2008 Woodie Awards
Bush's new appointees could be dangerous
Ramzi Kanazi ; Massachusetts Daily Collegian (U. Massachusetts-Amherst)
Issue date: 3/30/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
(U-WIRE) AMHERST, Mass. - Bush recently returned from a fence-mending trip to Europe. During his trip, he spoke of reconfirming "the importance of the transatlantic alliance" and putting differences between Europe and America in the past. Upon his return, he is nominating appointees to two international institutions that Europe would loathe to accept. He is trying to inject two neocons who care little for diplomacy and international relations into the United Nations and the World Bank.
Bush seems to have a way of appealing to his opposition with controversial appointees -- always a good strategy. His two newest candidates are Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton. Bolton, now serving as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security and nominated as a United Nations ambassador, can be noted for a list of vocal criticisms of the institution that he is nominated to that spans even longer than his current title. He has stated, "there is no such thing as the United Nations" and "if the U.N. secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." It's a good thing that he has not been appointed to a position as a pilot.
His next nominee, Paul Wolfowitz, would head the World Bank. Wolfowitz presently enjoys his position as the Deputy Defense Secretary. He was the mastermind of the Iraq war. I remember reading a journalist who suggested that Wolfowitz's failures in estimating the costs of the Iraq war (at about $30 million while having eclipsed $200 million) should earn him a promotion, as president of the World Bank.
Unfortunately, nominees to Wolfowitz's anticipated position as President of the World Bank have yet to be overturned. He will be replacing a member of the Clinton pack, James Wolfensohn.
Wolfowitz, while differentiating politics from economy has been quoted as saying, "It's not a secret that I care a lot about the spread of freedom and democracy ... but as I've said over and over again, I think there is a political stream and an economic stream, and they flow together and reinforce each other. If I'm president of the World Bank, I know which stream I'm focused on." I know what stream that is too: it's a stream of lies, the same kind of stream he was focused on when facilitating propaganda for the invasion of Iraq. He couldn't care less about freedom and democracy, but he does care about American hegemony, and he will use whatever means, political or economic, to preserve it.
Bush seems to have a way of appealing to his opposition with controversial appointees -- always a good strategy. His two newest candidates are Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton. Bolton, now serving as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security and nominated as a United Nations ambassador, can be noted for a list of vocal criticisms of the institution that he is nominated to that spans even longer than his current title. He has stated, "there is no such thing as the United Nations" and "if the U.N. secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." It's a good thing that he has not been appointed to a position as a pilot.
His next nominee, Paul Wolfowitz, would head the World Bank. Wolfowitz presently enjoys his position as the Deputy Defense Secretary. He was the mastermind of the Iraq war. I remember reading a journalist who suggested that Wolfowitz's failures in estimating the costs of the Iraq war (at about $30 million while having eclipsed $200 million) should earn him a promotion, as president of the World Bank.
Unfortunately, nominees to Wolfowitz's anticipated position as President of the World Bank have yet to be overturned. He will be replacing a member of the Clinton pack, James Wolfensohn.
Wolfowitz, while differentiating politics from economy has been quoted as saying, "It's not a secret that I care a lot about the spread of freedom and democracy ... but as I've said over and over again, I think there is a political stream and an economic stream, and they flow together and reinforce each other. If I'm president of the World Bank, I know which stream I'm focused on." I know what stream that is too: it's a stream of lies, the same kind of stream he was focused on when facilitating propaganda for the invasion of Iraq. He couldn't care less about freedom and democracy, but he does care about American hegemony, and he will use whatever means, political or economic, to preserve it.