text:
June 24, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.
Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.
Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran
Posted on Feb 27, 2007
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (ret.), a veteran of the Pentagon with firsthand experience of the administration's cherry-picking of intelligence, reveals why Bush thinks he can win a war with Iran, why few politicians are serious about withdrawal and why "when they call Iraq a success, they mean it."
Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
(running time: 32:41 / 29.9 MB)
JAMES HARRIS: This is Truthdig. James Harris sitting down with Josh Scheer, and on the phone we have a special guest. She is a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, formerly working for the Pentagon, The National Security Agency. Needless to say, she knows a lot about intel and a lot about what took place and what went on before we went into Iraq and what went on with that intel. Many questions have been asked in recent weeks, obviously in recent years about what we knew, what was fabricated, what was made up. On the phone we have somebody who has been vociferous in her effort to out the wrongdoings of people like Douglas Feith and people like Donald Rumsfeld. So, Karen Kwiatkowski, welcome to Truthdig.
Square, Site wide, Desktop
Square, Site wide, Mobile
JAMES HARRIS: It's our pleasure. I want to start, not talking about Douglas Feith, but I want to get your opinion about Iraq. We know that British troops and Tony Blair have decided that they're out. We've seen the commitment of other nations drop by 17 countries and our biggest partner, England, is now out. Why do you think they're out and Bush is still in? Well we know why Bush is still in. Why now?
KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: It is towards the end of Tony Blair's long, long term of duty there as the Prime Minister. And the other thing is, the British very much oppose, in spite of the fact that there are some Rupert Murdoch newspapers in Great Britain, some conservative papers, pseudo conservative I should say, not truly conservative. Truly conservatives, true conservatives have opposed this adventure from the beginning. But in spite of the small, loud pro-war faction in London, most people in Britain recognize this for what it is. They have some experience in this kind of thing with, both in Middle East, particularly in Iraq years ago when they left in dishonor. Another time when they tried to occupy Baghdad, years and years ago, and also their experience with terrorism and movements of independents or what have you with Ireland, much more recent memory for many of the people in Great Britain. I don't think Britain's economy can afford it. Certainly they see the writing on the all, why get, why not get out now while George Bush is still there than be stuck with, stuck holding the bag when a Democratic president takes over and pulls the troops out abruptly in 2008, 2009. So I think there's many reasons why they're doing it. Some people say it is, it is because of Tony Blair's concern over his legacy. If he doesn't bring the troops home, his legacy will be that he left Britain in a quagmire. They are in a quagmire now and maybe he doesn't want to leave office with that being on his record, a lot of reasons. Mainly it's the right thing to do, the people of Britain want those troops home. And I guess their government is listening. Unlike ours.
JAMES HARRIS: The highly speculative people have said they're out because we're going into Iran. You might've read the news…
KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Well yeah, I don't… I had not seen that connection made, but I certainly am alarmed at the daily signs that indeed this country is getting ready to instigate an attack on Iran. All the signs are there, the suggestions that Iranian bombs are killing American soldiers, that's not true, but it's certainly been made in, I think every American newspaper, the suggestion that Iran is somehow killing Americans. The suggestion that Iran has nuclear weapons, is imminently close to nuclear weapons. That is not true but that's been, those claims are made, even by this Administration. The idea that we have two carrier battle groups currently in the region and in fact I just saw today, Admiral Walsh, one of the big guys in the Navy said that we're very concerned about what Iran is doing even more so than Al Qaeda. So there, all the signs are there that we are being, we're going to wake up one morning soon, very soon, and we will be at war with Iran. We will have bombed them in some sort of shock and awe campaign destroying many lives and setting back US relations even further than we've already done it with Iraq.
JOSH SCHEER: I want to continue on Iran. You spent obviously many years in the military and you talk in those kind of terms that many people maybe not know about. Can we not just politically, and not just in the region, but can we support another war in another country? Right now we're in Afghanistan, we're in Iraq. Can we feasibly actually go into Iran, or is this going to be a shock and awe campaign?
KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: You know, I think the, one of the big reasons that Bush and Cheney think they can do Iran is that they believe, well, they're hearing from the Air Force and the Navy, two of the three main branches of our military, the two that have been left out of the glory of Iraq, you see. And those guys want a piece of the action, and so they're advertising to the Administration and publicly, I mean you can read it for yourself, the Air Force and the Navy have targets they believe they can overwhelmingly hit their targets, deep penetration, possibly nuclear weapons, I mean, nothing is off the table as Dick Cheney says "nothing is off the table." And the delivery of these weapons, whether they're conventional or nuclear will be naval and Air Force. They'll be Navy from the sea and Air Force form long range bombers and some of the bases that we have around the… so I don't think, certainly, I don't know, I'm not in the Army, wasn't in the Army, I was in the Air Force, I don't think the Army could support any type of invasion of Iran and they wouldn't' want to. I'm sure that they've, they've had enough with Iraq and our reserves are in terrible condition. We've got huge problems in the Army and in the Reserve system. So I don't think there's any intention to go into Iran, but simply to destroy it and to create havoc and disruption and humanitarian crisis and topple perhaps the government of Ahmadinejad. We want to topple that government. Yeah, we'll do it with bombs from a distance. I don't know if you call that shock and awe, we've been advertising it for a long, long time. It will not be a surprise to the Iranians if we do it.
Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile
Watch a selection of Wibbitz videos based on Truthdig stories:
Related Entries
New and Improved Comments
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
Join the conversation
Load Comments
By usrmodem, August 2, 2007 at 9:49 am Link to this comment
I guess that incursion in Iran will be before election.
By Jeanine Molloff, May 10, 2007 at 11:04 am Link to this comment
One item has been omitted from this discussion; the involvement of both Democrats and Republicans in this travesty of justice. From the Carter era; a doctrine was established which called for the use of the US military complex to 'secure' oil reserves through the world. Such a strategy included the obvious use of military force through contrived wars claiming to secure democracy to those in oil rich regions. Jimmy Carter solidified this policy as golden and it was dubbed the 'Carter Doctrine.' So much for peacemaking. Any policy makers from this period on—cannot claim ignorance on the topic. They were knowing accomplices, even if the crime was nothing more than a lie of omission. This policy actually traces back to the Nixon administration, but Carter elevated the policy to the level of dictated doctrine. The mainstream media acted as a de facto propaganda agency pushing the same tired old spin. If we the public, want to enact any meaningful change—we have to take these pols off the pedestal and analyze their past actions and level of involvement. We have to hold these pols accountable for their actions. No more sacred cows. Just the facts. Verifiable and honestly documented. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO THE TRUTH. IT'S TIME TO TAKE OUR DEMOCRACY BACK AND REESTABLISH THE BILL OF RIGHTS. IT'S TIME TO HOLD THESE POLITICAL THIEVES ACCOUNTABLE. FRANKLIN WAS RIGHT; THOSE WHO BELIEVE THEY MUST SURRENDER THEIR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN SECURITY—DESERVE NEITHER.
By allen, April 7, 2007 at 10:28 am Link to this comment
it's quite a revelation to skim thru these posts and notice nobody wonders if LtC K. knows what she's talking about./ secondly, it's a bit of a shock that most everybody assumes Iran will be nxt, which I seriously doubt, & finally if all this energy were devoted to securing Israel's future, calming the Palestinians, etc. it would be a hopeful sign. But the fervor to eagerly want a war which isn't v. likely, is sobering.
By Bukko in Australia, April 6, 2007 at 1:06 am Link to this comment
Steve, I think you're looking in a mirror… But you're doing a heckuva job, Burnie!
By Steve Burnie, April 3, 2007 at 2:36 am Link to this comment
You people are idiots
By paul kibble, March 27, 2007 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment
Comment #60761 by Joe:
GIVE WAR A CHANCE? That line worked for P.J. O'Rourke but sounds a little hollow coming from a keyboard commando willing to put everyone's ass but his own on the line. Anyway, MISSION AACCOMPLISHED, since I believe that thing over in Iraq—-the name may ring a bell—-sort of qualifies as a "war" and after four+ years of constantly re-choreographed "cakewalks" to victory and thousands of bodies, there are some rumors (not all of them from lefty wingnuts) that things aren't going quite as hoped ("as planned" would be the wrong phrase to apply to the Screwup in Chief and his enablers).
Speaking of chance, or chances, most of us with at least a pair of active brain cells knew the odds of a peaceful scenario in a post-invasion Iraq were minimal, just as we know that the odds of a peaceful scenario—-globally, not just regionally—-of a peaceful scenario in a post-nuked Iran are nil. That's because there's something out there called "history" and if you pay it a little attention, you may occasionally learn something from it . But then, "invincible ignorance" is a phrase of John Gregory Dunne's I've had to use in this context before and, surprise, I've found another occasion to use it again.
By Joe, March 27, 2007 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment
War is hell, people die. we need to nuke Iran back to the stone age.
By marie2, March 27, 2007 at 9:51 am Link to this comment
I wish that our government would listen to us like Tony Blair's administration listened to the British people. We are no longer sold by their lies and we don't want to hear more that'll falsely place us in Iran. We would like to see our tax money directed to more imporatant issues that will actually benefit our foreign relations such as foreign aid for global poverty in Africa. In reality only .16% of our federal budget is spent on this important issue.
By Allen Thomas, March 26, 2007 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment
now retired, I once had a career with the Fed, twd the end a supervisor. So, a 'retired Air Force Lt. Col.' comes fwd with all kinds of inside stuff, I wonder how she reached such a pinnacle. Frankly, i'm taking her inside story with a pinch of salt. and we can watch for her book, 'blowing the lid off the inside workings of the Pentagon.'
By Arnold J. Robbins, March 25, 2007 at 4:26 pm Link to this comment
Correction to my last e-mail - I meant to type "Iraq" instead of "Iran" in a couple of places near the end of the e-mail. This is the corrected version:
Dear Senator (Insert Name Here) or
I never thought I would find myself writing a letter like this to you but after reading more and more news reports about what is happening in Iraq and hearing rumblings that the Bush Administration is quietly preparing to bomb and/or provoke Iran into war, I have no other choice but to ask for the immediate action of impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
I don't care how you do it or what you do, but the Iraq war is a complete failure and a complete sham. The United States government, under the direction of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton to build four US Army mega bases in Iraq [i.e., See the DVD "Why We Fight" and the February 27th, 2007, interview with Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (retired) at ]http://www.truthdig.com.]
The intent is for the US to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq for the next 20 to 30 years. It doesn't matter who is elected to run the government of Iraq - Shiite, Sunni or a combination of the two. The US government, specifically the Bush Administration and the Pentagon, have no intent in handing these bases over to the Iraqi government regardless of who is in power or whether the Iraqi situation stabilizes in the near future.
The Bush Administration went into Iraq not because of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and not to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein or because they really believed that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda. These were all just excuses to rally the American people to war. The Bush Administration invaded Iraq to establish a permanent US military presence in the Middle East and to have a strategic position from which to more easily strike out against Iran and other nations in the Middle East considered a direct threat to America or a direct threat to the stability of oil supplies in the region.
For what other reason have we, the United State's taxpayers paid for four permanent US mega bases in Iraq? Now it all makes sense. The Bush Administration manipulated intelligence data to support the invasion of Iraq or if they encountered intelligence information contrary to their desire to invade Iraq they either ignored it or tried to character assassinate the people who were raising red flags (i.e., the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson to discredit Joseph Wilson's report that there was no credible evidence to support that the nation of Niger was trying to sell yellow-cake uranium to Iraq so that Iraq could manufacture nuclear bombs.).
There is only one option left and it must be completed as soon as possible:
Arnold J. Robbins
By Arnold J. Robbins, March 25, 2007 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment
A letter I just mailed to my political representatives. Feel free to copy and paste and make it your own!!! It all makes sense to me now and it is the most disgusting lie I have ever been witness to in my entire life!!!
Dear Senator (Insert Name Here) or
I never thought I would find myself writing a letter like this to you but after reading more and more news reports about what is happening in Iraq and hearing rumblings that the Bush Administration is quietly preparing to bomb and/or provoke Iran into war, I have no other choice but to ask for the immediate action of impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
I don't care how you do it or what you do, but the Iraq war is a complete failure and a complete sham. The United States government, under the direction of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton to build four US Army mega bases in Iraq [i.e., See the DVD "Why We Fight" and the February 27th, 2007, interview with Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (retired) at ]http://www.truthdig.com.]
The intent is for the US to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq for the next 20 to 30 years. It doesn't matter who is elected to run the government of Iraq - Shiite, Sunni or a combination of the two. The US government, specifically the Bush Administration and the Pentagon, have no intent in handing these bases over to the Iraqi government regardless of who is in power or whether the Iraqi situation stabilizes in the near future.
The Bush Administration went into Iraq not because of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and not to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein or because they really believed that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda. These were all just excuses to rally the American people to war. The Bush Administration invaded Iraq to establish a permanent US military presence in the Middle East and to have a strategic position from which to more easily strike out against Iran and other nation in the Middle East considered a direct threat to America or a direct threat to the stability of oil supplies in the region.
For what other reason have we, the United State's taxpayers paid for four permanent US mega bases in Iraq? Now it all makes sense. The Bush Administration manipulated intelligence data to support the invasion of Iraq or if they encountered intelligence information contrary to their desire to invade Iraq they either ignored it or tried to character assassinate the people who were raising red flags (i.e., the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson to discredit Joseph Wilson's report that there was no credible evidence to support that the nation of Niger was trying to sell yellow-cake uranium to Iran so that Iran could manufacture nuclear bombs.).
There is only one option left and it must be completed as soon as possible:
Arnold J. Robbins
By SxyPaula, March 25, 2007 at 2:52 am Link to this comment
Why would George Bush want to go to war with Iran when there is so much soldiers getting killed in Iraq, It will just be a waste of taxpayers dollars at the expense of a war that makes no sense. What do he intend to get from going to war with Iran? I think it's nonsense.
By Bukko in Australia, March 23, 2007 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment
Thank you, Crystal. I agree that everyone should read what Ritter is saying. He was right about Iraq, and he will be right about Iran. The fact that some of these close-minded people are coming to TruthDig, even if it's just to disagree, is hopeful. If they read the truth, some of it is likely to infiltrate their minds. They are easily led, and the facts presented here might lead them to sensibility.
The insults of people who screen-name themselves after childrens' toys don't upset me, because I work with screaming, antagonistic demented people in hospital every week. And when I was in the U.S. I worked as a nurse in the Florida state prison system, where I had people who had actually murdered other people yelling that they would murder me. (Part of the intimidation tactics prisoners use, but they were on the other side of the steel bars, so I was not bothered.) Insults just mean that someone has gotten under their skin.
By Crystal, March 23, 2007 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment
Wow GI JOE… you need to listen to Scott Ritter speak. If you think that an ex-marine, ex- UN weapons inspector and ex-employee of the CIA is full of crap about nuclear proliferation needing to end, than you have an interestingly closed mind, in a very dangerous way for the rest of us Americans. It's too bad.
By GI JOE, March 20, 2007 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment
No Bukko of Australia, you NEED to zip your ignorant trap.
By Bukko in Australia, March 20, 2007 at 12:53 am Link to this comment
Looks like this thread was linked to an AIPAC site. GI/Jew, part of me wants you to get your wish, so you can see what would happen if Israel unleashed nuclear genocide on Iran. That would be Israel's death, and you would be say "We're SO sorry! We never expected that!"
Except I don't want to see the rest of the world turn on Israel and let all the Jews there be slaughtered. I spent the summer of 1980 on Kibbutz Sha'ar Ha-golan, so lots of my sweat and a little blood (nicked myself with a machete chopping banana leaves in the fields one morning) is in the soil of Eretz Israel. Plus, you blind ideologues never admit you're wrong, even when you get what you wish for and it blows up in your face. Like the war in Iraq.
Do you have any conception of how the world works? Do you realise that nuclear war isn't some neat-o computer game with flashy graphics on a screen and no fallout—literally and figuratively—in the real world? I'm a nurse. I'm in the life business. I've seen too many people die in front of me to think it's amusing to wish for mega-death. My take is that you haven't lived very long, or seen much of the world, so you have no idea of what you're talking about. I suggest you shut up until you grow up.
By Caribbean Cruises, March 19, 2007 at 4:30 am Link to this comment
Buy Your next cruise from us! Tired of all the EMPTY extravagant claims online? Cruise specialists with every major cruise line. Carribean, Caribbean, Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Alaska, Mediterranean Cruises-all at discount rates!
By Bill Blackolive, March 18, 2007 at 8:53 am Link to this comment
By Big Al, March 18, 2007 at 3:46 am Link to this comment
This could not be more urgent.
Dawn Hoagland (Comment #59147) stated the situation so perfectly well and plainly that I can only repeat her post:
"The only solution to stopping this impending war with Iran is a double impeachment NOW. Dick Cheney and George Bush will not listen to reason. They are positioned to start another war and THEY WILL DO IT. We cant give them the benefit of the doubt. We cant trust them to do the right thing. We cant believe their lies again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Stop this escalation against Iran NOW. IMPEACH CHENEY AND BUSH! Impeachment cant be taken off the table. The Articles of Impeachment are outlined in our Constitution for just such a reason. Our founding fathers had the forsight to predict such a situation. They understood that power corrupts. It is our duty as citizens of the United States to fight against all enemies of our Constitution, foreign or domestic. Right now there is no greater threat to our civil liberties and the existence of the U.S. as we know it than Dick Cheney. Impeach this war profiteer and torturer. Call congress."
By A Jew, March 17, 2007 at 10:03 pm Link to this comment
Bukko in Australia:
By GI JOE, March 17, 2007 at 9:52 pm Link to this comment
Bukko of Australia:
If Israel tactically nuked Iran's "ATOMIC FACILITY PLANT" the world would do nothing about it.
By Dawn Hoagland, March 17, 2007 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment
The only solution to stopping this impending war with Iran is a double impeachment NOW. Dick Cheney and George Bush will not listen to reason. They are positioned to start another war and THEY WILL DO IT. We can't give them the benefit of the doubt. We can't trust them to do the right thing. We can't believe their lies again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Stop this escalation against Iran NOW. IMPEACH CHENEY AND BUSH! Impeachment can't be taken off the table. The Articles of Impeachment are outlined in our Constitution for just such a reason. Our founding fathers had the forsight to predict such a situation. They understood that power corrupts. It is our duty as citizens of the United States to fight against all enemies of our Constitution, foreign or domestic. Right now there is no greater threat to our civil liberties and the existence of the U.S. as we know it than Dick Cheney. Impeach this war profiteer and torturer. Call congress.
By Bill Blackolive, March 17, 2007 at 10:05 am Link to this comment
Michael Moore, all this above is fun without one has the fear I do, in that there is a 9/11 cover up, which, if ever openly looked at by somebody with your name, would start to clear brush. Simply because the official physics don't work, you know it. Any boyscout can see it. Very many people in and out of government know it, but, their or your fear is to speak, wherein, mine is to not speak. Hey, think, you. Run and hide in Canada or abroad but go honest.
By Max von Schuler-Kobayashi, March 13, 2007 at 8:42 pm Link to this comment
America is already defeated in Iraq, the world knows it. I have lived in Japan for the past 32 yearrs, Since the Iraq invasion, the reputation of America has plummeted. Now, the Japan/America alliance is cracking. America pressured Japan to give up oil filed development in Iran. So Japan is talking to Russia. Japan is negotiating a security deal with Australia, America is not invited. Blowback. That old argument to stay in losing war so that America does not look bad is not correct.
America already looks quite bad, believe me.
It is time to show that the USA is a mature country, and to at least quit making the same mistake over and over again. So pull out of Iraq.
As for some of the comments about Israel, I have seen some signs that some Israeli's understand that dangers that PM Olmert has led them into. There is movement in Israel to enter talks with Syria, all to the good.
I think Israel is going to have to do a South African style accomadation with the Palestinians in order to survive. After their serious defeat in Lebanon last summer, purely military solutions are no longer viable for Israel.
And yes, Israel was quite involved in the planning for the Iraq war and a potential war against Iran with political moves of influence inside the United States.
This has a strong potential for backfire, as more Americans become aware of this. And the US is Israel's only backer. I think the Israeli's over-played their hand.
By Robert Noval, March 13, 2007 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment
Bukko says "Al, I cant believe Israel would be stupid enough to bomb Iran…" Probably not, but they're probably crazy enough.
I would say that the question of whether the U.S. or Israel actually does the bombing is almost moot.
Remember the egomaniaical moron in the White House. Do you guys think he's capable of NOT using "nucular" weapons while he still can? (Assuming he leaves office at the end of the current term, something about which I have grave doubts).
Be that as it may, over the sixty-odd years since nuclear weapons were actually used, a taboo against them has EVOLVED. I emphasize evolved; a generally accepted state of affairs amoungst the world populace, aside from any formalized treaty, such as NPT or SORT.
But the bush gang, led by Cheney, insists ALL options are "on the table". To be taken seriously, they MUST violate and over turn this taboo.
The "they won't do it because it's just too horrible" argument just doesn't wash. These people spend human lives with the nonchalance you employ sending pocket change.
Iran is the perfect target. Israel's sworn enemy, they've seen their influence expanded as Washington, for reasons of their own, have attacked Iran's other enemies. Most notably, Saddam Hussein. This worries not only Washington, but Israel and Saudi Arabia as well.
Whatever the direct impact or immediate consequences, those, combined with the certification of the willingness to employ them, assures us witness to a nuclear weapons assault on Iran. Possibly by Israel, more likely by Washington.
—-The Bikemessenger
By Robert Noval, March 13, 2007 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment
In response to Roy Oetting:
Calling people "thimble brains" hardly lends pursuasion to your arguments. Col. Kwiakowski is a much better writer than she is a speaker, perhaps you should try reading some of her writings before casting your sexist dispersions.
You should consider not allowing the bush cabal, whom you claim to despise, but who's arguments you support, to define the issues for you.
There is no weakness exhibited in admission of wrong; nor in swift and orderly withdrawal, when continued occupation would still be feaseable, although ill-advised.
The war against Iraq, based on lies, motivated by megalomania, religious fanaticism, and fascist corporate profiteering has cost The U.S. all respect on a global scale.
Everyone fears the U.S., while laughing sardonically behind our backs. The only way to regain respect is to admit wrong and withdraw.
—-The Bikemessenger
By Roy Oetting, March 13, 2007 at 7:11 am Link to this comment
Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, pretty but not to bright. You all sound like a bunch of thimble brains.
By Big Al, March 13, 2007 at 5:39 am Link to this comment
Bukko writes:
"Al, I cant believe Israel would be stupid enough to bomb Iran."
Bukko: I still think the Israelis won't bomb Iran.
Why should they, when they have enough political clout in the US Congress and White House to force the US to do it?
But you cannot possibly doubt that Israel wants this done. The Israel Lobby and the neocons have long been loudly demanding that this be done. They want it done yesterday.
By Bukko in Australia, March 12, 2007 at 8:30 pm Link to this comment
Al, I can't believe Israel would be stupid enough to bomb Iran. Not only would that set off the same conflagration of Iranian anti-ship missiles blockading oil tankers from the Straits of Hormuz and worldwide terror attacks as a U.S. attack would, but it would bring a shitstorm directly onto Israel itself.
And the Israelis know that nothing short of nuclear weapons would do lasting harm to Iranian nuclear facilities. They're dug in deep enough that anything less would be like a BB gun against a rhinoceros. If Israel nuked Iran, it would become a hunted outlaw nation in the eyes of the rest of the world (except for the U.S., of course.) No matter how strong they might be against their disorganised neighbours, the Israelis know they cannot stand against the entire world.
No, only President Cheney would be insane enough to attack Iran. Jury's still out on that one…
By Big Al, March 12, 2007 at 4:52 am Link to this comment
One poster asks: "What if America asks Israel to do the deed?" [that is, bomb Iran]
If Israel agrees to bomb Iran, it will not be a matter of Israel doing the US a favor. It will be a matter of Israel, after being begged by its poor overextended American servants, to please take on at least SOME of the burden of this new war for Israel's benefit.
Because "the deed" is 100% for Israel's benefit and no one else's.
Perhaps Israel might be ready to say to us, "OK, OK - maybe we'll do the EASY part - bombing Iran (with the US paying for the whole thing, of course). But America has to do the hard part (i.e., everything else, including dealing with all the horrible consequences, and sending massively increased 'aid' to Israel so that Israel doesn't have to deal with ANY consequences, including economic ones).
And we Americans are supposed to be grateful for this "favor" from Israel? They can go to hell.
By DeanOR, March 11, 2007 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment
I came to this article late (by eons in internet time) but wanted to say how impressed I am by Karen Kwiatkowski. She is truth-telling, bright, and courageous. Thanks for interviewing her! Her truth needs to be known. It is pretty much what I have heard from others and have surmised, but I was still stunned by the brazenness of the way she and her colleagues were muzzled. What a disgrace.
By shepherd, March 11, 2007 at 9:58 am Link to this comment
Comment #57674 by Max von Schuler-Kobayashi on 3/09 at 3:44 pm
"Bukko is quite right about the fight to the sea if America attacks Iran. The supply routes for the US troops in Iraq are virtually unguarded from Kuwait to Baghdad, and they will be quickly closed. Already supply convoys have been reduced from 8 daily to 5 daily due to security problems."
What if America asks Israel to do the deed?
TONY JONES: "Now Martin Indigt, the former senior Clinton official has suggested to us [Lateline] that military strikes on Iranian facilities could effectively be 'subcontracted out' to Israel?"
Transcript: Tony Jones speaks to John Bolton
RealPlayer video clip:
WMP video clip:
By Bukko in Australia, March 10, 2007 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment
Yes, Bob, although the citizens here are against the war, Howard is doing the same thing as Bush—sending MORE troops! Another 70 are going as "trainers." So far, Aussies have kept out of combat and suffered only one soldier's death—a guy who plugged himself in the head in his barracks whilst playing with his rifle. And they do manage to kill civilians, including a Hispanic guy from San Antonio who was working as a garbage truck driver for KBR and went to make a pick-up at the Aussie embassy and didn't announce himself properly, so he got machine-gunned. How's that for a twisted waste of life—Mexican guy working for Americans in Iraq, getting killed by Australians?
By Bob Zimmerman, March 10, 2007 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment
Comment #57328 by Bukko in Australia on 3/08 at 6:36 am
Glad to hear that Australian citizens are not behind this war, unlike their Cheney look-alike PM. That guy is clueless like our VP. Fortunately, the public opinion tide against this war and President Bush will force Congress to do something concrete for a change. We don't need another non-binding resolution. We need our troops back home for a long r&r. Then we should go to Afghanistan and finish up the job there, and bring back Osama dead or alive. I just hope the U.S. can survive another two years of King George W.
By Big Al, March 10, 2007 at 6:44 am Link to this comment
What Kwiatkowski tells us is the same as what Scott Ritter and Brent Scowcroft and others are telling us: a US war against Iran is insanely contrary to our national interests, by any conceivable standard - yet such a war is what Israel fanatically demands.
The Israelis DO NOT CARE about the fact that this would be an apocalyptic disaster for the United States of America that would dwarf the Iraq fiasco by comparison.
If the Israeli right wing and their US lobbyists, media megaphones, and "think tank experts" didn't want this, all talk of such a catastrophic "option" would be "off the table" in about two seconds.
By Robert Noval, March 9, 2007 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment
In re.: #57484 by Rob on 3/08 at 7:31 pm :
Right on, Rob!
Talk about hypocrisy, once the towel-heads get their precious "democracy" shoved down their throats by the Pentagon, they'd better be damned careful what they do with it. Just ask the Palestinians.
History shows that the current conflict was INITIATED by western powers. That fact defines the nature of the conflict.
It is ever incumbent upon the initiators, or their heirs, to end the conflict by ceasing hostilities.
How ever many generations the conflict may last, that does not change. The candy asses, as you so aptly characterize them, posture western imperialist powers as the "victims". History tells the opposite tale.
It's time to expose the war-mongers for what they are; guilt-ridden cowards who would exterminate their victims, bogus "self-defense" as the rationalization. This to avoid facing their own responsibilities for initiating and maintaining the conflict.
—-The Bikemessenger
By Max von Schuler-Kobayashi, March 9, 2007 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment
Bukko is quite right about the fight to the sea if America attacks Iran. The supply routes for the US troops in Iraq are virtually unguarded from Kuwait to Baghdad, and they will be quickly closed. Already supply convoys have been reduced from 8 daily to 5 daily due to security problems.
Why do you think the British are leaving? If America goes for Iran, they don't want to lose their boys at Basra airport. (they no longer dare to go into Basra city itself.)
I am a former US Marine. One the US Marine Corps legends is the fight to the sea from the mnountains of North Korea in the Korean war. Every cook and clerk and driver fought as a rifleman to get out.
Well, in these days, such support personnel are no longer US troops, but third world civilians employed by Halliburton.
I have seen published totals like something of 120,000 for such "private contracters" in Iraq.
If the US forces are forced to retreat, they cannot be depended upon, they are likely to panic and disintergrate.
This unreliability of support personnel raise my estimate of American losses in a retreat to the sea to something like 50%.
America is trapped.
By Glenda Harris, March 9, 2007 at 12:59 pm Link to this comment
This was quite an interesting interview. It is a great relief to find someone who is not afraid to speak her mind. I learned quite a bit from this interview. James Harris you make me proud.
By Rob, March 8, 2007 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment
Ya just gotta love those bleeding heart, neo "candy ass" cons who love muslims sooooo much they want to bring democracy to them.
Yet their always whining about muslims being warmongers who want to take over the world? Oh the hypocrisy…
...illogical thinking, double standards, ethnocentrism and dogmatism!
Watching neo "candy ass" cons is like watching lovable losers in an absurdist comedy. lol
By Jeff Badura, March 8, 2007 at 8:13 am Link to this comment
A illgramaticus correction for Comment #57245 = I said "there is a revolution, a civil war going on between the monorails and dictators and the radical Islamics"
I meant to say= "there is a revolution, a civil war, going on between the monarchies and dictators, and the radical Islamics"
sorry if i confused anyone ??? a spell check error slipped by me !! i dont call myself IllGramaticus for nothing !!
By Bukko in Australia, March 8, 2007 at 7:36 am Link to this comment
Good perspectives from Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, although she sure is weak on fine points. She doesn't know the exact date that Gulf War II started (March 20, 2003) or Jay Garner's name or what Jimmy Carter won a Nobel Peace Prize for? When people are that ignorant of easy specifics, it makes it harder for me to believe their larger points.
Kwiatkowski and some posters mentioned Scott Ritter. They didn't go into much detail about the ABSOLUTE DISASTER Ritter forecasts if President Cheney attacks Iran. This will bring about the downfall of the current pattern of world civilisation.
* A Shiite uprising against U.S. troops and supply lines will kill thousands of American soldiers and force them to fight their way OUT of Iraq. Iran has had plenty of time to organise this with their co-religionists inside Iraq.
In short, if the Bush Crime Family is foolhardy enough to attack Iran, it's the end of the world as we know it. I've read rumours that Army generals are threatening to quit if the attack order is given. However, what Kwiatkowski says about the Air Force and Navy wanting to get into the "glory" makes it seem likely that there will be a few flyboys willing to set loose the jets of war, and then it's full-on.
Mates, I'm glad I emigrated to Australia. That's how I avoid paying taxes for America's killing machine. Crime Minister Howard has placed Aussie troops in Iraq, but the population is solidly against the occupation. If there's a wider war, it will cause the overthrow of his Parliamentary majority. And I can think of worse places to ride out the conflagration than a relatively self-sufficient, geographically isolated place like this.
Good luck, my no-longer fellow Americans (except for you idiot war-wishers—JOIN THE ARMY IF YOU'RE SO KEEN ON DEATH, NITWITS!). You're going to need it. And don't forget the worldwide day of protest March 17. At least you can say you went down fighting…
By jeff Badura, March 7, 2007 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment
About Comment #56993 by August West
August, i would agree with you that for most of the 20th century our national security priorities were to keep markets open !!(and defeat Fascism-WW II and then Communism-WW III) but then after 9/11 some of us learned that placating dictators for a false temporary security is just passing trouble onto the next generation!! (not me, i was a neocon before we were named such)
Iran is next !! they openly support terror and believe in Jihad as the governments goal !! they chant "death to the USA " on every possible opportunity !! that means you August!! there will be no peace with Iran's current government in power if the war doesn't start tomorrow? then it will be in yrs to come !! but there will be war !! we will start with strategic bombing, and hope that's enough (as in Serbia) and if that doesn't work ?? another invasion is sure to come within the next decade !! so the people of Iran will be pissed at us?? the UN will be pissed at us?? but in the end our grandchildren and Iran's and Iraq's Grandchildren will have a better world !!
and Bush's bust will carved into Mt. Rushmore ha ha ha ha
illgramaticus Knee o'Kaun
By Robert Noval, March 7, 2007 at 11:37 am Link to this comment
In re.: #57150 by Mike Roberts on 3/07 at 8:17 am
In the first case, she refers to our current, no going military action.
In the second, she refers to our strategic employment of the bases, presumable to be continued in perpetuity even after the "withdrawal" from Iraq's currrent domestic strife.
—-The Bikemessenger
By Max von Schuler-Kobayashi, March 7, 2007 at 10:43 am Link to this comment
As far as maintaning those four mega bases in Iraq, I don't believe it possible. It is getting more and more difficult to run supply convoys from Kuwait into Iraq, eventually they will be forced to cease.
Then everything the US troops eat and shoot must be flown in. America will not have the capacity to permanetly airlift enough supplies to maintain the garrisons. Also, without control of the ground around those mega bases, the potential for Iraqi anti American forces to install Anti Air missles is too large to ignore.
If America cannot control Iraq, America cannot maintain the bases. Karen is a former Air Force officer, I am surprised that she does not realize this.
By Mike Roberts, March 7, 2007 at 9:17 am Link to this comment
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect in Col Kwiatkowski's assesments. Near the beginning, when talking about Blair's decision to pull out of Iraq, she guesses the Brit's are leaving because they don't want to be there after our next president gets our guys out of there. But then, at about the 20:00 mark, she says we'll probably be there for another 20 years regardless of which party controls the White House in '08.
Can somebody reconcile these two things for me please?
By shepherd, March 6, 2007 at 10:55 pm Link to this comment
Comment #57002 by matias on 3/06 at 12:46 pm
"...effort against a tiny group of fanatics, instead became a massive mechanized monster that eats money and lives…all the while not doing what it set out to do, which was, to GET BIN LADEN!!!"
Have another look at Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11; he covers it very well; it's certainly worth the price of admission. The Bush admin never had any true intention of "getting [or catching] bin Laden" from the start. All rhetoric [empty] from cowboy Bush to appease the American people and its allies; two days after 9/11 bin Laden's family members allowed to scarper back to the Middle East without the FBI even allowed to question them, after the worst atrocity on US soil in its history, (well, excluding Pearl Harbor).
Consider also Robin Hordon's "inside job" claims for 9/11, if you already haven't. And how come 60 Minutes, or Frontline haven't picked Hordon's claims up yet? (Or is Hordon 'whacko' too? We live in a whacked-out world, and have for some time…)
Matias: "But, this country is now headed for multiple trillions of dollars spent for decades to come. Our wounded soldiers health care is going to be a large part of the expense. And those mega-bases will still be there after the last of the Gulf War II soldiers dies of old age."
Kwiatkowski attributes this following quote to either Bremer or his predecessor, Jay Garner: "... and the American people need to get with this program, we will be in Iraq like we were in the Philippines for anywhere from 20 to 30 more years."
See section 6 of Moore's 9/11: "He [Bush] proposed cutting $1.3 billion in veterans health care and closing seven veterans hospitals [Okay, it came under the banner of "restructure the Department of Veterans Affairs."]. [But] He tried to double the prescription drug costs for veterans and opposed full benefits for part time reservist[s]."
Maybe why bin Laden was never seriously hounded, given a decent head start immediately in the aftermath of 9/11 had/has something to do with: "Saudis have $860 billion dollars invested in America."
In all, at least $1.46 billion…made its way from the Saudis to the House of Bush and its allied companies and institutions. Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud, p. 200.
By Bea Trayed, March 6, 2007 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment
"This apparently is Bin Ladens specialty…getting superpowers to self-destruct from within. Perhaps the CIA taught him this when he was on the payroll, Im not sure? For whatever reason, hes gone a long way toward fracturing the financial foundation of this country. The idiotic and surreal expenditures of taxpayers hard earned money is playing right into that bastards hands! What should have been a smart, determined and cost effective international law enforcement effort against a tiny group of fanatics, instead became a massive mechanized monster that eats money and lives…all the while not doing what it set out to do, which was, to GET BIN LADEN!!!"
By matias, March 6, 2007 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment
Well, some definitely off-topic comments, but many of interest. Seems there's a bit of the whacko's here as well, so I won't go on to far.
This courageous woman's comments underlined a single reality that should be self-evident. We went to Iraq to build impenetrable super-bases, from which further "adventures" in the middle east can be launched. Greg Palast had said in an article from awhile ago, that it was about keeping the oil IN the ground, not getting it out, which I thought was pretty sagacious. I think that is part of what's going on, but Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski's comments on the mega-bases in Iraq brings it all into focus.
For the war lovers who might read this, try to recall one seemingly obvious fact (perhaps not so obvious?). The former Soviet Union was not brought down by Saint Ronald, it was brought down by the Afghani's who held the soviets off long enough to collapse their financial superstructure. CIA helped, but the Afghan's have a long history of absorbing punishment from, and then defeating, foreign invaders. Russia's economy was in tatters anyway, from decades of the cold war competition, but Afghanistan was the straw that broke that particular camel's back.
This apparently is Bin Laden's specialty…getting superpowers to self-destruct from within. Perhaps the CIA taught him this when he was on the payroll, I'm not sure? For whatever reason, he's gone a long way toward fracturing the financial foundation of this country. The idiotic and surreal expenditures of taxpayers hard earned money is playing right into that bastard's hands! What should have been a smart, determined and cost effective international law enforcement effort against a tiny group of fanatics, instead became a massive mechanized monster that eats money and lives…all the while not doing what it set out to do, which was, to GET BIN LADEN!!! We loosed the dogs of war to chase a ghost! And how do you fail to capture a nearly 7 foot tall muslim with diabetes, with over a hundred thousand soldiers in the field, and an unknown number of special forces and CIA out looking for him?!?!? I suspect it's because he was never intended to be caught…until it serves a political purpose of course, like Zarqawi.
But, this country is now headed for multiple trillions of dollars spent for decades to come. Our wounded soldier's health care is going to be a large part of the expense. And those mega-bases will still be there after the last of the Gulf War II soldiers dies of old age.
By August West, March 6, 2007 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment
Re Comment #56882 by Jeff Badura on 3/05 at 3:40 pm
You're right, Jeff, the left will probably never be in power absent a complete economic meltdown that is not probable for the foreseeable future. That is a function of money. The corporations and well-heeled have the money to invest in both media ownership (newspapers, television, radio) to frame the public discourse, as well as the the money to invest in electing and lobbying members of congress. Advertising is a powerful tool to get people to vote against their own interests.
Also, be careful what you wish for. Do you have any idea the threat to our national security that a democratic Saudi Arabia would pose? Most of the 9-11 suiciders hijackers were schooled in Saudi madrassas. How about a democratically elected government in Pakistan? You really want a militant Islamic government with nuclear weapons?
The fact is, our foreign policy is not geared toward spreading freedom, but opening, securing and protecting markets for corporate interests. Has been for a century ande a half. Try reading "War is a Racket" by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler. Here's the link: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
By shepherd, March 6, 2007 at 9:37 am Link to this comment
Comment #56505 by sheepdog on 3/03 at 7:42 am
"Tongue in cheek I hope on the Churchill 'Finest Hour' speech. Churchill made no reference to Republican policies."
You're dead right, no Repubs mentioned.
Snippet: "If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.' "
But um, checking "Causes of the Great Depression"...
"The Roaring Twenties were an era dominated by Republican presidents: Warren Harding (1920-1923), Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933). Under their conservative economic philosophy of laissez-faire ("leave it alone"), markets were allowed to operate without government interference. Taxes and regulation were slashed dramatically, monopolies were allowed to form, and inequality of wealth and income reached record levels. The country was on the conservative's preferred gold standard, and the Federal Reserve was not allowed to significantly change the money supply."
"The fact that the Great Depression began in 1929, then, on 'the Republicans' watch,' is a great embarrassment to conservative economists. Many try to blame the worsening of the Depression on Hoover, for supposedly betraying the laissez-faire ideology. ... however, almost all of Hoover's government action occurred during his last year in office, long after the worst of the Depression had hit. In fact, he was voted out of office for doing 'too little too late.' The only notable exception to his earlier idleness was the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930, ..."
Source: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Causes.htm#events
By the way, the reference to "Tim" I made is taken from "On January 31, 2007 - 8:19pm Tim said:" at this link:
Tim also says, which I happen to agree with, "A huge clean up of Rooseveltian proportions awaits the next Democratic president," also from the TpmCafe blog link above.
By Big Al, March 6, 2007 at 6:12 am Link to this comment
I need to make a small correction, concerning the publication date of the Robert Dreyfuss article to which I earlier referred:
The article appeared in the The Nation in July 2003, not 2004.
The article described how Ariel Sharon set up, in his own office, a special unit tasked with cooking up fake "intelligence" to be used to drag America into war against Iraq.
This unit was set up outside of Mossad, because even the Mossad had too much ethical pride to sign on to this garbage, which was funneled straight to the Pentagon's "Office of Special Plans", which fed directly it to our idiot emporor.
By Robert Noval, March 6, 2007 at 12:03 am Link to this comment
In Resp. Comment #56845
I do not "blame" FDR's socialist "tendencies" for the "cause" of WWII. I liken socialism to agressive war, as they are both founded on the same flaw in the social structure; that which allows the inappropriate application of the coercive power of government.
And he did not merely have socialist "tendencies", he implimented a complete, comprehensive makeover of the United States from the constitutional republic it was into the government-dominated Orwellian mess we experience today.
Once socialism takes hold, militaristic imperialism soon follows. The two are complimentary manifestations of authority run amok.
"the Treaty of Versailles in time, helped put Hitler in power…" Correct, but without Wilson's entry of the U.S. into a war that was NONE OF OUR DAMNED BUSINESS, instead of the humiliations and deprivations imposed upon Germany by Versailles, most likely, a stable compromise would have accrued.
Instead, the prostrate and miserable Germany lay fertile ground for the likes of Hitler.
Thank you for visiting http://www.smallgov.org/ Yes, I believe in approaching issues from an initially noncommital position, gathering information from a variety of sources, then applying the most rigorous logic I can manage to arrive at conclusions. Or, as you would put it, "if so Im sorry (I'm)lost !!"
It is not slander to point out that the "Commander'n Chimp" committed deliberate and willful acts of fraud to deceive the nation into an illegal act of agressive war. This draft-dodging, cowardly little punk came in determined to wage war against Iraq, more than one reliable journalist will attest to that.
KWIATKOWSKI's testimony is only one small piece of the puzzle; equally damning, the testimonies of Tyler Drummheller, David Kay, Paul O'Neil. The IAEA'S assessment of the Niger forgeries, along with Joe Wilson's findings. And of course, the documents that really let the cat out of the bag, THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS.
Far from "slander", for which I would be Liable, my case is voluminous, comprehensive, and damningly conclusive; ALL a matter of public record.
You say: "all that does is helps the enemy ??" Why do you presume we share a common enemy?
As I pointed out to your friend, Tammy, your attitude makes all people of conscience your enemy.
"Blaming the USA for all the worlds ills is another, saying that Bush went to war for profit is another slanderous wrong statement !!"
I do not "blame"; rather, I assign responsiblity. The USA is to be HELD RESPONSIBLE for the nafarious acts of it's rogue government. We are ALL morally obliged to speak out against it.
That the profits of the likes of Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed-martin, etc., were an important factor in the invasion of Iraq would be difficult to deny. But the fundamental drive is lust for power; the same motivation for FDR's Social Security boondoggle.
"...and once the war has been voted on by the leaders than is time to all pitch in to win the war!!"
Moral issues by damned!! My country right or wrong!!
Once bush puts his fraud over, it's too late. Those of us "naive" enough to invoke conscience had better "do our part" and shut up. What a crock; sanctinonious anti-moralizing.
Our White House is currently occupied by a fascist war criminal, who has been quoted more than once complaining that his job would be easier if "this were a dictatorship",and calls our Constitution just a "Goddam piece of paper" http://www.smallgov.org/?p=181
Lest I be accused of just "running my mouth", so to speak, I take my message out into the street every day:
BTW, Jeff smallgov is a libertarian site. Feel free to add your opinion confident that we practice what we preach.
—-The Bikemessenger
By susan28, March 5, 2007 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment
Comment #56445 by D Johnson:
"She worked for NSA. They want Iran to be very very concerned of our potential releckness against them. Think about it. Makes negotiating in the region much easier if it appears this stuff is leaking out. Trust me it doesnt."
that had crossed my mind as well.. dunno about freaking out Iran, since the MM is already beating those drums, but i was asking myself, "hmmm, how would big brother benefit from this being publicised". i mean, the things she's saying about the Constitution being trashed and Bush being a threat to the common folk is preaching to the choir. if they really viewed her comments as damaging she'd prolly be dead from some 'accident' by now.. who knows maybe she's just trying to infiltrate dissent groups.
or the old limited-hangout, "admitting" to what we already know to back us off the scent of the deeper agenda.. let's talk about maintaining the dollar as the prime exchange currency, preventing petrodollars from becoming petroeuros, that sort of thing..
i'll still listen to what she has to say but what that we're dealing with "domesticated creatures" (HokaHey, sweetness..), especially of the governmental variety, you can't have too much salt on hand..
By Jeff Badura, March 5, 2007 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment
in reply to Comment #56831 by August West on 3/05 at 11:30 am
August, i don't want to indiscriminately "kick ass" and kill on a massive scale!! actually i want to prevent such horrors like that from happening "a ounce of prevention, instead of a pound of cure"!! and if attacked like on 9/11 i believe in a robust response, to make sure we don't get attacked again "slap me once, shame on you, slap me twice, shame on me"
the lefties love to point out how all of the current world problems are to be blamed on the USA?? well we aren't to blame for all like WW II but we are partially to blame for what happened to the world afterwords!! our mighty dollar makes the world go round, and its a very complex problem that cant be explained in one post!! but we do have a huge responsibility to the rest of the world, what did Uncle Owen say ??? "with great power, comes great responsibility" how profound !!
yes, i do believe we "the USA" should export freedom worldwide!! yes, i do believe we "the USA " has a responsibility to the subjugated peoples around the world in the Middle-East, in N.Korea and in Sudan and any place else were mankind is enslaved by dictators !! they call people like me a Neocon !!! you guys call us "Nazis" but so be it !! for instance? if I'm walking down the street and see a guy stomping the life out of another guy? i call 911, and then go over and intervene, even if i get hurt in the process!! were as many in these part believe they should look the other way and not get involved!! its just a different "responsible" way of looking at the world !!!
if you recall in the above mentioned story or audio, Karen even mentioned us and called us well-intentioned or naive neocons or somin like that? so she was partly wrong? but at least she knows were out for the worlds best interests in our hearts?? and we are!! or atleast i am!!
you say that we Neocons are in the minority?? but August, who is in power?? you lefties never will be!! ha ha ha ha ha!! if your upset at Bush?? just wait till McCain is your Commander and Chief ha ha ha ha you ain't seen nuttin yet!!
illgramaticus knee o'kaun
By email@example.com, March 5, 2007 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment
Quit paying taxes, how is this suficient,
By Jeff Badura, March 5, 2007 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment
in response too Comment #56762 by Robert Noval !!!
blaming Roosevelt's socialist tendencies after the great depression for the cause of WW II is ridicules ?? i know its fashionable to blame all the world ills on the USA in these parts? but that my friend, is just plain wrong !! the "Treaty of Versailles" in time, helped put Hitler in power, and i think he had something to do with the war in Europe ?? and i think the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, had something to do with the war in the orient ?? so what ever your deluded Anti American professor says is mute !!! I went to your web-site http://www.smallgov.org/ ??? come on Robert ??? do you really believe that stuff ??? if so I'm sorry your lost !!
as far as treason is concerned ? look!! i have no problem with constructive thoughtful criticism of the war or it progress?? but slandering the Commander and Chief, or the Troops or the Mission with groundless accusations and lies is "Treason" !!( (like your site) all that does is helps the enemy ?? We are not only fighting a war with bullets, we are doing it with words too !! if you read the posts here you will see the most outlandish statements made !! Calling our government Nazis is a perfect example !! Blaming the USA for all the worlds ills is another, saying that Bush went to war for profit is another slanderous "wrong" statement !!
just because those in the "nut-roots" love to believe all this Anti American propaganda does not not make it true !! and once the war has been voted on by the leaders than is time to all pitch in to win the war!! since the 60's our country has embraced "treason" as patriotism and has slandered Patriots as Jingoistic boobs ??, and here we are called Nazis ( that's treasonous slander) If you root for the downfall of your own country, in war time, you are committing Treason !! like it or not ?? but then the truth always hurts !!
illgramaticus knee o'kaun
By August West, March 5, 2007 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment
Re Comment #56395 by Jeff Badura on 3/02 at 3:14 pm
I understand you better now. By admitting the possible truth of what you call "propoganda" but which rational peoplecall "facts," you have demonstrated a profound disregard for the rule of law and condone the lies that were used to justify war to the public so long as the Decider and his handlers kick ass. I don't think too many people share your world view that the United States should dominate the world militarily and eliminate the threat of Islamic exstremists by killing on a massive scale. But that's just you.
By Robert Noval, March 4, 2007 at 10:12 pm Link to this comment
In re.: comment #56658 by Jeff Badura:
"i think Im in love ??? thank you Tammy for speaking truth to the ignorant !!"
So you like the "speaking truth to the ignorant"? Ok, try this on for size. You ask, (#56393) "what about WW II ???"
Richard M. Ebeling,Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College explains WWII:
"With the coming of the New Deal in 1933, following the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt, America was subjected to its own brand of economic fascism, as the government imposed comprehensive controls and regulations on practically every aspect of economic life…
"The problem, however, was that most Americans did not want to be either the world's policeman or its global social engineer.
But Roosevelt had made up his mind about what was good for America and its citizenry…The evidence of this is so strong that both pro- and anti-Roosevelt historians admit the fact that he violated constitutional restraints and broke congressionally passed neutrality acts to create conditions inevitably leading to America's entry into the Second World War.
The only foreign policy in a free society is for the government to protect its citizens from foreign aggression in the form of threats to the territorial integrity of the nation. All other matters are personal and private affairs of the people. If some in the United States believe that the people of another country deserve assistance from oppression, then they as private citizens are free to volunteer to fight for freedom in that other nation."
So WWII can be summed up as Iraq prequel.It's current popularity and acceptance notwithstanding…
Or, "...if you disparage the troops the Commander and Chief or the mission in a time of war? you are by definition, committing treason…"
General Wesley Clark begs to differ: "When I went to Vietnam… there were people in the streets. They had a right to express their disagreement with the war, and millions did…people had a right to protest…and I knew in Vietnam I was fighting for that right. How dare this administration make the charge that if you disagree with it's policies, you are somehow unpatriotic!"
As does another Vietnam veteran, Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col.,USAF, ret., (in regards the troops in Iraq): "The truth is, they are not over there protecting our freedoms. Our freedoms are not under attack from Saddam Hussein…Our freedoms are under attack by John Ashcroft. They are threatened by John Piondexter. They are trampled by Donald Rumsfeld. They are disdained by Dick Cheney. The battle to preserve our freedoms is not taking place in Baghdad…It's taking place in…New York City…and in Melbourne, Florida.
Mr.Badura, THE TRAITOR HERE IS YOU. It is you who advocate the unquestioning alliegance to authority, at a time when every citizen's duty is to scrutinize all the more acutely.
The ideals you express are the most alien possible to those who wrote the sacred documents upon which this nation was founded. And can only elicit revulsion in the hearts of true lovers of freedom.
—-The Bikemessenger
By jason, March 4, 2007 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment
Karen Kwiatkowski is a very brave person. I wish there were more like her
By Big Al, March 4, 2007 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment
Opines "Geof":
"Oh, and the anti-zionist debate here is just absurd. We may be overly friendly/protective with regards to Israel, but to say that it was the main impetus for Iraq is just stupid."
No, Geof. Your real problem is that we just aren't as stupid as you wish we were.
Do you think nobody's heard of the papers our nominally "American" neocons such as Perle and Wurmser wrote for Netanyahu, like the 1996 "Clean Break" paper, followed by the "Coping with Crumbling States" paper?
Do you think that none of us knows how Netanyahu demured on the plan, deciding that this grand series of wars to destroy all of Israel's regional rivals (murdering millions in the process) was too much for Israel to tackle, however laudable the basic idea?
And do you think that nobody knows how these same disloyal Americans then dressed the scheme up in new, red-white-and-blue garb as the "Project for a New American Century," and sold it to psychotic Dick Cheney in 1997?
Do you think we haven't read Robert Dreyfuss's July 2004 article in The Nation describing how Feith's Office of Special Plans had a precise counterpart in the Office of Ariel Sharon, both working to cook up the lies that led America to war against Iraq, initiating the Project?
Here's the Dreyfuss article:
"According to the former official, also feeding information to the Office of Special Plans was a secret, rump unit established last year in the office of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel. This unit ... prepared intelligence reports on Iraq in English (not Hebrew) and forwarded them to the Office of Special Plans. It was created in Sharon's office, not inside Israel's Mossad intelligence service, because the Mossad—which prides itself on extreme professionalism—had views closer to the CIA's, not the Pentagon's, on Iraq. This secretive unit, and not the Mossad, may well have been the source of the forged documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake uranium for weapons from Niger in West Africa, according to the former official."
By Moe Hare, March 4, 2007 at 4:56 pm Link to this comment
If not, then it is time to militarily eliminate that regime before they become too powerful with nuclear weapons.
Jeff Loves Tammy; well, what do these two loved birds propose-a nuclear attack on: Iran; Syria; Lebanon; North Korea and why stop there, there are probably lots of other countries that we can nuke; oh, the hell with it, lets just kill the whole f_ _ kin world.
By Ray, March 4, 2007 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment
Great interview! It's truly sad that this type of interview never has the opportunity to see the light of day in the mainstream. To stay on top of things and to get the 'real' story you have to stay connected. I hope and pray that she is wrong as I know she hopes so too, but too many indicators point to the next step in the neo-con conquest being fulfilled, we are truly a nation in peril…and we as Americans often wonder why 65 yrs ago a civilized society could embrace a leader and henchmen to do their bidding so willingly? Well, take a good look…it's happening right before our eyes.
By Karen, March 4, 2007 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment
Congress needs to be reminded that We The People want an end to war, not more wars.
On Saturday, March 17 there will be marches and rallies around the country. Go to http://www.unitedforpeace.org to find one in your area.
If you are near Walnut Creek, California, come to the Walnut Creek BART station at 11:00 AM and march with us! http://www.StarveWarFeedPeace.org
By Jeff Badura, March 4, 2007 at 10:16 am Link to this comment
some knee o'kaun rebuttals for you guys !!
Comment #56326 by chris says- I hope that the American people will wake up and realize that every war they have fought in the last century is just part of a grand plan that involves the destruction of America."
Comment #56311 by Eleanore Kjellberg says- "Terrorism to the extent that it is a crime, shouldve been treated like a crime, but instead we made it a war.
Comment #56281 by Tammy says "Just look at Hitler and other infamous men of the past who murdered millions of people. It was the same type of pacifist liberal mentality that allowed them to carry out their plans of world domination. President Bush did the Iraqi people and the world a favor getting rid of Sadaam Hussein and his regime. Now he has Iran crapping in their pants and maybe they will come to their senses through peaceful means. If not, then it is time to militarily eliminate that regime before they become too powerful with nuclear weapons."
By Kwagmyre, March 4, 2007 at 10:15 am Link to this comment
Post #56589 by Geoff:
"We may be overly friendly/protective with regards to Israel, but to say that it was the main impetus for Iraq is just stupid."
That is quite correct, yet Israel counts on us to a great degree for protection whether this be the $3+ billion dollar annual assistance or leading the fight to keep Iran at bay. In fact if it knew for certain that we wouldn't be too thrilled with their own invasion of Iran, they'd go right away and do that.
By Love, March 4, 2007 at 1:25 am Link to this comment
At least if we made peace among the world religions it would take away the religious excuse these war mongers now have to rape and pillage.
By Geoff, March 3, 2007 at 7:54 pm Link to this comment
The only thing worse than this woman's ineptitude with the english language is her ridiculous and uninformed claims. I am a liberal, but this is just another example of the absurd leftist claims that conservatives can latch onto as proof of liberals' aloofness and stupidity.
I cannot believe you guys can read this and not want to bang your head against the wall. Most of you are worse sheep than you claim most Americans are.
None of you seem to understand the nature of neo-conservatism, which is part of the problem with your understanding of this administration. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc. are all neo-cons. Bush is not. Read Richard Clarke's book if you really want to get what is going on insided the administration.
Oh, and the anti-zionist debate here is just absurd. We may be overly friendly/protective with regards to Israel, but to say that it was the main impetus for Iraq is just stupid.
By Uncle Sam, March 3, 2007 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment
Your IP address will be referred to the IRS for proper action. It is hoped that you have sufficient funds for back taxes and penalties.
By j. dilligaf, March 3, 2007 at 2:31 pm Link to this comment
Just so you know, G.W. WON both elections, you dick. WAH WAH WAH go buy some carbon off sets. I have to get into my gas guzzler so I can chop down some more trees.
By Ray, March 3, 2007 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment
This really comes as no surprise, all you really have to do is pay attention to the troop deployments and some of the "catch-phrases" In Bush's last public addresses to know they want to go in the direction of Iran it's just a question of time.
By Jazzmon1951, March 3, 2007 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment
I recently talked with an individual that feels the current administration purposely ignored the warning signs leading up to 9-11. I agree. The purpose for this was to allow something to happen inside the US so that "war" could be declared. There's no one more powerful than a president at war; that person can basically do whatever they want. The middle east is not only a major source of oil but also a controversal part of the world when it comes to religion. The religious right in this country believes that "Christianity" is the chosen belief, that it is the end all and be all of "Good". I believe that their influence on politicts and president Bush's born again outlook has allowed an unbalanced influence to take control of our political system. Essentially, the US is going to protect the holy land for the second coming of "Christ". What if they are wrong, what if there is no second coming, what if only making our life here on earth one of goodness is all that there is, what if all this leads to the destruction of mankind, period! Not a comforting thought.
By Big Al, March 3, 2007 at 10:05 am Link to this comment
Regarding Comment #56451 by Miraa:
Miraa is all apanic. She sees that she and her Israel-centric friends are losing their power to smear people and shut them up, guaranteeing that Americans will continue meekly giving Israel whatever it demands, including fighting wars that Israel wants.
Look, Miraa - you people really blew what was left of your cover when you started screaming that Jimmy Carter is an "anti-Semite". That kind of thing makes even your most docile American dupes start to wonder what ELSE the Israel lobby is full of shit about—like Iran, for instance.
By sheepdog, March 3, 2007 at 8:42 am Link to this comment
RE: #56455, shepherd
Tongue in cheek I hope on the Churchill "Finest Hour" speech. Churchill made no reference to Republican policies.
Two links follow, one from BBC, and one from the Churchill archives hosted at Library of Congress.
Transcript and a link to the original broadcast
By Llad12, March 3, 2007 at 4:10 am Link to this comment
Isn't about time our government stopped it's crusades under the guise of Wilsonian idealism? America's blatant aggressive militarism runs counter to our founder's beliefs and threatens, not only to other nations, but our republic itself.
By Robert Noval, March 3, 2007 at 1:25 am Link to this comment
In Response to #56281 Tammy:
"She is just another one of those employees of the military that has no understanding of the need to get rid of brutal dictators and their regimes."
Really? And where does your "understanding" come from? Would you care to explain how if we needed to "get rid" of brutal dictators, we helped maintain Saddam in power and assisted him in his war against Iran?
"Just look at Hitler and other infamous men of the past who murdered millions of people."
How about taking a look at the U.S. installed "brutal dictators", such as the Shah of Iran, or Pinochet in Chile? The world is full of dictators allied with or receiving aid from Washington
"President Bush did the Iraqi people and the world a favor getting rid of Sadaam Hussein…"
Over 600,000 deaths in Iraq over and above what is projected had the U.S. not invaded. Recent polls show the majority of Iraqis believe they were better off under Saddam. Iraq leads the world in refugees and internally displaced.
It's hard to tell which exceeds which; your arrogance or your ignorance.
"Now he has Iran crapping in their pants and maybe they will come to their senses through peaceful means."
I don't know where you're looking that you see anyone "crapping in their pants"(perhaps your own lavatory). All I see, even in the MSM coming out of Iran is a defiance akin to that which made this country's revolutionary war a success.
"If not, then it is time to militarily eliminate that regime before they become too powerful with nuclear weapons."
It's time you and the criminal regime in Washington got put in your place. It's time real patriots to stand up to the likes of you and say enough meddling in the affairs of other countries. Who the hell are you to tell other societies what "regimes" they may allow themselves to be governed by?
Your reaction to the Palestinian elections exposes your hypocritical "spreading democracy" crap.
"Screw Scheer and her for their cowardly behavior and uninformed views of what needs to be done to get rid of evil in this world."
You despicable war mongers are the real cowards. You think your enemies are the innocent people you send the U.S. military to assault in far away lands. But the kind of evil you promote makes an enemy for you of anyone with a conscience.
Terrorism is the weapon of war of those who cannot afford tanks and helicopters. You are not threatened, except by those against whom you initiated conflict; none of that threat eminates from Iran, but apparently, you're determined to change that. And what evidence do you have that Iran is "looking to develope nuclear weapons"? That that brainless little draft-dodger in the White House says so?
Madam, you are a pathetic and dispicable embarrassment. There is an objective truth, not subject of human election. If you have any humanity left, use it to seek that truth.
—-The Bikemessenger
By shepherd, March 2, 2007 at 11:37 pm Link to this comment
Here's a bit more, which also includes a small video clip:
"Kwiatkowski told Four Corners of Hardcastle's treatment when he refused to talk up the Iraq threat to foreign officials."
Seems we have a bunch of con artists and mass murderers in the White House at present, led by an arrogant swaggering 'cowboy' asshole in every sense of the word. So the sooner Al Gore and the Democrats get elected, the better the chance for peace and prosperity for all worldwide.
So don't be assholes yourselves, and be sure to vote "Democrats" in '08, otherwise the mass slaughter of innocent civilians worldwide and the destruction of their cities and towns continues unabated under the criminal Repugs. Keep in mind what Churchill said in his "Finest Hour" speech, something along the lines of "Republican policies in the 1920s nearly lead directly to a new dark age in the 1940s." (Thanks Tim, courtesy of TPMCAFE.) So vote wisely folks; then you won't have to moan and groan so vociferously on here.
By nate, March 2, 2007 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment
I love all these people yelling for americans to "wake up" and realize what are president is doing. Of course we see what our president is doing, the mans a lunatic that managed to rig 2 elections and conduct an illegal war while avoiding impeachment.
By discog, March 2, 2007 at 10:21 pm Link to this comment
Karen Kwiatkowski has a lot of studying to do before she'd get a passing grade at 911 University:
By Miraa, March 2, 2007 at 10:15 pm Link to this comment
This blog obviously is attractive to a bunch of America-hating, anti-semitic (see all the anti-Jew and Israel talk here) trolls.
The audience snapshot is enough to discount any content that might be published here.
By D Johnson, March 2, 2007 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment
She worked for NSA. They want Iran to be very very concerned of our potential releckness against them. Think about it. Makes negotiating in the region much easier if it appears this stuff is leaking out. Trust me it doesn't.
By J, March 2, 2007 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment
TYPO ON PAGE 3. James Harris said "let's say somebody takes office in '08" (not "await")
JAMES HARRIS: Were there to stay in the sense that even, lets say somebody takes office in await, do you think that were gonna be occupying those bases still?
By syd nohcud, March 2, 2007 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment
Its the elders of zion all over again.
By michael k, March 2, 2007 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment
By edgar galt, March 2, 2007 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment
Loved the interview- have a question. Has anyone ever discussed the ramifications of Saddham coming out and saying he was really just faking and he had no WMD's?
By Kwagmyre, March 2, 2007 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment
#56326 by Chris:
"so called neo-conservatives who are just trotskyist jews in disguise. Bill Kristol, David Frum, Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams and others are members of the Project for the New American Century"
Actually, Feith isn't Jewish AFAIK but you left out two of the REAL biggies(Wolfowitz and Perle)both having been dyed-in-the-wool Zionists from early on.
By Ed Davis, March 2, 2007 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment
Ms.Kwiatkowski's very informed and educated insights about our seemingly inevetible military actions against Iran are really scary,to say the least,and her assessment of the evil trio of Perle,Wolfowitz and Feith are on the money,in my opinion.Is it true that all three of these men hold dual citizenships,pledging allegiance to both the U.S.and Israel?
By Terry Sloth, March 2, 2007 at 5:03 pm Link to this comment
Fantasy is so much easier to accept than reality and that is why Americans prefer to bury their brains in reality TV; rather than becoming cognizant of the real dangers that surround them:
The stories in the major media suggest that an attack against Iran is a real possibility and that the Natanz nuclear development site is the number one target. As the above quotes from two of our best sources note, military experts say that conventional "bunker-busters" such as the GBU-28 might be able to destroy the Natanz facility, especially with repeated bombings. On the other hand, they also say such iterated use of conventional weapons might not work, e.g., if the rock and earth above the facility becomes liquefied. On that supposition, a "low yield" "tactical" nuclear weapon, say, the B61-11, might be needed.
If the Bush administration, for example, were to insist on a sure "success," then the "attack" would constitute nuclear war. The words in boldface are nuclear war, that's right, nuclear war - a first strike nuclear war.
p.s. See the DVD "Why We Fight."
By Jeff Badura, March 2, 2007 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment
in regards to the Comment #56203 by August West??
illgramaticus knee o'kaun
By Jeff Badura, March 2, 2007 at 4:09 pm Link to this comment
some knee o'kaun rebuttals for you guys !!
Comment #56326 by chris says- I hope that the American people will wake up and realize that every war they have fought in the last century is just part of a grand plan that involves the destruction of America."
Comment #56311 by Eleanore Kjellberg says- "Terrorism to the extent that it is a crime, shouldve been treated like a crime, but instead we made it a war.
Comment #56281 by Tammy says "Just look at Hitler and other infamous men of the past who murdered millions of people. It was the same type of pacifist liberal mentality that allowed them to carry out their plans of world domination. President Bush did the Iraqi people and the world a favor getting rid of Sadaam Hussein and his regime. Now he has Iran crapping in their pants and maybe they will come to their senses through peaceful means. If not, then it is time to militarily eliminate that regime before they become too powerful with nuclear weapons."
Comment #56272 by Michael Hipple says "I have stopped paying taxes and I will not pay taxes until I see some leadership that respects the US constitution. Bush and crew are fascists. We are no different right now than those folks in Germany as Hitler took control of their lives."
Comment #56252 by republicanSScareme says- "I will continue to call Republicans Nazis until they stop calling Democrats traitors."
illgramaticus knee o'kaun
By david, March 2, 2007 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment
to my understanding, a day will come when the human race will no more excist. A day when the universe will be a peacefull place without the human race.
By nobodysacred, March 2, 2007 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment
I don't understand why America is aggressing, occupying, stealing, torturing, and endlessly oppressing people who oppose barbaric occupation of the illegitimate state of israel??
Why american taxpayers are supporting the "only democracy in the Middle East" with at least $5 billion a year? Why they don't revolt against their government and free it from zionist occupation?
As long as US is infiltrated by zionism there is no peace. We need a FREE US from zionism occupatin in order to have PEACE and JUSTICE in Palestine and the rest will follow (Iraq, Afghanistan, ......and all oppressed people will gain their rights)!
By Winston Smith, March 2, 2007 at 2:23 pm Link to this comment
I am ready to throw all the bums out myself, if we are still around in '08 and not wiped out due to our own arrogance.
By Chris Campbell, March 2, 2007 at 2:21 pm Link to this comment
Anyone ready for achange yet. 2008 could be a pivotal year-perhaps the last year that we have to change things civily.
By Robert Noval, March 2, 2007 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment
Great interview.
Don't agree with all the projections; but I certainly share all the concerns.
Hope you don't mind making room in your fox hole for this one atheist.
—-The Bikemessenger
By joneden, March 2, 2007 at 11:48 am Link to this comment
So we are fighting the Islamo fascist.
The just canceled bunker buster bomb test scheduled to be held at The Nevada Test Site was named "Divine Strake".
Are we Christo fascist?
By chris, March 2, 2007 at 11:31 am Link to this comment
Has anyone thought that a war against Iran is really just for Israel? This war in Iraq was planned and implemented by the so called "neo-conservatives" who are just trotskyist jews in disguise. Bill Kristol, David Frum, Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams and others are members of the Project for the New American Century, an extremist think tank that has continuously pushed for wars against middle eastern countries that stand in the way of Israel's hegemony over the entire oil rich arab nations. The coming war against Iran is just another step towards people in democratic countries completely losing their freedoms and pushing the world towards global government. The propaganda and lies against Russia are also part of this media campaign and is rather concerning to people like myself. We here in the west are conditioned to believe that President Putin is an "evil tyrant" who obviously poisoned Alexander Litvenko. Its all a bunch of rubbish and lies. I hate war and killing and I hope that the American people will wake up and realize that every war they have fought in the last century is just part of a grand plan that involves the destruction of America.
By Dale Headley, March 2, 2007 at 11:28 am Link to this comment
Isn't it about time for Americans to wake up and realize the truth about the Bush War? It was NEVER about anything but power and greed. The Bush Administration NEVER intended, and still does not intend -EVER - to leave Iraq. No matter what else happens, the Bush Administration aims to rape Iraq of every natural resource, even if it has to burn it to the gound (everything except the oil wells), kill every Iraqi, and start from scratch. Then comes Iran.
By gary woodburn, March 2, 2007 at 11:25 am Link to this comment
It is a shame that we have a "C" student in the white house, who knows little about foreign nations, and who is surrounded by "yes" men. Yet our president believes he is the one who makes the decision to go to war with Iran. I think we need to return to militias who report to state governments. States would not send their militias to a foreign war without state officials doing their homework.
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide


text:
You should say
* what kind of activity it is
* how often you do it
* whether you need company to do it
and explain why you enjoy doing it.
erm Reading is very enjoyable pastime. It is very popular in Russia as well it is very popular erm in my family. erm Almost every family, not except for my family, has a home library and traditionally literature and reading is very important subject in school education. I read quite a lot, erm mainly magazines, newspapers, reports and … articles. erm From beginning, I've tried setting aside an hour a day to .. to read during a day, but there are always interruptions. erm For me, the best place to read is … under the covers with my feet up .. and erm before I go to bed. I read actually every evening. erm Sometimes …it is bedtime when I'm too tired to read erm and the best thing for me is mornings and evenings. erm Sometimes I commute to work and the journey takes an hour. So I don't make calls on my mobile erm and I take a book and just enter a different world.
Fluency and Coherence
You maintain flow of speech and produce simple speech fluently. This corresponds to band 5. To score higher, you need to demonstrate that you are able to develop topics COHERENTLY, which requires that you use a RANGE of connectives and discourse markers.
Lexical Resource
You manage to talk on the topic, but you use vocabulary with limited flexibility, i.e. you hardly ever attempt paraphrase. This corresponds to band 4.5. Using "in other words" at least once would have got you a solid band 5.0. To get a higher score you need to do exactly what you are asked to do, i.e. you need to DESCRIBE what you are talking about so that the listener could visualize the scenes you are referring to. Another way to boost your lexical resource score is to give specific examples, e.g. you could have specified what periodicals and articles you read, and which books your prefer in terms of topics. You also have to make sure that you cover all the prompts. In your talk you do not say whether you need company to practise reading. Nor do you say WHY you enjoy reading. You do say that it is enjoyable, but you do not explain why it is so. There is also a problem with personalizing your talk. You are asked to describe an activity that YOU PERSONALLY enjoy doing. What you do is talk about reading in your country in general, and that is somewhat irrelevant and sounds like a talk on the importance of reading in Russia at first, which is slightly off topic.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
You produce basic sentence forms with reasonable accuracy, and use a limited range of more complex structures. That's band 5.0. To score higher, you need to demonstrate that you can use a RANGE of complex structures flexibly.
Mispronunciations are frequent and cause some difficulty for the listener. There are words that are mispronounced (e.g. literature, interruptions, library, feet), words that are incorrectly stressed (e.g. pastime, newspapers, bedtime), and pairs of words in which the wrong word is stressed (e.g. too tired). This is band 5, which can easily lapse into band 4 if you make too many pronunciation mistakes. Pronunciation practice is strongly recommended.
Fluency and Coherence
Lexical Resource
Grammatical Range and Accuracy

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Crystal Palace will step up plans to redevelop Selhurst Park into a 40,000-seater stadium after winning promotion to the Premier League.
Co-chairman Steve Parish, chief executive Phil Alexander and coach Ian Holloway were meeting today to discuss how much of their £120million windfall will be put towards the ground.
They were also beginning talks over transfer targets but Parish has told Standard Sport Palace will not spend recklessly this summer as they hope to copy the template by clubs such as Swansea for staying in the top flight.
Palace are back in the Premier League for the first time since 2005 but they will have one of the smallest capacities in the division of just 26,309.
The club, though, are looking at expanding Selhurst Park, having given up hope of redeveloping the site at Crystal Palace Park.
Parish said: "We want to create a lasting legacy for the club. We want to rebuild Selhurst — that is the most expedient thing.
"The club made representations to people about what we could do to help Crystal Palace Park. We felt a stadium there would have been hugely beneficial. But we were told there were many people who would object to anything happening there and they'd rather it be knocked down or fall into disrepair.
"We're focused on Selhurst and we're masters of our own destiny there. We have a lot of support from Croydon Council. We're looking at building a 35,000-40,000 seater, that's what you need to be viable in the Premier League. It's early days but winning promotion helps speed that work up a bit. We want it finished as soon as possible. Putting timescales on it is difficult because it's not entirely in your control.
"There is planning and all sorts of hurdles. We're working on redeveloping the ground a stand at a time and we've got Sainsbury's on the site so we've been discussing things with them. But I'd like to be doing something in the next couple of years. It is going to take a year to get planning but we will still do a bit over the summer where we can."
Parish is also keen to ensure they do not put the club's future at risk again by wasting a fortune on players to keep them in the top flight. They're interested in relatively cheap talent such as Peter Odemwingie, whose £3.5m move to Queens Park Rangers fell through in January, Tom Ince, a £6m target of Liverpool that month, and Tottenham's Jake Livermore, while still using the current squad and the Academy.
Parish was part of a consortium that helped save the Eagles from going bust three years ago and added: "We have to have a go but we have to be prudent. QPR aren't the only example [of spending a lot on transfers and still getting relegated].
"They're getting picked on at the moment but there are a lot of clubs who have spent too much in the Premier League and ended up regretting it.
"We are looking at teams like Norwich, Southampton and Swansea who have done a fantastic job up there. They are the blueprint of success that we will be looking at and trying to emulate.
"Today we will start work in earnest. I will sit down with Phil the chief executive and Ian to go through everything. We have got to be sensible. We're playing catch up with teams who have been in the Premier League for years.
"We have got to get the balance right. The plan is to add one or two signings, but we are going to stick with the blueprint that has stood us in good stead over the years and go with the bulk of the players that got us there.
"We were the bookies favourites to go down from the Championship this season and already the favourites to be relegated next season. But we will try to defy the odds again."
Meanwhile, Crystal Palace today agreed new two-year deals with Peter Ramage and Owen Garvan
- More about:
- Crystal Palace FC
- Premier League


text:
M52TU - DIY: (gains on a budget)
View Single Post
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12
My Ride: 2000 328Ci, E30 S50
View My Garage
Originally Posted by
Blocked Out
Get shrick cams 3.5" maf then go to Mark. You can expect 265bhp easily
Sent from my X10a using Bimmer App
If I were going to do Schricks, I'd do the 330 ones. The intake cam is all mild on the 328 setup and there is no good reason for it. That's a big part of why our cars are so lazy.
But if I were spending the money for that, I'd spend the money for an AA supercharger or a custom GT3788R setup and make power I could really brag about.
On our cars, i.e. the bastard stepchildren of the E46 generation, a full 330 exhaust, maybe a 330 intake cam, the M54 manifold and a tune to run it are all I would bother to do. Maybe if I thought there were a few more gains to be made I'd run the 330 MAF.
But at the end of the day, and that's not a cheap or easy day, we'd just be a destroked 330.
That's why I have an S50 E30.
BBS LM Reps | H&R Sport | CSL Bumper | Carbon GTR Hood | Carbon CSL Trunklid | BMW Performance Intake
View Public Profile
Find more threads by triggrhaapi
Find More Posts by triggrhaapi
Leave feedback for triggrhaapi (0)


text: The Acropoli Hotel is fabulously located within easy walking distance of one of Romes main shopping streets the Via Nazionale as well as being within easy reach of some of the capitals best sightseeing including the Quirinale Colosseum the Trevi Fountain and Spanish Steps. The property is steps away from Termini station which is the main rail metro and taxi station in Rome. This guarantees that clients staying at the Acropoli are perfectly connected to all parts of town. This unpretentious 2star hotel offers visitors good valueformoney accommodation and is a good starting point from where to explore the main attractions of Rome; staff are always on hand to give advice and suggestions where to make the most of a visit to Rome. Additionally guests will not find themselves short of a place to dine either for lunch or dinner as there is a wide range of restaurants on the hotels doorstep. Rooms are simply yet comfortably furnished and have private bathWC as well as central heating.