Sunday, June 03, 2007
Why Liberals Shouldn't Gloat over Wolfie's Downfall
... 'cause of who's responsible for said downfall.
Not that I'm cryin' any tears for Wolfowitz, but as I said before, he was entrapped: how would we liberals respond if some young kid was similarly entrapped by a cop seeking to make a drug arrest?
Wolfowitz may have been no angel, but he was a victim of a so-called ethics board in an organization that is, well, not famous for its ethics about conflicts of interest -- so their criticism of Wolfie was a little, er, rich ... even as Wolfowitz was being a hypocrite -- pointing out the corruption aided and abetted by the World Bank even as he himself ended up without clean hands. He may be a Bushie through and through, but we liberals should not think he Cheney'd the World Bank. We need to remember it was Cheney'd to begin with -- and we need to get back to fighting such organizations' ability to Cheney over 3rd World countries (which is a good part of "why the hate us"(TM) -- they don't hate us for our freedoms but for keeping them from having theirs) and not spend time gloating over the downfall of people who really are our erstwhile allies in this fight, even if they've been our enemies in other policy disagreements.
I know I've said this before, but it's been brought home to me again by Daniel Schorr's latest commentary praising GW Bush for being "right" in nominating Zoellick for the World Bank presidency. Demonstrating his own pro-aristocratic biases, Schorr claimed Zoellick was "non-ideological". WTF? Zoellick is one of the strongest proponants of the so-called "pro free trade" ideology of the so-called "neoliberal consensus". If the Yurpeans that gave Wolfowitz the boot lurve themselves some Zoellick, as Schorr claims, that says something about those particular Yurpeans and their real agenda.
Now, I'm no "realist" who believes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", so I don't think this necessarily makes Wolfie my political ally. But, I guess in an effort to actually be the "realists" neo-cons claim us to be (the same looking into the abyss phenomenon of which we see so often in neo-cons), some liberals have decided that the enemy of a Bushie is a friend -- at least de facto as judged by their gloating and schadenfreude.
Let's remember that we moonbats are emphatically not "realists" -- Wolfie may not have been the best choice for the World Bank presidency, but he did strike some raw nerves that needed striking. His replacement, lurved as he is by some who are the enemies of our enemies, is gonna soothe those nerves. But as much as we may lurve us some diplomacy sadly lacking in Bush & CO, not all nerves need to be soothed. It was far better even for our image abroad for us in the long run given why people hate us to have even a hated-abroad and ideologically divisive figure like Wolfie in charge of the World Bank than to have a "non-ideological" figure standing for a growth-stiffling status quo person like Zoellick in charge.
And only someone biased by becoming the sort of dragon he used to fight would think that Bush did the "right" thing ...
Not that I'm cryin' any tears for Wolfowitz, but as I said before, he was entrapped: how would we liberals respond if some young kid was similarly entrapped by a cop seeking to make a drug arrest?
Wolfowitz may have been no angel, but he was a victim of a so-called ethics board in an organization that is, well, not famous for its ethics about conflicts of interest -- so their criticism of Wolfie was a little, er, rich ... even as Wolfowitz was being a hypocrite -- pointing out the corruption aided and abetted by the World Bank even as he himself ended up without clean hands. He may be a Bushie through and through, but we liberals should not think he Cheney'd the World Bank. We need to remember it was Cheney'd to begin with -- and we need to get back to fighting such organizations' ability to Cheney over 3rd World countries (which is a good part of "why the hate us"(TM) -- they don't hate us for our freedoms but for keeping them from having theirs) and not spend time gloating over the downfall of people who really are our erstwhile allies in this fight, even if they've been our enemies in other policy disagreements.
I know I've said this before, but it's been brought home to me again by Daniel Schorr's latest commentary praising GW Bush for being "right" in nominating Zoellick for the World Bank presidency. Demonstrating his own pro-aristocratic biases, Schorr claimed Zoellick was "non-ideological". WTF? Zoellick is one of the strongest proponants of the so-called "pro free trade" ideology of the so-called "neoliberal consensus". If the Yurpeans that gave Wolfowitz the boot lurve themselves some Zoellick, as Schorr claims, that says something about those particular Yurpeans and their real agenda.
Now, I'm no "realist" who believes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", so I don't think this necessarily makes Wolfie my political ally. But, I guess in an effort to actually be the "realists" neo-cons claim us to be (the same looking into the abyss phenomenon of which we see so often in neo-cons), some liberals have decided that the enemy of a Bushie is a friend -- at least de facto as judged by their gloating and schadenfreude.
Let's remember that we moonbats are emphatically not "realists" -- Wolfie may not have been the best choice for the World Bank presidency, but he did strike some raw nerves that needed striking. His replacement, lurved as he is by some who are the enemies of our enemies, is gonna soothe those nerves. But as much as we may lurve us some diplomacy sadly lacking in Bush & CO, not all nerves need to be soothed. It was far better even for our image abroad for us in the long run given why people hate us to have even a hated-abroad and ideologically divisive figure like Wolfie in charge of the World Bank than to have a "non-ideological" figure standing for a growth-stiffling status quo person like Zoellick in charge.
And only someone biased by becoming the sort of dragon he used to fight would think that Bush did the "right" thing ...
# posted by alberich @ 1:25 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
how I'm kero9 I don't know?..
One of the real reasons Wolfe was dumped because he politicized his position..he used "corruption" as a pretext for denying aid to I think khazakstan, when he was pissed off at them for not letting us use their airfields to bomb Afhanistan.
Is "Cheyned" like "Jewed down"
Anyhow, there will alsways be coruption by leaders of poor countries, its still a question mark how much it's reduced when we paly hard ball and dnt them aide.
Why aren't u pro free trade?
One of the real reasons Wolfe was dumped because he politicized his position..he used "corruption" as a pretext for denying aid to I think khazakstan, when he was pissed off at them for not letting us use their airfields to bomb Afhanistan.
Is "Cheyned" like "Jewed down"
Anyhow, there will alsways be coruption by leaders of poor countries, its still a question mark how much it's reduced when we paly hard ball and dnt them aide.
Why aren't u pro free trade?
So Wolfowitz used corruption as an excuse to deny an admittedly corrupt country aid because they didn't play ball with him earlier. This is indeed a problem in that it taints anti-corruption efforts (just as double standards regarding Israel taint humanitarian efforts). But is it worse than denying aid to countries if they threaten to stamp out corruption?
The World Bank and IMF have, for the past few decades, while officially opposed to corruption, aided and abetted corruption at every opportunity. It's one thing to say corruption will always plague poor countries and playing hard-ball won't stop it; it's another to actively support the corrupt and feudal status quo of poor countries in the name of maintaining a country's "comparative advantage" as the World Bank, IMF and free-trade nitwits do.
As to why I am not pro-free trade: let's just say whenever economists -- whose field is the study of human interactions in terms of costs and trade-off -- use the word "free", ya know something's up. Ya know something more is up when people preach to poor countries that it is to their comparative advantage to continue to do the things that make them poor -- and when every single rich country has become rich by doing the exact opposite of the economic policies forced upon poor countries by free-traders and World Bankers.
I'm all for trade -- the more the better. But totally free markets don't work. We have referees in sports, we need the same in trade. Of course, that's what the WTO (and through their control of capital the IMF and World Bank) are supposed to be: but instead they act as enforcers of a new kind of feudalism. Read any of Greg Palast's books for more info.
As to Judaism -- given how the behavior of the World Bank and IMF is and given what anti-Semitic stereotypes exist about Jewish bankers behaving this way: if I were a Rabbi with the smicha (authority) to do so, I'd issue a writ of excommunication for any Jew involved in certain critical decision making practices in those organizations until they truly repent (as Joe Stiglitz did -- when he questioned what they were doing, and then got thrown out!).
I know some Jews say "well, if anti-Semites think Jews are X, then that gives us free reign to be X because if they hate us for being X, then they are at fault". But I say doing this sort of thing grants Hitler a posthumous victory by giving truth to anti-Semitic lies.
A victim is not at fault for a crime, but people should not go out of their way to be victimized. Jewish neo-cons need to stop acting according to the worst anti-Semitic stereotypes: at the very least they shouldn't celebrate it as they do.
The World Bank and IMF have, for the past few decades, while officially opposed to corruption, aided and abetted corruption at every opportunity. It's one thing to say corruption will always plague poor countries and playing hard-ball won't stop it; it's another to actively support the corrupt and feudal status quo of poor countries in the name of maintaining a country's "comparative advantage" as the World Bank, IMF and free-trade nitwits do.
As to why I am not pro-free trade: let's just say whenever economists -- whose field is the study of human interactions in terms of costs and trade-off -- use the word "free", ya know something's up. Ya know something more is up when people preach to poor countries that it is to their comparative advantage to continue to do the things that make them poor -- and when every single rich country has become rich by doing the exact opposite of the economic policies forced upon poor countries by free-traders and World Bankers.
I'm all for trade -- the more the better. But totally free markets don't work. We have referees in sports, we need the same in trade. Of course, that's what the WTO (and through their control of capital the IMF and World Bank) are supposed to be: but instead they act as enforcers of a new kind of feudalism. Read any of Greg Palast's books for more info.
As to Judaism -- given how the behavior of the World Bank and IMF is and given what anti-Semitic stereotypes exist about Jewish bankers behaving this way: if I were a Rabbi with the smicha (authority) to do so, I'd issue a writ of excommunication for any Jew involved in certain critical decision making practices in those organizations until they truly repent (as Joe Stiglitz did -- when he questioned what they were doing, and then got thrown out!).
I know some Jews say "well, if anti-Semites think Jews are X, then that gives us free reign to be X because if they hate us for being X, then they are at fault". But I say doing this sort of thing grants Hitler a posthumous victory by giving truth to anti-Semitic lies.
A victim is not at fault for a crime, but people should not go out of their way to be victimized. Jewish neo-cons need to stop acting according to the worst anti-Semitic stereotypes: at the very least they shouldn't celebrate it as they do.
To Cheney someone is to screw someone. Or more precisely to tell them to go fuck themselves. The origin is Cheney's response to some very polite yet very persistent (even extending into a photo op, IIRC) questioning by Pat Leahy, the Colombo of the Senate, of Dick Cheney: to quote Woody Allen, Cheney "said unto [him] be fruitful and multiply, but not in those exact words". Or actually Cheney said unto Leahy, be as Onan, but not in those exact words.
Post a Comment
<< Home
