From Volume 2, Issue Number 32 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Aug. 12, 2003

Wolfowitz Grilled by Senate Committee
by Carl Osgood

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 (EIRNS)—The rough treatment that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz received at the hands of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 29, may be an indication that the Pentagon Chickenhawks are beginning to lose their credibility on Capitol Hill. Even more remarkable, the grilling Wolfowitz was subjected to was bipartisan—from Republicans as well as Democrats. Wolfowitz delivered an hour-long opening statement in which, among other things, he told the Committee how terrible the Saddam Hussein regime was, and he declared that the ongoing operations in Iraq are "central" to the U.S. war on terrorism.

The Senators who interrogated Wolfowitz and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Josh Bolten, zeroed in on the ongoing costs of the operation, and on the shifting explanations for why the U.S. went to war against Iraq, in the first place. The Pentagon has not supplied cost estimates for operations beyond the Sept. 30 end of fiscal 2003. When Bolten told Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del) that "we don't know what" future costs in Iraq will be, Biden burst out with, "Give me a break, will you? When are you guys starting to be honest with us? Come on! I mean, this is ridiculous."

Senator Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI) then took up the issue of the justification for the war. He pulled out the 1998 report of the Project for a New American Century, to document that Wolfowitz has, in fact, been in favor of regime change in Iraq for a more than a decade. Wolfowitz claimed that the difference between his view then and now was 9/11; that before 9/11 he did not advocate the large-scale use of U.S. military power to do that job, but 9/11 "changed the stakes, in my view." Chaffee did not accept that explanation and replied to Wolfowitz, "I really resent when witnesses talk that this is in the light of Sept. 11 when the evidence is to the contrary."

Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc) took on Wolfowitz's claim that "the battle to secure the peace in Iraq is now the central battle in the global war on terror." "Am I to understand," Feingold asked, "that the way to defeat global terrorists who use international networks is to have the United States Administration act on what you have described in your own words as quote 'murky intelligence,' when this action alienates important allies in fighting terror in places that do not appear to have meaningful links to al-Qaeda?"

Wolfowitz replied that he was "absolutely sure we have our eye on the ball," and claimed that the U.S. had "made some very big gains" in the war on terrorism, but then warned, "Let's be clear, it's going to be a long struggle."

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) brought the issue of the costs of the Iraq war a little closer to home. She said the priority issues in her state are jobs, getting the economy moving, and affordable electricity, all things Wolfowitz said were priorities in Iraq. "So, ... when my people hear what we are spending in Iraq right now, $45 billion a year, they're starting to ask me questions, and I can't tell what the outlook is because you won't tell us." She wanted to know how the U.S. could square the spending of $45 billion a year in Iraq when the annual budget for higher education is $23 billion, $6.7 billion for Head Start, $31 billion for highways, $23 billion for veterans' healthcare, and $27 billion for the National Institutes of Health.

Reprinted from the New Federalist of Aug. 11.

All rights reserved © 2003 EIRNS