Slashdot Mirror
Washington Post: Criticizing Leaders is Wrong
Dazan writes: "The Washington Post has an interesting op-ed piece on its website today, Mr. Wolfowitz and the Bank. The Post, a popular liberal paper, says that now that Paul Wolfowitz is heading the World Bank, 'People... should think carefully before they damage [the Bank] by attacking its new boss,' and that bringing up Wolfowitz's record is unhealthy. Of course it doesn't hurt for us all to watch what we say, expecially our newspapers. What does the Slashdot community think?"
Warmonger Wolfowitz could show some of the humility and courage John Paul II has, change the world through dialogue, rather than engineering tragic events so conveniently you may exert your will by force upon an unpopular adversary.
So Wolfowitz should start doing things like saying that condoms help spread AIDS and allow rampant pedophilia to go unchecked?
All the Washington Post's editors are saying is that we should criticize him for the work he does at the World Bank, not for past deeds.
And let's remember that it's not only the Post that's saying that. Liberals and right-wingers alike are saying similar things.
But let's remember the reality here. Wolfowitz has been cheerleading an attack on Iraq since the 1990s. Wolfowitz was a key advocate on the US invasion of Iraq which was planned from the first days of Bush taking power.
There's no debating those points. Wolfowitz's own words and many high-ranking Bush administrations officials have reported the above.
As such, this makes Wolfowitz a war criminal. He -- like Bush and others -- planned and waged/wages an aggressive war on a country in violation of int'l law and the UN Charter. Everyone from the Pope to the UN Secretary General to Tony Blair's closest advisors have said that the US/UK invasion of Iraq was illegal.
Remembering that reality, what the Post (and the others) are saying is, "we should allow war criminals to take the top post at the World Bank, it's no big deal."
I couldn't have said it better. Wolfowitz and his fellow cowards should rot in hell. W/R/T to the Post, I don't know how 'liberal' they are anymore. For instance, the other day we have this hatchet job http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A575 5-2005Mar27.html/
Which is basically a propaganda piece direct off the presses from Wolfowitz and his old buddies at the Whitehouse. Most notably, Diehl accuses Chavez of 'destroying' the economy of Venezuela. According to Economist, the Venezuelean economy grew at about 18% this year. Diehl also reports the terrifying news that Venezuela is buying 100,000 AK47;s and 25 or so fo the dreaded Brazilian made Super Tocanos
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazi l/emb312.htm/
According to the CIA world fact bookhttp://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/g eos/ve.html/
Venezuela spends about $1B/year on defense, or about 1/3 the amoun that neighborign Columbia gets in military aid from the US, or about 1/450th of the annual US defense budget. The US, unlike Venezuela, also has along history of invading and supporting terrorist movements in Latin America, So exactly which country is the destabilizing force?
Finally, to Diehl's main point, he is afraid that reporters will go to jail for deliberatly spreading false information. Having read Diehl's column, I'm not sure that is such a bad idea anymore.
The Washington Post hasn't been a liberal newspaper for some time now. Their cheerleading of Bush's lies about WMD - and of the subsequent illegal invasion of Iraq - proved that at least for now, the WashPost is just one more corporate media propaganda organ.
Only boring people are ever bored.