And of course the smokin'est of all smoking guns, the now infamous UNOCAL quote to the Afghanistan government and the
Taliban in the summer of 2001:
Documented in "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth" by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie
http://www.amazon.com/Ben-Laden-Interdite-Jean-Charles- Brisard/dp/2070423778/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276518021&sr=1-4
Retired USAF Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatowski also verfied this, as well as verifying that the bases the US military has
built follow the exact route of the original UNOCAL pipeline proposal.
Here's an interview with Lt. Col Kwiatowski:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski129.html
Interviewed by Don Nash, Unknown News
Q. You retired from the military at a time that appears to
be the height of your professional military career – why?
I retired generally around the time I had hoped, at around
twenty years. But I accelerated my actual retirement date
twice in 2002 and 2003 because of the ethical difficulties
brought on by witnessing the misuse of intelligence in order
to support an agenda for an unnecessary, unwarranted war of
choice against Iraq.
In August 2002 I began to publish anonymous essays about what
I was seeing for the late Colonel David Hackworth and his
website Soldiers for the Truth. My retirement letter, so to
speak, was in the form of an op-ed, published by the Knight-
Ridder newspapers in July 2003.
Q. How would you describe current military and civilian
leadership at Defense for all branches of U.S. service?
Politicized, emasculated, obedient to the bureaucracy and
ignorant of the Constitution. There may be exceptions,
but I can’t think of any among those still serving.
Q. There exists controversy surrounding the events of 9/11/01
both as to cause, responsibility, and American responses. Have
you any theories as to who is responsible for 9/11/01 and how
American government responded to the attack?
I am not sure who is truly responsible for 9-11, or for our
ostensible response to it domestically (PATRIOT Act) and
internationally (toppling the Afghan and Iraqi governments).
Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were publicly blamed for the
attack, but I don’t recall that they actually claimed credit –
and one would think something that “successful” against
the “Great Satan” would be claimed by someone.
I am personally curious about the dynamics of the nearly
identical collapses on 9-11 of all three towers (1, 2, and 7),
the lack of the expected amount of aircraft debris in front of
the Pentagon at or near the point of impact, and the nature of
the Israeli groups around the country prior to 9-11 known to
be spying on Drug Enforcement Agency operations and
coincidentally being counter-spied upon by our own law
enforcement in many of the same locations around the country
as the hijackers in training. None of these aspects have been
thoroughly explained by the government yet.
I am curious about the lack of a functional FAA/NORAD response
to the simultaneous hijack of four commercial airliners,
regardless of the fact that there was a FAA/NORAD exercise
scheduled for the morning of 9-11. In the military when we did
exercises, we always had ways of recognizing and adapting
immediately to real-world crises that might have arisen during
the simulation or scenario play.
I don’t have a theory yet. I am waiting for my curiosity to
be satisfied on these technical issues.
I have commented on the government’s 9-11 official report,
and believe it is fatally flawed.
Q. How would you describe current American foreign policy?
Imperial because we want it for everyone, or at least those
that have some perceived economic or strategic value to us,
and we are willing to use our standing army to enforce our
wishes and create dependencies. Socialism applies, I think,
because we are practicing it at home, and preaching it as
our vassal’s salvation as well.
George W. Bush says we are spreading freedom and democracy,
but in reality we are spreading secular statism, economic
centralism, and martial law and, for convenience I guess,
we call it freedom and democracy.
Q. What should the American people make of our government’s
continual use of names like Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-
Zarqawi, and al-Qaeda as an organization?
I’m not sure. There is an element here of enemy-naming and
enemy-promotion to provide the American people with some
iconic foreign focus for their problems and their fear. The
President, in his recent speech on terrorism, called al Qaeda
an Islamo-fascist organization and in the next breath he
described it as so decentralized it was almost impossible
for it to be directed by a single leader. Perhaps Bush and
his speechwriters do not understand the nature of fascism
and decentralized systems of organization. Perhaps they do
understand, but do not care that they sound like babbling
fools when they get up and make such illogical, impossible
pronouncements. It seems to be fear mongering, plain and
simple.
Of course, we remain vulnerable (and always will) to certain
kinds of terroristic attacks in America. But like Oklahoma
City, these are as likely to be homegrown as foreign, and in
any case, an attack or attacks could not destroy or even make
a dent in our way of life, if we remember to uphold our
Constitution.
Bush and his speechwriters seem increasingly out of touch with
reality. Of course, they could be way ahead of the rest of us,
and may intend to permanently alter our way of life here in
America, beyond the worst nightmares of certain of the
founders who doubted we would be able to retain our Republic
for long.
Q. Does America hold any of the blame for the radicalization
of Muslim extremists?
We do, in this way. It is the U.S. government which has made
a conscious policy for well over sixty years to support anti-
democratic and often corrupt dictators around the world. After
World War II, it was because of Cold War competition with the
Soviet Union. When the Cold War ended, our sponsorship of bad
leaders, especially in the Middle East, again reflected our
pre-World War II program – pure imperial economics. Hence the
sustaining 80-plus-year relationship with the House of Saud.
Our approach to the Middle East calls for us to support
leaders like Mubarek and Sharon, as well as the leadership of
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and others. We support leaders who play
hardball with their citizens and others, leaders who don’t
take risks with real democracy. We support leaders who prefer
statist and corrupt economic systems, and we don’t seem to
mind that those systems are incapable of providing opportunities,
freedom or wealth for the citizens.
Because of this, we appear to many in the region as liars and
greedy hypocrites. Our unconditional support for friendly
despots, as well as the state of Israel – as radical a
religious state as Saudi Arabia, in many ways – shows our true
political face to the people who live and suffer under the
harsh hand of these governments. In cases like these, radical
behavior becomes more attractive as it is often the only thing
that gets anyone to listen.
Q. How should America view radical Islam?
The same way we view anything that is radical. First,
recognize that “radical” necessarily refers to a minority view
or position. We should view radical Islam as something to be
watched, and deterred gently, perhaps isolated if it comes to
America.
Given that radical Islam is not evident in our own country,
and is unlikely to be nurtured here, radical Islam is simply
not our problem. Furthermore, a radical Islamic country with
oil would still sell it to the United States, so frankly it
shouldn’t be a big deal for us.
Perhaps, if something “radical” is afflicting a friendly
state, just as we would aid a sick relative or a suffering
friend, we might seek to help that country get back to a more
healthy and normalized position. The idea of Aristotle’s
Golden Mean – balance, moderation and restraint – is key to
all of the great religions, including Islam. In any case,
radicalism should never automatically or blindly inspire fear.
Q. American media maintains that America is deeply divided.
Would you consider the American people to be divided, and how
could the American people overcome these divisions?
I don’t believe America is divided, certainly not into blue
and red, or war and anti-war. Americans don’t like stupid
policies. We stand together in rejecting out-and-out
stupidity, and while we like to debate alternatives, we agree
that stupid and idiotic is no good.
An example of this was seen in the American reaction to the
personal behavior of Bill Clinton in his last term, which led
to his impeachment. He had no defenders for his behavior in
this country – all were united in condemning his lack of
control, and lack of respect for his spouse, daughter, other
women, the office of the presidency, and the Congress.
Unfortunately for the current administration, we are all again
united in condemning the lies that Bush and Cheney felt they
had to tell to get a war they wanted on the cheap. No-one in
the country today defends the President for his outright
lying, or his unforgivable stupidity if indeed he thought he
was telling the truth about his invasion of Iraq. No-one in
the country defends the disastrous way the occupation of Iraq
has been handled. No-one in the country likes the way George
W. Bush has failed to improve national security and border
control and no one in the country believes that the Department
of Homeland Security has added the slightest bit of value to
the nation. Not a single American believes that George W. Bush
has been a fiscally competent president. There is no division
we all agree, from all political viewpoints, that this
administration is the righteous focal point of a growing
national anger.
Q. The U.S. Congress gives every appearance of being bought
and paid for by special interest lobbying concerns. Would you
consider our Congress to be corrupt, and how might the
American people regain control over our Congress?
It is corrupt, with the exception of a handful of good men and
women who because of their very lack of corruptibility, become
politically insignificant as Senators and Congressmen. The
only way to get control of Congress is to shrink its budget,
and as they control their own budget, we the people may only
be able to do that through a massive economic crisis of such
a degree that we all starve together.
When we, weak and thin, come through this possible economic
crisis, we’d do well to return to the Constitution, and
perhaps clarify that the tenth amendment really means what
the founders intended.
Too much money abounds in Washington, and it feeds corruption.
An alternative solution would be kind of secession from
Washington, D.C. I think at least half the states would agree
today that they get little back from D.C., and secession would
greatly improve their state economies, educational programs,
and quality of life.
We might lobby for a practice of impeaching every President as
a matter of routine, or otherwise seek ways to throw sand in
the gears of national government, to stop it temporarily or
slow it down.
Personally, I think the Congress should be in session only
rarely, as it was in the beginning. Shrinking the time in
session might allow us to have citizen representatives who
remember their hearth and home, put it first, and would have
no time for lengthy seductions at the federal level.
Simultaneously, we should eliminate any unique retirement
programs for elected representatives, and reduce their
paychecks.
We would also do well to disband much of our standing
military – for all its size and budget, it cannot defend our
borders, our buildings, or our citizens, as we’ve seen in the
case of 9-11 or in the recent hurricanes. Bring them home,
encourage them to find real jobs, or to report to the
governors.
Q. How do you think the global community views America
and the American people at present?
They see us accurately, in many ways, when they see us as an
imperialistic nation wielding power and creating chaos that
we ourselves do not completely understand. When they see us
as arrogant, we must recognize that we are indeed an arrogant
people these days.
But many in the global community, I think, see average
Americans as more consciously in control of foreign policy
than we really are. They see the 2004 re-election of George W.
Bush as proof that a majority of Americans agree with current
American foreign policy and his economic strategies of threaten,
borrow and spend.
But Bush’s re-election occurred largely because of the
domestic politics of abortion and gay marriage. Evangelicals
and social conservatives who generally dislike Bush’s fiscal
idiocy and disapprove of his rife aggression overseas, voted
against the former and in doing so, ensured four more years
of the latter.
Sadly, even if this domestic social agenda had not done its
part to re-elect George W. Bush, his opponent was his clone.
John Kerry was nothing if not a fellow profligate in terms
of spending and war making.
October 26, 2005
Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., [send her mail] is a retired USAF
lieutenant colonel, who spent her final four and a half years
in uniform working at the Pentagon.
She lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah
Valley,
and among other things, writes a bi-weekly column on defense
issues with a libertarian perspective for militaryweek.com.
====================
====================
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski now lives in realtive obscurity.
General Colin Powel is now worth between $25 - $50 million,
and sits on the board of scores of multi-national corporations.
One is held up as a hero, the other pushed into obscurity.
America, you're going to get EVERYTHING you deserve.
10 years from now, after they cut your Social Security,
loot your pensions, and ration your health care...
When you only get to keep .25 - .30 cents out of every dollar
you earn because taxes had to be massively increased to pay for
the banker bailouts and the wars costs spent in Iraq and
Afghanistan for the benfit of multi-national defense, Big Oil,
Banking, and Mining corporations...
Don't you dare bitch, whine, and moan - because you got those
taxes the old-fashioned way - you earned it with your apathy
towards, and denial of, the truth.
Now back to your regularly scheduled Truman Show programing,
SOTB
PS: The US Military is providing the security for Chinese
owned mines in Afghanistan.
http://blog.kstreetcommunications.com/2010/01/05/theres-copper-in-them-there-hills.aspx
________________________________________
________________________________________
|
