« B Roll | Main | George W. Bush For President »

Wolfowitz: Cutting And Running?

As the author of a bona fide hit piece on Peter Boyer, I have to say that I quite enjoyed his profile of Paul Wolfowitz. Unfortunately, in a strange effort to transform the Iraq War into a human interest story we've lost the entire policy context, but if you come to the table well-informed about this stuff, you learn a lot of interesting tidbits. Reading between the lines, it would appear that Wolfowitz (a) is a believer in Mylroie's account of the Iraq-Qaeda connection, and (b) has a plan to "declare victory and go home" in early 2005. It would be interesting to know how widely shared these beliefs are inside the administration. It's also really too bad that Boyer doesn't explain or explore any of this.

October 25, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834281abc53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wolfowitz: Cutting And Running?:

» How Many Calories Should I Eat Today? from Many Calories
Many Calories Should I Eat Today? Category: Health News Created: 5/8/2006 Last Editorial Review: 5/8/2006 [Read More]

Tracked on May 15, 2006 9:40:53 AM

» Cavs' Hughes Officially Out for Game 3 from Game 3 against
Hughes is in St. Louis mourning the loss of his brother, Justin, who died Thursday after a lifelong battle with heart problems. Born with [Read More]

Tracked on May 24, 2006 9:48:18 AM

» Flesh-Eating Bacteria Kills College Football Player from ggressive Strep
ggressive Strep Infections May Be on the Rise, Experts Say [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 10, 2006 12:05:22 AM

Comments

wow, talk about a fluff job. Wolfowitz, the tender hearted advocate of democracy? Give me a break. This is the same guy who wrote that Suharto was a great man, who spent his time 'climbing volcanoes' in the country instead of checking out, for instance, the massacres in East Timor or Freeport McMoran's use of slave labor in Sulawi, the same guy who masterminded the Defense department assessment under Bush maximus in 91 that the U.S. must be willing to crush any challenges to its superpower status. This is the guy who toured Iraq last year, taunting the anti-war people that there'd been no Shiite uprising in, say, Najaf -- and of course the center of Najaf is a ruin today from just such an uprising. I notice that there is no mention of Chalabi in that long tongue licking. I guess that guy has been airbrushed out.

Posted by: roger | Oct 25, 2004 8:56:31 PM

As Christopher Hitchens has said publicly, Paul Wolfowitz has been right about Saddam Hussein for 20 years while everyone else has been wrong.

You're on the wrong side of history Matt. Saddam Hussein has been defeated. Get over it. Stop crying over the fact Saddam Hussein has been arrested, 25 million people have been liberated, and 5000 Iraqi children are being saved per month in Iraq as a result of the end of UN sanctions caused by Saddam Hussein.

Mylroi's account, among many others, is a most accurate description of the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Iraq had a central role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing

CNN: You believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in both attacks the 1993 and September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Why?

MYLROIE: You can demonstrate to the high legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, which is used for criminal conviction, that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, by showing that Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of that bomb, was an Iraqi intelligence agent. I do that in "Study of Revenge." That bomb, in 1993, aimed to topple the north tower onto the south tower. Eight years later, someone came back and finished the job. Since Iraq was behind the first attack, it is suggestive of the point that Iraq was behind the second attack.NO CONNECTION!

Posted by: Modern Crusader | Oct 25, 2004 9:20:32 PM

Matt, I think you're right, but you missed the best part of the article.

Posted by: praktike | Oct 25, 2004 9:50:20 PM

Heehee... I love it. The citation proving that Mylroie was right about Iraq is an interview with Mylroie talking about Iraq! That's some damn good parodizing, if MC really is a parody.

(Yes I know that's not a real word.)

Posted by: JP | Oct 25, 2004 9:54:08 PM

Prak,

Nice catch.

Reminds me of finding out Richard Perle spent most of his time in his chateau in the south of France.

Posted by: Harold Babar | Oct 25, 2004 10:04:08 PM

I think it really humanizes him. I had the same reaction when I learned how instrumental Perle had been in helping the Bosnian delegation get its shit together at Bosnia. Still waiting for the humanizing story about Ledeen, however.

Posted by: praktike | Oct 25, 2004 10:32:23 PM

So praktike:

Are you in Egypt yet?

And if so, how's it going?

Any stories?

Posted by: SoCalJustice | Oct 25, 2004 10:38:25 PM

>Reading between the lines, it would appear that Wolfowitz (a) is a believer in Mylroie's account of the Iraq-Qaeda connection,

Did you ever think otherwise? I figured Laura Rozen had that one more or less nailed down. (On the other hand, at least he's *sincerely* crazy.)

>and (b) has a plan to "declare victory and go home" in early 2005.

Novak was telling it straight. They intend to ride 'staying the course in Iraq' to victory and then promptly quit. The neos want to lose Rumsfeld and Powell and that was exactly what that proposal would have done. And that would solidify the Bush administration's main philosophical thrust towards neo-imperialism. War, war, and more war.

>Reminds me of finding out Richard Perle spent most of his time in his chateau in the south of France.

C'mon man. That's why Hitchens has a stiffy for them. They're really really mean leftists (with a hate-on for Arabs) advancing the Revolution. Gotta break a few hundred thousand Muslim heads to get to that withering away of the state bit.

(On the other hand, Bush and Rove and that lot are Strom Thurmond Dixiecrat/Dark Rooseveltians. So now the Republicans ever more resemble the Democratic party of the South circa 1948 nationally and 1968 locally.

The Old Left has become the New Right. Which confuses the remaining (American) Laborites and remaining (American) Liberals and the remaining (American) Old Tories. Ah, the swirl of realignment.

It makes no difference to me. I didn't like the Texas Democratic party of 1974 and I don't like the Texas Republican party of 2004, since basically, it's the same bunch of fuckers.

Note here: I seem to be a non-imperialist (British) Liberal. More or less.)


ash
['Moderation...can be fun...']

Posted by: ash | Oct 25, 2004 10:51:18 PM

SoCal, I went in September, and I'm going back in January. You can read about my trip and look at the photos on my blog.

Posted by: praktike | Oct 25, 2004 11:04:58 PM

Hey, since when have you had a blog, Praktike? Pretty nice. Why don't you link it to your name when you sign your posts?

For a second there, I was about to say that you were a lot older than I'd envisioned.

Posted by: JP | Oct 25, 2004 11:12:52 PM

Heh. Thanks, JP. That was my tour guide at Al Azhar Mosque.

Here I am, riding my white stallion.

Posted by: praktike | Oct 25, 2004 11:29:20 PM

praktike:

Awesome. Shukran.

Posted by: SoCalJustice | Oct 25, 2004 11:30:21 PM

You betcha.

Posted by: praktike | Oct 26, 2004 12:04:05 AM

I wish Wolfowitz would just declare victory and resign in 04.

But I'm sure after the Kerry victory he'll just disappear into a university or thinktank and write his memoirs. And wait for another Republican administration.

His highest ambition is to have another Christopher Hitchens-type (the present one is too busy holding his coat for him) write a The Trials of Paul Wolfowitz. He's hoping hoping hoping he gets a shot at secretly bombing some neutral country or sending guns down south to have a general murdered.

And he's probably cultivating his friendship with Ted Koppel as we speak . . .

Posted by: Jeff Smithpeters | Oct 26, 2004 3:47:45 AM

If Bush is re-elected, I would be shocked if we are not down to 50k in Iraq a year from now.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Oct 26, 2004 9:10:30 AM

If Bush is re-elected, I would be shocked if we are not down to 50k in Iraq a year from now.

How would we keep 50,000 troops in iraq next year?

Maybe we could keep them all in kurdistan and supply them through turkey?

Keep them around Basrah and supply them through the port?

50,000 troops would need short defensible supply lines and an easy line of retreat.

Posted by: J Thomas | Oct 26, 2004 10:37:00 AM

Wolfowitz should be delivered up to the International Criminal Court for the international criminal that he is. So should Richard Perle and Ronald Domsweld. One might wonder why the are not. The Americans believe that they are exempt from international sanctions.

Posted by: raj | Oct 26, 2004 10:58:12 AM

between the lines, it would appear that Wolfowitz (a) is a believer in Mylroie's account of the Iraq-Qaeda connection, and (b) has a plan to "declare victory and go home" in early 2005.

I have a plan for Wolfowitz to go home in early 2005 -- it involves electing John Kerry as President -- and if Wolfowitz chooses to call it a victory, that's fine, too.

Posted by: cmdicely | Oct 26, 2004 11:39:19 AM

cmdicely:

I do wonder if there are any Bush Administration officials who are quietly hoping for a Kerry victory, saving themselves the indignity of a "I'm taking some much needed time to spend with my family" resignation speech.

Posted by: SoCalJustice | Oct 26, 2004 12:08:34 PM

Interesting, you are the first of the warmongerers I've ever heard mention the sanction regime. Obviously, Saddam didn't sanction itself and the low level genocide they were causing actually could have convinced me to go along with Iraq Attaq if either we had divorced ourselves from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict completely or forced a real solution first.

Then Bush probably could have rode in there and got his roses and such and while I don't believe Hussein would give a nuke to terrorists I do believe Hussein with a nuke would be keen to go plunder Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia and that really isn't in anyone on this planets self interest. If he was just honest with the world and demonstrated some measure of effort in ending the mess in Palestine (I don't know why he couldn't shut it off with a phone call) and told the world just that: Either sanctions have to end or Hussein has to go or you have one incredible mess going on. That would have worked

Bush could have been the biggest hero in the Arab world since Saladin. 41 was probably the most popular guy in the Western world and all he did was threaten to shut down the money train to Israel.

Anyway, that was just something I was thinking of earlier. Did you actually read the Mylroie book? Did it ever occur to you that the only thing she ever came up with was a forged passport? Did you ever wonder how just Mylroie was brilliant enough to extrapolate from this that Saddam was the hidden hand behind all the terrorism in the world?

Mylroie sucks. If you want to play conspiracy theory Crossing the Rubicon has more evidence that Dick Cheney blew up the WTC than Myloroie has about Saddam and terrorism.

Posted by: absynthe | Oct 26, 2004 12:37:42 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.