Paul Wolfowitz....Should He Stay or Should He Go Now?
Not to take away from a great Clash song....Paul Wolfowitz, President of the World Bank, has been accused of giving his sometimes girlfriend, Shaha Riza , SIGNIFICANT raises above what the regulations allow. He ended up paying her $193,000, some $60,000 more than the grade she worked as a transfer employee at the US State Dept. He didn't send the raise requests through the proper review boards, but odered it himself.
Wolfowitz, who was nominated by President Bush, joined the bank after serving as deputy defense secretary at the Pentagon, where he was one of the chief architects of the U.S. war strategy in Iraq.
Originally, his big focus was surprisingly, rooting out corruption. He did this by cutting off loans to some third world countries where the leaders routinely take cuts of the funds. That may have been successful, but many in the world community felt it was the wrong way to go about it as the people of those countries suffered because of this.
Within the last year, Wolfowitz has also angered more of the world by bringing bush43 doctrine into funding decisions, even though he had agreed not to when he took over the bank. This is exemplified by the World Bank's insistence that it drop Birth Control as one of the purposes of Development Loans to several poor 3rd world nations, even though family Planning was one of the specific targets of the funds he's supposed to distribute.
This morning, David Sanger wrote a piece in the NY Times that was titled: " Bush Foreign Relations at Core of Wolfowitz Flap; Key World Agencies Strongly Oppose President's Agenda". He tries to say many both here and across the world
are going after Wolfowitz to get Bush43 for his actions & Priorities as President. I think it may be true to whatever extent.
But I see this a muddying the waters. Karl Rove's hallmark with one of his favorite compliant newspapers. Take your eye off the fact that it's rampant corruption and mismanagement that we the citizens are asked to not only fund, but also turn a blind eye to and call the whole row a political brouhaha. I gotta hand it to Karl. The guy is good.
Cronyinsm & corruption needs to be rooted out wherever it's found. That includes Wolfowitz & his girlfriend.
You gotta stand for something in this world. You can't say one thing and do another. That's what honor is all about. Living up to your principles by the actions of your life.
- kindness's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Hmmmm---
I had no idea that Paul Wofowitz was still in office at all.
Paul Wolfowitz was one of the original
advocates of regime change in Iraq, having proposed way back in 1991 that the US go all the way and depose Sadaam's Baathist regime. If we had done it then, things might have turned out better.
The theory that democratic institutions could be substituted in the muslim/arab world for theocratic and/or despotic regimes is appealing. But establishing democracy is not just holding elections, it means that society has to have a civic culture hospitable to democratic institutions--people have to believe in freedom of speech and press, fair courts, separation of religion and gov't, and freedom of religion itself--all sadly lacking in the civic culture of Iraq. Wolfowitz was (or is) an optimist about democracy in that part of the world.
My own opinion, and I hope I am proved wrong, is that Islam acts as a brake or disincentive toward democratic instititions, which is why it is so hard to carry through on the idea of spreading democracy in the middle east.
name the enemy, win the war
I completely agree with this comment (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The genius behind the lame brained scheme.
If "might have turned out better" includes GWB never being elected president I could not agree more.
Sic semper tyrannis
G. W. Bush ELECTED President?!?
G. W. Bush wasn't elected president at all. He was affectively appointed by the U. S. Supreme Court, and essentially handed the Presidential election.......twice, to boot.
Yet, I agree that it might've turned out better had GWB had not been twice appointed president.
Lies.
George W. Bush was duly elected and in accordance with the laws of our nation.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Please. Let's have the was George W Bush elected discussion
on another thread. For the purposes of this thread we will all agree that GWB lost 2000 but won 2004. Blame the damn Supreme Ct in '00 for all this mess, well them plus the MSM.
I have to respectfully disagree with you, GoRight.
The fact is, that G. W. Bush stole the election--twice...and the American people
allowed that to happen. The United States, unfortunately, has become sort of a laughing-stock for most of the rest of the world, at least in part because of that. The French, especially have been laughing their heads off over this whole thing.
In Florida, it was blatantly and openly obvious: The recounts were deliberately stopped and Bush was appointed president by the U. S. Supreme Court, back in 2000. Four years later, Bush/Co managed to steal the Presidential election once again, only the Ohio fiasco was much more insidious, yet obvious.
The Ohio fiasco took the form of voter suppression, deliberate delays and loing lines created by Republican aides to intimidate voters and create long, delayed lines, so that many people became disillusioned and went back home or back to work, rather than voting. Tampering with the ballots by putting a special chip in various electronic voter ballots was also an occurrence.
The minority votes were especially compromised on this.
On the other hand, though, sandbox,
While it's true that many, if not most Conservatives criticized G. H. W. Bush
Sr. for not really going deep into Iraq and into Baghdad and absolutely "finishing" the job, there was a reason why they refrained from doing that: At the risk of giving people such as G. H. W. Bush Sr, Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, and Gen. Schwarzkopf too much credit, they all advised against a deep invasion into Iraq and into Baghdad, because they predicted that doing so would totally destablize Iraq as a country altogether. They were all proven right--it happened...totally!
Our disastrous invasion of Iraq, especially the second invasion, in addition to bankrupting the United States and costing U. S. taxpayers much too much money, has also proven that imposing or even attempting to impose a Western-style Democracy on a country such as Iraq that was held together by a tyrant simply cannot and will not work.
Wolfowitz being one of the original masterminds behind our Iraq
invasion.
That's what I understand.
However, attempts to change the very structure of another country from outside have often backfired horrendously, and, even when intentions have been good (which I have my doubts about in this instance), the results are generally not so pacific.
When the Russians invaded Afghanistan in the late 1970's, for example, they at least attempted to modernize that country, and they, too, were extremely brutal about it.
All told, the best thing to do is to let countries and their people deal with their own affairs.
The historical precedent was
that Japan and Germany, after being defeated in WWII, became, with our help, democratic and even our allies. I think it was widely believed, and still is, by both Republicans and Democrats, that we should try to have democratic gov't in the middle east, and Iraq in particular. It's the old discussion of idealism vs. realpolitic in our foreign policy. Paul Wolfowitz was one of the proponents of idealism.
Independenminded, you are sounding isolationist.
name the enemy, win the war
Inserting
myself here, but who do you think would win a Democratic election in Iraq right now.
There was an democratic election in Palestine, and Hamas won.
There was a democratic election in Lebanon and Hezebollah was part of the body politic.
In both instances the US didn't like the results of these democratic elections and chose not to honor them, sending the message that we in fact do not respect the democratic process.
We had a democratic election in Iraq, and so far a corrupt and powerless Shiite parliament taking payments from the US. Essentially welfare for a broken govt.
To compare the situation today to WWll is ridiculous. The US joined in a fight that was strongly supported with sacrifice by the people of the US, and we had many allies. The US was not trying to stifle a civil war.
It is the economy, stupid.
Me sounding isolationist?
I have to respectfully disagree here, sandbox. By our policies, G. W. Bush is isolating us from the rest of the world, and, if terrorism or whatever is to be fought, countries have to work together, and not alone. G. W. Bush's policies are very isolationist, imo.
The conventional definition of
isolationist is not wanting to interfere in the affairs of other countries no matter what they do. As in pre-WWII, as Hitler was arming and then invading European countries, the US stayed out until Pearl Harbor. Now it's the isolationist right and the isolationist left teaming up to try to prevent US military action overseas.
Look at Darfur, for example. It doesn't need UN peacekeepers (who, in any event, are not being sent). It needs arms for the refugees and aerial bombing of the Sudanese military and janjaweed militias. But many people say, well that's none of our business, or let the UN handle it (which it won't).
name the enemy, win the war
Joe Biden recently
called for military action in Darfur.
If you want US military presence to guard against Hitler's return, then maybe you should think about proposing a draft, cause we don't have a big enough army.
Isolationism is a backlash against our enormously unsuccesful foreign policy.
It is the economy, stupid.
The trouble is, however, sandbox is that
every single time that we've mingled in other people's affairs, it's made bad situation worse, not better.
Very well put
Quoting this in full because it deserves it. This is exactly why many reasonable and patriotic people opposed the Iraq war in the first place. Not because they hate GWB, not because they want to cave into terrorists' demands, not because they're pantywaist UN supporters, but because it was a stupid idea that had a snowball's chance of success. Ideals and optimistic dreams have their place, but that place is not to lead foreign policy.
Our secular culture does not fully comprehend the pull of religion. Despite claims of budding theocracy, what we have in the West is no where near the theocratic framework present in Muslim-dominated cultures. We are so far removed from religion that most of us cannot fathom how Islam shapes all facets of life in Islamic nations.
We see a burka and think that's the sum of it; to us, a burka represents oppression and nothing more. We cannot relate to the idea that a devout woman would willingly and gladly wear one. We see only the represssive aspect. We see no value in it.
If the leaders of this venture really believed what they said publicly (which is another debate), then they are among those whose ignorance can no longer be justified or supported. Wolfowitz has shown himself not only clueless about the real world but also corrupt and inept. He should go.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Good point, purpleface.
The fact is that many, if not most Americans realy don't understand or respect the fact that this is a totally different religion and culture, and, going in and invading a foreign sovereign country whose feelings, religions and/or culture is unfamiliar to us is a sign of disrespect and lack of understanding.
Unfortunately, the United States, my country of origin, which I've resided in my whole life and love, has blemished itself by this kind of domination of other peoples' affairs, which our government has done for far too long. Not to excuse the horrific 9/11 attacks on American soil, resulting in the maiming/killing of several thousand innocent Americans, but hererein lies part of the reason why 9/11 happened: Meddling in other people's affairs long enough was bound to produce a reaction sooner or later.
Just to clarify
When I use the term "understand" I use it in the very literal sense: to know about. I do not use the term to connote compassion or empathy or any emotional linkage to the subject. Understanding is, to me, an intellectual exercise, not an emotional one.
I will try to explain: A person can understand Islam on two levels: the facts-based level (founded by Mohammed, holy book is the Koran, played a key role in the transmission of Greco-Roman knowledge, developed mathematics and distillation, etc.) and the comprehensive level (how a woman could wear a burka, why Sharia law melds well with Arab culture, how individual vs family-centric views affect the roles assigned to the sexes and ages in Arab and Western cultures, why Indonesian Muslims differ from Arabic Muslims, etc.). A person can then take the next step and develop an opinion about these things, but to me that step goes beyond "understanding" and becomes something else, something more values-based and for some, emotionally based also.
I am doubtlessly explaining this poorly.
Therefore while I agree with your statement that most Americans really don't understand that this is a different culture, I do not equate understanding with the giving or withholding of respect or with any other value-based judgment. Whether or not their customs are worthy of respect is an individual judgment. But we cannot ignore the fact that their customs and culture are what they are.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Point well taken, Purpleface.
"But we cannot ignore the fact that their customs and culture are what they are."
The above-quoted sentence from your post states a well-taken point beautifully. To ignore the fact that their customs and cultures are what they are is to do so at our own peril.
Purpleface, appreciate the feedback
So if you then take the next step and say that democracy cannot take root in the Islamic world (Turkey is an apparent exception) because of the backward nature of the culture, where does that leave you? The consequences become depressing. So I think that is why Bush, Wolfowitz et al want to establish democracy in those areas; they are thinking what is the alternate?
One answer, or approach, I have arrived at is to make radical islam (as opposed to moderate islam) unacceptable in western society. That muslims who come to the west not be allowed to promote sharia law and/or support jihad around the world. Further if they do, then they should be legally sent back to their country of origin. The statement would be that we in the west take your religious beliefs seriously and we are afraid of the consequences of those beliefs in our country and thus are scared of radical islamists.
Maybe I'll write a diary about this.
name the enemy, win the war
Would you treat radical christians
like these guys
the same way?
If not, how come? I mean....what's the difference between those that would use the sword to further their religion? I see two peas of the same pod.
Or how
about these 'terrorists'
who often display their religious agenda through violent means?
To digress from the original topic at hand for a minute,
These people have absoluely no right whatsoever to interfere with people's rights to choose what they feel is the right choice for themselves and/or their families. The "pro-lifers", as they call themselves, have no right to bully people in the streets, or to murder people who perform abortions, either.
I agree, pro-lifers who violate
the law should be prosecuted. I believe the guy that killed the abortion doctor--forget his name--is now on death row, which is OK with me.
name the enemy, win the war
I in return
also think that Muslim terrorists should feel the full brunt of our law. I am just not for invading all of their countries, especially those that just pose a 'threat'. I was a supporter of the invasion of Afghanistan and would have also been less critical of an invasion of Saudi Arabia also.
Points taken, Specter.
" Muslim terrorists should feel the full brunt of our law. I am just not for invading all of their countries, especially those that just pose a 'threat'. I was a supporter of the invasion of Afghanistan and would have also been less critical of an invasion of Saudi Arabia also."
OK--your point rings true, except for one thing: First of all, I admit that, while I had ambivilent feelings about our invasion of Afghanistan, I totally opposed our invasion of Iraq even before it got underway. As it turned out, however, both of those invasions alienated the more moderate muslims, not to mention other Western Allies who might've worked with the United States, Israel and the West generally to help bring people such as Osama Bin Laden and others like him to justice.
Regarding Saudi Arabia, however, our government has backed Saudi Arabia from the start.
I should have
added a few caveats to my statement. I think Afghanistan was a worthwhile effort, but we should have 1) kept this as the major front, 2) created an infrastructure through economic aid to create more regional support for our cause. This plan would have prevented the resurgence of the Taliban and kept the poppy-trade minimized.
I agree wholeheartedly about your statements regarding Iraq. I hope you did not take my comments as an endorsement of the war.
Our support of Saudi Arabia (including Bush holding the king's hand
every time they get together) shows what a farce the war on terror actually is, especially considering that fifteen of the nineteen hijackers 
on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians (that's 80% for you math geeks--a shockingly high percent).
I don't think the military strategy will have any long-term success. You can't subdue an anger/hate of the US through military means. As you stated, this solution will only create more enemies. We have to win the 'hearts and minds' through cultural education/outreach and economic aid. We should treat it the same way we treat any other form of extremism (like racism here): educate and make sure people have good jobs.
I don't see the Christian Fundamentalists you cite
in your post the same way you do. While I don't agree with their idea to get rid of the Dome of the Rock, either in reality or photographically speaking, they have a right to advocate same. Our Islamofascist enemies knock down churches, synagogues, buddist statues, hindu temples, etc., etc. .....
If you were asking me this question 500 years ago, I might agree with you. But today, far and away, the radical islamists are the greatest threat to the world and are the greatest perpetrators of voilence.
name the enemy, win the war
I've got no sympathy for the Radical Islamicists, either, but
I think that the United States is making the situation worse, and playing right into the hands of those who really hate the United States and the West, generally.
Do you think that radical islamists
should be allowed into the United States either on a tourist visa, student visa, work visa, whatever? If the person supports Jihad attacks anywhere in the world or wants to see Sharia Law implemented in the USA, then I say keep them out.
name the enemy, win the war
Of course, some type of screening of immigrants of any kind
is necessary in order to make sure that they're not a security risk. This is a very tough question, as not all people who practice Islam are radicals--in fact there are also nonradical muslims who come to the United States in order to avoid the extremism that frequently exists in their country(ies) of origin.
Regarding the more radical elements of Islam, it would be better if the Islamic communities made more effort to keep them under raps, but they don't. I admittedly had ambivelent feelings about our invasion of Afghanistan, but have definitely opposed our war in Iraq from the beginning. I honestly think that the whole way in which the United States has gone about our "war on Terrorism" so far is all wrong and will only breed more terrorists in the future.
How do you propose to identify a radicle?
Do you think putting a check box question on a visa application form will work? I know there's a cursory review of applicants but the only way to effectively make that work is to do a full history workup on folks like when they are applying for a security clearance here in the US. I'm not sure the manpower exists. If that's all it takes, then hire more.
But the greatest problems we face aren't folks sitting around here in America trying to work up new ways to scare the populace. It's off America's shore that we face our greatest risk. Let me explain that by two ways:
1) What Osama bin Laden wanted, he got out of 9/11. Really....Sending airplanes into buildings is relatively easy to stop, when you actually look to stop it. That wasn't a "threat" to the American people. Osama was after the reaction. dubya played right into Osama's hand. Osama wanted to do 2 things. He wanted the US to bankrupt itself and he wanted to show the Islamic world the worst possible face that America had to offer them. dubya's policies have accomplished both. bush43 trashed America fiscally by giving the top 1% of income earners a free pass. The tax code as it now stands means the other 99% make up that difference. So, income disparity and lack of fairness paint America as no different from 3rd world Oligarchs. 2) dubya went on a jihad against not only muslims worldwide, but he also went to war against the very thing that makes America stand out against the rest of the world. That is our civil code, our rights and freedoms as Americans. In the name of increased security bush43 has dramatically eroded what made the US appealing to the rest of the planet. It was a twofer. Not only did dubya make us look bad by chasing muslims here at home & around the globe because they were muslims, but he also openly kicked America's cherished freedoms in the balls, all to politically further his corrupt bunch of totalitarian misfits. Again, making America look no different than any other second rate two bit dictatorship
.
Osama, he's the Karl Rove of the muslim world.
PS - I agree with Specter above. We should have focused our energies on Afganistan and built up a model for the rest of the world to see that we can work for the good side of the force, not the Darth side.
You sparked some discussion
I'm glad I waited until this morning to respond. I had tried to express my thoughts last night but wasn't happy with how it turned out. You should consider a diary on this topic. I think we could (mostly) stay civil.
I understand the lure of despair. Evil can seem absolute and implacable. Persons in positions of responsibility fear the costs of failure.
But consquences rarely turn out exactly as foreseen. And the fate of the world does not rest on any one man's decisions, no matter how important he thinks he is.
Think about it. Will decisions made in the White House really be what stops the next 9/11? Or will it be the actions of some ordinary person who is in the right place at the right time? Whether it is the CIA guy who intercepts the key communication, or the security guard who phones in the suspicious vehicle, or the passengers on the next Flight 93 (or even the honorable Muslim who turns on his brethren) it will be the actions of an informed and thinking person on the scene that saves lives.
Could anyone in the faculty at Virginia Tech have made any decision last month that would have prevented yesterday's shooting with absolute certainty? No. But the professors in the classrooms acted to save many of their students lives; their choices were fairly obvious. The administration acted as they thought was for the best after the first shooting (based on their assesment of the alternatives and consequences); yet they failed to prevent the second shootings. Their choices were more ambiguous and they had a failure of imagination. Maybe by being more open, acknowledging that they alone could not be responsible for all the necessary decisons, by notifying the entire campus immediately, they might have enabled other people to create a different outcome.
This is the dark heart of despair. By thinking only your actions can save the world, you see the problem in only two dimensions. You think your conculsions are the only possible ones and no other alternatives exist. You act, but your actions may be what limits the possibility of a successful outcome.
This post is too long already so I'll stop here.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Who decides?
is the question.
Yesterdays shootings........ was not from some Islamic terrorist.
It was one very sick individual. Sick individuals can come from all faiths.
The focus should be on extremism whose converts are often individuals that are bullied, abused, disenfranchised, and unemployed, feeling trapped and as if they have no where to turn.
Gang members inn So. California would fit your description.
It is the economy, stupid.
Two classics for the price of one
Everyone who opposes my policies is a partisan hater. And please do as I say not as I do.
So many scandals to choose from these days that this one will probably just fade away. I'm betting he rides it out.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Not so sure
The World bank prides itself on it's integrity, and Wolfie's big issue is getting rid of corruption. He should therefore step down, because his own corruption is tainting the whole organization.
I don't think the staff at the World Bank will let it fade.
Bush is the one who would appoint his replacement, however, so it would likely be more of the same.
Mr. W. has no financial background. It seems the only reason he was appointed was as a favor.
It is the economy, stupid.
Europe wants him gone.
It's bushco that's dragging their feet. They're more worried about appearances than an actual crime taking place. It really says a lot about this administrations priorities.
They don't have honor. They don't value dignity.