PDA

View Full Version : I don't like Obama, but I hate Paul Wolfowitz








Pages : [1] 2

patfromlogan
10/31/2011 10:59pm,
http://www.losblogueros.net/fotos/worldbank_wolfowitz.jpghttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/wolfiewhca.jpg


from http://thinkprogress.org/report/the-architects-where-are-they-now/
"Role In Going To War: Wolfowitz said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money would pay for the reconstruction, and that Gen. Eric Shinseki’s estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed was “wildly off the mark.” "[Washington Post, 12/8/05; Wolfowitz, 3/27/03] -

Where He Is Now: Bush promoted Wolfowitz to head the World Bank in March 2005. Two years into his five-year term, Wolfowitz was rebuked by the World Bank investigative committee for engineering an unethical pay and promotion package for his girlfriend and, after repeated calls for his resignation, stepped down on May 17, 2007. Wolfowitz is now a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank that “has the President’s ear” on national security issues. [Washington Post, 3/17/05, 5/18/07; Financial Times, 6/28/07]

Key Quote: “The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [for going to war].” [USA Today, 5/30/03]

Here's some good lines from Mr. Iraq War Architect.

"We are treating the Iraqi prisoners extremely well. In fact I think they get good food and shelter and they're free from the horrible commanders they used to work for. I think most of them are much happier, frankly."
Torture Room, Abu Ghraib: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6176/6165241310_c93f470044_m.jpg

"I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years."

Paul in 2003, and he's very correct, no one wanted to spend $30 billion. Instead the USA has spent $800 billion. Anyone curious about the cost of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can look it up on http://costofwar.com/en/, up to the latest fraction of a second ($3000 a second, $180,000 a minute...) AND, according to the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-economy/2011/1025/Iraq-war-will-cost-more-than-World-War-II), the eventual cost will be $4,000,000,000 to $6,000,000,000, with replacing all the weapons and trucks and taking care of 40,000 injured veterans.

"We don't start a job that we can't finish... that's the American way." Now that is a good one Paul. Too bad you and Shrub didn't bother reading Bush Sr's book, where he spells out the reasons he DIDN'T invade Iraq back in Gulf War I: "...we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome." He pointed out the lack of an exit strategy and how invading Iraq would upset the world order. The IDIOT neo-cons thought that thought regime change would help bring democracy to Iraq and then to the rest of the region. Instead, getting rid of Saddam did upset the balance of power, giving much to Iran, extending Shia influence tremendously, creating a Sunni backlash and so on...

Rachel nails the ************ (many repeats of comb licking):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/45084722#45084722

AND the ************ paid his **** bunny, Shaha Riza, years before his cheating corrupt affair got him fired from the World Bank: "As if the tangled web of Paul Wolfowitz and his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, weren't already sordid enough, now comes word that while he was Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon ordered Science Applications International Corp., a Pentagon contractor, to enter into a subcontract with Ms. Riza under which she spent approximately a month in the spring of 2003 "studying ways to form a government in Iraq."


I can't let Asshole Cheney off, "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, in weeks rather than months." - Far from being seen as a benevolent liberator, the United States is perceived as blundering bully – and an abusive, hypocritical one to boot.

Here's a fun site, http://zfacts.com/p/87.html

and worth a look, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2841wolfowitz.html

battlefields
10/31/2011 11:06pm,
Whose side are you on, patfromlogan? Do you hate freedom? Muricah!

This is my standard response.

dflanmod
11/01/2011 4:06pm,
Whose side are you on, patfromlogan? Do you hate freedom? Muricah!

This is my standard response.

That's fucking funny.........


Plenty of us support and love our country but are fed up with the bullshit.

Muricah, **** yeah.

Eddie Hardon
11/01/2011 5:09pm,
Only skimmed the polemic. Still, Wolfowitz is definitely a cnut.

HereBeADragon
11/01/2011 6:16pm,
Wolfowits should be fired out of a cannon but what does that have to do with Obama? I see a long list of supporting statements but I do not entirely understand the thesis being presented here.

patfromlogan
11/01/2011 10:11pm,
I'm disgusted with Obama. He has nothing to do with a thread about Wolfy, other than I'm in general pissed off.

dflanmod
11/02/2011 12:13am,
I'm disgusted with Obama. He has nothing to do with a thread about Wolfy, other than I'm in general pissed off.

So from a left wing liberal point of view what are your issues with Obama?

Not trying to goad you here. I'm genuinely curious on this one?

W. Rabbit
11/02/2011 12:42am,
This man should have been the first black president.

Mr Boehner: "Mr. President, we refuse to compromise on anything, ever".

President Sanford: "You big dummy".

http://i.imgur.com/KzcJG.jpg

excludedmiddle
11/02/2011 1:36am,
So from a left wing liberal point of view what are your issues with Obama?

Not trying to goad you here. I'm genuinely curious on this one?

It probably has something to do with the fact that Obama is almost no different from Bush. He didn't leave Iraq like he said he would (although that one might finally change at least), extended the Bush tax cuts, renewed the Patriot Act, Guantanamo still open, ramped up the war on drugs, spending going up in general, not paying down the debt at all, starting new wars, bombed Yemen, bombed Somalia, bombed Pakistan, bombed Libya, troop surges in Afghanistan etc., etc. The list goes on and on.
95% of the same.

Eddie Hardon
11/02/2011 2:00pm,
I'm disgusted with Obama. He has nothing to do with a thread about Wolfy, other than I'm in general pissed off.

Well that seems fair. We all get days like that.

HereBeADragon
11/02/2011 6:50pm,
It probably has something to do with the fact that Obama is almost no different from Bush. He didn't leave Iraq like he said he would (although that one might finally change at least), extended the Bush tax cuts, renewed the Patriot Act, Guantanamo still open, ramped up the war on drugs, spending going up in general, not paying down the debt at all, starting new wars, bombed Yemen, bombed Somalia, bombed Pakistan, bombed Libya, troop surges in Afghanistan etc., etc. The list goes on and on.
95% of the same.

While I agree with your frustration shouldn't most of that be directed at Congress? Obama is one man and represents only once branch of our government and while he makes a convenient figurehead to place blame most of the direct power of government is vested with the Congress and Senate.

HereBeADragon
11/02/2011 6:51pm,
This man should have been the first black president.

Mr Boehner: "Mr. President, we refuse to compromise on anything, ever".

President Sanford: "You big dummy".

http://i.imgur.com/KzcJG.jpg

President Fox would have been a hell of a lot more fun.

excludedmiddle
11/02/2011 6:56pm,
While I agree with your frustration shouldn't most of that be directed at Congress? Obama is one man and represents only once branch of our government and while he makes a convenient figurehead to place blame most of the direct power of government is vested with the Congress and Senate.

I don't see how we can't apply that same logic to Bush though. Ultimately they are the most responsible people for the things they've done/authorized, or the things they decided not to veto.

CNagy
11/02/2011 8:26pm,
The difference that I see between the Bush and Obama administration, and why I don't feel like the same logic applies, is the case they made to start all of these things. The case for invading Iraq, as an example, feels like more a betrayal of the people than Obama's decision to not withdraw quickly from Iraq. There is a certain amount of "we broke it, we buy it" going on in Iraq. Obama, to me, is pretty much the Continuer-in-Chief.

Thing is, I'd take George Bush again as President before I'd take any of the current crop of GOP candidates with the exception of Huntsman (who doesn't have a prayer) and Romney (who doesn't seem to have a core). One caveat--none of his old administration would get to come back with him.

excludedmiddle
11/02/2011 8:55pm,
The difference that I see between the Bush and Obama administration, and why I don't feel like the same logic applies, is the case they made to start all of these things. The case for invading Iraq, as an example, feels like more a betrayal of the people than Obama's decision to not withdraw quickly from Iraq. There is a certain amount of "we broke it, we buy it" going on in Iraq. Obama, to me, is pretty much the Continuer-in-Chief.

We can't say the same thing about all the other reasons I listed. I mean, why the **** would Obama renew the Patriot Act?!?

CNagy
11/02/2011 9:35pm,
Honestly, I can't imagine why. I'd want to become president of these United States just to find out the answers to these sorts of questions. I straddle this fine line of "well, we don't get the same intelligence briefings" and "sorry, but that's just indefensible." Like Guantanamo; from the outside it looks like a perfectly simple, classic right vs wrong issue. There has to be factors; some potential that would make the political backlash of not closing it palatable over the possible consequence of closing it. Just logically looking at it--if Obama releases someone (because we didn't have enough proof to convict) and that person goes and blows up a bus full of nuns and orphans, that's all on him politically. I would give my eye teeth to know the real reasons for his policies.