$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')size=150]Wolfowitz tapped for World Bank[/size]
WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bush will announce that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is his choice to be president of the World Bank, a senior administration official told CNN Wednesday.
Wolfowitz was one of the main advocates for the war in Iraq.
Wolfowitz's name was mentioned as a possible World Bank pick a few weeks ago, but the administration attempted to distance itself from that after reports of grumblings from the Europeans.
In addition to Wolfowitz's strong support for the Iraq war, Steve Radelet, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and a former undersecretary at the Treasury, said last week the Europeans were nervous that Wolfowitz would prove similar to former World Bank head and Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.
Radelet said McNamara was accused of channeling aid to nations based not on need but on their support of U.S. policy. ...
PeakOil is You
Wolfowitz tapped for World Bank
Wolfowitz tapped for World Bank
by maverickdoc » Wed 16 Mar 2005, 11:31:37
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/16/news/in ... k/?cnn=yes
THE HITS JUST keep on coming
SIGN UP To be a NEOCON. NOW!
-
maverickdoc - Tar Sands
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
by maverickdoc » Wed 16 Mar 2005, 11:35:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')une 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
-
maverickdoc - Tar Sands
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
by maverickdoc » Wed 16 Mar 2005, 13:41:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Grimnir', 'A')ny more news on the Wolfowitz-for-World-Bank thing?
just one
![[smilie=laughing4.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/laughing4.gif "laughing4")
-
maverickdoc - Tar Sands
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
by Grimnir » Wed 16 Mar 2005, 14:03:37
If I'm not mistaken, this means the neocons now have their people in top positions in the Exec. branch, the DoD, the CIA, the Dept. of Homeland Security, the UN, and the World Bank. How the hell did they do this?
- Grimnir
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: USA
by Teclo » Wed 16 Mar 2005, 14:07:10
I think he might be vetoed
Its a bridge too far, a neo-con in the world bank, they should use the veto and get him the hell out
What right does a neo-con have to dictate monetry affairs when their fiscal policy is ruining their own nation
Martin
Its a bridge too far, a neo-con in the world bank, they should use the veto and get him the hell out
What right does a neo-con have to dictate monetry affairs when their fiscal policy is ruining their own nation
Martin
-
Teclo - Lignite
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Sat 29 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
by Petro » Wed 16 Mar 2005, 14:11:01
I hope you're right...but I'm not so sure. There are other influences at play here other than that of the NeoCons. One could argue that these influences are indeed responsible for the NeoCons rise to power. Sounds trite I realize, but heh as the above post asked: [Q]How the hell did they do this?[/Q]
-
Petro - Lignite
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
by savethehumans » Thu 17 Mar 2005, 01:24:16
All right now, Mr. Prez...this has stopped being funny.... 
And the Supreme Court is next, of course. Gotta get rid of that pesky Bill of Rights....
And the Supreme Court is next, of course. Gotta get rid of that pesky Bill of Rights....
-
savethehumans - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1468
- Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
by DriveElectric » Thu 17 Mar 2005, 02:52:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Grimnir', 'I')f I'm not mistaken, this means the neocons now have their people in top positions in the Exec. branch, the DoD, the CIA, the Dept. of Homeland Security, the UN, and the World Bank. How the hell did they do this?
They won the election.
"The best revenge is getting elected."
-
DriveElectric - Tar Sands
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
