Pages

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Mission Accomplished

On February 27th of this year I listened to an interview with the Pentagon whistle blower Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (ret.) at Truthdig. It was a real eye opener for me when she said,

"If you want to hit Syria, can you do it from Iraq? Of course you can. And now you can do it from bases that will support any type of airplane you want, any number of troops in barracks. I mean we can do things from Iraq. And this is what they wanted. So, yeah, we don’t like being lied to. But quite frankly, many people in the Congress, and certainly this administration, when they call Iraq a success, they mean it, and this is why. We’re in Iraq to stay." (emphasis mine)

Based on Kwiatkowski's comments it appears (surprise, surprise) that the whole "War on Terror" and "Promotion of Democracy" pablum fed to the American public is in fact not the ultimate neocon goal. Instead, it's just an elaborate cover. The Bush administration is building a permanent US presence in Iraq, so they can control the region (and that black stuff bubbling up out of the ground), and based on a recent report about the colossal size of the US Embassy in Baghdad (matching the colossal size of their collective balls), I understand why the administration sees success when, uh, nobody else does. It is obvious from the size of that Embassy as well as the permanency of the US military bases in Iraq (globalsecurity.org articles: here and here, FCNL Quaker Lobby, TomDispatch.com, ) that America truly is in Iraq to stay.

I’m glad that’s all cleared up now, because I have been scratching my head for a while. I could not figure out what was going on in the snarling hydra head of the administration:

  1. Are they deluded?
  2. Are they greedy for oil?
  3. Are they grossly inept?
  4. (D – All of the Above?)
No, they know exactly what they’re doing and are very pleased with the mission they’ve accomplished so far. If the neocons can keep those pesky American voters and Democrats off their backs they are well on the way to get everything they want. I'd bet a few Euros that it may not really matter to the neocons who wins in 2008, they just have to keep really busy until then.

I listened to the Kwiatkowski Truthdig interview more than two months ago and wondered why I continued to hear all these different theories why Bush and Cheney are so stubbornly against withdrawal from Iraq. Like Bush was a goofy puppet with Cheney pulling the strings behind him (which is an easy one to believe). But none of the theories were as close to or as simple as Kwiatkowski's. Nor did the MSM really focus the spotlight on the very clearly stated goal of PNAC (Project for the New American Century - whose members are Rumsfeld, Cheney, GW Bush, Wolfowitz, Rove, Feith, etc.) as early as 1998 and 2000 to remove Saddam Hussein and control the region. They just needed a reason to attack Iraq and September 11th provided them with that reason.

(As an aside, I did a search on that 2000 PNAC document for the word "control" and there are 45 instances in a 90 page document.)

Finally Jon Stewart said what I'd been thinking in his recent interview with Bill Moyers, that he had finally figured out that the administration doesn’t mind if they look like “low-functioning pinheads” in the interim (he used Gonzales' recent memory-lapse testimony as an example), as long as they can maintain their agenda in the background.

It is worth reading the entire transcript of Kwiatkowski's Truthdig interview. It is also rich with an insider's viewpoint of how the administration's minions at the Office of Special Plans (Doug Feith and his gang: New Yorker 2003, Wikipedia, Mother Jones 2004, ) invaded the Pentagon and began to control everything:

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 up 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.” (emphasis mine)

You can read articles written by Karen Kwiatkowski on lewrockwell.com.

And by the way, John Edwards has come out against permanent bases in Iraq. I am off to investigate where the other Democratic contenders stand on this issue.

0 comments: