(barf alert) David Brooks praises Paul Wolfowitz

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/opinion/08brooks.html?hp

"Let us now praise Paul Wolfowitz. Let us now take another look at the man who has pursued - longer and more forcefully than almost anyone else - the supposedly utopian notion that people across the Muslim world might actually hunger for freedom.

Let us look again at the man who's been vilified by Michael Moore and the rest of the infantile left, who's been condescended to by the people who consider themselves foreign policy grown-ups, and who has become the focus of much anti-Semitism in the world today - the center of a zillion Zionist conspiracy theories, and a hundred zillion clever-Jew-behind-the-scenes calumnies."


Does anyone believe that the neocon Wolfowitz REALLY wants to spread democracy in the middle east? The neocon philosophy is to govern by deception, and the neocon agenda is to destablize the middle east and establish hegemony over weakened muslim states. Believe me, the last thing the US elites want is a unified modern middle east. Historically, the US and Britain have weakened any modern forward-looking Arab country-- they prefer fundamentalist regimes.

Brooks is either being incredibly deceitful here or he is simply very naive-- most likely he is a useful idiot.

Let's dig up some PNAC & Wolfie evidence on this and fire it back at Brooks the Neocon Shill. WHY the NYT lets him spout his lies I'll never know. NYT, PBS, NPR. It's sickening. Brooks is out of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol's mag. Kristol is the founder of PNAC. Brooks is the neocon spokesman. It's his job to sell the neocon agenda.

but, back in the early 80s when we were protesting U.S. support for Ferdinand Marcos (horrible dictator of the Philippines in the 60s and 70s), the only state department official who broke ranks with the Reagen government and denounced Marcos and urged that the U.S. stop supporting him was a young head of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff named Paul Wolfowitz. I knew at the time many Philippinos, living in Berkeley, who actually felt gratitude towards Wolfowitz. But at that time he certainly never advocated forcible "regime change" in the Philippines. The people did it themselves.

against Reagan and denouncing Marcos? Could he have had some ulterior motive?

He certainly sounded sincere.

i'm so sick of these fuckers.

...memebers in society, the way a pack of lions, vultures and jackals believe in the freedom of the zebra, gazelle and antelope on the African plains and deltas.

:hurts: :puke:

To praise Wolfowitz is not triumphalism. The difficulties ahead are obvious. It's simple justice. It's a recognition that amid all the legitimate criticism, this guy has been the subject of a vicious piling-on campaign by people who know less than nothing about what is actually going on in the government, while he, in the core belief that has energized his work, may turn out to be right.

Criticism of Wolfowitz is Brooks's idea of injustice?

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Yeah, his epitaph should read, "Here lies a man who so loved freedom for the world that he had no problem seeing thousands die or be injured without a moments pause. So much so that he couldn't even remember how many American soldiers had been killed while testifying before Congress, stating a number far lower then the actual."

"He is now with God, who is no doubt explaining a few things"

Infamous Wolfowitz quote (don't have time to find a reference),
"The Iraqis have got to start dying for their own country."

Yes he is quite the humanitarian

David Brooks is nothing more than a political shill for the Neo-cons and Bush Cabal....Anyone who could make such kiss-ass statements about someone who is anything but a "freedom loving" person and who will be remember someday for the piece of shit he really is... :grr:

I wrote a letter to the editor of the NYT saying I had never seen a bigger piece of crap in my life, enough to make me cancel my subscription to the NYT....

this supreme chikenhawk commander will have his place in the US history books..along with many of his neo-con chikenhawk pals....

They all coulda got out that blood lust against Ho Chi Mien who had a real and very well trained Army in the SE A sia war games from 1959-1975 aand at taxpayer expense..
Someday the word neo-con and traitor will be synonyms!

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0502-01.htm
"It's approximately 500 of which - I can get the exact numbers - approximately 350 are combat deaths," said Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense. It was no trick question. Wolfowitz the Architect was testifying about the cost of the war Thursday before the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) asked the key cost question.

The Architect's figures, not surprisingly, were low-balled. Before the invasion, Wolfowitz woefully underestimated the war cost in dollars to U.S. taxpayers. The number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, as of Friday, is 738, according to the Pentagon and news reports - not 500. Instead of "approximately 350" killed in combat, 524 had been killed when Wolfowitz appeared before the committee. "

Awful Crap from Wolfowitz

I was looking at this report of Major Isaiah Wilson, official US army historian, which concluded that the US military lost control of Iraq by June, 2003, and has never regained control, and may well lose the guerrilla war. Then someone alerted me to an item about Paul Wolfowitz, who bears significant responsibility for the errors to which Wilson draws attention.

Eric Alterman tells the story of his conversation with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz at a toney book party in New York. Among the tidbits:

7) Hold onto your underpants, Jeff Jarvis: When I asked Wolfowitz who he read outside of official channels that he found particularly profitable, he reeled off the names of a bunch of Iraqi blogs. I asked him if he read Juan Cole. He made a munched up face like his sushi had gone bad. He said that yes, he had read him, but did not do so much, because of all the—I forget his exact words, but I’m thinking “awful crap” –through which he had to slog in order to get the information that Cole presented. I said I thought it would be useful since even if one disagrees, Cole certainly knows what he’s talking about, and his view is closer to the rest of the world’s than are those published in the MSM. He made another bad sushi face.

(check more here from his blog. He rips Wolfie a new one with Wolfie's own words. This revisionism of Wolfowitz is getting out of control.)

http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/awful-crap-from-wolfowitz-i-was.html

...who has pursued - longer and more forcefully than almost anyone else - the supposedly utopian notion that people across the Muslim world might actually hunger for freedom."


Let's.


"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North
Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq.
The country swims on a sea of oil."

Deputy Sec of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz when asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found.

-