This is topic So what is it with these Bush nominations...? (Now fortified with more irony!) in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
After putting up a torture advocate as his new attorney general, he's trying to set up a man who keeps a hand grenade on his desk, who's known for not being particularly diplomatic, and who has said publicly that the United Nations is a useless, figurehead body, as our representative to the U.N.
I keep waiting for him to set up Kevorkian as the head of the NIH.
[ March 18, 2005, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:"The (UN) Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference," Bolton said in a 1994 panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association.
Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, cited this quote at the 2001 confirmation hearing for Bolton for his current post as evidence that he was outside the US mainstream.
I don't like Bush's choice here-- but I have to grin at Boxer's assertion that Bolton's attitude is outside the US mainstream.
Quite the contrary-- Bolton's antipathy toward the UN is exactly mainstream.
As for the hand grenade-- big deal. It's a model, anyway, and probably a paperweight. I'm more concerned about his attitude of dismissiveness. I wonder if this move signals a penchant for more warmaking.
[ March 08, 2005, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Kevorkian isn't pro-life
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote: ...who keeps a hand grenade on his desk.
It's a military tradition to put some sort of arm on your desk. As I look around my office I see ammunition from an A-10, a WWII grenade, a set of swords, countless fragments of the Iraqi war machine, a smoke grenade, a flash-bang etc. I could go on and on with what is in my office but I think your point about him having a grenade on his desk is moot. It proves nothing about his character.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:prods topic:
Of course, it is really worrisome that Bush assigned him to the UN.
Like assigning David Duke to be ambassador to South Africa. . .
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yes, since the UN is so pro US we should send someone who is pro UN from the US.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I could go on and on with what is in my office but I think your point about him having a grenade on his desk is moot. It proves nothing about his character."
On the contrary. I think it proves quite a bit about his character. That it's not an uncommon character trait just means that he's a mediocre person.
----
Jay, you appear to have missed the point of my Kevorkian comment. And, yes, we should send someone who has respect for the UN as an institution to represent us at the UN, and at the very least should not send someone who has publicly disdained it. Need I explain why?
[ March 08, 2005, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He said, basically, that 25% or so of the U.N. was waste. That is certainly something that the U.S. has the right to comment on, and certainly something the U.S. might feel is important enough to want our ambassador to deal with.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:On the contrary. I think it proves quite a bit about his character. That it's not an uncommon character trait just means that he's a mediocre person.
So, Tom, why don't you enlighten us on exactly how the possession of a dud hand grenade increases ones mediocrity?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I don't believe that was the point of your original post Tom. I took that as you pointing out an aggresive character trait.
Or maybe, I'm really out there.
[ March 08, 2005, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: scottneb ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yes, we should send someone who believes that the UN is an inherently valuable ally.
Not a UN apologist, mind you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So, Tom, why don't you enlighten us on exactly how the possession of a dud hand grenade increases ones mediocrity?"
It's not even a sentimental souvenir of his time in the service. Displaying this on his desk, he seeks to advertise his military service while fetishizing a rather indiscriminate method of death. Which is of course a lovely trait in a diplomat.
It's one thing to speak softly and carry a big stick. It's another thing to take a foam replica of a big stick and hang it over your fireplace.
[ March 08, 2005, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh, come on, Tom. If you're going to hang on this particular bit of fluff as a reason to dislike the guy politically. . . well, that's just dumb.
I'm sure much more is revealed by his public statements than by the fact that he's got a novelty paperweight.
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
*in my best monty python voice*
"It's only a model..."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If you're going to hang on this particular bit of fluff as a reason to dislike the guy politically..."
Hey, I'm not saying it's a major reason behind my dislike of the guy. I'm saying that it's indicative, as scottneb has mentioned, of a character trait that I don't particularly like in my diplomats.
It wouldn't technically matter if Alberto Gonzalez displayed a photo of an electric chair on his wall, or hung a collector's edition noose -- perhaps the one used on a famous bandit -- from a hook in his office, but it would again suggest a character trait that I wouldn't find appealing in an Attorney General. (Note: I am not suggesting that Alberto Gonzalez would do this; I'm just using his name and position to make an analogy.)
[ March 08, 2005, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The problem with Bolton is that he doesn't seem to understand diplomacy.
Calling North Korea a hellhole, dominated by an oppressive lunatic may be true-- but you don't say so in public, whilst in the middle of talks with North Korea.
Honesty is a good thing, heaven knows more of our politicians need it. But diplomacy means being honest-- nicely.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
On that note, how important is this post, anyway?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I have to give Tom credit here - it's not exactly a novelty that would be a wise choice for a diplomat, given the international attitudes regarding the American penchant for "warmongering."
It's like wearing leather shoes to a PETA meeting.
And while I don't suggest we send someone pro-UN/anti-US as a diplomat to the UN, I do think we could find someone who hasn't been publicly noted as having critical and somewhat harsh opinions regarding the organization he's about to start attending as our representative.
-Trevor
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I have pens scattered all over my desk.
And pens are mightier than a sword (or hand grenade) any day.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
*throws a hand grenade into the thread and runs away screaming "Mightier than the sword??? <insert maniacal laugher>*
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Both from Tom:
quote: On the contrary. I think it proves quite a bit about his character. That it's not an uncommon character trait just means that he's a mediocre person.
quote: Displaying this on his desk, he seeks to advertise his military service while fetishizing a rather indiscriminate method of death.
So, to Tom, it's not uncommon to have people running around fetishizing about indiscriminate methods of death. I don't want to live in your world Tom. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So, to Tom, it's not uncommon to have people running around fetishizing about indiscriminate methods of death. I don't want to live in your world Tom."
I wouldn't, either. It's one of the reasons I keep advocating completely disbanding the U.S. military.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: *throws a hand grenade into the thread and runs away screaming "Mightier than the sword??? <insert maniacal laugher>*
*writes scathing reviews of Boris from Limbo*
*looks smug*
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
But, that would put me out of a job!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, I guess it would. I could tear up at this point, but I suppose the alternative would be to make some speech about buggy whip manufacturers. Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Na, go ahead and promote the end of the Military. I'm out in...<looks at watch> two months.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, God! Oh, no! You can't say that aloud, scottneb! Haven't you ever watched any movie, anywhere?
Take it back! Take it back! Say you're going to re-enlist or something!
Nothing will kill you faster than being a few weeks away from the end of your tour.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Only if you're a L.A. cop who's due to retire in two weeks.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I'm not completely separating, I'm going into the Gaurd. So I'm safe.
...I think. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Tom, that whole "disbanding the US Military" thing ... was that a joke? Do you mean it? If the latter, can you explain that position? I'm not sure I'm getting it, whether it was a joke or not ...
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You're joking, right Scott?
The Guard is getting shafted harder than standard grunts.
-Trevor
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Tom, I didn’t miss the point of your Kevorkian comment in the least. Just wanted to point out why Bush wouldn’t associate with him. And yes, I would like you to explain why we should let someone who would continue the UN’s path of uselessness be our representative there.
Oh, and Tom, I too have a dummy hand grenade. It’s just cool. Doesn’t mean anything in the least. A piece of trivial decoration that can be a conversation starter.
Completely disbanding the U.S. military?!?!?! That’s madness. What kind of freedom and for how long do you think it would last?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Tom, I'm also pretty interested to hear your thoughts about the total disbandonment of the US military.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Hitler and the Nazis!
Just proving a law slightly earlier on then it was going to be.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Oh, and Tom, I too have a dummy hand grenade. It’s just cool."
I rest my case.
"Tom, that whole 'disbanding the US Military' thing ... was that a joke? Do you mean it?"
Yeah, I mean it. I also recognize that it's impractical. However, I think America is in no serious danger of foreign invasion, has no real need to project military power anywhere, and incurs substantial negatives as a consequence of military service -- not the least of which is the continuation of military subculture -- that are highly regrettable costs.
I'd love to do away with the military, and quite specifically the concept of an American military; I would, for example, turn a stripped-down force over in a heartbeat to an organization like Card's "FPE," or even our United Nations. That my tax dollars go to prop up the U.S. Armed Forces is only a smidgen less odious to me than the thought that they might prop up abortion clinics. But you are of course free to disagree with me.
[ March 08, 2005, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote: The Guard is getting shafted harder than standard grunts.
This just isn't the case whatsoever. I'm sure if you look at the number of Active Duty Personnel deployed in support of current operations you'd see that they greatly outnumber the number of Gaurd/Reserve/Ready Reserve Forces. [EDIT: Due to my comments in another thread, I need to prove this, huh?] The only difference is that the Gaurd and Reserve pull people straight from the community and so, gets more media coverage. It's an inherent part of the Active Duty job description to deploy.
Even if what you say was true, it wouldn't matter. I'd still do it (Separation Pay, Hostile Fire Pay, Tax Exempt Status, free travel, free food, free lodging, etc.).
[ March 08, 2005, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: scottneb ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: I rest my case.
I didn't think you had one so how can you rest it?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: Nothing will kill you faster than being a few weeks away from the end of your tour.
You forget "A walk in the clouds". You might get dumped by your illiterate actress wife and nail a rich wine country heiress. After burning down their vineyard, of course.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
However, there have been several cases where Guardsmen complained about receiving inferior equipment and substandard medical care.
While I cannot personally attest to these cases, I have a general apprehension regarding military units under the command of non-military leaders being deployed in active military zones.
But I'm sure I'm only getting half the story, so take my reservations with a grain of salt...and a slice of lime.
-Trevor
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:However, I think America is in no serious danger of foreign invasion,
Well, no we aren't....but without a military how long would that last?
You're arguing for the disbanding of the military and using for your argument one of the effects of having a strong military.
quote:has no real need to project military power anywhere,
I'd like to see some elaboration on this - what exactly in your view would constitute a need to project military power, other than self defense?
quote:and incurs substantial negatives as a consequence of military service -- not the least of which is the continuation of military subculture -- that are highly regrettable costs.
I'm a product of that culture, my father is still serving and my grandfather served in WWII, and I find that more than a bit offensive that you describe it as regrettable. There is a long history of great men who fought for this country and owed a great deal of their character to their military service.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I'm curious to know what subculture Tom is referring to - some elaboration would be nice.
-Trevor
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
There is a huge military subculture.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No, I really don't think it would be. This is one of those "agree to disagree" areas that, IMO, it's better not to poke into too deeply, because it's almost impossible to do so without insulting other posters.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Is he referring to the family traditions like Belle mentions or is he talking about the fanboy wannabes that spend their time bragging about being Navy SEALs when the closest they came was visiting a zoo.
-Trevor
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: so take my reservations with a grain of salt...and a slice of lime.
Gah, now I'm craving Lime Tostitos, I HATE YOU!!! AJ
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Feh - you think the various terrorist factions wouldn't leap at a chance to utterly destroy the US?
Sure, it would dramatically re-shape the world economy as we know it, but for fanatics that would be a small price to pay.
I wouldn't object to a more narrowly defined application of our military, but that's a different rant altogether.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think a conventional military will do much if anything to legitimately affect the success of terrorist factions capable of destroying our country.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You deleted the post I replied to - I'd be happy to delete my response.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* I realized it might start a whole conversation on the nature of pacifism. And since we've had one of those recently, I didn't want to get back into it. No need to delete your post, though; it actually makes a fair bit of sense where it is.
[ March 08, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
I'm really gonna have to laugh if the "model grenade" that the article refers to is one of those novelty things I've seen around...the ones with the grenade mounted on a piece of wood under a sign that says "Complaint Department--Please take a number" with a little tag that says "#1" attached to the pin of the grenade.
It would be just like the media not to mention that.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ya know, even so.
It could and probably would still be construed as being in poor taste, given the circumstances.
-Trevor
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
Maybe, but if it was a going-away gift from a former command, ex-military folks ALWAYS keep such presentos in their successive offices. I should think it fairly understandable, esp. if the reporter in question didn't snoop enough to see a plaque attached to the thing with a joke and a "Thanks for your great work, from the men and women of the blah blah blah organization"
Edited to add: And I don't know how much time he had between the announcement of his nomination and the descent of the press on his office, so he may not have had time to "hide" thingys that might not be well-construed in his arguably new circumstances. And if the press then found out he hid the thing or took it home he would have been labeled "dishonest" to boot. I lost all faith in so-called journalism the day some CNN talking noggin called an aircraft's afterburner a "thruster-booster" during Desert Storm.
(Sorry, extra edit for poor sentence structure)
[ March 08, 2005, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Fishtail ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
*snicker* I was giggling at a picture of a SWAT officer holding an assault rifle. The caption read "machine-gun toting police officers".
The media is only as good as it's individual members - and technical accuracy isn't always an option, unless you're talking about Jane's.
-Trevor
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Completely disbanding the U.S. military?!?!?! That’s madness. What kind of freedom and for how long do you think it would last?
You know, not every country is straining at the hilt to control all the others.
America, seperated from threats by water, is not exactly imminently in danger. It's not like Iran or North Korea is going to hop on a ship and send troops over. If Iran or North Korea have nuclear weapons, the U.S. is going to be unable to stop them anyway and its sole plan of action would be to blast their assailant to kingdom come in return while the other surrounding countries on both sides look on in despair.
I sincerely doubt Canada or Mexico is going to invade the U.S. Even without an army, the populous is so heavily armed and trained that it would be a difficult fight with or without an army (what are Canadians going to fight with? We have nothing). Anywhere Europe is not likely to suddenly decide to send over troops. No, the major risk to U.S. soil is nuclear.
Biological risks do not demand an ground army, they demand trained professionals and contingency plans.
Terrorists on U.S. soil are easier to apprehend through intelligence (if they can be detected at all). Most terrorists exist largely overseas (see below).
Face it: America's army is useful not for saving America itself but for promoting external peace or freedom and whatnot. But that's not unusual. Armies nowadays rarely defend the country they belong to, they defend another country in danger or in crisis.
Basically, it's a highly aggressive peacekeeping force.
EDIT: To add the biological and terrorist risk.
[ March 08, 2005, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Hence the attempts to build a ballistic missile "shield".
Although I cheerfully agree we need to stop playing the role of peacekeeper and let the nations of the world decide how badly they want to get involved and foot the bill in bodies and resources.
-Trevor
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm not saying that the American army should cease from all external intervention. If they did that, having a large army would be somewhat irrevelent, except for practice.
I'm saying that if the U.S. hypothetically disbanded its army, the likelyhood of the country suddenly being overrun would be extremely slim. Except perhaps by angry ex-military members out of a job.
What the U.S. has is nor for the U.S. itself, it is for others. It is a force do promote America's cause in countries that it feels are in danger or need its help.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually, I'm in favor of down-sizing the standing military and moving towards a more specialized force.
Occupying a country and strong-arming it towards democracy is well beyond the scope of anything the US military should be pressed into doing.
Granted, in my humble opinion.
-Trevor
Edit: However, I will also point out that having a good offense as a defense does deter some of the more rational nations from following courses of action contrary to the United States.
Not all, but some.
[ March 08, 2005, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: Biological risks do not demand an ground army, they demand trained professionals and contingency plans.
You have no idea how wrong you are on this point.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
You're right.
So: some sort of well-trained army corps is necessary for disasters. But perhaps a force that specializes in such areas is seperate from the major body of the army?
However, I think my general argument still stands. Saying that freedom would implode in the absence of the American Army or its significant reduction is a very unfounded thing to say, despite my own shortcomings as a military theorist/general.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, he did it again. *sigh* He's put up Wolfowitz to head the World Bank.
Wolfowitz.
*beats head against wall*
It's like Bush is giving a giant middle finger to everyone in the country with a brain. I mean, it's almost like he selects these people for their ironic value.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wolfowitz has more development experience than most people in Washington. He's extremely well-qualified for the position.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Wolfowitz has more development experience than most people in Washington."
What has Wolfowitz ever successfully developed? Isn't everything he ever touched still -- in some cases, decades later -- considered a "work in progress?"
That he's been able to keep himself employed by blowing things up in order to rebuild them is hardly a qualification. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Both of these nominations show a lack of consideration and diplomacy for anyone outside President Bush's "Yes Sir" circle.
Bolton has UN experience because he's been bashing the UN for years. You may argue that such bashing is right, but not for the person you want to go into that position. Imagine you work for a company. A manager has been stating for years that your department is over sized, over budget, and mostly useless. Would you want the CEO to let that person manage your dept? Another manager can make the same cuts, and clean up the same problems, with out going in against an antagonized team.
Wolfowitz has one "Developmental" experience that I know of. He was ambassador to one of the poorer countries that has since made strides in economic recovery.
However, he is one of the hawks in the administration who pushed the WMD argument farther than it should have gone, and has not admitted that was a mistake. It is feared that he will try and use the cash of the world bank not to fulfill its mandate of decreasing poverty, but to push for pro-American Democratic reform around the world.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Luckily, we aren't restricted to people in Washington to head the world bank. Any person with state or corporate experience could be qualified.
Heck, we aren't limited to people in the US. I'm certain there are people in Mexico the US worked with on saving it from debt that would be far more qualified than Wolfowitz.
That this President insists on nominating someone loyal to him to major posts is not always a strength.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To elaborate on my last post, I am disturbed that one of this President's readily apparent primary criteria for jobs not under him is loyalty to him rather than ability, willingness to at least work with the principles behind the post, and perhaps loyalty to or support of the United States (depending).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And irony. Let's not forget the irony.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It just gets worse and worse. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*massages throbbing temples*
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Well, we should only have another three years or so.
Provided nothing else changes.
-Trevor
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
quote:It's like Bush is giving a giant middle finger to everyone in the country with a brain
Come on Tom. You make statements like this and then get upset when people (newbies in particular) think you are a raving liberal? If a conservative made a similar sweeping statement "Anybody who doesn't agree with Bush is a moron." for example they would be virtually lynched.
Yes, yes I know you lean towards the conservative side on the abortion issue. Just like Bill O'Reily is concerned about the environment. It doesn't make him or you any less of a partisan.
I don't mean this as a personal attack. I just don't think you should get away with some of the broad generilazations you make. Just because an issue is obvious to you doesn't mean other opinions aren't inteligent or valid.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Yeah, but as a Conservative, a Republican, and someone who voted for Bush. I have to say this last nomination of Wolfowitz just makes me want to bang my head off my desk here. I put up with Gonzalez, I said ok to Bolton, but enough is enough. Seriously, I think he is just doing it out of some sense of humor that I don't quite find funny. I just don't understand, these nominations could have been made as jokes on the daily show in January, and yet here we are in March and they are reality? Incredible.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, Holden, is it your opinion -- as someone who is presumably not a raving liberal -- that only a raving liberal might find Bush's nominations so baffling in their seemingly deliberate thumb-biting that they would be forced to conclude that he's doing it to deliberately infuriate people smart enough to see the irony (or for considerably more insidious reasons, which is MY personal theory; I think he's filling these seats with people who are personally loyal and dedicated to destroying these institutions.)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It would certainly match his habit of never appointing anyone to a regulatory board who didn't previously lobby or work against those exact regulations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It would certainly match his habit of never appointing anyone to a regulatory board who didn't previously lobby or work against those exact regulations.
Where did Wolfowitz "lobby or work" against the World Bank?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I was responding to TomD's theory, not offering specifics on Wolfowitz. I haven't read up on him enough to be properly outaged.
However, I'd be happy to start pulling up exhaustive lists of anti-regulatory lobbyists appointed to regulatory boards if you like.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm confused - I wasn't arguning the pattern didn't exist, I was asking how this fits the pattern.
I'll wait for Tom to respond.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My opinion, based on what I've seen from Wolfowitz so far, is that he opposes the goals and ideals behind the World Bank, and views it merely as another tool of American hegemony. The man is neither an economist nor a constructionist.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So we're just dealing with opinions, no concrete examples, evidence, or statements?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*rolls eyes* Dag, when have you ever seen me link to something to make a point, beyond initially calling it to someone's attention? It's not my bag; it's just not something I do.
But, then, when have you ever seen me voice a completely uninformed opinion?
You are of course entitled to your own opinion of Wolfowitz; I'm too lazy to link to things in an attempt to change your mind. But if you honestly have no formed opinion of Wolfowitz's suitability for the post, I strongly advise that you google the guy; it doesn't take much research. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I did Tom. Wolfowitz is actually a very big proponent of international development efforts. Is this just a knee-jerk reaction?
I'm missing the part where he's a major proponent of international development. A brief ambassadorship to Indonesia, for example, isn't exactly a leading-edge redevelopment post. And note that the editorial, in trying to recommend Wolfowitz for the position, can't come up with anything better than that -- and the somewhat half-hearted "Oh, he's a bureaucrat and the World Bank is a bureaucracy" line.
[ March 18, 2005, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm missing the part where he's an opponent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. I look at Wolfowitz's policies and membership in PNAC and do not see someone overly obsessed with improving the lot of Third-World countries through generous debt relief. Do you?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the World Bank itself mught disagree with your assessment of what its mission is.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
(Sidenote, not worthy of another thread: I have to write about corruption in America, and I've discovered two of the books I have are by Arianna Huffington.
Is she generally a good source (in terms of truth) or am I going to end up with massive bias? I've tried to find this this out myself but to no real avail, only that she is an ex-right wing something or another who ran against Arnold Schwartzenegger.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Is she generally a good source (in terms of truth) or am I going to end up with massive bias?
The latter. Ann Coulter is a stinkin' pile of hatred, basically.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Um. I meant Arianna Huffington, not Ann Coulter... Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. Somehow I misread that. *rubs eyes* Sorry. Got a sick kid, and spent the day letting her lick my face. Probably impaired my higher brain functions a bit.
But, yeah, Huffington's also as biased as they come. She was a conservative dress-up doll for years until another conservative ragged on a gay friend of hers for being gay, and she was so shocked -- shocked, I tell you -- that she switched sides immediately and started making kissy faces at Al Franken.
But when you're talking about American pundits, you're not going to find anyone who isn't sensationalist or remarkably biased until you start picking up books without photos of the author. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: But when you're talking about American pundits, you're not going to find anyone who isn't sensationalist or remarkably biased until you start picking up books without photos of the author.
Pssst. That's a bit cruel and accusatory.
Truth is, they are blank covers on the two books- editions from my library. There aren't many books out there that dealt with the issue of corruption that I found- most were corporate, and I needed political. Dangerous subject, I know- which is why I asked.
But yeah. Don't make assumptions, even with young people like myself.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think Wolfowitz's biggest problem is likely to be one that article glosses over, Dag -- from the use of aid to support American aims (as Wolfowitz is a very strident advocate of) to the use of aid to combat poverty.
Wolfowitz's place in the incredibly flawed case for atomic development by Iraq lends me little hope for that transition being easy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But yeah. Don't make assumptions, even with young people like myself."
The assumption wasn't meant to reflect the reader. It was meant to reflect the vanity of our pundits -- and the cults of personality they use to sell their books.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
If I mistook you, I apologise, but it seemed to me that you were accusing me of being so naive to pick a book plastered with a grinning and waving Lockhart-type perfect-teeth bearing author.
I assure you, this is not the case. I may be naive, but I'm not that naive.
[ March 18, 2005, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nope. I'm saying that the vast majority of books written by pundits -- especially in this country -- are of that sort, and the valuable ones, in general, are not.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
S'all good then .
Yes, and it's my job to track down the valuable books among the slush. Preferably before Thursday!
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
Okay, I realize this is waaaaay upthread, and off-topic, and slightly inflammatory, but I want to point out that the US military does things besides defense.
And my husband has models of dumptrucks and graders on his desk. *grin*
He has personally been involved (on assignment with the Army) in building a community center/health center in Kosrae (Micronesia), a road system on the remote (but populated) Annette Islands in Alaska, and improving the ecology (can't remember exactly how, it was many years ago) of an endangered species of toad in Arizona.
So there.
On topic: I agree that the nominations are both bewildering AND ironic.
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
quote:is it your opinion -- as someone who is presumably not a raving liberal -- that only a raving liberal might find Bush's nominations so baffling in their seemingly deliberate thumb-biting that they would be forced to conclude that he's doing it to deliberately infuriate people smart enough to see the irony
You got it Tom. What is ironic about Bush appointing people to important posts that agree with him on the issues? I suppose if you were president you would seek to appoint those that would undermine you and work against administration policies?
I understand you are saying it is ironic that Bush would appoint people to head organizations that they have been critical of. This would only be ironic if Bush himself didn't see major problems with these same organizations. TAke the UN for example. Bush isn't a huge fan of the UN in its current state and he would like to change things so he appointed someone that feels the same way. Not at all ironic unless you are looking at the world with your liberal glasses on.
By the way, I am not a huge Bush fan. I voted for Harry Brown (the Libertarian candidate) 4 years ago. I did reluctantly vote for Bush in the past election because of my dissatisfaction with the libertarian stance on terrorism issues.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Jexx, the prime function of the military is to (in their own words...hell, Rush L. said it daily when Clinton used the military on peace misions) kill people and break things. The fact that the US spends gobs of money fixing them back up afterwards is just a bonus. I think a national Corp. of Engineers can be kept without having them kill people and break things first.
Maybe it should be a separate topic but in todays world, I honestly can't think of a reason to have a giant standing Army. We have nukes, tons of them. Who would want to upset someone with gobs of nukes? How does the miliary help us against terrorists? Hmmm...I honestly think our lives wouldn't change a tiny bit...and just think of the tax cuts! Or freed up money for more important purposes! All we need is a security force to protect things within this nation (like those nukes, for example) but beyond that, what else is there? Who would honestly try to invade? And why would they? I mean, I love "Red Dawn" as much as the next guy but I don't see the Cuban arm of the Soviets really dropping from the sky...nor their 21st century stand-ins. And if they did, the NRA would kill them dead. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You can't cut the American military. Where would those people go? It has, I suspect, reached a critical mass where it's only options are growth or implosion. Although, I suppose implosion is a cut of sorts
I don't know about Wolfowitz's appointment. But I do know that I don't like the man. Nor, I suspect, do many of the people that he's going to be working with. It's a curious appointment, in that he has no real experience with what the world bank is supposed to be doing. By which I mean he's neither a banker or a specialist on the effects of poverty. And no, I don't think being the ambassador to Indonesia when it was taking heavy loans counts as real experience. Maybe he gained familiarity, but that's hardly hands on.
And, to be perfectly frank, I don't trust for a second that he does/will view this as a multilateral organisation responsible for decreasing global poverty and increasing economic development. Increase America's economic development, sure. But he strikes me as the kind of man who will always put America first, something that isn't appropriate in this organisation.
Of course, his appointment isn't a sure thing. While it's supposed to rubber stamped the US did veto Caio Koch-Weser for the IMF, something that's theoretically also rubber stamped. I wonder if that'll play a part in his approval? The world of politics is nothing if not petty.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You got it Tom. What is ironic about Bush appointing people to important posts that agree with him on the issues?"
It depends entirely on your worldview, holden. Bush has this intriguing habit of appointing people to posts to specifically prevent the organizations to which they've been appointed from doing anything useful. If you agree that those organizations should not do anything useful -- for a given value of useful -- perhaps you might find this constructive.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And, yes, we should send someone who has respect for the UN as an institution to represent us at the UN, and at the very least should not send someone who has publicly disdained it. Need I explain why?![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)