NO TO WOLFOWITZ as head of World Bank

Published on March 17, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics

Only in government can someone who failed to do their job receive a promotion. What in the world is President Bush thinking about by nominating Wolfowitz to the World Bank? First ,this man is more responsible for the Iraq war policy than any other member of the Pentagon staff. Almost everything we were told about the war has proven to be wrong. It was Wolfowitz that told us our troops would be received as heroes. The cost would be between $60 and $80 billion and their oil revenue would pay the majority of that cost. It was to be a quick and clean operation. In fact George Bush assured the Pope, when he expressed concern about our invading Iraq, not to worry it would be quick and clean based on the advice of Paul Wolfowitz.

Looking at the diplomatic perspective, we are trying to improve our relationship in Europe because of the Iraq war and Bush appoints the man who is most associated with that unpopular war. I cannot think of a more inept person for Bush to suggest to head the World Bank then Paul Wolfowitz.

Comments (Page 1)

terpfan1980

on Mar 17, 2005

Only in government can someone who failed to do their job receive a promotion.

That couldn't possibly have been said about your career now, could it?

What in the world is President Bush's thinking about by nominating Wolfowitz to the World Bank?

He's thinking the man would do a great job in the position. Of course something as obvious as that escapes your mental capacities.

I cannot think of a more inept person

... than COL Gene to write yet another anti-Bush or anti-Bush administration article.

Thanks for supplying the words that can so easily destroy your own arguments.

Oh, meanwhile I would think that most anti-Bush people would cheer about the possibility of getting Wolfowitz out of his current job, almost no matter where he is moved to. Of course that's just my thinking. Meanwhile, be careful what you wish for, as Wolfowitz could always be replaced by someone like some of our favorite doctors, or me, or a host of other Bush backers that would probably take things even farther than Wolfowitz ever dreamed of.

Somewhat like the people that so desperately wanted Ashcroft to be defeated in his senate race and then had to ask themselves that "Oh my gawd, how could we get this" question when he was nominated to be Attorney General. Then when he's finally done in the job and steps down, he gets replaced with probably the only person that might be more of a lightning rod than he was -- Alberto Gonzales, he of "torture memo" fame.

Yup, you fine folks on the left of center just keep pushing for change in the Administration and then be ready to cry more when you get it.

Meanwhile, I'll try to go back to ignoring the one-note wonder troll bait so I can avoid helping to supply materials that could wind up in book somewhere.

BTW, all words above are copyright and all rights reserved except for those granted to JoeUser.com and PoliticalMachine.com. I'd hate to think that someday my words would show up in yet another book that I don't get compensation for.

COL Gene

on Mar 17, 2005

First I never said anything about former current Attorney General's the best of my knowledge. It is you're suggestion that because he is so unpopular that he should be promote to another job. NO, that's not what a good executive does when you have somebody that doesn't the job, you do as Donald Trump says, " you're fired" .
All you demonstrate is that most of the Bush people are bad choices. You never answer the factual issues I include. Address all the statements made by Wolfowitz about the war. Everything I said has been documented over and over again.
Until you have read the comments of my superiors during the past 40 years, you have no right to comment on my performance. I can assure you I didn't get any of my promotions by virtue of the contacts of my parents or their associates.

Moderateman

on Mar 17, 2005

and exactly who could President bush nominate that would NOT incure your wrath?

Deference

on Mar 17, 2005

When I saw the headline for this post, I immediately thought, "Gene's stretching a bit, it's pretty transparent this is just an excuse to attack the administration," but he's got a point. Wolfowitz did fuck up in all his predictions, except the one that really counted to PNAC...but that's another story. I don't know what being head of World Bank has to do with being Deputy of Defense or how one qualifies him for the other but he certainly shouldn't be promoted after making such poor estimates and judgments.

other Bush backers that would probably take things even farther than Wolfowitz ever dreamed of

Like what, dump the treasury in the sea and try to take over the world? Seriously, I would be vastly entertained if you would give us your plan on foreign policy for the next few years. What would you do? How would you deal with N. Korea, and the rest of China's backyard? China? The Middle East - Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia? Would it all be war? Economic Sanctions? Carpet Bombing? Diplomatic pressure? A new coalition? What would your goals be? How would you achieve those goals? What do you think the outcomes would be?

I don't know if you've really been following Wolfowitz as closely as you may think. Say hello to Frank Gaffney, a close friend of Paul's and one of his fellow founding members of PNAC. As you are aware, PNAC is extremely hawkish and called for the invasion of Iraq in an open letter to Clinton back in '98. Now Gaffney is heading up a group called "Center for Security Policy" which is leading the charge for a tri-national (Mexico/ Canada/ U.S.) biometric ID through it's new pet project "Coalition for a Secure License".

Do you really want to share a biometric license with your Mexican and Canadian neighbors? Tell Wolfowitz's buddies HELL NO!

http://www.securelicense.org/site/PageServer

Meanwhile, I'll try to go back to ignoring the one-note wonder troll bait

Time and time again, instead of attacking the issues you just lunge for Gene's throat. Come on. Help your side out. Debate the issue.

COL Gene

on Mar 17, 2005

They have learned well. When anyone has suggested the Bush policies are not working, they either attack the person, change the subject or ignore the issue. They never refute the facts or admit the truth of the statements.

thatoneguyinslc

on Mar 17, 2005

How about Colin Powell instead of Paul "Angel of Death" Wolfowitz? Would that keep you righties happy?

Oh i forgot, you guys don't like powell anymore do ya?

COL Gene

on Mar 17, 2005

I do not know what Secretary Powell knows about international finance but his management style and his reception by other countries would be far superior to Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz needs to GO not be given another job! It would seem to me that with the collective knowledge in the executive branch of government would be able to find a better candidate than the Wolfowitz to recommend for the head of the World Bank.

drmiler

on Mar 17, 2005

That's because your supposed "facts" exsist only in *your* own mind.

COL Gene

on Mar 17, 2005

drmiler

The facts I sight do exist. You block them out of yout "little mind" because they do not play well in Bush land.

For example The Federal defeicit does exist. The trade deficit does exist. The private accounts will not solve the Social Security funding problem etc.

Reiki-House

on Mar 17, 2005

Only the ones in the dark ask these types of questions. It's all too prevalent among the general population. Bush appointed Wolfman with total disregard for what's right and what's wrong. This is a lesson in learning you are nothing but a grain of sand and the people you pretend to vote into power can do whatever they want whenever they want. Wolfowitz was the leading neocon hawk pumping out the bullshit over Iraq's WMD. Even though it's documented that he's been pushing for the takeover of Iraq since the 1990's. So the man who is arguably the most responsible for the chaos and carnage in Iraq is being promoted even further with even more power. You or I or anyone else would be fired for gettting their company into so much trouble, but not with Bush. He promotes them. Gross negligence and incompetence. And we have to sit in the middle and suck on it.

Island Dog

on Mar 17, 2005

Almost everything we were told about the war has proven to be wrong. It was Wolfowitz that told us our troops would be received as heroes. The cost would be between $60 and $80 billion and their oil revenue would pay the majority of that cost. It was to be a quick and clean operation.

I know some troops that recently got back from Iraq. They told me how people still to this day come up to them and thank them for what they did. I wonder why you never hear those stories in the media?

Looking at the diplomatic perspective, we are trying to improve our relationship in Europe because of the Iraq war and Bush appoints the man who is most associated with that unpopular war. I cannot think of a more inept person for Bush to suggest to head the World Bank then Paul Wolfowitz.

What is it with you liberals and the euros, they could care less about you.

Wolfowitz is hated by the left and euros, that's good enough reason right there.

COL Gene

on Mar 17, 2005

Island Dog

You have learned well from Bush. What the troops a coming back from Iraq said about their mission and the fact that we were lied to about the cost of the war and how our troops would be received has nothing to do with each other. I too am proud of the way our military have accomplished their mission. The thing is the mission they were given was the wrong mission. It was not a mistake of our civilian leadership at the White House and the Pentagon.

For a person who is to run an international organization like the World Bank to be hated by the very people he needs to work is about the most ridiculous thing anything anyone could say..

You also missed the point that since Wolfowitz didn't do his job the Pentagon the rationale for promoting them into another job also makes no sense. People who support Bush blame someone else, ignore an issue or simply change the subject rather then address the issue. The Federal deficit,not creating jobs, merely creating profits. The trade deficit and the loss of entire industries. nonsolution of our energy needs and nonsolution of Medicare and Medicaid and nonsolution that is been suggested for Social Security. There is not a single one of these issues that has properly dealt with to solve the problem at hand. Not only should Wolfowitz have been fired but the real shame is that the American voter was duped again in November to return a man to office who has clearly documented he doesn't know what he is doing from the first four years in office. That fact is not going to change the consequences of the policies we are following. Your children and your grandchildren will be paying for what Bush has done. Your children are paying today in Iraq for a war that didn't have to be with a country that was no danger to the United States.

terpfan1980

on Mar 17, 2005

Your children are paying today in Iraq for a war that didn't have to be with a country that was no danger to the United States.

Alright, time to call you on this crap.

Define no danger?

You mean no danger similar to the current situation with Iran? You know, that other "Islamic" country where we have mad-men in charge that are developing nuclear weapons which could potentially wind up in the hands of terrorists, either because those terrorists run the country (Iran) or because the people running the country wish to do business with terrorists for their money (Iraq under Saddam) or just because the terrorists and the leaders of the country share similar interests (think Afghanistan here if they had been pursuing weapons of mass destruction).

Iraq was no direct danger might be a fair comment to make. But to make the statement that Iraq was no danger to the interests of the United States would be factually incorrect and a grave mistake in judgement.

Iraq -- under Saddam -- was funding terrorists, at least through direct payments to families of homicide bombers in the middle east, and through indirect means of using the food-for-oil funds to try to acquire weapons and other banned goods and materials.

Iraq was continuing to try to skirt non-proliferation requirements of prior U.N. edicts and of cease fire agreements dating back to Gulf War I.

Yet you saw them as no danger.

In your poor judgement perhaps, but in the minds of many -- including WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, THOMAS DASCHLE, and AL GORE back in the 1990s -- Iraq was a clear and present danger. Where was your outrage then? When we shot cruise missiles at them for prior violations of U.N. sanctions and cease fire agreements were you crying then?

We are all paying today for a war in Iraq that may very well have prevented the world from having to make much more difficult decisions and pay much more serious consequences later -- i.e., as in the current situation with Iran and the situation with Korea.

Again, you are looking at Wolfowitz and you have a bad case of envy of his tools and skills and are mad that he is successful while you are seen as a tool and crank.

Continue on your merry way and demonstrate some more why people should ignore your writings.

COL Gene

on Mar 17, 2005

there is a very real difference between the danger from a rogue state like Iraq, Iran or North Korea and the danger posed by a radical terrorist organizations. Rogue states even those that possess a WMD as many do will not attack a major power for one simple reason. That reason is to do so would be for that rogue state to commit suicide. On the other hand terrorists organization are not constrained by the loss of their country since they operate in cells all over the world. The closest that the terrorists came to losing a country was Afghanistan where they were openly allowed to train and prosper.

We expended our resources against a country that not pose a real threat in terms of attacking our country. There are rogue states that have the weapons that we claim we were trying to prevent in Iraq fron obtaining like North Korea. We do not have the resources to remove every evil dictator in this world. More harm in terms of proliferation was done by the scientist in Pakistan then Saddam Hussein could have done. The assistance that Russia is providing to Iran is potentially more dangerous than anything Hussein could have done. when the United States and its Christian army went into a Muslim country we created tens of thousands of new potential terrorists willing to give lives to punish the United States. If you believe Congress would have authorized the use of force so that the Iraqi people could vote for a new government, I believe you are very mistaken. We went to war under false pretenses against a country that posed no significant risk to the United States.

drmiler

on Mar 17, 2005

We expended our resources against a country that not pose a real threat in terms of attacking our country. There are rogue states that have the weapons that we claim we were trying to prevent in Iraq fron obtaining like North Korea. We do not have the resources to remove every evil dictator in this world. More harm in terms of proliferation was done by the scientist in Pakistan then Saddam Hussein could have done. The assistance that Russia is providing to Iran is potentially more dangerous than anything Hussein could have done. when the United States and its Christian army went into a Muslim country we created tens of thousands of new potential terrorists willing to give lives to punish the United States. If you believe Congress would have authorized the use of force so that the Iraqi people could vote for a new government, I believe you are very mistaken. We went to war under false pretenses against a country that posed no significant risk to the United States.

Want to tell us yet *again* how Iraq was not a threat to this country? Try this!

GLOBAL JIHAD
Oil-for-food
funded terror
U.S. to reveal tomorrow Saddam used U.N. to aid suicide bombers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 16, 2004
6:36 p.m. Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A U.S. congressional committee will reveal tomorrow that money taken by deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from the U.N. oil-for-food program was used as reward payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, WorldNetDaily has learned.

The committee, led by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., chairman of the House Committee on International Affairs, will reveal tomorrow that some of the $10 billion Saddam allegedly forced contractors to kick back from the oil-for-food program between 1997 and 2002 was used to fund families of Palestinians suicide bombers.

Israel has said the aid received from Saddam provided major financial motivation to underprivileged teenagers who could help their cash-strapped families with the large payments that would be issued upon completion of a suicide mission.

The U.N. Security Council launched the oil-for-food program in 1996 so Iraq could raise funds for food, medicine and other humanitarian goods in spite of sanctions against the Saddam regime.

Iraq sold more than $67 billion worth of oil before the program was ended by the U.S. invasion last year.

According to the rules outlined by the Security Council, Iraq was allowed to choose its own suppliers and oil traders. Under the program, the Security Council established a separate committee made up of member states, the so-called "661 Committee," to approve all contracts issued by the Iraqi government.

The General Accounting Office, the auditing arm of the U.S. Congress, reported Hussein illegally diverted and sold goods intended for the Iraqi population.

Sources tell WorldNetDaily Hyde will detail the methods used by Saddam to funnel some of the money from the proceeds to fund Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. A U.S. official said the money was wired to an account in the Rafaidan Bank of Jordan then transferred to the personal account of Iraq's ambassador to Jordan, who would then have the money delivered to the Palestinians.

As WorldNetDaily reported, remnants of Saddam's regime may still be funding terrorism against Israel by continuing the payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers the dictator previously provided, according to a document recently seized in Iraq and obtained by WorldNetDaily .

The document, discovered by a U.S. military unit on the body of an Iraqi combatant in Northern Iraq in September, is a general "Certificate of Martyrdom" honoring a family member who carries out a suicide attack against Israelis. It was provided to WorldNetDaily by an American military source in Iraq.

Unlike documents Saddam issued while in power, the new certificate refers to the former Iraqi leader as a "Freedom Fighter" and is not signed by Saddam himself, but by the "Iraq Sector Command," a reference not previously used in such certificates, indicating that post-Saddam militants may be seeking to fund Palestinian terrorism.

Military analysts experienced in Iraqi affairs told WorldNetDaily the document appears indeed to be post-Saddam, although it is unclear whether it was printed while Saddam went into hiding or after he was captured in December 2003.

While in power, Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers as much as $25,000 each. The checks were thought to provide major financial motivation to underprivileged teenagers who could help their cash-strapped families with the payments that would be issued upon completion of a suicide mission.

According to documents captured in 2002 by Israel's Operation Defensive Shield, Saddam set up an "Arab Liberation Front" – a Ba'ath party department in the Palestinian areas used to encourage terrorism and issue checks, usually through the Palestine Investment Bank, to the families of suicide bombers.

The payments were $15,000 at the start of the intifada, and were later raised to $25,000.

Saddam would also issue checks of $10,000 to the families of "ordinary" Palestinians killed in the intifada by other means, such as "through the aggression of the Zionist army."

Along with the checks came the martyrdom certificates, signed by Saddam, that read: "A gift from President Saddam Hussein to the family of a martyr in the al-Aqsa intifada. To those who irrigate the land with their blood. You deserve the honor you will receive from Allah and you will defeat all who bow before your will."

A $25,000 check and martyrdom certificate, for example, was transferred June 23, 2002, to Khaldiya Isma'il Abd Al-Aziz Al-Hurani, mother of the Hamas terrorist Fuad Isma'il Ahmad Al-Hurani, who carried out a suicide attack on March 19 of that year in Jerusalem's Moment Cafe. Eleven Israelis were killed and 16 wounded in the attack.

Checks for $15,000 each were given along with the martyrdom certificates to the families of Hamas suicide terrorists who blew themselves up in Zion Square in Jerusalem Dec. 1, 2001.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aaron Klein is WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief, whose past interview subjects have included Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak, Shlomo Ben Ami and leaders of the Taliban.

Or this:

* * *

Actually, Saddam Hussein knew plenty about terrorism. In essence, he owned and operated a full-service general store for global terrorists, complete with cash, diplomatic aid, safe haven, training, and even medical attention. Such assistance violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. The results not only broke international law, but also were deadly, as this chart demonstrates:7

The public evidence of Saddam Hussein’s cooperation with and support for global terrorists is abundant and clear. The Baathist government’s contacts and collaboration with terrorists in general, al-Qaeda in particular, and even the September 11 conspirators should make all Americans highly grateful that President Bush led an international effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Funds for Terrorists

Let’s start with money. At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.

Link

And you call me small minded.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!