Liar, liar, Karl Rove's pants on fire

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Think Progress:

-- Karl Rove, yesterday on Meet the Press: "[T]he suggestion that somehow or another the administration had as its policy, 'We're going to go in to Iraq and take their resource and pay for the war,' is not accurate."

-- Paul Wolfowitz, shortly after the invasion of Iraq: "The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

The historical record sucks, eh, Turd Blossom?

(Rove could explain himself by countering that what Wolfowitz and others said at the time never amounted to "policy," but I think it's pretty clear that he was lying.)

Staying the course

By Mustang Bobby

Paul Wolfowitz, who was deputy secretary of defense from 2001 to 2005, has an op-ed in the Washington Post wherein he joins the chorus of those trying to push President Obama into saying something about what's going on in Iran:

President Obama's first response to the protests in Iran was silence, followed by a cautious, almost neutral stance designed to avoid "meddling" in Iranian affairs. I am reminded of Ronald Reagan's initially neutral response to the crisis following the Philippine election of 1986, and of George H.W. Bush's initially neutral response to the attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. Both Reagan and Bush were able to abandon their mistaken neutrality in time to make a difference. It's not too late for Obama to do the same.

The difference, of course, between those situations and this one is that the United States had substantial relationships with both the Philippines and the Soviet Union. We don't even have diplomatic relations with Iran, and that country has used the United States as a scapegoat for all of their problems; I wouldn't put it past them to blame earthquakes on The Great Satan.

The other obvious point is that in both 1986 and 1991, the United States' reputation abroad was considerably more well-respected than it is now. After eight years of faux-butch "bring 'em on" behavior on the part of the Bush administration -- and executed by Mr. Wolfowitz -- the credibility of our good and democratic intentions for other countries is rightly suspect by the rest of the world. And after being labeled as part of the "Axis of Evil," does Mr. Wolfowitz seriously think that the rulers in Iran, whoever they are, are going to either give a rat's ass what we say or not try to turn it to their advantage in their campaign of oppression?

Mr. Wolfowitz would probably do well to listen to Henry Kissinger, who knows a little something about foreign policy, diplomacy, and the consequences of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The McCain Presidency -- Day One

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"It's a tough war we're in. It's not going to be over right away. There's going to be other wars... I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

-- Sen. John McCain (Jan. 27, 2008)

**********

Place: The Oval Office
Time: January 20, 2009

Scene: Just hours after being inaugurated, enjoying a moment of quiet in the eye of a storm of Beltway mayhem, President John McCain and Vice President Fred Thompson are having a private conversation, seated in armchairs in the center of the room. We join them in progress...

John: Billy K. is telling me to take preemptive action against Iran.
Fred: I still can't believe you made him secretary of state.
John: He's always stood by me, unlike the rest of the bastards in our party.
Fred: (nodding off) Hmmph, hrrph.
John: Wolfie agrees with him.
Fred: (shaking awake) He's an asshole. Nice move giving him the Pentagon.
John: I'm so tired of you second-guessing me. Just tell me, what should I do?
Fred: (old scripts coming back to him through a haze of consciousness) Iranians don't take a dump, son, without a plan.
John: What the hell do you mean by that? (anger flaring) Wake up, goddamn you!
Fred: This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
John: Are you telling me I don't know what I'm doing?
Fred: That stupid, arrogant son-of-a-bitch!
John: (flabbergasted) Who? Me? Jesus Christ, I knew I should have picked Huck. Or Rudy. He's just so insufferable. Maybe Loser... er, Lieberman. The point is, mistakes may have been made. I'm telling you straight.
Fred: What the hell is that supposed to mean? I know we're all dummies up here, McClane, but give us a little taste of your brilliant genius!
John: It's McCain, not McClane, jackass. And here's a taste of my brilliant genius. You're fired!
Fred: This a just a big joke to you, Horrigan?
John: Who? What? Who the hell's Horrigan? (pause) Oh, right. (finally getting it) You know, Fred, maybe your senile laziness will come in handy one day. It's very… Reaganesque. Now where's that Secret Service detail to escort you back home for a nap before all the parties tonight? (looking around)
Fred: What's all this top secret business I've been hearing about over at the Pentagon?
John: (putting his arm around Fred and walking to the door) Never you mind, Freddy-boy, never you mind. I'll take care of everything.
Fred: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………….

**********

Fred was quoting lines from four of his finest movies: The Hunt for Red October, Die Hard 2: Die Harder, In the Line of Fire, and No Way Out. I'll let you figure out what was what.

Does he get a new girlfriend with this job too? ... Does the job "pay for itself"?

By J. Thomas Duffy

Maybe it's the clarion call of his old colleague, Donald Rumsfeld, that tugs at his heartstrings of public service.

Wolfowitz Returns to U.S. Government as Adviser:

As we said when the job offer was reported in December, the board meets quarterly to provide advice to the secretary of state and one of her deputies based on classified intelligence on some of the most important issues in United States foreign policy today, from Iran to North Korea."

Egad!

The Wolf Man, back, prowling the corridors of State.

Hmmm, Rumsfeld calling for a new Propaganda Agency... Wolfowitz, back at the State Department, advising, among other things, on Iran ...

Do we smell a build-up here? ... Get the old team together, for the final run down the stretch, putting their considerable prevarication skills to use for a push into Iran?

Does the girlfriend get a gig, too?

Are we gearing up to go after the Filipino Monkey?

Will we soon here the rhetoric, from the Wolf Man, or, perhaps the Madam Secretary herself, that a preemptive, offensive entry into Iran will "pay for itself"?

From The Lede, back in December:

"Another official called the reported appointment “amazing.” That comment alluded to Mr. Wolfowitz’s staunch support for the Iraq War when he was deputy secretary of defense under President George W. Bush. He hasn’t won much good will since then, either during a relatively quick rise and fall as World Bank president, or in his current post at a conservative think tank in Washington.

But if nothing else, Mr. Wolfowitz really needs no introduction, especially to his detractors on the blogs, who are a puzzled, angry lot today:

The Next Hurrah: “Condi, is it a coincidence that so many people responsible for gaming the intelligence to get us into Iraq are on your advisory board?”

The Brad Blog: “In Bushworld, incompetence must be rewarded.”

Arms Control Wonk: “Andrew Sullivan has a better line than I can muster.”

Andrew Sullivan: “He’s advising Condi on WMDs. Curveball wasn’t available?”

So far, The Lede has not turned up any bloggers weighing in to support Mr. Wolfowitz."

On the downside, with the protracted, ugly, almost never-ending saga of his resignation from The World Bank, will the next President be able to get him out of this position?

Stay tuned Wolf Fans, this one is surely to be a ever-giving gift!

**********

Bonus Wolfie Whoppers

Yes, Wolfie, People Will Be Talking, For Years, About You ... The Results - The Garlic Weekly Poll

Larisa Alexandrovna - Scott Ritter: Neocons as Parasites

"Hillary 1984" Video Blogger Takes On Wolfowitz

Andrew Cockburn: The Puppet Who Cleared the Way for Iraq's Destruction

Developing Story! White House Giving World Bank, Wolfowitz Green Light To Blame McNulty; New Strategy Of Leveraging Scandals; Cheney Says Embattled Hero "Definitely In Final Throes" At World Bank

Yeah, it's a head-scratcher for us, too, Wolfie...

(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Whom to trust to tell the truth?

By Carol Gee

The first benchmark -- For many of us, the enduring myth that George Washington could not tell a lie stands in stark contrast with the challenge of getting at the truth today.

Getting to the truth in the world of politics is crucial to the well-being of the United States. And we do not need to be reminded that there is not a whole lot of time to do it. In just one month Iowans will caucus and make their nominations for our next president (ONP). The returning members of the U.S. House and Senate will have about three weeks before the holiday recess and the end of the year to make decisions. The activists and lawmakers could use our help. To whom can we turn for the truth? How can we detect "spin"? Whether on line or in the mainstream media, as we advocate for change with the decision makers, who can we trust for the facts we need to buttress our arguments? Here are a few of my choices:

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com reminded us that there is a marked difference between good reporting and shoddy reporting in the mainstream media. To quote:

This is without question one of the most significant problems in how our establishment media functions. They refuse to subject claims -- particularly claims from the GOP power structure and the right-wing noise machine which they fear -- to any critical scrutiny.

. . . It isn't actually that complicated. When a government official or candidate makes a factually false statement, the role of the reporter is not merely to pass it on, nor is it simply to note that "some" dispute the false statement. The role of the reporter is to state the actual facts, which means stating clearly when someone lies or otherwise makes a false statement.

It's staggering that this most elementary principle of journalism is not merely violated by so many of our establishment journalists, but is explicitly rejected by them. That's the principal reason why our political discourse is so infected with outright falsehoods. The media has largely abdicated their primary responsibility of stating basic facts.

Bob Scheiffer at Face the Nation reminded us to maintain perspective when it comes to the actual situation in Iraq. Many people will die there before the end of the year, and billions of dollars will be spent with not much to show for it. To paraphrase my old favorite newsman, "Now is not the time to say 'Mission accomplished' when the Iraqis have not made any political progress."

Martin Kady II and Jim VandeHei according to Politico.com., headlined that voters are shifting focus from Iraq. And, to his credit, Rep. John Murtha went to Iraq to see for himself what the truth was about the situation there. One of the House's most vociferous war critics, Murtha, reminded us that the level of violence is diminishing in the Iraq war. To quote,

The change in mood perceived by Democratic lawmakers comes as one of Congress’ most vocal war critics, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), returned from a trip to Iraq and told reporters Thursday that “the surge is working” to improve security, even though the central government in Baghdad remains “dysfunctional.” On Friday, Murtha, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, clarified his remarks. The surge, he said, “has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government,’’ which he added has “failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide.”

“The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable,” Murtha said.

Steve Benin at the Carpetbagger Report reminded us that our current president still wants to operate outside the laws passed by Congress, this time again using a signing statement with a recent military appropriations bill. To quote:

Bush thought enough of the bill to sign it into law, but not quite enough of it to obey the bill’s provisions. He’s picky that way.

Steve Clemons at The Washington Note reminded us of a new film documentary called "Taxi to the Dark Side," that focuses on U.S. involvement with very questionable practices. It will be available in theaters in January. To quote:

The film already has a Gotham Award Nomination as best documentary and won the Best Documentary Prize at the Chicago Film Festival, the Newport International Film Festival, and the Tribeca Film Festival.

I've seen it -- and it's a devastating chronicle of the Bush administration's Darkness at Noon-style kidnapping, detainment, and torture practices that have been less part of a so-called 'war on terror' than a 'war on America's own democratic principles.'

Film critic Roger Ebert agrees and said, "Highly recommended. A devastating documentary laying out in precise detail the Bush administration's use of illegal detainment, torture and death in prison camps that exist outside the U.S. Constitution."

Our current president (OCP) has set truth on its head almost since first taking office. Who does not want success in Iraq?! The bar has had to be lowered for what that means, however, because the Iraqis are not sure what success means to them. Perhaps they were infected with the same anti-truth virus as their neocon liberators. ONP, I remind myself as I try to decide whom to support, should have the requisite leadership qualities embodied by George Washington, those of telling the truth and serving the public.

Cross-posted at South by Southwest

The return of Paul Wolfowitz

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports:

Don't ever say the Bush administration doesn't take care of its own. Nearly three years after Paul Wolfowitz resigned as deputy Defense secretary and six months after his stormy departure as president of the World Bank -- amid allegations that he improperly awarded a raise to his girlfriend -- he's in line to return to public service. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has offered Wolfowitz, a prime architect of the Iraq War, a position as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, a prestigious State Department panel, according to two department sources who declined to be identified discussing personnel matters. The 18-member panel, which has access to highly classified intelligence, advises Rice on disarmament, nuclear proliferation, WMD issues and other matters. "We think he is well suited and will do an excellent job," said one senior official.

No, children, it doesn't matter how badly you mess up, how badly you get things wrong, how dangerous your views are, how corrupt you may be -- in the end, as long as you remain loyal, as long as you remain ideologically friendly, there'll be a place for you somewhere in the lofty echelons of Bushworld.

The previous chairman of the ISAB was, of all people, Fred Thompson, current Republican presidential snoozer -- hardly a Bush loyalist, even more hardly a great mind. One suspects that Wolfowitz will bring a tad more vigour to the job, much to the detriment of, well, the whole damn world.

Wolfie's blame game

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Because he's a Bushie, and because Bushies must be Bushies, and because Bushies avoid taking responsibility for anything and everything they do that fails, which is pretty much anything and everything, Paul Wolfowitz has come to the conclusion, the only conclusion that could make any real sense to him, the only conclusion that could allow him to avoid responsibility for his actions, that he did nothing wrong at The World Bank, nothing at all that would justify what has happened to him, namely, his resignation (i.e., firing).

Like the Bush Administration -- like Bush himself, who rallied to Wolfowitz's defence and, in so doing, protected one of his own even in the face of mounting international criticism -- Wolfowitz prefers to place the blame anywhere but on himself. And the scapegoat this time? The media:

The outgoing president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, has told the BBC an "overheated" atmosphere at the bank and in the media forced him to resign.

*****

Speaking to the BBC World Service, Mr Wolfowitz denied that his own actions were the root cause of his departure.

"I'm pleased that finally the board did accept that I acted in good faith and acted ethically," he said.

"I accept the fact that by the time we got around to that, emotions here were so overheated that I don't think I could have accomplished what I wanted to accomplish for the people I really care about."

Actually, though, a World Bank panel determined that Wolfowitz in fact "broke World Bank laws" and that there was a conflict of interest in his efforts to help his girlfriend, Shaha Riza. Indeed, the panel "ruled he had broken the bank's code of conduct and violated the terms of his contract". As to his claim that he acted "in good faith and acted ethically," the banks board of directors "accepted [his] assurances," according to the BBC, but nonetheless "acknowledged that a 'number of mistakes' had been made". The bank's staff association put it more bluntly: "He has damaged the institution and continues to damage it every day that he remains as its president."

Wolfowitz was given the opportunity to save face and resign rather than face being censured or fired. Essentially, he had no choice but to resign. And it wasn't because of a hostile media environment. He was shown the exit because he had irreparably damaged his credibility, acted unethically, violated the bank's own rules, and weakened the bank itself. Simply put, he could not be left in power.

Just as he once said that he could not imagine why more troops would be needed after the fall of Saddam's regime than for the invasion itself, that is, just as he could not imagine what could go wrong during the American occupation of post-Saddam Iraq, Wolfowitz cannot imagine that he did anything wrong at The World Bank. It is the sort of arrogance that cannot admit of failure. And it is the sort of hubris that characterizes Bushies everywhere and that has come to define the Bush presidency. He may be a scoundrel, but he is just like all the rest.

Responsibility and resignation

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Wolfowitz is out -- soon:

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz has resigned his post, effective June 30.

An internal panel tasked with investigating the lucrative pay and promotion package Wolfowitz arranged in 2005 for girlfriend Shaha Riza found him guilty of breaking bank rules.

The committee also found that he tried to hide the salary and promotion package from top ethics and legal officials within the bank. The report added that there is a "crisis in the leadership" at the World Bank.

Wolfowitz is the first World Bank president to ever leave the bank under a cloud of scandal.

Yet he doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong. You've got to admit, he's consistent in his cluelessness. But at least this mess will soon be over.

The photo above is from the White House. With Wolfowitz embroiled in scandal and soon to resign, let's remind ourselves what President Bush said about him on March 16, 2005, upon his appointment to head The World Bank:

Paul Wolfowitz is a proven leader and experienced diplomat, who will guide the World Bank effectively and honorably during a critical time in history -- both for the Bank and the developing nations it supports.

Well, that didn't quite work out. Bush went on to praise Wolfowitz's "experience" and "skills," as well as his allegedly "deep understanding of developmental issues and economic and political reform," but, however excessive that praise, what he will now be remembered for most is being completely wrong about the Iraq War and reducing The World Bank to a state of crisis by acting unethically and trying to cover it up.

It couldn't have happened to a more deserving man.

For Wolfowitz, the end is near

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I posted my thoughts on The Wolfowitz Affair last night, and here's the latest from WaPo:

The World Bank's executive board is negotiating the resignation of embattled President Paul D. Wolfowitz, senior bank officials said this afternoon.

The sources said that under the terms being discussed, Wolfowitz would step down, ending the ethics controversy that has consumed the bank for weeks, while the board would credit him for some achievements as president of the global poverty-fighting institution, including a sharpened focus on aiding Africa and stemming corruption.

The Bush Administration is apparently "helping broker the terms" and is "eager to see the matter resolved swiftly," but -- and this shows its wagon-circling priorities -- it had been working on "finding Wolfowitz a face-saving way out," whereby "the bank's board [would have reprimanded] but not [fired] Wolfowitz for engineering and covering up a substantial raise for his girlfriend, with the bank expressly sharing some of the blame for the ethics controversy".

In typical fashion, then, the Bush Administration was trying to avoid responsibility and deflect accountability while protecting one of its own. But the bank, much to its credit, "rejected that formulation in discussions last night and today". And consider this: "The Bush administration appeared to be virtually alone in supporting Wolfowitz. Nearly all board members have endorsed the findings of the committee's report, officials said, with even Canada -- traditionally a reliable U.S. ally -- breaking with the Bush administration."

(Bush. Alone. Again. What else is new?)

Which means that the end is near for Wolfowitz at The World Bank. If he doesn't resign -- and the window seems to be open -- he will likely be subjected to a vote of no confidence or fired. And so his resignation is inevitable. It's just a matter of when.

(CNN has more here, ABC here.)

The Wolfowitz Affair

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I haven't yet posted on the Wolfowitz scandal at The World Bank, but I can't resist quoting this piece in The Telegraph:

Paul Wolfowitz, the embattled World Bank chief, launched into a threatening tirade against members of his staff when news of his controversial pay and promotion package for his girlfriend began to leak out, it emerged yesterday.

The revelation was one of the more damning elements of a report by a special investigative panel, which concluded that the scandal "had a dramatic, negative effect on the reputation and credibility" of the bank.

The whole affair is "banal and tawdry," as Heraclitus put it a while ago, and I tend to agree. Is it bad? Yes. Is it that bad? Well, no. What is that bad is the scandal, not the "pay and promotion package," which is precisely what the report implies.

To the extent that Wolfowitz has damaged the credibility of the institution, not to mention whatever was left of his own credibility after his role in getting the Iraq War off the ground, he would do well to resign. As The Washington Post is reporting, after all, the report determines that "[his] actions manifest a lack of understanding for and a disregard for the institution as a public international organization," and that he may no longer "be able to provide the leadership needed to ensure that the bank continues to operate to the fullest extent possible".

Matthew Yglesias is right to point out that "hypocrisy matters" -- consider the extent of hypocrisy in the White House and throughout the Bush Administration, for example, as well as on the religious right -- but I do think that some of Wolfowitz's critics are exaggerating their criticism in this case because he "was an architect of the Iraq War," as James Kirchick wrote at The Plank (in a post that I otherwise find to be excessively apologetic). If it had been some random economist who had given his girlfriend a raise and a promotion, or if it had been a Democrat, would the criticism be what it is now? If it had been a Democrat, Republicans would be exaggerating their criticism. If it had been some randon economist, I doubt anyone would be paying much attention. (It would be yet another scandal at an international institution, just like any of the usual scandals at the U.N.) In other words, hypocrisy matters, but so does partisanship.

Which is not to say that the partisans are wrong. Far from it. Whatever the motives of some of his critics, Wolfowitz acted in an inappropriate, and indeed unethical, manner, and he is now embroiled in a scandal that has tarnished the institution of which he is the head, this according to the institution itself. Wolfowitz has fought back in force, rejecting calls for his regisnation (or firing), but a report at ABC News suggests that "all options are on the table" for the White House, that "it is an open question" whether he will remain in the job. Even the White House realizes that Wolfowitz's position is untenable, that the scandal has simply grown too large to dismiss. Bush has expressed his support for Wolfowitz in the past, and just recently, but, as Sir Humphrey once remarked, you have to get behind someone before you stab them in the back.

Wolfowitz is likely done, but it won't be because of Iraq or because of any policy failure at The World Bank. That may be fine for some, but -- and I say this as someone who dislikes Wolfowitz immensely -- I'm not so sure.

He has done far worse in other capacities, and in more serious ways, but perhaps such an undignified end is some sort of justice after all.