Paul Wolfowitz

[John Simkin]

It seems that all Bush's mates are corrupt. Paul Wolfowitz is the latest to be exposed. One UK politician, Lord Bruce, argued on BBC radio today that he should be allowed to keep his job as Bush will only replace him with someone who is even more corrupt than Wolfowitz!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2056501,00.html

Paul Wolfowitz's tenure as president of the World Bank was today increasingly under threat, after the bank's powerful governing body indicated that he broke their ethical guidelines in awarding pay increases to his partner.

The statement by the bank's board leaves Mr Wolfowitz vulnerable to disciplinary action, especially if the bank president is found to have lied about his handling of the affair. The news comes just a day after World Bank staff called on him to resign over the matter.

In a statement released this morning, the board said its investigation found that Mr Wolfowitz had approved promotions and pay increases for Shaha Riza - a World Bank staff member with whom he was romantically involved - without a review or decision by the bank's ethics committee or board of directors.

That contradicts an earlier statement by Mr Wolfowitz's office which claimed: "All arrangements concerning Shaha Riza were made at the direction of the bank's board of directors."

But the board, made up of the 24 executive directors, said today: "The ethics committee, including its chairman, had not been involved in the discussions with the concerned staff member. Neither did it find that the terms and conditions of the agreement had been commented on, reviewed or approved by the ethics committee, its chairman or the board," the board said.

It pledged "expeditiously to reach a conclusion on possible actions to take. In their consideration of the matter the executive directors will focus on all relevant governance implications for the bank."

The board also released documents and findings of an internal team that investigated the contract agreed with Ms Riza, including memos and letters between Mr Wolfowitz, the board and bank officials.

The bank has clear rules forbidding partners or those in a relationship from working together. After Mr Wolfowitz's appointment in mid-2005 Ms Riza was seconded to the US state department, along with a promotion and substantial pay rise -from $132,660 to $193,590, tax free - now known to have been personally ordered by Mr Wolfowitz.

The affair is a huge embarrassment for the bank and Mr Wolfowitz, especially given his desire for a tough stance against corruption and rewards for good governance. Critics say that Mr Wolfowitz's own actions have now made a mockery of those aims.

With the world's finance ministers arriving in Washington for a series of scheduled meetings there may be more developments over the weekend.

Gordon Brown, Britain's chancellor, this morning refused to comment on Mr Wolfowitz's position when questioned by journalists. Yesterday the bank president was given the backing of the Bush administration - in which he previously served as deputy defence secretary, and was a key architect of the invasion of Iraq - but the US Treasury was far less enthusiastic, saying: "There is a mechanism in place."

The latest blow for Mr Wolfowitz came the day after he was heckled and booed by staff members - with some chanting, "Resign, resign" - at the bank's headquarters as he attempted to address them.

Mr Wolfowitz's sagging popularity was reinforced in a call by the bank's staff association - representing the majority of the bank's 7,000 employees based in Washington - for him to "act honorably and resign" over the saga, saying it was "impossible for the institution to move forward with any sense of purpose under the present leadership".

Alison Cave, the head of the staff association, said: "The president must acknowledge that his conduct has compromised the integrity and effectiveness of the World Bank and has destroyed the staff's trust."

In a strongly worded editorial, the Financial Times also told Mr Wolfowitz to stand down. Calling the controversy "lethal" to the bank's credibility, the paper's leader column said: "In the interests of the bank itself, he should resign. If he does not, the board must ask him to go."

During a highly charged press conference in Washington on Thursday, Mr Wolfowitz apologised for becoming involved in his girlfriend's compensation, but denied that he had done so voluntarily or for personal reasons. "In hindsight, I wish I had trusted my original instincts and kept myself out of the negotiations," he said.

Mr Wolfowitz's fate now lies in the hands of the bank's executive board members, each representing the World Bank's major donor nations, ranked by shares reflecting the importance of their stake.

The bank's regulations allow the president to be dismissed by a simple majority of votes by shareholders - the US being the largest with 16% of shares.

So far, individual countries have not voiced any public support for Mr Wolfowitz, with executive board members awaiting instructions from their country's finance ministers.

[Sid Walker]

It seems that all Bush's mates are corrupt. Paul Wolfowitz is the latest to be exposed. One UK politician, Lord Bruce, argued on BBC radio today that he should be allowed to keep his job as Bush will only replace him with someone who is even more corrupt than Wolfowitz!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2056501,00.html

Paul Wolfowitz's tenure as president of the World Bank was today increasingly under threat, after the bank's powerful governing body indicated that he broke their ethical guidelines in awarding pay increases to his partner.

The statement by the bank's board leaves Mr Wolfowitz vulnerable to disciplinary action, especially if the bank president is found to have lied about his handling of the affair. The news comes just a day after World Bank staff called on him to resign over the matter.

In a statement released this morning, the board said its investigation found that Mr Wolfowitz had approved promotions and pay increases for Shaha Riza - a World Bank staff member with whom he was romantically involved - without a review or decision by the bank's ethics committee or board of directors.

That contradicts an earlier statement by Mr Wolfowitz's office which claimed: "All arrangements concerning Shaha Riza were made at the direction of the bank's board of directors."

But the board, made up of the 24 executive directors, said today: "The ethics committee, including its chairman, had not been involved in the discussions with the concerned staff member. Neither did it find that the terms and conditions of the agreement had been commented on, reviewed or approved by the ethics committee, its chairman or the board," the board said.

It pledged "expeditiously to reach a conclusion on possible actions to take. In their consideration of the matter the executive directors will focus on all relevant governance implications for the bank."

The board also released documents and findings of an internal team that investigated the contract agreed with Ms Riza, including memos and letters between Mr Wolfowitz, the board and bank officials.

The bank has clear rules forbidding partners or those in a relationship from working together. After Mr Wolfowitz's appointment in mid-2005 Ms Riza was seconded to the US state department, along with a promotion and substantial pay rise -from $132,660 to $193,590, tax free - now known to have been personally ordered by Mr Wolfowitz.

The affair is a huge embarrassment for the bank and Mr Wolfowitz, especially given his desire for a tough stance against corruption and rewards for good governance. Critics say that Mr Wolfowitz's own actions have now made a mockery of those aims.

With the world's finance ministers arriving in Washington for a series of scheduled meetings there may be more developments over the weekend.

Gordon Brown, Britain's chancellor, this morning refused to comment on Mr Wolfowitz's position when questioned by journalists. Yesterday the bank president was given the backing of the Bush administration - in which he previously served as deputy defence secretary, and was a key architect of the invasion of Iraq - but the US Treasury was far less enthusiastic, saying: "There is a mechanism in place."

The latest blow for Mr Wolfowitz came the day after he was heckled and booed by staff members - with some chanting, "Resign, resign" - at the bank's headquarters as he attempted to address them.

Mr Wolfowitz's sagging popularity was reinforced in a call by the bank's staff association - representing the majority of the bank's 7,000 employees based in Washington - for him to "act honorably and resign" over the saga, saying it was "impossible for the institution to move forward with any sense of purpose under the present leadership".

Alison Cave, the head of the staff association, said: "The president must acknowledge that his conduct has compromised the integrity and effectiveness of the World Bank and has destroyed the staff's trust."

In a strongly worded editorial, the Financial Times also told Mr Wolfowitz to stand down. Calling the controversy "lethal" to the bank's credibility, the paper's leader column said: "In the interests of the bank itself, he should resign. If he does not, the board must ask him to go."

During a highly charged press conference in Washington on Thursday, Mr Wolfowitz apologised for becoming involved in his girlfriend's compensation, but denied that he had done so voluntarily or for personal reasons. "In hindsight, I wish I had trusted my original instincts and kept myself out of the negotiations," he said.

Mr Wolfowitz's fate now lies in the hands of the bank's executive board members, each representing the World Bank's major donor nations, ranked by shares reflecting the importance of their stake.

The bank's regulations allow the president to be dismissed by a simple majority of votes by shareholders - the US being the largest with 16% of shares.

So far, individual countries have not voiced any public support for Mr Wolfowitz, with executive board members awaiting instructions from their country's finance ministers.

The irony is that compared to the really vile things this man has done, nepotistically fixing up his girlfriend's promotion is way, way down the list.

Indeed, it may well have been his kindest and most humane act since rising to prominence in the Bush Adminisration.

There's a lesson in this for all neocons. Just stick to the script.

No favours for Muslims, It's OK to screw them (any which way you choose). But no pay rises.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Ron Ecker]

"We were having a meeting in my office. Someone said a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Then we turned on the television and we started seeing the shots of the second plane hitting, and this is the way I remember it. It's a little fuzzy. . . . There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was. Then the whole building shook. I have to confess my first reaction was an earthquake. I didn't put the two things together in my mind." - Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 9, 2003

[Ron Ecker]

Bump. Post didn't register on front page.

[Bob Goodman]

John, what they got him on may seem petty but the only way they could get Al Capone was on income tax fraud. Ok, well, it's a small start, I know...babysteps. But think what the world is losing!! A man with foresight such as demonstrated in this link. Sorry, hope you don't mind, John, but I am going to hammer him on this every chance I get..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BE2oYXnp-bU

[John Simkin]

It seems that it was not just one woman who gained great benefits from Wolfowitz position. He also brought in Robin Cleveland who gets $250,000 for a non-job.

[Sid Walker]

"We were having a meeting in my office. Someone said a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Then we turned on the television and we started seeing the shots of the second plane hitting, and this is the way I remember it. It's a little fuzzy. . . . There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was. Then the whole building shook. I have to confess my first reaction was an earthquake. I didn't put the two things together in my mind." - Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 9, 2003

That's an illuminating extract Ron.

IMO it is simply not credible.

Even I, after witnessing the plane hit the tower at around 11pm Australia time, with no direct responsibility for the lives and welfare of the American people, realized there was something worth watching (for once) on TV.

Also, my memories of those moments are rather clear.

Do we really have a nincompoop with a fuzzy memory heading the World Bank?

He seems to remember expensive presents for his girlfriends....

Perhaps he responds to nagging?

Edited April 23, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Ron Ecker]

Do we really have a nincompoop with a fuzzy memory heading the World Bank?

No, we have a 9/11 conspirator heading the World Bank. He conspicuously found something else to do during the 9/11 attacks just like his fellow conspirators at the top of the U.S. defense command.

Wolfowitz told another lie in the same interview when he said that Rumsfeld realized immediately what hit the Pentagon and that's why he rushed outside to see the damage. Rumsfeld himself told ABC News that he, just like Wolfowitz claims about himself, "had no idea" what hit the building ("a bomb?"), and went outside to see what had happened.

Rumsfeld actually went outside, roaming around and playing medic, so that the people trying to do something in the War Room in defense of the nation couldn't find him. Pentagon officials are on record as looking for their leader in vain. Rumsfeld showed up at the War Room sometime after 10 am, when the attacks were all over, to gain "situational awareness."

Wolfowitz was sent to an "undisclosed location," since the loss of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz both in any subsequent attack would have been a crippling blow to America.

[Sid Walker]

Do we really have a nincompoop with a fuzzy memory heading the World Bank?

No, we have a 9/11 conspirator heading the World Bank. He conspicuously found something else to do during the 9/11 attacks just like his fellow conspirators at the top of the U.S. defense command.

Wolfowitz told another lie in the same interview when he said that Rumsfeld realized immediately what hit the Pentagon and that's why he rushed outside to see the damage. Rumsfeld himself told ABC News that he, just like Wolfowitz claims about himself, "had no idea" what hit the building ("a bomb?"), and went outside to see what had happened.

Rumsfeld actually went outside, roaming around and playing medic, so that the people trying to do something in the War Room in defense of the nation couldn't find him. Pentagon officials are on record as looking for their leader in vain. Rumsfeld showed up at the War Room sometime after 10 am, when the attacks were all over, to gain "situational awareness."

Wolfowitz was sent to an "undisclosed location," since the loss of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz both in any subsequent attack would have been a crippling blow to America.

These guys don't even bother to get their stories straight.

The Arrogance of Shock and Awe.

[John Simkin]

Is Paul Wolfowitz' mistress a spy?

Steve Clemons

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/50932/

Last night, I had dinner with a long-time national security systems analyst who has worked in the Department of Defense and now works for one of the larger private think tanks funded mostly by government. She recounted to me how managing and coordinating large purchasing and acquisition networks in the national security business requires methodologies and approaches that few learn during their college education. That said, years ago, she was assigned an assistant who was brilliant and understood how the acquisitions process worked better than nearly anyone -- and who turned out to be a spy.

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz's girlfriend, Shaha Riza, for whom Wolfowitz arranged not only jobs, incredible pay raises, automatic "outstanding" ratings in performance reviews, but also -- apparently -- a security clearance, is probably not a spy. But our system of national security "secrets management" is not based on trust. It's based on multi-pronged, overlapping constant investigation -- human and electronic.

It would be important for any senior State Department or Defense Department official tasked with maintaining the integrity and security of classified material and information to approach Shaha Riza -- a Libyan national raised in Saudi Arabia -- who was the "girlfriend" of the Deputy Secretary of Defense -- as if she could be a spy.

This is not a matter that those who would know Ms. Riza or who trust Wolfowitz's judgment should say "how dare someone raise that question?!" This should be the question that should have been asked at every stage of Shaha Riza's apparent penetration of the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the private firm, SAIC.

Sidney Blumenthal has laid out the core fundamental questions about the management of Shaha Riza's security clearance:

Riza, who is not a U.S. citizen, had to receive a security clearance in order to work at the State Department. Who intervened? It is not unusual to have British or French midlevel officers at the department on exchange programs, but they receive security clearances based on the clearances they already have with their host governments. Granting a foreign national who is detailed from an international organization a security clearance, however, is extraordinary, even unprecedented. So how could this clearance have been granted?

State Department officials familiar with the details of this matter confirmed to me that Shaha Ali Riza was detailed to the State Department and had unescorted access while working for Elizabeth Cheney. Access to the building requires a national security clearance or permanent escort by a person with such a clearance. But the State Department has no record of having issued a national security clearance to Riza.

State Department officials believe that Riza was issued such a clearance by the Defense Department after SAIC was forced by Wolfowitz and Feith to hire her. Then her clearance would have been recognized by the State Department through a credentials transmittal letter and Riza would have accessed the State Department on Pentagon credentials, using her Pentagon clearance to get a State Department building pass with a letter issued under instructions from Liz Cheney.

But State Department officials tell me that no such letter can be confirmed as received. And the officials stress that the department would never issue a clearance to a non-U.S. citizen as part of a contractual requisition. Issuing a national security clearance to a foreign national under instructions from a Pentagon official would constitute a violation of the executive orders governing clearances, they say.

Given these circumstances, the inspector general of the Defense Department should be ordered to investigate how Shaha Ali Riza was issued a Pentagon security clearance. And the inspector general of the State Department should investigate who ordered Riza's building pass and whether there was a Pentagon credentials transmittal letter.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, or Rep. Henry Waxman, who is one of the best and most tenacious investigators of government abuses, or some other concerned member of Congress should call for a Department of Defense investigation into Riza's security clearance, Wolfowitz's role in fast-tracking the clearance, and the State Department's seeming absence of any record confirming her clearance when Shaha Riza was granted unescorted access at the Department of State.

This "could" be serious -- and the question of whether Shaha Riza is a spy or not should not be a matter for pundits to debate. Anyone getting access to the nation's secrets is scrutinized as a potential leaker, a potential spy -- but it appears on the surface that Paul Wolfowitz may have helped his girlfriend get in on the inside without much of that scrutiny.

[John Simkin]

Is Paul Wolfowitz' mistress a spy?

Steve Clemons

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/50932/

Last night, I had dinner with a long-time national security systems analyst who has worked in the Department of Defense and now works for one of the larger private think tanks funded mostly by government. She recounted to me how managing and coordinating large purchasing and acquisition networks in the national security business requires methodologies and approaches that few learn during their college education. That said, years ago, she was assigned an assistant who was brilliant and understood how the acquisitions process worked better than nearly anyone -- and who turned out to be a spy.

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz's girlfriend, Shaha Riza, for whom Wolfowitz arranged not only jobs, incredible pay raises, automatic "outstanding" ratings in performance reviews, but also -- apparently -- a security clearance, is probably not a spy. But our system of national security "secrets management" is not based on trust. It's based on multi-pronged, overlapping constant investigation -- human and electronic.

It would be important for any senior State Department or Defense Department official tasked with maintaining the integrity and security of classified material and information to approach Shaha Riza -- a Libyan national raised in Saudi Arabia -- who was the "girlfriend" of the Deputy Secretary of Defense -- as if she could be a spy.

This is not a matter that those who would know Ms. Riza or who trust Wolfowitz's judgment should say "how dare someone raise that question?!" This should be the question that should have been asked at every stage of Shaha Riza's apparent penetration of the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the private firm, SAIC.

Sidney Blumenthal has laid out the core fundamental questions about the management of Shaha Riza's security clearance:

Riza, who is not a U.S. citizen, had to receive a security clearance in order to work at the State Department. Who intervened? It is not unusual to have British or French midlevel officers at the department on exchange programs, but they receive security clearances based on the clearances they already have with their host governments. Granting a foreign national who is detailed from an international organization a security clearance, however, is extraordinary, even unprecedented. So how could this clearance have been granted?

State Department officials familiar with the details of this matter confirmed to me that Shaha Ali Riza was detailed to the State Department and had unescorted access while working for Elizabeth Cheney. Access to the building requires a national security clearance or permanent escort by a person with such a clearance. But the State Department has no record of having issued a national security clearance to Riza.

State Department officials believe that Riza was issued such a clearance by the Defense Department after SAIC was forced by Wolfowitz and Feith to hire her. Then her clearance would have been recognized by the State Department through a credentials transmittal letter and Riza would have accessed the State Department on Pentagon credentials, using her Pentagon clearance to get a State Department building pass with a letter issued under instructions from Liz Cheney.

But State Department officials tell me that no such letter can be confirmed as received. And the officials stress that the department would never issue a clearance to a non-U.S. citizen as part of a contractual requisition. Issuing a national security clearance to a foreign national under instructions from a Pentagon official would constitute a violation of the executive orders governing clearances, they say.

Given these circumstances, the inspector general of the Defense Department should be ordered to investigate how Shaha Ali Riza was issued a Pentagon security clearance. And the inspector general of the State Department should investigate who ordered Riza's building pass and whether there was a Pentagon credentials transmittal letter.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, or Rep. Henry Waxman, who is one of the best and most tenacious investigators of government abuses, or some other concerned member of Congress should call for a Department of Defense investigation into Riza's security clearance, Wolfowitz's role in fast-tracking the clearance, and the State Department's seeming absence of any record confirming her clearance when Shaha Riza was granted unescorted access at the Department of State.

This "could" be serious -- and the question of whether Shaha Riza is a spy or not should not be a matter for pundits to debate. Anyone getting access to the nation's secrets is scrutinized as a potential leaker, a potential spy -- but it appears on the surface that Paul Wolfowitz may have helped his girlfriend get in on the inside without much of that scrutiny.

[Sid Walker]

Whether Mr Wolfowitz's girlfriends are spies is a matter of less importance , I would haver thought, to the question of whether Wolfowitz himself is a spy.

He certainly has an interesting bio. Here's Stephen Green, writng in Counterpunch in 2004:

PAUL WOLFOWITZ : A WELL PLACED FRIEND

In 1973, in the dying days of the Nixon Administration, Wolfowitz was recruited to work for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA). There was a certain irony in the appointment, for in the late 1960's, as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, Wolfowitz had been a student and protege of Albert Wohlstetter, an influential, vehement opponent of any form of arms control or disarmament, vis a vis the Soviets. Wolfowitz also brought to ACDA a strong attachment to Israel's security, and a certain confusion about his obligation to U.S. national security.

In 1978, he was investigated for providing a classified document on the proposed sale of U.S. weapons to an Arab government, to an Israel Government official, through an AIPAC intermediary. An inquiry was launched and dropped, however, and Wolfowitz continued to work at ACDA until 1980.

In 1990, after a decade of work with the State Department in Washington and abroad, Wolfowitz was brought into DoD as Undersecretary for Policy by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney. Two years later, in 1992, the first Bush Administration launched a broad inter-departmental investigation into the export of classified technology to China. O particular concern at the time was the transfer to China by Israel of U.S. Patriot missiles and/or technology. During that investigation, in a situation very reminiscent of the Bryen/Varian Associates/klystrons affair two years earlier, the Pentagon discovered that Wolfowitz's office was promoting the export to Israel of advanced AIM-9M air-to-air missiles.

In this instance, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, aware that Israel had already been caught selling the earlier AIM 9-L version of the missile to China in violation of a written agreement with the U.S. on arms re-sales, intervened to cancel the proposed AIM (-M deal. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time was General Colin Powell, currently Secretary of State.

Wolfowitz continued to serve as DoD Undersecretary for Policy until 1993, well into the Clinton Administration. After that, however, like most of the other prominent neo-conservatives, he was relegated to trying to assist Israel from the sidelines for the remainder of Clinton's two terms. In 1998, Wolfowitz was a co-signer of a public letter to the President organized by the "Project for the New American Century." The letter, citing Saddam Hussein's continued possession of "weapons of mass destruction," argued for military action to achieve regime change and demilitarization of Iraq. Clinton wasn't impressed, but a more gullible fellow would soon come along.

And indeed, when George W. Bush assumed the Presidency in early 2001, Wolfowitz got his opportunity. Picked as Donald Rumsfeld's Deputy Secretary at DoD, he prevailed upon his boss to appoint Douglas Feith as Undersecretary for Policy. On the day after the destruction of the World Trade Center, September 12, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz raised the possibility of an immediate attack on Iraq during an emergency NSC meeting. The following day, Wolfowitz conducted the Pentagon press briefing, and interpreted the

President's statement on "ending states who sponsor terrorism" as a call for regime change in Iraq. Israel wasn't mentioned.

[Bob Goodman]

"We were having a meeting in my office. Someone said a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Then we turned on the television and we started seeing the shots of the second plane hitting, and this is the way I remember it. It's a little fuzzy. . . . There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was. Then the whole building shook. I have to confess my first reaction was an earthquake. I didn't put the two things together in my mind." - Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 9, 2003

3 short months before 9/11 Paul Wolfowitz said this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BE2oYXnp-bU

Then at the moment the towers were hit as Ron Eckart's post points out, Vanity Fair quotes PW as having these thoughts dance through his head:

"We were having a meeting in my office. Someone said a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Then we turned on the television and we started seeing the shots of the second plane hitting, and this is the way I remember it. It's a little fuzzy. . . . There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was. Then the whole building shook. I have to confess my first reaction was an earthquake. I didn't put the two things together in my mind." - Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 9, 2003

This from a man who apparantly lived, breathed and predicted this event with such accuracy. Why don't they sing his praises to the high heavens for his insight? For his astonishing prediction? To use a cake anaolgy, the icing would be too thick. Already too thick. If anyone made that speech like that at West Point. Stuck their professional neck out on the line like that. they would be waiting on pins and needles waiting for ...something to happen...As he tells it to Vanity Fair, it never crossed his mind at the time. Oh, a plane hit the WTC. No thoughts. It was almost like the man never even considered that WTC would be attacked again. Who would have thought! The man at West Point would have thought every car backfire was an attack. And yet, what a difference a couple months and a good trip to the woodshed make. I do suspect he was dressed down for the West Point speech.

[Sid Walker]

A very good post Bob.

These criminals take us for mugs!

The latest 'Conservative Voice' has a hilarious article about Wolfowitz,

U.S. Jews Must Protect Wolfowitz is Scott Sullivan's headline.

Then he proceeds to mangle historical metaphors.

"Wolfowitz is most likely innocent, like Captain Dreyfus"

"Bush thinks that he is Nixon, Ahmadinejad is Mao, and that the US and Iran will cooperate, as the US and China did in the 1970’s."

"The problem with this picture is that Ahmadinjad is not... Mao, he is a Hitler, and the US cannot do business with Hitler."

Now this is all very disturbing. A severe case of mistaken identities, perhaps? It seems The Last Judgment and Armageddon are playing at once inside the author's overheated imagination. Will Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan and Napoleon also play star roles in his melodrama? We should be told!

Sullivan is very clear about what American Jews should do next...

What can US Jews do on behalf of Paul Wolfowitz? First, they can insist on a fair World Bank hearing for Wolfowitz, with no rush to judgment. The World Bank is now discussing a final decision on Wolfowitz’s future by this coming Wednesday. This is absurd.

Second, US Jews should make Germany pay for hounding Wolfowitz and helping advance Ahmadiejad’s agenda. They can ask Germany to clarify the issue of whether Germany would issue a visa for Ahmadinejad after he has violated German law by denying he Holocaust. All of us, not just the Jews, would like to know.

Third, US Jews should protect US national security by insisting that President Bush clarify his policies on Germany and Iran. Bush, by picking Germany and Iran as strategic partners, may have picked the wrong side, the losing side, in the Middle East.

In conclusion, if Wolfowitz is purged from the World Bank, US Jews -- again in the interests of US national security -- should insist that President Bush appoint Wolfowitz as Special Envoy to Iraq and the Middle East, with his first task one of brokering an agreement on the future of Kirkuk and the Kurds with Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. Wolfowitz would be perfect for the job, and his appointment would signal Germany and Iran that the US is still looking after its own interests.

Ah, the contemporary ideological (mis)uses of (mangled) historical analysis!

There are some constants - unchanging Commandments that Sullivan believes have served American Jewry well over time. They include:

Thou Shalt Hate Germans

Thou Shalt Hate Arabs and Moslems

Thou Shalt Look After Thy Buddies' Careers, as Thou Expecteth Them to Look After Thine

Thou Shalt Assert that US Interests, Israeli Interests and the Interests of Jews are One, Indivisible and Divinely Ordained.

Until he's safely ensconced in another high-spending, civilization-destroying key role, ask not what Paul Wolfowitz can do for you... ask what YOU can do for Paul Wolfowitz!

Edited May 12, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Bob Goodman]

Well, I apperciate that, Sid. America is a country with a lot of voices. You can find innumberable newspapers directed toward a specific ethnic or political audience. These types of news entities usually take a more biased attitude about the interest of their readers-and sometimes cater to the lowest common denomenator of their respective communities. But I do wonder how you came across that goofball rag that you referenced. Although it could have come out of the Mockingbird publishing house. You make it sound like Sullivan's article reflects a Jewish position.. Jewish opinion in the United States is diverse. Sullivan's not Jewish. He's some kind of kooked out Christo-Zionist. Yes, he does appeal to some of the "less progressive" elements of the Jewish community but certainly not all Jews feel this way. The Ahmadinejad visa issue he talks about certainly seems to have merit and sound reasoning behind it. I don't think it shows a hatred of Germany to bring up that arguement. As for Wolfowitz, certainly the man is Jewish but he is an American. I would have to give him the benefit of a doubt. Wolfowitz's personal life, about which I know too much of, seems to be an all-American one in the best of our traditional sense. It certainly reflects an openess of heart. I'm sure there are some lively political discussions around that dinner table. Overall, I'd have to assume he had America's best interest at heart. Germany went after him on the World Bank issue because of his girlfriend but let's face it. The guy is really lucky to have a girlfriend. Many times, for a laugh, I've said to the laziest person in a work situation: Hey, one thing you better not do....Quit your job. With the implication being, you're such a bum, you'll never get another job that let's your be such a bum. In a good-naturely way, of course. Never fails to get a laugh. Usually even the victim of the joke chuckles knowingly. If I worked with a guy like Wolfowitz, I'd probably tell him that and recomend he never leave his girlfriend,for the same reason----and get a big laugh every time. He's that kind of guy. At any rate, in his spech at West Point 3 months before 911, I was just trying to see if anyone else could detect , say, a note of...hmmm...overall dishonesty? Some people just can't be cool, they never were. They missed that sweet part of life. What it comes down to for me from that speech is his manner. His social awkwardness just wreaks of deceit. He's someone who, when he tries to lay something on thick, it just doesn't work. The type of fellow that, while speaking, can never seem to strike that right balance of too little too much . It's just something obvious, a personality quirk. The poor guys just not a people person. Or maybe it's that he's the kind of guy that deception just oozes out of, even when he is being totally honest. But then the thought struck me, why didn't I see this until recently and only then on the internet? Why wasn't this story played up more? He predicted the the immeditate future with a sickening accuaracy and he comfirmed that the U.S. government had the Japanese intercepts that never made it down to field commanders. At a speech at West Point? This was now an official U.S. government position.. I wasn't aware that any sitting U.S. official comfirmed this, on the record. Anyway, so what happens? Does he get credit for his feat of 911 prognostication? No! Why, you may ask? The poor guy, do you think it's because of the social thing I talked about before? That the whole speech is just ....too much. That the American people would be repelled by his speech. That it would play into the hands of those of us that are of a suspicious nature. After the event happened why wasn't every newscast , every interview prefaced with his unsmiling countenance making the predictions (so many!) he made over and over? They'd have so much to work with. So many parts of the speech hit home with such nauseating clarity. Why aren't they constantly reminding Americans that it was Wolfowitz! Wolfowitz predicted this! "Read all about it"the newsboys should sing. Wolfowitz! His name should be wagging off the tongues of every American schoolkid. He knew it was going to happen! A modern day true American hero. Of the Will Rodgers, Mark Twain, Edison, Tom Swift variety of heroic Americana with a little Houdini and the Amazing Kreskin thrown in. Well, "Great liars are also great magicians", Sid. It wouldn't suprise me if someone you really admired once said that. Just want you to know, I'm smiling while I write that, Sid. I always say, "You can say anything you want to me as long as you're smiling".

Watch The Amazing Wolfie at West Point here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BE2oYXnp-bU

and tell me if your internal lie detector doesn't go off...loud and clear