It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Former Pentagon employee reveals

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 03:19 AM
Retired Pentagon veteran Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski is like many among us under the impression that Bush could very well decide to launch an attack on Iran sooner or later. More interesting is her view on the motives Bush could possibly have for starting a war on Iran.

Furthermore, she says a naval/air campaign is much more likely to be an option than another ground campaign, while I agree with that, a naval/air campaign would definitely not destroy all [underground] targets, but rather trigger Iran to retaliate. Final outcome: mass civilian casualties on all sides.

Last week I read Hezbollah will inevitably strike Israel, should they decide to engage Iran. Not to speak of Syria. If the US and Israel would strike Iran, Syria could be very well become the next target. Syria is aware of this and I wouldn't be surprised if they take the risk of launching an attack on Israel rather than waiting for Uncle Sam to wipe another ''terrorist state'' off the map.

Interesting is that she confirms what most of us already thought: Intelligence stated nothing about a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein nor did it state that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs:

We’re looking at regular intel, we’re looking at the stuff the CIA and the DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency produces. And that stuff never said, that stuff never said Saddam Hussein had WMDs, had a delivery system, was a threat to the United States. It never said that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 or that Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaeda. That intelligence never said that.


The vital role of the propganda machine

We were doing, I’ll tell ya, there’s two parts of how the story is sold, how the propaganda was put forth on the American people, and how it’s been put forth on them today in terms of Iran. You have political appointees in every government agency, and they switch out every time you get a new president, and that’s totally normal. Usually those, the numbers increase after every president, they always get a few more. So Bush was no different. He brought in a number of political appointees: Doug Feith, certainly Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. But also a number of political appointees at what you would call a lower level, like my level - Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel level. And they’re not military officers, they’re civilians. And they’re brought in, and this is where the propaganda was kind of put together, this is where the so-called alternative intelligence assessments were put together by the civilian appointees of the Bush Administration. Most of which, in fact, probably all of the Pentagon shared a neo-conservative world vision, which has a particular role for us, and that included the topping of Saddam Hussein, and it includes the toppling of the leadership in Tehran. These guys are the ones doing it, they’re doing it. They’re putting all the propaganda, they’re spreading stories, planting stuff in the media. ......


Uptil now I considered wrong intelligence could have been the reason for Bush to launch an attack on Iran, the following paragraph shows the shocking revelation that CIA intelligence was not of relevance at all!

JAMES HARRIS: Did they tell you to shut up?

KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Absolutely! [Laughs] That’s a funny thing, and of course, here’s how it worked. Once the Office of Special Plans was set u formally, now they were informally set up prior to the fall of 2002, but formally they became an office with office space and that whole bit. And the first act to follow that setup of the Office of Special Plans, we had a staff meeting, and our boss, Bill Ludy, who was the boss of Special Plans technically, not in reality but on paper. And he announced to us that from now on, action officers, staff officers such as myself and all my peers, at least in that office, and I presume this went all the way through the rest of policy, but we were told that when we needed to fill in data, putting it in papers that we would send up, doing our job, as we did our daily job, we were no longer to look at CIA and DIA intelligence, we were simply to call the Office of Special Plans and they would send down to us talking points, which we would incorporate verbatim no deletions, no additions, no modifications into every paper that we did. And of course, that was very unusual [and all the action officers are looking at each other like, well that’s interesting. We’re not to look at the intelligence any more, we’re simply to go to this group of political appointees and they will provide to us word for word what we should say about Iraq, about WMD and about terrorism. And this is exactly what our orders were. And there were people [Laughs] a couple of people, and I have to say, I was not one of these people who said, “you know, I’m not gonna do that, I’m not gonna do that because there’s something I don’t like about it, it’s incorrect in some way.” And they experimented with sending up papers that did not follow those instructions, and those papers were 100 percent of the time returned back for correction. So we weren’t allowed to put out anything except what Office of Special Plans was producing for us. And that was only partially based on intelligence, and partially based on a political agenda. So this is how they did it. And I’ll tell you what, civil servants and military people, we follow orders, okay. And we buy into it. And we don’t suspect that our leaders are nefarious, we don’t suspect that. They, they quite frankly have to go a long way to prove to us that they are nefarious. That’s how it worked, and I imagine it’s working much the same way there in terms of Iran.


JAMES HARRIS: The highly speculative people have said they’re out [the Brits]because we’re going into Iran. You might’ve read the news…

KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Well yeah, I don’t… I had not seen that connection made, but I certainly am alarmed at the daily signs that indeed this country is getting ready to instigate an attack on Iran. All the signs are there, the suggestions that Iranian bombs are killing American soldiers, that’s not true, but it’s certainly been made in, I think every American newspaper, the suggestion that Iran is somehow killing Americans. The suggestion that Iran has nuclear weapons, is imminently close to nuclear weapons. That is not true but that’s been, those claims are made, even by this Administration.

The idea that we have two carrier battle groups currently in the region and in fact I just saw today, Admiral Walsh, one of the big guys in the Navy said that we’re very concerned about what Iran is doing even more so than Al Qaeda. So there, all the signs are there that we are being, we’re going to wake up one morning soon, very soon, and we will be at war with Iran. We will have bombed them in some sort of shock and awe campaign destroying many lives and setting back US relations even further than we’ve already done it with Iraq.


posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:34 AM
Great interview.
For me the most revealing bit was this part:

JAMES HARRIS: We’re there to stay in the sense that even, let’s say somebody takes office in await, do you think that we’re gonna be occupying those bases still?

KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Absolutely! And we don’t even have status of forcive agreements with any legitimate government in Iraq to support those bases. They are illegal bases, okay. But yes, they’re gonna stay, absolutely, they’re gonna stay. And I’ll tell you, there are guys that have been with this administration for awhile, people, in fact one of the guys was an Air Force General that was involved with the Kurds ten years ago, he’s retired now, but he was actually the guy, his name escapes me for the moment, but he was Jerry Bremer’s predecessor (Jay Garner?) for a short period of time. And he was fired, and Bremer came in and took over in Baghdad as part of the reconstruction phase. This is in the Spring of 2003. And this guy gave an interview in Government Exec Magazine, February 2004, he said “we will be in Iraq, and the American people need to get with this program, we will be in Iraq like we were in the Philippines for anywhere from 20 to 30 more years. That’s the time frame that we’re looking at. And that is the life span of the bases that we’ve constructed there. Yeah, we are not leaving these bases, and a Democratic president, I don’t care who they are, will keep those basses there. They will justify them and they will use them and we love that. We love it. So it’s not about what the American people think is right or wrong, it’s not about if we got lied to, what matters is, they did what they wanted to do, and as bush says, and as Cheney says, “it’s quite the success.” And this is very frightening. Because none of this has ever been admitted to the American people, it’s only been hinted at by people that know. And of course the facts speak for themself. The facts are, we are in Iraq, we have the finest military installations in the world, the newest military installations in the world, and we’re not leaving them. We’re not turning them over to a Shiite government, we’re not turning them over to a Sunni government, we’re not turning them over to a Kurdish government. We’re not doing that. They are American bases. We’ve got our flag there. And this is kind of the way they used to do things, I guess back in the Middle Ages. Maybe the Dark Ages. A king decided he wanted to go do something, he went and did it. And this is George Bush. We call him an elected president. I mean, he’s operating much as kings have operated in the past.

All the "WMD" and "terrorism" scare stories they used to sell us the Iraq War, and here's the real reason: to have large, permanent military bases in a position to control Persian Gulf oil supplies. All the talk about "spreading democracy" or the now laughable "threat" from Iraq was nothing but a smokescreen for this.

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:29 AM
I'm not sure if it's just me but there does seem to be a lot of ex-military (and even active duty) speaking out publicly about the motives of the current administration. I'm not an American citizen but is this a common occurance - to have so much 'candour'?

I think there is a lot of dissent at the moment within the military and I guess we can expect more to come.

Oh, how I wish for a coup!

posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 12:57 AM
It's pretty unusual for the "higher ups" in the military to speak against the President, the one they're sworn to "serve" as he is commander in chief; however, with Bush you've got someone who is blatantly abusing his power in front of everyone and just doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks of it. Sure, other Presidents have abused power in some way, shape, or form, but none of them have done it the way Bush has, so blatantly and openly.

posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 05:27 AM
It's ridiculous that the mainstream media does not pick up this interview as it confirms so many suspicions many among us had. In contrast to the official story, the CIA did not provide wrong intelligence on Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Additionally, it was out of the question that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and Al Qaeda/9-11.

Initially, I considered wrong intelligence as a reason for going at war, but obviously there has been a totally different reason to go at war. Probably, the Iraqi oil bourse was one of those factors, but there are likely more factors involved.

posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 08:09 AM
For me, it is obvious what Bush is up to. He is trying to start a War with Iran with the hope of losing, initially. He strips the Iraq contingent threadbare, and then starts conflict with Iran. Result? Iran swiftly steamrollers across the border of Iraq.

Once Iraq has been overrun, Bush's secret agenda now comes out.

1. He nukes both Iraq and Iran into ash. This solves the problem of Iraq as well as Iran.
2. As every other Arab country turns threatening, and there are riots in the streets, he declares Martial Law and Conscritption.

new topics

top topics

log in