Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is almost universally regarded as one of if not the architect of the 2003 Iraq War, a term not usually meant as a compliment given the protracted duration of what he estimated would be a quick and light engagement, the years of sectarian bloodshed Wolfowitz predicted would be nonexistent, and his claim that the U.S. would be “greeted as liberators.”
In other words, if you were Paul Wolfowitz you wouldn’t want to be known as the “architect” as anything. That’s rough for Wolfowitz, who has been trying to crowbar the label off his name since at least 2007, and did so with some force on two cable news shows Tuesday morning.
To MSNBC’s Chuck Todd: “If I had been the architect, things would have been run very differently. So that’s not a correct label.”
To CNN’s Chris Cuomo: “I was not the architect of the war. If I were the architect it would have been handled very differently.”
Wolfowitz made a similar objection to the Sunday Times in 2013:
He denied that he was “the architect” of the Iraq invasion. “It wasn’t conducted according to my plan.”
The earliest Wolfowitz appears to have denied the “architect” label was in 2007, on the Charlie Rose Show:
PAUL WOLFOWITZ: Maybe it was — look, maybe I could have done it differently. Maybe I could have consulted more. Maybe if it weren’t me and somebody else doing it, look, I’ve said from the beginning…
CHARLIE ROSE: Somebody who’s not an architect of the war, and all that.
PAUL WOLFOWITZ: I’m not an architect of anything, but somebody who is not so closely associated with a controversial Iraq policy, yes.
If Wolfowitz really wants the label disassociated from his name, he’s got an uphill battle: it appears above the fold on his Wikipedia page, which might as well be a virtual tombstone:
[Image via screengrab]
Have a tip we should know? email@example.com