20070305 Retired Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski Blows The Whistle On Bush's Impending War With Iran
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 20070305 Retired Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski Blows The Whistle On Bush's Impending War With Iran as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,463
- Pages: 5
Retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski Blows the Whistle on Bush's Impending War With Iran | Government Dirt http://www.holyshit.net Government Dirt the cynics guide to politics Federal Bureau of Miscellaneous Information govdirt's blog Retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski Blows the Whistle on Bush's Impending War With Iran Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (ret.), a veteran of the Pentagon with firsthand experience of the administration�s cherry-picking of intelligence, reveals why Bush thinks he can win a war with Iran, why few politicians are serious about withdrawal and why �when they call Iraq a success, they mean it.� This is an exerpt of the interview by Truthdig that can be heard here. The interview has been heavily edited to make it a manageable size and concentrates on the parts of their interview that relate to the war in Iraq and the impending war with Iran. Well, I worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense in an office with information on Iraq. There there was a great degree of excitement about Iraq. Like the American people, we at the Pentagon didn�t know when we would invade Iraq. We would read about it in the papers, and for the most part most of the stories were planted by The Administration. The Administration wanted to go into Iraq, and all that was really needed was to bring onboard the American people and the Congress. 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. The neo-conservatives in the Administration have a very activist agenda, it�s very oriented towards the United States as a benevolent dictator, a guiding hand for the world, particularly the Middle East. And it�s very much a pro-Israel 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. There�s two parts of 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. Bush brought in a number of political appointees: Doug Feith, certainly Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. They�re not military officers, they�re civilians. Alternative intelligence assessments were put together by the civilian appointees of the Bush Administration who share 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. As military oficers we�re looking at regular intel, at the stuff the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency produces. And 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. While we as American citizens do not like being lied to and Congress doesn�t like being lied to, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress 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, you can do it from Iraq and now you can do it from bases that will support any type of airplane you want, any number of troops in barracks. 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. As others have said, we will be in Iraq from anywhere between 20 to 30 more years; that is the life span of the bases that we�ve constructed there. And a Democratic president, I don�t care who they are, will keep those bases there. 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. We�re in Iraq to stay and can we strike Iran from Iraq. The Administration feels that they can topple Iran because the Air Force and the Navy have told them that they believe they can overwhelmingly hit their targets, deep penetration, possibly nuclear weapons, I mean, nothing is off the table as Dick Cheney says �nothing is off the table.� And the delivery of these weapons, whether they�re conventional or nuclear will be naval and Air Force. I don�t think the Army could support any type of invasion of Iran and they wouldn�t want to. They�ve had enough with Iraq and our reserves are in terrible condition. So I don�t think there�s any intention to go into Iran with the Army, but simply to destroy Iran with the Air Force and Navy and to create havoc and disruption and humanitarian crisis and topple perhaps the government of Ahmadinejad. We want to topple that government. Yeah, we�ll do it with bombs from a distance. I don�t know if you call that shock and awe, we�ve been advertising it for a long, long time. It will not be a surprise to the Iranians if we do it.
Read the whole interview:http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070227_pentagon_whistle blower_o... Bookmark/Search this post with: * * * * * * * * * * govdirt's blog * * * * *
ar+With+Iran> * * * Post new comment Your name: E-mail: The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. Homepage: Subject: Comment: * * Lines and paragraphs break automatically. * Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically. More information about formatting options check out the the cynics guide to politics swicki at eurekster.com copyright (c) 2007 please don't copy our stuff - it would be really easy to, but that would suck. disclaimer: accountability for anything we say is job one - just like for our politicians. Recent blog posts * The Audacity of Bush * Retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski Blows the Whistle on Bush's Impending War With Iran * As We Get Closer to War with Iran the Front Against Israel has been Rearmed * GOP is Just Not Conservative Enough! * Stop Her Now - Rescuing America from the Radical Ideas of Hillary Clinton * If you don't like them, join them! * Finally a Way To Be Able to Make Bush Say Something Coherent * John McCain Has Less Charisma than John Kerry or Even Al Gore! * Senator Kerry Confronts Swift Boat Funder * George Bush Eats Crow more
Syndicate Sponsored Links
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. As military oficers we�re looking at regular intel, at the stuff the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency produces. And 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. While we as American citizens do not like being lied to and Congress doesn�t like being lied to, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress 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, you can do it from Iraq and now you can do it from bases that will support any type of airplane you want, any number of troops in barracks. 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. As others have said, we will be in Iraq from anywhere between 20 to 30 more years; that is the life span of the bases that we�ve constructed there. And a Democratic president, I don�t care who they are, will keep those bases there. 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. We�re in Iraq to stay and can we strike Iran from Iraq. The Administration feels that they can topple Iran because the Air Force and the Navy have told them that they believe they can overwhelmingly hit their targets, deep penetration, possibly nuclear weapons, I mean, nothing is off the table as Dick Cheney says �nothing is off the table.� And the delivery of these weapons, whether they�re conventional or nuclear will be naval and Air Force. I don�t think the Army could support any type of invasion of Iran and they wouldn�t want to. They�ve had enough with Iraq and our reserves are in terrible condition. So I don�t think there�s any intention to go into Iran with the Army, but simply to destroy Iran with the Air Force and Navy and to create havoc and disruption and humanitarian crisis and topple perhaps the government of Ahmadinejad. We want to topple that government. Yeah, we�ll do it with bombs from a distance. I don�t know if you call that shock and awe, we�ve been advertising it for a long, long time. It will not be a surprise to the Iranians if we do it.
Read the whole interview:
ar+With+Iran> *
Syndicate Sponsored Links
Related Documents
War With Iran
May 2020 4
War With Iran
November 2019 12
Lt Col Pension Orders
May 2020 2
Iran: Consequences Of War
December 2019 17