The War in Iraq Was Always About Oil

July 19, 2007 at 12:52 pm | Posted in American politics, Iraq, Middle East, oil, Paul Wolfowitz | 4 Comments

Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the war in Iraq said so himself back in 1992.

While the U.S. cannot become the world’s “policeman,” by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations. Various types of U.S. interests may be involved in such instances: access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking.

In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security.

Wolfowitz Blames His Girlfriend

May 15, 2007 at 9:38 am | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, Paul Wolfowitz | 3 Comments

wow, I didn’t notice this, but in his letter to the board of the Bank, he effectively blames Shaha Riza for his breaking bank rules in giving her a pay raise above bank regulations!

In a written response, Wolfowitz maintained that he acted in good faith in seeking to resolve an obvious conflict of interest. He accused the bank’s ethics committee of forcing him to oversee the raise for his longtime companion, Shaha Riza, as compensation for her transfer to a different job. The ethics panel was afraid to confront her, Wolfowitz said, because its members knew she was “extremely angry and upset.”

The ethics committee told Wolfowitz he could not directly supervise Riza, who also worked at the bank, after he arrived in 2005. He said, however, that the panel declined to oversee her job transfer and compensation, instead ordering him to handle those tasks.

“Its members did not want to deal with a very angry Ms. Riza, whose career was being damaged as a result of their decision,” Wolfowitz said in his response to the investigating committee’s report. “It would only be human nature for them to want to steer clear of her.”

Wolfowitz added that the chairman of the ethics panel thought that “due to my personal relationship with Ms. Riza, I was in the best position to persuade her to take out-placement and thereby achieve the ‘pragmatic solution’ the committee desired.”

Wolfowitz effectively blamed Riza for his predicament as well, saying that her “intractable position” in demanding a salary increase as compensation for her career disruption forced him to grant one to pre-empt a lawsuit. He is scheduled to appear before the board this afternoon. The board is expected to begin deliberating on how to respond as soon as tonight. Board members are inclined to issue a resolution expressing a lack of confidence in Wolfowitz’s leadership, senior bank officials said.

Wow, I hope she has already dumped him. And of course, it wasn’t Wolfowitz’s fault. He just simply caved in to the demands of a woman. He’s not corrupted, it was the woman, right, Mr. Wolfowitz? After all it was Eve who took the first bite, right? What a sad little man.

You Cannot Fight Corruption With Corruption

May 15, 2007 at 9:27 am | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, Paul Wolfowitz | 3 Comments

We’re living in a Shakespearean tragedy today in our world. I’m quite positive William Shakespeare would have had a field day with the cast of corrupted characters ruling our world today, from Bubble Boy George Bush, to “Voter Fraud” Karl Rove, to “I don’t give a damn what you say” Dick Cheney, on down to “Fighting corruption” Paul Wolfowitz. What a sad cast of characters, and boy what damage are they doing to the world around us.

I believe when history looks back at what ignited the great battles of the last days, everyone will point to the decision to invade Iraq by the Bush administration as the root cause. But that’s just my opinion.

In any case, this post is about Paul Wolfowitz, who Bush appointed to head the World Bank. Mr. Wolfowitz is an idealist (the worst kind really) who thought he could forcibly change the world around him (so did Lenin). He gave a sweet deal to his girlfriend, against the World Bank rules, and got caught. The Bank determined that Mr. Wolfowitz violated bank ethics, and now Mr. Wolfowitz rejects that determination, calling it “unbalanced” and “flawed.” Of course he would. He’s a corrupted man. He sees no problem giving out a sweet deal to his girlfriend, knowingly violating Bank ethics. The great irony (and why he’s a great Shakespearean flawed character) is that he’s supposedly pressing the World Bank to fight corruption in the world around him. But…when you fight corruption as a corrupted individual, why would anyone give you any time of the day? Why would anyone listen to you? Does Mr. Wolfowitz not realize that he is at the heart of the undermining of his own idealism? Does Mr. Wolfowitz not realize that his priorities are all messed up? If he truly believed in his ideal, fighting corruption, would not the right thing to do be to step down when you yourself have been caught doing corruptible things? Or is Mr. Wolfowitz a liar? Does he in fact NOT believe in his ideals? If not, just what kind of man is he?

The panel said Wolfowitz believes the blame lies with others and not with him.

It said he did not accept the bank’s policy on conflict of interest and tried to bypass rules that he believed did not apply to him.

“The ad hoc group concludes that in actuality, Mr Wolfowitz from the outset cast himself in opposition to the established rules of the institution,” it found.

“He did not accept the bank’s policy on conflict of interest, so he sought to negotiate for himself a resolution different from that which would have applied to the staff he was selected to head.”

Is Mr. Wolfowitz saying that an idealistic crusader fighting against corruption is a man who blames others and cannot accept responsibility and accountability for his own actions? Is that what Mr. Wolfowitz sees as an idealist against corruption? Is he this blinded by his pride? Step down, Mr. Wolfowitz. Be an honorable man for once in your miserable life. Show the rest of your neo-cons what honorable people do: take responsibility for their own actions.

Create a free website or blog at
Entries and comments feeds.