Bush Military Official: The Empire's Ship is Sinking

[Hesper]

There's a new interview up by Abby Martin in her show the Empire Files. She interviewed retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former national security advisor to the Reagan administration, who spent years as an assistant to Secretary of State Colin Powell during both Bush administrations.

When asked why he decided to come out after all these years of silence, retired Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson responds, "Torture. Torture...By the time I walked out of the State Department I was ready to find somebody and cut their throat... I can't stay silent anymore. I have to speak out."

He talks about the morphing of the war in the Middle east, the collapse of American Empire, and the unfixable corruption in the US. He's surprisingly and refreshingly honest, expresses a 'soul piercing' regret for his role in selling the Iraq War, and talks about the fact that the same excuses were used to try and topple Assad. The simple fact that he absolutely condemned torture, war crimes, and the administrations that authorize it made it a good watch.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...es" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Hesper]

Wilkerson has been rather vocal in the past as well.

Since his retirement from the public sector Wilkerson has on several occasions spoken out against what he perceives as the poor planning and execution of the Iraq War as well as the global politics leading up to and following it. In particular he has denounced the decision-making process of the Bush Administration and Vice President Dick Cheney's and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's parts in it.

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson

 

[Buddy]

When asked why he decided to come out after all these years of silence, retired Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson responds, "Torture. Torture...By the time I walked out of the State Department I was ready to find somebody and cut their throat... I can't stay silent anymore. I have to speak out."

Sorry about the cynical tone, but it seems curious that this 'torture' didn't become too much for him until after retirement.

Something similar occurs to me about Ron Paul and why he comes out only when it seems there's opportunity for him to have an effect somewhere, otherwise what's he doing, business as usual? To what end?

Most of all what I find curious is how anyone with a conscience or moral sense could even get involved in these occupations at this high a level and stay there while supposedly outraged to any degree for even short amounts of time. It just confuses the heck out of me and makes me think the whole lot of them are just as guilty as the worst of them.

 

[striveforselflessness]

Something similar occurs to me about Ron Paul and why he comes out only when it seems there's opportunity for him to have an effect somewhere, otherwise what's he doing, business as usual? To what end?

I find Ron Paul educational, in that I see that he does believe in what he says, including both the truth and the 'b.s.' With others in Congress I always had this suspicion that they were lying, or fake, and couldn't tell one way or the other whether they mean for people to take them seriously. The example of Ron Paul had convinced me that people of Congress are as ignorant as anyone, and do follow their own contradictory opinions and ideologies.

As for business as usual, I feel it not as important as what I say above but I guess in Paul's case that meant proposing bills and everyone else in congress rejecting it blindly. (Now he's retired and has his own show on youtube, by the way - I only saw two or three episodes) Mistaken assumptions about what he was 'up to' in Congress are probably similar to whatever people think Putin was up to in the KGB.

So to extend that back to this official, I guess he was trying to make his living or whatever, but he believes that it is wrong, but I don't know.

 

[David]

When asked why he decided to come out after all these years of silence, retired Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson responds, "Torture. Torture...By the time I walked out of the State Department I was ready to find somebody and cut their throat... I can't stay silent anymore. I have to speak out."

Sorry about the cynical tone, but it seems curious that this 'torture' didn't become too much for him until after retirement.

Something similar occurs to me about Ron Paul and why he comes out only when it seems there's opportunity for him to have an effect somewhere, otherwise what's he doing, business as usual? To what end?

Most of all what I find curious is how anyone with a conscience or moral sense could even get involved in these occupations at this high a level and stay there while supposedly outraged to any degree for even short amounts of time. It just confuses the heck out of me and makes me think the whole lot of them are just as guilty as the worst of them.

It seems to me, that when the retired Army Colonel is speaking throughout the interview he shows very little internal conflict, his head is moving in yes pattern (agreement) or near motionless, seemed the only time I see him in definite conflict, is with his answer as to why he came out, there’s more conflicting body language, head saying no. osit

Though I’m no expert, in body language, it just something that seems at odds with what he’s saying... like its not the whole truth.

I notice same with Obama when he tells a whopper of a lie, with sprinkle of truth.

Again I’m no expert, just an observation. Maybe I’m wrong

 

[Buddy]

I find Ron Paul educational, in that I see that he does believe in what he says, including both the truth and the 'b.s.' With others in Congress I always had this suspicion that they were lying, or fake, and couldn't tell one way or the other whether they mean for people to take them seriously. The example of Ron Paul had convinced me that people of Congress are as ignorant as anyone, and do follow their own contradictory opinions and ideologies.

As for business as usual, I feel it not as important as what I say above but I guess in Paul's case that meant proposing bills and everyone else in congress rejecting it blindly. (Now he's retired and has his own show on youtube, by the way - I only saw two or three episodes) Mistaken assumptions about what he was 'up to' in Congress are probably similar to whatever people think Putin was up to in the KGB.

Good point with the reference to Putin and the KGB. I was wondering that too!

I guess Ron Paul is ok, and I guess I could be satisfied to see him, along with other career politicians who may share his views but be less vocal and public about them, as simply placeholders to keep more ambitious politicos out of those chairs for awhile. Maybe it's just a matter of trying to make a living, to bide their time, so to speak, until they can retire. And maybe I expect too much because when they go public with their attempts to educate us about what's wrong, there just doesn't seem to be much anger in them that comes across as real, even though you'd think they'd be acutely aware that the people they are addressing should be mad as hell, too. I am aware of diplomatic training and its effects to mediate emotional expression, but these guys aren't trained diplomats...they're just career politicians, so I don't know.

So to extend that back to this official, I guess he was trying to make his living or whatever, but he believes that it is wrong, but I don't know.

Yeah, to bring this back to topic, I guess there's probably an important difference with a high-ranking military official. With those guys, I had been thinking more about how authoritarian followers make hypocrites of themselves when they rely on their external environment for their moral structure. I think Laura referred to it as "thinking with a forked brain" and goes on to talk about Andy Schmookler's perspective involving moral endo and exo skeletons.

Bottom line, I guess he does have the right to change his mind anytime and move to the side of right action; it's just hard to imagine that kind of flip happening to those so inured in the system. Easier for me to understand it when done by people relatively lower on the totem pole and who simply turn whistle-blower.

 

[latulipenoire]

I find Ron Paul educational, in that I see that he does believe in what he says, including both the truth and the 'b.s.' With others in Congress I always had this suspicion that they were lying, or fake, and couldn't tell one way or the other whether they mean for people to take them seriously. The example of Ron Paul had convinced me that people of Congress are as ignorant as anyone, and do follow their own contradictory opinions and ideologies.

As for business as usual, I feel it not as important as what I say above but I guess in Paul's case that meant proposing bills and everyone else in congress rejecting it blindly. (Now he's retired and has his own show on youtube, by the way - I only saw two or three episodes) Mistaken assumptions about what he was 'up to' in Congress are probably similar to whatever people think Putin was up to in the KGB.

So to extend that back to this official, I guess he was trying to make his living or whatever, but he believes that it is wrong, but I don't know.

What you wrote brought to my mind scenes of the movie Hannah Arendt and of Eichmann's trial portrayed there. The movie is based on Arendt's famous article, later expanded into a book called Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. To get to the point, I'll quote:

(...) In her epilogue, Arendt expands on the notion of the banality of evil: “Eichmann was not Iago and not MacBeth …Except for an extraordinary diligence in personal advancement, he had no motives at all…. He merely, to put it colloquially, never realized what he was doing….”

from http://www.hannaharendtcenter.org/?p=2541

Even if he didn't realize what he had done, he was still responsible for what he did, I guess. And maybe "not realizing" was his inertial and entropic choice at some point, his aligning with the STS path, his conscience-less way. Don't know if that is the case of Lawrence Wilkerson, for he too worked for the "evil forces" but he summarizes in the interview, IMO, the key aspects of the US economy, its policies and history leading to our current global situation and he seems to be against all this right now. But I agree with Buddy that it's hard to trust such a man who just out of the blue comes out and start exposing things and being apologetically, to say nothing about his share of responsibility being Colin Powell's pal for so long.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Hesper]

When asked why he decided to come out after all these years of silence, retired Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson responds, "Torture. Torture...By the time I walked out of the State Department I was ready to find somebody and cut their throat... I can't stay silent anymore. I have to speak out."

Sorry about the cynical tone, but it seems curious that this 'torture' didn't become too much for him until after retirement.

Something similar occurs to me about Ron Paul and why he comes out only when it seems there's opportunity for him to have an effect somewhere, otherwise what's he doing, business as usual? To what end?

Most of all what I find curious is how anyone with a conscience or moral sense could even get involved in these occupations at this high a level and stay there while supposedly outraged to any degree for even short amounts of time. It just confuses the heck out of me and makes me think the whole lot of them are just as guilty as the worst of them.

I agree, though I think that those levels probably involve a lot of 'looking over one's back' and knowing that the family can be endangered by one's actions. But maybe he doesn't have a conscience or a real moral sense, and is more of an authoritarian follower who couldn't be stripped of his authoritarian upbringing. Or maybe he's a vector, I don't think that can be ruled out. However, having high authority people speak out, with disgust, against torture is good in my book. It's that sadistic feeding on suffering that really seems to be at the core of this ponerized system we're living in. And it should be repudiated for the psychopathic filth that it is.

 

[Buddy]

However, having high authority people speak out, with disgust, against torture is good in my book. It's that sadistic feeding on suffering that really seems to be at the core of this ponerized system we're living in. And it should be repudiated for the psychopathic filth that it is.

I agree. I guess I kinda take it for granted that the act of drawing attention to maltreatment and abuse of others in any form and by anyone is a good thing in itself. Maybe what really bothers me is that continuing pattern of bringing atrocities to light, followed by...? Literally no one being held accountable and nothing being put in place to prevent it from happening again.

I also realize the difficulty here too. I suppose that all the visible figures in government are fully scapegoat-able anyway and no matter who we might point a finger at we won't get ultimate accountability while there is anyone in the shadows pushing things along the same old line.