Who is Paul Wolfowitz ?
Päul Wolfowitz is born in Brooklyn, New York, into a Polish Jewish immigrant family, and grew up mainly in Ithaca, New York, where his father was a professor of statistical theory at Cornell University.
In 1961 he entered Cornell University and graduated in 1965 with a bachelor's degree in mathematics and chemistry. Then he dicided to go to graduate school to study politics.
From 1970 to 1972, Wolfowitz taught in the Department of Political Science at Yale University.
In the 1970s Wolfowitz served as an aide to Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson, who influenced several neoconservatives, including Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. Jackson was a Cold War liberal supporting higher military spending and a hard line against the Soviet Union.
In 1977, during the Carter administration, Wolfowitz moved to the Pentagon. He was U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs for the U.S. Defense Department, under U.S. Secretary of Defense Harold Brown.
Following the 1980 election of President Ronald Reagan, offered Wolfowitz the position of Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State.
Wolfowitz demonstrated himself to be one of the strongest supporters of Israel in the Reagan administration.”
In 1982, the new U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz appointed Wolfowitz as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
From 1986 to 1989, during the military-backed government of dictator Suharto, Wolfowitz was the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Indonesia.
From 1989 to 1993, Wolfowitz served in the administration of George H.W. Bush as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, under then U.S. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Wolfowitz’s team co-ordinated and reviewed military strategy, raising $50 billion in allied financial support for the operation.
After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Wolfowitz and his then-assistant Scooter Libby wrote the “Defense Planning Guidance of 1992,” which came to be known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine, to “set the nation’s direction for the next century ”.
Wolfowitz: “ With an eye toward deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role, the United States would maintain unquestioned military superiority and, if necessary, employ force unilaterally ”.
Many of the ideas in the Wolfowitz Doctrine later became part of the Bush Doctrine. He left the government after the 1992 election.
Wolfowitz was associated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
In September 2000 the PNAC produced a 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century, advocating the redeployment of U.S. troops in permanent bases in strategic locations throughout the world where they can be ready to act to protect U.S. interests abroad.
From 2001 to 2005, during the George W. Bush administration, Wolfowitz served as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense reporting to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Wolfowitz was "a major architect of President Bush's Iraq policy. In the first emergency meeting of the National Security Council on the day of the September 11 attacks in 2001, Rumsfeld asked, “Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaeda?” with Wolfowitz adding that Iraq was a “brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily—it was doable.”
On April 16, 2002 the National Solidarity Rally for Israel was called in Washington to promote US support and collaboration with Israel. Wolfowitz was the sole representative of the Bush administration to attend, speaking alongside Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. As reported by the BBC, Wolfowitz told the crowd that US President George W. Bush “wants you to know that he stands in solidarity with you”.
Following the declaration of 'victory' in Afghanistan the Bush administration had started to plan for the next stage of the so called War on Terror. According to John Kampfner, “Emboldened by their experience in Afghanistan, they saw the opportunity to root out hostile regimes in the Middle East and to implant very American interpretations of democracy and free markets, from Iraq to Iran and Saudi Arabia. Wolfowitz epitomised this view.” Wolfowitz “saw a liberated Iraq as both paradigm and linchpin for future interventions.” The 2003 invasion of Iraq began on March 19.
Prior to the invasion, Wolfowitz actively championed it, as he later stated: “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”.
The job of finding WMD and providing justification for the attack would fall to the intelligence services.
Kampfner and Wolfowitz, they set up what came to be known as the ‘cabal’, a cell of eight or nine analysts in a new Office of Special Plans (OSP) based in the U.S. Defense Department.” According to an unnamed Pentagon source quoted by Hersh, the OSP “was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States.”
Within months of being set up, the OSP “rivaled both the CIA and the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda.”
The actions of the OSP have led to accusation of the Bush administration “fixing intelligence to support policy” with the aim of influencing Congress in its use of the War Powers Act.
Kampfner outlined Wolfowitz’s strategy for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which “envisaged the use of air support and the occupation of southern Iraq with ground troops, to install a new government run by Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress.” Wolfowitz believed that the operation would require minimal troop deployment, Hersh explains, because “any show of force would immediately trigger a revolt against Saddam within Iraq, and that it would quickly expand.” The financial expenditure would be kept low, Kampfner observes, if “under the plan American troops would seize the oil fields around Basra, in the South, and sell the oil to finance the opposition.”
During Wolfowitz’s pre-war testimony before Congress, he dismissed General Eric K. Shinseki’s estimates of the size of the post war occupation force and estimated that fewer than 100,000 troops would be necessary in the war.
In March 2005, Wolfowitz was nominated to be president of the World Bank by U.S. In the U.S. there was some praise for the nomination. An editorial in The Wall Street Journal states: “Mr. Wolfowitz is willing to speak the truth to power … he saw earlier than most, and spoke publicly about, the need for dictators to plan democratic transitions”.
World Bank Group’s board of executive directors and staffers complained that Wolfowitz was imposing Bush Administration policies to eliminate family planning from World Bank programs.
On May 17, 2007 the World Bank Group’s board of Executive Directors announced that Paul Wolfowitz would resign as World Bank Group president at the end of June 2007.
Wolfowitz is a former steering committee member of the Bilderberg group.
Photo: Etienne Davignon, former president of the Bilderberg Group, and Wolfowitz - Germany 2005
1. Guy Verhofstadt, MEP and President of ALDE Group; Mr Jacques Delors, Founding President of 'Notre Europe' and Etienne Davignon, former President of the Bilderberg Group
2. Chief of Staff of the so called ‘Free Syrian Army’ Gen. Salim Idris addresses the media after he discussed the situation in Syria with Guy Verhofstadt, right, at the European Parliament in Brussels, March 6, 2013. Idris said that his army needed the West to supply “weapons and ammunition” so that his forces can “defend themselves.” Verhofstadt: “The time for peace talks is over, we need action now. If the UN doesn’t react, then NATO should.”
The so called ‘Free Syrian Army’ always has rejected any proposal for peace talks and since 2 years, the U.S. and its satellite states provide Idris and all kind of terrorist groups continuously with weapons wich are also used for terrorist attacks on Syrian civilians.
Official Bilderberg Attendee List and Agenda Released
Bilderberg 2013 (video)
Bilderberg 2013 – Your guide to ‘The Bilderberg Group’ (video)
Why don’t the mainstream media report on Bilderberg meetings? – Gerard Batten MEP (video)
Italian Supreme Court President Blames Bilderberg For Terrorist Attacks
Bilderberg Feast (video + update)
Bilderberg Conference (video)
On March 21, 2013, American President Barack Obama said the U.S. was “deeply skeptical” of Syrian government claims that rebel forces had used chemical weapons as the United Nations faces calls to investigate possible use of deadly gas.
Obama also made clear that while he had serious reservations about the regime’s charges, the use of chemical arms in the conflict would be a “game changer” and required fact-gathering. The UN has been asked by Syria and Western nations to investigate conflicting accounts of two attacks.
Clouding the UN’s decision-making is a chorus of divergent versions of events. Syrian authorities blame the so called rebels for launching a rocket laden with chemicals in the Khan al-Assal area in Aleppo province, killing 25 people. The opposition said government forces were responsible and accused Assad’s forces of a second chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus.
Both sides called on UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to send a team of investigators. Western governments including the U.S., the U.K. and France are backing the so called rebels.
On March 26, 2013, Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has called on the UN chief to dispatch an investigation team to probe the use of chemical arms by foreign-backed militants in Syria.
In a letter to the UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon, Salehi emphasized that the terror act represents a major threat to international peace and security and an open violation of global norms, particularly the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
While calling on the UN to adopt deterrent measures to avert reoccurrence of such events, the Iranian foreign minister reiterated that the Islamic Republic, as the greatest victim of chemical weapons, censures “this inhumane crime” and expects “all governments and international organizations, including the UN, to quickly and clearly condemn this inhumane atrocity.”
In the letter, a copy of which has also been forwarded to the UN Security Council, Salehi further urged the launch of an objective probe into the incident and the sources of the chemical weapons and agents to the terrorist gangs in Syria, making certain that they are identified and brought to justice.
He noted that the terrorist use of chemical weapons in Syria comes just prior to holding the third conference on reconsideration of chemical weapons, reiterating the need for indiscriminate and effective execution of all CWC regulations, particularly the total abolition of such weapons of mass destruction by those that still possess them.
Salehi concluded his letter to the UN head by expressing confidence that the world body would strongly condemn the criminal use of chemical weapons against the innocent people of the Syrian city of Aleppo.
The development comes as the Syrian official TV network quoted Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin as demanding that the UN’s fact finding committee for probing the use of chemical weapons in Syria must not include members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which has engaged in supporting and arming terrorist and militant gangs in Syria.
NATO members, particularly the US, Turkey, Britain, Germany and France, have played an active role in supporting the anti-Damascus militant gangs with military hardware, in addition to what they have referred to as "nonlethal" aid.
At least 25 people were killed and 86 others injured after militants fired missiles containing poisonous gas into Aleppo’s Khan al-Assal village on March 19. Women and children were among the victims.
The attack came after Syria’s opposition coalition, known as the Syrian National Coalition, selected a Syrian-born American citizen, Ghassan Hitto, as the prime minister of the so-called interim government.
In late April 2013, one US intelligence official told the McClatchy news agency that they had "low or moderate confidence" that the Assad regime had used sarin gas on a small scale. Not only did the plethora of US intelligence agencies differ in their assessments, but the White House itself acknowledged that "the chain of custody [of samples] is not clear, so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what conditions".
Two months on, the US intelligence community believed that the Assad regime "used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times over the last year", and that intelligence officials had "high confidence" in this finding.
So, it is clear that the White House has simply pressured its intelligence community to produce a new assessment, not on the basis of new evidence, but in response to the shifting military balance within Syria, the greater involvement of Iran and Hezbollah in key battles such as that at Qusair, and pressure from European allies like France and Britain (and from Israel).
If western powers want to send arms to Syria to counteract Iranian influence as part of a wider strategic war, they should simply say so. Couching this policy shift in terms of chemical weapons could have pernicious long-term consequences. It is clear that the Iraq war did irreparable damage to public confidence in intelligence assessments and policymaking, to the point where it constrained future decision-makers and dealt an enduring moral blow to the global standing of western foreign policies. It is incumbent on this generation of policymakers that they demonstrate the transparency and honesty that was so lacking a decade ago.
Photo: Victims of american chemical warfare in Vietnam