Wolfowitz Appears to be Heading Towards Face-Saving Exit Deal

-

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz pleaded for a second chance and offered to dump his gaggle of advisers who followed him to the Bank from the Bush administration.
But senior officials report to me that the damage is too deep at this point and that there is no conceivable strategy of helping the Bank return to a credible position without a complete shift in management.
Every account I have thus far from those close to Bank Executive Directors report that a deal is now being negotiated for Wolfowitz to resign, but in a “face-saving way.” The deal should be completed by this evening.
More soon.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

46 comments on “Wolfowitz Appears to be Heading Towards Face-Saving Exit Deal

  1. David N says:

    From Terry Pratchett’s /Jingo/:
    This is about “a crime so awful that ther’s no law against it. It’s called ‘war.'”
    One is reminded about the old saying, that if you owe the bank a thousand dollars, they control you, but if you owe the bank a billion dollars, you control them.
    The fact is the crimes of these people are so big, so awful, so horrendous, so all-encompassing that people just can’t deal with them. It’s too much. Who would believe they’d have the gall?
    But they do. What’s hard to believe is that the group of international financial leaders who are on the World Bank Board of Directors can’t seem to come up with a single alpha male gene among them. They want to say, “Pretty please, Paul, think of someone besides yourself and resign, and if you don’t, we’ll be really, really disappointed.”
    I can understand that the bullies get away with it in high school. But in the adult world? In a world of laws and standards? In a world where the other bullies from high school are out there?
    But there it is. Bush and his capos stomp all over the Constitution, and no one has the cojones to say, wait a minute. Wolfie and his sex toy stomp all over a major international financial institution, and no one has the balls to simply fire him, and end it. What are they afraid of? That he’ll glare at them harshly? He can’t sue!! They can even gain the right to name his successor, because Bush forfeited that right by naming the scum-bag PW!! What are they waiting for, the principal’s permission?

    Reply

  2. Carroll says:

    That big frat brat needs to sit there and sulk until he finds a way to like the bill a democratically elected Congress sent to him, or the money runs out and he has to bring the troops home, whichever occurs first.
    Basta!!!!!
    Posted by Kathleen at May 17, 2007 01:22 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    The only two arguements I have heard for staying with no pullout date is a timeline will signal the “insurgents” to ‘wait us out”…well…er…it’s their country, they can “wait us out” forever.
    And the other one that withdrawing will unleash more killing of civilians unless we stand up the Iraq army. That may have some merit but still raises the question of as long as we aren’t accomplishing anything concrete toward reconciling the fractions and the Iraqi army on the Iraqis is just another inhouse fraction clash aren’t we still just pissing in the wind?
    I don’t know why I think this, it’s just an impression I get… but I think the Iraq gov has decided the US involvement is over as far as they are concerned and they have effectively shut down any real cooperation with the US and are doing the blah,blah for show only until we eventually wear ourselves out. I think they are pretty sure which fraction is going to come out on top in Iraq and are just waiting for the inevitable.

    Reply

  3. Kathleen says:

    Carroll,
    Thanxoxoxoxo for the UN links and offer to help with UNSC contact info. With a vote in June, I think it is critical for the world to express our outrage at the continued slaughter in Iraq.
    I had just read Evil Empire by Chalmers Johnson. It’s part of his Blowback Trilogy. I think I’ll read all three this summer.
    Meawhile, back in the Beltway, I think Congress should tell Busholini to Like it or Lump it with the Iraq funding bill.
    That big frat brat needs to sit there and sulk until he finds a way to like the bill a democratically elected Congress sent to him, or the money runs out and he has to bring the troops home, whichever occurs first.
    Basta!!!!!

    Reply

  4. Pissed Off American says:

    Hi Winnipeger.

    Reply

  5. KRobertson says:

    “Carroll, where can I find the Chalmers piece?”
    Posted by MP
    I just put “Is imperial liquidation possible for America?” into google, and gee golly, it came right up. Took me all of about eight seconds. How long did it take you to type your question, MP?
    You got your bale of straw ready for the day?
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17708.htm
    Posted by Pissed Off American at May 17, 2007 09:47 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I cannot believe that I am taking the time to post in the “Comment Section” of a blog, but after perusing some of the above, I must break every rule of decorum and say, “What a friggin’ ASSHOLE you are, ‘Pissed Off American’!!!”
    Truly, Truly, Truly, the attitude that you regularly project here SUCKS and says to me that you are most likely a self-hating, underemployed, failure of a person, who can’t help but spew the ugliness you feel inside.
    Apologies to Steve and others for my biting remark, but if nobody else wants to call a spade a spade, I must. I’ve NEVER taken kindly to bullies.

    Reply

  6. Mackie says:

    “For the U.S., the decision to mount such a campaign of imperial liquidation may already come too late, given the vast and deeply entrenched interests of the military-industrial complex. To succeed, such an endeavor might virtually require a “revolutionary mobilization of the American citizenry,” one at least comparable to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.”
    I think one of the easiest ways to begin would be if the public could be convinced to refuse to vote in ANY incumbents. I think changes could be made relatively quickly that way…

    Reply

  7. MP says:

    Gadfly asks: “Can someone please provide a coherent answer as to WHY criminals like Wolfie, Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rove, et. al. as well as their vile neo-con cabal are awarded a “face-saving” deals???”
    No coherence, but I’m afraid it is almost always thus. Big criminals have the wherewithal to get away with it. Poor kids who steal bread are locked up. Why should Nixon have been pardoned? Look at the damage LBJ did to the country based on the Tonkin lies and many more lies about the progress of the war–ALL well documented from inside sources. The big guys have to break the law in a CERTAIN WAY for there to be real consequences, e.g., jail time. The system then recoils, and the offender gets the axe, probably so that the real culprits, or the other culprits, get to wash their hands of it, and the public feels that justice has been done.

    Reply

  8. Pissed Off American says:

    “Carroll, where can I find the Chalmers piece?”
    Posted by MP
    I just put “Is imperial liquidation possible for America?” into google, and gee golly, it came right up. Took me all of about eight seconds. How long did it take you to type your question, MP?
    You got your bale of straw ready for the day?
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17708.htm

    Reply

  9. MP says:

    Carroll, where can I find the Chalmers piece?

    Reply

  10. Carroll says:

    And while I am at it….
    http://thehill.com
    House Dems indicate they are more united on Iran legislation
    By Roxana Tiron
    May 16, 2007
    House Democrats, who have been divided on whether the president needs authorization from Congress to attack Iran, suggested yesterday that they are more united on the controversial issue.
    But with Iran measures possibly headed to the House floor as early as today, it is unclear if Democrats have the votes to pass legislation calling for the president to seek authorization from Congress for a preemptive strike on Iran.
    House Democratic leaders initially attempted to insert Iran language in their now-vetoed Iraq supplemental bill after some New York Democrats, including Reps. Eliot Engel and Gary Ackerman, balked at the language.
    The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an influential group that advocates strong U.S. ties with Israel, lobbied heavily to remove the Iran provision in the supplemental, arguing that the measure would weaken President Bush’s attempts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
    Needing every vote they could get, House leaders dropped the provisions before narrowly passing the Iraq measure.
    After striking the language, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised several members, including Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), that she would allow for an up-or-down vote on an Iran amendment, though it is unclear which amendment or amendments will be voted on.
    In the 109th Congress, Iran amendments offered by DeFazio and Hinchey were easily defeated.
    But a new amendment by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) could attract the most votes. His measure would prevent funds authorized in the bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being obligated or expended to plan a contingency operation in Iran.
    Andrews said in an interview that he has spoken to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) about his amendment to the pending defense authorization legislation.
    “He will be supportive of this approach because it balances the assertion of our constitutional prerogative with the needs of the military to act in case of an emergency,” Andrews said. “I think the chairman would agree. He and I share the view to strike that balance.”
    At press time, the House Rules Committee was still deliberating which amendments it will clear for votes today.
    Skelton did not comment by press time about his position on the issue, though he did indicate that a few Iran amendments may be approved by the Rules Committee.
    Skelton voted against DeFazio’s amendment in 2005 that would have prohibited the administration from initiating military operations against Syria, Iran, North Korea or other potential rogue nations without authorization from Congress.
    Skelton also voted against the Hinchey amendment to the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill that would have prohibited any of the funds made available to initiate military operations against Iran with the exception of an attack on the United States, its military or interests.
    Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, also voted against the amendments in 2005 and 2006. But it was Murtha, a staunch Iraq war opponent who this year pushed for the language in the supplemental prohibiting military action in Iran without congressional authorization.
    While Pelosi voted for the DeFazio and Hinchey amendments, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) voted against both measures.
    At his pen-and-pad session yesterday, Hoyer said, “I believe that any action anywhere that is not a response to an attack on the United States requires congressional authorization. I have made that point, whether it is Iran or any other country.”
    If it is an attack on the United States the commander in chief has the authority to retaliate, but if that is not the case, Hoyer said, “I don’t think that he can go into Iran or any place else without that authorization.”
    Amendments on that issue, Hoyer said, “will be carefully considered by the Rules Committee.” He added, however, that it is “a constitutional premise that only Congress can authorize the country to an active attack or war with another entity or another nation.”
    In an interview, McDermott said, “Congress has to take its responsibility of declaring war seriously.”
    McDermott, along with Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), believe that the Bush administration is committed to going to war with Iran.
    Congress can’t allow the president to bomb Iran based on “the flimsy resolution we passed four years ago,” McDermott added.
    The White House has refused to commit to seeking the approval of Congress on a potential future conflict with Iran.
    Critics of the Iran amendments have said that it would tie the military’s hands, claiming that Iran has provoked unrest in Iraq.
    “I think it is more imperative than ever,” said DeFazio. “There are ongoing assertions from the Bush administration that either the Iraq authorization or the 9/11 authorization allows the president a free hand in Iran…[and] Dick Cheney is starting to beat the war drum.”
    DeFazio, together with Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Hinchey, offered an Iran amendment while Hinchey also offered separate language.
    House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) voted in favor of the DeFazio and Hinchey amendments last Congress.
    House Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) voted in favor of the DeFazio amendment and against the Hinchey amendment.
    AIPAC is likely going to oppose renewed efforts in the House. Hoyer is close with Howard Friedman, a Baltimore-area constituent who is president of AIPAC.
    Hoyer is one of the top recipients of pro-Israel groups’ political contributions.
    On the opposite end of the spectrum, retired Gen. Wesley Clark (D) together with Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org created a grassroots effort named StopIranWar.com. Their argument, apart from advocating diplomacy with Iran, is that a U.S. attack on Iran would be detrimental to Israel’s security.
    >>>>>>>>>
    Go for it AIPAC, ….the day after you jerryrig another US war with Iran “Never Again” will become “Once Again” for you, your congressional whores and Israel.

    Reply

  11. Carroll says:

    Sometimes I find satisfaction in having people much, much smarter than me thinking the same way I am thinking and seeing what I think I see. But mostly it just scares me shitless to find out I may indeed be absolutley right, not radical.
    Chalmers Johnson is one who just scared me
    that way again…some review and comments from his latest:
    Evil Empire
    Is imperial liquidation possible for America?
    by Chalmers Johnson
    “Unfortunately, none of the remedies proposed so far by American politicians or analysts addresses the root causes of the problem.”
    Check.
    “Even though large numbers of voters vaguely suspect that the failings of the political system itself led the country into its current crisis, most evidently expect the system to perform a course correction more or less automatically.
    If these people actually believe a presidential election a year-and-a-half from now will significantly alter how the country is run, they have almost surely wasted their money.” As Andrew Bacevich, author of The New American Militarism, puts it: “None of the Democrats vying to replace President Bush is doing so with the promise of reviving the system of check and balances. … The aim of the party out of power is not to cut the presidency down to size but to seize it, not to reduce the prerogatives of the executive branch but to regain them.”
    CHECK.
    “One major problem of the American social and political system is the failure of the press, especially television news, to inform the public about the true breadth of the unconstitutional activities of the executive branch. Citizens must know what is done by the government in their names.”
    CHECK
    Some respected professional journalists do not see these failings as the mere result of personal turpitude but rather as deep structural and cultural problems within the American system as it exists today. In an interview with Matt Taibbi, Seymour Hersh, for 40 years one of America’s leading investigative reporters, put the matter this way:
    “All of the institutions we thought would protect us – particularly the press, but also the military, the bureaucracy, the Congress – they have failed. … So all the things that we expect would normally carry us through didn’t. The biggest failure, I would argue, is the press, because that’s the most glaring. … What can be done to fix the situation? [long pause] You’d have to fire or excute 90 percent of the editors and executives.”
    CHECK
    “Imperialism and militarism have thus begun to imperil both the financial and social well-being of our republic. What the country desperately needs is a popular movement to rebuild the constitutional system and subject the government once again to the discipline of checks and balances.”
    CHECK
    ” Neither the replacement of one political party by the other nor protectionist economic policies aimed at rescuing what’s left of our manufacturing economy will correct what has gone wrong. Both of these solutions fail to address the root cause of our national decline.”
    DOUBLE CHECK
    “I believe that there is only one solution to the crisis we face. The American people must make the decision to dismantle both the empire that has been created in their name and the huge (still growing) military establishment that undergirds it. It is a task at least comparable to that undertaken by the British government when, after World War II, it liquidated the British Empire. By doing so, Britain avoided the fate of the Roman Republic – becoming a domestic tyranny and losing its democracy, as would have been required if it had continued to try to dominate much of the world by force.
    TRIPLE CHECK
    For the U.S., the decision to mount such a campaign of imperial liquidation may already come too late, given the vast and deeply entrenched interests of the military-industrial complex. To succeed, such an endeavor might virtually require a “revolutionary mobilization of the American citizenry,” one at least comparable to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
    BRING IT ON…
    “I also believe that unless we follow this path, we will lose our democracy and then it will not matter much what else we lose. In the immortal words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
    AMEN

    Reply

  12. JohnH says:

    “Wolf has no face to save, maybe he thinks the longer he screams and bitches the bigger his payout will be.” Exactly right. Cultivating the image of the captain going down with the ship, while raking in the big bucks. And you know what? Wolfie might just have his cake and eat it, too. People will forget all about his problems in time for the next Republican administration in six years. The hard liners will remember only his willingness to confront his accusers, which will make him ideally qualified for another plum position. It worked for Elliott Abrams, why not for Paul Wolfowitz?

    Reply

  13. Carroll says:

    the peace building mission in the UN
    http://www.un.org/peace/peacebuilding/
    maybe we should be writting them…

    Reply

  14. Carroll says:

    Meanwhile, here’s the current membership on the SC:
    http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp
    I was going to list them all but they are in links and I am afraid they wouldn’t go thur on this site..
    I will do another post with the UN Peace Building Mission link.. maybe that is who we should be appealing to….

    Reply

  15. Carroll says:

    Posted by Kathleen at May 16, 2007 08:41 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes I remember that. Maybe it had some effect, we should do it again. I have written to various EU officals from time to time on issues..who knows, maybe they get read.
    This is the only blog news site I am on or really have time for, but I have a friend who was a former public communications officer for the AF, now retired, and she writes articles for several different dem and liberal sites. I will ask her if she is interested in addressing this and putting out the address of the UN members in the article.

    Reply

  16. susan says:

    It appears that the whole point is to destroy the institution. Like Bolton at the UN and Gonzales at Justice.
    this administration crossd the line from incompetence to malfeasance a long time ago. WHY HAVEN”T WE IMPEACHED THESE BASTARDS???

    Reply

  17. David N says:

    Sorry, but this has to be said.
    Is there no one, even a foreigner, in this town with any BALLS?????
    (Except, of course, for the astoundingly audacious people doing their best to ruin this country and the world, Mr. Rove and his henchmen.)
    Back to the subject:
    Is there no one on the Board of the World Bank willing to just fire Wolfie’s ass, since he has violated every standard of behavior of a responsible official for any organization? And then the same for his concubine?
    Why does this have to be negotiated? Why does anyone give a shit what the lame ducks in the White House will do if they have a hissy fit because they don’t get everything their way? Why don’t they have anyone in Congress who will be responsible and continue supporting the WB, even if a competant president is chosen instead of an American?
    Is there no one who has both the qualities of decency and courage, or are the two mutually exclusive?
    Finally, not to be too obvious about it, but doesn’t this apply to just about everything else? Since when does being careful trump being right? Why are so many so fearful of doing or saying the right thing, and doing what it takes to get these criminals out of office and into the jails they deserve?
    Why is this country being run by bullies?
    Why is bullying the gold standard for leadership?
    Why is bullying the only form of courage we value?
    Or see?

    Reply

  18. Gadfly says:

    Wolfie has nothing to lose– because this piece-of-garbage has been exposed as a liar; a thief; a traitor; and a vile criminal.
    Ergo, like the despicable Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, Gonzales, et. al.– they figure that since they’ve got “nothing to lose”– they’ll screw-over everybody else and destroy us all to save their lousy, oily, stinking skins.
    Wolfie will drag everyone down– because this garbage is incapable of acting in a decent and honorable manner.
    Isn’t it too bad that the World Bank board lacks the courage to fire the ugly & corrupt Wolfie and to tell him not to let the door-hit-‘im-on-the-ass on his way out. No respectable person or organization will want anything to do with this goon.
    Our nation would have been better off without Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, Gonzales, Wolfie, Feith, Perle, Bolton and the rest of the neo-con nazi-style pigs.

    Reply

  19. susan says:

    Here’s a better link:
    http://tinyurl.com/2pxphn

    Reply

  20. susan says:

    Just read this http://blogs.abcnews.com
    “…The officials said the bank’s board had hoped to accept Wolfowitz’s resignation but also acknowledge that the World Bank’s Ethics Committee bears “some responsibility” for giving him bad advice on the issue of his girlfriend…”

    Reply

  21. Kathleen says:

    Carroll,
    Do you remember when a CT. Peace Activist Group sent us all the names and numbers of each of the members of the UN Security Council and asked us to contact them to vote NO on the Iraq Resolution? They did vote No.
    I think its time for the WHOLE WORLD to contact the UN Security Council members directly, again. This time, to ask them NOT TO EXTEND authorization for Coalition Forces to remain in Iraq, which is about to expire now in June.
    A majority of the elected Iraqi Parliamentarians are asking the UN Security Council to not extend the authorization in June, without putting the question of foreign troops in Iraq to a vote by Parliament.
    I think we should support Iraq’s right to decide the issue democratically.

    Reply

  22. Kathleen says:

    Carroll,
    Do you remember when a CT. Peace Activist Group sent us all the names and numbers of each of the members of the UN Security Council and asked us to contact them to vote NO on the Iraq Resolution? They did vote No.
    I think its time for the whole world to contact the UN Security Council members directly again. This time to ask them NOT TO EXTEND authorization for Coalition Forces to remain in Iraq, which is about to expire now in June.
    A majority of the elected Iraqi Parliamentarians are asking the UN Security Council to not extend the authorization in June without putting the question of foreign troops in Iraq to a vote by Parliament. I think we should support Iraq’s right to decide the issue democratically.

    Reply

  23. Robert M. says:

    Steve, Sorry you’ve had to post the moderation pause.
    However the written notice stated on my initial attempt to post that the posting had FAILED. So I waited a bit, and tried posting again. And again it said I’d fail.
    Which wasn’t the case, so I double-posted which generally irks me when that happens. Perhaps a rewrite of the message?
    Regards, Robert M.

    Reply

  24. Robert M. says:

    Now I knew Bob Bennett was a HARD-BIOLED negotiator but this — Wolfie will not resign — is taking hard-boiled to the extreme!
    And a week ago I wrote that he’d still be with us a week from then — which is NOW. And he’s still with us.
    When you’ve only got sources in the one camp and not the other it makes predicting what this crew will do rela difficult. Sorry, Steve.
    And are YOU checking on whether the Centcom Commander put the nix on the 3rd Carrier Group and no overlap?
    Seriously, have secret orders been issued by Gates to restrict direct WH/Cheney access to commanders?
    I want a coup d’adminsitration IN the WH, not BY the administration.

    Reply

  25. Robert M. says:

    Now I knew Bob Bennett was a HARD-BIOLED negotiator but this — Wolfie will not resign — is taking hard-boiled to the extreme!
    And a week ago I wrote that he’d still be with us a week from then — which is NOW. And he’s still with us.
    When you’ve only got sources in the one camp and not the other it makes predicting what this crew will do rela difficult. Sorry, Steve.
    And are YOU checking on whether the Centcom Commander put the nix on the 3rd Carrier Group and no overlap?
    Seriously, have secret orders been issued by Gates to restrict direct WH/Cheney access to commanders?
    I want a coup d’adminsitration IN the WH, not BY the administration.

    Reply

  26. Marlene says:

    Allow me to add to Gadfly’s thought about the ‘American taxpayers burden’…why should we continue to pay for the salary of Riza at her ghost jobs? She should not only be fired from the WB, she should be tossed out of the country

    Reply

  27. Carroll says:

    Wolf has no face to save, maybe he thinks the longer he screams and bitches the bigger his payout will be…..Cindy Sheean should shoot the sob, or at least cripple the rodent so he can’t enjoy his ill gotten gains. No jury in the world would convict her…they would let her off on temporary “sanity”…yes sanity. She’d probably be given honorary degrees and medals from every country in the world and a title by Queen Elizabeth.

    Reply

  28. Carroll says:

    Posted by Kathleen at May 16, 2007 03:26 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Agree

    Reply

  29. Punchy says:

    I KNEW this’d be too easy.
    Wolf ISNT GOING TO RESIGN, says ABCnews. Word that he was, was wrong.
    He wants to light the torch before being pushed out, hopefully catching the nearby drywall and door on fire and burning the whole place down.
    Sorry Mr. Clemons, but someone has to say it: this guy’s a f#cking piece of shit.

    Reply

  30. Zathras says:

    It does rather seem as if Paul Wolfowitz would have better saved face by consenting to a resignation deal a couple of weeks ago, rather than insisting on dragging out the process and bringing in Bill Clinton’s sleazy lawyer.
    I’m sure there is a lesson there, but at this point everyone who has had to deal with this affair most probably just wants to have it over with.

    Reply

  31. Marcia says:

    What face can this dreadful little man have left to save? What Dorian Gray world do they live in?
    They have no shame and no dignity, for themselves or their country.

    Reply

  32. Gadfly says:

    … P.S. …
    And, WHY is the American taxpayer burdened with the bill of having the White House assist the corrupt & vile Wolfie in negotiations for a “face-saving” exit???
    Nauseating!!!

    Reply

  33. ... says:

    http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/
    emptywheel brings up a very good point on the term the world bank is using to get rid of wolfowitz… – exit strategy – something wolfowitz and his neocon friends were never able or willing to figure out with regard to iraq… that is an excellent reminder to him which (unless he is a lot more dense then i think he is) he will get!

    Reply

  34. Kathleen says:

    Sorry for the triple post.
    Meant to also thank Senator Gordon Smith and Rep. Kucinich.

    Reply

  35. Kathleen says:

    Sorry for the triple post.
    Meant to also thank Senator Gordon Smith and Rep. Kucinich.

    Reply

  36. Kathleen says:

    It’s been very satisfying to read the previous comments. Nothing a like brisk shot of the bald faced truth to shake out the cobwebs.
    I’m thrilled that yesterday Senator Chuck Hagel called for UN Mediation to resolve the situation in Iraq. I’ve been begging, pleading, imploring Dems for UN intervention in Iraq for years now, through the drafting of their Constitution, their election, their proposed peace plan and now.
    With a majority of Iraqi Parliamentarians calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops, why did we not support Senator John Warner’s ammendment, calling for our withdrawal if asked by the Iraqi gov’t?
    If we replaced our troops with UN PeaceKeepers and other UN Mediators as Hagel and Kucinich are suggesting, we could have a withdrawal by agreement and an orderly transition period while Iraq is pacified and stabilized and genuinely rebuilt.
    Thank you, Senators Hagels and Warner for making sense in a crazed situation. I suggest re-allocating funds to a UN Peace Keeping Mission and also to UN Special Adevisory Services to help the fledgling Iraqi gov’t become fully operative.
    It was wrong to invade Iraq. It is wrong to stay in Iraq. Not one more life, not one more limb for our “Pretender to the Throne” guy’s legacy.

    Reply

  37. Kathleen says:

    It’s been very satisfying to read the previous comments. Nothing a like brisk shot of the bald faced truth to shake out the cobwebs.
    I’m thrilled that yesterday Senator Chuck Hagel called for UN Mediation to resolve the situation in Iraq. I’ve been begging, pleading, imploring Dems for UN intervention in Iraq for years now, through the drafting of their Constitution, their election, their proposed peace plan and now.
    With a majority of Iraqi Parliamentarians calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops, why did we not support Senator John Warner’s ammendment, calling for our withdrawal if asked by the Iraqi gov’t?
    If we replaced our troops with UN PeaceKeepers and other UN Mediators as Hagel and Kucinich are suggesting, we could have a withdrawal by agreement and an orderly transition period while Iraq is pacified and stabilized and genuinely rebuilt.
    Thank you, Senators Hagels and Warner for making sense in a crazed situation. I suggest re-allocating funds to a UN Peace Keeping Mission and also to UN Special Adevisory Services to help the fledgling Iraqi gov’t become fully operative.
    It was wrong to invade Iraq. It is wrong to stay in Iraq. Not one more life, not one more limb for our “Pretender to the Throne” guy’s legacy.

    Reply

  38. Kathleen says:

    It’s been very satisfying to read the previous comments. Nothing a like brisk shot of the bald faced truth to shake out the cobwebs.
    I’m thrilled that yesterday Senator Chuck Hagel called for UN Mediation to resolve the situation in Iraq. I’ve been begging, pleading, imploring Dems for UN intervention in Iraq for years now, through the drafting of their Constitution, their election, their proposed peace plan and now.
    With a majority of Iraqi Parliamentarians calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops, why did we not support Senator John Warner’s ammendment, calling for our withdrawal if asked by the Iraqi gov’t?
    If we replaced our troops with UN PeaceKeepers and other UN Mediators as Hagel and Kucinich are suggesting, we could have a withdrawal by agreement and an orderly transition period while Iraq is pacified and stabilized and genuinely rebuilt.
    Thank you, Senators Hagels and Warner for making sense in a crazed situation. I suggest re-allocating funds to a UN Peace Keeping Mission and also to UN Special Adevisory Services to help the fledgling Iraqi gov’t become fully operative.
    It was wrong to invade Iraq. It is wrong to stay in Iraq. Not one more life, not one more limb for our “Pretender to the Throne” guy’s legacy.

    Reply

  39. profmarcus says:

    flashing back to naomi klein’s alternet article of several weeks ago…

    Reply

  40. Sandy says:

    Sorry, forgot this:
    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Iran_The_Road_to_Confrontation_0123.html
    Well worth reading.
    As Gadfly (and others) say: WAKE UP, PEOPLE!

    Reply

  41. Sandy says:

    Exactly, Gadfly. And, they won’t even “get it” when W/Cheney bomb Iran.
    Which they are going to do before leaving office.
    Read Larisa Alexandrovna’s Raw Story investigation, “Escalation of US Iran military planning part of six-year Administration push”, among dozens of others.

    Reply

  42. susan says:

    somehow, Wolfie’s groveling to the Bank Board strikes me as deeply satisfying.
    the shitstorm of bad news from the DOJ is a nice counterpart to this.
    the house that Bush/Cheney built is crumbling.

    Reply

  43. Sandy says:

    What? No color photograph?

    Reply

  44. Gadfly says:

    Can someone please provide a coherent answer as to WHY criminals like Wolfie, Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rove, et. al. as well as their vile neo-con cabal are awarded a “face-saving” deals???
    Instead of a “face-saving” exit deal, Wolfie should be fired- be labelled as a liar; a thief; an unethical thug; and, he should be facing charges under U.S. law for his illegal & immoral lies that led our nation into the disastrous blood-bath in Iraq. Just as Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, et. al. should all be impeached/fired and put on trial for treason…
    * Bush has broken the law via illegally approving fascist wire-tapping of American citizens without warrants–
    * Cheney has broken the law via illegally awarding his pimps Halliburton, etc. no-bid, no-audit contracts & insider deals with Big Oil–
    * Rice has broken the law by committing perjury before Congress regarding her sordid & squalid “role” as NSA prior to 9/11, as well as lying about the Niger Uranium Yellow-cake forgeries which were passed-off by herself & Bush to dupe the American people into their Iraqi fiasco–
    * Rove has illegally deleted millions of e-mail from government & RNC systems; and, violating the law regarding that all government-related business using e-mail memorandum be kept on-record… Rove has a long litany of crimes for which he should be charge.
    Yet, this insane & anti-American neo-con Bush/Cheney cabal continues to get away with murder (mass-murder, literally) as well as fraud and betrayal of their oaths of office(s) and their trampling upon the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights.
    Bush & Co. treat the American people and the world community with contempt and they get “face-saving” deals, including by Congressional Democrats, who refuse to carry-out the will of the American people and to impeach these War Criminals.
    WHY???
    Do the great criminals of history deserve to be awarded “face-saving” deals???… Of course not– but then such vile and traitorous thugs & goons normally do not enjoy the sponsorship of Big Oil, Halliburton, Bechtel, the Military Industrial Complex, and AIPAC… And, what’s tragic, is that the poor, dumb, bumbling American people do not comprehend that the corrupt Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, Gonzales, et. al, and the despicable ilk of trash like Wolfie, Feith, Perle, Bolton– all simply spit & piss upon the American people, whom they treat with contempt- exploit- rape- and damage. Pathetic!!!

    Reply

  45. Sandy says:

    I’m sure Boston University Professor Andrew J.Bacevich and family will find comfort that the ARCHITECT OF THE WAR ON IRAQ will be allowed to exit the World Bank in a “face-saving way”.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *