Comments on: Bring me the Head of Alfredo Wolfowitz http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2007/04/19/bring_me_the_he_1/ All that flavorful brownness in one savory packet Sat, 30 Nov 2013 11:11:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: sigh! http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2007/04/19/bring_me_the_he_1/comment-page-2/#comment-130365 sigh! Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:52:29 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=4357#comment-130365 <blockquote>Or how about this experiment: How would you react to someone who says the following about Saddam Hussein: Says he "can do business with him." Oversees a $10 billion dollar scandal in the selling of Oil-for-food and says mildly, "It is highly possible that there has been a lot of wrongdoing." Refuses to publicly criticize Hussein for the deaths and human rights abuses commited in his name and at his direction? Further than what he said, Annan's actions (and inactions) as UNSYG were generally supportive of the Hussein regime. </blockquote> <p>Completely agree. I don't think too highly of Annan's moral qualities. But unlike Wolfowitz he had considerably less power to actually affect action (remember that the Secretary General of the U.N doesn't really have much power beyond coordinating between various diplomats and moral suasion).</p> <blockquote>I'm not a fan of Wolfowitz by any stretch (and am a Kofi supporter, as an aside), but I do respect some of the things Wolfowitz has accomplished and dislike others. If only the world was black and white. </blockquote> <p>Agree, and didn't imply it was</p> <blockquote>And, to get back to the topic of this post, I don't believe that his actions in Indonesia, nor the US policy there, should impact on whether one believes there is a conflict of interest at the World Bank in his case. </blockquote> <p>Never said it did; was reacting purely to AMD's comments about Wolfowitz (see #78)</p> <blockquote>But at the same time I think it's incumbent on you to present other contexts or aspects that may have bearing on how we judge him, before we judge him.</blockquote> <p>See above; I was talking about one specific context (in the context of the comment about him being "principled", and a believer in "democracy", which may or may not have bearing on his WB position)</p> Or how about this experiment: How would you react to someone who says the following about Saddam Hussein: Says he “can do business with him.” Oversees a $10 billion dollar scandal in the selling of Oil-for-food and says mildly, “It is highly possible that there has been a lot of wrongdoing.” Refuses to publicly criticize Hussein for the deaths and human rights abuses commited in his name and at his direction? Further than what he said, Annan’s actions (and inactions) as UNSYG were generally supportive of the Hussein regime.

Completely agree. I don’t think too highly of Annan’s moral qualities. But unlike Wolfowitz he had considerably less power to actually affect action (remember that the Secretary General of the U.N doesn’t really have much power beyond coordinating between various diplomats and moral suasion).

I’m not a fan of Wolfowitz by any stretch (and am a Kofi supporter, as an aside), but I do respect some of the things Wolfowitz has accomplished and dislike others. If only the world was black and white.

Agree, and didn’t imply it was

And, to get back to the topic of this post, I don’t believe that his actions in Indonesia, nor the US policy there, should impact on whether one believes there is a conflict of interest at the World Bank in his case.

Never said it did; was reacting purely to AMD’s comments about Wolfowitz (see #78)

But at the same time I think it’s incumbent on you to present other contexts or aspects that may have bearing on how we judge him, before we judge him.

See above; I was talking about one specific context (in the context of the comment about him being “principled”, and a believer in “democracy”, which may or may not have bearing on his WB position)

]]> By: fsowalla http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2007/04/19/bring_me_the_he_1/comment-page-2/#comment-130362 fsowalla Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:25:22 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=4357#comment-130362 <p>Or how about this experiment: How would you react to someone who says the following about Saddam Hussein: Says he "can do business with him." Oversees a $10 billion dollar scandal in the selling of Oil-for-food and says mildly, "It is highly possible that there has been a lot of wrongdoing." Refuses to publicly criticize Hussein for the deaths and human rights abuses commited in his name and at his direction? Further than what he said, Annan's actions (and inactions) as UNSYG were generally supportive of the Hussein regime.<br /> And we could go on and on, picking out an Ambassador here, a leader there.<br /> My point in these ridiculous examples is only that we need all the information before judging someone. You condemn Wolfowitz by bringing up his role and support for Suharto. Fine. But at the same time I think it's incumbent on you to present other contexts or aspects that may have bearing on <b>how</b> we judge him, <b>before</b> we judge him. I'm not a fan of Wolfowitz by any stretch (and am a Kofi supporter, as an aside), but I do respect some of the things Wolfowitz has accomplished and dislike others. If only the world was black and white.<br /> And, to get back to the topic of this post, I don't believe that his actions in Indonesia, nor the US policy there, should impact on whether one believes there is a conflict of interest at the World Bank in his case.</p> Or how about this experiment: How would you react to someone who says the following about Saddam Hussein: Says he “can do business with him.” Oversees a $10 billion dollar scandal in the selling of Oil-for-food and says mildly, “It is highly possible that there has been a lot of wrongdoing.” Refuses to publicly criticize Hussein for the deaths and human rights abuses commited in his name and at his direction? Further than what he said, Annan’s actions (and inactions) as UNSYG were generally supportive of the Hussein regime.
And we could go on and on, picking out an Ambassador here, a leader there.
My point in these ridiculous examples is only that we need all the information before judging someone. You condemn Wolfowitz by bringing up his role and support for Suharto. Fine. But at the same time I think it’s incumbent on you to present other contexts or aspects that may have bearing on how we judge him, before we judge him. I’m not a fan of Wolfowitz by any stretch (and am a Kofi supporter, as an aside), but I do respect some of the things Wolfowitz has accomplished and dislike others. If only the world was black and white.
And, to get back to the topic of this post, I don’t believe that his actions in Indonesia, nor the US policy there, should impact on whether one believes there is a conflict of interest at the World Bank in his case.

]]> By: sigh! http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2007/04/19/bring_me_the_he_1/comment-page-2/#comment-130349 sigh! Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:15:02 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=4357#comment-130349 <p>Ok lets do a mental experiment: how would you react to someone who says the following about Stalin: (a)praises his "strong and remarkable leadership", (b)"The tragedy for Mr.[ <i>Stalin </i> ] and his country is that he would have been widely admired by his countrymen if he had stepped down 10 years ago." (c)"achieving peace among a population so diverse [as <i>the Soviet Union</i>] requires a strong leader and a unified military." By the way all these statements would hold equally for most great political leader cum mass murderers.For example at least Stalin was partially responsible for high initial economic growth in the USSR, though he achieved it partially by murder. Wolfowitz did make a few mild statements disapproving of the more egregious acts of the military, but did absolutely nothing. In fact most of the latter were almost afterthoughts and few and far between, scattered among his more laudatory statements. Furthermore irrespective of what he <b>said</b>, his actions uniformly were supportive of Suharto and his regime. Finally since U.S support for the regime was crucial to its repressive actions, Mr. Wolfowitz cannot be completely absolved of all responsibility (think about what we would say if one of the Politburo functionaries in the former USSR supported repression in Hungary or the former Czechoslovakia). By the way <a href="http://www.etan.org/et2005/march/27/29wolfwitz.htm">here's an article</a> by Jeffery Winters (Indonesia expert at Northwestern), and <a href="http://www.atimes.com/se-asia/CC21Ae01.html">another newspaper article</a> (Asia Times) sketching out Mr. Wolfowitz's 'human-rights' credentials. Consequently I stand by exactly what I said.</p> Ok lets do a mental experiment: how would you react to someone who says the following about Stalin: (a)praises his “strong and remarkable leadership”, (b)”The tragedy for Mr.[ Stalin ] and his country is that he would have been widely admired by his countrymen if he had stepped down 10 years ago.” (c)”achieving peace among a population so diverse [as the Soviet Union] requires a strong leader and a unified military.” By the way all these statements would hold equally for most great political leader cum mass murderers.For example at least Stalin was partially responsible for high initial economic growth in the USSR, though he achieved it partially by murder. Wolfowitz did make a few mild statements disapproving of the more egregious acts of the military, but did absolutely nothing. In fact most of the latter were almost afterthoughts and few and far between, scattered among his more laudatory statements. Furthermore irrespective of what he said, his actions uniformly were supportive of Suharto and his regime. Finally since U.S support for the regime was crucial to its repressive actions, Mr. Wolfowitz cannot be completely absolved of all responsibility (think about what we would say if one of the Politburo functionaries in the former USSR supported repression in Hungary or the former Czechoslovakia). By the way here’s an article by Jeffery Winters (Indonesia expert at Northwestern), and another newspaper article (Asia Times) sketching out Mr. Wolfowitz’s ‘human-rights’ credentials. Consequently I stand by exactly what I said.

]]> By: NotQuiteAuntieYet http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2007/04/19/bring_me_the_he_1/comment-page-2/#comment-130344 NotQuiteAuntieYet Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:32:05 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=4357#comment-130344 <blockquote>Yeah, this was pretty institutionalized, wasn't it? Wasn't there a Raj Kapoor movie called "Around the World in Eight Dollars"?</blockquote> <p>Yes there was. Made in 1967 with Raj Kapoor and Rajshree. In 1966 India had a big devaluation of the rupee so I imagine controlling the flow of foreign currency was a huge concern at the time.</p> Yeah, this was pretty institutionalized, wasn’t it? Wasn’t there a Raj Kapoor movie called “Around the World in Eight Dollars”?

Yes there was. Made in 1967 with Raj Kapoor and Rajshree. In 1966 India had a big devaluation of the rupee so I imagine controlling the flow of foreign currency was a huge concern at the time.

]]> By: fsowalla http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2007/04/19/bring_me_the_he_1/comment-page-2/#comment-130330 fsowalla Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:32:14 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=4357#comment-130330 <blockquote>By the way Wolfowitz also supported one of the worst mass murderers of the post WWII period, General Suharto</blockquote> <p>...</p> <p>Sigh! That's an unfair characterization made without defining what you mean by "supported," because your comment implies that Wolfowitz is personally responsible for Suharto's abuses. It's also a misreading of the Wikipedia entry, which states in the 2nd para under the heading of "Ambassador to the Republic of Indonesia":</p> <blockquote>After Suharto stood down in 1998 Wolfowitz himself stated that the General was guilty "of suppressing political dissent, of weakening alternative leaders and of showing favoritism to his children's business deals, frequently at the expense of sound economic policy" while ABC News clarifies that "at the time, thousands of leftists detained after the 1965 U.S.-backed military coup that brought Suharto to power were still languishing in jail without trial."</blockquote> <p>It's clear that in the Wikipedia entry there are many who thought he didn't say enough or do enough about human rights in Indonesia. As you say, a tangential issue, but you're not portraying Wolfowitz fairly by spinning it this way.</p> By the way Wolfowitz also supported one of the worst mass murderers of the post WWII period, General Suharto

…

Sigh! That’s an unfair characterization made without defining what you mean by “supported,” because your comment implies that Wolfowitz is personally responsible for Suharto’s abuses. It’s also a misreading of the Wikipedia entry, which states in the 2nd para under the heading of “Ambassador to the Republic of Indonesia”:

After Suharto stood down in 1998 Wolfowitz himself stated that the General was guilty “of suppressing political dissent, of weakening alternative leaders and of showing favoritism to his children’s business deals, frequently at the expense of sound economic policy” while ABC News clarifies that “at the time, thousands of leftists detained after the 1965 U.S.-backed military coup that brought Suharto to power were still languishing in jail without trial.”

It’s clear that in the Wikipedia entry there are many who thought he didn’t say enough or do enough about human rights in Indonesia. As you say, a tangential issue, but you’re not portraying Wolfowitz fairly by spinning it this way.

]]> By: iBSG http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2007/04/19/bring_me_the_he_1/comment-page-2/#comment-130328 iBSG Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:38:42 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=4357#comment-130328 <p>I know! Wolfowitz is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Baltar">Gaius Baltar</a>! The cylons are coming!</p> <p>Tsk. Tsk.</p> I know! Wolfowitz is Gaius Baltar! The cylons are coming!

Tsk. Tsk.

]]> By: rah http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2007/04/19/bring_me_the_he_1/comment-page-2/#comment-130323 rah Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:49:13 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=4357#comment-130323 <blockquote>If he likes Arab women he should have gone for Haifa Wehbe, much hotter!</blockquote> <p>I just checked out her website and it's, like, <b>ensconced</b> in swarovski crystals. Although I'm not sure that's actually physically possible. (Okay, I just checked with <a href="http://www.swarovski.com/index/?content=SCS%2BSociety">some sources</a> and evidently this is not possible on the internets.)</p> <p>Re; Wolfie. So what can brown do for you? Evidently get your ass fired. It's called karma people! Mwah ha ha!</p> If he likes Arab women he should have gone for Haifa Wehbe, much hotter!

I just checked out her website and it’s, like, ensconced in swarovski crystals. Although I’m not sure that’s actually physically possible. (Okay, I just checked with some sources and evidently this is not possible on the internets.)

Re; Wolfie. So what can brown do for you? Evidently get your ass fired. It’s called karma people! Mwah ha ha!

]]> By: sigh! http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2007/04/19/bring_me_the_he_1/comment-page-2/#comment-130322 sigh! Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:34:03 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=4357#comment-130322 <p>Oh and some citations and links, for those interested in the larger history of the coup that put Suharto in power (esp. the role of the U.S; these are admittedly tangential to the issue at hand, i.e. Wolfowitz's 'principles', but the state department did contain many 'principled' people such as him even in 1964):</p> <p>Peter Dale Scott, "The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967", <i>Pacific Affairs</i>, 58, Summer 1985, pages 239-264 (if you have access to jstor and <a href="http://www.namebase.org/kadane.html">this link</a> to an article that appeared inter alia in the Washington Post details the role of the state department.</p> Oh and some citations and links, for those interested in the larger history of the coup that put Suharto in power (esp. the role of the U.S; these are admittedly tangential to the issue at hand, i.e. Wolfowitz’s ‘principles’, but the state department did contain many ‘principled’ people such as him even in 1964):

Peter Dale Scott, “The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967″, Pacific Affairs, 58, Summer 1985, pages 239-264 (if you have access to jstor and this link to an article that appeared inter alia in the Washington Post details the role of the state department.

]]> By: Macaca #2 http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2007/04/19/bring_me_the_he_1/comment-page-2/#comment-130321 Macaca #2 Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:26:51 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=4357#comment-130321 <p>In case anyone's interested in the nominal topic of ANNA's post, a detailed <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/09/070409fa_fact_cassidy">profile</a> of Mr. Wolfowitz appeared recently in the New Yorker. (Among other things, the profile mentioned the open-toed socks incident. Personally, I don't think those are really grounds to attack the man on. There's plenty of more meaningfully fertile territory.)</p> <p>In re Faraz's self-confessed inarticulation, a philosophical question: does every contentious thread birth a Prema? Or am I confusing causation with correlation?</p> In case anyone’s interested in the nominal topic of ANNA’s post, a detailed profile of Mr. Wolfowitz appeared recently in the New Yorker. (Among other things, the profile mentioned the open-toed socks incident. Personally, I don’t think those are really grounds to attack the man on. There’s plenty of more meaningfully fertile territory.)

In re Faraz’s self-confessed inarticulation, a philosophical question: does every contentious thread birth a Prema? Or am I confusing causation with correlation?

]]> By: Macaca #2 http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2007/04/19/bring_me_the_he_1/comment-page-2/#comment-130320 Macaca #2 Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:25:15 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=4357#comment-130320 <p>In case anyone's interested in the nominal topic of ANNA's post, a detailed <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/09/070409fa_fact_cassidy">profile</a> of Mr. Wolfowitz appeared recently in the New Yorker.</p> <p>In re Faraz's self-confessed inarticulation, a philosophical question: does every contentious thread birth a Prema? Or am I confusing causation with correlation?</p> In case anyone’s interested in the nominal topic of ANNA’s post, a detailed profile of Mr. Wolfowitz appeared recently in the New Yorker.

In re Faraz’s self-confessed inarticulation, a philosophical question: does every contentious thread birth a Prema? Or am I confusing causation with correlation?

]]>