A03084
Articles : IraqNaked Neo-Con
George Bush is trying to save Paul Wolfowitz’s job as President of the World Bank even after the vulpine neo-con was caught slipping a load of World Bank loot to his love interest, Shaha Ali Riza. Big deal. Yes, Wolfowitz shouldn’t have been greasing his cookie sheet with government funds, but there are bigger reasons to toss The Wolf out the door.
Like, say, perjury and homicide? I haven’t forgotten, Mr. Wolfowitz, that on March 27, 2003 you testified before the US Congress that the occupation of Iraq wouldn’t cost the American taxpayer a penny.
You said, “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money.” Oh, really?
When Wolfowitz laid down that line of jive, he and the Bushes knew that Americans just can’t pass up a bargain, and here The Wolf was offering the sale of the century, a “free Iraq.” Not “free” as in “self-governing” but “free” as in, we’ll get their oil and their allegiance for nothing!
We can bomb Iraq and the Iraqis will pay for the bombs! And where will the Iraqis, holding nothing but bushel-bags of Saddam dinars, get these billions of U.S. dollars to pay for the Occupation?
Wolfowitz testified, “The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the next two or three years.” Is that so?
Wolfie’s claim was no small matter. It’s hard to remember, but lots of the Congressional debate was not about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction – The New York Times had already found those for us. Senators were asking, What’s this little war going to cost us? There was no way in hell Congress would have authorized Bush’s big adventure if it cost $100 billion.
Indeed, $100 billion was the price projected by the President’s chief economist, Larry Lindsey. The President corrected Lindsey’s math: Bush fired him.
You know the punchline: The war has so far cost the U.S. taxpayer over half a trillion dollars – and counting. But you weren’t wrong, Wolfie. You were lying. And you knew it.
This is serious stuff. I can tell you, as a former government racketeering investigator: if you are wrong, well, stuff happens. But if you say one thing under oath but knew something very different, that, Mr. Wolfowitz, is perjury. Perjury’s a felony, Wolf, and you know it. Indeed, your neo-con buddy, Elliott Abrams, was convicted in 1991 for lying to Congress about Reagan’s arms-for-hostage swap.
So, did Wolfowitz perjure himself – or just get it wrong? While the question never crossed the mind of the Sheep-o-witz U.S. press, which repeated Wolf’s no-cost-invasion claim unchallenged, my producer at BBC Television asked me to investigate.
I learned that Wolfowitz, then Deputy Secretary of Defense, would have gotten his numbers from the expert official designated to measure Iraq’s oil, Guy Caruso. Caruso once ran the CIA’s oil ops; now he’s the head of Bush’s Energy Information Administration. A source close to Caruso (in Saudi intelligence, no less) told me the ex-spook heard Wolfowitz’ testimony and said, “What are they getting this from?”
In 2004, I confronted Caruso in his Department of Energy office in Washington. Nice man. Caruso knows his stuff. And, after an hour of technical jibberish, he told me the info he gave Wolfowitz’s department – and the numbers didn’t add up to anything close to Wolfowitz’s Iraq oil windfall.
I then checked Caruso’s numbers with his own numbers man, another ex-CIA oil expert, Robert Ebel. I asked Ebel about the Wolfowitz claim of an oil gusher in Iraq that would pay for the U.S. Occupation. Ebel wouldn’t answer until after the cameras were off. But I wasn’t asked to keep it off the record.
Ebel told me he had put the real numbers up on a think tank website just before the Humvees rolled into Baghdad. His projections conflicted big time with the fantasy facts to which Wolfowitz testified. Ebel told me that allies of neo-con conman Ahmad Chalabi asked Ebel to remove and bury the realistic numbers. He did.
Did Wolfowitz lie? Ebel smiled, “It was just part of the sales pitch, wasn’t it?”
The sales pitch?? WAR FOR SALE – CHEAP!
Well, you can say that one man’s sales pitch is another man’s perjury. If Wolfowitz had knowingly concealed the Caruso team’s findings while testifying under oath, then The Wolf is guilty of a felony. Moreover, perjury which leads to death is homicide.
But he’s off the hook. I checked the record. Ever since his crony Abrams was charged with perjury, Wolfowitz won’t testify under oath. Nor will any of the Bushies. Wolfowitz did not raise his hand and swear to “tell the whole truth, so help me, God.” The Wolf’s home free. How the Lord will judge this loophole, I can’t say.
So, no perjury charge for Wolfowitz. Of course there’s another crime. His getting caught icing his cupcake, Ms. Riza, with World Bank funds, forces millions of innocent morning newspaper readers to suffer visions of these two neo-cons naked and nasty. Urgh!
Still, one can’t but help be touched by the romantic side of this story. After all, here were two people of different faiths, sharing their intense love . . . of money, secrets and lies.
Greg Palast is the author of The New York Times bestseller, ARMED MADHOUSE: From Baghdad to New Orleans – Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild, from which this report is adapted. For more info and to order your copy of his latest book go to www.GregPalast.com.
Posted by anthony
Anthony Lappé is GNN's Executive Editor. He's written for The New York Times, Details, New York, Paper, The Fader and Vice, among many others. He has worked as a producer for MTV and Fuse. He is the co-author of GNN's True Lies and the producer of their Iraq doc,...
That was the Greatest. Sisyphus post. Ever.
I suppose this is further proof of our controlled media (U.S. and U.K.). That they aren’t piling the pressure on Wolfowitz by mentioning all his other, much bigger, lies.
throw his ass to the wolves.
Word.
See, this is the problem with “politics” too many people getting all excited with the lies,greed and intrigue that surround the mass murder of people in foreign countries.
What we need is a reporter with a sword who is not afraid to use it. Say he encounters one of these scum bags, the guy starts with the “Ok, you didnt hear it from me, but so and so got all this money from this other guy and I told him this, and he said that, but he knew this but knew that knowing this would make him…...”
BAMN! He chops the fuckers head off right there and then and goes and finds the other scum he was talking about and decapitates them too.
Too much reporting, and not enough vengeance IMHO.
grab a mic and a sword then brah. serious stuff from greg, good to see him at top form.
no one else understands wtf you are talking about athena
I hope you do, otherwise I think I’m going crazy.
Point taken G&A. I promise to be more respectful of das beeb hereon in and. I apologize for all the mean things I’ve ever said. About das Beeb. I mean, The BBC. Although, I’m from the United States. So maybe that doesn’t mean anything. A promise and an apology.
I hadn’t realized The Relationship itself was so offensive. What did I miss?
Worst.
Playgirl.
Ever.
Amerikhan Vikings
As i look at the situation in the occupied countries of Iraq, Afghanistan and such I wonder how much different we the corperate entity of (Amerikha) are from the Viking invaders of long past. Our leaders say “we are here to liberate and bring democracy, uplift womens suppressed rights. All good the words, but our actions seem more like that of the vikings.
Dubya says his words about liberation and the amerikhan people back him, somewhat. Atlest the viking invaders did not decieve when they came to pillage and rape and conquer. So I try to see through the eyes of the occupied peoples of the middle east although I cannot agree with thier views of the jews, or their take on a back and white follow allah or die. But in thier home turf they are defending their way of life, their families from the infidel invaders that talk no more truthfuly that shaitan (satan) know as the deciever.
Dubya in the mean time was making millions from the Pillaged oil tapped in Iraq. When will the majority of Suppressed amerikans see the lies and deceptive practices utilized by the corrupt corperate mobsters.
Once again I cannot stress that I am not a symathizer of extreemism on either side, both sides tell thier peoples do what you are told or die. Indeed if an amerikhan soldier was to open his eyes to the pointless senseless retarded actions in the above OCCUPIED lands, I that soldier was to change his mind about wanting to be a puppet of the corperate greed, and leave the battlefield he would be shot and killed or imprissioned for desertion. Any different than saddam’s own words of desrerters will be killed do as you are told? same words.
In modern times the vikings are deemed brutal barbaric uncivilized. but defenders knew what was going down when they saw a viking long boat in harbor. run or fight the invading force to the last breath.
In amerika if we became the defenders of a foreign occupation how long would we resist , howlong would we fight to the dieing breath? until the last man stood! And thus that is howl ong resistance in the middle east will continue to repell the foreign modern viking amerikhan invaders bent on forcing thier will on the suppressed.
BrandoO74 said:
I wonder how much different we the corperate entity of (Amerikha) are from the Viking invaders of long past.
One doesn©t have to go that far back in human events. Try a read on ©Jihad deja vu© by William Dalrymple from the opinion pages of today©s LA Times©
The article in it©s entirety may be found a the following mirror site©
&http://embedded-in-the-noise.blogspot.com/2007/05/man-clear-in-reasoning.html
Here… allow me to simple format that last comment…
BrandoO74 said:
> > I wonder how much different we the corperate entity
> > of (Amerikha) are from the Viking invaders of long past.
One doesn’t have to go that far back in human events. Try a read on “Jihad deja vu” by William Dalrymple from the opinion pages of today’s LA Times…
The article in it’s entirety may be found a the following mirror site…
http://embedded-in-the-noise.blogspot.com/2007/05/man-clear-in-reasoning.htmlAnd just for a little general info:
Palast stated that Wolf-a-bitch didn’t testify under oath… So perjury is out of the question?
No perjury?
Well … We don’t need no stinking perjury…
US Code: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 >
Crimes and Criminal Procedure > Fraad and False Statements >
§ 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001——000-.html(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
.
Now before anyone gets too confused…
Go back and read:
(a) (1, 2 & 3)
and….
(c) (2)
.
Once again, we get the cheap scandal which covers the truth of the real crime. The woman seems, in fact, to be quite qualified for her position and salary. She’s a Muslim, he’s a Jew – sweet. He’s technically free, so not even an adultery here. What he’s really being charged with is arrogance, which is his real crime, but it won’t be seen that way and the punishment will not be anywhere near commensurate.
I don’t know if Mr Wolfowitz’ testimony was within the jurisdiction of any branch of government. Laws often don’t mean what they appear to say, and providing a prosecutor would be problematic. Probably easier to ratify the world criminal court and turn over the lot of them, also unlikely.