Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (U.S.
Army-ret.) gave an interview to RT.com (Russia Today), published today,
headlined, "Former Powell Adviser 'Skeptical' of 'Politicized U.S.
Intelligence on Syria.'" In a series of eight sharp Q&A exchanges,
he denounced as "politicized intelligence" the charge that the Syrian
government will use chemical weapons; he warned that this is "preparing
the ground to intervene in Syria"; and he raised the prospect of
impeachment of President Obama.
Earlier this Fall, Colonel Wilkerson appeared on Capitol Hill, on a panel Sept. 21, with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), to discuss House Concurrent Resolution 107 (introduced by Jones in March 2012), which reasserts the power of Congress to declare war, and states that any President who circumvents Congress, unless the United States is attacked, will face an article of impeachment.
The following are excerpts from various answers by Wilkerson, on selected points in the interview:
Question: The rhetoric against Syria is similar to that against Iraq—
Wilkerson: "I would be highly skeptical of any of the intelligence rendered by the $140 billion-plus U.S. intelligence community as to weapons of mass destruction in possession of another country. Period.
"...We have known for years that Syria has chemical weapons stockpiles...the fact that President Assad will be moving them around and preparing for use against his own citizens within his own territory, I frankly find preposterous..."
Question: Implications of the U.S. intervening in Syria?
Wilkerson: "I think it will even be even worse than Iraq. I think, again, it will be as a backdoor into Iran, which as you know is the real threat that we have been putting out there for years now. And I think we're looking into Syria and Iran being a combination that we would then take on, and you're talking about a conflict that becomes regional and maybe even wider, because we've got Russia, we've got China, we've got other players..."
Question: Is there appetite among the American people for yet another military conflict?
Wilkerson: "Absolutely not, but I'm meeting with several Congressman at the end of the week, and that is next week, and we're going to talk about this very thing. For example about Libya, the way the Libyan operation was conducted without the consultation with the U.S. Congress at all. There are some Congressman that are so concerned about this that they're mentioning words like impeachment and so forth, because you're not supposed to take the American country to war without the permission of the Congress, the Constitution pretty much says that."
Question: What about intervening in Syria under a "humanitarian resolution," the way it was done in Libya?
Wilkerson: "Well, I would differ with that resolution in Libya. Libya still has enormous problems. We have a disconcerted Mali. We have the government being overthrown in Mali, we have al-Qaeda operating in the north of Mali — all of that is partially a result of what we did in Libya. So, I would be very hesitant to classify Libya as a success. Syria and Iran would be classified even less as a success in my view... let the Syrians settle the situation for the Syrians..."
Earlier this Fall, Colonel Wilkerson appeared on Capitol Hill, on a panel Sept. 21, with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), to discuss House Concurrent Resolution 107 (introduced by Jones in March 2012), which reasserts the power of Congress to declare war, and states that any President who circumvents Congress, unless the United States is attacked, will face an article of impeachment.
The following are excerpts from various answers by Wilkerson, on selected points in the interview:
Question: The rhetoric against Syria is similar to that against Iraq—
Wilkerson: "I would be highly skeptical of any of the intelligence rendered by the $140 billion-plus U.S. intelligence community as to weapons of mass destruction in possession of another country. Period.
"...We have known for years that Syria has chemical weapons stockpiles...the fact that President Assad will be moving them around and preparing for use against his own citizens within his own territory, I frankly find preposterous..."
Question: Implications of the U.S. intervening in Syria?
Wilkerson: "I think it will even be even worse than Iraq. I think, again, it will be as a backdoor into Iran, which as you know is the real threat that we have been putting out there for years now. And I think we're looking into Syria and Iran being a combination that we would then take on, and you're talking about a conflict that becomes regional and maybe even wider, because we've got Russia, we've got China, we've got other players..."
Question: Is there appetite among the American people for yet another military conflict?
Wilkerson: "Absolutely not, but I'm meeting with several Congressman at the end of the week, and that is next week, and we're going to talk about this very thing. For example about Libya, the way the Libyan operation was conducted without the consultation with the U.S. Congress at all. There are some Congressman that are so concerned about this that they're mentioning words like impeachment and so forth, because you're not supposed to take the American country to war without the permission of the Congress, the Constitution pretty much says that."
Question: What about intervening in Syria under a "humanitarian resolution," the way it was done in Libya?
Wilkerson: "Well, I would differ with that resolution in Libya. Libya still has enormous problems. We have a disconcerted Mali. We have the government being overthrown in Mali, we have al-Qaeda operating in the north of Mali — all of that is partially a result of what we did in Libya. So, I would be very hesitant to classify Libya as a success. Syria and Iran would be classified even less as a success in my view... let the Syrians settle the situation for the Syrians..."
No comments:
Post a Comment