60 percent:
By on Jul 18th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
60 percent:
Number of Military.com readers (the nation’s largest military and veteran membership organization) who “believe the US should withdraw troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008. … More than 40 percent of the respondents agreed the pullout should begin immediately because ‘we’re wasting lives and resources there.’” The results “stand in sharp contrast” to a June 26 poll in which 60 percent of respondents “agreed the surge should be given more time.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
American Patriot, Karen Kwiatkowski, Exposes…
ALL THE VICE PRESIDENT’S TRAITORS:
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.
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.”
They pushed an agenda on Iraq, and they developed pretty sophisticated propaganda lines which were fed throughout government, to the Congress, and even internally to the Pentagon — to try and make this case of immediacy. This case of severe threat to the United States.
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.
We were instructed by Bill Luti, on behalf of the Office of Special Plans, on behalf of Abe Shulsky, that we would not write anything about Iraq, WMD or terrorism in any papers that we prepared for our superiors except as instructed by the Office of Special Plans. And it would provide to us an electronic document of talking points on these issues. So, I got to see how they evolved.
It was very clear to me that they did not evolve as a result of new intelligence, of improved intelligence, or any type of seeking of the truth. The way they evolved is that certain bullets were dropped or altered based on what was being reported on the front pages of the Washington Post or The New York Times.
They were political, politically manipulated. They did have obviously bits of intelligence in them, but they were created to propagandize. So, we inside the Pentagon, staff officers and senior administration officials who might not work Iraq directly, were being propagandized by this same Office of Special Plans.
The very phrases they used are coming back to haunt them because they are blatantly false and not based on any intelligence. The OSP and the Vice President’s Office were critical in this propaganda effort — to convince Americans that there was some just requirement for pre-emptive war.
I mean, these people have total disrespect for the Constitution. We swear an oath, military officers and NCOs alike swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. These people have no respect for the Constitution. The Congress was misled, it was lied to. At a very minimum, that is a subversion of the Constitution. A pre-emptive war based on what we knew was not a pressing need is not what this country stands for.
http://www.alternet.org/story/17952/
July 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pmWhy do the soldiers not support the soldiers? I think the Democrats should be ashamed…
July 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pmOnly liberals read military.com. Everybody knows that.
Or at least they will after the next “Hannity and Colmes.”
July 18th, 2007 at 1:46 pm.
Support The Troops – Listen to them!
July 18th, 2007 at 1:47 pmhttp://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1069
C-SPAN Interview April 2, 2006
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski
U.S. Air Force, 1983-2003
KEY QUOTE:
LAMB: You wrote one of the things that we don’t often hear from inside, that Bill Luti referred to the Chief of Central Command, Anthony Zinni, as a traitor.
KWIATKOSKI: Former Chief of Central Command Anthony Zinni, Tommy Frank’s predecessor. Yes, he did, and right in front of the refrigerator that sat two feet from my desk.
There was a huge contempt, and Bill Luti is not the only one. But, among the neo-conservatives in and out of the Pentagon and, of course, you can read their writings even at the time, a huge sense of collective derision, collective contempt for people that were like Anthony Zinni, people that were saying, â€We need to sit down and think about what we’re saying. We need to see how this fits in with America’s national security interests. We need to be sure that what we’re saying about Iraq’s capability, Iraq’s connection to terrorism, and anybody else’s capability in connection to terrorism, we need to be sure that what we say is checked out.â€
EXCERPTS:
KWIATKOSKI: My retirement date was effective 1 July, 2003 but I left the Pentagon basically two days after we invaded Iraq, and I had moved my retirement date up specifically because of my experience in that final tour in the Pentagon at the Office of Secretary Defense Policy.
KWIATKOSKI: Well, I was actually against the war when I was in the Pentagon, and the reason had to do with what I felt to be lies, not so much lies told to the American people, but lies, in fact, promulgated on us inside the Pentagon. I worked in Near East-South Asia Policy. Doug Feith was our boss, over me and 1,000 other people in Policy. The Office of Special Plans had been formed from our office, staffed with political appointees, and they were producing, in the fall of 2002 and ’03, and the winter and spring of 2003, talking points for us to use in our own papers, and those talking points did not match the intelligence that we had previously used to put together our papers and our work. So, I felt that we were being lied to.
Now, it was made worse when I saw the president and vice president make speeches and heard what they were saying because it seemed as if they were also speaking from these same talking points. And so, that means, in my view, they were also lying to the American people.
It was in May of 2002 that I was moved from Sub-Saharan African Affairs into Near East-South Asia, and that’s really when my eyes began to be opened about how our policy towards invading, destroying and occupying Iraq, although I’m not sure if that’s the right order, but I began to be aware of something else that was going on, which was very, very different from what I had seen in the previous 19 years, and I think that’s really – you know, when you have a shock, when suddenly you have a veil pulled away and you see something – and it was inconsistent with my values as a military officer.
You know, we sort of noticed it pulled the Constitution. We have a sense that the people in the Pentagon will be very apolitical. Certainly, the political bosses reflect any administration, the administration that places them there, and that’s fine. But, I saw a type of politicization almost from the very first week in Near East-South Asia policy, which really violated the idea of an apolitical military. This was an agenda-setting organization, and the agenda was war. The agenda was an invasion of Iraq. I’m not sure the agenda was nation-building in Iraq. We did very little planning. There was very little that emanated from the Pentagon in any practical way that would have prepared us for what came after toppling Saddam Hussein. But, certainly the agenda amongst the political appointees there, almost a little nest of very ideologically motivated folks.
And neo-conservatism is a word that we’ve all come to know and not necessarily love, but neo-conservatism is a part of that. The neo-conservative agenda preceded George Bush’s presidency. Certainly the plans of it were envisioned by neo-conservatives for Iraq, had been talked about for many, many years, and these plans included his destruction and a changing of Iraq, a transformation somehow of that country.
Bill Luti was the director of Near East-South Asian policy. He formerly worked for Dick Cheney. He was an aide to Dick Cheney when Cheney was the Secretary of Defense. He came over into the Pentagon from Dick Cheney’s staff. So, he is a political appointee. I consider him to be ideologically a neo-conservatism but, regardless, very much on board with the â€Take Down Iraq†team on that aspect, very much pushing that. But, he was our boss. He was the boss of all of us. And in our staff meetings, of course, the Office of Special Plans folks, after they’re formed, come down to our staff meetings, and they – I consider them our sister office, and that’s how I describe them. I was not assigned into that office. I knew a lot of those guys because they shared space with us in the summer of 2002 and, of course, we saw them at our staff meetings and that kind of thing.
Now, I have to say this. Interestingly enough, I never thought of it at the time, but, two weeks after – two to three weeks after the Office of Special Plans was set up as the expanded Iraq desk, they moved the Iran desk up into it, and that of course was headed by Larry Franklin, now serving a dozen years for apparently – I’m not sure what he did. He gave some classified material to members of the Israeli lobby AIPAC. He’s – he plea-bargained down to 12 years, so I don’t know the extent of what he did.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:48 pmPut this together with this headline:
“Scaife-owned paper calls for Iraq withdrawal; questions Bush’s “mental stability—
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003612271
Maybe we can finally start moving the in the right direction.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:48 pmIf you want to know WHY 60% want out go watch this.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:49 pmKWIATKOSKI: Yes, Washington Institute for Near East Affairs, sure, yes. That’s another very pro-Israel think tank, which puts forth lots of papers on what Israel should do and what America should do as Israel’s ally. And a lot of the things that they advocate, as well as a number of other think tanks, is precisely what we ended up doing in 2003, and that is to destroy Iraq.
LAMB: But, if you get on their Web site and look at their advisory board, the names, almost all of them are recognizable. The Washington Institute for Near-East Policy, Warren Christopher, Larry Eagleburger, Alex Hague, Alexander Hague, Max Kempleman, Jean Kirkpatrick, Sam Lewis, Edward Luttwak, Robert McFarland, Marty Parris (ph), Richard Perle, James Roach, George Schultz, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Mandelmaun (ph), James Woolsey and Mortimer Zuckerman.
KWIATKOSKI: Yes, those – and those are just the top guys. If you go down to the next level, you’re going to see guys that I actually know who were assigned into the Pentagon doing political appointed type work on policy, yes. Yes, very influential. And really, if you want to study neo-conservatism, you’ve got quite a few key names there, as well as some folks that people would consider to be more traditional conservatives. But, I can tell you, I’ll tell you something about George Schultz, that – there was a fax that came into the office. It wasn’t for me. I happened to get it, and I looked at this fax. It was a short note from George Schultz, who was on – who at that time, I don’t know if he still is – but he was on the Defense Policy Board, along with Richard Perle. It was a fax, a copy of a fax that he had sent to Don Rumsfeld in June of 2002, June of 2002 I believe it was. It was the summer of 2002.
And on this fax, it was a short, one-note thing, from Schultz to Rummy. Basically, we have to get together and talk about what we do after the victory in Iraq, and this was in the summer of 2002, long before even the president and the vice president had begun their round of why we fight-type propaganda speeches.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:49 pmThe previous poll was 500 responses and this one was 5440? Membership was not a requirement to take poll?
Looks a whole lot like a poorly done poll, I wouldn’t rely on.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:49 pmSupport The Troops – Listen to them!
Comment by kdoug — July 18, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
What else is there to say?
July 18th, 2007 at 1:50 pmOnly liberals read military.com.
Comment by Grand Moff Texan — July 18, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
That sentence could have been truncated one URL.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pmKWIATKOSKI: … Kevin Jones (ph), yes, OK, Kevin Jones (ph). Colonel Brunner (ph), nice guy, but he never wore his uniform, always wore civilian clothes. And I asked him once why because, in fact, for several weeks I thought he was a civilian, and then they said he’s having a promotion party. And I’m saying, well, why? Civilians don’t have promotion parties. And it turned out he was a colonel being promoted to 06 in the Air Force. And I asked him why he never wore his uniform. He said, â€Well, I have lots of meetings downtown, you know, I have to do a lot of meetings downtown.†And I was told not by him but by co-workers, â€Well, he’s Chalabi’s handler. He’s the guy that sets up all the meetings with Chalabi (ph).†So, when they talk about the sources of some of the things that the president was saying and OSP was putting in our own talking points that they were handing out for us to use, they did have sources. They just weren’t legitimate intelligence sources. They were people like Chalabi and Chalabi’s friends, and people that Chalabi brought in and Curveball, of course the whole infamous episode with Curveball and the bad info that that source had comes right through this same …
LAMB: Chalabi is who?
KWIATKOSKI: Achmed Chalabi. He was the – a favorite of the neo-conservatives. Initially in the early ’90s, Chalabi was seen as a possible leader of – a challenger to Saddam Hussein, a friend of the United States. But, he is really kind of a self-promoter in a lot of ways, and the CIA worked with him initially in the early ’90s, and they started checking out his stories and his contacts and the things he was doing, and it really – they discredited him. But, the neo-conservatives never did. He was their – in their embrace and brought back into high esteem, really, in the Bush Administration, at least early on.
LAMB: Colonel Brunner (ph) was also a military aide to Newt Gingrich?
KWIATKOSKI: At one time he was, yes, prior to this, sure. And Newt Gingrich, of course, sits on the Defense Policy Board, as well.
LAMB: Michael Makovsky, recent MIT graduate, you referred in 2004. You said it was David Makovsky’s brother. Why is that important?
KWIATKOSKI: Yes. Well, David was – I think David’s with one of these think tanks. I think the …
LAMB: Washington Institute.
KWIATKOSKI: … The Washington Institute. There he goes, yes, and he had been a publisher of some things in Israel, as well. So, a media guy
LAMB: He’d been a former editor for Jerusalem Post.
KWIATKOSKI: There you go. So, he’s a media guy with a particular pro-Israel agenda. Again, not a thing wrong with that except that’s not how we make American foreign policy, OK? that’s not how we make American defense policy. We don’t call up our allies and say, â€Well, what would you like us to do next?†We don’t do that, OK? it’s not done and, if we lean or slip into that practice, then it needs to be corrected. And so, that’s why these things stick in my mind. That’s why these things I think are – should concern people.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pmEh, it’s their job. They’re doing their jobs. I’d like to go home early from my job too…
July 18th, 2007 at 1:52 pmAnother poll result?
Cue trolls bringing up “the democrat congress” in 3, 2, 1…
July 18th, 2007 at 1:53 pm#9 Zooey -
Sgt Higgins said the Military.com is starting to turn against the war and is one of the most read internet sources in Iraq, so it does have some clout.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:54 pmKRISTOL: Saddam Hussein, here’s the man. Here he is in his box. I wouldn’t exaggerate the influence of the project, the New American Century. It’s a very small think tank. But, in some respects, we argued for I suppose you might say elements of the Bush Doctrine before the Bush Doctrine existed, or before George W. Bush became president.
LAMB: How important was the document that they wrote in 1998, New American Century?
KWIATKOSKI: Yes, partly. They wrote a document called, â€Rebuilding America’s Defenses,†and I had seen it before just because it’s a document that’s something that we would see, because it’s about views of a post-Cold War world and what we should do. This is the kind of thing that people in the Pentagon think about. Didn’t think much of it until I saw the president’s national security strategy, his very first one that George Bush put out. Of course, we do read that, and it’s on the Web site, White House Web site. And when I read it, not just me but lots of people saw almost word-for-word lifting of phrases and ideas and concepts from the Project for a New American Century’s previous document, â€Rebuilding America’s Defenses,†which is – sounds a very benign name, â€Rebuilding America’s Defenses.†That’s fine.
But, what it calls for is very much what George Bush has more overtly called for, which is America at the top of the world, a unilateral approach and that kind of thing. Very, very similar. I think that Bill Kristol underestimates modestly the – he’s a very modest man, and so he is not going to give the project for New American Century too much, but you can find it in the words, and you can also find it in the members. The Project for New American Century brought many, many key leaders and key political appointees, people that were working on the Project for New American Century moved seamlessly into government, and that starts with Dick Cheney.
KWIATKOSKI: The Office of Special Plans had one primary job, and that was to produce a set of talking points on the topic of Iraq, WMD and terrorism, and we were to use them in any document that we prepared exactly as they were written in their entirety. We were – all of us, myself included, very familiar with what the intelligence was saying about Iraq. But, the problem was, when you look at what was in these talking points, you could tell it was designed to convince the reader that Iraq and Saddam Hussein specifically constituted a major serious, terrible, evil threat to not just his neighbors but to the United States.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
KWIATKOSKI: And that would be the statement. He’s actively seeking it, and this is – this means that he’s a danger. But, the intelligence actually said that Saddam Hussein in the ’80s, in the late ’80s, actively sought fissionable materials in Africa, but he hasn’t done anything like that in the past 12 years. The statement, we act like he did it yesterday, taking bits of intelligence out of context without the qualifiers, without the rest of the story, and placing it as a bullet and presenting it as if it’s a factoid.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
KWIATKOSKI: And this was given to us, action officers, to use in papers that we would prepare for our higher-ups, to include guys like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:55 pmace: what is your problem?? Post something relevant… not cut & pasted.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:55 pmfrancis –
Do you get shot at on your job? Do you actually have a chance of succeeding when you are at your job? I’m guessing yes.
So, shut it.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:55 pm#12. Iraq is not the National Guard’s job.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:55 pmOnly liberals read military.com. Everybody knows that.
Comment by Grand Moff Texan
Everybody knows…. whatever.
For the record, I am a Republican, and I tend to vote fairly conservative….and I read military.com.
Man, that blows your ‘hypothesis’ out of the water. Or am I the exception that proves the rule?
July 18th, 2007 at 1:56 pmKWIATKOSKI: These guys were manipulating public opinion, OK, creating falsehoods and fantasies to inspire fear in the American people so that they could have their war.
LAMB: What, in your opinion, is the motivator for all these people you’re talking about?
KWIATKOSKI: Oh, there’s a couple different levels, but I think, for guys like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, a lot of the neo-conservatives, even George W. Bush and certainly Cheney, the vision is that we are not really a republic anymore. We’re certainly not a limited state. We are the world’s most important and all-powerful state, and that we have certain rights. Yes, we have certain responsibilities, but I think the rights are what drive them. And those rights include the right to do what we want, to get what we need, to have what we want to have. I think that’s what it is and, you know, we’ve built very massive mega-bases, permanent. These are permanent military bases in Iraq. We’ve done that in other places, as well, in the Middle East, but certainly these – this construction project in Iraq, in fact most of the money has been for military construction of – for our use. I think that’s a big part of it, shifting our footprint.
And certainly, even long before George W. Bush, the Pentagon has been interested in, from a global perspective, shifting and reshaping our global military footprint, and Mesopotamia is just absolutely, you know, wonderful. It is the most strategic location. I don’t care if you’re talking about water, trade routes, oil, our neighbors, our friends, people that may be threats in the future that we want to leverage. Iraq is perfect for all those things. And so, from their perspective, from the neo-conservative perspective, there is this geo-political reshaping that needs to go on, and Iraq is part of that. And so, we make the decision and we do the thing, and we did the thing. And we’ve built the bases, and we’re not leaving Iraq for the – you know, for all that.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:57 pmFrancis -
If you had a dysfunctional boss who made you stick your head in horseshit every day for 15 months and then made you do it again, would you want to quit? Well, they can’t quit, as they have something called ’stop-loss’, so they are stuck.
But you don’t give a shit about the troops either.. just like the rest of the Repugs.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:58 pmSgt Higgins said the Military.com is starting to turn against the war — I did say that.
and is one of the most read internet sources in Iraq,– did I say that? just askin’, I have the memory of a gnat.
so it does have some clout. — I would agree with that.
Comment by upside00
Sorry, unlike or friend BARTLEBEE, who has a mind like a steel trap, mine is more like a steel sieve.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:58 pmMan, that blows your ‘hypothesis’ out of the water. Or am I the exception that proves the rule?
Comment by SGT Higgins
Hi Sgt. I lied. I haven’t gone to work yet.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:58 pmthrowing good money after bad and sacrificing our children for the greedy oil whim of a pubescent, mentally challenged despot – now that makes perfect sense…..if a person’s mental ill, that is.
Biden’s speech today said it all. It was wrong from the outset, continued to be wrong, and will never be anything but wrong. Why sacrifice even one more life when we already know it’s wrong?
Besides, from here on in, every life which is sacrificed will be added to a huge and personal class action lawsuit against every senator who voted to continue this form of national genocide.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pmWhatever, they signed up knowing they could get shot. If you don’t want to get shot at work, don’t be a cop or join the army. Those are two jobs where you can reasonably assume that you could get shot at work; and people know this prior to joining.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pmHi Sgt. I lied. I haven’t gone to work yet.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
Know what’s worse? I have.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pm#
ace: what is your problem?? Post something relevant… not cut & pasted.
Comment by Republicans Can’t Govern. — July 18, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
The topic is a military.com pole which I assume includes mostly active duty and veterans stating their opinion about exiting Iraq. Karen Kwiatkowski’s first-hand account from inside the Pentagon is exceptionally relevant to the reasons we never should have gone in to begin with, and should serve to provide more than enough justification to get the hell out of there.
A war under false pretense is a war crime.
This interview is evidence on that crime.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:00 pmI’d like to go home early from my job too…
Comment by francis
Please do so, and never come back. I’m sure your long-suffering boss wil be delighted.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:00 pmKnow what’s worse? I have.
Comment by SGT Higgins
Just determined to get in the last word, huh?
July 18th, 2007 at 2:01 pmHi Ace! Thanks for the posts and the reminder of how much horseshit we were spoon fed and why! It’s always good to get a refresher course in “futt bucking 101″, which is precisely what the people have gotten from this masterful coup of the neocons.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:01 pm#9 Zooey -
Sgt Higgins said the Military.com is starting to turn against the war and is one of the most read internet sources in Iraq, so it does have some clout.
Comment by upside00
It is the most read news source for current military and alot of veterans as well.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:02 pmThe polls show the true trend of military man and women being against Iraq, since they cannot speak out vocally while still serving.
#27. Have you considered posting your summary of the account and a link?? Use the technology.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:03 pmhahah, yeah, lets insult me, that should work things out, and probably make you feel superior to me. Assume I have a bad job, and that I preform poorly at it too, that’s always fun; that should boost your self esteem temporarily as well!
July 18th, 2007 at 2:03 pmJust determined to get in the last word, huh?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
lmao Nope, you can have it.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:04 pmVeritas:
Thanks.
I feel it most appropriate for any in the military who might happen to read through this thread to read what one of their own had to say about the lead up to war.
She also stated that she saw Israeli Generals coming and going all day long in the lead up to war – WITHOUT THE NEED TO LOG IN AND LOG OUT – which was completely against protocol, and obviously designed to prevent future investigators from learning of their role.
The Office Of Special Plans was itself an illegal operation.
READ EVERY WORD
THIS WOMAN WAS ON THE INSIDE
SHE KNOWS THE TRUTH
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski159.html
July 18th, 2007 at 2:06 pmAssume I have a bad job, and that I preform poorly at it too, that’s always fun; that should boost your self esteem temporarily as well!
Comment by francis
Whoa… getting a little snarky here, aren’t we? I never said you had a bad job, I merely inferred you DID a bad job. There’s a difference, ya know. I don’t need to make fun of you to “boost my self esteem”. I simply do it because it’s entertaining. And from your reaction, I can see it worked! Score one!
July 18th, 2007 at 2:07 pmOne day soon, the majority of americans will awaken and realize that the worst nightmare has come to fruition, thanks to the PNAC and the Bush Cabal! Then, of course, it will be too late to reverse.
Maybe I’m being cynical but in viewing the senate hearings today, I couldn’t help but think “what the hell are any of these people doing up there”?? What they are saying and doing is meaningless now.
And then, the masterstroke by Specter himself when he turned the “knuckling under of the dems on the Iraq money” into a plus for the Republicans – well, that was the frosting on the cake.
Unfortunately I happen to agree with Specter this once. I do feel that the Dems let the people down when they gave in so quickly to whining Bushbots on the iraq money. They should have called his bluff right then and there but didn’t have the spine to do so. Many people will never forget or forgive them for that squandered opportunity to save things.
When the dems failed to use their only card (the pursestrings) to rein in this monster, the number of registered independents rose amazingly.
So, this new attempt to recoup their dignity and the respect of those who put the Dems into office last night and today is but an overreaction to their not having done something when they had the power to do so, I think.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:08 pmThanks, I appreciate it. Although you are clearly a far superior person than myself, and my opinions pale in comparison to your knowledgeably driven comments .
July 18th, 2007 at 2:08 pmKWIATKOWSKI:
And in our staff meetings, of course, the Office of Special Plans folks, after they’re formed, come down to our staff meetings, and they – I consider them our sister office, and that’s how I describe them. I was not assigned into that office. I knew a lot of those guys because they shared space with us in the summer of 2002 and, of course, we saw them at our staff meetings and that kind of thing.
Now, I have to say this. Interestingly enough, I never thought of it at the time, but, two weeks after – two to three weeks after the Office of Special Plans was set up as the expanded Iraq desk, they moved the Iran desk up into it, and that of course was headed by Larry Franklin, now serving a dozen years for apparently – I’m not sure what he did. He gave some classified material to members of the Israeli lobby AIPAC. He’s – he plea-bargained down to 12 years, so I don’t know the extent of what he did.
http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1069
“In 2001, the FBI discovered new, ‘massive’ Israeli spying operations in the East Coast, including New York and New Jersey, said one former senior U.S. government official. The FBI began intensive surveillance on certain Israeli diplomats and other suspects and was videotaping Naor Gilon, chief of political affairs at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, who was having lunch at a Washington hotel with two lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby group. Federal law enforcement officials said they were floored when Franklin came up to their table and sat down.”
The New Jersey connection recalls the infamous incident involving the “dancing Israelis,” arrested on 9/11 when seen leaping and dancing for joy in a park overlooking the Hudson River as the World Trade Center burned. The five detainees were Israeli citizens who worked for a New Jersey moving company, Urban Moving Systems, and were held for months while being repeatedly interrogated as to their knowledge of the events surrounding 9/11. The owner, Dominick Suter, fled to Israel after the feds raided his business, and The Forward speculated that the company was a thinly-disguised Mossad front.
From the Israeli “art students,” who made such a nuisance of themselves at U.S. government buildings in the months prior to 9/11, to the counter-intelligence operation launched by the U.S. that eventually caught Franklin and the AIPAC crowd red-handed, is a straight-line narrative, one long continuous story of unremitting struggle between the U.S. and Israel – on American soil.
In his Fox News four-part series exposing Israel’s secret underground in the U.S., Carl Cameron reported that FBI and other officials claimed any attempt to investigate and expose undue Israeli access to highly sensitive information amounted to “career suicide,” implying that highly-placed moles in policymaking positions effectively covered up the covert activities of their cohorts – much as Alger Hiss and other KGB agents protected their associates and stole nuclear and other secrets from the U.S. and shipped them off to Moscow. In both cases, the motives are the same: ideology, not money, motivates the most effective fifth columnists and spies.
Isn’t it funny how the same people who jump at the chance to tar antiwar public figures as “anti-American” traitors and a “fifth column,” as Andrew Sullivan infamously put it, have nothing to say about the AIPAC spy scandal? These guys are covering up for traitors and spies: you can’t get much more un-American and actively anti-American than that.
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4178
AIPAC SPY SCANDAL:
CONSPIRACY TO COMMUNICATE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO AGENT OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
1. Defendant LAWRENCE ANTHONY FRANKLIN was employed by the United States government at the Department of Defense (DoD) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), International Security Affairs (ISA), Office of Near East and South Asia, Office of Northern Gulf Affairs, Iran desk, and held a Top Secret security clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). FRANKLIN’S office was located within the Pentagon, in the Eastern District of Virginia. FRANKLIN was also a Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR).
2. Throughout his employment with the United States government, FRANKLIN repeatedly signed written agreements acknowledging his duty to safeguard classified information
3. At no time was FRANKLIN authorized to release classified information to ROSEN and WEISMANN except with respect to Overt Acts 43 and 44 in count one.
4. Defendant STEVEN J. ROSEN was employed as the Director of Foreign Policy Issues for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington, D.C. ROSEN was hired by AIPAC in or about July 1982. AIPAC, according to its website, is ” America’s ProIsrael Lobby.” AIPAC lobbies the U.S. Congress and Executive Branch agencies on various issues related to Israel and U.S. Foreign policy in the Middle East. As the Director of Foreign Policy Issues, ROSEN lobbied on behalf of AIPAC, primarily with officials within the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. During the time period of this indictment, ROSEN did not have a U.S. government security clearance and was not authorized to receive or possess U.S. government classified information.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2005/franklin_indictment_04aug2005.htm
July 18th, 2007 at 2:08 pmlmao Nope, you can have it.
Comment by SGT Higgins
Well, now I really am going to work. No, really, I am… I’m going to get up, take a shower, and go… to… work… yes, I am… Really…
July 18th, 2007 at 2:09 pmAce, did you listen to her interview (Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski [ret.]) on Truthdig.com on the coming war with Iran?
July 18th, 2007 at 2:10 pmhttp://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070227_pentagon_whistleblower_on_the_coming_war_with_iran/
They have a number of excellent, informative interviews. I really learned a lot about how we got into this disastrous war and what is really going on there by listening to Scott Ritter’s inteview:
http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070320_scott_ritter_robert_scheer/
Ace: I’ve read those transcripts and it’s clear that she testified to that effect. How many other ways can one spell “complicit” when it comes to Israel? And the jury’s coming in regarding how it was all contrived….dancing Israelis were not part of the scenario though and may be their undoing after all.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:10 pmWhere were they, these Military.com readers when Bush was using our troops as clay pigeons? For over three years, these readers agreed with Bush’s Big Fat Lie about the Iraq war, now an occupation. They cursed the so-called “Far Left,†the pro-terrorists who want to have every American murdered in their sleep. These “murderers†were the only voice of reason against Bush’s lies on Bush’s war in Iraq. The Left stood their ground for our troops as they took one hit after another. Now these Military.com readers are crying foul at Bush on Iraq. A little too late, you hypocrites.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:11 pmI like a challenge, so I’ll let this one go.
Comment by Mr. President
You mean, like convincing people that Saudis really aren’t Moslems? Wow, you really do like a challenge. Now, go convince them stubborn Saudis… please try… please, please, please…
(Pst… SGT, I lied again!)
July 18th, 2007 at 2:11 pmJG: Thanks for the links. Yes, Ace has been posting this information here for some time and some folks really either aren’t ready to hear and accept truth or rue the fact that it is so and thus reject it in an attempt to recreate it. Either way, I find it interesting how some ostensibly open minds here are precisely the opposite – open when it rings a chord within them – closed when it hits their own genealogical “pain body”. Typical reaction I suppose but hypocritical, too.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:12 pm#9 Zooey -
Sgt Higgins said the Military.com is starting to turn against the war and is one of the most read internet sources in Iraq, so it does have some clout.
Comment by upside00
I wasn’t questining the poll. That was Tundra. :)
July 18th, 2007 at 2:13 pm(Pst… SGT, I lied again!)
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
Y’know, I was going to let you have the last word..just this once…..but you just won’t let it go, you gotta pick and pick and pick. Sheesh, you try to do somethin’ nice for someone. lol
July 18th, 2007 at 2:14 pmLet’s just say that people are “waking up” all over this nation – en masse and will no longer be fed the daily regimen of propaganda. Thanks to the internet we don’t have to.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:14 pmEh, it’s their job. They’re doing their jobs. I’d like to go home early from my job too…
Comment by francis
Thanks, I appreciate it. Although you are clearly a far superior person than myself, and my opinions pale in comparison to your knowledgeably driven comments .
Comment by francis
Excuse, b*ttwipe, you’re the one that posted the snide, flip, meaningless comment about people getting shot at, maimed, and killed for Bush’s lies. And now, in typical Neocon fashion, you’re playing the victim card? BOO-frickin’-HOO, to quote M Malkin, BTW.
Surely, you have some place to go where people will actually feel sorry for you, ’cause it sure ain’t here, Francis.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:15 pmThe significance of this poll is that 40% of 60% of our military want an immediate withdrawal – if I’m interpreting this accurately. If so, that’s truly significant.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:16 pmSheesh, you try to do somethin’ nice for someone. lol
Comment by SGT Higgins
I know. I’m terrible. I… have a problem, don’t I?
Later… really… no, I mean it this time…)
July 18th, 2007 at 2:17 pmfrancis is just another name for Frank J is just another name for Mr.P is just another name for Jake. Forget this moron and move on.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:17 pmand eating our own is the republican MO which is precisely what they’d love us to be mimicking right now.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:18 pmThis article by Scott Ritter attempts to educate Americans on the realities on the ground in Iraq and the history of the area we are fighting – trying to put it all in context. This is a very educational and informative article.
“Scott Ritter: Calling Out Idiot America”
July 18th, 2007 at 2:21 pmhttp://www.truthdig.com/dig/print/20070323_calling_out_idiot_america/
Ace, so many long cut and posts make it hard to read the blog, a short synopsys and links work
July 18th, 2007 at 2:40 pmsometimes it’s almost as bad as the troll droppings
just saying
Hey all.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:45 pmwrong mofo, if you’ve read any of my prior posts, you’ll see that I differ greatly from those people. I simply feel that these troops shouldn’t complain about where they are or for how long, because they’re doing their jobs and knew what the army entailed when they signed up.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:47 pmhaha, you called me a neo-con. I’m a hugely liberal individual, however, I don’t follow the democrats blindly, as many of you seem to. Liberal /= democrat
July 18th, 2007 at 2:48 pm#49 Zooey, no I was referring to your post in #10, me thinks they stuck an extra post back after I wrote the remark.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:53 pm“francis” exhibits many of the same trollish qualities of Jake, Frank J and more recently, “Moderate Mary of Maine”, all of whom have claimed to be “moderate” or “liberal” while goose-stepping to the BushCo marching band.
Just sayin…
July 18th, 2007 at 2:56 pmWell, whatever, I don’t really care if you think I’m them or like them; I’m not.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:59 pmDon’t worry little Bush guy, Barney still agrees with you.
And the sycophantic pus filled whore trolls.
Other than that, you are on your own.
July 18th, 2007 at 3:06 pmHi,
I’m Moderate Mary of Maine.
Now I don’t approve of Bush and Cheney, and would love to have them out of office, just like you.
That said, I agree with everything they have said and done.
July 18th, 2007 at 3:07 pm“Why do the soldiers not support the soldiers? I think the Democrats should be ashamed…
Comment by dono “
Please tell me how they are supposed to “support” their fellow soldiers? Is it support to go along with a failed policy? Is it support to keep quiet while your bothers and sisters are sent to that hell-hole to die?
Support our Troops – Bring them Home! (that’s my bumper sticker)
July 18th, 2007 at 3:08 pm“Besides, from here on in, every life which is sacrificed will be added to a huge and personal class action lawsuit against every senator who voted to continue this form of national genocide.
Comment by veritas”
Problem is veritas – there won’t be another vote to continue this form of national genocide. That’s why the Republics have filibustered the Reed/Levin bill. They don’t want to be forced to put there vote out there where everyone can see it. It’s called “plausible deniability”. If they don’t actually vote to bring our troops home, none of those Senators who participated in the filibuster can be accused of voting against bringing our troops home.
This is all like some big game to the Lemming Republics. They could care less that another 500 of our troops will die before we can even start getting them out of there.
July 18th, 2007 at 3:14 pm“I simply feel that these troops shouldn’t complain about where they are or for how long, because they’re doing their jobs and knew what the army entailed when they signed up.
Comment by francis”
Sorry francis, you are wrong. The National Guard did not sign up to become ground troops in a military action. And the people in the military before Bush invaded Iraq did not sign up to invade a country that didn’t threaten us and then occupy that country.
The only people you can say knew what they were signing up for are the people who have signed up after Bush invaded Iraq. And, I’m willing to bet that is a small part of the military.
July 18th, 2007 at 3:19 pmfrancis smells like Joker
July 18th, 2007 at 3:28 pmIt is the most read news source for current military and alot of veterans as well.
Sgt Higgins said the Military.com is starting to turn against the war and is one of the most read internet sources in Iraq, so it does have some clout.
Comment by upside00 — July 18, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
I post there a whole lot more than I post here. I have a different opinion than Sgt Higgins does about the stance of most of the posters. Seeing as I am bias in this instance I will remove myself from this discussion :-)
July 18th, 2007 at 3:54 pmThe only people you can say knew what they were signing up for are the people who have signed up after Bush invaded Iraq. And, I’m willing to bet that is a small part of the military.
Comment by Katie — July 18, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Katie,
I would venture it’s actually a large part. People that have either signed up or reenlisted since March 2003. A 4 year contract would have taken them to March of 2007.
(It’s a different part of the discussion not about military.com so I can get in this part )
July 18th, 2007 at 3:59 pm#49 Zooey, no I was referring to your post in #10, me thinks they stuck an extra post back after I wrote the remark.
Comment by upside00 — July 18, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
Ok. I’m confused. I was just agreeing with kdoug’s sentiment: Support The Troops – Listen to them!
July 18th, 2007 at 4:06 pmRegardless of when they signed up for the ARMY, they still signed up for the ARMY. It would be reasonable to assume that at any time in the career of an army guy, he could be called into a war; to sign up for the army and not have this assumption would be idiotic. That’s the nature of the army. As for the guard, perhaps they didn’t sign up to fight a war, I don’t really know what the guard is used for. I guess cleaning up disasters around their state and what not. How many people in Iraq are in the guard and not the army?
July 18th, 2007 at 4:16 pm“Katie,
I would venture it’s actually a large part. People that have either signed up or reenlisted since March 2003. A 4 year contract would have taken them to March of 2007.”
Sorry Tundra – I think you are also wrong. You are assuming that everyone that is in the military now enlisted since March 2003. That is not the fact. A very large number of our military would have been out a long time ago if they were not stop-lossed. And the same thing is happening with the National Guard, except that they sign up for longer tour of duty so most of them don’t have to be stop-lossed. I read recently about one guy who was due to get out around the time that Bush invaded Iraq. He is still in the military and he is now on his third tour of duty in Iraq.
July 18th, 2007 at 4:18 pmAnd it’s still called the ARMY national guard.
July 18th, 2007 at 4:18 pmThe only people you can say knew what they were signing up for are the people who have signed up after Bush invaded Iraq. And, I’m willing to bet that is a small part of the military.
Comment by Katie
I remember being downrange when some of these guys came to the unit. Doing the math, they joined, went through BCT & AIT and came to Iraq…all after the war started…..I remember thinking, “Does this look like FUN?”
July 18th, 2007 at 4:58 pmNow that it is obvious that support for the war in Iraq is lacking in every conceivable sector of the American population, the continuing stubbornness of the Administration to even consider changing the doomed course they have set themselves on is both frustrating and infuriating. It is also frustrating because they continue to ignore and draw attention away from other areas which have a real potential to help people. For example, the fight against global poverty, as conceived of in the UN’s Millennium Development goals is one of the most promising and critical issues of our time. But it is lacking critical political and economic support in the US because the war in Iraq is sucking resources and attention away from everything else.
July 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pmNow vs 18 months from now is a lot of wiggle room. I’m not surpised by those numbers.
July 18th, 2007 at 6:15 pmI’d rather see the poll results if you ask the question with only a Now vs Stay the Course choice.
I’m 100% in the NOW or Yesterday camp.
That must be why Ron Paul has the most military donations of any Repub candidate.
July 18th, 2007 at 6:22 pmA caller to the Randi Rhodes show (I’m pretty sure it was Randi’s show) had a GREAT idea, based on the fact that the Iraqi Parliament, the U.S. Congress, and Bush-Cheney-Rice etc., are taking off the entire month of August, in part because of the oppressive heat/weather, which appears to be a good enough reason among the Bushies for the Iraqi Parliament members to take off … so, why don’t the members of our military deserve the same?
So, the caller suggested that, in solidarity with the Bush WH, Congress, and the Iraqi Parliament, SEND THE TROOPS HOME FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST. It could be done on a “trial” basis, like the alleged surge.
Two weeks to organize and get the plan implemented–Operation ‘get them the hell out of Bushwhirled’
July 18th, 2007 at 6:23 pmWait, I just looked it up. Ron Paul has the most military donations of any candidate!
July 18th, 2007 at 6:25 pmI just finished reading Fiasco — Jeezez!
July 18th, 2007 at 7:12 pmIf one didn’t believe the war was a major screw up from the get-go, this book will change their minds. This war was wrong in conception, wrong in direction, wrong, wrong, wrong.
We can never atone for what we have done; the best we can do is leave as soon as possible.
And leaving ASAP means that if we started tomorrow, it could take anywhere from 10 to 18 months to get everyone out.
Just the other day, one of these goddamn Bush worshippers, either M12, Ringo, CtVI or Flaco, was citing a poll from 2003 and using it as evidence that the military supported Bush’s Iraq folly. I posted that the poll was out of date and a more recent poll would show different results. This was met with the usual derision and ad hominem bullcrap. Where is that poster now?
July 18th, 2007 at 8:29 pm