March 16, 2005

Wolfowitz to Head World Bank: World Reacts (UPDATED)

President Bush has nominated Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank. World, blog, and tin-foil hat reaction below.

AP in The Guardian:

President Bush on Wednesday tapped Defense Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who has been a lightning rod for criticism of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and other defense policies, to take over as head of the World Bank....

He was regarded as more academic and ideological than his boss, Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz was among the most forceful of those in the Bush administration in arguing that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and he had predicted that Americans would be welcomed as liberators rather than occupiers once they toppled Saddam's government....

Wolfowitz, a veteran of six administrations, has earned a reputation for being a foreign policy hawk - the view that the United States should use its superpower status to push for reforms in other nations. A conservative scholar, Wolfowitz, before taking over the Defense Department post, had served as dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of The Johns Hopkins University.

Administration supporters of Wolfowitz said Wednesday he is suited for the World Bank post and pointed to his management experiences at the Pentagon and his diplomatic experience at the State Department. He had served as assistant secretary of State for east Asia during the Philippine transition to democracy. He also served as U.S. ambassador to Indonesia.

Telegraph:
George W Bush, the American president has nominated defense deputy secretary Paul Wolfowitz to take over as head of the World Bank.

Mr Bush described Mr Wolfowitz as "a compassionate, decent man who will do a fine job at the World Bank. That's why I put him up."

James Wolfensohn, the current president of the 184-nation development bank, is due to resign on June 1, at the end of his second five-year term

UPDATE: Reuters:
Several international groups including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and ActionAid called Wolfowitz a bad choice. Greenpeace expressed concern that Wolfowitz would "put U.S. and oil industry interests" ahead of development.
Wolfowitz (that name sounds awfully Hebrew) is best know for being the chief noeconsevative (read J-O-O) advocate of regime change in Iraq.

Prediction from Muslim Press, DU, and Zeropeans: Zionist Jew to Head up World Bank: More Evidence Jews Run Worldwide Banking System.

Any takers on that bet?

Oh wait, I didn't even finish the post yet when....

Turkish Press (which doesn't cite the original source as AFP, a French news service):

US President George W. Bush risked inflaming global opinion Wednesday by putting forward his deeply controversial deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, to become World Bank chief.

In a move that could undermine the new thaw in transatlantic relations, Bush said he wanted Donald Rumsfeld's number two at the Pentagon to take over in a role that is central to global development.

Just wait, it will get worse....

He is also held in deep suspicion as a central figure in the neoconservative movement, which wants the United States to impose its vision of liberal democracy and free-market economics on the world....

But the choice of Wolfowitz could test the transatlantic consensus on the top appointments at the World Bank and IMF as never before, after Bush last month visited Brussels to consolidate a post-Iraq thaw in US-Europe relations....

But Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation said that the Wolfowitz pick was a worrying pointer for Bush's foreign-policy intentions coming after the choice of another arch-hawk, John Bolton, to be United Nations ambassador.

"The message is that neoconservatism maintains a tenacious, tight grip on US foreign policy and that the world's most important multilateral institutions need to be disciplined to be responsive to a more narrow American parochialism in global affairs," he commented.AFP (France) in a Mauritanian publication:

Wolfowitz, 61, incurred the wrath of many European countries as a prime mover behind the war in Iraq.

He is also held in deep suspicion as a central figure in the "neoconservative" movement, which wants the United States to impose its vision of liberal democracy and free-market economics on the world.

Al Jazeera terrorist news is surprisingly subdued in their English version:
Deputy US Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main advocates for the Iraq war, is President George Bush's choice for World Bank president, according to administration officials...

Wolfowitz is a deeply controversial figure in Europe because of his role in designing and promoting the Iraq war....

He has also been a frequent target of criticism from congressional Democrats for what they called his "rosy" assessments of the Iraq war. Before the invasion, he assured Congress: "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."

The selection follows Bush's controversial decision to nominate John Bolton, another leading administration hawk, to be US ambassador to the United Nations.

BBC News runs with this headline:
US hawk named to run World Bank
and adds this, just in case you didn't already know that he was, you know a "neocon":
Mr Wolfowitz is a deeply controversial figure in US politics, the BBC's Justin Webb reports from Washington.

He is associated with the so-called "neo-conservatives" - senior figures in and around the Bush administration who believe that America needs to be very active in pressing the case for its values around the world, our correspondent says.

Democratic Underground Reacts: (hat tip: Charles Johnson)

8. but when I told people the neocons want to take over 4 yrs ago... they made tinfoil hat comments and called me a conspiracy theorist....they also denied that neocons even existed. I'm very, very sorry to have been right.

22. We are right there with you.It hurts just a little/maybe a lot to have to sit here and watch this all happen. We're sorry too.

Have you wallpapered yet in tin foil, it helps a little, (we've become able to come to terms with being "conspiracy" theorists), maybe now all we need is a group support organization like AA?

50. The last 4 years conspiracy theories have been better guides to predicting the future than coincidence theories. Sadly...

And the money shot:

15. Link here Related: If you are interested in the Federal reserve and you want to know who owns this planet...
http://tvnewslies.org/cart/view_product.php?product=MON... FYI.

Link leads to this:

THE MONEY MASTERS DVD is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure that rules our nation and the world today. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money.
Now what was that about the tin-foil?

OTB has some pretty good analysis of Wolfowitz's nomination in light of other nominations.

UPDATE:

Kos is predictable:

So you help drag the nation into a bloody war with no exit strategy, cost the country $200 billion and counting, 1,500 American deaths and counting, tens of thousands of physical and mental injuries, and counting, and untold numbers of Iraqi dead.

All on false pretenses, with no real understanding of how our troops would be received.

How are you punished?

Another "fuck you" from Bush to the world community. Mind boggling.

LOL!

Drum, always more subdued, but equally nutty as armchair psychologist:

I never understood the wish fulfillment fantasies of people who thought Bush might change in his second term — he's obviously a guy with only one gear and a profound need to crush his enemies — but I wonder if anyone still believes this? If so, it's time to face the music. It's going to be a long four years.

Yglesias pretty well sums up what I assume to be the moderate Democratic response:

I'm going to stake out a radically moderate view on this and say that I'd like to actually know something about Wolfowitz's views on what the World Bank does before offering judgment. Preventative wars are not, I take it, something the Bank head is able to launch.

UPDATE: Check out the more hard core Bush hating left.

Meat Eating Leftist:

This is a perftect fit for Wolfowitz. He wants to do all of the above but only posthumously after a U.S. invasion of these poor nations. Good. Great...

This guy is another shining example of the chimp appointing people to leadership positions whose agenda and interests run counter to the organization or position they hold.

Oh, man. (Rusty wipes tears of laughter from face).

But it gets even funnier. CN Todd must have been up late reading his Chomsky:

But certainly since the 80s, the World Bank along with the IMF have become absolutely essential arms of U.S. imperialism: a means for imposing drastic economic conditions on developing countries in exchange for loans that have lead to further crisis, economic downturn, increased poverty and unemployment, and the further accumulation of wealth among the transnational capitalist class.....

That Mr. Wolfowitz is comfortable in the roll of imperialist crusader should already have been evident

Oh man, that is classic! LOL.

Other Blog Reaction: Digger, Galvin Opinion, Taegen Goddard, CommonSense Desk, Jeff Jarvis, Tom Carter, Boston Dreamer, Waveflux, Instapundit, David Corn

Posted by: Rusty at 12:19 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 1518 words, total size 12 kb.

1 Interesting (but not surprising) choice. You'd think Bush would have picked someone with more of an economics background. "Wolfowitz was among the most forceful of those in the Bush administration in arguing that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and he had predicted that Americans would be welcomed as liberators rather than occupiers once they toppled Saddam's government...." lol...the best part was the article described him as "more academic" in the previous sentence. Let's hope he doesn't fuck up the World Bank in the process.

Posted by: Venom at March 16, 2005 12:33 PM (dbxVM)

2 Well, everyone knows those neocons are good with money. But they can be so loud and pushy!

Posted by: Eric J at March 16, 2005 12:54 PM (hrQvk)

3 Well, he does have a mathematics degree, for what it's worth. I frankly don't have a feel for Wolfowitz's qualifications (or lack thereof) to this post, but I am kind of enjoying the reactions from all the people the appointment's managed to piss off. :-)

Posted by: Cynical Nation at March 16, 2005 01:02 PM (vC1jc)

4 True, a mathematics degree is a pretty impressive degree (even at a bachelor's level), but it's still a mismatch for the World Bank.

Posted by: Venom at March 16, 2005 01:07 PM (dbxVM)

5 What really worries me is that wolfowitz does not understand the connection between poverty and terrorism. I read about it here: http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=449

Posted by: Tony p. at March 16, 2005 01:26 PM (Tlp0P)

6 As a Jew I find your anti-Semite baiting quite humorous. Do you fall into the "I love the Jews like just the ones in Israel and the Likudniks in America like Kristol and Medved. But the Hollywood Jews and Upper West Side Jews and the 75% of American Jews that vote Democratic are the same scum that Jews have always been" group? Have you ever thought that the very term "liberal media" and "Hollywood elite" has been a codeword for "Jew" a hell of a lot longer than "neocon"? All of this "neo-con is another word for Jew" crap is a smokescreen. I don't honestly know how Wolfowitz would do at the World Bank. He was a monumental failure at the Pentagon so if competence is the guide, we can look forward to a seriously diminished World Bank in the future. The only question is whether or not that is a good thing.

Posted by: Elrod at March 16, 2005 01:27 PM (t5fT9)

7 He is certainly a better choice then Bono, who the Moonbats were bloviating about non stop for awhile.

Posted by: William Teach at March 16, 2005 01:31 PM (cuTsc)

8 In answer to Elrod's querry the answer is 'yes'. But I also love the HOT Hollywood Jews. I'm thinking Natalie Portman, in particular.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 16, 2005 01:50 PM (JQjhA)

9 Tony. Dude, are you kidding?

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 16, 2005 02:03 PM (JQjhA)

10 During an argument between the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Peres said that Israelis' policies of continued violence might "turn the US against us".   To this Sharon retorted:   "EVERY TIME WE DO SOMETHING, YOU TELL ME AMERICANS WILL DO THIS AND WILL DO THAT. I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING VERY CLEAR: DON'T WORRY ABOUT AMERICAN PRESSURE ON ISRAEL;   WE, THE JEWISH PEOPLE, CONTROL AMERICA. AND THE AMERICANS KNOW IT."   -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon October 3, 2001 (IAP News)

Posted by: greg at March 16, 2005 04:52 PM (/+dAV)

11 HA! See Greg's comment. Yes, it's the right-wing that is anti-Semitic....right. I also have some good "quotes" from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion somewhere around here....

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 16, 2005 04:54 PM (JQjhA)

12 Just what this world needs. Another Zionazi at the reigns of power. I think a guy like Joe Leiberman would make a great president - of Israel!

Posted by: greg at March 16, 2005 05:00 PM (/+dAV)

13 Greg, that's a lie. Jews control the WORLD!!! MUAHAHAHA!

Posted by: Carlos at March 16, 2005 05:09 PM (8e/V4)

14 ..shades of McNamara... *shudder*

Posted by: lemuel at March 16, 2005 06:35 PM (aOCIX)

15 greg smokes some weird shit. He has posted the same bullshit 6 times.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 07:38 AM (DAWnL)

16 "IT''S NOT ANTI-SEMITIC TO BE CRITICAL OF ISRAEL." COLIN POWELL Neither is it anti-semitic to be critical of the cozy relationship the US has with Israel. The Jews play the Holocaust and anti--semitic card everytime they want their way.

Posted by: greg at March 17, 2005 08:42 AM (/+dAV)

17 >>>"The Jews play the Holocaust and anti--semitic card everytime they want their way." Arabs deny the Holocaust even happenned. And Libs don't seem to mind.

Posted by: Carlos at March 17, 2005 10:07 AM (8e/V4)

18 Oh, the Holocaust happened alright, but it's exagerated. 6 million Jews in 1000 days? Give me a break, that's 6000 people a day. Not even the Germans are the efficient.

Posted by: greg at March 17, 2005 10:40 AM (/+dAV)

19 6,000 people a day is nothing when you're spreading it out over as large an area as Europe (though this is ignoring also the large numbers of PoWs, gypsies, slavs, etc. that were also killed). Not to mention the Rwandan genocide killed an estimated 800,000 people in 90 days (almost 9,000/day). greg, do us all a favor, and get your head out of your ass.

Posted by: Venom at March 17, 2005 12:41 PM (dbxVM)

20 (though this is ignoring also the large numbers of PoWs, gypsies, slavs, etc. that were also killed). Not to mention the Rwandan genocide killed an estimated 800,000 people in 90 days (almost 9,000/day). My point exactly. There were over 50 million killed in WWII and there have been massacres since and yet the Jews seem to own the issue. They're the biggest cry babies in the world.

Posted by: greg at March 17, 2005 02:17 PM (/+dAV)

21 No. Your point was that 6,000,000 Jews didn't die at the hands of the Nazis. That's why you're an idiot. MY point was to show you that killing 6,000 people/day isn't as outlandish as you seem to think.

Posted by: Venom at March 17, 2005 03:28 PM (dbxVM)

22 Believe the cry babies if you want. You know it's actually illegal to claim that fewer than 6,000,000 Jews were killed in WWII in many countries, including Canada, Germany and France. Such is the power of the international Jewish lobby. If you don't believe it, Google "Ernst Zundel" and see what you get. He's been rotting in a Canadian jail and being deported to Germany to stand trial as someone who doubts the "official" number. It's kind of like Galileo getting shit for saying the world is round. The TRUTH needs no laws to protect it from the light of day. Only DOGMA needs laws to be institutionalized. My Karma just ran over your Dogma!

Posted by: greg at March 17, 2005 03:55 PM (/+dAV)

23 Wrong grey. You are the biggest cry baby in the world.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 06:00 PM (CBNGy)

24 the bottom line, greg, is that you are an antisemite and your Sharon quote is a lie.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 17, 2005 11:02 PM (xauGB)

25 Greg: If my KKK buddies can get over the Jews, why can't you. So they like money. So do I. So they're good at making money. Is this a crime? I just don't see anything to be jealous of. They are not attacking America. They are not the enemy. I don't understand. What's up with the Jew thing. One of them run off with your ole lady? We have a common enemy. They wish to cut your head off. Even if you hate the Jews. Man you're whipping a dead horse.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 11:23 PM (CBNGy)

26 I actually like most Jews, it's Israel I have a problem with. It was during the 6 day war on June 8, 1967. It was a clear day and a ship lay in the Mediterranean off Egypt's coast and Old Glory was flying for God and everyone else to see. There could be no mistake about it, this was the USS Liberty, an American intelligence gathering ship. Suddenly, Israeli planes circled the ship more than a dozen times. Then they unleashed hell. The Americans called in a distress call but no help was sent. The Israelis strafed, bombed and torpedoed the ship for nearly 2 hours. When all was done, 34 brave Americans lay dead and more than 170 wounded. A 70% casualty rate. The Israelis claimed they mistook the USS Liberty for an Egyptian ship and this explanation was excepted by the US military. But not a single survivor of the attack believes that lie. The American flag had flown proudly for 2 hours during the attack. Only Israel could get away with bitch slapping America like that.

Posted by: greg at March 18, 2005 08:34 AM (/+dAV)

27 greg, you attempting to confuse the issue by bringing in irrelevant stories doesn't dismiss the fact that you're an idiot. I mean, first you're trying to argue (unsuccessfully) that 6,000,000 Jews didn't die in the Holocaust (which I'm sure you have irrefutable proof), then you start talking about the "plight" of other Holocaust deniers and some story about Israel bombing a U.S. warship. What exactly is your point again?? Basically, you haven't proved a thing except you've probably never read a history book that didn't have a swastika on it.

Posted by: Venom at March 18, 2005 09:15 AM (dbxVM)

28 BREAKING: Berlusconi has decided to keep the Italian troops in Iraq after all.

Posted by: Greg at March 18, 2005 09:39 AM (/+dAV)

29 You are still a liar Greg. It is quite easy to mistake a ship and there are Liberty crewmembers who believe the attack was a mistake and not a deliberate attack on the US Navy ship.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 18, 2005 02:38 PM (xauGB)

30 The United States gives three BILLION dollars to Israel every year. That’s $500 for every Jewish Israeli. The American taxpayers foot this bill. What do we get in return? We get spied on by Israel. In 1985, Jonathon Pollard, an American Jew working at the Pentagon, stole enough U.S. classified secrets to fill a closet including technology that Israel then traded to the USSR in return for relaxing emigration laws for Soviet Jews wanting to go to Israel. He’s considered a hero in Israel and is currently in an American prison. This technology cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars and we are still paying for it to this very day. Furthermore, this transfer of technology has endangered the American people. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6397.shtml As we speak, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee "AIPAC" is being investigated for transfer of classified material from the Pentagon to Israel. The problem is that there are many many American Jews in highly sensitive positions within the Pentagon and elsewhere whose primary allegiance is to Israel not America. So called “Israeli Firsters”. http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001514.html In the months just before and after 9-11, over 200 Israeli spies were caught in the United States and whisked quietly back to Israel. This was reported by Brit Hume and Carl Cameron of Fox News in a 4 part series on Dec. 11-14, 2001 and was then removed from Fox’s website on Dec. 15, 2001. In the report, a senior U.S. intelligence agent was asked if the spy ring was in anyway related to 9-11 and he said, “This information is classified, I cannot speak about it”. This 4 part series is still available at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm I highly recommend that you listen to these reports. They’re about 5 minutes long each. With friends like this, who needs enemies? Wake up and smell the bagels. May the American People prevail!

Posted by: greg at March 18, 2005 04:09 PM (/+dAV)

31 what are you implying with the conveniently disappearing news article about israeli spies being in the U.S. prior to 9/11? That they had something to do with destroying a building that had lots of jews in it? you are so stupid.. maybe just maybe the secret service was already aware of a grave threat to the country and they needed to bring in help from israel to assist with the intelligence gathering on the ground level. you make it sound like israel is the only country that engages in espionage. are the chinese and russians also jewish? you obviously have a lot to learn about the complex world we live in. learn to get out of that trailer of yours every now and then, and make sure it isn't to go to your local neo-nazi rallies where the combined IQ is less than 100.

Posted by: greguidjot at March 19, 2005 05:13 PM (CL2lF)

32 greguldjot, You obviously didn't watch: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm You should reserve your comments until you do.

Posted by: greg at March 20, 2005 07:25 AM (/+dAV)

33 Sane people recognize that the nutty anti-semite is repeating long debunked myths. Myths amusingly very popular among the nutty anti-semitic Left, the nutty anti-semitic Right and the anti-semitic elements of the Arabs.

Posted by: SPQR at March 20, 2005 07:29 PM (xauGB)

34 Dear Senatus Populus Que Romanum (SPQR), The report I cited is from Brit Hume of Fox News. I didn't know he was an anti-semite. I thought it was supposed to be "fair and balanced news". You should really watch his report at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

Posted by: greg at March 22, 2005 08:10 AM (/+dAV)

35 Big Good Wolfowitz & Little OECD Hiding Food From: Janet Ford Date: April 19, 2005 11:04:11 AM EDT To: Paul.Wolfowitz@worldbank.org Subject: UPI Feature: Review Here's a head's up on a UPI; Outside View: Ending Poverty article by Walton Cook, published April 13th in The Washington Times This is not the actual article, but a review. Here is the URL: http://washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050411-020604-3975r.htm Ending Poverty, and without any new taxes—not a red cent! Whomever first said changing the thinking of bureaucrats was akin to ‘pulling hen’s teeth’ may have actually been one of the original chickens, but in a proposal titled: Ending Poverty, policy innovator Walton Cook brings forward a truly fresh approach to some of the world's oldest problems; economic development, abject poverty and narcotics production. (Published by UPI:Outside View; Ending Poverty--Washington Times--April 13th) How, one might ask, are these related? How does one policy initiative impact another that does not appear, at least on the surface, to be similar? Mr. Cook, fortunately, doesn’t let appearances stand in the way of more open thinking, because Ending Poverty requires him to find money in places seemingly so obvious that others overlook them, in fact, they already have failed to see benefits waiting in the wings, so to speak, for their curtain call, The line of reasoning behind his search is a question: What common costs do all rich nations share that if reduced or eliminated, could prove financially beneficial to all? A simple enough premise! He is clear to point out that there are other potential economic ‘tipping points’ than his choice. As an economic lever, he says a cure to cancer or heart disease would drastically reduce healthcare costs common to all richer nations that aggressively treat such maladies. Because a medical cure, however, is not one actually at hand, he looks for a money source that is already available, not a ‘blue sky’ option. He seeks a ‘clear and present’ economic opportunity. The author reminds us that all rich nations have a “societal cost of narcotics.” Using OECD figures, those costs average 1.5% of the GDP of each member nation. Cumulatively, the 30 richest nations incur a narcotics ‘societal cost’ of $495 billion dollars annually. Only two narcotics, however, opium and cocaine, account for 65% of this total societal cost—almost $322 billion annually. Major ‘hard’ narcotics are few. as are the few but notably poor producer nations. Logically, his next call is for new ‘occupational diplomacy’ exclusively with the major producer nations of these two narcotics plants--a clean exchange of money in return for cessation of cultivation. In each instance, he proposes to offer fully three times the “farm door” payments received by poor peasant farmers for their narcotics cultivations. Not only three times the actual farm door revenues, but also offered over a ten-year period--so that both sufficient money and time are provided for farmers and workers to receive adequate education, training and practice in developing sustainable alternate occupations. This diplomacy cost in Afghanistan, the largest (90%) opium producer, would be 3x $2.8 billion = $8.4 billion annually. The cost of similar occupational diplomacy in the Andean Region, (Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador) the major source of cocaine, would be $20 billion annually. The combined cost: $28.4 billion, is the diplomatic investment paid for not growing two narcotic plants and provides sustainable futures for present farmers and farm workers. The absence of only two narcotics producing plants would earn the OECD rich nations a ‘societal cost savings’ of 65% of $495 billion annually, or $322 billion. The annual cost of the U.S. diplomatic response is $28.4 billion annually. The OECD surplus is then $293.6 billion. Mr. Cook then proposes that the OECD beneficiary nations use their surplus differential as the funding source of meeting their 0.7% of GNP obligations to the Millennium Development Goals for supporting development and reducing world poverty. It is now easier to remember that half the world’s 6 + billion citizens live on less than $3 per day. Keeping the % of GNP promises already made would require that the present OECD donor shortfall of $154.3 billion now be subtracted from the $293.6 billion net savings. After having met the 0.7% of GNP promises, therefore, the OECD nations would still show an annual surplus of $127.6 billion, which they would share proportionately Would six billion people think the U.S. a hero if we had a solution we refused to bring forward? The proposal points out how the United States could seize moral high ground, finance the entire diplomatic initiative for all OECD nations, meet its own 0.7% MDG promise, and still realize a net surplus of over $30 billion annually. The official (ONDCP) U.S. ‘societal cost of narcotics’ is $160 billion annually. The U.S. MDG donor shortfall is approximately $ 64 billion annually. Nations should rejoice that all the proposed “waiting-in-the-wings’ benefits have been derived at the same time there has been absolutely no increase in revenue tax in any OECD nation to fund those benefits, both received and given! All shades of the political spectrum are winners as are the various NGO's with third world interests. This is what Mr. Cook means when he says the money is “free” or “found money.” He is referring to the fact that finding a cure for a disease (even an economic one) renders spending future money for its cure no longer necessary—therefore, money is available without new tax. That said, we hope advocates for new development diplomacy have already read enough to gain the insight that; “hidden in plain sight,” is an economic solution for simultaneously taming more than one predatory bird—and all with the same ‘soft power’ approach. You can strike your own blow against both world poverty and narcotics by giving your intellectual support for a full debate on this compelling new policy option. Thank you! Before judgment based on two pages, let us assure you that your most thoughtful questions are more carefully addressed in the full article. It elaborates on the critical issues; treaty safeguards, diplomacy, the actual development funding (bonds) mechanisms, poverty reduction, etc. The full paper can be found on Google at: UPI; Outside View: Ending Poverty (April 13th 2005, The Washington Times) We hope you will take the time to read this remarkable proposal.

Posted by: Janet Ford at May 04, 2005 08:25 AM (1B/AY)

36 I have read and observed that there has not been one single American Jew killed in the fighting in Iraq. Over 1,758 American service men and women have lost their lives fighting in Iraq and not one of them has been an American Jew. What goes on here? Our military men and women of all nationalities have died during the fighting in Iraq......Whites, African Americans, Hispanic American, Indian Americans, Asian Americans and Arab Americans have all lost their lives serving in our armed forces in Iraq. Are there any military American Jews serving in Iraq? You present, and former military personnel know that each soldier, Marine, Sailor and Airman has a dog tag with their religion stamped on it among other things, such as blood type. From what I hear, there has not been a single casuality of an American Jew in Iraq. It appears that the American Christian soldier is doing all of the fighting and dying in Iraq while the American Jews at home are among the most vocal in supporting the continuation of this war.

Posted by: bill O'Neill at July 17, 2005 12:50 AM (HNech)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
54kb generated in CPU 0.0573, elapsed 0.1467 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1363 seconds, 285 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.