thinkprogress.org— Last night on the Charlie Rose show, Wolfowitz denied being ?an architect? of the catastrophic decision to go to war. ?I?m not an architect of anything,? he said.
May 31, 2007View in Crawl 4
<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz</a>Wolfowitz is a long-term advocate of "preemption"––a military policy to strike first to eliminate presumed threats, according to Seymour Hersh: "The Pentagon's conservative and highly assertive civilian leadership, assembled by Wolfowitz, gained extraordinary influence, especially after September 11th. These civilians were the most vigorous advocates for taking action against Saddam Hussein and for the use of pre-emptive military action to combat terrorism."[39]Wolfowitz explained his position in a 2002 interview with Robert Collier, of the San Francisco Chronicle, stating: "I think the premise of a policy has to be we can't afford to wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a way in which any number of terrorist regimes have, over the last 20 years, gotten away with doing things that I think encourage more behavior of that kind."[38] He added, apparently as clarification: "you can't wait until you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody did something in the past, you know that people are planning to do something against you in the future and that they're developing incredibly destructive weapons to do it with and that's not tolerable."[38]
zwarren69May 31, 2007
Deny it now.... classic
gumbi69May 31, 2007
Who or what does he keep looking at. Liars like to look away while talking.
Closed AccountJun 1, 2007
No, he's right. He's not an architect; he's part of a wrecking crew. You don't need an architect when you just want to tear something down.
cjwrightJun 1, 2007
Here's what he did architect. Read all about the World Bank here:<a class="user" href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009948">http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009948</a><a class="user" href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009965">http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009965</a>and <a class="user" href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009995">http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009995</a>from 4/30<a class="user" href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010008">http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010008</a>from 5/1<a class="user" href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010012">http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010012</a>from 5/4<a class="user" href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010018">http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010018</a>from 5/8<a class="user" href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010046">http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010046</a>from 5/9<a class="user" href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010050">http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010050</a>and finally<a class="user" href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010095">http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010095</a>
swisscamelJun 1, 2007
Bulls**t. He designed my house 3 years ago.
Closed AccountJun 1, 2007
<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz</a>Wolfowitz is a long-term advocate of "preemption"––a military policy to strike first to eliminate presumed threats, according to Seymour Hersh: "The Pentagon's conservative and highly assertive civilian leadership, assembled by Wolfowitz, gained extraordinary influence, especially after September 11th. These civilians were the most vigorous advocates for taking action against Saddam Hussein and for the use of pre-emptive military action to combat terrorism."[39]Wolfowitz explained his position in a 2002 interview with Robert Collier, of the San Francisco Chronicle, stating: "I think the premise of a policy has to be we can't afford to wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a way in which any number of terrorist regimes have, over the last 20 years, gotten away with doing things that I think encourage more behavior of that kind."[38] He added, apparently as clarification: "you can't wait until you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody did something in the past, you know that people are planning to do something against you in the future and that they're developing incredibly destructive weapons to do it with and that's not tolerable."[38]