!
Sincerely,
Arnold J. Robbins
Report this(address, phone number and e-mail have been deleted for obvious reasons but should be included if you decide to cut and paste and use this letter as your own.)
By SxyPaula, March 25, 2007 at 1:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Why would George Bush want to go to war with Iran when there is so much soldiers getting killed in Iraq, It will just be a waste of taxpayers dollars at the expense of a war that makes no sense. What do he intend to get from going to war with Iran? I think it’s nonsense.
Report thisBy Bukko in Australia, March 23, 2007 at 7:39 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thank you, Crystal. I agree that everyone should read what Ritter is saying. He was right about Iraq, and he will be right about Iran. The fact that some of these close-minded people are coming to TruthDig, even if it’s just to disagree, is hopeful. If they read the truth, some of it is likely to infiltrate their minds. They are easily led, and the facts presented here might lead them to sensibility.
The insults of people who screen-name themselves after childrens’ toys don’t upset me, because I work with screaming, antagonistic demented people in hospital every week. And when I was in the U.S. I worked as a nurse in the Florida state prison system, where I had people who had actually murdered other people yelling that they would murder me. (Part of the intimidation tactics prisoners use, but they were on the other side of the steel bars, so I was not bothered.) Insults just mean that someone has gotten under their skin.
Report thisBy Crystal, March 23, 2007 at 4:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Wow GI JOE… you need to listen to Scott Ritter speak. If you think that an ex-marine, ex- UN weapons inspector and ex-employee of the CIA is full of crap about nuclear proliferation needing to end, than you have an interestingly closed mind, in a very dangerous way for the rest of us Americans. It’s too bad.
Report thisYou had a valid and thoughtful comment Bukko. I wish that others would be so lived, and educated enough to express their opinions in an intelligent way.
By GI JOE, March 20, 2007 at 4:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
No Bukko of Australia, you NEED to zip your ignorant trap.
Report thisWhat you don’t get is that evil governments unchecked will eventually get out of control.
Evil governments must be eliminated in order for peace to happen in this world.
War is a necessary event in order to achieve this when diplomacy fails. Get it Bukko from do nothing Australia.
By Bukko in Australia, March 19, 2007 at 11:53 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Looks like this thread was linked to an AIPAC site. GI/Jew, part of me wants you to get your wish, so you can see what would happen if Israel unleashed nuclear genocide on Iran. That would be Israel’s death, and you would be say “We’re SO sorry! We never expected that!”
Except I don’t want to see the rest of the world turn on Israel and let all the Jews there be slaughtered. I spent the summer of 1980 on Kibbutz Sha’ar Ha-golan, so lots of my sweat and a little blood (nicked myself with a machete chopping banana leaves in the fields one morning) is in the soil of Eretz Israel. Plus, you blind ideologues never admit you’re wrong, even when you get what you wish for and it blows up in your face. Like the war in Iraq.
Do you have any conception of how the world works? Do you realise that nuclear war isn’t some neat-o computer game with flashy graphics on a screen and no fallout—literally and figuratively—in the real world? I’m a nurse. I’m in the life business. I’ve seen too many people die in front of me to think it’s amusing to wish for mega-death. My take is that you haven’t lived very long, or seen much of the world, so you have no idea of what you’re talking about. I suggest you shut up until you grow up.
Report thisBy Caribbean Cruises, March 19, 2007 at 3:30 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Buy Your next cruise from us! Tired of all the EMPTY extravagant claims online? Cruise specialists with every major cruise line. Carribean, Caribbean, Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Alaska, Mediterranean Cruises-all at discount rates!
Report thisBy Bill Blackolive, March 18, 2007 at 7:53 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The root to cut of the present fear and noise is 9/11 coverup. See, hear, speak no evil, ho hum. It is so easy to puncture the rolling tire - get a braver name in the media to point out the official physics of 9/ll’s 3 buildings are impossible. What a world. If anyone has anything else to add I am at texasgang at localnet dot com
Report thisBy Big Al, March 18, 2007 at 2:46 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
This could not be more urgent.
Dawn Hoagland (Comment #59147) stated the situation so perfectly well and plainly that I can only repeat her post:
“The only solution to stopping this impending war with Iran is a double impeachment NOW. Dick Cheney and George Bush will not listen to reason. They are positioned to start another war and THEY WILL DO IT. We can’t give them the benefit of the doubt. We can’t trust them to do the right thing. We can’t believe their lies again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Stop this escalation against Iran NOW. IMPEACH CHENEY AND BUSH! Impeachment can’t be taken off the table. The Articles of Impeachment are outlined in our Constitution for just such a reason. Our founding fathers had the forsight to predict such a situation. They understood that power corrupts. It is our duty as citizens of the United States to fight against all enemies of our Constitution, foreign or domestic. Right now there is no greater threat to our civil liberties and the existence of the U.S. as we know it than Dick Cheney. Impeach this war profiteer and torturer. Call congress.”
Report thisBy A Jew, March 17, 2007 at 9:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Bukko in Australia:
Report thisThe Jews have always stood against the entire world.
See Bukko, we are still here despite the World of nations trying to destroy us over the last 3,000 years!
Just try it again and the final phase of Hebrew prophecy will indeed come true.
By GI JOE, March 17, 2007 at 8:52 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Bukko of Australia:
If Israel tactically nuked Iran’s “ATOMIC FACILITY PLANT” the world would do nothing about it.
Report thisPraise should be the only answer from the civilized countries of the world.
Just like when they took out Iraq’s nuclear plant in 1981. The world condemned them but found out that they saved the world from a nuclear Saddam Hussein. What fools the rest of you pathetic chicken countries are.
Thank the Almighty for his people Israel and the United States for taking an active role in getting rid of mad mass murdering dictators and nations that export evil & terrorism.
By Dawn Hoagland, March 17, 2007 at 11:11 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The only solution to stopping this impending war with Iran is a double impeachment NOW. Dick Cheney and George Bush will not listen to reason. They are positioned to start another war and THEY WILL DO IT. We can’t give them the benefit of the doubt. We can’t trust them to do the right thing. We can’t believe their lies again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Stop this escalation against Iran NOW. IMPEACH CHENEY AND BUSH! Impeachment can’t be taken off the table. The Articles of Impeachment are outlined in our Constitution for just such a reason. Our founding fathers had the forsight to predict such a situation. They understood that power corrupts. It is our duty as citizens of the United States to fight against all enemies of our Constitution, foreign or domestic. Right now there is no greater threat to our civil liberties and the existence of the U.S. as we know it than Dick Cheney. Impeach this war profiteer and torturer. Call congress.
Report thisBy Bill Blackolive, March 17, 2007 at 9:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Michael Moore, all this above is fun without one has the fear I do, in that there is a 9/11 cover up, which, if ever openly looked at by somebody with your name, would start to clear brush. Simply because the official physics don’t work, you know it. Any boyscout can see it. Very many people in and out of government know it, but, their or your fear is to speak, wherein, mine is to not speak. Hey, think, you. Run and hide in Canada or abroad but go honest.
Report thisBy Max von Schuler-Kobayashi, March 13, 2007 at 7:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Roy,
America is already defeated in Iraq, the world knows it. I have lived in Japan for the past 32 yearrs, Since the Iraq invasion, the reputation of America has plummeted. Now, the Japan/America alliance is cracking. America pressured Japan to give up oil filed development in Iran. So Japan is talking to Russia. Japan is negotiating a security deal with Australia, America is not invited. Blowback. That old argument to stay in losing war so that America does not look bad is not correct.
America already looks quite bad, believe me.
It is time to show that the USA is a mature country, and to at least quit making the same mistake over and over again. So pull out of Iraq.
As for some of the comments about Israel, I have seen some signs that some Israeli’s understand that dangers that PM Olmert has led them into. There is movement in Israel to enter talks with Syria, all to the good.
I think Israel is going to have to do a South African style accomadation with the Palestinians in order to survive. After their serious defeat in Lebanon last summer, purely military solutions are no longer viable for Israel.
And yes, Israel was quite involved in the planning for the Iraq war and a potential war against Iran with political moves of influence inside the United States.
This has a strong potential for backfire, as more Americans become aware of this. And the US is Israel’s only backer. I think the Israeli’s over-played their hand.
Report thisBy Robert Noval, March 13, 2007 at 7:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Bukko says “Al, I can’t believe Israel would be stupid enough to bomb Iran...” Probably not, but they’re probably crazy enough.
I would say that the question of whether the U.S. or Israel actually does the bombing is almost moot.
Remember the egomaniaical moron in the White House. Do you guys think he’s capable of NOT using “nucular” weapons while he still can? (Assuming he leaves office at the end of the current term, something about which I have grave doubts).
http://www.smallgov.org/?p=364
Be that as it may, over the sixty-odd years since nuclear weapons were actually used, a taboo against them has EVOLVED. I emphasize evolved; a generally accepted state of affairs amoungst the world populace, aside from any formalized treaty, such as NPT or SORT.
http://www.smallgov.org/?p=262
But the bush gang, led by Cheney, insists ALL options are “on the table”. To be taken seriously, they MUST violate and over turn this taboo.
The “they won’t do it because it’s just too horrible” argument just doesn’t wash. These people spend human lives with the nonchalance you employ sending pocket change.
Iran is the perfect target. Israel’s sworn enemy, they’ve seen their influence expanded as Washington, for reasons of their own, have attacked Iran’s other enemies. Most notably, Saddam Hussein. This worries not only Washington, but Israel and Saudi Arabia as well.
Whatever the direct impact or immediate consequences, those, combined with the certification of the willingness to employ them, assures us witness to a nuclear weapons assault on Iran. Possibly by Israel, more likely by Washington.
---The Bikemessenger
Report thisBy Robert Noval, March 13, 2007 at 6:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
In response to Roy Oetting:
Calling people “thimble brains” hardly lends pursuasion to your arguments. Col. Kwiakowski is a much better writer than she is a speaker, perhaps you should try reading some of her writings before casting your sexist dispersions.
You should consider not allowing the bush cabal, whom you claim to despise, but who’s arguments you support, to define the issues for you.
There is no weakness exhibited in admission of wrong; nor in swift and orderly withdrawal, when continued occupation would still be feaseable, although ill-advised.
The war against Iraq, based on lies, motivated by megalomania, religious fanaticism, and fascist corporate profiteering has cost The U.S. all respect on a global scale.
Everyone fears the U.S., while laughing sardonically behind our backs. The only way to regain respect is to admit wrong and withdraw.
---The Bikemessenger
Report thisBy Roy Oetting, March 13, 2007 at 6:11 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, pretty but not to bright. You all sound like a bunch of thimble brains.
Report thisShe talks about President Carter. President Carter was unimaginative scum bag. What person would hold back pay raises from the military when the country is experiencing double digit inflation? A vindictive ex navy president who wanted to get even for him not meeting the standards of Adm. Rickover. By the time the American people threw him out of office over half the married military was eligible for food stamps. That is disgraceful. President Reagan gave the military a raise that brought us back to the early 70’s standards. There isn’t a president I despise more than Carter. Clinton and Bush would be tie for second. For a minute, think about the consequences of pulling out of Iraq ? World opinion - there goes the Americans again retreating with their tails between their legs. China would be thinking - Taiwan is easy picking. Israel would be thinking - time to escalate . Who knows what North Korea would be thinking. I really don’t want another young American to die. I don’t want anyone to die, but we are stuck in a situation that was created by 60 years of bad foreign policy. Instead of asking what is right the United States government has been asking what is easy, what is cheap? Both parties are guilty. Let’s throw another band aid on education, lets think a few more years about poverty. Mr President the next time you think you hear god talking to you, look in the closet and see who is really telling you to do stuff. Mr President we can not tolerate a country who uses their god as and excuse to hurt others. The Colonel suggested that we might nuke Iran. If we were going to nuke something Jerusalem would be a much better target. We would be saying look you mothers there isn’t going to be a temple or a mosque here and we’re not going to permit any more religious fanaticism. I may have been a little extreme but hopefully you get the point. Zero tolerance. I guess the three of you are still in your foxhole. Please don’t get up just fill it in. Thanks!
By Big Al, March 13, 2007 at 4:39 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Bukko writes:
“Al, I can’t believe Israel would be stupid enough to bomb Iran.”
Bukko: I still think the Israelis won’t bomb Iran.
Why should they, when they have enough political clout in the US Congress and White House to force the US to do it?
But you cannot possibly doubt that Israel wants this done. The Israel Lobby and the neocons have long been loudly demanding that this be done. They want it done yesterday.
Report thisBy Bukko in Australia, March 12, 2007 at 7:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Al, I can’t believe Israel would be stupid enough to bomb Iran. Not only would that set off the same conflagration of Iranian anti-ship missiles blockading oil tankers from the Straits of Hormuz and worldwide terror attacks as a U.S. attack would, but it would bring a shitstorm directly onto Israel itself.
And the Israelis know that nothing short of nuclear weapons would do lasting harm to Iranian nuclear facilities. They’re dug in deep enough that anything less would be like a BB gun against a rhinoceros. If Israel nuked Iran, it would become a hunted outlaw nation in the eyes of the rest of the world (except for the U.S., of course.) No matter how strong they might be against their disorganised neighbours, the Israelis know they cannot stand against the entire world.
No, only President Cheney would be insane enough to attack Iran. Jury’s still out on that one…
Report thisBy Big Al, March 12, 2007 at 3:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
One poster asks: “What if America asks Israel to do the deed?” [that is, bomb Iran]
If Israel agrees to bomb Iran, it will not be a matter of Israel doing the US a favor. It will be a matter of Israel, after being begged by its poor overextended American servants, to please take on at least SOME of the burden of this new war for Israel’s benefit.
Because “the deed” is 100% for Israel’s benefit and no one else’s.
Perhaps Israel might be ready to say to us, “OK, OK - maybe we’ll do the EASY part - bombing Iran (with the US paying for the whole thing, of course). But America has to do the hard part (i.e., everything else, including dealing with all the horrible consequences, and sending massively increased ‘aid’ to Israel so that Israel doesn’t have to deal with ANY consequences, including economic ones).
And we Americans are supposed to be grateful for this “favor” from Israel? They can go to hell.
Report thisBy DeanOR, March 11, 2007 at 2:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I came to this article late (by eons in internet time) but wanted to say how impressed I am by Karen Kwiatkowski. She is truth-telling, bright, and courageous. Thanks for interviewing her! Her truth needs to be known. It is pretty much what I have heard from others and have surmised, but I was still stunned by the brazenness of the way she and her colleagues were muzzled. What a disgrace.
Report thisBy shepherd, March 11, 2007 at 8:58 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Comment #57674 by Max von Schuler-Kobayashi on 3/09 at 3:44 pm
“Bukko is quite right about the fight to the sea if America attacks Iran. The supply routes for the US troops in Iraq are virtually unguarded from Kuwait to Baghdad, and they will be quickly closed. Already supply convoys have been reduced from 8 daily to 5 daily due to security problems.”
What if America asks Israel to do the deed?
TONY JONES: “Now Martin Indigt, the former senior Clinton official has suggested to us [Lateline] that military strikes on Iranian facilities could effectively be ‘subcontracted out’ to Israel?”
Transcript: Tony Jones speaks to John Bolton
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1854644.htm
RealPlayer video clip:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200702/r127924_419298.ram
WMP video clip:
Report thishttp://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200702/r127924_419300.asx
By Bukko in Australia, March 10, 2007 at 8:16 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Yes, Bob, although the citizens here are against the war, Howard is doing the same thing as Bush—sending MORE troops! Another 70 are going as “trainers.” So far, Aussies have kept out of combat and suffered only one soldier’s death—a guy who plugged himself in the head in his barracks whilst playing with his rifle. And they do manage to kill civilians, including a Hispanic guy from San Antonio who was working as a garbage truck driver for KBR and went to make a pick-up at the Aussie embassy and didn’t announce himself properly, so he got machine-gunned. How’s that for a twisted waste of life—Mexican guy working for Americans in Iraq, getting killed by Australians?
Report thisBy Bob Zimmerman, March 10, 2007 at 5:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Comment #57328 by Bukko in Australia on 3/08 at 6:36 am
Glad to hear that Australian citizens are not behind this war, unlike their Cheney look-alike PM. That guy is clueless like our VP. Fortunately, the public opinion tide against this war and President Bush will force Congress to do something concrete for a change. We don’t need another non-binding resolution. We need our troops back home for a long r&r;. Then we should go to Afghanistan and finish up the job there, and bring back Osama dead or alive. I just hope the U.S. can survive another two years of King George W.
Report thisBy Big Al, March 10, 2007 at 5:44 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
What Kwiatkowski tells us is the same as what Scott Ritter and Brent Scowcroft and others are telling us: a US war against Iran is insanely contrary to our national interests, by any conceivable standard - yet such a war is what Israel fanatically demands.
The Israelis DO NOT CARE about the fact that this would be an apocalyptic disaster for the United States of America that would dwarf the Iraq fiasco by comparison.
If the Israeli right wing and their US lobbyists, media megaphones, and “think tank experts” didn’t want this, all talk of such a catastrophic “option” would be “off the table” in about two seconds.
Report thisBy Robert Noval, March 9, 2007 at 3:49 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
In re.: #57484 by Rob on 3/08 at 7:31 pm :
Right on, Rob!
Talk about hypocrisy, once the towel-heads get their precious “democracy” shoved down their throats by the Pentagon, they’d better be damned careful what they do with it. Just ask the Palestinians.
History shows that the current conflict was INITIATED by western powers. That fact defines the nature of the conflict.
It is ever incumbent upon the initiators, or their heirs, to end the conflict by ceasing hostilities.
How ever many generations the conflict may last, that does not change. The candy asses, as you so aptly characterize them, posture western imperialist powers as the “victims”. History tells the opposite tale.
It’s time to expose the war-mongers for what they are; guilt-ridden cowards who would exterminate their victims, bogus “self-defense” as the rationalization. This to avoid facing their own responsibilities for initiating and maintaining the conflict.
---The Bikemessenger
Report thisBy Max von Schuler-Kobayashi, March 9, 2007 at 3:44 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Bukko is quite right about the fight to the sea if America attacks Iran. The supply routes for the US troops in Iraq are virtually unguarded from Kuwait to Baghdad, and they will be quickly closed. Already supply convoys have been reduced from 8 daily to 5 daily due to security problems.
Why do you think the British are leaving? If America goes for Iran, they don’t want to lose their boys at Basra airport. (they no longer dare to go into Basra city itself.)
I am a former US Marine. One the US Marine Corps legends is the fight to the sea from the mnountains of North Korea in the Korean war. Every cook and clerk and driver fought as a rifleman to get out.
Well, in these days, such support personnel are no longer US troops, but third world civilians employed by Halliburton.
I have seen published totals like something of 120,000 for such “private contracters” in Iraq.
If the US forces are forced to retreat, they cannot be depended upon, they are likely to panic and disintergrate.
This unreliability of support personnel raise my estimate of American losses in a retreat to the sea to something like 50%.
America is trapped.
Report thisBy Glenda Harris, March 9, 2007 at 11:59 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
This was quite an interesting interview. It is a great relief to find someone who is not afraid to speak her mind. I learned quite a bit from this interview. James Harris you make me proud.
Report thisBy Rob, March 8, 2007 at 7:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ya just gotta love those bleeding heart, neo “candy ass” cons who love muslims sooooo much they want to bring democracy to them.
Yet their always whining about muslims being warmongers who want to take over the world? Oh the hypocrisy…
...illogical thinking, double standards, ethnocentrism and dogmatism!
Watching neo “candy ass” cons is like watching lovable losers in an absurdist comedy. lol
Report thisBy Jeff Badura, March 8, 2007 at 7:13 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
A illgramaticus correction for Comment #57245 = I said “there is a revolution, a civil war going on between the monorails and dictators and the radical Islamics”
I meant to say= “there is a revolution, a civil war, going on between the monarchies and dictators, and the radical Islamics”
sorry if i confused anyone ??? a spell check error slipped by me !! i dont call myself IllGramaticus for nothing !!
Report thisBy Bukko in Australia, March 8, 2007 at 6:36 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Good perspectives from Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, although she sure is weak on fine points. She doesn’t know the exact date that Gulf War II started (March 20, 2003) or Jay Garner’s name or what Jimmy Carter won a Nobel Peace Prize for? When people are that ignorant of easy specifics, it makes it harder for me to believe their larger points.
Kwiatkowski and some posters mentioned Scott Ritter. They didn’t go into much detail about the ABSOLUTE DISASTER Ritter forecasts if President Cheney attacks Iran. This will bring about the downfall of the current pattern of world civilisation.
* A Shiite uprising against U.S. troops and supply lines will kill thousands of American soldiers and force them to fight their way OUT of Iraq. Iran has had plenty of time to organise this with their co-religionists inside Iraq.
* Oil will go to over $100 a barrel, dragging down the world economy;
* Russia and/or China will retaliate against on out-of-control United States by dumping their reserves of dollars, undercutting the American currency and causing the U.S. economy to implode. Welcome to the new Great Depression!
* Pervez Musharaff will be overthrown in Pakistan and an al Qaeda-friendly government armed with nuclear weapons will take its place;
* Nuclear bombings by governments and terrorists will probably occur at various places around the world, causing nuclear winter and widespread radioactive contamination.
In short, if the Bush Crime Family is foolhardy enough to attack Iran, it’s the end of the world as we know it. I’ve read rumours that Army generals are threatening to quit if the attack order is given. However, what Kwiatkowski says about the Air Force and Navy wanting to get into the “glory” makes it seem likely that there will be a few flyboys willing to set loose the jets of war, and then it’s full-on.
Mates, I’m glad I emigrated to Australia. That’s how I avoid paying taxes for America’s killing machine. Crime Minister Howard has placed Aussie troops in Iraq, but the population is solidly against the occupation. If there’s a wider war, it will cause the overthrow of his Parliamentary majority. And I can think of worse places to ride out the conflagration than a relatively self-sufficient, geographically isolated place like this.
Good luck, my no-longer fellow Americans (except for you idiot war-wishers—JOIN THE ARMY IF YOU’RE SO KEEN ON DEATH, NITWITS!). You’re going to need it. And don’t forget the worldwide day of protest March 17. At least you can say you went down fighting…
Report thisBy jeff Badura, March 7, 2007 at 4:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
About Comment #56993 by August West
August, i would agree with you that for most of the 20th century our national security priorities were to keep markets open !!(and defeat Fascism-WW II and then Communism-WW III) but then after 9/11 some of us learned that placating dictators for a false temporary security is just passing trouble onto the next generation!! (not me, i was a neocon before we were named such)
you are absolutely right the whole middle east is a festering pile of religious bigoted hatred (one of the unspoken reasons for going into Iraq) you should look to the Islamic world as one complicated culture , one area, don’t allow your mind to divide it up into the false borders we see on the maps !!! those border were set up that way after the Ottoman empire lost WW I, by Europe and just as the Treaty of Versailles helped bring on WW II in Europe is has helped bring on WW IV now in the middle east !!there is a revolution, a civil war going on between the monorails and dictators and the radical Islamics and 9/11 and the last 30 yrs of terror is a spill over of that war !! so there will be more war before we we have peace the radicals have to be killed off or there ways have to change and the monarchies and dictators have to give power to the people !!! its much bigger than Bin Ladden !! this is religious cultural warfare the radicals believe we are Satan and deserve to die !!! you and me included !!! we can argue amongst ourselves but they want both of us dead !!! so yes if Democracy took hold tomorrow the governments would be hostile towards us !!! but so be it !! true democracies have a way of liberalizing themselves !! we cannot disallow the people to have true freedom because we wont like it !!! that’s terribly hypocritical !! let them have democracy !! only trade with liberal democracies only talk to liberal democracies and if they openly threaten us if they openly attack us ?? then kill those leaders !!!
Iran is next !! they openly support terror and believe in Jihad as the governments goal !! they chant “death to the USA “ on every possible opportunity !! that means you August!! there will be no peace with Iran’s current government in power if the war doesn’t start tomorrow? then it will be in yrs to come !! but there will be war !! we will start with strategic bombing, and hope that’s enough (as in Serbia) and if that doesn’t work ?? another invasion is sure to come within the next decade !! so the people of Iran will be pissed at us?? the UN will be pissed at us?? but in the end our grandchildren and Iran’s and Iraq’s Grandchildren will have a better world !!
and Bush’s bust will carved into Mt. Rushmore ha ha ha ha
illgramaticus Knee o’Kaun
Report thisBy Robert Noval, March 7, 2007 at 10:37 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
In re.: #57150 by Mike Roberts on 3/07 at 8:17 am
Mike:
In the first case, she refers to our current, no going military action.
In the second, she refers to our strategic employment of the bases, presumable to be continued in perpetuity even after the “withdrawal” from Iraq’s currrent domestic strife.
---The Bikemessenger
Report thisBy Max von Schuler-Kobayashi, March 7, 2007 at 9:43 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
As far as maintaning those four mega bases in Iraq, I don’t believe it possible. It is getting more and more difficult to run supply convoys from Kuwait into Iraq, eventually they will be forced to cease.
Then everything the US troops eat and shoot must be flown in. America will not have the capacity to permanetly airlift enough supplies to maintain the garrisons. Also, without control of the ground around those mega bases, the potential for Iraqi anti American forces to install Anti Air missles is too large to ignore.
If America cannot control Iraq, America cannot maintain the bases. Karen is a former Air Force officer, I am surprised that she does not realize this.
Report thisBy Mike Roberts, March 7, 2007 at 8:17 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect in Col Kwiatkowski’s assesments. Near the beginning, when talking about Blair’s decision to pull out of Iraq, she guesses the Brit’s are leaving because they don’t want to be there after our next president gets our guys out of there. But then, at about the 20:00 mark, she says we’ll probably be there for another 20 years regardless of which party controls the White House in ‘08.
Can somebody reconcile these two things for me please?
Report thisBy shepherd, March 6, 2007 at 9:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Comment #57002 by matias on 3/06 at 12:46 pm
“...effort against a tiny group of fanatics, instead became a massive mechanized monster that eats money and lives...all the while not doing what it set out to do, which was, to GET BIN LADEN!!!”
Have another look at Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11; he covers it very well; it’s certainly worth the price of admission. The Bush admin never had any true intention of “getting [or catching] bin Laden” from the start. All rhetoric [empty] from cowboy Bush to appease the American people and its allies; two days after 9/11 bin Laden’s family members allowed to scarper back to the Middle East without the FBI even allowed to question them, after the worst atrocity on US soil in its history, (well, excluding Pearl Harbor).
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/ind ex.php?id=16
Consider also Robin Hordon’s “inside job” claims for 9/11, if you already haven’t. And how come 60 Minutes, or Frontline haven’t picked Hordon’s claims up yet? (Or is Hordon ‘whacko’ too? We live in a whacked-out world, and have for some time...)
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/boston_air_tra ffic_controller_911_inside_job.htm
Matias: “But, this country is now headed for multiple trillions of dollars spent for decades to come. Our wounded soldier’s health care is going to be a large part of the expense. And those mega-bases will still be there after the last of the Gulf War II soldiers dies of old age.”
Kwiatkowski attributes this following quote to either Bremer or his predecessor, Jay Garner: “… 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.”
See section 6 of Moore’s 9/11: “He [Bush] proposed cutting $1.3 billion in veterans’ health care and closing seven veteran’s hospitals [Okay, it came under the banner of “‘restructure’ the Department of Veterans Affairs."]. [But] He tried to double the prescription drug costs for veterans and opposed full benefits for part time reservist[s].”
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/ind ex.php?id=21
Maybe why bin Laden was never seriously hounded, given a decent head start immediately in the aftermath of 9/11 had/has something to do with: “Saudi’s have $860 billion dollars invested in America.”
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/ind ex.php?id=20
“In all, at least $1.46 billion...made its way from the Saudis to the House of Bush and its allied companies and institutions.” Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud, p. 200.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/ind ex.php?id=19
Report thisBy Bea Trayed, March 6, 2007 at 6:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“This apparently is Bin Laden’s specialty...getting superpowers to self-destruct from within. Perhaps the CIA taught him this when he was on the payroll, I’m not sure? For whatever reason, he’s gone a long way toward fracturing the financial foundation of this country. The idiotic and surreal expenditures of taxpayers hard earned money is playing right into that bastard’s hands! What should have been a smart, determined and cost effective international law enforcement effort against a tiny group of fanatics, instead became a massive mechanized monster that eats money and lives...all the while not doing what it set out to do, which was, to GET BIN LADEN!!!”
Matias,
Report thisRegrettably, your assessment is completely correct—-as a TRUE PATRIOT, it saddens me to see a handful of HORRIBLE TRAITORS lead our country to its demise.
By matias, March 6, 2007 at 12:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Well, some definitely off-topic comments, but many of interest. Seems there’s a bit of the whacko’s here as well, so I won’t go on to far.
This courageous woman’s comments underlined a single reality that should be self-evident. We went to Iraq to build impenetrable super-bases, from which further “adventures” in the middle east can be launched. Greg Palast had said in an article from awhile ago, that it was about keeping the oil IN the ground, not getting it out, which I thought was pretty sagacious. I think that is part of what’s going on, but Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski’s comments on the mega-bases in Iraq brings it all into focus.
For the war lovers who might read this, try to recall one seemingly obvious fact (perhaps not so obvious?). The former Soviet Union was not brought down by Saint Ronald, it was brought down by the Afghani’s who held the soviets off long enough to collapse their financial superstructure. CIA helped, but the Afghan’s have a long history of absorbing punishment from, and then defeating, foreign invaders. Russia’s economy was in tatters anyway, from decades of the cold war competition, but Afghanistan was the straw that broke that particular camel’s back.
This apparently is Bin Laden’s specialty...getting superpowers to self-destruct from within. Perhaps the CIA taught him this when he was on the payroll, I’m not sure? For whatever reason, he’s gone a long way toward fracturing the financial foundation of this country. The idiotic and surreal expenditures of taxpayers hard earned money is playing right into that bastard’s hands! What should have been a smart, determined and cost effective international law enforcement effort against a tiny group of fanatics, instead became a massive mechanized monster that eats money and lives...all the while not doing what it set out to do, which was, to GET BIN LADEN!!! We loosed the dogs of war to chase a ghost! And how do you fail to capture a nearly 7 foot tall muslim with diabetes, with over a hundred thousand soldiers in the field, and an unknown number of special forces and CIA out looking for him?!?!? I suspect it’s because he was never intended to be caught...until it serves a political purpose of course, like Zarqawi.
But, this country is now headed for multiple trillions of dollars spent for decades to come. Our wounded soldier’s health care is going to be a large part of the expense. And those mega-bases will still be there after the last of the Gulf War II soldiers dies of old age.
Report thisBy August West, March 6, 2007 at 12:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re Comment #56882 by Jeff Badura on 3/05 at 3:40 pm
You’re right, Jeff, the left will probably never be in power absent a complete economic meltdown that is not probable for the foreseeable future. That is a function of money. The corporations and well-heeled have the money to invest in both media ownership (newspapers, television, radio) to frame the public discourse, as well as the the money to invest in electing and lobbying members of congress. Advertising is a powerful tool to get people to vote against their own interests.
Also, be careful what you wish for. Do you have any idea the threat to our national security that a democratic Saudi Arabia would pose? Most of the 9-11 suiciders hijackers were schooled in Saudi madrassas. How about a democratically elected government in Pakistan? You really want a militant Islamic government with nuclear weapons?
The fact is, our foreign policy is not geared toward spreading freedom, but opening, securing and protecting markets for corporate interests. Has been for a century ande a half. Try reading “War is a Racket” by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler. Here’s the link: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Report thisBy shepherd, March 6, 2007 at 8:37 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Comment #56505 by sheepdog on 3/03 at 7:42 am
“Tongue in cheek I hope on the Churchill ‘Finest Hour’ speech. Churchill made no reference to Republican policies.”
You’re dead right, no Repubs mentioned.
Snippet: “If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’ “
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pa geid=418
But um, checking “Causes of the Great Depression"…
“The Roaring Twenties were an era dominated by Republican presidents: Warren Harding (1920-1923), Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933). Under their conservative economic philosophy of laissez-faire ("leave it alone"), markets were allowed to operate without government interference. Taxes and regulation were slashed dramatically, monopolies were allowed to form, and inequality of wealth and income reached record levels. The country was on the conservative’s preferred gold standard, and the Federal Reserve was not allowed to significantly change the money supply.”
“The fact that the Great Depression began in 1929, then, on ‘the Republicans’ watch,’ is a great embarrassment to conservative economists. Many try to blame the worsening of the Depression on Hoover, for supposedly betraying the laissez-faire ideology. ... however, almost all of Hoover’s government action occurred during his last year in office, long after the worst of the Depression had hit. In fact, he was voted out of office for doing ‘too little too late.’ The only notable exception to his earlier idleness was the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930, ...”
Source: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Causes.htm#events
By the way, the reference to “Tim” I made is taken from “On January 31, 2007 - 8:19pm Tim said:” at this link:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jan/31/em pire_v_democracy
Tim also says, which I happen to agree with, “A huge clean up of Rooseveltian proportions awaits the next Democratic president,” also from the TpmCafe blog link above.
Report thisBy Big Al, March 6, 2007 at 5:12 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I need to make a small correction, concerning the publication date of the Robert Dreyfuss article to which I earlier referred:
The article appeared in the The Nation in July 2003, not 2004.
The article described how Ariel Sharon set up, in his own office, a special unit tasked with cooking up fake “intelligence” to be used to drag America into war against Iraq.
This unit was set up outside of Mossad, because even the Mossad had too much ethical pride to sign on to this garbage, which was funneled straight to the Pentagon’s “Office of Special Plans”, which fed directly it to our idiot emporor.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030707/dreyfuss
Report thisBy Robert Noval, March 5, 2007 at 11:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
In Resp. Comment #56845
“...blaming Roosevelt’s socialist tendencies after the great depression for the cause of WW II is ridicules ??”
I do not “blame” FDR’s socialist “tendencies” for the “cause” of WWII. I liken socialism to agressive war, as they are both founded on the same flaw in the social structure; that which allows the inappropriate application of the coercive power of government.
And he did not merely have socialist “tendencies”, he implimented a complete, comprehensive makeover of the United States from the constitutional republic it was into the government-dominated Orwellian mess we experience today.
Once socialism takes hold, militaristic imperialism soon follows. The two are complimentary manifestations of authority run amok.
“the “Treaty of Versailles” in time, helped put Hitler in power...” Correct, but without Wilson’s entry of the U.S. into a war that was NONE OF OUR DAMNED BUSINESS, instead of the humiliations and deprivations imposed upon Germany by Versailles, most likely, a stable compromise would have accrued.
Instead, the prostrate and miserable Germany lay fertile ground for the likes of Hitler.
Thank you for visiting http://www.smallgov.org/ Yes, I believe in approaching issues from an initially noncommital position, gathering information from a variety of sources, then applying the most rigorous logic I can manage to arrive at conclusions. Or, as you would put it, “if so I’m sorry (I’m)lost !!”
It is not slander to point out that the “Commander’n Chimp” committed deliberate and willful acts of fraud to deceive the nation into an illegal act of agressive war. This draft-dodging, cowardly little punk came in determined to wage war against Iraq, more than one reliable journalist will attest to that.
KWIATKOWSKI’s testimony is only one small piece of the puzzle; equally damning, the testimonies of Tyler Drummheller, David Kay, Paul O’Neil. The IAEA’S assessment of the Niger forgeries, along with Joe Wilson’s findings. And of course, the documents that really let the cat out of the bag, THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS.
Far from “slander”, for which I would be Liable, my case is voluminous, comprehensive, and damningly conclusive; ALL a matter of public record.
You say: “all that does is helps the enemy ??” Why do you presume we share a common enemy?
As I pointed out to your friend, Tammy, your attitude makes all people of conscience your enemy.
“Blaming the USA for all the worlds ills is another, saying that Bush went to war for profit is another slanderous “wrong” statement !!”
I do not “blame”; rather, I assign responsiblity. The USA is to be HELD RESPONSIBLE for the nafarious acts of it’s rogue government. We are ALL morally obliged to speak out against it.
That the profits of the likes of Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed-martin, etc., were an important factor in the invasion of Iraq would be difficult to deny. But the fundamental drive is lust for power; the same motivation for FDR’s Social Security boondoggle.
“...and once the war has been voted on by the leaders than is time to all pitch in to win the war!!”
Moral issues by damned!! My country right or wrong!!
Once bush puts his fraud over, it’s too late. Those of us “naive” enough to invoke conscience had better “do our part” and shut up. What a crock; sanctinonious anti-moralizing.
Our White House is currently occupied by a fascist war criminal, who has been quoted more than once complaining that his job would be easier if “this were a dictatorship”,and calls our Constitution just a “Goddam piece of paper” http://www.smallgov.org/?p=181
Lest I be accused of just “running my mouth”, so to speak, I take my message out into the street every day:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/6796#comment-33363
BTW, Jeff smallgov is a libertarian site. Feel free to add your opinion confident that we practice what we preach.
---T