Leftist's target of the week: Paul Wolfowitz

[The Avon Lady]

From the Tenet Book thread:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Yes, it's the same Wolfowitz who promised to fight corruption in the IMF, and now is under siege by almost everybody at the IMF for having acted corrupt himself.

Here's another opinion of who and what's corrupt at the World Bank:

Africans for Wolfowitz - Third World reformers resist a coup by rich Europeans.

Look in your own back yard first, Skybird.

I never though I would bring up this subject but the amount of fiction being passed as fact by people of certain leanings on this forum has reached absurd levels.

[GlobalExplorer]

Yeah another evil European coup revealed, oh you feel so ashamed for being a European .. not

[The Avon Lady]

The fish are biting.

[Takeda Shingen]

And the game warden is watching.

[The Avon Lady]

Hey! I threw it back in!

[U-533]

I wonder if it's a bag limit or slot...could be a size...:hmm:




:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
OH! I slay me sometimes!!

[Skybird]

However, AL, however.

[OddjobXL]

I'd have to see a story from a neutral source on this topic before giving it too much credibility. We're talking about an unsigned editorial from the Wall Street Journal whose staff, to my reckoning, hasn't been too preoccupied with the well-being of the developing world before now. However they do have a very long history of flying to the defense of those who got us into Iraq presumably because they helped lead the charge, and the later covering action, themselves.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by OddjobXL

I'd have to see a story from a neutral source on this topic before giving it too much credibility. We're talking about an unsigned editorial from the Wall Street Journal whose staff, to my reckoning, hasn't been too preoccupied with the well-being of the developing world before now. However they do have a very long history of flying to the defense of those who got us into Iraq presumably because they helped lead the charge, and the later covering action, themselves.

The usual response. Can't trust anyone on the right.

But the left - hey - they're neutral.

You play this game all the time. If you wish to point out the lies in the WSJ piece, go ahead and do so. So far, all you can do is baselessly demonize.

[OddjobXL]

What I'm reciting is the track record we have and asking for a neutral source on this story. What I haven't said is that it isn't true. WSJ op eds are an eyesblink lower than the average blog in quality. That doesn't mean the story isn't right but it does mean I'm going to be skeptical until shown I've no reason to be.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by OddjobXL

What I'm reciting is the track record we have and asking for a neutral source on this story. What I haven't said is that it isn't true. WSJ op eds are an eyesblink lower than the average blog in quality. That doesn't mean the story isn't right but it does mean I'm going to be skeptical until shown I've no reason to be.

Yet you seem to not be the least skeptical about Skybird's quote. And what does that hint about your impartiality? You're more transparent than you appear.

[OddjobXL]

Yes, because the media which is considered (whether or not one thinks they deserve it much of the time) mainstream and reliable has focused on Wolfowitz's actions with his girlfriend and it does look very, very, shady. Don't you think so? Maybe I'm a sucker who's falling for an evil international conspiracy being run by greedy European powers, and if that's so I'd rather know sooner than later, but an editorial from the pages of the WSJ isn't going to really help me out in that regard. They've close to zero credibility in my book.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by OddjobXL

Yes, because the media which is considered (whether or not one thinks they deserve it much of the time) mainstream and reliable has focused on Wolfowitz's actions with his girlfriend and it does look very, very, shady. Don't you think so?

Sounds like something out of People Magazine.

MAybe you'd like to chase down the WSJ editorial from 2 weeks ago mentioned in this piece I linked to today, that states:

"The noisy leaking and staff protests are aimed at getting Mr. Wolfowitz to make their life easy by resigning. But that would only validate their campaign to oust him for giving his girlfriend a raise that the bank's own ethics committee advised him to deliver after he had tried to recuse himself. Since our editorial reported on all of these "ethics" details two weeks ago, no one has even tried to dispute our facts. The critics have shifted to a new line that, because his "credibility" has been damaged by these selective smears, Mr. Wolfowitz must now resign "for the good of the bank."

Is that true or false? Do you know? If it is true, it does look very, very, shady indeed. Don't you think so?

Maybe I'm a sucker who's falling for an evil international conspiracy being run by greedy European powers, and if that's so I'd rather know sooner than later, but an editorial from the pages of the WSJ isn't going to really help me out in that regard. They've close to zero credibility in my book.

I have the same opinion of people who can't do anything better than smear those they shudder to think might actually know the facts.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Maybe you'd like to chase down the WSJ editorial from 2 weeks ago

Never mind. I did it for you: The Wolfowitz Files.

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Never mind. I did it for you: The Wolfowitz Files.

I'm afraid you wasted your time AL.

Originally Posted by OddjobXL
WSJ isn't going to really help me out in that regard. They've close to zero credibility in my book.