1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Wolfowitz to head World Bank?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by FranchiseBlade, Mar 16, 2005.

  1. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,923
    Likes Received:
    17,521
    What a reward for failing at the previous job. After handling the Iraq war with a complete lack of principles, competency, and total disregard for the truth Wolfowitz is rewarded. I'm glad that accountability is such a strong value for this administration.

    http://mcjoan.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/1/223432/3724
    Wolfowitz to be World Bank President?
    by Tomato Observer
    Tue Mar 1st, 2005 at 19:34:32 PST
    From the Financial Times:


    Paul Wolfowitz, US deputy secretary of defence, has emerged as a leading candidate to replace James Wolfensohn as the president of the World Bank.

    Mr Wolfowitz is one of a small number of people being considered for the US nomination, administration insiders said.

    Diaries :: Tomato Observer's diary ::


    The nomination of Mr Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war and a former US ambassador to Indonesia, would likely be highly controversial, and could raise new questions about the process by which the World Bank chief is selected. One administration official said his nomination "would have enormous repercussions within the development community".

    The nomination of Mr. Wolfowitz to town dogcatcher would be highly controversial. _But hey, let's look at his qualifications:

    High Finance

    There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." Wolfowitz also told Congress "oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years...We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.

    Charisma

    just to frame this clearly, the risks of inaction are the continuing and growing danger that tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of Americans will die in some catastrophic attack with a biological weapon, or if we wait long enough, a nuclear weapon. So the risks of inaction are severe.

    Leadership

    At the time, Wolfowitz dismissed Shinseki's estimate as "wildly off the mark" and said "the notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish."

    I wonder if his girlfriend suggested him for the job. _Don't worry, she's not a CIA operative. _She's a World Bank official!

    The important thing to understand is just what Wolfowitz would be in charge of. _

    An IMF/World Bank regime?

    In recent years, the World Bank, eager to try its hand at any task, has sought to project itself as the financial guardian of `post-conflict' societies. _In Bosnia, Serbia, East Timor, Mozambique, Rwanda, and most recently Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, the World Bank has honed its approach to states that have endured destruction of infrastructure, large-scale killings, and mass migration. _Now it appears that the Bank will be thrust into the spotlight in Iraq, charged with putting back together what United Nations sanctions, authoritarian neglect, and US military action have broken.

    But while the Bank has been eager to jump into those other countries, Iraq seems to have made its top officials think twice about their role. _They are not accustomed to dealing with situations where their masters - the G7 governments - are seriously split. _The divisions between the US and UK on the one hand and France and Germany on the other over the war in Iraq have for once made the Bank nervous about becoming a central player. _World Bank president James Wolfensohn apparently sees no benefit in having the trans-Atlantic split play out on his Board of Directors; the potential for the Bank to become a punching-bag or scapegoat is great.

    The tussle over whether the World Bank and the IMF would get involved in Iraq before UN recognition of a successor regime was staged at the institutions' just-concluded spring meetings (12-13 April), and by all accounts the US won everything it wanted. _While the weekend started with representatives of the G24 (developing countries) rejecting the idea and insisting that the UN was the only source of legitimacy in Iraq, by the end of the weekend, IMF and World Bank officials were assuring reporters that they would be taking on the Iraq challenge, and would leave the worrying about technical niceties like UN recognition to others.

    And that, apparently, was what the US wanted. ...
     
  2. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,730
    Likes Received:
    29,115
    Just got to keep a Wolf in the hen house at all times :D

    Rocket River
     
  3. rhester

    rhester Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,600
    Likes Received:
    104
    Paul Wolfowitz is the perfect candidate-

    "`Wolfowitz Cabal' Is an Enemy Within U.S.
    by Michele Steinberg
    On Oct. 14, the London Observer published one of the now familiar—and totally false—propaganda scare stories, entitled "Iraq 'Behind U.S. Anthrax Outbreaks.' " The story gave credence to the ravings of "American hawks" who say there is "a growing mass of evidence that [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein was involved, possibly indirectly, with the Sept. 11 suicide hijacks." If confirmed, said the Observer, "the pressure now building ... for an attack [on Iraq] may be irresistible." One of these "hawks," an unnamed U.S. "administration official," told the Observer that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a "faithful ally" in the war against terrorism and that "if it means we are embarking on the next Hundred Years' War, then that's what we are doing" (emphasis added).

    The "next Hundred Year's War"? Who are the U.S. maniacs who use such language, and are they not as dangerous as Osama bin Laden's jihad?

    Here we will name the names of the fanatics in this anti-Iraq grouping who have become known as the "Wolfowitz cabal," named after Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. According to the New York Times, which published a leak about their activities on Oct. 12, this grouping wants an immediate war with Iraq, believing that the targetting of Afghanistan, already an impoverished wasteland, falls far short of the global war that they are hoping for. But Iraq is just another stepping stone to turning the anti-terrorist "war" into a full-blown "Clash of Civilizations," where the Islamic religion would become the "enemy image" in a "new Cold War."

    The "Clash of Civilizations" theory, developed by Harvard professor-turned President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and his protégés, including Harvard Prof. Samuel Huntington, defined the Arab and Islamic world as an "arc of crisis" from the Middle East to the Islamic countries of Central Asia in the then-Soviet Union. Brzezinski wanted to use the "Islamic card" against the Soviet Union, and in so doing, began the policy of promoting Islamic fundamentalists against moderate and pro-Western Arab and Islamic governments. After the end of the Cold War, the Brzezinski/Huntington crowd updated their "arc of crisis," declaring that the Islamic religion is the enemy, in a new war in which religions, rather than political systems, inevitably battle each other. However, trained by British and U.S. special intelligence services and the CIA, and armed by Israeli military networks, the very terrorist drug-runners in the Islamic world who were launched by Brzezinski and "adopted" by the Iran-Contra networks run by Lt. Col. Oliver North, under the elder George Bush's Executive Order 12333, have become the main suspects in terrorist attacks against the United States.

    A Network Throughout the Government
    The adherents of the so-called "Wolfowitz cabal," pushing the "Clash of Civilizations" theory, are nothing less than "an enemy within" the United States, a network that cuts across the Defense Department, the State Department, the White House, and the National Security Council. This report is not a "good guys" versus "bad guys" description of the Bush Administration; rather it is a warning that this cabal is a close-knit rogue network that is trying to hijack U.S. policy, and turn the current Afghanistan mess into a global war. The cabal bears a dangerous resemblance to the "secret parallel government" of North and Gen. Richard Secord's "Project Democracy" operation that ran Iran-Contra. In fact, some of the cabal members now in the Bush Administration are convicted criminals as a result of their activity in North's "Enterprise"!

    On Oct. 12, the New York Times revealed deep divisions in the Bush Administration, describing how the cabal plots policy behind the back of Cabinet officials, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the name of the U.S. government. The group wants to obliterate Iraq, put Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority on the terrorism list (if not the obituary list), and declare war on nation-states.

    The Times revealed that a key section of the "Wolfowitz cabal," is the 18-member Defense Policy Board, which met for more than 19 hours on Sept. 19-20 to "make the case" against Saddam Hussein. The meeting pushed for a renewed war against Iraq as soon as the war against Afghanistan had concluded its initial phase. It discussed overthrowing Saddam Hussein, partitioning Iraq into mini-states led by U.S.-funded dissidents who would steal the proceeds from the Basra oil revenues for their quisling government. The meeting discussed how to manipulate information so as to pin the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States on Saddam Hussein.

    According to the Times, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld attended the meetings for only "part" of both days, and on Sept. 22, President George Bush rejected the Policy Board's recommendation to declare war against Iraq. But to the "Wolfowitz cabal," Bush's decision didn't really matter—senior members of the Policy Board had been selected for their broad international connections, especially to the United Kingdom and Israel, allowing them to force changes in U.S. policy through an "outside-inside" operation. If unable to change policy through advising, the network could also run covert operations as a "government within a government," as they had maneuvered during Iran-Contra.

    The chairman of the Defense Policy Board is Richard Perle, the former Reagan Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, now based at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute.

    Perle, nicknamed "The Prince of Darkness" because of his nuclear Armageddon views during the Cold War, is, more importantly, an asset of Conrad Black's Hollinger International, Inc., which grew out of British Empire Security Coordinator William Stephenson's efforts to secure arms for Britain during World War II. At present, Hollinger owns the British Tory Party-linked Telegraph PLC, whose International Advisory Board is headed by former British Prime Minister, now Lady Margaret Thatcher. Hollinger also owns the Jerusalem Post, another war-mongering press outlet.

    The "heavy hitters" on the Defense Policy Board are the worst of the Anglo-American-Israeli geopolitical fanatics from the last several decades, including: former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, who is also a member of Hollinger's International Advisory Board; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former Clinton Administration Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey; former Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. David E. Jeremiah; former Vice President Dan Quayle; former Defense and Energy Secretary James R. Schlesinger; and former President Carter's Defense Secretary Harold Brown.

    Though Perle was only recently appointed to head the Defense Policy Board, he and Wolfowitz have been collaborators for more than two decades, as agents-of-influence of the right-wing Israeli war faction. In 1985, when it was clear that Jonathan Jay Pollard, an American convicted that year of spying for Israel, could not have been working alone in stealing such high-level U.S. secrets for Israel to sell to the Soviet Union, top-level intelligence officials told EIR that an entire "X Committee" of high-level U.S. officials, was being investigated. Wolfowitz and Perle were on the list of "X Committee" suspects, and Israeli spying against the United States was so thick that investigators told EIR they had found "not moles, but entire molehills." Pollard and his Israeli defenders later claimed that Pollard "had to" spy against the United States because the Americans were soft on Iraq and other Arab countries.

    The "Wolfowitz cabal" is deterimined to push the United States in the direction of the most dangerous Israeli right-wing policy, including a possible Israeli nuclear attack on an Arab state. They are implementers of the very "breakaway ally" scenario about which 2004 Democratic Party Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche warned in his statement of Oct. 12 (see International).

    Plan B: Wagging the Dog
    The "Wolfowitz cabal" is out to destroy any potential for a Middle East peace, and simultaneously is determined to crush Eurasian economic development centered around cooperation among Europe, Russia, and China. After being rebuffed after the marathon Defense Policy Board meetings, the Wolfowitz cabal set various operations in motion to plant propaganda stories, falsify reports of U.S. policy, and carry out other maneuvers, whereby the tail would "wag the dog." Unapproved statements are made by cabal members, interviews misrepresenting U.S. policy are planted around the globe, and intelligence reports are altered or manufactured to further the policy goals.

    The pattern is becoming crystal clear.

    In the first such instance, shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, Wolfowitz declared that the United States will "end states harboring terrorism," and insisted that under the principle of self-defense, the United States could act alone, without the United Nations, or cooperation from any other country. He wanted to establish the "doctrine" that the United States would hit a country "anywhere, anytime" based on secret evidence. But, Wolfowitz was forced to retract his statements, in a visible rift with the White House. Some days later, NATO allies at its Brussels headquarters snubbed Wolfowitz, and refused to formalize cooperation with the United States under NATO agreements at a meeting where Wolfowitz represented the Bush Administration.

    In the same vein, on Oct. 7, the day the Afghanistan bombings began, the cabal again attempted to provoke a rift between the United States and members of the UN Security Council, especially Russia and China, by altering the text of a letter from U.S. Ambassador to the UN John D. Negroponte. (Not coincidentally, Negroponte was a notorious insider in the Iran-Contra operation, who was accused of collaborating with narcotics-linked military death squads in Honduras in the 1980s.) The changes in the letter were made without notifying Negroponte's boss, Secretary of State Powell.

    In the letter, Negroponte echoed Wolfowitz's so-called gaffe, writing, "We may find that our self-defense requires further action with respect to other organizations and states" (emphasis added). The statement implicitly targetted Iraq, Syria, and Sudan, all countries which are on the State Department's list of countries that support terrorism. The statement violated promises the United States had made, that it would limit "coalition" action to redressing the attack of Sept. 11. Upon learning of the statement, from the press, Powell reportedly "hit the roof." The insertion was drafted by Stephen J. Hadley, who is the Deputy Adviser to the National Security Council. The stunt may have been planned at the Defense Policy Board meetings.

    Then there's the case of former CIA director R. James Woolsey, whose defined role is as the Policy Board member who is most public in demanding the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The Knight-Ridder newspaper chain reported on Oct. 11, that Woolsey had been authorized the prior month to fly to London on a U.S. government plane, accompanied by Justice and Defense Department officials, on a secret mission to gather evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attack. In a Sept. 18 press conference by Defense Week, Woolsey called for creating a "no-fly and no-drive zone" in the north and south of Iraq, so that the Kurds and the Shi'ites, respectively, could better fight Saddam. "The watchword of the day," Woolsey said, is, "It's the Regimes, Stupid!"

    Since the Oct. 5 death from anthrax of Bob Stevens, the Sun tabloid photo editor, from anthrax, Woolsey has been the world's leading finger-pointer at Saddam as being behind the anthrax attack. His so-called evidence is dated, prejudiced, and completely unreliable.

    It was no accident that Woolsey role-played a prominent character—CIA Director—in the New York Council on Foreign Relations 1999-2000 scenario the previous year, "The Next Financial Crisis: Warning Signs, Damage Control, and Impact," that acted out a virtual coup d'état coming on the heels of a combined financial crisis and terrorist attack. In the CFR war-game, the U.S. President would be taken out of the picture, leaving the country under the control of a crisis management dictatorship.

    Also dispatched to London to propagandize for a "rolling war" that would attack Afghanistan, then Iraq, then country after country until revenge is exacted, was fellow Policy Board member Newt Gingrich. Talking to the London Times, owned by top British-Israeli propagandist Rupert Murdoch, Gingrich said that the United States is "at war" with "organized, systematic extensions of terror, supported by nation-states." He said that targetting the Afghan Taliban without defeating Iraq would be "like defeating Imperial Japan and leaving the Nazis alone." Gingrich threatened that countries judged not cooperative against terrorism would face the consequences: "The U.S. and the coalition forces will assist your own people in removing you."

    Setting the pace for his team, Perle was the joint initiator with neo-con William Kristol of the Rupert Murdoch-funded Weekly Standard, of an open letter to President Bush, that, while ostensibly supporting the President in the war against terrorism, was, in fact, an ultimatum to support a "Clash of Civilizations" Thirty Years' War in the Middle East. Among the non-negotiable demands set forth in that letter was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [Sept. 11] attack."

    There is no doubt that the Wolfowitz/Perle duo is at the heart of the network that can use Israel in the "breakaway ally scenario." Indeed, Wolfowitz is one of great hopes of right-wing extremists in Israel, including among the radical settlers movement, who are demanding the assassination of Arafat and the expulsion of all Palestinians from the Occupied Territories (see coverage in International). But, Wolfowitz and Perle are not "Israeli agents." Rather, they are second-generation operatives both mentored by the RAND Corp.'s Albert Wohlstetter, a former Trotskyite communist turned nuclear strategist. Nor are the cabal war-mongers Seven Days in May militarists.

    A key member of the cabal is Richard Armitage, the number-two man in the U.S. State Department, who was investigated in the Iran-Contra scandal, and who is a longtime collaborator of Wolfowitz in the targetting of Iraq. The cabal also has high-level operatives at the National Security Council (NSC):

    Gen. Wayne Downing, former Commander in Chief of the Special Operations Command, was just appointed as Director of Combatting Terrorism for the Homeland Defense Board, headed by former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge. In 1997-98, Downing drew up a military plan to overthrow Saddam, by assassination, if necessary. The plan hinged on heavily arming dissident gangs of Iraqi Shi'ites in the south of Iraq, and Kurdish fighters in the north. Invasion by U.S. Special Forces ground troops was not ruled out. The promoter of the neo-Conservative yahoos in Congress and the think-tanks was Wolfowitz, then head of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Unable to ram this plan through the Clinton Administration, Wolfowitz shopped the plan to Perle, an expert in "chain-letter" pressure politics, who garnered signatures. Now at the NSC, Downing has the ready-made plan to hit Iraq.

    Richard Clarke, Adviser to the President for Cyberspace Warfare. Clarke, who was originally with the State Department during the elder Bush's Administration, was demoted for covering up Israeli violations of the Arms Exporting laws. In August 1998, Clarke was one of the key figures who planted false information about Sudan's involvement in the East Africa U.S. Embassy bombings, which led to U.S. cruise missile attacks on a Sudanese pharmaceutical company in Khartoum. Clarke shopped in disinformation from British-Israeli covert operations stringer Yosef Bodansky that targetted Sudan.

    Elliott Abrams, NSC staff. Abrams, who was convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, was quietly placed on the NSC as a specialist in "religion and human rights." He is a longtime member of the right-wing Zionist networks that infiltrated the U.S. security establishment. He worked closely with Secord and North in Central America, also providing a link to the Israeli gun-running networks that delivered arms to Khomeini's Iran."



    . http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1991.htm
     
  4. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,948
    Likes Received:
    36,507
    It's sad that the nominee to head the World Bank is either 1. an outright liar to the point of committing perjury; or 2. monumentally incompetent in financial matters:

     
  5. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,745
    Likes Received:
    6,424
    damn, i was hoping for Bono...or perhaps Cher. :confused:
     
  6. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,923
    Likes Received:
    17,521
    Neither could be worse than Bush's choice, and one if not both have as much of a track record showing they are possibly more qualified.
     
  7. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    116
    Isn't it wonderful how the United States has become a Third World nation under George W. Bush?

    Iraq rewarded terrorism for years, and now the United States is too.

    [​IMG]

    What a wonderful world!:rolleyes:
     
  8. thegary

    thegary Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    10,229
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    come on tex, don't drag louis into the mud like that.
     
  9. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    116
    Bush's first choice, Ken Lay, is a little too busy trying to avoid becoming Bernie Ebbers' "bush buddy" to have time to run the World Bank, so he had to resort to a liar who has no experience running a corporation into the toilet.
     
  10. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,396
    Likes Received:
    25,402
    There aren't elections to run NGOs. There is no power in the people.
     
  11. pippendagimp

    pippendagimp Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2000
    Messages:
    27,037
    Likes Received:
    21,273
    I'd never been much of a Jackson fan, but he did write quite an insightful article here...


    http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0324-35.htm

    If It's Really A 'World' Bank, Then Let's Look South

    by Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

    The Bush Administration in general, and Paul Wolfowitz in particular, would have you believe that 1,500 Americans have died, perhaps 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, and more than $200 billion has been spent on invading and occupying Iraq, in the name of “democracy”.

    Funny then that Paul Wolfowitz is now being promoted in a secret, opaque, closely held process that freezes out most of the world. Of special note, the selection of the new World Bank head freezes out the 1 billion people who live on less than $1 per day, and the 3 billion who live on less than $2 per day. It freezes out the entire Southern hemisphere_Africa, Asia, South America. In fact, it freezes out everyone who is not a Bush loyalist in the U.S., or a nervous European elite.

    It is as if fighting world poverty were a ping-pong game between the U.S. and Europe, a game in which the poorer nations are not even allowed to enter.

    But why? Why should the world’s poorest people be excluded from the process of selecting one of the most important leaders who will affect their lives? Why are the nations most controlled by World Bank and International Monetary Fund policies not allowed to nominate, or even participate in any meaningful way, in the selection of new leadership?

    Is Nelson Mandela less qualified to run the World Bank than Paul Wolfowitz? Or how about one of the Brazilians behind the Lula government’s innovative proposal to eliminate hunger by taxing international arms sales? Or, since we know that the most direct route to fighting world poverty is to empower and educate poor women, why not a woman from the South to lead the World Bank, say, Arundhati Roy of India, or Nobel Prize winner Wangari Maathai of Kenya, two women who actually know something about helping poor people?

    These names are not even considered. Only Americans, and even then, only hard-core Bush loyalists, are in the loop. In an entirely secret process, despite his lack of development credentials, and despite the widespread rejection of the idea when the Wolfowitz name was first floated publicly, George W. Bush followed up on his divisive choice of John Bolton for the U.N. with the promotion of leading war hawk Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank.

    Forget all that talk about reconciliation with Europe and the rest of the world. Bush’s picks were like a thumb in each of the world’s wide-open eyes.

    Since Bush makes up his own rules as he goes along, so should we. After all, when George W. Bush meets with Tony Blair, that’s a minority meeting_the U.S. & the U.K. together are only one-sixteenth of the world!

    It’s time for a new set of international rules. The IMF is not just the property of Europe; and the World Bank can no longer be just a tool of U.S. foreign policy.

    “One-dollar, one-vote” is no recipe for democracy.

    The South deserves a voice, and a candidate. The South should nominate one of their own this week, even if just to break the stranglehold the U.S. & European elites have on the process, just to crack the ice a bit.

    That nominee should have a program, a “4-D” platform:

    Democracy program, to open up the WB/IMF systems to the whole world;

    Development program, to move from big energy projects to micro-, women-centered projects, with an emphasis on renewable technologies;

    Disease-fighting program, to battle AIDs and malaria, and the other dread diseases which ravage the Southern hemisphere;

    Debt cancellation program, to completely eliminate the debts of Africa and Latin America, to bring the “Jubilee” described in the Bible to the world’s poorest people. 100% debt cancellation, with no conditions, no tricks, no limitations, no restrictions_the single most useful step we could take to fight world poverty.

    We must challenge the process, right now, by acting as if the Southern nations matter. Nominate a Southerner. Practice democracy. Cancel the debt. Wipe the slate clean, and let’s start over.

    Three billion poor people are waiting.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now