“It’s this kind of ideology which has grown up in the wake of the Cold War; propounded quite openly by what we are calling ‘Neoconservatives’ in America, that identifies the United States as a colossus athwart the world – a new Rome, beyond good and evil. We no longer need friends, we don’t need international law. Like the old Roman phrase, ‘It doesn’t matter whether they love us or not, so long as they fear us.”
- Chalmers Johnson, author of “Sorrows of Empire”
Wolfowitz, one of the top neo-con hawks, one of the main advocates of Iraqi war, is Bush’s pick? It figures… The only way to block him from this appointment is for the Europeans to block it – Will they be brave?
I will say, on the positive side, that Paul Wolfowitz is very smart. He’s a smart guy. He also seems to care about a handful of social issues, and his pro-Israel stance does not preclude the establishment of a Palestinian state. And – just personally – he has a nice face. But I think positioning him at the World Bank is intended to replicate and expand MacNamara’s plan – streamline money for countries that support US Policy – and actions. The US isn’t going to be such a great source for these projects anymore…
So here’s a wee review, in broad strokes, of course. As always, I encourage you to do a little research yourself. It’s mostly there in plain view to see.
Paul Wolfowitz is the intellectual force behind the neo-con movement – a radical fringe of the Republican party. Wolfowitz has a long history of promoting the idea that the United States should reconsider its commitments to international treaties, international law, and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. Some of his language reminds me of the Nazi Reich-plans – a very strange position for someone of Jewish background. His biggest blind spot seems to be the absence of realpolitik, diplomacy. He doesn’t seem to understand that America needs the support of other countries – not just for ethical reasons and those of western values – but also to ensure any hope for success on global issues like terrorism.
Just a little sidenote – In the 1980s Wolfowitz vigorously supported Ronald Reagan’s denunciation of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.”
This is not just a Republican takeover. This is a very specific wing of the Republican Party. It’s neoconservative, it’s unilateralist, it doesn’t believe in the rule of law, it doesn’t believe that we have to tell the public the truth.
- William Hartung, Senior Fellow, World Policy Institute
He and others in his office “of Special Plans” were the ones who rewrote the questionable intelligence reports – according to Tenet, he “cooked” them – to promote the idea that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear).
Larry C. Johnson, a former counter-terrorism expert at the CIA and the State Department, says he’s spoken to his colleagues working for both agencies and its clear that the OSP politicized the intelligence process. “Anyone who attempted to challenge or rebut OSP was accused of rocking the boat. OSP came in with an agenda that they were predisposed to believe,” he said. Vincent Cannistrano, who worked for the CIA for 27 years, told the National Journal last month that the OSP “incorporated a lot of debatable intelligence, and it was not coordinated with the intelligence community.”
The Wolf preached the Iraqi menace while the ones in charge of containing Saddam Hussein (including retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command) declared Iraq a diminishing power and of little threat.
According to the Washington Post, The Wolf commissioned a CIA investigation of the chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blick to undermine the importance of inspections and strengthen the case for military action against Iraq. Kind of the modus operandi – reminds me of Kerry, McCain, Cleland, Richards…
The Wolf was the promoter of Ahmed Chalabi (convicted embezzler and peddler of false intelligence about WMDs) to lead the newly freed country. Among other things, it was Chalabi who declared that Iraqis would welcome the American invaders – Wolfowitz said we would be greeted as liberators. Are we welcome? Not by the majority in any group. Check the death figures for the day if you like.
When (then-) Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki informed a congressional panel that America would need several hundred thousand troops to “pacify” Iraq after the invasion, the Wolf rushed to undermine him, declaring the general’s numbers way too high, telling a House committee that Shinseki’s figures were way off the mark. So now we’re forcing people to stay longer, we’re desperate for new recruits, and we can’t control the situation.
The Wolf said that the countries who wouldn’t help us with the invasion would participate in peacekeeping afterwards. Wrong. Even our scraggly little coalition is bailing fast. Too dangerous, too unethical, and we are too anti-UN. Peacekeeping is vectored through UN resolutions, remember?
Wolfowitz told a House panel that Iraq’s oil would completely finance the the invasion and rebuilding. So much to say about that – chew it over yourself.
They want the U.S.A. to outdo all previous empires; not in its longevity but in its permanence – which, for all their work in college and all their wide reading, is an insane program. What does it have to do with the Constitution? What does it have to do with democracy? What does it have to do with the pursuit of happiness? Nothing. It’s about power, it’s about domination, it’s about control of dwindling resources.
- Mark Crispin Miller, Author, “The Bush Dyslexicon”