Insider's view of Bush's "shadow intelligence"

[Ateo]

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php
After two decades in the U.S. Air Force, Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, now 43, knew her career as a regional analyst was coming to an end when — in the months leading up to the war in Iraq — she felt she was being “propagandized” by her own bosses.

With master’s degrees from Harvard in government and zoology and two books on Saharan Africa to her credit, she found herself transferred in the spring of 2002 to a post as a political/military desk officer at the Defense Department’s office for Near East South Asia (NESA), a policy arm of the Pentagon.

Kwiatkowski got there just as war fever was spreading, or being spread as she would later argue, through the halls of Washington. Indeed, shortly after her arrival, a piece of NESA was broken off, expanded and re-dubbed with the Orwellian name of the Office of Special Plans. The OSP’s task was, ostensibly, to help the Pentagon develop policy around the Iraq crisis.

She would soon conclude that the OSP — a pet project of Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld — was more akin to a nerve center for what she now calls a “neoconservative coup, a hijacking of the Pentagon.”

Though a lifelong conservative, Kwiatkowski found herself appalled as the radical wing of the Bush administration, including her superiors in the Pentagon planning department, bulldozed internal dissent, overlooked its own intelligence and relentlessly pushed for confrontation with Iraq.

Deeply frustrated and alarmed, Kwiatkowski, still on active duty, took the unusual step of penning an anonymous column of internal Pentagon dissent that was posted on the Internet by former Colonel David Hackworth, America’s most decorated veteran.

As war inevitably approached, and as she neared her 20-year mark in the Air Force, Kwiatkowski concluded the only way she could viably resist what she now terms the “expansionist, imperialist” policies of the neoconservatives who dominated Iraq policy was by retiring and taking up a public fight against them.
Just curious how the "Bush can do no wrong"-er's see this. Is she a liar? A liberal spy pretending to be conservative? A traitor? Insane? Terrorist sympathizer?

And doesn't it unsettle you that this fits right in with what many have said about the administration having ulterior motives for the war?

[w1che]

Where did they offer proof that she is a lifelong conservative? I could say I was a life long liberal then I become an expert on the liberal cause.. Right?

Tell me why I would pay any attention to some low level employee of the government. You can always dig worms out of a rotten tree..

[DustyBottoms]

Lets see...

There are probably hundreds of employees...

One of them says their leader sucks - the rest don't...

...Doing the math...

As Donald Trump would say, She's fired! :)

[w1che]

Yeah DB there are hundreds of thousands of people that work for the government. The Demorats dig out a paper pusher someplace & their word becomes the truth. You ever notice they are all life long conservatives. No liberal ever comes forward with a line of B/S.. :lol

[dave404]

w1che,

A guy called Ken Wilber had an eloquent way of putting this, which I can't quite remember. But basically he said something like: "There is no more vocal critic of a moral or philosophical position than one who has, until very recently, espoused it." In other words, those who undergo conversion, tend to become evangelical. That might go some way towards explaining your observation. Certainly the most virulent critics of govt policy tend to be the politicians and public servants who resigned rather than fall in line behind. Makes sense, I'd say.

[w1che]

Something to remember. Everyone that works for the government is not conservatives. In fact more than likely it is split 50/50 like the rest of the country. I put no stock in what some low level paper pusher has to say when in fact anyone on this board may know as much about the overall picture as that person does. To me your word Dave is as good as hers..

[Dumbie]

Tig, she will be heard as will others after the Bush veil is lifted. My only question is will Kerry/or have what it takes to prosecute the lairs. Will the world court have access to the war criminals? The question should be presented to each candidate now to see where they stand. People like 1unchi should be required to get their heads examined and be deprogrammed when Bush&Co. are removed.

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by Dumbie
Tig, she will be heard as will others after the Bush veil is lifted. My only question is will Kerry/or have what it takes to prosecute the lairs. Will the world court have access to the war criminals? The question should be presented to each candidate now to see where they stand. People like 1unchi should be required to get their heads examined and be deprogrammed when Bush&Co. are removed.

You are so funny! :lol

You want global courts to judge the USA but you complain about global competition and want to build highways (protectionism) to fix the economy.

Your boy Kerry does not have what it takes to do the job. Talk about straddling the fence - he says he is against gay marriage, but he is against doing something about it. This is leadership? I would respect him much more if he said he was for it and would support it!

Good luck in prosecuting the "lairs" (whatever that means.) :)

[dave404]

There are quite a few things I'm against - people spending the entirety of a long train journey talking loudly on their mobile phone, for example. "HI! YEAH! I'M ON THE TRAIN!! I'LL BE WITH YOU IN... WHAT? SORRY? THINK WE LOST THE SIGNAL THERE. ANYWAY, I... WHAT? NO, HANG ON. YEAH. WHAT?" and so on.

That doesn't mean I'm in favour of amending my country's constitution in order to prevent them.

[w1che]

Well that's because you don't understand what the problem is Dave. The Liberal courts in America amend the constitution whenever it fits their need, so the only way to put them in their place is for the people to do it the right way as spelled out in the constitution..

The Democrats don't seem to have a problem with a few judges changing the constitution to fit their liberal agenda but seem to have a real problem with the people doing the same. You know why? Because they don't think the people will do it the way they want it to turn out..

[dave404]

w1che,

Not being as familiar with US current affairs as you, for obvious reasons, I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about. But I'll make two observations. One is that in most countries, interpretation of what the constitution means is generally the role of judges. I'm sorry if you don't agree with some of their interpretations, but that's the way it is. You've often accused others of whining, but this sure sounds like whining to me. Propose an alternative, or put up with it. Secondly, to talk about "the people" doing something in politics is generally a sleight-of-hand to conceal actual responsibility, often used by the likes of Lenin, Trotsky et al. To say that a movement has popular support is one thing, to say that "the people" are responsible is usually pushing out the boat a bit.

[dave404]

Furthermore, I don't really want to get involved in this rather stupid argument about who amended the constitution and who didn't. My point was that it's quite possible to be against something, but not to agree with the proposed means of remedying it. Opinions are cheap, but actions have costs and consequences.

If you think that gay marriages are an imminent menace to the US way of life, by all means try to amend your constitution and ban them. If you think there are more important matters to attend to (like oh, the economy, the environment, world hunger, the Middle East, world trade agreements, blah) then maybe you wouldn't be interested in such a lengthy and complex procedure for achieve something really quite trivial. Even if I were against gay marriages (and I'm not, I couldn't give a monkey's), I would fall solidly into the latter camp. Probably Kerry would agree, though I admit I haven't asked him.

[w1che]

There is a difference between whining and stating a fact. You're right Dave you don't know so why don't we just stick to debating something you do know something about. We have a 45 year history of judges making law from the bench even when it is very clear what the word of the law really says..

[dave404]

Yep w1che, there's certainly a difference. Unfortunately, the difference in question is that when someone else says something, it's whining. When you say it, it's a statement of fact. :rolleyes:

I may not know much about US current affairs, but I *do* know that "making law from the bench" is no more than double-speak for "interpretations of the law I don't agree with". When judges deliver their verdict, is the statute book altered in anyway? No. Are other judges free to depart from the precedent set if they think it mistaken? Yes (so long as the precedent wasn't set in a higher court, IIRC).

It's whining, whining, all the way.

[w1che]

You're entitled to your un-educated opinion Dave..

[Dumbie]

No one nose like a brown nose......

The courts in defense of twisted conservatism has stepped up to the plate. They put into play laws that were there but ignored, like civil rights. They failed to stop the bone heads from altering the words in the Pledge, but hopefully the future will be more reasonable than the past.

On to the topic at hand, it was two brave ladies in Britain that exposed the lies of deception of the those across the Pond, and it will be Brave Ladies and Gentlemen that will expose the scam that went on in this country formulate by this court appointed excuse for an American Institution. From Generals and Inspectors to Scientist and Politicians the lies of this administration are being exposed. While the soldiers are on the ground many people have not commented, but it’s coming. I suspect the Tommy Franks has a lot to say and will in do time, and the men and women who have been kidnapped by this administration to serve above and beyond.

Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski could very well be an American Hero.

[dave404]

Hey w1che, you can enlighten me on this one, because I know nix about the US Army. And I'm sure you're an expert.

Is Lieutenant Colonel really a low-grade paper pusher? It sounds quite important from this side of the pond.

[w1che]

Where she was stationed and the job she was in, yes very low level paper pusher.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by w1che
Where she was stationed and the job she was in, yes very low level paper pusher. So the testimony of any low-level type person is automatically suspect, is that what you're saying, Wunch? Only trust the big boys, eh?

[dave404]

This may surprise you Tig, but I'm going to defend w1che here. Of course, some low-ranking paper-pusher may happen to have pushed some important papers that gave them an insight into what was going on at the top level. I wouldn't dismiss their story out of hand.

But if Colin Powell were to say: "I've had enough of this adminstration and their lies and half-truths. I've seen the papers, and the whole thing was a crock from the beginning", well that would be a lot more convincing, doncha think?

Of course, I don't remember a time when inconvenient truths have *ever* surfaced by the people at the top telling you about them (it's nearly always low-grade paper pushers), but if they did...

[w1che]

I said she didn't know the big picture just as we don't. Powell would know the big picture and yes what he said would mean much more to most people than what this woman had to say. She may not know anymore of the real facts than you do Tig.

When it comes to secret information everything is on a need to know bases & you can only see the information that pertains to your job..

[Ateo]

Even when higher-level types do come out with direct criticisms of the administration, the pro-Bushers label them as out of the loop opportunists (Paul O'Neill). If Powell turned anti-Bush tomorrow they would do the same to him.

[Dumbie]

here’s a bit more http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski28.html

[w1che]

Paul O'Neill retracted most of what he said as being taken out of context by the media if you recall. That's why you don't hear about Paul O'Neill anymore & why his book didn't do very well..

Now Tig, Lets say Dumbo worked for the government & came out with some of the stuff he dreams up. Would you really expect any intelligent person to believe him? Well there are a lot more Dumbo's running around than there are locked up in a nut ward where they should be..

[Mr_Taco]

when you say dumbo do you mean bush or another type of dumbo

[w1che]

Not Bush.. I'm talking about people like Taco's & Dumbie's or Dumbo for short..:rolleyes: :eek:

[Mr_Taco]

i am sorry you fell that way. I guess i have my own opinions and you have yours.

[w1che]

Ah, Taco I just said that about you because you thought I was calling Bush a dumbo... I wouldn't lump anyone with the real Dumbo/wholee. He is out there in space all alone.. :wink

[Ateo]

Originally posted by w1che
Paul O'Neill retracted most of what he said as being taken out of context by the media if you recall. That's why you don't hear about Paul O'Neill anymore & why his book didn't do very well..

Now Tig, Lets say Dumbo worked for the government & came out with some of the stuff he dreams up. Would you really expect any intelligent person to believe him? Well there are a lot more Dumbo's running around than there are locked up in a nut ward where they should be.. And if Colin Powell came out tomorrow and said "I got caught up in the Bush propoganda, I was wrong", you'd say Powell was out of the loop from the get-go, and was merely trying to jump on the anti-Bush gravy train. Same goes for anyone high up in the administration who might come out against Bush. You simply cannot accept the idea that Bush is fallible. Even I--great commie liberal that I am--came out against Clinton when he lied about Monica, and yet you can't muster a single ounce of criticism against Bush for sending our men & women to die in Iraq for reasons that are certainly arguable. You are an ideologue of the most intractable sort, Wunch.

[w1che]

Tig you make up a totally hypothetical story and then insert your own conclusions throughout the story. Now that is blowing your own horn.

That is the same crap you liberals do with Bush. Make up things & hope people will take it as fact when you repeat it enough. This is going to seem like years until the election.

[dave404]

Well OK, w1che. But you do beg the question...

What exactly *would* it take to make you feel that the Iraq adventure was either (i) a mistake or (ii) a deception?

If that's unclear, (i) means you saying, no, in hindsight, we shouldn't have done that, (ii) means you saying that the reasons why the US administration choose to go to Iraq were not the reasons that it publically offered at the time.

??