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?"

Comments

Well, clearly that's B.S....

[Jooly Rodney]

...but "liberal" newspapers often have conservative stuff show up on their op-ed page -- witness David Brooks @ NYT.

Quite the misrepresentation...

[David Ziegler]

The submitter seemed to read what seemed to fit his view. The quote with context:

People who care about this institution and its mission -- as many of Mr. Wolfowitz's detractors do -- should think carefully before they damage it by attacking its new boss. Criticism of Mr. Wolfowitz's agenda for the bank may be healthy once that agenda emerges. But preemptive condemnation because of the Iraq war is not.

To be more precise, the article (for those of you who haven't read it) says that Wolfowitz should not be prematurely criticized because of his role in the Iraq war.

Mr. Wolfowitz's critics, domestic as well as international, should now get beyond their dislike of his role in the Iraq war and give him a chance to succeed at one of the world's hardest jobs.

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.

Oh, Gee, Just another April Fools joke...

[StevenMaurer]

... wait a minute ... it isn't

Two thoughts:

#1 What a sublime joke from the Slashdot editors, slipping in a real news article among the obvious jokes. A NASA paper airplane is far more believable than thinking the Washington Post editoralizing like Pravda. I was suitably misled.

#2 Be afraid for our nation. Be very afraid.

Can the Title be any more Misleading?

[popo]

The article doesn't suggest that criticising leaders is wrong in any way. What it does suggest is that perhaps Europeans were somewhat hypocritical in their objections to Wolfowitz.

Once again we're forced to recognise that 'there are no good guys' in government -- either American or European.

Yes it is wrong for the Europeans to be *more* critical of Wolfowitz than any other European candidate (as European selection processes and motivations are no more or less egalitarian than America's). But what we should (and by 'we' I mean Europeans and Americans) all be doing is being more critical of leadership in general.

I disagree

[No Such Agency]

So if the guy's a dangerous, unprincipled hack, with a history of putting corporate profit ahead of human rights and life, we should just ignore all the past evidence of that and wait and see what happens when he runs the freaking World Bank?!

this isn't an accident

[idlake]

Bush may be a moron, but his administration isn't stupid. When they appoint people like Wolfowitz or Bolton to participate in international organizations, they know full well what the consequences are inevitably going to be.

If people acquiesce like the WP suggests, then you just let these people get away with murder. If you speak up and expose these people for what they are, then you do indeed risk of damaging those organizations, but if people like those can come to power in those organizations, then maybe there is something fundamentally wrong with the way those organizations are set up, and maybe those organizations should be replaced.