How interesting that the Financial Tiimes ignores the controversy entirely, and plays the event as a win for Wolfawitz, quoting one of the ministers who showed up as praising Wolfowitz:
EU backs Wolfowitz as next World Bank chief
By Raphael Minder in Brussels
March 30 2005 19:09
Paul Wolfowitz, the controversial US nominee to run the World Bank, on Wednesday promised to keep the institution “truly multinational�.
Appearing before European Union governors of the World Bank, Mr Wolfowitz pledged to give the EU a regular say in the running of the world's leading development institution. But he fell short of endorsing a French proposal to have a European as his deputy.
After auditioning Mr Wolfowitz for two hours, Agnes van Ardenne, the Dutch development minister, said: “We have seen that he is very much committed to the mission of the World Bank as a multilateral institution and this removes a lot of our concerns.�
Her views were echoed by other EU officials, who also expressed optimism that Mr Wolfowitz, the intellectual architect of the war in Iraq, would be able to distance himself from the administration of George W. Bush once in his new job. ....
Posted by MS at March 30, 2005 07:40 PMOOPS: Another Financial Times story (see below) highlights the probable insult by the missing ministers
[The story of ministers praising Wolfowitz (above) was featured on the infamous drudgereport.com page.]
Most of the EU cast miss Wolfowitz ‘audition'
By Raphael Minder in Brussels
March 30 2005 19:18
Paul Wolfowitz, the US nominee to head the World Bank, on Wednesday gave what one minister described as “a positive signal� by making a flying visit to Brussels to help alleviate European concerns about his appointment.
However, as he boarded his United Airlines flight back to Washington just five hours after landing, Mr Wolfowitz might not have felt so positive about the European turnout.
Only seven out of the 25 European Union member states were represented by a minister or secretary of state at Wednesday's meeting. This was in spite of the fact that EU finance ministers had insisted on holding such an audition before Mr Wolfowitz's expected election as World Bank president in Washington on Thursday.
In the end, several countries sent their Brussels-based ambassadors to what was billed as an informal meeting of EU governors of the World Bank. France, which is trying to create a new number-two post at the World Bank, sent its treasury director. Only two of the big EU countries, Germany and Britain, managed a minister, along with the smaller nations Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium
Posted by MS at March 30, 2005 08:01 PMWell, it's not impossible those obstinate Dems will be sorry. Karl is probably on the hotline with the Master of Anthrax attacks right about now. It's the Bush Way: When one runs out of favorable political options, start killin' people!
Posted by Arvin Hill at March 30, 2005 08:12 PMRe: McCain.
I was a McCainiac in 2000 who worked on the campaign and saw the senator in person. I understand people like me. He has lost us forever.
Posted by rlprather at March 30, 2005 08:29 PMJust out of curiousity, when was the first anthrax scare, and what was going on in the Administration at the time?
Posted by Judith at March 30, 2005 09:45 PMHere's something to be afraid of.
For full story cut and paste: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1B5FCF4A-FBF6-443A-93A9-5E37C43FDE0B.htm
Sleepwalking to disaster in Iran
By Scott Ritter Wednesday 30 March 2005,
Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq.
There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was going.
The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told.
When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell: because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbour to the east, in order to destroy the
Iranian nuclear programme.
Why June 2005?, I asked. 'The Israelis are concerned that if the Iranians get their nuclear enrichment programme up and running, then there will be no way to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. June 2005 is seen as the decisive date.'
The President had reviewed plans being prepared by the Pentagon to have the military capability in place by June 2005 for such an attack, if the President ordered.
But when Secretary of State Condi Rice told America's European allies in February 2005, in response to press reports about a pending June 2005 American attack against Iran, she said that 'the question [of a military strike] is simply not on the agenda at this point -- we have diplomatic means to do this.'
President Bush himself followed up on Rice's statement by stating that 'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.' He quickly added, 'Having said that, all options are on the table.'
In short, both the President and the Secretary of State were being honest, and disingenuous, at the same time. Truth to be told, there is no American military strike on the agenda; that is, until June 2005.
It was curious that no one in the American media took it upon themselves to confront the President or his Secretary of State about the June 2005 date, or for that matter the October 2004 review by the President of military plans to attack Iran in June 2005.
The American media today is sleepwalking towards an American war with Iran with all of the incompetence and lack of integrity that it displayed during a similar path trodden during the buildup to our current war with Iraq.
That Iran has been a target of the Bush administration's ideologues is no secret: the President himself placed Iran in the 'axis of evil' back in 2002, and has said that the world would be a better place with the current Iranian
government relegated to the trash bin of history.
The Bush administration has also expressed its concern about Iran's nuclear programmes - concerns shared by Israel and the European Union, although to different degrees.
Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for
a pre-emptive strike against Iran's major nuclear facilities, including the nuclear reactor facility in Busher (scheduled to become active in 2005).
These plans were constantly being updated, something that did not escape the attention of the Bush White House.
The Israeli policy toward Iran, when it comes to stopping the Iranian nuclear programme, has always been for the US to lead the way.
'The way to stop Iran', a senior Israeli official has said, 'is by the leadership of the US, supported by European countries and taking this issue to the UN, and using the diplomatic channel with sanctions as a tool and a very deep inspection regime and full transparency.'
It seems that Tel Aviv and Washington, DC aren't too far removed on their Iranian policy objectives, except that there is always the unspoken 'twist': what if the United States does not fully support European diplomatic initiatives, has no interest in letting IAEA inspections work, and envisions UN sanctions as a permanent means of containment until regime change is accomplished in Tehran, as opposed to a tool designed to compel Iran to cooperate on eliminating its nuclear programme?
Because the fact is, despite recent warm remarks by President Bush and Condi Rice, the US does not fully embrace the EU's Iran diplomacy, viewing it as a programme 'doomed to fail'.
The IAEA has come out with an official report, after extensive inspections of declared Iranian nuclear facilities in November 2004, that says there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme; the Bush administration responded by trying to oust the IAEA's lead inspector, Mohammed al-Baradei.
And the Bush administration's push for UN sanctions shows every intention of making such sanctions deep, painful and long-lasting.
Curiously, the date for the Bush administration's move to call for UN sanctions against Iran is June 2005.
According to a US position paper circulated in Vienna at the end of last month, the US will give the EU-Iran discussions until June 2005 to resolve the Iranian standoff.
'Ultimately only the full cessation and dismantling of Iran's fissile material production efforts can give us any confidence that Iran has abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions,' the US draft position paper said.
Iran has called such thinking 'hallucinations' on the part of the Bush administration.
Whether this attack takes place in June 2005, when the Pentagon has been instructed to be ready, or at a later date, once all other preparations have been made, is really the only question that remains to be answered.
That, and whether the journalists who populate the mainstream American media will continue to sleepwalk on their way to facilitating yet another disaster in the Middle East.
Scott Ritter former UN Chief Weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998 author of 'Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy', published by I.B.
The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.
Aljazeera
The anthrax attacks began in September 2001, a week after the 9-11 attacks.
Posted by Joe at March 30, 2005 10:31 PMThe anthrax attacks began in September 2001, a week after the 9-11 attacks.
of course, there was enough time for the media to scream "Anthrax" about a million times before someone took them up on their offer. just like after they screamed "dirty bomb!" and general asscrack came up with jose padilla, who was promptly disappeared.
Posted by benjoya at March 31, 2005 12:56 PM