PALAST: Bigger Reasons To Toss Wolfowitz - Like Perjury & Homicide

[kpete]

Naked neo-cons: Perjury and the Big, Bad Wolfowitz
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-05-10 01:14. Evidence
By Greg Palast

George Bush is trying to save Paul Wolfowitz' job as President of the World Bank even after the vulpine neo-con was caught slipping a load of World Bank loot to his love interest, Shaha Ali Riza.

Big deal. Yes, Wolfowitz shouldn't have been greasing his cookie sheet with government funds, but there are bigger reasons to toss The Wolf out the door.

Like, say, perjury and homicide? I haven't forgotten, Mr. Wolfowitz, that on March 27, 2003 you testified before the US Congress that the occupation of Iraq wouldn't cost the American taxpayer a penny.

You said, "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money." Oh, really?

We can bomb Iraq and the Iraqis will pay for the bombs!

more at:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22330

[Fridays Child]

1. Regarding the real cost, is this what Robert Ebel posted right before the war?

From the article:

In 2004, I confronted Caruso in his Department of Energy office in Washington. Nice man. Caruso knows his stuff. And, after an hour of technical jibberish, he told me the info he gave Wolfowitz' department -- and the numbers didn't add up to anything close to Wolfowitz' Iraq oil windfall.

I then checked Caruso's numbers with his own numbers man, another ex-CIA oil expert, Robert Ebel. I asked Ebel about the Wolfowitz claim of an oil gusher in Iraq that would pay for the US Occupation. Ebel wouldn't answer until after the cameras were off. But I wasn't asked to keep it off the record.

Ebel told me he had put the real numbers up on a think tank website just before the Humvees rolled into Baghdad. His projections conflicted big time with the fantasy facts to which Wolfowitz testified. Ebel told me that allies of neo-con conman Ahmad Chalabi asked Ebel to remove and bury the realistic numbers. He did.

Did Wolfowitz lie? Ebel smiled, "It was just part of the sales pitch, wasn't it?"

I went looking for those "real numbers" and found this Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) document, via www.internetarchive.org:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030302083247/www.csis.org/features/attackoniraq_summary.pdf

On page 9 of the pdf is a section titled "OIL PRICE PATHS CORRESPONDING TO THE
NO-WAR AND THREE WAR SCENARIOS," co-authored by Robert Ebel. And in that section, on page 13, is a chart titled "Chart 2: Cumulative (Nominal) Costs of Conflict with Iraq." In the worst case scenario, it showed that the cost of the war against Iraq would exceed 120 billion dollars by the end of 2004.

Is this the document that Chalabi asked Ebel to remove?

[seemslikeadream]

2. kick

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_randolph_070509_greg_palast_3a_the_las.htm

[bobthedrummer]

3. Kick

[likesmountains 52]

4. kick