March 4, 2007
Former Pentagon Staff Speaks Out on Crimes of Doug Feith, ***** Cheney,
and Planning of Iran War
By David Swanson
The following is a remarkable interview of Karen Kwiatkowski who retired
from the active duty USAF as a Lieutenant Colonel in early 2003. Her
final assignment was in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Under
Secretary for Policy Near East South Asia (NESA) Policy directorate. In
her responses below, Kwiatkowski describes the manipulation of
intelligence on Iraq and Iran and what it would take to avoid an attack
on the latter.
I began the interview by asking about Undersecretary of Defense for
policy Douglas Feith, whose actions in the Pentagon in the lead-up to
the Iraq War were the subject of a recent report by the Pentagon
Inspector General.
SWANSON: Did the operations led by Doug Feith gather intelligence?
KWIATKOWSKI: When I spoke to the DoD IG over a year ago (regarding the
investigation that recently produced a report pronouncing the Feith
operations as inappropriate), I tried to explain to the IG that what the
Feith group and the Office of Special Plans was doing was information
manipulation, not the production of what we legitimately call
"intelligence." Intelligence is vetted, contextualized, and
conservative. What Feith's OSP wanted, needed and produced was
inflammatory bits of data, cherry-picked statements, and isolated
observations by often shady characters, presented as if they were
vetted, contextualized and conservative intelligence. Unlike
intelligence, this effort was designed not to inform decision makers,
but to shape a national conversation such that decisions already made by
the administration (to topple Saddam and get bases in Iraq) could be
pursued without political backlash. That's what Doug Feith and his
folks did for Bush and Cheney in the Pentagon.
SWANSON: Did they do so without informing Congress of the fact?
KWIATKOWSKI: I can't verify that Feith's office, and others in the
Pentagon did or didn't talk to some Congressmen about their little
information operation. It has been shown by the Senate investigation
that the CIA itself was not aware that some of the results of the OSP
effort had been inserted into their system as if it was intelligence,
without full disclosure of sources, etc. It seems clear that many in
the Congress were fed OSP derived and developed information and talking
points from the Pentagon -- and that this information was believed by
those Congressmen to be "intelligence" instead of propaganda and
falsehoods. Frankly, I believe that many in Congress wanted this
invasion of Iraq, and didn't care if what they were seeing from Feith,
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld was true or not. This is why "politicized"
intelligence the focus of the so-called Part II investigation was so
critical, and so successfully opposed and blocked by many Senators and
Congressmen.
It seems even more certain that the New York Times and other major
papers were fed the same type of material by Pentagon and Office of the
Vice President as if it were verified intelligence, and that they
believed that it was. Doug Feith today denies he did anything wrong at
all. Feith and many of the neoconservatives are fundamentally ethically
challenged when it comes to American national security. Given
everything we know, it is unlikely any of these war advocates told the
truth to Congress about the story they were helping to "sell" to
Congress and the rest of the country back in 2002 and early 2003.
SWANSON: Were Feith's actions illegal?
KWIATKOWSKI: Like most people, I believe that public servants are bound
by their sworn oath of service 24/7 while they hold a public office.
Feith, and political appointees above and below him, presented false or
unfounded information to the media, the Congress and to the President's
speechwriters, as if it were not only factual, but as intelligence
community consensus. As public servants, on the U.S. public payroll,
what they did seems to me to be illegal. The Central Intelligence
Agency is the only legal source of national intelligence to the
Congress, and these folks were not associated with the CIA, nor were
they intelligence professionals. However, the DoD IG did not appear to
find the OSP culpable in this regard, hence their conclusion of
"inappropriate" rather than "illegal."
SWANSON: But is that the right conclusion?
KWIATKOWSKI: My understanding of the oath of office is that we are to
abide by the laws of the land, and protect the Constitution. It is
assumed that this means one's conduct must be generally honest. We also
have the old Ten Commandments, and that annoying little rule about
bearing false witness. A good prosecutor could probably make the case
that these guys Feith, Shulsky, Cheney, etc, broke several other laws.
Speaking to the press on issues of national security and top levels of
intelligence out of school or without specific authorization from the
classifying authority is illegal. For example, if I as a Lt Col in the
Air Force, or any member of the military or civil service had given
either the press or any Congressmen or women any information that I
described as Top Secret or Secret level intelligence, as did the OSP and
OSP connected political appointees in 2002 and early 2003, we would have
been charged with a crime, and successfully prosecuted. In that
prosecution, our intent would have come into play, and this is critical
as well. Why exactly were Feith and company lying, and conspiring to
mislead Congress?
The neoconservatives have said "But we believed Chalabi, and we believed
all this bad info about Iraq WMD capability." If they truly believed it,
their planning for the invasion and the aftermath by the OSD would have
been remarkably different, in about a hundred different ways. They say
they believed Saddam was dangerous, yet we went in as if it would be a
cakewalk. The neoconservative claim that they truly believed these
dangers existed in Iraq is belied by their reluctance to support more
troops initially, and by their decision to casually disregard border
security, and to idiotically write off the Ba-ath Party infrastructure
as superfluous to Iraq's post war recovery.
There is no doubt in my mind that what they were impeachable offenses.
In fact, many in the military and civil service, and political
appointees are fired for far less malfeasance and incompetence in
protecting the nations' interests and security than admittedly has been
done by Feith and his cohorts. SecDef Gates just "impeached" the
Secretary of the Army Harvey and Major General Weightman over the
treatment of wounded Iraq and Afghanistan vets at Walter Reed Hospital.
There is no doubt in my mind that Feith, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well
as Abe Shulsky should have been (or in the case of Abe Shulsky, still in
the Pentagon be) formally impeached for incompetence, neglect of and
disregard for national security, and reckless malfeasance in the conduct
of their duties. Impeachment and prosecution for criminal misconduct
while holding public office is certainly appropriate in these cases. I
also recommend former prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega's new book (The
United States vs. George W. Bush et al) that makes a powerful case that
Feith and others are guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States.
SWANSON: What superiors to Feith bear responsibility?
KWIATKOWSKI: Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. And the Congress,
particularly those who voted (ignoring serious testimony of Feith's
inappropriateness for that position) to confirm Feith as the Defense
Under Secretary for Policy back in 2001.
SWANSON: What do you make of Allison Hantschel's thoughts on the
blogosphere and the media's role in Iran War propaganda?
http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/749
KWIATKOWSKI: The great promise of the internet may be that it brings us
back to the future, so to speak. In the 1700s, de Toqueville was amazed
with our American obsession with information, our abundance of little
newspapers, everyone a reporter, everyone with an opinion to share, and
many interested parties reading and debating these opinions and
observations. This energy struck him as uniquely American, and today,
this energy is global, and it is embodied in the internet, in the
blogosphere specifically. The blogosphere is that rough, raw and
personal reporting, complete with elements of gossip and imagination.
Mainstream media is establishment media, the kings' notices to the
serfs. I think Allison's investigation into how well or how poorly the
truth was reported in the run-up to Iraq, within the blogosphere and by
the mainstream media, is not only important, but points us into a new
place that may in fact lead us to fewer wars rather than more wars.
After Iran, that is
.
SWANSON: What is the Iran Directorate?
KWIATKOWSKI: I have heard that it is much like what we knew as the
expanded Iraq desk, the alternative nomenclature for the Office of
Special Plans directed by Abe Shulsky in 2002 and 2003. Incidentally
the OSP, when formally separated from our spaces in late August 2002 was
described to us by our boss Bill Luti (now at the National Security
Council under Elliot Abrams) as the "expanded Iraq desk." However,
within weeks, the two people working the Iran desk (Larry Franklin and
Ladan Archin) were moved permanently into the OSP, indicating that in
practical terms, Iraq and Iran policies were unified. I have heard Abe
Shulsky runs the Iran office or Directorate today. Ladan Archin, a
political appointee who worked with former Iran desk officer Larry
Franklin, is reported to be working for Shulsky in the same capacity as
she did in OSP in 2002. When observers note the similarities between
the thoroughly discredited OSP and today's Iran Directorate under
Shulsky, in terms of leadership, leakage of falsehoods and talking
points designed to demonize Iran's government, and promote ideas of a
Iranian threat to the United States, the "need" for the U.S. to foment
"democracy" in Iran, and a warmongering agenda, they are on track. It's
a real shame.
SWANSON: How does intelligence gathering on Iran compare to that on Iraq?
KWIATKOWSKI: This I don't know. Judging from what is coming out of the
Pentagon, there may be some good news. Peter Pace, as well as many
other active duty generals, seem to be trying to put the brakes on the
hysterics coming from the political side of the Pentagon. They seem to
be saying go slow, and seem to be somewhat willing to contradict the
propaganda, to stray from the political appointed talking points that
demand urgent war and destruction of Iran's current government, and its
infrastructure. However, this hesitance on the part of military
leadership may be overridden by the nature of our intelligence on Iran.
In Iraq, we were great in technical intelligence, having bombed,
overflew, tested defenses and sanctioned Iraq for a dozen years. But we
had no reliable intel on the human side, and the politicized fantasies
of Wolfowitz, Feith and Chalabi and others filled a gap that the CIA had
little solid HUMINT to combat. Iran, on the other hand, is not a
dictatorship, and it is a place we and the Europeans trade and do
business. It is a country known for working with Israel and ourselves
when it is profitable to do so (Iran-Contra, efforts to weaken Saddam
Hussein in the 1980s and 1990s, and our own efforts supporting the
Iranian terrorist group MEK to weaken the mullahs). Thus we have lots
of HUMINT on Iran and so we think that means we know something. But
our HUMINT is incomplete, heavily skewed to those we deal with the
westernized, the religious wackos in the MEK, and political opportunist
elements within Iran. What I am saying is we may know a lot less about
Iran than we did about Iraq in 2002 but we may be deluded on both the
CIA side and the political fantasy side into thinking we understand Iran
better, and hence won't repeat the mistake we made in deciding to invade
Iraq.
SWANSON: If White House claims on Iranian nuclear program were true,
would they be grounds for war?
KWIATKOWSKI: Most of the world understands that the White House is
making false statements on Iran's capabilities and intentions. But even
if those claims were true, our own track record is not only to not bomb
or invade a country that is developing a potential for a nuclear weapon,
but to assist them in proceeding openly and as safely as possible.
Pakistan, India, even North Korea and our recent moves of assistance
this is how we usually react. There is only one country that we do not
demand sign the NPT, only one country where we do not require
transparency in their nuclear programs. That country is Israel. Thus
we have two functional models for dealing with Iran. We can treat them
like we do Pakistan, India, Russia, China. North Korea, or France, or we
can treat them like we do Israel. Either way is fine with me, and
neither way requires attacking them and killing innocent people.
SWANSON: If White House claims on Iranian assistance in Iraq were true,
would they be grounds for war?
KWIATKOWSKI: If their claims were true, and we had a declaration of war
with Iraq, then possibly we could say we must extend the war. But
remember, we are not "at war" with Iraq. We are ostensibly in Iraq to
help them be a democracy, to allow them to become wealthy and healthy
and wise on the sale of their own oil, to make them a model country in
the region. Isn't that how the administration likes to put it? We are
not "at war" in Iraq. Our forces and bases in Iraq are also not there
legally, we have no officially sanctioned Status of Forces Agreement, no
independent legitimate government in Iraq that has invited our forces
in, and that freely hosts our forces. For these reasons as well, it is
unlikely that we can claim to legally extend violence to Iran because of
what happens in Iraq.
SWANSON: When did you learn of Iranian offers to negotiate that were
rejected by the Bush Administration?
KWIATKOWSKI: I read about them when they were made public. That these
outreach efforts (much like letters from Ahmadinejad never being read by
the President) fall on rocky ground doesn't do much for our reputation
or our public claims of goodwill to the Iranian people. It also
indicates the powerful grip of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon and
the NSC, and the power of the Vice President's own staff, to shape our
foreign policy without any primary concern for what is good for the
United States.
SWANSON: Do you believe the Air Force and Navy want to attack Iran,
while the Army and Marines do not?
KWIATKOWSKI: I do, but I'd be delighted to be shown to be wrong here.
My opinion is based on my twenty years in the Air Force, and how we are
in the military. It is a big game, and there is indeed competition
between the services. For budget and for glory. Plus, we can't buy new
stuff unless we test and use up the old and current stuff. Everyone
wins in the military industrial complex by pressing forward
aggressively. So yes, I believe the Air Force and Navy are working hard
to please the administration's desire to trample Arab and Persian
countries by saying "We can do it!"
SWANSON: Do you believe sentiment either way from within the military is
likely to have a large effect on what happens?
KWIATKOWSKI: If the Air Force and Navy leadership stood up, sided with
the Army and Marines, and said to the President, the media and the
Congress that they are finished with this stupid Middle East policy, and
they all quit on the spot, an attack on Iran would not happen under the
Bush administration. But if only the Army and Marine Corps leadership
pushes back, the subsequent power and credibility vacuum is easily
filled by Air Force and Naval leadership. We already have seen this
with the new Central Command Combatant Commander, Admiral Fallon. One
may say that it was the Navy's turn to have the Central Command
position, but it happened only after General Abizaid, one of our most
region-aware and knowledgeable leaders, began to tell the truth publicly
about our situation in Iraq. So the answer is yes, it could in
theory, but it won't in fact.
SWANSON: Reps. Kucinich and Conyers have suggested they would impeach
Bush if he attacks Iran. Good idea? What about impeaching first to
prevent it?
KWIATKOWSKI: Great idea. Impeach early and often. That's my advice.
It can be done by the House so easily, for so little. Most senior
members of the administration involved in our disastrous foreign policy
and our incredibly stupid approach to fighting terrorism could be easily
impeached for incompetence, wrongdoing, dishonesty, failure to honor the
spirit and letter of the constitution and other laws, even in my view,
traitorous acts, placing the interests of foreign countries above those
of the United States. Some of these impeached officials would be easily
removed from office by the Senate, and we would regain our honor as a
nation by publicly recognizing their misbehavior.
SWANSON: Who's running this show, Bush or Cheney or a group?
KWIATKOWSKI: I suspect it is Cheney, and Cheney's network of
like-minded, old Cold Warriors struggling for money, power and relevance
in a post-Cold War age. Hence the war on terror, hence the demonization
of Russia, Iran and China by members of the Cheney clique. Cheney and
those who share his worldview in Washington are dinosaurs, but they have
big teeth, big appetites, and they aren't dead yet. Apparently, Cheney
is also personally feared by many Republicans and Democrats alike. I
don't know why. Are they afraid he'll curse at them and call them
names? Bush doesn't seem to be much of an organization man. He seems
more like the Paris Hilton of politics. He goes to the parties, he
shows up, he has a good time, but doesn't take anything too seriously.
Cheney seems to take world domination seriously, and he has a lot of
friendly, and fearful, folks on board.
SWANSON: Did you expect that the new Democratic majority would
investigate the Iraq fraud?
KWIATKOWSKI: Not really. They should have done it in the first hundred
hours, and started impeachment hearings, too. They did neither because
those who devise our foreign policy in the Middle East politically own
many Democrats and Republicans. Party affiliation is meaningless, as we
have seen already.
SWANSON: Did you expect to be called to testify?
KWIATKOWSKI: I was not called for the Part II Senate Intelligence
Subcommittee investigation, on the politicization of the Iraq
intelligence. I had been called for a few hours with the staff of the
committee for the Part I investigation in 2004, and yet what I have
observed and written about mostly was indeed the politicization. So I
don't expect to be called ever again. The only Congressmen I hear from
are those who already understand it isn't about Republicans and
Democrats, but rather the Constitution and what is right and wrong.
SWANSON: What do you make of the first two months of Democratic rule
without any investigation, other than a report from the Pentagon
Inspector General that had been requested by the Republicans?
KWIATKOWSKI: It simply adds another nail in the coffin of our democratic
experiment. We need at least two distinct parties, and possibly three ,
each with an ability to articulate and pursue real philosophical
alternatives. The Democrats offer no alternatives on foreign policy
and sadly, the Republicans are as "Democratic" on domestic policy as the
Democratic Party once was. Clearly, on foreign policy, it's Dumb and
Dumber. No wonder Americans don't vote.
SWANSON: What would it take to force Congress to do an investigation of
one war and possibly prevent a second?
KWIATKOWSKI: If Cheney were replaced next week by a moderate Republican,
possibly one of the Presidential hopefuls, we might see it. But that
might just as easily result in the issues of Iraq buried even deeper
from public scrutiny. Unfortunately, Congress doesn't want to examine
the mistakes of Iraq, nor do they want to prevent a confrontation with
Iran. Most members of Congress are still rubberstamping the Bush-Cheney
foreign policy. They have already publicly stated that they agree we
should hit Iran, or do something to Iran in order to satisfy one or more
opportunistic desire of Iran's various neighbors -- whether they be the
Kurds, the Turks, the Paks, our puppets in Baghdad, Kuwait or Qatar, the
House of Saud, or the Likud leadership in Israel. Take your pick.
Authors Website: http://www.davidswanson.org
Authors Bio: DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a
writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is
a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the
Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA.
He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director,
with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004
presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor
Communications Association, and three years as Communications
Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the
University of Virginia in 1997.March 4, 2007
Former Pentagon Staff Speaks Out on Crimes of Doug Feith, ***** Cheney,
and Planning of Iran War
By David Swanson
The following is a remarkable interview of Karen Kwiatkowski who retired
from the active duty USAF as a Lieutenant Colonel in early 2003. Her
final assignment was in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Under
Secretary for Policy Near East South Asia (NESA) Policy directorate. In
her responses below, Kwiatkowski describes the manipulation of
intelligence on Iraq and Iran and what it would take to avoid an attack
on the latter.
I began the interview by asking about Undersecretary of Defense for
policy Douglas Feith, whose actions in the Pentagon in the lead-up to
the Iraq War were the subject of a recent report by the Pentagon
Inspector General.
SWANSON: Did the operations led by Doug Feith gather intelligence?
KWIATKOWSKI: When I spoke to the DoD IG over a year ago (regarding the
investigation that recently produced a report pronouncing the Feith
operations as inappropriate), I tried to explain to the IG that what the
Feith group and the Office of Special Plans was doing was information
manipulation, not the production of what we legitimately call
"intelligence." Intelligence is vetted, contextualized, and
conservative. What Feith's OSP wanted, needed and produced was
inflammatory bits of data, cherry-picked statements, and isolated
observations by often shady characters, presented as if they were
vetted, contextualized and conservative intelligence. Unlike
intelligence, this effort was designed not to inform decision makers,
but to shape a national conversation such that decisions already made by
the administration (to topple Saddam and get bases in Iraq) could be
pursued without political backlash. That's what Doug Feith and his
folks did for Bush and Cheney in the Pentagon.
SWANSON: Did they do so without informing Congress of the fact?
KWIATKOWSKI: I can't verify that Feith's office, and others in the
Pentagon did or didn't talk to some Congressmen about their little
information operation. It has been shown by the Senate investigation
that the CIA itself was not aware that some of the results of the OSP
effort had been inserted into their system as if it was intelligence,
without full disclosure of sources, etc. It seems clear that many in
the Congress were fed OSP derived and developed information and talking
points from the Pentagon -- and that this information was believed by
those Congressmen to be "intelligence" instead of propaganda and
falsehoods. Frankly, I believe that many in Congress wanted this
invasion of Iraq, and didn't care if what they were seeing from Feith,
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld was true or not. This is why "politicized"
intelligence the focus of the so-called Part II investigation was so
critical, and so successfully opposed and blocked by many Senators and
Congressmen.
It seems even more certain that the New York Times and other major
papers were fed the same type of material by Pentagon and Office of the
Vice President as if it were verified intelligence, and that they
believed that it was. Doug Feith today denies he did anything wrong at
all. Feith and many of the neoconservatives are fundamentally ethically
challenged when it comes to American national security. Given
everything we know, it is unlikely any of these war advocates told the
truth to Congress about the story they were helping to "sell" to
Congress and the rest of the country back in 2002 and early 2003.
SWANSON: Were Feith's actions illegal?
KWIATKOWSKI: Like most people, I believe that public servants are bound
by their sworn oath of service 24/7 while they hold a public office.
Feith, and political appointees above and below him, presented false or
unfounded information to the media, the Congress and to the President's
speechwriters, as if it were not only factual, but as intelligence
community consensus. As public servants, on the U.S. public payroll,
what they did seems to me to be illegal. The Central Intelligence
Agency is the only legal source of national intelligence to the
Congress, and these folks were not associated with the CIA, nor were
they intelligence professionals. However, the DoD IG did not appear to
find the OSP culpable in this regard, hence their conclusion of
"inappropriate" rather than "illegal."
SWANSON: But is that the right conclusion?
KWIATKOWSKI: My understanding of the oath of office is that we are to
abide by the laws of the land, and protect the Constitution. It is
assumed that this means one's conduct must be generally honest. We also
have the old Ten Commandments, and that annoying little rule about
bearing false witness. A good prosecutor could probably make the case
that these guys Feith, Shulsky, Cheney, etc, broke several other laws.
Speaking to the press on issues of national security and top levels of
intelligence out of school or without specific authorization from the
classifying authority is illegal. For example, if I as a Lt Col in the
Air Force, or any member of the military or civil service had given
either the press or any Congressmen or women any information that I
described as Top Secret or Secret level intelligence, as did the OSP and
OSP connected political appointees in 2002 and early 2003, we would have
been charged with a crime, and successfully prosecuted. In that
prosecution, our intent would have come into play, and this is critical
as well. Why exactly were Feith and company lying, and conspiring to
mislead Congress?
The neoconservatives have said "But we believed Chalabi, and we believed
all this bad info about Iraq WMD capability." If they truly believed it,
their planning for the invasion and the aftermath by the OSD would have
been remarkably different, in about a hundred different ways. They say
they believed Saddam was dangerous, yet we went in as if it would be a
cakewalk. The neoconservative claim that they truly believed these
dangers existed in Iraq is belied by their reluctance to support more
troops initially, and by their decision to casually disregard border
security, and to idiotically write off the Ba-ath Party infrastructure
as superfluous to Iraq's post war recovery.
There is no doubt in my mind that what they were impeachable offenses.
In fact, many in the military and civil service, and political
appointees are fired for far less malfeasance and incompetence in
protecting the nations' interests and security than admittedly has been
done by Feith and his cohorts. SecDef Gates just "impeached" the
Secretary of the Army Harvey and Major General Weightman over the
treatment of wounded Iraq and Afghanistan vets at Walter Reed Hospital.
There is no doubt in my mind that Feith, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well
as Abe Shulsky should have been (or in the case of Abe Shulsky, still in
the Pentagon be) formally impeached for incompetence, neglect of and
disregard for national security, and reckless malfeasance in the conduct
of their duties. Impeachment and prosecution for criminal misconduct
while holding public office is certainly appropriate in these cases. I
also recommend former prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega's new book (The
United States vs. George W. Bush et al) that makes a powerful case that
Feith and others are guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States.
SWANSON: What superiors to Feith bear responsibility?
KWIATKOWSKI: Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. And the Congress,
particularly those who voted (ignoring serious testimony of Feith's
inappropriateness for that position) to confirm Feith as the Defense
Under Secretary for Policy back in 2001.
SWANSON: What do you make of Allison Hantschel's thoughts on the
blogosphere and the media's role in Iran War propaganda?
http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/749
KWIATKOWSKI: The great promise of the internet may be that it brings us
back to the future, so to speak. In the 1700s, de Toqueville was amazed
with our American obsession with information, our abundance of little
newspapers, everyone a reporter, everyone with an opinion to share, and
many interested parties reading and debating these opinions and
observations. This energy struck him as uniquely American, and today,
this energy is global, and it is embodied in the internet, in the
blogosphere specifically. The blogosphere is that rough, raw and
personal reporting, complete with elements of gossip and imagination.
Mainstream media is establishment media, the kings' notices to the
serfs. I think Allison's investigation into how well or how poorly the
truth was reported in the run-up to Iraq, within the blogosphere and by
the mainstream media, is not only important, but points us into a new
place that may in fact lead us to fewer wars rather than more wars.
After Iran, that is
.
SWANSON: What is the Iran Directorate?
KWIATKOWSKI: I have heard that it is much like what we knew as the
expanded Iraq desk, the alternative nomenclature for the Office of
Special Plans directed by Abe Shulsky in 2002 and 2003. Incidentally
the OSP, when formally separated from our spaces in late August 2002 was
described to us by our boss Bill Luti (now at the National Security
Council under Elliot Abrams) as the "expanded Iraq desk." However,
within weeks, the two people working the Iran desk (Larry Franklin and
Ladan Archin) were moved permanently into the OSP, indicating that in
practical terms, Iraq and Iran policies were unified. I have heard Abe
Shulsky runs the Iran office or Directorate today. Ladan Archin, a
political appointee who worked with former Iran desk officer Larry
Franklin, is reported to be working for Shulsky in the same capacity as
she did in OSP in 2002. When observers note the similarities between
the thoroughly discredited OSP and today's Iran Directorate under
Shulsky, in terms of leadership, leakage of falsehoods and talking
points designed to demonize Iran's government, and promote ideas of a
Iranian threat to the United States, the "need" for the U.S. to foment
"democracy" in Iran, and a warmongering agenda, they are on track. It's
a real shame.
SWANSON: How does intelligence gathering on Iran compare to that on Iraq?
KWIATKOWSKI: This I don't know. Judging from what is coming out of the
Pentagon, there may be some good news. Peter Pace, as well as many
other active duty generals, seem to be trying to put the brakes on the
hysterics coming from the political side of the Pentagon. They seem to
be saying go slow, and seem to be somewhat willing to contradict the
propaganda, to stray from the political appointed talking points that
demand urgent war and destruction of Iran's current government, and its
infrastructure. However, this hesitance on the part of military
leadership may be overridden by the nature of our intelligence on Iran.
In Iraq, we were great in technical intelligence, having bombed,
overflew, tested defenses and sanctioned Iraq for a dozen years. But we
had no reliable intel on the human side, and the politicized fantasies
of Wolfowitz, Feith and Chalabi and others filled a gap that the CIA had
little solid HUMINT to combat. Iran, on the other hand, is not a
dictatorship, and it is a place we and the Europeans trade and do
business. It is a country known for working with Israel and ourselves
when it is profitable to do so (Iran-Contra, efforts to weaken Saddam
Hussein in the 1980s and 1990s, and our own efforts supporting the
Iranian terrorist group MEK to weaken the mullahs). Thus we have lots
of HUMINT on Iran and so we think that means we know something. But
our HUMINT is incomplete, heavily skewed to those we deal with the
westernized, the religious wackos in the MEK, and political opportunist
elements within Iran. What I am saying is we may know a lot less about
Iran than we did about Iraq in 2002 but we may be deluded on both the
CIA side and the political fantasy side into thinking we understand Iran
better, and hence won't repeat the mistake we made in deciding to invade
Iraq.
SWANSON: If White House claims on Iranian nuclear program were true,
would they be grounds for war?
KWIATKOWSKI: Most of the world understands that the White House is
making false statements on Iran's capabilities and intentions. But even
if those claims were true, our own track record is not only to not bomb
or invade a country that is developing a potential for a nuclear weapon,
but to assist them in proceeding openly and as safely as possible.
Pakistan, India, even North Korea and our recent moves of assistance
this is how we usually react. There is only one country that we do not
demand sign the NPT, only one country where we do not require
transparency in their nuclear programs. That country is Israel. Thus
we have two functional models for dealing with Iran. We can treat them
like we do Pakistan, India, Russia, China. North Korea, or France, or we
can treat them like we do Israel. Either way is fine with me, and
neither way requires attacking them and killing innocent people.
SWANSON: If White House claims on Iranian assistance in Iraq were true,
would they be grounds for war?
KWIATKOWSKI: If their claims were true, and we had a declaration of war
with Iraq, then possibly we could say we must extend the war. But
remember, we are not "at war" with Iraq. We are ostensibly in Iraq to
help them be a democracy, to allow them to become wealthy and healthy
and wise on the sale of their own oil, to make them a model country in
the region. Isn't that how the administration likes to put it? We are
not "at war" in Iraq. Our forces and bases in Iraq are also not there
legally, we have no officially sanctioned Status of Forces Agreement, no
independent legitimate government in Iraq that has invited our forces
in, and that freely hosts our forces. For these reasons as well, it is
unlikely that we can claim to legally extend violence to Iran because of
what happens in Iraq.
SWANSON: When did you learn of Iranian offers to negotiate that were
rejected by the Bush Administration?
KWIATKOWSKI: I read about them when they were made public. That these
outreach efforts (much like letters from Ahmadinejad never being read by
the President) fall on rocky ground doesn't do much for our reputation
or our public claims of goodwill to the Iranian people. It also
indicates the powerful grip of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon and
the NSC, and the power of the Vice President's own staff, to shape our
foreign policy without any primary concern for what is good for the
United States.
SWANSON: Do you believe the Air Force and Navy want to attack Iran,
while the Army and Marines do not?
KWIATKOWSKI: I do, but I'd be delighted to be shown to be wrong here.
My opinion is based on my twenty years in the Air Force, and how we are
in the military. It is a big game, and there is indeed competition
between the services. For budget and for glory. Plus, we can't buy new
stuff unless we test and use up the old and current stuff. Everyone
wins in the military industrial complex by pressing forward
aggressively. So yes, I believe the Air Force and Navy are working hard
to please the administration's desire to trample Arab and Persian
countries by saying "We can do it!"
SWANSON: Do you believe sentiment either way from within the military is
likely to have a large effect on what happens?
KWIATKOWSKI: If the Air Force and Navy leadership stood up, sided with
the Army and Marines, and said to the President, the media and the
Congress that they are finished with this stupid Middle East policy, and
they all quit on the spot, an attack on Iran would not happen under the
Bush administration. But if only the Army and Marine Corps leadership
pushes back, the subsequent power and credibility vacuum is easily
filled by Air Force and Naval leadership. We already have seen this
with the new Central Command Combatant Commander, Admiral Fallon. One
may say that it was the Navy's turn to have the Central Command
position, but it happened only after General Abizaid, one of our most
region-aware and knowledgeable leaders, began to tell the truth publicly
about our situation in Iraq. So the answer is yes, it could in
theory, but it won't in fact.
SWANSON: Reps. Kucinich and Conyers have suggested they would impeach
Bush if he attacks Iran. Good idea? What about impeaching first to
prevent it?
KWIATKOWSKI: Great idea. Impeach early and often. That's my advice.
It can be done by the House so easily, for so little. Most senior
members of the administration involved in our disastrous foreign policy
and our incredibly stupid approach to fighting terrorism could be easily
impeached for incompetence, wrongdoing, dishonesty, failure to honor the
spirit and letter of the constitution and other laws, even in my view,
traitorous acts, placing the interests of foreign countries above those
of the United States. Some of these impeached officials would be easily
removed from office by the Senate, and we would regain our honor as a
nation by publicly recognizing their misbehavior.
SWANSON: Who's running this show, Bush or Cheney or a group?
KWIATKOWSKI: I suspect it is Cheney, and Cheney's network of
like-minded, old Cold Warriors struggling for money, power and relevance
in a post-Cold War age. Hence the war on terror, hence the demonization
of Russia, Iran and China by members of the Cheney clique. Cheney and
those who share his worldview in Washington are dinosaurs, but they have
big teeth, big appetites, and they aren't dead yet. Apparently, Cheney
is also personally feared by many Republicans and Democrats alike. I
don't know why. Are they afraid he'll curse at them and call them
names? Bush doesn't seem to be much of an organization man. He seems
more like the Paris Hilton of politics. He goes to the parties, he
shows up, he has a good time, but doesn't take anything too seriously.
Cheney seems to take world domination seriously, and he has a lot of
friendly, and fearful, folks on board.
SWANSON: Did you expect that the new Democratic majority would
investigate the Iraq fraud?
KWIATKOWSKI: Not really. They should have done it in the first hundred
hours, and started impeachment hearings, too. They did neither because
those who devise our foreign policy in the Middle East politically own
many Democrats and Republicans. Party affiliation is meaningless, as we
have seen already.
SWANSON: Did you expect to be called to testify?
KWIATKOWSKI: I was not called for the Part II Senate Intelligence
Subcommittee investigation, on the politicization of the Iraq
intelligence. I had been called for a few hours with the staff of the
committee for the Part I investigation in 2004, and yet what I have
observed and written about mostly was indeed the politicization. So I
don't expect to be called ever again. The only Congressmen I hear from
are those who already understand it isn't about Republicans and
Democrats, but rather the Constitution and what is right and wrong.
SWANSON: What do you make of the first two months of Democratic rule
without any investigation, other than a report from the Pentagon
Inspector General that had been requested by the Republicans?
KWIATKOWSKI: It simply adds another nail in the coffin of our democratic
experiment. We need at least two distinct parties, and possibly three ,
each with an ability to articulate and pursue real philosophical
alternatives. The Democrats offer no alternatives on foreign policy
and sadly, the Republicans are as "Democratic" on domestic policy as the
Democratic Party once was. Clearly, on foreign policy, it's Dumb and
Dumber. No wonder Americans don't vote.
SWANSON: What would it take to force Congress to do an investigation of
one war and possibly prevent a second?
KWIATKOWSKI: If Cheney were replaced next week by a moderate Republican,
possibly one of the Presidential hopefuls, we might see it. But that
might just as easily result in the issues of Iraq buried even deeper
from public scrutiny. Unfortunately, Congress doesn't want to examine
the mistakes of Iraq, nor do they want to prevent a confrontation with
Iran. Most members of Congress are still rubberstamping the Bush-Cheney
foreign policy. They have already publicly stated that they agree we
should hit Iran, or do something to Iran in order to satisfy one or more
opportunistic desire of Iran's various neighbors -- whether they be the
Kurds, the Turks, the Paks, our puppets in Baghdad, Kuwait or Qatar, the
House of Saud, or the Likud leadership in Israel. Take your pick.
Authors Website: http://www.davidswanson.org
Authors Bio: DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a
writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is
a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the
Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA.
He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director,
with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004
presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor
Communications Association, and three years as Communications
Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the
University of Virginia in 1997.March 4, 2007
Former Pentagon Staff Speaks Out on Crimes of Doug Feith, ***** Cheney,
and Planning of Iran War
By David Swanson
The following is a remarkable interview of Karen Kwiatkowski who retired
from the active duty USAF as a Lieutenant Colonel in early 2003. Her
final assignment was in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Under
Secretary for Policy Near East South Asia (NESA) Policy directorate. In
her responses below, Kwiatkowski describes the manipulation of
intelligence on Iraq and Iran and what it would take to avoid an attack
on the latter.
I began the interview by asking about Undersecretary of Defense for
policy Douglas Feith, whose actions in the Pentagon in the lead-up to
the Iraq War were the subject of a recent report by the Pentagon
Inspector General.
SWANSON: Did the operations led by Doug Feith gather intelligence?
KWIATKOWSKI: When I spoke to the DoD IG over a year ago (regarding the
investigation that recently produced a report pronouncing the Feith
operations as inappropriate), I tried to explain to the IG that what the
Feith group and the Office of Special Plans was doing was information
manipulation, not the production of what we legitimately call
"intelligence." Intelligence is vetted, contextualized, and
conservative. What Feith's OSP wanted, needed and produced was
inflammatory bits of data, cherry-picked statements, and isolated
observations by often shady characters, presented as if they were
vetted, contextualized and conservative intelligence. Unlike
intelligence, this effort was designed not to inform decision makers,
but to shape a national conversation such that decisions already made by
the administration (to topple Saddam and get bases in Iraq) could be
pursued without political backlash. That's what Doug Feith and his
folks did for Bush and Cheney in the Pentagon.
SWANSON: Did they do so without informing Congress of the fact?
KWIATKOWSKI: I can't verify that Feith's office, and others in the
Pentagon did or didn't talk to some Congressmen about their little
information operation. It has been shown by the Senate investigation
that the CIA itself was not aware that some of the results of the OSP
effort had been inserted into their system as if it was intelligence,
without full disclosure of sources, etc. It seems clear that many in
the Congress were fed OSP derived and developed information and talking
points from the Pentagon -- and that this information was believed by
those Congressmen to be "intelligence" instead of propaganda and
falsehoods. Frankly, I believe that many in Congress wanted this
invasion of Iraq, and didn't care if what they were seeing from Feith,
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld was true or not. This is why "politicized"
intelligence the focus of the so-called Part II investigation was so
critical, and so successfully opposed and blocked by many Senators and
Congressmen.
It seems even more certain that the New York Times and other major
papers were fed the same type of material by Pentagon and Office of the
Vice President as if it were verified intelligence, and that they
believed that it was. Doug Feith today denies he did anything wrong at
all. Feith and many of the neoconservatives are fundamentally ethically
challenged when it comes to American national security. Given
everything we know, it is unlikely any of these war advocates told the
truth to Congress about the story they were helping to "sell" to
Congress and the rest of the country back in 2002 and early 2003.
SWANSON: Were Feith's actions illegal?
KWIATKOWSKI: Like most people, I believe that public servants are bound
by their sworn oath of service 24/7 while they hold a public office.
Feith, and political appointees above and below him, presented false or
unfounded information to the media, the Congress and to the President's
speechwriters, as if it were not only factual, but as intelligence
community consensus. As public servants, on the U.S. public payroll,
what they did seems to me to be illegal. The Central Intelligence
Agency is the only legal source of national intelligence to the
Congress, and these folks were not associated with the CIA, nor were
they intelligence professionals. However, the DoD IG did not appear to
find the OSP culpable in this regard, hence their conclusion of
"inappropriate" rather than "illegal."
SWANSON: But is that the right conclusion?
KWIATKOWSKI: My understanding of the oath of office is that we are to
abide by the laws of the land, and protect the Constitution. It is
assumed that this means one's conduct must be generally honest. We also
have the old Ten Commandments, and that annoying little rule about
bearing false witness. A good prosecutor could probably make the case
that these guys Feith, Shulsky, Cheney, etc, broke several other laws.
Speaking to the press on issues of national security and top levels of
intelligence out of school or without specific authorization from the
classifying authority is illegal. For example, if I as a Lt Col in the
Air Force, or any member of the military or civil service had given
either the press or any Congressmen or women any information that I
described as Top Secret or Secret level intelligence, as did the OSP and
OSP connected political appointees in 2002 and early 2003, we would have
been charged with a crime, and successfully prosecuted. In that
prosecution, our intent would have come into play, and this is critical
as well. Why exactly were Feith and company lying, and conspiring to
mislead Congress?
The neoconservatives have said "But we believed Chalabi, and we believed
all this bad info about Iraq WMD capability." If they truly believed it,
their planning for the invasion and the aftermath by the OSD would have
been remarkably different, in about a hundred different ways. They say
they believed Saddam was dangerous, yet we went in as if it would be a
cakewalk. The neoconservative claim that they truly believed these
dangers existed in Iraq is belied by their reluctance to support more
troops initially, and by their decision to casually disregard border
security, and to idiotically write off the Ba-ath Party infrastructure
as superfluous to Iraq's post war recovery.
There is no doubt in my mind that what they were impeachable offenses.
In fact, many in the military and civil service, and political
appointees are fired for far less malfeasance and incompetence in
protecting the nations' interests and security than admittedly has been
done by Feith and his cohorts. SecDef Gates just "impeached" the
Secretary of the Army Harvey and Major General Weightman over the
treatment of wounded Iraq and Afghanistan vets at Walter Reed Hospital.
There is no doubt in my mind that Feith, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well
as Abe Shulsky should have been (or in the case of Abe Shulsky, still in
the Pentagon be) formally impeached for incompetence, neglect of and
disregard for national security, and reckless malfeasance in the conduct
of their duties. Impeachment and prosecution for criminal misconduct
while holding public office is certainly appropriate in these cases. I
also recommend former prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega's new book (The
United States vs. George W. Bush et al) that makes a powerful case that
Feith and others are guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States.
SWANSON: What superiors to Feith bear responsibility?
KWIATKOWSKI: Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. And the Congress,
particularly those who voted (ignoring serious testimony of Feith's
inappropriateness for that position) to confirm Feith as the Defense
Under Secretary for Policy back in 2001.
SWANSON: What do you make of Allison Hantschel's thoughts on the
blogosphere and the media's role in Iran War propaganda?
http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/749
KWIATKOWSKI: The great promise of the internet may be that it brings us
back to the future, so to speak. In the 1700s, de Toqueville was amazed
with our American obsession with information, our abundance of little
newspapers, everyone a reporter, everyone with an opinion to share, and
many interested parties reading and debating these opinions and
observations. This energy struck him as uniquely American, and today,
this energy is global, and it is embodied in the internet, in the
blogosphere specifically. The blogosphere is that rough, raw and
personal reporting, complete with elements of gossip and imagination.
Mainstream media is establishment media, the kings' notices to the
serfs. I think Allison's investigation into how well or how poorly the
truth was reported in the run-up to Iraq, within the blogosphere and by
the mainstream media, is not only important, but points us into a new
place that may in fact lead us to fewer wars rather than more wars.
After Iran, that is
.
SWANSON: What is the Iran Directorate?
KWIATKOWSKI: I have heard that it is much like what we knew as the
expanded Iraq desk, the alternative nomenclature for the Office of
Special Plans directed by Abe Shulsky in 2002 and 2003. Incidentally
the OSP, when formally separated from our spaces in late August 2002 was
described to us by our boss Bill Luti (now at the National Security
Council under Elliot Abrams) as the "expanded Iraq desk." However,
within weeks, the two people working the Iran desk (Larry Franklin and
Ladan Archin) were moved permanently into the OSP, indicating that in
practical terms, Iraq and Iran policies were unified. I have heard Abe
Shulsky runs the Iran office or Directorate today. Ladan Archin, a
political appointee who worked with former Iran desk officer Larry
Franklin, is reported to be working for Shulsky in the same capacity as
she did in OSP in 2002. When observers note the similarities between
the thoroughly discredited OSP and today's Iran Directorate under
Shulsky, in terms of leadership, leakage of falsehoods and talking
points designed to demonize Iran's government, and promote ideas of a
Iranian threat to the United States, the "need" for the U.S. to foment
"democracy" in Iran, and a warmongering agenda, they are on track. It's
a real shame.
SWANSON: How does intelligence gathering on Iran compare to that on Iraq?
KWIATKOWSKI: This I don't know. Judging from what is coming out of the
Pentagon, there may be some good news. Peter Pace, as well as many
other active duty generals, seem to be trying to put the brakes on the
hysterics coming from the political side of the Pentagon. They seem to
be saying go slow, and seem to be somewhat willing to contradict the
propaganda, to stray from the political appointed talking points that
demand urgent war and destruction of Iran's current government, and its
infrastructure. However, this hesitance on the part of military
leadership may be overridden by the nature of our intelligence on Iran.
In Iraq, we were great in technical intelligence, having bombed,
overflew, tested defenses and sanctioned Iraq for a dozen years. But we
had no reliable intel on the human side, and the politicized fantasies
of Wolfowitz, Feith and Chalabi and others filled a gap that the CIA had
little solid HUMINT to combat. Iran, on the other hand, is not a
dictatorship, and it is a place we and the Europeans trade and do
business. It is a country known for working with Israel and ourselves
when it is profitable to do so (Iran-Contra, efforts to weaken Saddam
Hussein in the 1980s and 1990s, and our own efforts supporting the
Iranian terrorist group MEK to weaken the mullahs). Thus we have lots
of HUMINT on Iran and so we think that means we know something. But
our HUMINT is incomplete, heavily skewed to those we deal with the
westernized, the religious wackos in the MEK, and political opportunist
elements within Iran. What I am saying is we may know a lot less about
Iran than we did about Iraq in 2002 but we may be deluded on both the
CIA side and the political fantasy side into thinking we understand Iran
better, and hence won't repeat the mistake we made in deciding to invade
Iraq.
SWANSON: If White House claims on Iranian nuclear program were true,
would they be grounds for war?
KWIATKOWSKI: Most of the world understands that the White House is
making false statements on Iran's capabilities and intentions. But even
if those claims were true, our own track record is not only to not bomb
or invade a country that is developing a potential for a nuclear weapon,
but to assist them in proceeding openly and as safely as possible.
Pakistan, India, even North Korea and our recent moves of assistance
this is how we usually react. There is only one country that we do not
demand sign the NPT, only one country where we do not require
transparency in their nuclear programs. That country is Israel. Thus
we have two functional models for dealing with Iran. We can treat them
like we do Pakistan, India, Russia, China. North Korea, or France, or we
can treat them like we do Israel. Either way is fine with me, and
neither way requires attacking them and killing innocent people.
SWANSON: If White House claims on Iranian assistance in Iraq were true,
would they be grounds for war?
KWIATKOWSKI: If their claims were true, and we had a declaration of war
with Iraq, then possibly we could say we must extend the war. But
remember, we are not "at war" with Iraq. We are ostensibly in Iraq to
help them be a democracy, to allow them to become wealthy and healthy
and wise on the sale of their own oil, to make them a model country in
the region. Isn't that how the administration likes to put it? We are
not "at war" in Iraq. Our forces and bases in Iraq are also not there
legally, we have no officially sanctioned Status of Forces Agreement, no
independent legitimate government in Iraq that has invited our forces
in, and that freely hosts our forces. For these reasons as well, it is
unlikely that we can claim to legally extend violence to Iran because of
what happens in Iraq.
SWANSON: When did you learn of Iranian offers to negotiate that were
rejected by the Bush Administration?
KWIATKOWSKI: I read about them when they were made public. That these
outreach efforts (much like letters from Ahmadinejad never being read by
the President) fall on rocky ground doesn't do much for our reputation
or our public claims of goodwill to the Iranian people. It also
indicates the powerful grip of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon and
the NSC, and the power of the Vice President's own staff, to shape our
foreign policy without any primary concern for what is good for the
United States.
SWANSON: Do you believe the Air Force and Navy want to attack Iran,
while the Army and Marines do not?
KWIATKOWSKI: I do, but I'd be delighted to be shown to be wrong here.
My opinion is based on my twenty years in the Air Force, and how we are
in the military. It is a big game, and there is indeed competition
between the services. For budget and for glory. Plus, we can't buy new
stuff unless we test and use up the old and current stuff. Everyone
wins in the military industrial complex by pressing forward
aggressively. So yes, I believe the Air Force and Navy are working hard
to please the administration's desire to trample Arab and Persian
countries by saying "We can do it!"
SWANSON: Do you believe sentiment either way from within the military is
likely to have a large effect on what happens?
KWIATKOWSKI: If the Air Force and Navy leadership stood up, sided with
the Army and Marines, and said to the President, the media and the
Congress that they are finished with this stupid Middle East policy, and
they all quit on the spot, an attack on Iran would not happen under the
Bush administration. But if only the Army and Marine Corps leadership
pushes back, the subsequent power and credibility vacuum is easily
filled by Air Force and Naval leadership. We already have seen this
with the new Central Command Combatant Commander, Admiral Fallon. One
may say that it was the Navy's turn to have the Central Command
position, but it happened only after General Abizaid, one of our most
region-aware and knowledgeable leaders, began to tell the truth publicly
about our situation in Iraq. So the answer is yes, it could in
theory, but it won't in fact.
SWANSON: Reps. Kucinich and Conyers have suggested they would impeach
Bush if he attacks Iran. Good idea? What about impeaching first to
prevent it?
KWIATKOWSKI: Great idea. Impeach early and often. That's my advice.
It can be done by the House so easily, for so little. Most senior
members of the administration involved in our disastrous foreign policy
and our incredibly stupid approach to fighting terrorism could be easily
impeached for incompetence, wrongdoing, dishonesty, failure to honor the
spirit and letter of the constitution and other laws, even in my view,
traitorous acts, placing the interests of foreign countries above those
of the United States. Some of these impeached officials would be easily
removed from office by the Senate, and we would regain our honor as a
nation by publicly recognizing their misbehavior.
SWANSON: Who's running this show, Bush or Cheney or a group?
KWIATKOWSKI: I suspect it is Cheney, and Cheney's network of
like-minded, old Cold Warriors struggling for money, power and relevance
in a post-Cold War age. Hence the war on terror, hence the demonization
of Russia, Iran and China by members of the Cheney clique. Cheney and
those who share his worldview in Washington are dinosaurs, but they have
big teeth, big appetites, and they aren't dead yet. Apparently, Cheney
is also personally feared by many Republicans and Democrats alike. I
don't know why. Are they afraid he'll curse at them and call them
names? Bush doesn't seem to be much of an organization man. He seems
more like the Paris Hilton of politics. He goes to the parties, he
shows up, he has a good time, but doesn't take anything too seriously.
Cheney seems to take world domination seriously, and he has a lot of
friendly, and fearful, folks on board.
SWANSON: Did you expect that the new Democratic majority would
investigate the Iraq fraud?
KWIATKOWSKI: Not really. They should have done it in the first hundred
hours, and started impeachment hearings, too. They did neither because
those who devise our foreign policy in the Middle East politically own
many Democrats and Republicans. Party affiliation is meaningless, as we
have seen already.
SWANSON: Did you expect to be called to testify?
KWIATKOWSKI: I was not called for the Part II Senate Intelligence
Subcommittee investigation, on the politicization of the Iraq
intelligence. I had been called for a few hours with the staff of the
committee for the Part I investigation in 2004, and yet what I have
observed and written about mostly was indeed the politicization. So I
don't expect to be called ever again. The only Congressmen I hear from
are those who already understand it isn't about Republicans and
Democrats, but rather the Constitution and what is right and wrong.
SWANSON: What do you make of the first two months of Democratic rule
without any investigation, other than a report from the Pentagon
Inspector General that had been requested by the Republicans?
KWIATKOWSKI: It simply adds another nail in the coffin of our democratic
experiment. We need at least two distinct parties, and possibly three ,
each with an ability to articulate and pursue real philosophical
alternatives. The Democrats offer no alternatives on foreign policy
and sadly, the Republicans are as "Democratic" on domestic policy as the
Democratic Party once was. Clearly, on foreign policy, it's Dumb and
Dumber. No wonder Americans don't vote.
SWANSON: What would it take to force Congress to do an investigation of
one war and possibly prevent a second?
KWIATKOWSKI: If Cheney were replaced next week by a moderate Republican,
possibly one of the Presidential hopefuls, we might see it. But that
might just as easily result in the issues of Iraq buried even deeper
from public scrutiny. Unfortunately, Congress doesn't want to examine
the mistakes of Iraq, nor do they want to prevent a confrontation with
Iran. Most members of Congress are still rubberstamping the Bush-Cheney
foreign policy. They have already publicly stated that they agree we
should hit Iran, or do something to Iran in order to satisfy one or more
opportunistic desire of Iran's various neighbors -- whether they be the
Kurds, the Turks, the Paks, our puppets in Baghdad, Kuwait or Qatar, the
House of Saud, or the Likud leadership in Israel. Take your pick.
Authors Website: http://www.davidswanson.org
Authors Bio: DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a
writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is
a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the
Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA.
He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director,
with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004
presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor
Communications Association, and three years as Communications
Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the
University of Virginia in 1997.March 4, 2007
Former Pentagon Staff Speaks Out on Crimes of Doug Feith, ***** Cheney,
and Planning of Iran War
By David Swanson
The following is a remarkable interview of Karen Kwiatkowski who retired
from the active duty USAF as a Lieutenant Colonel in early 2003. Her
final assignment was in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Under
Secretary for Policy Near East South Asia (NESA) Policy directorate. In
her responses below, Kwiatkowski describes the manipulation of
intelligence on Iraq and Iran and what it would take to avoid an attack
on the latter.
I began the interview by asking about Undersecretary of Defense for
policy Douglas Feith, whose actions in the Pentagon in the lead-up to
the Iraq War were the subject of a recent report by the Pentagon
Inspector General.
SWANSON: Did the operations led by Doug Feith gather intelligence?
KWIATKOWSKI: When I spoke to the DoD IG over a year ago (regarding the
investigation that recently produced a report pronouncing the Feith
operations as inappropriate), I tried to explain to the IG that what the
Feith group and the Office of Special Plans was doing was information
manipulation, not the production of what we legitimately call
"intelligence." Intelligence is vetted, contextualized, and
conservative. What Feith's OSP wanted, needed and produced was
inflammatory bits of data, cherry-picked statements, and isolated
observations by often shady characters, presented as if they were
vetted, contextualized and conservative intelligence. Unlike
intelligence, this effort was designed not to inform decision makers,
but to shape a national conversation such that decisions already made by
the administration (to topple Saddam and get bases in Iraq) could be
pursued without political backlash. That's what Doug Feith and his
folks did for Bush and Cheney in the Pentagon.
SWANSON: Did they do so without informing Congress of the fact?
KWIATKOWSKI: I can't verify that Feith's office, and others in the
Pentagon did or didn't talk to some Congressmen about their little
information operation. It has been shown by the Senate investigation
that the CIA itself was not aware that some of the results of the OSP
effort had been inserted into their system as if it was intelligence,
without full disclosure of sources, etc. It seems clear that many in
the Congress were fed OSP derived and developed information and talking
points from the Pentagon -- and that this information was believed by
those Congressmen to be "intelligence" instead of propaganda and
falsehoods. Frankly, I believe that many in Congress wanted this
invasion of Iraq, and didn't care if what they were seeing from Feith,
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld was true or not. This is why "politicized"
intelligence the focus of the so-called Part II investigation was so
critical, and so successfully opposed and blocked by many Senators and
Congressmen.
It seems even more certain that the New York Times and other major
papers were fed the same type of material by Pentagon and Office of the
Vice President as if it were verified intelligence, and that they
believed that it was. Doug Feith today denies he did anything wrong at
all. Feith and many of the neoconservatives are fundamentally ethically
challenged when it comes to American national security. Given
everything we know, it is unlikely any of these war advocates told the
truth to Congress about the story they were helping to "sell" to
Congress and the rest of the country back in 2002 and early 2003.
SWANSON: Were Feith's actions illegal?
KWIATKOWSKI: Like most people, I believe that public servants are bound
by their sworn oath of service 24/7 while they hold a public office.
Feith, and political appointees above and below him, presented false or
unfounded information to the media, the Congress and to the President's
speechwriters, as if it were not only factual, but as intelligence
community consensus. As public servants, on the U.S. public payroll,
what they did seems to me to be illegal. The Central Intelligence
Agency is the only legal source of national intelligence to the
Congress, and these folks were not associated with the CIA, nor were
they intelligence professionals. However, the DoD IG did not appear to
find the OSP culpable in this regard, hence their conclusion of
"inappropriate" rather than "illegal."
SWANSON: But is that the right conclusion?
KWIATKOWSKI: My understanding of the oath of office is that we are to
abide by the laws of the land, and protect the Constitution. It is
assumed that this means one's conduct must be generally honest. We also
have the old Ten Commandments, and that annoying little rule about
bearing false witness. A good prosecutor could probably make the case
that these guys Feith, Shulsky, Cheney, etc, broke several other laws.
Speaking to the press on issues of national security and top levels of
intelligence out of school or without specific authorization from the
classifying authority is illegal. For example, if I as a Lt Col in the
Air Force, or any member of the military or civil service had given
either the press or any Congressmen or women any information that I
described as Top Secret or Secret level intelligence, as did the OSP and
OSP connected political appointees in 2002 and early 2003, we would have
been charged with a crime, and successfully prosecuted. In that
prosecution, our intent would have come into play, and this is critical
as well. Why exactly were Feith and company lying, and conspiring to
mislead Congress?
The neoconservatives have said "But we believed Chalabi, and we believed
all this bad info about Iraq WMD capability." If they truly believed it,
their planning for the invasion and the aftermath by the OSD would have
been remarkably different, in about a hundred different ways. They say
they believed Saddam was dangerous, yet we went in as if it would be a
cakewalk. The neoconservative claim that they truly believed these
dangers existed in Iraq is belied by their reluctance to support more
troops initially, and by their decision to casually disregard border
security, and to idiotically write off the Ba-ath Party infrastructure
as superfluous to Iraq's post war recovery.
There is no doubt in my mind that what they were impeachable offenses.
In fact, many in the military and civil service, and political
appointees are fired for far less malfeasance and incompetence in
protecting the nations' interests and security than admittedly has been
done by Feith and his cohorts. SecDef Gates just "impeached" the
Secretary of the Army Harvey and Major General Weightman over the
treatment of wounded Iraq and Afghanistan vets at Walter Reed Hospital.
There is no doubt in my mind that Feith, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well
as Abe Shulsky should have been (or in the case of Abe Shulsky, still in
the Pentagon be) formally impeached for incompetence, neglect of and
disregard for national security, and reckless malfeasance in the conduct
of their duties. Impeachment and prosecution for criminal misconduct
while holding public office is certainly appropriate in these cases. I
also recommend former prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega's new book (The
United States vs. George W. Bush et al) that makes a powerful case that
Feith and others are guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States.
SWANSON: What superiors to Feith bear responsibility?
KWIATKOWSKI: Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. And the Congress,
particularly those who voted (ignoring serious testimony of Feith's
inappropriateness for that position) to confirm Feith as the Defense
Under Secretary for Policy back in 2001.
SWANSON: What do you make of Allison Hantschel's thoughts on the
blogosphere and the media's role in Iran War propaganda?
http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/749
KWIATKOWSKI: The great promise of the internet may be that it brings us
back to the future, so to speak. In the 1700s, de Toqueville was amazed
with our American obsession with information, our abundance of little
newspapers, everyone a reporter, everyone with an opinion to share, and
many interested parties reading and debating these opinions and
observations. This energy struck him as uniquely American, and today,
this energy is global, and it is embodied in the internet, in the
blogosphere specifically. The blogosphere is that rough, raw and
personal reporting, complete with elements of gossip and imagination.
Mainstream media is establishment media, the kings' notices to the
serfs. I think Allison's investigation into how well or how poorly the
truth was reported in the run-up to Iraq, within the blogosphere and by
the mainstream media, is not only important, but points us into a new
place that may in fact lead us to fewer wars rather than more wars.
After Iran, that is
.
SWANSON: What is the Iran Directorate?
KWIATKOWSKI: I have heard that it is much like what we knew as the
expanded Iraq desk, the alternative nomenclature for the Office of
Special Plans directed by Abe Shulsky in 2002 and 2003. Incidentally
the OSP, when formally separated from our spaces in late August 2002 was
described to us by our boss Bill Luti (now at the National Security
Council under Elliot Abrams) as the "expanded Iraq desk." However,
within weeks, the two people working the Iran desk (Larry Franklin and
Ladan Archin) were moved permanently into the OSP, indicating that in
practical terms, Iraq and Iran policies were unified. I have heard Abe
Shulsky runs the Iran office or Directorate today. Ladan Archin, a
political appointee who worked with former Iran desk officer Larry
Franklin, is reported to be working for Shulsky in the same capacity as
she did in OSP in 2002. When observers note the similarities between
the thoroughly discredited OSP and today's Iran Directorate under
Shulsky, in terms of leadership, leakage of falsehoods and talking
points designed to demonize Iran's government, and promote ideas of a
Iranian threat to the United States, the "need" for the U.S. to foment
"democracy" in Iran, and a warmongering agenda, they are on track. It's
a real shame.
SWANSON: How does intelligence gathering on Iran compare to that on Iraq?
KWIATKOWSKI: This I don't know. Judging from what is coming out of the
Pentagon, there may be some good news. Peter Pace, as well as many
other active duty generals, seem to be trying to put the brakes on the
hysterics coming from the political side of the Pentagon. They seem to
be saying go slow, and seem to be somewhat willing to contradict the
propaganda, to stray from the political appointed talking points that
demand urgent war and destruction of Iran's current government, and its
infrastructure. However, this hesitance on the part of military
leadership may be overridden by the nature of our intelligence on Iran.
In Iraq, we were great in technical intelligence, having bombed,
overflew, tested defenses and sanctioned Iraq for a dozen years. But we
had no reliable intel on the human side, and the politicized fantasies
of Wolfowitz, Feith and Chalabi and others filled a gap that the CIA had
little solid HUMINT to combat. Iran, on the other hand, is not a
dictatorship, and it is a place we and the Europeans trade and do
business. It is a country known for working with Israel and ourselves
when it is profitable to do so (Iran-Contra, efforts to weaken Saddam
Hussein in the 1980s and 1990s, and our own efforts supporting the
Iranian terrorist group MEK to weaken the mullahs). Thus we have lots
of HUMINT on Iran and so we think that means we know something. But
our HUMINT is incomplete, heavily skewed to those we deal with the
westernized, the religious wackos in the MEK, and political opportunist
elements within Iran. What I am saying is we may know a lot less about
Iran than we did about Iraq in 2002 but we may be deluded on both the
CIA side and the political fantasy side into thinking we understand Iran
better, and hence won't repeat the mistake we made in deciding to invade
Iraq.
SWANSON: If White House claims on Iranian nuclear program were true,
would they be grounds for war?
KWIATKOWSKI: Most of the world understands that the White House is
making false statements on Iran's capabilities and intentions. But even
if those claims were true, our own track record is not only to not bomb
or invade a country that is developing a potential for a nuclear weapon,
but to assist them in proceeding openly and as safely as possible.
Pakistan, India, even North Korea and our recent moves of assistance
this is how we usually react. There is only one country that we do not
demand sign the NPT, only one country where we do not require
transparency in their nuclear programs. That country is Israel. Thus
we have two functional models for dealing with Iran. We can treat them
like we do Pakistan, India, Russia, China. North Korea, or France, or we
can treat them like we do Israel. Either way is fine with me, and
neither way requires attacking them and killing innocent people.
SWANSON: If White House claims on Iranian assistance in Iraq were true,
would they be grounds for war?
KWIATKOWSKI: If their claims were true, and we had a declaration of war
with Iraq, then possibly we could say we must extend the war. But
remember, we are not "at war" with Iraq. We are ostensibly in Iraq to
help them be a democracy, to allow them to become wealthy and healthy
and wise on the sale of their own oil, to make them a model country in
the region. Isn't that how the administration likes to put it? We are
not "at war" in Iraq. Our forces and bases in Iraq are also not there
legally, we have no officially sanctioned Status of Forces Agreement, no
independent legitimate government in Iraq that has invited our forces
in, and that freely hosts our forces. For these reasons as well, it is
unlikely that we can claim to legally extend violence to Iran because of
what happens in Iraq.
SWANSON: When did you learn of Iranian offers to negotiate that were
rejected by the Bush Administration?
KWIATKOWSKI: I read about them when they were made public. That these
outreach efforts (much like letters from Ahmadinejad never being read by
the President) fall on rocky ground doesn't do much for our reputation
or our public claims of goodwill to the Iranian people. It also
indicates the powerful grip of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon and
the NSC, and the power of the Vice President's own staff, to shape our
foreign policy without any primary concern for what is good for the
United States.
SWANSON: Do you believe the Air Force and Navy want to attack Iran,
while the Army and Marines do not?
KWIATKOWSKI: I do, but I'd be delighted to be shown to be wrong here.
My opinion is based on my twenty years in the Air Force, and how we are
in the military. It is a big game, and there is indeed competition
between the services. For budget and for glory. Plus, we can't buy new
stuff unless we test and use up the old and current stuff. Everyone
wins in the military industrial complex by pressing forward
aggressively. So yes, I believe the Air Force and Navy are working hard
to please the administration's desire to trample Arab and Persian
countries by saying "We can do it!"
SWANSON: Do you believe sentiment either way from within the military is
likely to have a large effect on what happens?
KWIATKOWSKI: If the Air Force and Navy leadership stood up, sided with
the Army and Marines, and said to the President, the media and the
Congress that they are finished with this stupid Middle East policy, and
they all quit on the spot, an attack on Iran would not happen under the
Bush administration. But if only the Army and Marine Corps leadership
pushes back, the subsequent power and credibility vacuum is easily
filled by Air Force and Naval leadership. We already have seen this
with the new Central Command Combatant Commander, Admiral Fallon. One
may say that it was the Navy's turn to have the Central Command
position, but it happened only after General Abizaid, one of our most
region-aware and knowledgeable leaders, began to tell the truth publicly
about our situation in Iraq. So the answer is yes, it could in
theory, but it won't in fact.
SWANSON: Reps. Kucinich and Conyers have suggested they would impeach
Bush if he attacks Iran. Good idea? What about impeaching first to
prevent it?
KWIATKOWSKI: Great idea. Impeach early and often. That's my advice.
It can be done by the House so easily, for so little. Most senior
members of the administration involved in our disastrous foreign policy
and our incredibly stupid approach to fighting terrorism could be easily
impeached for incompetence, wrongdoing, dishonesty, failure to honor the
spirit and letter of the constitution and other laws, even in my view,
traitorous acts, placing the interests of foreign countries above those
of the United States. Some of these impeached officials would be easily
removed from office by the Senate, and we would regain our honor as a
nation by publicly recognizing their misbehavior.
SWANSON: Who's running this show, Bush or Cheney or a group?
KWIATKOWSKI: I suspect it is Cheney, and Cheney's network of
like-minded, old Cold Warriors struggling for money, power and relevance
in a post-Cold War age. Hence the war on terror, hence the demonization
of Russia, Iran and China by members of the Cheney clique. Cheney and
those who share his worldview in Washington are dinosaurs, but they have
big teeth, big appetites, and they aren't dead yet. Apparently, Cheney
is also personally feared by many Republicans and Democrats alike. I
don't know why. Are they afraid he'll curse at them and call them
names? Bush doesn't seem to be much of an organization man. He seems
more like the Paris Hilton of politics. He goes to the parties, he
shows up, he has a good time, but doesn't take anything too seriously.
Cheney seems to take world domination seriously, and he has a lot of
friendly, and fearful, folks on board.
SWANSON: Did you expect that the new Democratic majority would
investigate the Iraq fraud?
KWIATKOWSKI: Not really. They should have done it in the first hundred
hours, and started impeachment hearings, too. They did neither because
those who devise our foreign policy in the Middle East politically own
many Democrats and Republicans. Party affiliation is meaningless, as we
have seen already.
SWANSON: Did you expect to be called to testify?
KWIATKOWSKI: I was not called for the Part II Senate Intelligence
Subcommittee investigation, on the politicization of the Iraq
intelligence. I had been called for a few hours with the staff of the
committee for the Part I investigation in 2004, and yet what I have
observed and written about mostly was indeed the politicization. So I
don't expect to be called ever again. The only Congressmen I hear from
are those who already understand it isn't about Republicans and
Democrats, but rather the Constitution and what is right and wrong.
SWANSON: What do you make of the first two months of Democratic rule
without any investigation, other than a report from the Pentagon
Inspector General that had been requested by the Republicans?
KWIATKOWSKI: It simply adds another nail in the coffin of our democratic
experiment. We need at least two distinct parties, and possibly three ,
each with an ability to articulate and pursue real philosophical
alternatives. The Democrats offer no alternatives on foreign policy
and sadly, the Republicans are as "Democratic" on domestic policy as the
Democratic Party once was. Clearly, on foreign policy, it's Dumb and
Dumber. No wonder Americans don't vote.
SWANSON: What would it take to force Congress to do an investigation of
one war and possibly prevent a second?
KWIATKOWSKI: If Cheney were replaced next week by a moderate Republican,
possibly one of the Presidential hopefuls, we might see it. But that
might just as easily result in the issues of Iraq buried even deeper
from public scrutiny. Unfortunately, Congress doesn't want to examine
the mistakes of Iraq, nor do they want to prevent a confrontation with
Iran. Most members of Congress are still rubberstamping the Bush-Cheney
foreign policy. They have already publicly stated that they agree we
should hit Iran, or do something to Iran in order to satisfy one or more
opportunistic desire of Iran's various neighbors -- whether they be the
Kurds, the Turks, the Paks, our puppets in Baghdad, Kuwait or Qatar, the
House of Saud, or the Likud leadership in Israel. Take your pick.
Authors Website: http://www.davidswanson.org
Authors Bio: DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a
writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is
a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the
Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA.
He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director,
with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004
presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor
Communications Association, and three years as Communications
Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the
University of Virginia in 1997.
--
San Francisco TEA PARTY for 9/11 TRUTH
http://www.sfteaparty.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
