Judging Freedom - Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: US Attributes Its Worst Sins to Others

Episode Date: February 27, 2024

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: US Attributes Its Worst Sins to OthersSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. WGU is an online accredited university that specializes in personalized learning. With courses available 24-7 and monthly start dates, you can earn your degree on your schedule. You may even be able to graduate sooner than you think by demonstrating mastery of the material you know. Make 2025 the year you focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, February 27th, 2024. Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski joins us now. Karen, a variety of other places, including lewrockwell.com, which is harshly critical of the State Department spokesperson and the nonsense that he often spews to the press and expects the rest of us to accept, not the least in Ukraine was unprovoked and Russia's actions are irrational.

Take him to pieces, Karen. Oh, my gosh. Yeah, I mean, the guy has no, he must have no pride and also no qualifications of employment at the State Department. Because, you know, the State Department hires intelligent people. They recruit people who can read and people who understand history and people who are interested in global affairs. This is the kind of person that comes into the State Department. So he has no excuse for basically directly lying on any number of issues. In fact, it's very hard to find out anything that they say that is even truthful.

So it's a shame. And I think more and more people are seeing through the kinds of direct lies that are being told from those podiums in Washington. He made a statement that was rather hurtful when he said the State Department cares for the safety and security of U.S. citizens. And then, of course, he launched into a tirade about how President Putin caused the death of Alexei Navalny. We now know from the head of Ukrainian intel, it's hard to believe that he would lie about this. He started out by saying, I'm sorry to inform you that your theories of the death of Alexei Navalny are not true.

He died of a blood clot. Nevertheless, what did the United States do for its American citizen, Gonzalo Lira? Mr. Kevin Miller, or whatever his first name is, I forget, Matthew Miller, I'm sorry, a spokesperson for the State Department. Yeah, I mean, they did nothing for Gonzalo. They were actually quite happy that he was shut down from blogging and from doing interviews and reporting. They didn't like, Washington, D.C. didn't like what Gonzalo was saying, so it was totally fine that he was shut down by the Ukrainian government. It didn't like Washington, D.C., didn't like what Gonzalo was saying. So it was totally fine that he was shut down by the Ukrainian government. It didn't matter that he was an

American citizen. It didn't matter that he was born in California. It didn't matter that he was a journalist. It didn't matter about any of this stuff. They were quite happy. So the State Department, I think, visited him maybe a couple of times and did nothing for him. And his father is a great witness here because his father worked or tried to work with the State Department repeatedly in a number of different ways to get some help for his son. And he got nothing. He got stung all day. stand up and complain about Navalny with no data, which now we find, oh, they actually bald-faced lied to the American people about what Navalny died of, using it as an opportunity to strike out at Putin again, just lying. And then to say, oh, we care about all these prisoners, these political prisoners, and we care about Americans everywhere. That is wrong. They don't. And you better watch out if you're an American and you're on the wrong side of Washington, D.C., and you get stuck somewhere around the world, because the State Department

is not going to help you unless you serve some purpose for the United States narrative. Here's a clip that'll get under your skin. That's why I'm running. I'm running because I want you to comment on it. But I know it'll get under your skin. It's Victoria Nuland, either yesterday or today, saying that Vladimir Putin bears responsibility for the death of Alexei Navalny and other nonsense from her. Cut number eight, Chris. Ukraine, as we saw in the news, has been forced to withdraw from Avdeyevka. Kharkiv, one of Ukraine's proudest eastern city, a Russian-speaking city, is bombarded daily in an

effort to disable it. And Ukraine's economy is still fragile, with almost 100% of tax revenues going to defense now. Vladimir Putin, in addition to planning anti-satellite weapons in space and bearing responsibility for the death of his most popular opponent, Alexei Navalny, thinks he can wait Ukraine out. And he thinks he can wait out all of us. We need to prove him wrong. Now, this is, of course, the princess or maybe the queen of neocons in America. Her whole family, her brother, her brother-in-law and all that are involved in all this. We know them, we know

what they do but this is a bald-faced deception Kharkiv is being bombed daily it is, by the Ukrainians because it's a Russian-speaking city in the part of

in an area that Russia says is part of, Russia and Ukraine says is part of Ukraine. This is just reprehensible. Yeah, it's reprehensible. And, you know, she of all people understands exactly the process that has gone on at least since 2014 and before because she was directly involved in it. She was directly involved in fomenting a coup, in the shooting and sniping that went on to cause the Medan massacre. She was part of this. Her cookies and her little handouts were a big part of it. So she knows exactly what is happening,

and she is directly, knowingly lying. And this actually is worse than possibly Matt Miller, who is nothing but a spokesman. You know, they tell him what to say. He's an idiot. He says what is. He puts on a good show. That's his job. She knows that she's lying.

She knows very well that she's lying. And she's promoting a narrative of war for some agenda that really is not clear because the idea that Russia is going to take over, you know, all of Europe or anything like that, that Russia is not responding to something very serious that we, the United States and NATO, were pushing in Ukraine, that the CIA was doing in Ukraine on their borders, okay, that this action by Russia was unprovoked. She knows very well it was provoked because she was the one provoking it. It's just amazing that anyone would believe her. I was curious to see if the CSIS crowd gave her appropriate applause for her statements. Who are the CSIS people? It's a think tank, the think tank in Washington.

And it is a neocon leaning. It used to not be, but it really is pro-war. I've never seen anything come out of CSIS that promotes peace. There are some individuals who have worked there, I think, who care about making things work in the world. But for the most part, it's a friendly audience. But even a friendly audience is not a stupid audience. And those people, I can't imagine that they enthusiastically applauded her, her lies. And that's what they are. And I think most of the rest of the world directly sees that. Here, here she is again, the same talk. And what she says at the end is a little terrifying, if you want to listen for it.

Putin faces some nasty surprises. Chris, cut number 10. With the $60 billion supplemental that the administration has requested of Congress, we can ensure that Ukraine not only survives, but she thrives. With this support in 2024, we can help ensure Ukraine can continue to fight, to build, to recover, and to reform. With this money, Ukraine will be able to fight back in the east, but it will also be able to accelerate the asymmetric warfare that has been most effective on the battlefield. And as I said in Kiev three weeks ago, this supplemental funding will ensure Putin faces some nasty surprises on the battlefield this year. I don't know if she knows what she's talking about. She is number two or three in the State Department. But the military equipment that would come from the $61 billion, even if the House were

to pass it tomorrow and the president were to sign it later in the day, A, is not going to get there for months. And B, this money is mainly going to go to the American military industrial complex to make equipment to replace the older stuff that we've sent there. We don't have anything to send them right away. She must know this, in which case she's being deceptive again, Karen. She has to know this. She knows this because Matt Miller reminded us, Matt Miller reminded us that 90 something percent of all of this money that we send to Ukraine actually goes to American companies. So, you know, they can't have it both ways. But I do believe the nasty surprises in part because I think they're already planned. And I think the operations of intelligence agencies of European countries,

certainly the CIA, I think you've got a very desperate Zelensky. So the idea that nasty surprises will happen, I think she has some insight there. I don't think it has anything to do with the $60 billion. I think this is pretty much what Ukraine is planning. And it's really the only thing that they can do. Asymmetric warfare is the only thing they can do because they've been entirely unsuccessful in any type of force on force, you know, combat with the Russian military. So, you know, she does know this. And I want to say another thing. It's kind of silly. Navalny, she said Navalny was his most popular, Putin's most popular opposition. I don't know if that's true or not, but Navalny polled 2% popularity.

I mean, 2% popularity, you're going to drop out of a political race if you have 2%. You will not run at 2% popularity. You're not even considered valid in this country if you have 2% popularity in the political arena. So that's what Navalny had as an opposition candidate. Now, certainly he's well-loved in Europe, well-loved in the West. He was a guy we put forward, certainly, and would have helped promote anything that he could do in Russia. But 2%, and he's the most popular, I mean, if she's, either she doesn't know this, or she doesn't care, because she figures nobody else knows it. I'll just, you know, I'll just say these things. But again, I think the neocons themselves are showing some desperation, because the audiences, even the friendly ones, like in CSIS, understand well that she's lying. And of course, the rest of us who actually look at the data

and the information understand well that she's lying. We also know the State Department in general lies. When's the last time the CIA told the truth? We know the government lies. We're pretty much on to them at this point. That doesn't mean we don't need to be concerned because they, like Zelensky, are in a losing position and they're a little bit desperate. And desperate neocons are dangerous neocons.

If they aren't dangerous at any time, they're certainly dangerous when they are seeing the end, seeing the loss of support, certainly seeing a very angry Donald Trump who actually knows what a neocon is now, after four years of working with him, possibly launching into office next year. So there is a sense of desperation in Washington, and perhaps her language is a part of that as much as it is the desperation in Ukraine. Here's President Zelensky over the weekend on CNN when asked about USAID made the Victoria Nuland, Matt Miller argument. Hey, most of the money, number three, Chris, most of the money stays, you can't believe this, but he says it, most of the money stays in the US. Do you still have faith in the U.S. Congress?

Well, I do have hopes for the Congress. I am sure there will be a positive decision, because otherwise it will leave me wondering what kind of world we are living in. Because of that, we do count on Congress' support. We do know we need their support within a month. I met leaders of both parties in different formats, and the president, those in power, those in opposition know it. They know that our request has been to get this assistance in a month.

They know that. As regards aerial defenses, we do know money will be left in the U.S. with companies producing the types of weapons we need. So let us. There you have it. Most of the money will be left in the U.S. producing the type of weapons that we need. Like I said, I mean, unless I'm totally mistaken in this, and we all have excellent sources, this $61 billion is not going to show up tomorrow. First of all, half of it is to tie the hands of the next president, whether it's Joe Biden or Donald Trump or whoever it may be.

So that's down to $30 billion. And then half of that is not going to get anywhere for a couple of months. And the other half is next year. So I don't know if these people even know what they're talking about. And if the $61 billion is just symbolic and somehow it's going to enhance the morale of the Ukrainian troops. They need human beings and they don't have human beings. I know they don't have ammo and I know they're running out of heavy duty equipment, but they need human beings more than anything else. And Zelensky needs his government employees paid. And that's about

the only thing that you could see happening rapidly, would be assuming the Congress approved some sort of money, that that money could flow and immediately fill the coffers of the people that need paychecks in Kiev, the people that need paychecks in the army. So I think Zelensky is not in a good place. Time is running out for him.

It's not about military aid. It's not about winning anything. They're not winning. If he cannot pay his civil servants, if he cannot pay his military, it's over with. And I think since the United States Congress has used our tax dollars to pay the salaries of all the government employees, that includes the military, in Ukraine. This has been pretty well reported. It's our money that's paying those salaries. If that money doesn't flow, I don't think the oligarchs are going to cough it up. So these people who are already frustrated, frustrated with two years of war, frustrated with losses after losses, frustrated with heavy-handed recruiting techniques, frustrated with the lies of the government, of course, the thousands, hundreds of thousands, possibly deaths

of their soldiers, wounded. They're frustrated that their women and children are living in Europe somewhere, never coming back to Ukraine. All of these frustrations will be set off when the paycheck bounces. And for many of these people, that's going to happen. And I think he talks about we have to have this in one month. Yeah, you're probably in trouble, Mr. Zelensky. You need to, you've kind of walked yourself into a corner and you're not going to be able to get out of it. That $60 billion is, you know, I think it's a non-starter, but certainly even if it went through, the main usefulness would be to stave off a revolt within his own government because they're relying on cash. I want to ask you one or two questions about Israel and Gaza. But before we do, the UK has been beating a drum to put troops on the ground in Ukraine.

Matt Ho, your colleague, says if every British soldier in the world were together in one space, they wouldn't even fill up MetLife Stadium, which is where the Giants and the Jets play, because it holds about 80,000 people and there's only about 76,000 in the British military. So I don't know if Prime Minister Sunak even knows what he's talking about. Take a listen to what President Macron said over the weekend. It's a short clip, and the key phrase, the key words, are the last three or four that he uses.

There is no consensus today to send ground troops in an official, endorsed and sanctioned manner. But in dynamic terms, nothing should be ruled out. But in dynamic terms, nothing should be ruled out. So you have the Prime Minister of Great Britain making noises. You have the President of France talking about it. You have the general belief in Europe that Poland and the Polish leaders and Zelensky have entered into some kind of non-public agreement. You have the New York Times acknowledging that the CIA has built 12 stations in Ukraine, that American intelligence is helping Ukraine troops aim equipment into Russia. This is being done with American equipment and American ammunition. All of this together. Is the U.S. starting a war with Russia?

Well, you know, we are fighting a war with Russia, a proxy war, of course. But the sudden discussion of these troops, particularly with Macron, you know, French soldiers, either past or present, we're not sure, were killed not too long ago in Ukraine. And the Russia accused actually sent his ambassador in Paris to talk to them about this. He said, you know, you've got French people fighting in, you know, are you, is this a government sanctioned fighting against us here? And of course, Macron denied it. Now you've got Great Britain, maybe this idea, this planted article, the CIA, all the CIA activity in Ukraine. I think they are preparing for deaths of Americans, deaths of French soldiers, deaths, possible deaths of MI6 or, you know, other UK soldiers. I think they're

preparing for a publication of that because I think it's going to happen. I think they're already there. I don't see this because like you pointed out, who has the soldiers to do this? Certainly not the UK. The French, the French will not tolerate it. The French have so many issues already with Macron. They're not going to tolerate that. So, and the US isn French will not tolerate it. The French have so many issues already with Macron. They're not going to tolerate that. So, and the U.S. isn't going to do it except through CIA or secret type things. But I think they're going to find some Americans, they're going to find some British soldiers, they're going to find some French soldiers and some others in Ukraine fighting against the Russians.

And they are trying to set the stage to get ahead of that story. That's what I suspect. I don't think we're going to fight directly with Russia because look what they just did to the M1 Abrams. I mean, this is not fun for Americans. It's not fun for the British. It's not fun for France or Germany for that matter. Last question or last observation from you and on a different subject matter, but again, this will raise your blood pressure. Prime Minister Netanyahu over the weekend on one of the talk shows gave that standard defense that

he always gives. What would America do if this large a percentage of its population had been killed, if instead of 3,000 Americans on 9-11, it had been 10,000, I would argue we wouldn't be slaughtering innocents. But you take a listen to what he says and tell me if you think he speaks truthfully when he says the IDF is careful when it targets people that it kills. Number six, Chris. What would America do, Margaret, if you faced the equivalent of 29-11s, 50,000 Americans slaughtered in one day, 10,000 Americans, including mothers and children, held hostage?

Would you not be doing what Israel is doing? You'd be doing a hell of a lot more. And all Americans that I talk to nearly all say that. So Israel has gone to extraordinary lengths, calling up people, civilians, Palestinians in Gaza, telling them, leave your home, sending pamphlets, we have done that effort, Hamas tries to keep them at one point, we'll clear them out of harm's way, we'll complete the job and achieve total victory, which is necessary to give a secure future for Israel, a better future for Gaza, a better future for the Middle East, and a setback for the Iran-Terror

Axis. That's in all our interest. It's in America's interest, too. We will clear people, civilians, Palestinians out of harm's way. This is more of a bald-faced lie than what you just analyzed from Mrs. Newland. The only thing the IDF is careful about is killing any Palestinian that moves in Gaza. That's right. And the better future for Gaza is a future of 100% Israeli settlements, with a few Palestinians left to maintain the swimming pools and the yards and the gardens. That is the vision that they have. If we had been, if the United States had a situation like that where we had our sights set on taking over the territory of another country, a long-term plan of doing that, and a history of

decades of development of American hatred for a particular ethnic group promoted in our schools and through generations. If we were in that situation, we might act like Israel, but we're not, and we wouldn't. You know, we don't even, we can't even tolerate, I mean, we have got Julian Assange in jail for, you know, and under, we want to cat him. Why? Because he embarrassed us over the killing that our soldiers have done of a handful of innocent people compared to what Israel has done. We don't, in this country, we don't want to be embarrassed by it and we are as a people embarrassed by it. So he's not only lying, he's wrong and he's making assumptions that are actually insulting to the American population and to the American government. So you know he's he is a

vicious, he's a vicious person and unfortunately for him, he's not going to escape his fate. Nicely put, Karen. I should tell you, your former military colleagues, Scott Ritter and Matt Ho, said the same thing about this with respect to being insulting to Americans. I threw a lot at you today. It's a pleasure, dear Karen. Thank you very much. Look forward to seeing you again next week. Sure. Thank you, Dave.

All the best. Bear with me just a second. Let me thank you for helping us reach the 300,000 mark, which we reached just the other day in our subscriptions. Continue to like and subscribe. It helps us to spread the word. Tomorrow, we have Aaron Matei, and maybe a little surprise for you as well. But coming up before the week is out, Professor Mearsheimer, Professor Sachs, and of course, Colonel McGregor. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. We'll see you next time. WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility

so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu.