Nominating Wolfowitz, yes, Second Chief War Architect Wolfowitz, to President of the World Bank?

Methinks this doesn't seem like the sort of appointment that Wolfowitz would view as a promotion. Why's he being fobbed off on the World Bank? Any other reason besides "to annoy the Europeans"?

For that matter, he appointed John Bolton, a man who doesn't believe the UN should exist, as ambassador to the UN. Why? Other than to piss people off? To piss John Bolton off? To grandstand politically at home? To prepare the ground for US withdrawal from the UN?

Let's restate your question slightly. Why would Bush want to see a criminally dishonest and openly imperialist American in charge of the main organization that decides which politically sensitive third world loans or debt repayment schemes are worthy?

Kea I was wondering . . didn't the President make some kind of statement explaining his reasons for the Nomination and the appointed you are refering to?

So, are you saying . .

You want more detail?
You don't believe what the President stated?
You think there is a obscure hidden agenda?

Or something else?

- - -
Weremensh I think Begging the question is the logical fallacy that best describes your post. Care to outline your basis for such an opinion?

Though the point about repayment makes me think about stuff like getting Iraq's pre-war debt reduced or canceled. That might be a noble motive to have a US person at the World Bank?


Note: Bolding usernames is a habit I've developed and doesn't
have any huge significance.

If it were a noble motive, then the same man would not be opposed to cancelling the debts incurred by the Videla dictatorship in Argentina.

Tell you what; I'll assume that you've been completely out of touch for several years, and take this from the top...

Wolfowitz is one of the founders of the Neo-Conservative movement; an intellectually and morally corrupt crowd which started out on the right wing fringes of the Democratic party, back when `Jewish Republican' was essentially an oxymoron. They weren't happy there, though; since they discovered that no one in the Democratic party was interested in seeing the US become openly and militarily imperialistic (as in, invade middle eastern countries on some pretext or other, then occupy them forever; they way we're currently doing in Iraq and Afghanistan).

However, they discovered that the criminal conspiracy (founded with stolen state funds) that Gingrich was running on the right wing of the GOP was just as morally and intellectually corrupt as the neo-cons; and quite interested in a policy that called for American adventurism in search of oil and power. So these folks (including Wolfowitz) crossed party lines, and became Republican functionaries during the Reagan/Gingrich years. Papa Bush kept them down (not being very stupid, he recognized the limits of American power); but they weathered the storm...eventually, Bush Two stole power; and they came back to where they are now.

So where are they now? Well, in Wolfowitz' case, he's the assistant Secretary of Defense who lied to Congress about Iraq's WMDs, lied to Congress about the cost of the war (he claimed that it would pay for itself), lied to Congress about our reception among the Iraqi's (he was one of the `they'll throw roses' crowd); and who, when asked about a year into the war how many Americans had died, didn't have a clue. Sure, the information crossed his desk; but he didn't give a damn how many Americans he had sent off to die, so assistant Secretary of Defense or no, he didn't have a clue.

Of course, he's been calling for the invasion of Iraq for years (helping to found the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq); and has never pretended that it's about anything but Imperialism when talking to the grownups. For the consumption of the commoners and the fools, he was one of the folks who decided to go with the WMD lie because `it was the excuse everyone at the table could agree on'; but he would never waste any time on that kind of rhetoric anywhere but on camera.

Btw, Wolfowitz laid it all out in black and white; in a couple of papers he helped write for his think tank; the Project for the New American Century. To save you some wading, here's some help on finding where he said it. No time wasting lies about caring about folks like the Iraqis; just straightforward policy goals like " * Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia
and the Middle East..." and " * Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;".

So now this imperialist little turd is off to a post where it's quite easy to misuse economic power to the same end that he he wanted to misuse military power; courtesy of the President who gave him the invasion he wanted. Color me surprised.

Oh, excuse me. Old habit. I live across the border from China, which coincidentally owns us. And the other countries in the region aren't much better either. In my experience, politicians always lie and there's always an obscure hidden agenda.

I don't know how some of you Americans are so trusting of authority. Try growing up in a place where most of your heroes are political prisoners rotting in jail, and you'll see what I mean.

It's not just totalitarian regimes that lie, Kea. Democratic leaders are often much better at it - compare the subtle manipulations of a Tony Blair with the brutal clumsiness of a Than Shwe. To use an old but valid joke:

How can you tell if a politician's lying?
Their lips move

It's a basic technique in understanding politics to look at what politicians do; not what they say. Analysing what they say can be done in terms of how it tactically benefits them. To actually give their utterances credence is naivete in the extreme.

Yes, I'm well aware that just because a politician is elected doesn't mean he's not a manipulative scheming little bugger. Things like constitutions and freedom of speech mainly exist to limit the extent of the damage he can do.

Still, I've encountered naive trust of authority figures from people on both sides of the political spectrum in America and Canada. One of them's a close friend of mine, he doesn't understand how I can be so cynical. He's not particularly interested in politics, but in his mind, politicians can't do really nasty things because "people would never allow that to happen."

I expect that growing up in a place where most of your role models are people who succeeded within the existing system might encourage that sort of outlook. At least, more than growing up in a place where most of the "good guys" are in jail.

Anyway, back on topic. It has been said that maybe Wolfowitz was fobbed off on the World Bank in order to get him out of Condoleeza Rice's hair. The two disagreed a lot in Bush's previous term.

Politicians, like everyone else, are thieving liars, and out to line their own pockets. But there are some cases in which their motivation is genuinely hard to understand. I don't doubt that Bush is a religious man doing what he believes is right. However, he has very bad judgement.

Since Bush's policies can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy on the assumption he's out to give benefits to the rich and secure oil supply, I think it's more likely he has a very bad idea of what's right.

I agree with your statement up to the last fragment - in the opinion of him and his compatriots, he has a very good idea of what's right. In my opinion, it's very harmful for the country and for the vast majority of its citizens, but that's another kettle of wax and ball of fish. We'll see who's right down the road - of course, if we're right, they'll still be fine, but we'll all be screwed...

It's been a long time, so I don't know the details or where to get them, but I remember hearing about a study about just that. America's liberal arts colleges are generally more left-leaning than the American population as a whole. However, people who go to liberal arts colleges are most likely to believe that the government does good things, and less likely to want to change the system (conservative in the sense that they want things to stay the same) than people who don't go to college. Being educated makes an American less cynical and more invested in the system because, hey, the system did good for them.

Most people here went, are going, or planned to go to college, and as such we could be a more naive and trusting audience than people who never went to college. On the day the Iraq war began, I was out holding signs on a main road, protesting. I was shocked at the huge number of thumbs-up signs we got from the large numbers of usually immigrant men in ratty old trucks often with buisness decals on the side.

Some friends called me naive because i believe that there are quite some politicans who have started out with high ideals but got corrupted over time by how a political carrer works, rather then the bulk of politicans having gone to politics exclusivly for their own profit.

I don't think there is any lack of cynicism among people i know. (and AFAIK also in the rest of Austria)

While being too trusting is dangerous, being too cynical has dangers too. There are lots of people who simply don't care for any scandal of pretty any size, because all politicans are criminals anyway so why bother. As result often politicans don't even make a real effort to hide their corruption.

Well there's cynicism, and then there's cynicism.
You don't have to believe that every politician is always motivated by greed, but you don't have to take their public pronouncements at face value either. Politics is about out-maneuvering everyone else, and if you're completely honest all the time, you just wouldn't last very long.

But this one just has me boggling. What's the strategic advantage of appointing such polarizing figures to the World Bank and the UN? Of talking about "reconciliation" with allies and then choosing the most controversial people possible for these posts? It's like Lucy and the football in Charlie Brown. Apart from pleasing your supporters at home, I can't see the point.

I don't blindly trust people in Government, but Bush is a pretty transparent guy. It is possible he may have unspoken motives . .

. . like perusing diplomacy in the case of North Korea and Iran . .

. . but such motives are easily figured out.

North Korea has nukes aggressively messing with them could be a horrible disaster.

Many of Iran's citizens are reportedly in favor of democracy and the U.S.
plus the people that rule Iran are not reckless or have clear ties to terrorism like Sadam.

> . . you don't have to take their public pronouncements
> at face value either. . .

I agree.

Hmm . .
Bush knows it's popular around the world to bash the US and
bash Bush himself.
So maybe Bush has someone else in mind, but maybe he thinks nominating the ideal person would be a guarantied way that that person
wouldn't get the position.

Or . .
Maybe nominating Wolfowitz was his way of forcing people to look for a more acceptable candidate.

As far as John Bolton goes, maybe he doesn't want a UN yes man (someone that agrees with what ever the UN wants).
Maybe he wants someone who will challenge the UN.