Soldier for truth

[Tiger Al 0]

After two decades in the U.S. Air Force, Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, now 43, knew her career as a regional analyst was coming to an end when — in the months leading up to the war in Iraq — she felt she was being “propagandized” by her own bosses.

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

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

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

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

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

LINK

To my knowledge, the republican attack machine hasn't given this woman the treatment yet. If she wanders onto any of the news shows we'll find out that she's a lesbian or sold military secrets or had an affair. Anything but a rebuttal.

A good article, btw. I dare you to read it.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I love how anytime the Bush admin defends itself, it gets deemed a personal attack. Take Richard Clarke. The worst thing that I can recall being said was that he was a possibly disgruntled employee frustrated by not getting promotions and such. The rest of it was attacks on his arguments...memos, transcripts, and such that contradicted the story he was telling now.

If the Bush admin steps forward to address this story, I'm sure that no matter how much they attack the accusations, it will somehow get re-translated through some Democrat's mouth as a "personal attack" and "character assassination". Boring. New tactic please.

And while I will read this, TigerAl..."LA Weekly?" This isn't exactly the most objective news source on earth is it?

[Tiger Al 0]

And while I will read this, TigerAl..."LA Weekly?" This isn't exactly the most objective news source on earth is it?

It's an interview, for crying out loud! She's free to say whatever she likes, isn't she? But, while we're at it, we won't talk about anything that she said but we'll make some remark about the paper it's in and dismiss it as just so much liberal lies. To answer your question, I don't know a thing about the LA Weekly's objectivity. Fill me in.

Take Richard Clarke. The worst thing that I can recall being said was that he was a possibly disgruntled employee frustrated by not getting promotions and such. The rest of it was attacks on his arguments...memos, transcripts, and such that contradicted the story he was telling now.

No, he was also just "lying" to promote his book and was changing its' release date to coincide with his 9/11 hearing. His arguments were never discredited. There was an attempt when someone from the administration gave a transcript of statements he made (funny how they'll de-classify things when it behooves them) as an anonymous source. His explanation was that, in those instances, his JOB was to put a sunny spin on the good stuff and downplay the bad stuff. He said he'd done it for every president he worked for. The other "evidence" was his resignation letter to Bush. Surprise, surprise...he was cordial. I've left an employer who was a big fish in a small pond and, although I REALLY disliked him and grew to hate working there, I was not stupid enough to burn that bridge.

Clarke has called on the administration to provide e-mails, memos, briefs, etc. and to compare stories. To date, they have not. Considering that his story jives with all of the various others and all the Bush administration does is try to smear, I believe him.

But, anyway, let's talk about the article and what she says in it. I thought it was interesting how she tells much the same story but from a different perspective about the rush to Iraq as everyone else. Manipulation of information. Forcing square facts into round ideology.

[Ranger12 46]

:boring: I read the whole article TA. Please fill me in on the whole point of hte article. If this is supposed to be some king of Bush bashing article, I totally missed the legitimacy of it. If it is not meant to be that, than I apologize for the assumption. It is not like this woman is the first person in the military to get the shaft. Cry me a handful that she did not get what she wanted.

[Tiger Al 0]

Cry me a handful that she did not get what she wanted.

What is it that you think she wanted???

[TitanTiger 20,708]

It's an interview, for crying out loud! She's free to say whatever she likes, isn't she? But, while we're at it, we won't talk about anything that she said but we'll make some remark about the paper it's in and dismiss it as just so much liberal lies. To answer your question, I don't know a thing about the LA Weekly's objectivity. Fill me in.

Ok, slow down. Breathe deeply. Act like you're not a liberal for a second and focus. I said I hadn't read it yet but I would. Hard to talk about what she said when I was giving an initial impression and said pretty clearly that I would read it later.

As to LA Weekly's objectivity, this passes for "news" where most would call it "editorial":

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/21/news-dubose.php

It's associated with the Village Voice, Seattle Weekly, the Nashville Scene and other known liberal tabloid weeklies they give away for free all over town. The NY Times it ain't. Try clicking a few other links and see if it passes as objective journalism by any reasonable standard you've come across recently.

No, he was also just "lying" to promote his book and was changing its' release date to coincide with his 9/11 hearing. His arguments were never discredited.

Actually, his arguments were discredited. He asserted that Al Qaida was much more of an urgent point of focus for the Clinton admin than it was for the Bush admin. Yet the final terrorism and intelligence report given to the Clinton team, over 45,000 words that Clarke heavily contributed to, and not one mention of Al Qaida. Not one.

He made claims to be a mind reader when he asserted that Condi looked like she had never heard of Al Qaida until he mentioned it to her. A radio interview Condi Rice held in Detroit months before the election shot that down as well. Please don't tell me I've got to go dig out all the stuff that came out over the past few weeks that called into question or directly contradicted Clarke's charges. You do pay attention to the news don't you?

There was an attempt when someone from the administration gave a transcript of statements he made (funny how they'll de-classify things when it behooves them) as an anonymous source. His explanation was that, in those instances, his JOB was to put a sunny spin on the good stuff and downplay the bad stuff. He said he'd done it for every president he worked for. The other "evidence" was his resignation letter to Bush. Surprise, surprise...he was cordial. I've left an employer who was a big fish in a small pond and, although I REALLY disliked him and grew to hate working there, I was not stupid enough to burn that bridge.

Unless you really haven't watched the news or done any online reading of this story, you could not put those two things out there as the only things that came out calling Clarke's story into question.

Clarke has called on the administration to provide e-mails, memos, briefs, etc. and to compare stories. To date, they have not. Considering that his story jives with all of the various others and all the Bush administration does is try to smear, I believe him.

Yeah, that's an easy gamble...call on the administration to release classified materials of an obviously sensitive nature, knowing that they feel it's against our interests to do so. Low risk, high reward if you ask me. Considering that his story jives with...who exactly? Where is this mountain of proof? Oh, you mean it's just allegations with no actual evidence? Double standard much, Al? Clarke makes accusations he has not one shred of actual proof for and you believe him...but you demand concrete proof from Bush that refutes the charges? Interesting.

But, anyway, let's talk about the article and what she says in it. I thought it was interesting how she tells much the same story but from a different perspective about the rush to Iraq as everyone else. Manipulation of information. Forcing square facts into round ideology.

Yeah, let's do. It's an interview. It's thus far only being published in the freebie tabloid equivalent of The Nation or some Democratic Underground offshoot. And, once again, no proof, just assertions. What exactly am I supposed to do with this info, Al? At best it's he said/she said because it's just another person leaving government with a gripe and no proof of their allegations. How serious should I take this? As serious as you take the Bush admin when they say these folks are full of it? As serious as liberals took Kathleen Willey and Gary Aldrich? I'm just wondering because I'm confused. I just want to understand when to switch on the "unproven allegations" mode and when to turn on the "these are serious issues that demand investigation" mode and I'm getting mixed signals from you, Donut, and others of like mind.

[MDM4AU 337]

Here is more about Clarke:

On p.95 of his Against All Enemies,  Clarke states that "author" Laurie Mylroie  had asserted that the real "Ramzi Yousef was not in the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Manhattan but lounging at the right hand of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad."  He then debunks this "thesis" by stating that, in fact, Ramzi Yousef "had been in a U.S. jail for years," which was true.

    Obviously, if Yousef had been in prison in America, he could not be in Baghdad at the right hand of Saddam, and Mylroie's theory would be demonstratively untrue-- a discreditation Clarke considers important enough to feature on the dust jacket of his book, noting that prior to 9-11 "[Paul] Wolfowitz was actually spouting the totally discredited Laurie Mylroie theory."

      The problem here is that the straw man Clarke demolishes is an invention entirely of his own creation. Mylroie did not write anything remotely like it before 9-11 (or after it).  On the contrary, she explicitly states on p. 212 of her book Study Of Revenge, "Ramzi Yousef was arrested and returned to the U.S. on February 7, 1995."  While she questions the provenance of documents he used prior to his capture in 1995, she does not claim in her book or any other writing that Yousef resides anywhere but a maximum security federal prison.

    Clarke himself makes up the absurd assertion Yousef was in Baghdad with Saddam, falsely attributes it to Mylroie, then uses it to discredit Mylroie.

And...

In hawking his book and testifying before the commission investigating the September 11 attacks, former counterterrorism boss Richard Clarke testified that the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda prior to the attacks. Under softball questioning from a Democratic member of the September 11 panel, former Rep. Tim Roemer, Mr. Clarke asserted that there was "no higher" priority than fighting terrorism under former President Clinton, but that the Bush administration "either didn't believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem."

    But Mr. Clarke's assertions are contradicted by his own words. National Review editor Rich Lowry, for example, points out that, in his book, Mr. Clarke writes that forcing through a Middle East peace agreement was a higher priority for Mr. Clinton than retaliating for al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole.

    Moreover, in a Sept. 15, 2001, e-mail to National SecurityAdvisorCondoleezza Rice, Mr. Clarke outlined some of the major steps taken by the Bush administration in the summer of 2001 to put the nation on a higher alert footing in an effort to prevent a possible attack.

    Mr. Clarke noted, for example, that on July 5, 2001, representatives of federal law enforcement agencies — including the FBI, the Secret Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Customs Service, the Coast Guard and the Immigration and Naturalization Service — were summoned to a meeting at which they were warned of a possible al Qaeda attack. "Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement (including FAA) knew" of the possibility "that a major al Qaeda attack was coming and it could be in the U.S. ... and did ask that special measures be taken," Mr. Clarke observed in his e-mail to Miss Rice.

    More damning to Mr. Clarke's credibility, in an August 2002 background briefing for journalists, reported Wednesday by Fox News, he explained in greater detail all the steps that the Bush administration took prior to September 11 to deal with the growing threat from al Qaeda (see facing page).

    Just days after coming into office on Jan. 20, 2001, the Bush administration decided to "vigorously pursue" the Clinton policy of taking covert action, which could include killing Osama bin Laden. In the spring of 2001, Mr. Clarke noted in that background briefing, the new administration decided "to add to the existing Clinton strategy" by increasing five-fold CIA resources for covert action against al Qaeda. At that same briefing, Mr. Clarke also forcefully rebutted the assertion that the Bush administration's approach to the problem was motivated by a general animus toward the Clinton administration. "This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place," Mr. Clarke said. "That doesn't sound like animus against the previous team to me."

    Mr. Clarke said that from Oct. 1998 until Dec. 2000, the National Security Council in the Clinton administration failed to make any new recommendations on how to deal with the burgeoning al Qaeda threat. By contrast, in the summer of 2001, Mr. Clarke said, the Bush administration changed U.S. policy from the "rollback of al Qaeda over the course of five years" to its elimination. All of these points, however, are ignored or glossed over in his new book — which depicts the administration as laggards in dealing with the al Qaeda terrorist threat.

Though both are editorials, they point out facts regarding contradictions in Clarke's description of events within the Administration.

[CCTAU 3,369]

Damn! All that digging and this is it? SAd, sad, sad!!!