Cearbhall's Not Alone!: Col. Karen Kwiotkowski-Soldier For the Truth

After serving 20 years in the US Air Force and inside the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans in the run-up to the Iraq war, Col. Karen Kwiotkowski left the Air Force.

Being legally muzzled while in uniform, she felt the only way she could viably resist what she terms "the expansionist, imperialist policies of the neoconservatives who dominated Iraq policy" would be to retire and take up the fight publicly. And boy has she. She's been busy writing editorials and speaking out, blowing the whistle on this whole WMD fraud and the fact that by May 2002, plans for war on Iraq were clearly being persued, despite what the Pentagon and White House have been saying all along.

She has made herself a huge target, but as she says in this interview below, she took an oath to the Constitution to serve this country and that is exactly what she is doing! STILL. This lady is a hero in my book. I only wish our military had more officers like her. I hope ya'll will read this interview. It's worth the time it'll take.


Soldier for the Truth
Exposing Bush�s talking-points war
by Marc Cooper

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.

www.laweekly.com...

I did read the article, thanks.

It was one of the most clear explanations for what has been happening with our policy, devoid of speculation or confusion.

It reminded me that intentions count more than the actions they are behind.

I just hope we can clean up this mess.

Originally posted by Requiem
I did read the article, thanks.

It was one of the most clear explanations for what has been happening with our policy, devoid of speculation or confusion.

It reminded me that intentions count more than the actions they are behind.

I just hope we can clean up this mess.

Ain't that the truth!

Excellent post bro, hope more will read and do research and open their eyes to this imperialist govt!

Me, too! Col. Kwiotkowski is an UNIMPEACHABLE first-hand witness to it all.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Me, too! Col. Kwiotkowski is an UNIMPEACHABLE first-hand witness to it all.

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree with you there. She is not one that could be called a lier with any ease.

There are some serious allegations in there, to include subversion of Congress and the Constitution.

I really think one of the Democrats could clear up all these problems Bush has instated within this great land. The Country itself is great, the leaders are where great countries and empires fail!

I think Kerry would definately change the problems, seriously, Kerry seems like a great candidate. He seems to have his priorities straight, unlike you know who mr. president. Kerry's campaign was based on national reform, and by-golly lets do it!

Kerry: 2005 - 2009. Kerry for President!

-wD

Any bets on whether this story will ever hit the mainstream media (meaning foxnews/msnbc/cnn).

This just makes sense. It is scary to think that in two years an administration could do this but then after 9/11 we stopped looking and were willing to believe a lot of things.

Maybe it will change now

How about those "UNIMPEACHABLE" soldiers that atest to the opposite? No mention of their views being posted or presented. "Soldier for the truth" is viewed in both perspectives and given likewise. Again, only a one-sided view is presented, and for what reasons? To further prove to yourselves that this war is wrong and unjustified, unwarrented, unnecessary? Like their aren't tens of thousands of "soldiers of the truth" that believe the opposite?

Be real folks, this crap getting old! You post a topic that can easily be viewed in the opposite and then atest that the 'view' your presenting is the correct, literal, unbiased "truth"....please....
As with any conflict or war, there will be those for and against, and this includes those men and women that are actually involved in the fighting. Since this is a 'given' or 'known'....the point of your post is to what....re-re-re-hash what has already been countlessly been opinionated and voiced on and within this forum and ATS. The point of this thread is exactly what? What is it revealing that hasn't already been countlessly been talked about and argued already in past discussions?

Sorry ECK, but this thread and topic, IMHO, is BS and comes wrapped with colorful paper and a nice, presentable bowtie.



regards
seekerof

Okay I will bite

There are maybe a great number of soldiers who do believe what they are there for is right and just. My question would be how many of them work in a position as high as this Col. and in the particular group (which has exposure to so much of this information). I mean I believe the troops are there for the right reasons, right as in what they and we have been told. I also do not normally agree that the government is out to get me (quite the opposite) but I have to say there are questions and now someone who is on the surface credible (verifiable employement in said agency) has given a plausible change in official story.

I would love to see this handled by a reputable news agency, at least to help to confirm the authors credibility more and to help discover the truth. Not 100% this is how it happened but it does fit the situation even better than the official story which from the start to now and been full of holes for many people.

Now all opinions are my own and not designed to really upset anyone.

Originally posted by nativeokie
Okay I will bite

There are maybe a great number of soldiers who do believe what they are there for is right and just. My question would be how many of them work in a position as high as this Col. and in the particular group (which has exposure to so much of this information). I mean I believe the troops are there for the right reasons, right as in what they and we have been told. I also do not normally agree that the government is out to get me (quite the opposite) but I have to say there are questions and now someone who is on the surface credible (verifiable employement in said agency) has given a plausible change in official story.

I would love to see this handled by a reputable news agency, at least to help to confirm the authors credibility more and to help discover the truth. Not 100% this is how it happened but it does fit the situation even better than the official story which from the start to now and been full of holes for many people.

Now all opinions are my own and not designed to really upset anyone.

First of all, being corporately owned and subservient to White House/Pentagon demands ("National Security"), Col. Kwiatkowski's account of what went on inside Rumsfeld's Pentagon is not gonna make press. It's way too explosive for the Bush administration. Despite what you might think, or wish to believe, Seekerof, the Col.'s testimony IS unimpeachable. Working inside the very belly of the beast gave her an up close and personal look that few have/had. She got out because of what she saw - only because she knew the only way she could speak truth to power was to leave the service. No small thing, man. She loved what she did and is a true patriot. Had she stayed, she could not have made her opinions and voice known. I have communicated with her and I tell you, she is the real deal. Col. David Hackworth, one of our most decorated, if not the most decorated living soldier agrees with this assertion as well. Who are you going to believe? Some civilian war-profiteers who have launched one of the most sinister and immoral propaganda campaigns against the USA to start a war for domination and resources or the very people who have served valiantly for us all? (Over their whole professional lives.)

As an aside, I'm reading a new book right now called "The Mission" by the Washington Post's CIA/miilitary reporter Dana Priest. In it, she recounts how our civilian leaders in this administration - as well as Clinton's have completely and thoroughly disregarded and marginalized the input and wisdom of our military's highest officers like Gen. Anthony Zinni, for example. They fought in the Vietnam War and the Gulf War, learning hard lessons through both. What wars have these lying, incompetent Neo-Conservatives (who led us into this Iraq debacle) ever fought? NONE! They have ZERO experience! Only TWO of them (Rumsfeld and one guy at State) have even ever served. That should matter BIGTIME to everyone in America.

Kwiotkowski has Absolutely No Reason to make this stuff up and destroy her career! Why in God's name would a high ranking officer leave an excellent career and pick a fight with such high level officials? That makes NO sense whatsoever! If it weren't for the Neo Con subversion, she'd still be serving!

As far as all the soldiers who believe what they're doing is right, I'd bet a month's paycheck those are mainly the low-level troops who are fed NOTHING BUT propaganda. (Remember Seekerof, I was there, I know what kinda crap goes on in training and preparing and going to war) You cannot imagine the kind of things they drive into YOUNG, IMPRESSIONABLE soldiers heads (CEARBHALL, Can I get an AMEN?) I don't hold that loyalty against the soldiers at all. They truly do want to do the right thing. Unfortunately, they are now being led by the most unethical bunch of power mongers possibly in our history.

When I was in, before Christmas leave we all hated and wanted to kill Gadhaffi ("...Shoot Gadhaffi lock and load... So went the cadence). Then after Christmas leave, the cadence was Shoot NORIEGA, LOCK AND LOAD... Then, by the summer of 1990 the propaganda flowing out of the Rendon group on the invasion of Kuwait, not to mention the top brass at the 101st Airborne headquarters - we were in a fever pitch to go kill that frocking bastiddd Saddam.. Do you see what I'm getting at? They take young people who have little or no world experience and they fill their heads with things you can't imagine. So of course they're gonna support their commander-in-chief. That's a no-brainer.

The bottom line is you're not gonna get a better, more accurate picture of what really went on inside the Pentagon leading up to this illegal invasion of Iraq. Discount Kwiotkowski's comments if you want, but you're only fooling yourself.

(No disrespect, Seekerof.

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Yet more evidence of subterfuge leading up to the Iraq invasion:

British spy op wrecked peace move

Martin Bright, Peter Beaumont and Jo Tuckman in Mexico
Sunday February 15, 2004
The Observer

A joint British and American spying operation at the United Nations scuppered a last-ditch initiative to avert the invasion of Iraq, The Observer can reveal.
Senior UN diplomats from Mexico and Chile provided new evidence last week that their missions were spied on, in direct contravention of international law.

observer.guardian.co.uk...

I'd have to say that I agree with Kid on this one.

Having been there as well (Marine Corps infantry) I can tell you that the mentality is there in the low level troops.

I was against the propaganda about this very topic (and there is oceans of it), but this I can not turn aside fairly.

At the very least, it could be true and not a perspective or isolated view.

Another great source to verify is David Hackworth's site. He's highly credible and a voice FOR the soldiers.
www.hackworth.com...

If anyone knows what the manipulation is like it'd be KrazyJethro. The Marines are hardcore all the way.

Just a note on that, when you're in the military training for war, it must be that way. It keeps you ready for the battle. But once you get out, it's important to see it for what it is and balance that, or temper it with reality and research.

Yeah, but I'd say most of it is not initiated through the command. It starts there, but peer perspective (i.e. pressure) and the pack mentality rule, especially when preparing for war.

It was kickin for us right before we were to be shipped to Yugo before Clinton decided to do only air strikes.

What a screw up that was. Clinton was the Bomb Heavy Balls Light president.

One reason I couldn't stand him was because he put so much diplomacy off on the military - unfairly and wrongly.

He was famous for using the military, too, to get his arse outta the sling. Like bombing that aspirin plant. He was a complete and totally MOFO as commander-in-chief. Thank God I got out right before he was sworn in. I think I would've taken a court-martial before I would've been able to salute him.