open Democracy News Analysis - Karen Kwiatowski's turn, - Comments

ursa9 on "Karen Kwiatowski's turn"

ursa9 — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:46:57 +0000

Merely, simply, only and anything else you have in mind. Even merrily ..... I would offer a happy face but the only one I have is my own and the grin grows with St. Pat's day arriving.

BenTrem on "Karen Kwiatowski's turn"

BenTrem — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:26:40 +0000

> Ben [...] The quote and response > thing would be quite time consuming I think. I only noticed just now that the "Quote Originial" discriminates between the article and the comment I'm replying to; a slim function, it seems well thought out. > Just one man's opinion. Just as in "merely"? ;-) thanks for this > Alan --hfx_ben

ursa9 on "Karen Kwiatowski's turn"

ursa9 — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:02:19 +0000

Ben, I would suggest taking your own path in reponse. Most quote and respond. Usually I focus on one thing which I consider the essence of argument. So I read carefully, when the writing has value, and then try to respectfully ... usually ... respond. This is just my way of going about it. The quote and response thing would be quite time consuming I think.The people above seem worthy and deserve consideration whether one agrees or does not. Just one man's opinion. Alan

BenTrem on "Karen Kwiatowski's turn"

BenTrem — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:25:43 +0000

On mores and such: I'm not sure how one goes about responding to such a long comment here. Do we break things up? Is it more common to reply to merely the single point deemed most salient? h_b

KillForFreedom on "Karen Kwiatowski's turn"

KillForFreedom — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:57:04 +0000

Thanks, ursa. "When other ''revelations'' come out out that point the other way I would not dwell on them. Nor will I be prone to discuss upcoming revelations about U.N. and other national governments involvement with the Saddam regime." This is interesting. In time I believe these revelations, in aggregate, will have to be considered. If the weight of evidence shows that, for example, a UN consensus was stymied by Russian and French commercial interests, that would be significant. The contracts for Iraqi oil handed out freely to Russian and French business interests translated into hundreds of millions of dollars in profit annually. This is serious money, and good reason to drone on before the UN Security Council that there is no need to move immediately. "The arguments that Americans once wour ''helpful'' to Saddam are moot in this argument and in fact a classic example of false argumentation" Agreed.

ursa9 on "Karen Kwiatowski's turn"

ursa9 — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:14:21 +0000

KFF, I did not want to dwell on the problems and potential problems with Ms. Kwiatowski's accounts because I think they are an almost predictable outcome of the the meeting of politics, policy and bureaucracy. When other ''revelations'' come out out that point the other way I would not dwell on them. Nor will I be prone to discuss upcoming revelations about U.N. and other national governments involvement with the Saddam regime. I wonder if some of the known and agreed upon 'misdeeds' of the Sadaam regime were more recent, whether this would alter perceptions of the duplicity and venality of policy makers. Iraq had not been tamed. If anything it was entering into a period of Chaos that might have made it a more of a tinderbox in the ear-future. This was the assessment of David Kay and many others. The arguments that Americans once wour ''helpful'' to Saddam are moot in this argument and in fact a classic example of false argumentation. If one looks at the reasons we and other nations have gone to war in the past, this incursion is well in bounds. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the possibility of ambiguity and lack of clarity in Ms. Kwiatowski's account.

KillForFreedom on "Karen Kwiatowski's turn"

KillForFreedom — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:49:50 +0000

I read the essay by Karen Kwiatkowski, and of course have a few comments. From the start of page four: "Staff officers would always request OSP's most current Iraq, WMD and terrorism talking points. On occasion, these weren't available in an approved form and awaited Shulsky's approval. The talking points were a series of bulleted statements, written persuasively and in a convincing way, and superficially they seemed reasonable and rational." To me, at the time, the threat was real and immediate. The world Trade Center had been blasted from the sky by Usama Bin Laden and his Al Qaida cells. I stood in the street and watched it burn and fall, and I was afraid there would be more airliners overhead that afternoon. Before the war, 16 senior Al Qaida were reported in or around Baghdad on CNN. Zaqarwi was reported receiving medical treatment in Baghdad. Iraq was in continuing violation of various provisions of the UN agreement ending the earlier war. Hussein was playing cat-and-mouse with the UN inspection effort--this was no South African-style disarmament. The Iraqi weapons procurement program was apparently quite extensive and sophisticated. From time to time we would read about a front company for Iraqi military or intelligence being exposed. There was the obvious fact that Iraq was somewhere between a failed state and a gangster empire. Hussein was very clearly a supporter of international terrorism in general, before Al Qaida (see link below for a partial assessment of his activities in 1990). This was all straightforward and reasonable to me, no spin required. "Saddam Hussein had gassed his neighbors, abused his people, and was continuing in that mode, becoming an imminently dangerous threat to his neighbors and to us -- except that none of his neighbors or Israel felt this was the case." Israel did not feel Saddam was a threat? Please. What about the Scud missiles and long range artillery? Why did we have a no-fly zone? What about Hussein's dealings with Hizbollah and other Palestinian causes? The following is excerpted from the article available at the following link. "Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people." http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html This was widely reported, so Kwiatkowski's assertion here is nonsense. "Saddam Hussein had harbored al-Qaida operatives and offered and probably provided them with training facilities -- without mentioning that the suspected facilities were in the U.S./Kurdish-controlled part of Iraq." This section is particularly revealing of the slanted view Kwiatkowski applies throughout the piece. First, Baghdad was not in the U.S.-controlled part of Iraq. As I mentioned above, Al Qaida members were widely reported to have been seen in Baghdad in the weeks leading up to the war. Second, the supposed U.S./Kurdish-controlled part of Iraq was under air-patrol by the U.S., not foot patrol. There were still plenty of Iraqi military on the ground manning the missile and radar sites we occasionally obliterated. In summary, Kwiatkowski reveals herself as a shill for the idiot-pacifist crowd most clearly in this passage. "Saddam Hussein was pursuing and had WMD of the type that could be used by him, in conjunction with al-Qaida and other terrorists, to attack and damage American interests, Americans and America -- except the intelligence didn't really say that." This was NOT the central message I took from George Bush, that Hussein was "pursuing and had WMD". Bush said we had evidence he was seeking to procure nuclear materials in Africa. Perhaps we did and still do, but so far it has not been released. Kwiatkowski contradicts herself further on when she states that there was earlier evidence to this effect. More important, Bush said we could not take the chance that Hussein had succeeded, or would succeed in the future, in obtaining WMD. Hussein was a sponsor of international terror, and was hospital for Al Qaida personnel. He had procured a substantial modern defense infrastructure and was clearly capable of shopping for nuclear or biowar material. I find it laughable to contend that there was no intelligence to indicate that Hussein was attempting to procure weapons of all sorts, to include WMD, which could be used to damage American interests. "Saddam Hussein had not been seriously weakened by war and sanctions and weekly bombings over the past 12 years," Irrelevant. Even if he had been seriously weakened, Hussein was still potent enough to purchase a deadly weapon and quietly pass it on to any one of a number of groups. Or all of them. "and in fact was plotting to hurt America and support anti-American activities, in part through his carrying on with terrorists -- although here the intelligence said the opposite." Inconceivable. If intelligence said the opposite, that Hussein was indeed no threat whatsoever to American interests, did the intelligence community ignore the attempt on the life of George Bush senior by Iraqi intelligence? I doubt it. Further, Hussein was clearly involved in international terror for years. The following link gives a glimpse of his activity starting almost fifteen years ago. Note Al Qaida is only mentioned non-specifically at this point. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/1990_cr/h900911-iraq.htm Although even just before the war, Al Qaida is an afterthought in the context of the decision to eliminate Hussein, there were still clear linkages at that time. Despite the sonorous chant of "no evidence" in the left liberal media, Baghdad's links to Al Qaida were reported before the war, as well. For Kwiatkowski to claim that "the intelligence said the opposite" reveals her blatant ignorance of the facts available to a dedicated consumer of U.S. and international media at that time. "His support for the Palestinians and Arafat proved his terrorist connections, and basically, the time to act was now. This was the gist of the talking points, and it remained on message throughout the time I watched the points evolve." I was much more concerned by his support for other international terrorist groups. "But evolve they did . . ." Nothing in this section seemed of concern. "All the caveats, reservations and dissents made by intelligence were relegated to footnotes and kept from the public. Funny how that worked." Relegated to footnotes and kept from the public. So the public only heard of the reasons why we should be concerned about the threat from Iraq. That's what I wanted to hear about, and it sounded like a grave threat to me. "Starting in the fall of 2002 I found a way to vent my frustrations" Sounds like a dangerous business. I hope she had a lawyer check her submissions. "Colin Powell, on Feb. 5 as the secretary of state capitulated to the neoconservative line in his speech at the United Nations -- a speech not only filled with falsehoods pushed by the neoconservatives but also containing many statements already debunked by intelligence." I doubt this very much. I would like to see more detail on what is claimed to be inaccurate in Powell's speech. Judging by the unsupported allegations in this essay, I doubt Kwiatkowski could support the charge against Powell either. "Moreover, they were false by design. Certainly, the neoconservatives never bothered to sell the rest of the country on the real reasons for occupation of Iraq -- more bases from which to flex U.S. muscle with Syria and Iran, and better positioning for the inevitable fall of the regional ruling sheikdoms." Any well-informed U.S. citizen is aware of the regional strategic dimension of the Iraq conflicts. This was clearly one very good reason for the war. There were numerous other reasons, one of which was sufficient: Saddam Hussein was working in support of global terror, and he was entirely capable of procuring weapons of mass destruction. Worse, he might have already succeeded. I did not need the CIA or President Bush to remind me of these realities. Apparently Kwiatkowski hasn't been doing her homework. "Maintaining OPEC on a dollar track and not a euro and fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision also played a role. These more accurate reasons for invading and occupying could have been argued on their merits." OPEC will trade on whatever basis the world economy demands, like it or not. Oil is currently priced in dollars. This may change in the future, especially if the Euro remains stable against the dollar over an increasing period of time. The bit about "fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision" is a wonderful example of an assertion flung against the wall in hopes it will stick. These reasons are neither accurate nor sensible. Perhaps that is why they were not the focus of discussion leading up to the war. "This cost is not borne by the children of Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld and Cheney. Bush's daughters do not pay this price." They will pay the price of inaction. They already have. This is what the anti-war zealots willingly ignore, and this is why their position is immoral. The anti-war crowd has decided that the life of a terrorist is worth more than the life of a New Yorker. Perhaps worse, they have concluded that the lives saved by stopping the Hussein's murderous regime are worth less than the lives lost to make this a reality. The price of inaction is September 11th. If you have not read 1000 Years for Revenge by Peter Lance, I would recommend this exhaustively researched tome on the intelligence failures that allowed the hijackers to make their run. The way to defeat terror is to make it extremely dangerous to be a terrorist and to establish representative democracy in regions now ruled by Islamist autocrats. This is what we are doing in Iraq today.

ronr327 on "Karen Kwiatowski's turn"

ronr327 — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 00:59:01 +0000

Solana, Thanks for giving this somewhat orphaned thread a shot in the arm. What Kwiatowski has to say needs to be considered. And thanks (as always) to erinleonard - and HfxBen as well - for the additional links. I might also add, some discusstion on this matter has materialized on the Kerry in Iowa thread, principley between myself and Ursa9.

BenTrem on "Karen Kwiatowski's turn"

BenTrem — Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:04:27 +0000

What I found most substantial in Kwiatowski's narrative was the dynamics she described: what she related was a process by which power (i.e. wealth and position in the hands of the "best and brightest") was being wielded in the service of conclusions that were fore-gone. In effect, critical thinking was to be guarded against. She can be seen in conversation through CalPoly's "HotTalk". http://video.csupomona.edu/streaming/inc/ht_index.htm And then there are her articles at LewRockwell.com http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html hfx_ben p.s. this item looked fine in "preview" ... if we can't manage white-space on a forum, we sure as hell can't run a world!! [Edited by: oD Forum Moderator - preview mode is broken, forums accept no html coding.]

erinleonard2 on "Karen Kwiatowski's turn"

erinleonard2 — Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:56:23 +0000

Thanks ronr327 for posting this link. I especially appreciate Karen's closing paragraphs which read: "Now we are told by our president and neoconservative mouthpieces that our sons and daughters, husbands and wives are in Iraq fighting for freedom, for liberty, for justice and American values. This cost is not borne by the children of Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld and Cheney. Bush's daughters do not pay this price. We are told that intelligence has failed America, and that President Bush is determined to get to the bottom of it. Yet not a single neconservative appointee has lost his job, and no high official of principle in the administration has formally resigned because of this ill-conceived war and poorly implemented occupation of Iraq. Will Americans hold U.S. policymakers accountable? Will we return to our roots as a republic, constrained and deliberate, respectful of others? My experience in the Pentagon leading up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq tells me, as Ben Franklin warned, we may have already failed. But if Americans at home are willing to fight--tenaciously and courageously--to preserve our republic, we might be able to keep it." And man am I there! I know you are too Ron. In following some of the links she provided in this piece I spent some time looking at the "Soldiers for the truth" website. www.sftt.org and I also came across this LA Times interview with Karen Kwiatkowski from Feb. of this year. http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php "Soldier for the Truth Exposing Bush’s talking-points war" by Marc Cooper an excerpt: "There you were, a career military officer, a Pentagon analyst, a conservative who had given two decades to this work. What provoked you to become first a covert and later a public dissident? Like most people, I’ve always thought there should be honesty in government. Working 20 years in the military, I’m sure I saw some things that were less than honest or accountable. But nothing to the degree that I saw when I joined Near East South Asia. This was creatively produced propaganda spread not only through the Pentagon, but across a network of policymakers — the State Department, with John Bolton; the Vice President’s Office, the very close relationship the OSP had with that office. That is not normal, that is a bypassing of normal processes. Then there was the National Security Council, with certain people who had neoconservative views; Scooter Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff; a network of think tanks who advocated neoconservative views — the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy with Frank Gaffney, the columnist Charles Krauthammer — was very reliable. So there was just not a process inside the Pentagon that should have developed good honest policy, but it was instead pushing a particular agenda; this group worked in a coordinated manner, across media and parts of the government, with their neoconservative compadres. How did you experience this in your day-to-day work? There was a sort of groupthink, an adopted storyline: We are going to invade Iraq and we are going to eliminate Saddam Hussein and we are going to have bases in Iraq. This was all a given even by the time I joined them, in May of 2002. You heard this in staff meetings? The discussions were ones of this sort of inevitability. The concerns were only that some policymakers still had to get onboard with this agenda. Not that this agenda was right or wrong — but that we needed to convince the remaining holdovers. Colin Powell, for example. There was a lot of frustration with Powell; they said a lot of bad things about him in the office. They got very angry with him when he convinced Bush to go back to the U.N. and forced a four-month delay in their invasion plans. General Tony Zinni is another one. Zinni, the combatant commander of Central Command, Tommy Franks’ predecessor — a very well-qualified guy who knows the Middle East inside out, knows the military inside out, a Marine, a great guy. He spoke out publicly as President Bush’s Middle East envoy about some of the things he saw. Before he was removed by Bush, I heard Zinni called a traitor in a staff meeting. They were very anti-anybody who might provide information that affected their paradigm. They were the spin enforcers. How did this atmosphere affect your work? To be direct, were you told by your superiors what you could say and not say? What could and could not be discussed? Or were opinions they didn’t like just ignored? I can give you one clear example where we were told to follow the party line, where I was told directly. I worked North Africa, which included Libya. I remember in one case, I had to rewrite something a number of times before it went through. It was a background paper on Libya, and Libya has been working for years to try and regain the respect of the international community. I had intelligence that told me this, and I quoted from the intelligence, but they made me go back and change it and change it. They’d make me delete the quotes from intelligence so they could present their case on Libya in a way that said it was still a threat to its neighbors and that Libya was still a belligerent, antagonistic force. They edited my reports in that way. In fact, the last report I made, they said, “Just send me the file.” And I don’t know what the report ended up looking like, because I imagine more changes were made. On Libya, really a small player, the facts did not fit their paradigm that we have all these enemies." After reading this backdrop of info, try reading "The Casualty," by Dan Baum, in last week's New Yorker. It's a story about a young soldier wounded in Iraq. http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?040308fa_fact1 Mix this with the suffering and loss of Iraqi life. How can anyone look away or ignore the deceit this suffering was based on?

Karen Kwiatowski's turn,

ronr327 — Thu, 11 Mar 2004 01:03:15 +0000

In the debate over the run up to the war, I consistently came across quotations from an U.S. millitary officer who was represented as being on the "inside" in regard to the administration's jiggery-pokery. She was Karen Kwiakowski and she was indeed in the middle of it: a first hand witness to the functioning the Defense Department's Office of Special Plans. The webzine Salon has just published the first extended commentary from Ms. Kwiatkowski I am aware of. You can find it here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/ Apparently, the moveon site has arranged to present the piece in such a way as to evade the injunction to subscribe to Salon Premium. Read the rest of this post...