Darn, I hate it when facts get in the way of my preconceptions and biases. And I hate it even more when data and facts and reality force me to change my way of doing things or seeing things. It's so disturbing, since I know in my heart that I was right all along and it's reality that is wrong.
I have long considered Paul Wolfowitz to be more or less evil incarnate as one of the major architects of neoconism. His prominent roles as superhawk in the administrations of Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., constantly promoting the morally bereft political philosophy and US foreign policy of "might makes right and we've got the might" makes me an ardent un-supporter. I think it would be perfectly appropriate for Wolfie to be, in a purely political sense, drawn and quartered, flayed, roasted, diced, and fed to the rats and vermin that now occupy the homes and gardens of the two million Iraqis that his policies have made refugees.
So it is with great chagrin that I find myself on his side in the World Bank scandal. It seems that Wolfie conducted himself with an at least reasonable degree of integrity in this business about his girlfriend and the cushy job. From a Washington Post article:
Yes, the directors admit, Mr. Wolfowitz was the one who surfaced the potential conflict of interest; yes, the ethics committee told him that the bank's vice president for human resources "should act upon your instruction" in settling the matter. And, yes, the ethics committee twice approved what Mr. Wolfowitz had done. Ethics committee chairman Ad Melkert advised Mr. Wolfowitz that "on the basis of a careful review" the committee had no objection to make.
On the basis of that and other things I've heard, I've concluded that the affair at the World Bank has nothing to do with Woflie's actual behavior and all to do with his political enemies seeing an opportunity and capitalizing on it. This type of activity is frequently termed a witch hunt, and I think that everybody, always, deserves to be saved from witch hunts. Nobody—not jerks, assholes, incompetents, mass-murders or even neocon policy architects—deserves to be witch-hunted. And so to Wolfie I say, "I hope you rot in hell and are tried and convicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity and all the other terrible things I'm sure you've done—and by the way, I hope you don't lose your job over these trumped-up charges."
Darn again. I so want to see him hanging from a political yardarm.
3 comments:
I have never paid much attention before to Mr Wolfowitz's career, and thus I am basing this on recent things I've read bout him, including what you imply.
I am not for witch-hunts either.
Yet I think for once your sense of balance and fair-play may be a bit overboard.
The main reason indeed why Mr Wolfowitz is being hounded right now, does not seem to be, really, what he did or not with or toward his girlfriend. That indeed seems to be only the 'official' reason.
One real reason seems to be that he was not very popular with his own staff, to say the least.
But considering that he was apparently instrumental in the rationalisation and promotion of the Iraq war, which was officially based on unmistakable evidence of the threat of WMD's, which everyone knows today to be a downright lie; and considering that he participated, to some apparently large degree, in the dissimulation of the truth in that respect; and considering that a number of individuals who attempted to speak the truth were fired/sidelined/attacked/insulted for trying, I would say that at the very least there is some ironic Justice in what is currently taking place.
If my cinematic and trivia culture are correct, Al Capone was sent to jail for cheating on taxes, not for his other crimes, because there was no way to prove those. Does that mean his being sent to jail was unjust or unfair ?
Considering the way things work in our world, I wonder if the people responsible for deluding themselves, cheating everyone and sending thousands of people to their death will ever be tried. I don't mean condemned, I just mean tried. Give them a chance to justify themselves, but let's at least bring it out and hear it. But it won't happen.
I also believe, not only on moral grounds but also on purely pragmatic ones, that there are serious grounds to question if someone who has been instrumental in what happened in the last few years, should really be heading an international institution like the World Bank. How he got to be there in the first place is another question, and it does not reflect well on the moral sense of the world's political class in general.
Even if by tradition, that job goes to a US citizen or nominee, is someone going to pretend that there wasn't in the whole of the US someone available, just as qualified and a bit less controversial ?
In other words, his nomination had not much to do with qualification, and everything to do with a) rewarding someone for the good political job done and b) showing who could bully who.
Is it surprising therefor that the manner of his (still attempted) ousting would look like not really being "fair play" ?
Not to mention that in the event, Mr Wolfowitz only stands to lose a job, and will probably not have trouble finding another one, if he even needs it. He will not even have to pay a fine, nor him or his girlfriend have to give back their salaries. In the other event alluded to earlier, an uncontroversial and undisputed minimum of 200,000 people lost their lives, so far.
So the hell with fair-play, no ?
Hmmm.... If I write shorter articles, will then the comments get shorter?
Your points are well-founded and I don't necessarily disagree. However:
I once sat on a jury that tried an extremely bad man for a trumped-up charge. After failing to convince the eleven other jurors that the rule of law applies ALL the time, I hung the jury and forced a mistrial. The extremely bad man was not sent to prison for life, as he surely deserved.
It's hard to know if this was "right" or serving "the greater good" in the overall scheme of things, and for all cases at all times. But at the time, it seemed that forcing the government to observe the law and play by the rules was best for all concerned.
I would not question your decision at the time, since you were on the spot and I wasn't, and since it would undermine my next question.
But it is also the law that prescribes a trial by jury in certain cases; and isn't the very point of this to recognise that the written law may be imperfect, and thus to give the ultimate say to 10 persons chosen as representatives of the real will of the people ?
Come to think of it, this is of course a circular argument, because if so, then the will of the people in that case was to have a hung jury.
Post a Comment