There's nothing so dramatic to illustrate the point that neoconservatives think along the same lines as liberal interventionists than this case of arguing about intervening in Libya's civil war. On the right, we have this joker Paul Wolfowitz, who wants to illustrate that his political ideology of using military force to spread democracy and liberty throughout the Middle East is in fact a good and just one.

The answer to the first of these questions can only come after establishing direct contact with the new authorities, but the delivery of supplies should not be such a problem, either through the many ports along the Libyan coast or across the Egyptian border. Nonlethal assistance could be important, including basic supplies such as food and medicine. So could broadcasting assistance to discourage Gadhafi's forces from fighting. The concern that American weapons might end up in the wrong hands must definitely be considered before supplying shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, but other weapons pose less of a risk—particularly accurate antitank weapons. In any case, forcing the Libyans to turn to other countries for arms would repeat the mistakes of Afghanistan in the 1980s and Bosnia in the 1990s.

It is only in the context of a larger assistance strategy that a no-fly zone should be considered. It would be different from the prolonged and largely futile zones imposed over southern Iraq from 1991-2003 or over Bosnia from 1992-1995. Intended to stop the genocides of the Marsh Arabs in Iraq and of the Muslim population of Bosnia, they did neither. Critics accurately point out that the massacre of 11,000 Muslims in Srebrenica took place under a NATO-imposed no-fly zone. But the situation in Libya would be very different if the Libyan people are properly armed.

Yes, the Clinton administration's policies were certainly ill-considered, look how many people didn't get killed and how many countries weren't invaded. But this jackass, this mad joker, doesn't want to be concerned about the fallout of any US military aid to Libya. I recall seeing mention that the Libyans who came to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight against the American occupation over the past few years came from the eastern side - where the rebels are. What do you think they're going to do with those anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons after the civil war ends, Mr. Wolfowitz? As MoDo correctly asks, does this guy know when to shut the hell up?

Now we have the clowns on the left to deal with. Ann-Marie Slaughter, former Director of Policy Planning in the Obama State Department and now political professor at Princeton, slams President Obama for not doing enough to intervene on behalf of the Libyan rebel force.  "It is time to act," she demands, in the form of a no-fly zone.

The United States should immediately ask the Security Council to authorize a no-flight zone and make clear to Russia and China that if they block the resolution, the blood of the Libyan opposition will be on their hands. We should push them at least to abstain, and bring the issue to a vote as soon as possible. If we get a resolution, we should work with the Arab League to assemble an international coalition to impose the no-flight zone. If the Security Council fails to act, then we should recognize the opposition Libyan National Council as the legitimate government, as France has done, and work with the Arab League to give the council any assistance it requests.

Any use of force must be carefully and fully debated, but that debate has now been had. It’s been raging for a week, during which almost every Arab country has come on board calling for a no-flight zone and Colonel Qaddafi continues to gain ground.

Except that many senior military analysts have pointed out that establishing a no-fly zone will require bombing radar sites and anti-aircraft sites in Libya, and then what? If that's not effective, do we then target the tanks and loyalist forces? And then do we send in peacekeepers to hold the ground while a new government is formed? Where does this end? Matt Yglesias remembers a more prudent Slaughter talking about the Iraq occupation, in which she argued for a more rules-based global order that wasn't based on active military operations. But she was in favor of invading Iraq, just like all the other liberal interventionists. There is no limit on pointless, expensive wars in which we can engage.

The smart thing to do would be to contact Qadaffi and say, "look, man, your day is done. We can get you a plane out and into any country that you want with a million dollars in unmarked bills. Or you can stay here, and if you thought Libya was isolated between 1988 and 2003, well, you haven't seen 'isolated' yet." No, instead we're going to hear from the European Union and the Arab League as to why U.S. warplanes need to intercede over Libyan skies. Hey, guys, you want peace that bad, send your own planes. Ours are busy over Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, Europe, and along the borders of the United States.

All of us knew it but couldn't prove it. Now we can prove it. Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001.

January 30, 2001 – Bush administration principals (agency heads) meet for the
first time and discuss the Middle East, including Bush’s intention to disengage from the Israel-Palestine peace process and “How Iraq is destabilizing the region.” Bush directs Rumsfeld and JCS chairman Hugh Shelton to examine military options for Iraq; CIA director George Tenet is directed to improve intelligence on the country. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke are both struck by the emphasis on confronting Iraq, an aim consistent with Rumsfeld’s hiring of Wolfowitz and later Feith, well known for their bellicosity on the issue, for high-level Pentagon
positions. (Source: EBB/Franks Timeline (PDF))

When did we invade Afghanistan? Oh, that's right...it was October 7, 2001.

Walking through these documents makes it clear that the Bush Administration -- from Day One -- intended to invade Iraq at some point in their reign of terror. Here is a memo (PDF) dated January 23, 2001 outlining the "Origins of the Iraq Regime Change Policy". This was requested by Vice President-elect Dick Cheney before taking office, presumably as a way to justify policy formation around aggressive US efforts for "regime change" in Iraq.

This memo (PDF) written on November 27, 2001 should send cold chills up and down your spine. It is a list of talking points from Rumsfeld to Franks about how to handle a run-up to a full-scale Iraq invasion. November 27th, 51 days after Afghanistan was invaded. And check this talking point:

Continue reading »

The thing that's been completely left out of the Dick Cheney "how dare anyone dither when it comes to blowing up our enemies and rewarding our torturers" speech is the context in which that speech was given.

The Villagers don't like to talk about specifics when it comes to the beltway dinner circuit at which so many of them feed.

This dinner, minimum $500.00 a plate, was to given by the self-described, and I am not making this up, "non-partisan organization" The Center for Security Policy. Dick Cheney was speaking at their 20th anniversary dinner, at which he received the, hold back your breakfast now, "Keeper of the Flame" award. Cheney was introduced by, among others, Don Rumsfeld, a former awardee himself. You know who else has this prize sitting on a shelf in their well-appointed Georgetown dens?

Joe Lieberman

Duncan Hunter

James Inhofe

Paul Wolfowitz

Newt Gingrich

Ronald Reagan

Jon Kyl

Caspar Weinberger

Okay, then. So why would anyone not expect a bowl full of neocon crazy in his acceptance speech? He's among friends.

Why can't the press be honest? And how, at this point in history, has that become a completely rhetorical question?

crossposted from Blue Gal

AP Via Yahoo:

Former World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz, who resigned amid a furor over his handling of a bank pay package for his girlfriend, has joined the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank, as a visiting scholar.

AEI's president, Christopher DeMuth, made the announcement Monday. Wolfowitz will work on entrepreneurship and development issues, Africa and public-private partnerships, the group said in a release.

Wolfowitz's last day as head of the World Bank, a major poverty-fighting institution, was on Saturday, ending a stormy two-year run.

He was essentially forced to step down from the World Bank after a special panel found that he broke bank rules in arranging a hefty pay raise for Shaha Riza, his girlfriend and bank employee. Wolfowitz's handling of the pay package prompted a staff revolt and calls by Europeans and others for him to resign. Read more...

ABC:

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...read on

AP photo: Paul Wolfowitz is in deep trouble with the World Bank, but like most of the Bushies---he refuses to step down. Instead, he does a "Cheney" on them all.

Sounding more like a cast member of the Sopranos than an international leader, in testimony by one key witness Mr Wolfowitz declares: "If they f*&k with me or Shaha, I have enough on them to f*&k them too."--- "Mr Wolfowitz saw himself as the outsider to whom the established rules and standards did not apply."

A Cheney in this instance is telling someone to F*&k themselves and not shooting them in the face. As always, Bush supports his corrupt pals:

White House Spokesman Tony Snow says President Bush continues to stand by Wolfowitz."The fact is that he made mistakes. They are not in our view, firing offenses," he said.
What is a firing offense to this administration? Please, tell us! C&Ler "Liberty lover," reminds me to ask the nine US Attorney's what a firing offense is. ABC is reporting that the WH is showing signs of cracking:

On the second issue, the senior official told ABC News "it is an open question" whether Wolfowitz can remain an effective president of the World Bank.

Hear the drumbeat getting louder?

UPI:

An agency that oversees the World Bank is asking for the resignation of the bank's president, former deputy U.S. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

In a document obtained by the Financial Times, the Independent Evaluation Group asked for Wolfowitz's immediate resignation, saying a continuation of his leadership will lead to "irreparable harm to worldwide efforts in poverty reduction and sustainable development."

The pressure for Wolfowitz to resign mounted last week, when 42 of the bank's senior former executives published an open letter urging his removal.

"There is only one way for Mr. Wolfowitz to further the mission of the bank: he must resign," the letter said.

Salon: (watch short ad for day pass)

Not only did the World Bank president find his companion Shaha Ali Riza a cushy job in the State Department, but she received a security clearance -- unprecedented for a foreign national. [..]

(I)n 2006 Wolfowitz made a series of calls to his friends that landed her a job at a new think tank called Foundation for the Future that is funded by the State Department. She was the sole employee, at least in the beginning. The World Bank continued to pay her salary, which was raised from $60,000 to $193,590 annually, more than the $183,500 paid to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and all of it tax-free. Moreover, Wolfowitz got the State Department to agree that the ratings of her performance would automatically be "outstanding." Wolfowitz insisted on these terms himself and then misled the World Bank board about what he had done.

Exactly how this deal was made and with whom remains something of a mystery. The person who did work with Riza in her new position was Elizabeth Cheney, then the deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. And Riza's assignment fell under the purview of Karen Hughes, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. But these facts raise more questions than they answer.

Ah, but Bush has nothing but "full confidence" in the job Wolfowitz is doing. In any other reality, this guy would be out on the sidewalk filing for unemployment. But in BushWorld, this level of corruption is a good thing.

Chalabi squeaks:

So, Ahmad Chalabi, what went wrong in Iraq in the war you helped to sell? “The Americans sold us out,” he tells longtime Baghdad reporter Dexter Filkins in a lengthy cover story in this coming Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, reviewed by E&P.

Chalabi was the Iraqi exile who worked -- via everyone from Paul Wolfowitz to Judith Miller -- to convince America to topple Saddam in 2003 (not that many in the administration needed much convincing).

Now, in an interview in his London home, Chalabi, betraying what Filkins calls “a touch of bitterness,” declares, “The real culprit in all this is Wolfowitz,” the former assistant secretary of defense, whom he still considers a friend. “They chickened out. The Pentagon guys chickened out…The Americans screwed it up.”'...read on

Notice how all these cowards are turning on each other....Let's get Judy Miller's take. Judy---where are you? Oh, she hasn't updated her blog since August.