Wolfowitz watch

Not only is the WSJ alone, but it’s going down a dangerous path. The received wisdom that while the WSJ’s editorials are deeply skewed its news coverage is reliable is no longer the case. The European version WSJ carried some striking untruths and wilful mischaracterisations in its news coverage of this affair last Friday.

Remind me again, why does anyone outside financial services read this newspaper?

No, The Times is at it too

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article1662780.ece

I know no one takes him seriously any more, but that great legal mind of our time, Glenn Reynolds, is also pursuing the ‘Wolfowitz is’ (or soon will be) ‘a political prisoner’ line.

If he had any smarts or respect for the institution, he’d just recognize his mistakes and resign. The dude has no credibility within the World Bank. That’s should be reason enough for him to ackowledge that getting the job done is FAR more important than HIM doing the job.

Show some class and leave.

I read the wall street journal article, and if the facts expressed in that article are correct, they completely exonerate Wolfowitz of wrongdoing. Is it your view that the facts in that article are inaccurate?

Sk

if the facts expressed in that article are correct, they completely exonerate Wolfowitz of wrongdoing.

Well, the article is apparently behind a subscription firewall, so I’m left to speculate how the WSJ managed to express facts that completely exonerate the man. Did it claim she wasn’t really his girlfriend, or did it assert that she didn’t get a $195,000 per year job? Or maybe the WSJ simply furnished conclusive proof that hiring girlfriends at $195,000 per year is a good thing?

rea-
I read the article yesterday, but the quick summary is that when Wolfowitz was hired onto the World Bank, he told them he was dating the woman who was already working at the Bank(I don’t remember any of the names-sorry). The World Bank board (or leaders, or whatever they are called) said that expecting the woman to leave the World Bank without any compensation was an unfair burden on her, so they
(not Wolfowitz) proposed the financial benefits in question (I can’t remember if the financial benefits were a different job, or some kind of separation compensation, or what). Copies of these statements-both Wolfowitz’s initial disclosure of his conflict of interest, and the Board members’ (not Wolfowitz’) response of appropriate compensation to the woman, are publically available.

Sk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaha_Ali_Riza

p o’neill-
Same question. Do you believe the facts in your article are wrong? the analysis?

“Getting Wolfy on this minor corruption incident is like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.”

But there’s an important distinction. Al Capone was actually guilty of tax evasion.

True, in the reality-based community, actual guilt isn’t terribly important (witness the Duke case). But to us faith-based yokels, actual guilt and innocence still matter…

Sk

Christopher Hitchens has a piece up on Slate today defending Wolfowitz as well.

-JFE

SK,

If that article accurately reports the facts, then Mr. Wolfowitz’s acted appropriately by asking to recuse himself from any decisions related to Ms. Riza. The relevant information is here:

“The paper trail shows that Mr. Wolfowitz had asked to recuse himself from matters related to his girlfriend, a longtime World Bank employee, before he signed his own employment contract. The bank’s general counsel at the time, Roberto Danino, wrote in a May 27, 2005 letter to Mr. Wolfowitz’s lawyers:

“‘First, I would like to acknowledge that Mr. Wolfowitz has disclosed to the Board, through you, that he has a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staff member, and that he proposes to resolve the conflict of interest in relation to Staff Rule 3.01, Paragraph 4.02 by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member.'”

If this is the case, then it is indeed much ado about nothing. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Paul Wolfowitz. This appears not to be one of them.

Sk seems to be holding his (her) own on this. But since one of the themes of CT is the quality of rhetorical argument, I feel compelled to point out to those addressed by Sk as well as to Chris Bertram who opened this, that the following are not legitimate arguments:

1. I can’t address the legitimacy of the Wolfowitz defense because i haven’t read it. (See also the oped page of today’s LA Times, for a piece by a SAIS professor that is devastating to the claim that Wolfowitz is guilty of favoritism to his girlfriend.)

2. I don’t have to address the legitimacy of the pro-Wolfowitz arguments because the people making those arguments are flawed in some way. (“No one but the Wall Street journal …. “)
3. I can assert that there are flaws in the pro-W arguments (“striking untruths and willful mischaracterizations”) without specifics.
4. Finally notice the “moving goalposts”: the subtle evolution of the anti-W case. “Ok, the reason he should be fired is not really the favoritism, it’s something else.” This is not so obvious in the comments here, but is in the blog to which Bertram links. (Stiglitz’s comments, 10 strikes and you’re out.)

“Ok, the reason he should be fired is not really the favoritism, it’s something else.”

But that’s obvious, isn’t it; doesn’t really warrant special item with a number on your list. If this wasn’t Wolfy we all know and love for his previous achievements, who would give a shit?

Luis, pretty much anything is preferable to a messianic megalomaniac at the helm of a powerful bureaucracy.

Much as I dislike the WSJ op-ed pages, and other pro-Wolfowitz publications, I think it’s hard for anyone who has actually looked at multiple sources on the case to argue that Wolfowitz should resign over this matter alone.

A quick pro-W case would consist of the following observations:
Wolfowitz disclosed a his relationship with Riza upon becoming president of the world bank.
The Ethics committee gave Wolfowitz authority dictate the terms of Riza’s transfer. Given the conflict of interest, one wonders why he was allowed to do this in the first place, and why the arrangement wasn’t criticized by the ethics committee until this year.

One can argue that Wolfowitz should not have been appointed to head the World Bank, but I don’t think this is the convenient moment to rid the world of Wolfowitz that it appeared to be at first. And he is doing a better job than one might have expected from a crony of GW.

In any case, there is an ongoing investigation into the matter, and Wolfie’s more vocal detractors should perhaps wait until some more definitive evidence is realized to attack him in this affair.

Please, Luis. What are you, some kind of Trotskyist or something? You feel like acting – pick up a gun and go act and leave the US liberal consensus alone.

Slate is trying to balance its insane Hitchens defense of Wolfowitz (supposedly they at first looked for a more balanced point of view by asking Wolfowitz’s mother to write an article, but hers was insufficiently por-wolfowitz) with this memo from A. Cave, which quotes a bit of Wolfowitz’s own memo about Riza – pretty funny stuff, all about how she has to get her position back, plus “outstanding job performance” evalutions. Wolfowitz has the Louis XIV attitude, apparently, to job performance evaluations.
Here it is:
http://www.slate.com/id/2164340/fr/flyout

Classical liberal revolutionary? That’s a new one for me.

As a classical liberal, you shouldn’t be shaming people, Luis; you’re supposed to be an individualist, mind your own business, and let the others (including US liberals) take care of themselves.

Mr. Abb1,

I think you have the wrong idea entirely. The world has had plenty of liberal revolutionaries, international ones to boot. A great-great grandfather of mine was exiled from Spain in the 19th century (on a charge of sedition) for being exactly that. The 19th century was full of these people. Recently you have people like Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa. Look and you shall find.

And then there is the matter of being your brothers keeper. It is intolerable to “mind your own business” when people are asking for help. In fact, it is utterly dishonorable. Christopher Hitchens is entirely correct on this.

The American liberal (Democratic party) answer to people like Makiya these days is to give them the backs of their hands – and this is true of their attitude toward every other such liberation movement. It was not like this in my day, we had people like Steven Solarz (Democratic chairman of the foreign affairs committee) regularly on the streets with us, in Manila. Imagine that today.

To their shame they have no more outstanding people like Solarz. They seem to have just people with tiny and crabbed horizons, professional cynics, and characters who have lost their perspective to the degree that they think that a dispute of +/- 5% in the share of GDP taken up by government spending is some issue that is more urgent than the need to liberate slave states.

I guess I owe Roger (at 30) a response, since he addressed my earlier comment (at 23).

1. Roger agrees with me that “I havent read it” is a fallacious argument; and I agree with him that neither the pro-W nor the anti-W forces should make it.
2. I say that the validity of an argument, or the truth of facts presented, cannot be determined by the presence of flaws in person making the argument or presenting facts. Roger responds in a non sequitur, “But the person making the argument is really really flawed.”
3. Roger agrees with me that arguments should contain specifics. The wallstreet journal article, the LA oped piece and the Slate article contain specifics of the pro-W position. Roger believes that SK’s reference to these is insufficient. I disagree.
4. Roger apparently admits that the whole “Wolfowitz took improper action to help his girlfriend” argument is a red-herring, and that it is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not W should be fired. I agree with him on this, and I wish the rest of the anti-W crowd would follow Roger’s lead in eschewing this particular argument.

Luis Alegria,
Do you have a blog? You sound like an extremely interesting person.

And by-the-by, Abb1 is probably one of those “professional cynics”, except he is disenfrachised by his own hate.

Please, Luis.

Here’s some classic liberalism for you: as far as I’m concerned, people of your country should have any political system they like. If they have a dictatorship, I have to conclude that what they want is dictatorship. As soon as they decide that they don’t want a dictatorship – they’ll get rid of dictatorship.

Unless, of course, some very powerful foreign country (usually the US, but not necessarily) imposes dictatorship on them. In which case I would like the very powerful foreigners who are meddling in your affairs – Solarz, Wolfowitz and all the rest of them – to get out of there pronto and let your people decide what they want. Note: not you, Luis, but the whole population of your country, including the “dictator’s men”.

Mr. Abb1,

I’m afraid I have to come out and say that one one level your world-view is just plain silly; it is a normal state of affairs for people to be subject to political authority that is imposed on them. No people deserve a dictatorship, nor do they normally want one. Just because there is no impending revolution does not mean that they like what they have, or even if it is tolerable in the sense of sustaining human life.

I don’t think you have experienced a dictatorship firsthand. Let me clue you in – people can put up with a lot in order to live day-to-day, and will not normally undertake mortal risks for the sake of political reform. And I mean a lot, up to and including general starvation, if the dictator is competent and has a free hand.

It takes extraordinary circumstances to develop an effective, purely indigenous revolutionary movement. And I mean extraordinary, this is rare. The natural state of humanity has been despotism.

As for the moral underpinnings of your world-view – well, I think I have just seen you give the world the back of your hand. I suggest you take a step or two back and examine your attitude, because I cannot believe that if you examine it honestly you will not find it shameful.

Luis Alegria, I would love to see you in an argument with an East Timorese resistance fighter. It was the bold and visionary goal of the US to prevent the spread of communist tyranny in South East Asia (you know, to defend “freedom”) that led them to set up Suharto in the first place, and to support his invasion of East Timor. Has it occurred to you that what bold, visionary US politicians give with one hand they happily take away with another (or from another country)?

You might also like to bear in mind that there is more than one sort of visionary in the world, and the people you call “realists” might actually have thought that the development of economies trumped the development of political freedom. It might have been their vision that 100,000 people dead by a dictators hand is better than a million dead from poverty. You might not like their vision; but that is why you are better making your own future, than relying on the dubious assistance of a power as belligerent, self-interested, calculating and vicious as the US.

And only a fool in any case would believe that Wolfowitz helped them for any reason except to benefit the US. Lucky you if your interests coincided with theirs for a day or two, but I wouldn`t be putting all my eggs in that basket. Wolfowitz`s vision for the US may include your freedom today; but it could include your nation being turned into a crucible of mass murder tomorrow.

‘I would rather the whole US government consisted of such “fanatics” and “extremists”.’

And Lo! Your wish is granted.

Signed: The Right Wing Non-Reality Based Fairy.

Mr. Abb1,

I think you and I will never see eye-to-eye on much.

I strongly disagree on your point with respect to dictatorships. Some dictatorships sometimes, that is true. But a sufficiently brutal and clever tyrant can even go so far as to immiserate nearly all the people, terrorise most of them, and slaughter large fractions of them, and yet stay in power in spite of the desire of the large majority for relief.

Your definition of choice seems pedantic and disingenuous. The status quo may definitely be better for an individual – it is often a choice of an unsatisfactory life vs perpetual imprisonment or quick death. You call this a choice ? Are people in such a situation freely preferring a tyrant ?

Revolutionary movements do not develop often in a competent dictatorship without outside intervention, and even less successful ones. We have plenty of cases of these that have survived for 40-50 years, and earlier ones have gone on for centuries. Most modern dictatorships were not overthrown by their people, but succumbed to external forces or leadership failure.

Why should other people help me liberate my country ? Why should you save a drowning man ? Why should you feed a starving child ?

The good news, messianic fellow that I am, is that humans have developed a technology of politics beyond despotism. Where properly implemented it does result in better lives for most. One could posture cynically and question this point, but that is what it is, just posturing as a cynic for the sake of disagreement. The case is settled.

This is not the final truth. As an engineer I know we will not make the ultimate machine, just a better one than the last. We have a better machine, if not yet the best conceivable. The real problem is not that we have an imperfect machine but that too many people are still stuck with old technology or newish but inferior alternatives.

Most modern dictatorships were not overthrown by their people…

Come on, Luis, seriously. A whole bunch of Eastern European countries very recently – just as soon as Soviet Wolfowitzs quit trying to make them happy? Iran? Cuba? An unpopular regime gets overthrown, a reasonably popular one survives. It’s your own rhetoric of ‘despotism’ and ‘liberation’ that gets you confused. Avoiding being fooled by your own bullshit is the first step to becoming a realist, and that isn’t such a bad thing.

For those unfamiliar with Mr. Alegria, he is absolutely one of the most challenging proponents of a conservative world view that I’ve come across.

I highly recommend reading any thread at theforvm.org that he’s active on.

Best,
Tim (aka catchy).

There’s an old story where a dictator explained how he stayed in power. Was it a spartan king explaining it to Socrates? A persian king? I forget. He pointed to a field of wheat, and he said wherever you see a stalk of wheat that stands out above the rest, cut it down.

I once had an iranian housemate who told a story — I forget most of the details — an iranian wrestler won the olympics, he got a gold medal. The iranian public considered him a great hero. And the Shah had him killed. I asked, how do you know the Shah had him killed? He said everybody knew. And everybody knew the reason — the Shah couldn’t let any iranian be more popular than he was, because any such person could lead a rebellion. I tried to imagine a revolution against the Shah led by a world-champion wrestler, who’d spent all his time for the last x years studying wrestling. It didn’t make sense. But the Shah was unpopular and any seed crystal could start the transformation.

It’s easy to say that people get the government they deserve, but in practice it’s a matter of technology and organization, technique. A government that has to be repressive is already unstable, but the timing of when it collapses depends on how well it manages the repression versus how well its enemies organise against it. It might possibly totter along for decades if it organises well and its opponents organise poorly.

When the USA intervenes we might take either side or both. Which side we take depends on our strategic interests and also on which side does better PR.

It’s like a soulless machine programmed at random. Do you support the repressive corrupt government or the communist terrorists? It usually depends on which PR you’ve been exposed to and which is effective. Which side does the US government support? It depends on what strategic resources we need, and where we need bases, and lots of things like that, plus they have to pay some attention to the citizen dupes who’ve fallen for foreign PR.

When Castro was trying to take over Cuba he told reporters about how he wanted democracy. For the first election before things were real organised he was going to call in civic groups — Rotary and Lions Club etc to help run the election. He trusted them. We might have supported him. Is there a chance that if we had supported him he’d have gone with a democracy? I say yes, if we’d helped him publicise his plans for democracy he might have had a hard time backing down from them later. Maybe he even believed it when he said it. But we backed Batista.

Who do you believe and why do you believe them? If somebody like Luis is sure we ought to intervene on one particular side, who are we to say he doesn’t know the ultimate truth? He could be right. So the next question is, how much money should we bet that he’s right? How many lives? To the extent that we’re a democracy, how much we bet depends on how much of a betting mood the US public is in at the moment. Before we staged our unilateral attack on iraq, a lot of americans were ready for a nice little bet that we could move in quick and clean things up and the oil would pay for it. I tend to think we aren’t going to feel like that for some years, we’ll need time to forget just like it took us time after vietnam.

But I’d kind of be up for an easy little war in saudi arabia. We could let the egyptian army do the work, we might provide them with transportation and equipment and logistics, and muslim US officers could keep an eye on the operation. Call for democracy in saudi arabia, a democracy of good muslims and infidels would get a voice proportional to their numbers, with full respect for religious sites etc. We could probably pull it off, and if it didn’t work it would be mostly surplus egyptians in trouble over it.

And considering how well things are working out in south africa, a similar solution would probably be the best thing for israel/palestine. Except I don’t think the US public would allow it.

But then I think about the *range* of possible results of US intervention, and I get a lot less enthusiastic. I get a wonderful idea for how things can be, and I prod the US government into random action, and we get random results….

What nonsense.

The US backed the opposition movement in the Phillipines all the way through? Really? Including all the time when they backed it financially and militarily?

The fall of the Eastern European regimes owed nothing to the mass movements in those states?

There’s nothing “challenging” about that worldview, it’s just a repeated message which says “US intervention is good for freedom” and sees nothing that might contradict that view.

‘It is not a popular thing, to make a change. It upsets the comfortable.’

I think I speak for all of us when I say ‘?’.

So what has he done wrong then Chris, because it isn’t immediately apparent to me at all.

Are you suggesting the facts are spin, whereas the spin to suggest Wolfowitz was in the wrong is fact?

What is factually incorrect in the WSJ and Hitchens’ pieces?

What are you talking about, deadtrees?

Dictatorship is not punishment. Like I said, people often prefer dictatorship and they tend to worship their dictators.