Why would Paul Wolfowitz (See below) want to leave his #2 position at the Pentagon before Washington's job in Iraq was completed? Since he viewed that project as so all-important, why would he not want to see it through to its conclusion? Why would Bush or Cheney want to kick him upstairs to the World Bank? Why has Wolfowitz been as quiet as a mouse ever since? Was Wolfowitz in reality fired by Donald Rumsfeld, because the latter felt Wolfowitz was an incompetent administrator?

Note that ex-Marine, anti-war Congressman John Murtha said in one of his recent television interviews that he, Murtha, felt that Wolfowitz was a college professor, not an administrator, and that he should have been fired long before he left the Pentagon. I can't recall any reporter asking Bush why Wolfowitz was transferred to the World Bank.

Soon after Wolfowitz's departure, the #3 man at the Pentagon, fellow Zionist apparatchik Douglas Feith, announced his intention to resign in the summer of 2005. He did leave, as scheduled. So now both of the prime architects and the prime administrators of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" are gone. They are not talking, as the present controversy over Iraq rages.

Did Wolfowitz and Feith leave because they felt their prescribed policy of war for Iraq had blown up and been a bloody disaster? Or, to the contrary, did they think that their self-assigned task was finished, and had been a success? From their point of view, I believe they considered their role as finished and a success.

The nation-state of Iraq has been destroyed and is in chaos, and on the verge of a horrible civil war, which may last many years. Wolfowitz and Feith, along with a handful of other operatives in Washington, had been working at it for over a decade. They succeeded, and have moved on. Mission accomplished.
================
Wolfowitz's New Job Turning Him Into Iraq War's Invisible Man

Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Paul Wolfowitz's role as the architect of the Iraq war is shaping up to be one of the great disappearing acts in Washington.

Wolfowitz has kept a relatively low profile since leaving the Defense Department six months ago to run the World Bank, the largest financer of projects in poor countries. He has made about a half-dozen public appearances in the U.S., forgone official visits to Congress and stayed clear of one-on-one news interviews.

This is at a time when the former colleagues who helped him construct the Iraq invasion have been grilled before investigative commissions and criticized in opinion polls. ``Getting out of the public spotlight, maintaining low visibility is part of the effort to remove the public image'' of Wolfowitz's role in starting the war, says Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Washington.

The World Bank presidency gave Wolfowitz a pulpit for cultivating humanitarian concerns and a mechanism for shedding a villainous image growing out of Michael Moore's 2004 critical documentary about the war, ``Fahrenheit 9/11.''

In his few appearances since taking over the World Bank in June, Wolfowitz has traveled to Africa, spoken out against corruption, advocated greater trade liberalization as a way to reduce poverty and helped solidify an agreement to write off as much as $57.5 billion in debt for impoverished countries.

``He is no longer connected in people's minds to what is going on in Iraq,'' Wayne says. ``He is not resurrecting himself -- he is invisible.''