Richard Holbrooke Dead, Apparently From Torn Aorta

[FSTargetDrone]

MSNBC:

U.S. diplomat Holbrooke dies after tearing aorta

The special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan had been in the hospital since Friday

NBC, msnbc.com and news services
updated 1 minute ago 2010-12-14T01:18:02

BREAKING NEWS

Richard Holbrooke, a veteran U.S. diplomat who was the architect of the 1995 Bosnia peace plan and served as President Barack Obama's special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, has died, NBC News reported, citing a U.S. official. He was 69.

Officials were speaking on condition of anonymity because the family had yet to make a formal announcement of Holbrooke's death Monday in Washington.

Holbrooke's forceful style earned him nicknames such as "The Bulldozer" or "Raging Bull." He was admitted to George Washington University Hospital on Friday after he became ill. He had surgery on Saturday to repair a torn aorta.

The hospital was referring all inquiries to the State Department, which was expected to make an announcement.

His death came just hours after Obama had called Holbrooke "a towering figure in American foreign policy" who was a critical player in developing the administration's policy on Afghanistan.

'One of the giants'

"He is simply one of the giants of American foreign policy," Obama said Monday during a holiday reception at the State Department. Obama met briefly with Holbrooke's family before his remarks.

Earlier Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hailed Holbrooke's long service.

"He has given nearly 50 years of his life to serving the United States," Clinton said during a meeting in Canada.

Holbrooke was stricken Friday while at the State Department and was rushed to the hospital, where he underwent more than 20 hours of surgery to repair the tear and bleeding in his aorta.

A torn aorta is a condition in which a rip develops in the inner wall of the body's largest artery, allowing blood to enter the vessel wall and weaken it. The problem can lead to rapid death if not corrected. It causes serious internal bleeding, a loss of normal blood flow and possible complications in organs affected by the resulting lack of blood, according to medical experts.

It’s a rare condition, with cases estimated at between 5 and 30 per 1 million people each year. About 2,000 new cases occur in the U.S. annually. It’s more common in men than women, and in those between 60 and 70.

Holbrooke served under every Democratic president from John F. Kennedy to Obama in a lengthy career that began with a foreign service posting in Vietnam in 1962 after graduating from Brown University, and included time as a member of the U.S. delegation to the Paris Peace Talks on Vietnam.

His sizable ego, tenacity and willingness to push hard for diplomatic results won him both admiration and animosity.

"If Richard calls you and asks you for something, just say yes," former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said. "If you say no, you'll eventually get to yes, but the journey will be very painful."

He learned to become extremely informed about whatever country he was in, push for an exit strategy and look for ways to get those who live in a country to take increasing responsibility for their own security.

'Bulldog for the globe'

"He's a bulldog for the globe," Tim Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, once said.

The bearish Holbrooke said he has no qualms about "negotiating with people who do immoral things."

"If you can prevent the deaths of people still alive, you're not doing a disservice to those already killed by trying to do so," he said in 1999.

Born in New York City on April 24, 1941, Richard Charles Albert Holbrooke had an interest in public service from his early years. He was good friends in high school with a son of Dean Rusk and he grew close to the family of the man who would become a secretary of state for presidents Kennedy and Johnson.

Holbrooke was a young provincial representative for the U.S. Agency for International Development in South Vietnam and then an aide to two U.S. ambassadors in Saigon. At the Johnson White House, he wrote one volume of the Pentagon Papers, an internal government study of U.S. involvement in Vietnam that was completed in 1967.

The study, leaked in 1971 by a former Defense Department aide, had many damaging revelations, including a memo that stated the reason for fighting in Vietnam was based far more on preserving U.S. prestige than preventing communism or helping the Vietnamese.

After stints in and out of government — including as Peace Corps director in Morocco, editing positions at Foreign Policy and Newsweek magazines and adviser to Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign — Holbrooke became assistant secretary of state for Asian affairs from 1977-81. He then shifted back to private life — and the financial world, at Lehman Brothers.

A lifelong Democrat, he returned to public service when Bill Clinton took the White House in 1993. Holbrooke was U.S. ambassador to Germany from 1993 to 1994 and then assistant secretary of state for European affairs.

One of his signature achievements was brokering the Dayton Peace Accords that ended the war in Bosnia. He detailed the experience of negotiating the deal at an Air Force base near the Ohio city in his 1998 memoir, "To End a War."

James Dobbins, former U.S. envoy to Afghanistan who worked closely with Holbrooke early in their careers, called him a brilliant diplomat and said his success at the Dayton peace talks "was the turning point in the Clinton administration's foreign policy."

Holbrooke's efforts surrounding Dayton would later lead to controversy when wartime Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic told a war crimes tribunal in 2009 that Holbrooke had promised him immunity in return for leaving politics. Holbrooke denied the claim.

'No apologies' to Milosevic
Holbrooke left the State Department in 1996 to take a Wall Street job with Credit Suisse First Boston, but was never far from the international diplomatic fray, serving as a private citizen as a special envoy to Cyprus and then the Balkans.

In 1998, he negotiated an agreement with Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw Yugoslav forces from Kosovo where they were accused of conducting an ethnic cleansing campaign and allow international observers into the province.

"I make no apologies for negotiating with Milosevic and even worse people, provided one doesn't lose one's point of view," he said later.

When the deal fell apart, Holbrooke went to Belgrade to deliver the final ultimatum to Milosevic to leave Kosovo or face NATO airstrikes, which ultimately rained down on the capital.

"This isn't fun," he said of his Kosovo experience. "This isn't bridge or tennis. This is tough slogging."

Holbrooke returned to public service in 1999, when he became U.S. ambassador to the United Nations after a lengthy confirmation battle, stalled at first by ethics investigations into his business dealings and then unrelated Republican objections.

At the U.N., Holbrooke tried to broker peace in wartorn African nations. He led efforts to help refugees and fight AIDS in Africa. He also confronted U.N. anger over unpaid U.S. dues to the world body and persuaded 188 countries to overhaul the United Nations' financing and reduce U.S. payments.

"What's the point of being in the government if you don't try to make things better, which means trying to change things," Holbrooke told The Associated Press in a 2001 interview, reflecting on his time at the United Nations.

Holbrooke, with his long-standing ties to Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, was a strong supporter of her 2008 bid for the White House. He had been considered a favorite to become secretary of state if she had won. When she dropped out, he began reaching out to the campaign of Obama.

Reflecting on his role as Obama's special envoy, Holbrooke wrote in The Washington Post in March 2008 that "the conflict in Afghanistan will be far more costly and much, much longer than Americans realize. This war, already in its seventh year, will eventually become the longest in American history, surpassing even Vietnam."

Strained relations with Karzai

Holbrooke's relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai was strained after their heated meeting in 2009 over the fraud-tainted Afghan presidential election. Karzai brushed it off, saying he had "no problem at all with Mr. Holbrooke." But the U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan, not Holbrooke, were the ones who ended up developed the closest relations with the mercurial Afghan leader.

With his decades of service and long list of accomplishments in U.S. diplomacy, Holbrooke missed out on a tour as America's top diplomat, a job he was known to covet. As U.N. ambassador, he was a member of the Clinton Cabinet but his sometimes brash and combative style contrasted with that of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

At a ceremony to mark the fifth anniversary of the Dayton Peace Accords, Holbrooke bristled when was asked by a reporter if his views on the future of Kosovo — that it would eventually become independent — matched those of his boss.

"You mean, Madeleine?" he replied with a derisive snort, referring to Albright, who with others in the administration were publicly neutral on the question.

Holbrooke rejected direct comparisons between Afghanistan and Vietnam, but acknowledged similarities and repeatedly pressed the administration to do more to win the hearts and minds of both the Afghan and Pakistani people.

At the State Department ceremony in January 2009 when he was introduced as the special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Holbrooke spotted an old friend in the audience, John Negroponte, his one-time roommate in Saigon (the former South Vietnamese capital now called Ho Chi Minh City) who later was the first director of national intelligence and a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

"We remember those days well, and I hope we will produce a better outcome this time," Holbrooke said.

Holbrooke is survived by his wife, author Kati Marton, and two sons, David Dan Holbrooke and Anthony Andrew Holbrooke.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Holy shit that dude had some crappy luck with those kinds of statistics.

[K. A. Pital]

I find it somewhat hilarious he worked at the Bank of Evil former Lehman Brothers.

[weemadando]

The Colbert Report had a nice tribute.

[Talhe]

His last words were apparently "You've got to stop this war in Afghanistan."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 98_pf.html

[Thanas]

He was a very capable diplomat and served his country well.

[Thanas]

I find it somewhat hilarious he worked at the Bank of Evil former Lehman Brothers.

That is not true. He founded a consulting firm which was then bought by and became part of Lehman Brothers.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I find it somewhat hilarious he worked at the Bank of Evil former Lehman Brothers.

Worse. This odious piece of shit was also on the Board of Directors of AIG right before it imploded from its practices. He also was Asst. Secretary of State covering for Suharto* (whose "human rights record" he praised) while the U.S. was butchering those subhuman East Timorese (200,000 of a pre-occupation population of about 690,000), with a billion in U.S. arms. He also apologized for the WMD drivel on Iraq, and was helping manage our policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including preposterous apologism like "we're here with the public's support", a bald-faced lie. He's a vile war criminal of the von Ribbentrop variety who moonlighted as on of the investment bank executives responsible for one of the worst offenders of the 2007 financial crisis. Fuck him and I think its too bad there's not a Hell for him to roast in. I swear if I have to hear another self-serving Democrat-bot panegyric to this Walking Dictionary Definition of Hypocrisy, I might puke. Maybe Ollie North will die this week too and it'll be a week of justice.

*Suharto's Greatest Hits: http://www.alternet.org/news/148451/sur ... age=entire

To counter Indonesia's powerful Communist Party, known as the PKI, the army's Red Berets organized the slaughter of tens of thousands of men, women and children. So many bodies were dumped into the rivers of East Java that they ran red with blood.

In a classic psy-war tactic, the bloated carcasses also served as a political warning to villages down river.

"To make sure they didn't sink, the carcasses were deliberately tied to, or impaled on, bamboo stakes," wrote eyewitness Pipit Rochijat. "And the departure of corpses from the Kediri region down the Brantas achieved its golden age when bodies were stacked on rafts over which the PKI banner proudly flew." [See Rochijat's "Am I PKI or Non-PKI?" Indonesia, Oct. 1985.]

Some historians have attributed the grotesque violence to a crazed army which engaged in "unplanned brutality" or "mass hysteria" leading ultimately to the slaughter of some half million Indonesians, many of Chinese descent.

But the recurring tactic of putting bodies on gruesome display fits as well with the military doctrines of psy-war, a word that one of the leading military killers used in un-translated form in one order demanding elimination of the PKI.

Sarwo Edhie, chief of the political para-commando battalion known as the Red Berets, warned that the communist opposition "should be given no opportunity to concentrate/consolidate. It should be pushed back systematically by all means, including psy-war." [See The Revolt of the G30S/PKI and Its Suppression, translated by Robert Cribb in The Indonesian Killings.]

Sarwo Edhie had been identified as a CIA contact when he served at the Indonesian Embassy in Australia. [See Pacific, May-June 1968.]

US Media Sympathy

Elite U.S. reaction to the horrific slaughter was muted and has remained ambivalent ever since. The Johnson administration denied any responsibility for the massacres, but New York Times columnist James Reston spoke for many opinion leaders when he approvingly termed the bloody developments in Indonesia "a gleam of light in Asia."

Ah yes, the U.S. Establishment, for whom a river of Nazi-style-spilled Commie blood is a "gleam of shining light!" Dizzy with success!

[K. A. Pital]

This odious piece of shit was also on the Board of Directors of AIG right before it imploded from its practices.

What?! Yeah, couldn't happen to a nicer person. Veteran of "diplomacy" indeed - his shit in Indonesia and AIG alone are enough to consider him scum, the rest is just icing on the cake. And yeah, thank you Holbrooke for the Afghani opium that kills hundreds of thousands of people.

...one of the most cost-effective steps Washington could take would be to boost the agriculture sector of Afghanistan, which in years past had been a productive and profitable source of exports. Replicate the past success, he said, and Afghans would have money and jobs—and that, in turn, would create stability in the country. He called for 'a complete rethink' of the drug problem in Afghanistan, suggesting that draconian eradication programs were bound to fail.

"Past success"? He had the gall to call drugs "agriculture". I'm not sure what to say and to add, because I'm almost speechless.

[Thanas]

Regarding Indonesia - it depends on whether he was writing the policy or ordered to execute it.

As for Afghanistan, he is not talking about drugs, but for a) ending the war on opium farmers, due to it just alienating the population and b) the support for the export of nuts and fruit, which Afghanistan has many ideal grounds for.

[K. A. Pital]

Regarding Indonesia - it depends on whether he was writing the policy or ordered to execute it.

I think he came to investigate Sukharto's deeds, but ended up praising him.

As for Afghanistan, he is not talking about drugs, but for a) ending the war on opium farmers, due to it just alienating the population and b) the support for the export of nuts and fruit, which Afghanistan has many ideal grounds for.

Problem is, the "complete rethink" on the Afghanistan drugs problem has not worked. The consequences of Afghanistan's drug flow are quite severe for Afghanistan itself and for other nations.

[Talhe]

I'm a bit surprised (well, not really) that the Unites States is so dead-set against opium. It can be used for painkillers, and both Turkey and India supply it for the United States. If the United States simply bought it, I wonder how large of a problem it would be.

Of course, my knowledge of Afghanistan is somewhat spotty, and I'm probably wrong about this in some manner.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Regarding Indonesia - it depends on whether he was writing the policy or ordered to execute it.

That sounds awful close to the Nuremberg Defense. I stand by my comparison of him to a low-rent, mini von Ribbentrop. Why am I obliged to care about his death if he was called upon - ordered or not - to serve the function of aiding U.S. genocidal imperial policy? A third of the population of East Timor was obliterated in this period. The UN report on East Timor said that U.S. support in this period was vital in supplying and securing diplomatic cover for the atrocities. This man was an inveterate lair and opportunist who would perform any function no matter how odious and hypocritical at the whim of the state: he is also accused by the the lawyer of the Srebrenica victims of cutting deals with Serb war criminals (http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/65316.html), and again, he totally lied through his teeth until his dying day to apologize for U.S. war efforts in Af-Pak, including the preposterous claim that they want us there, which he surely knows (as any good liberal who reads the Brookings Institute's public polling studies in the Middle East) that that is an outrageous lie. Or if one insists upon giving him the benefit of a doubt, he's a completely incompetent useless diplomat who has no idea what's going on in his own area-of-responsibility. If any of you saw Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story, Holbrooke here was one of those "Friends of Angelo" - the head of Countrywide Financial - who could get non-market-priced sweetheart homes; kickbacks for the servants of state, I guess.

I don't see why I should feel bad. So the Democratic Party's Henry Kissinger died, so what? Would anyone lead candle light vigils for him? Oliver North? This is just an opportunity to praise and build hagiography around a Grey Eminence of American imperialism. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Quick remark; the video-link is a separate proof of claim that he cut deals over Serb war criminals. This guy just goes to prove that No Bad Deed Goes Unrewarded, and what extent to which American liberals will circle the wagon and beat the drum in hushed veneration of those who will Lie In Defense Of The State.

He is survived by a family that will want for nothing for what he extracted at Lehman-AIG from American and global working people.

I mean, one can only imagine how the U.S. media would treat Holbrooke if he had done all the same things for an Official Enemy Power, maybe Russia? The hysteria and self-righteous condemnation can scarcely be imagined. I mean, look at what lengths the Western wire and desk news services will go to "cleanse" and post detail-redacted hagiographies. They know when to be too polite to notice inconvenient facts about U.S. elite figures.

[Thanas]

As for Afghanistan, he is not talking about drugs, but for a) ending the war on opium farmers, due to it just alienating the population and b) the support for the export of nuts and fruit, which Afghanistan has many ideal grounds for.

Problem is, the "complete rethink" on the Afghanistan drugs problem has not worked. The consequences of Afghanistan's drug flow are quite severe for Afghanistan itself and for other nations.

Ah, so we are now no longer talking about him wanting to promote drugs as crops? The problem with the previous policy was that it infuriated the populace even more with little success at all. Change in that will only come if the economy in Afghanistan gets better and other crops start to become profitable. Which IMO is a much saner approach than "hey, lets just destroy the fields and pretend we do something".

That sounds awful close to the Nuremberg Defense.

If you say so, then you might as well indict every ambassador that has ever lived, because lying for the strategic aims of a country they serve is pretty much their job description.

I stand by my comparison of him to a low-rent, mini von Ribbentrop. Why am I obliged to care about his death if he was called upon - ordered or not - to serve the function of aiding U.S. genocidal imperial policy?

I do not give a damn whether you care about his death or not, however ascribing the blame of the effects of US policy to a career diplomat is a bit idiotic, unless these were his recommendations or ideas, because such decisions are not made at that level.

e totally lied through his teeth until his dying day to apologize for U.S. war efforts in Af-Pak, including the preposterous claim that they want us there, which he surely knows (as any good liberal who reads the Brookings Institute's public polling studies in the Middle East) that that is an outrageous lie.

Oh for crying out loud. He was the freaking taskmaster of Obama in that region. What else is he to say in that position? Shall he voluntarily divest himself of any political capital?

[Illuminatus Primus]

That sounds awful close to the Nuremberg Defense.

If you say so, then you might as well indict every ambassador that has ever lived, because lying for the strategic aims of a country they serve is pretty much their job description.

Lying in defense of war crimes or aggressive war is a Nuremberg Crime. If we actually cared about enforcing it, yeah, most of the U.S. defense-foreign policy establishment would be hung for crimes against peace and war crimes. I'd have no problem with that. Claiming that "orders" alleviate one's personal responsibility for the crime is universally known - and derided - as the Nuremberg Defense. How is what I said not a fair reflection of the definitions of those terms and their historical employment?

I stand by my comparison of him to a low-rent, mini von Ribbentrop. Why am I obliged to care about his death if he was called upon - ordered or not - to serve the function of aiding U.S. genocidal imperial policy?

I do not give a damn whether you care about his death or not, however ascribing the blame of the effects of US policy to a career diplomat is a bit idiotic, unless these were his recommendations or ideas, because such decisions are not made at that level.

You don't have to ride the insider track to being a Democratic Party Grey Eminence and investment bank piece of shit. And certainly not expect to cash out and be hagiographed and censored by the "liberal" media who is sure to omit what might shed doubts on the discretionary uses of state power.

He totally lied through his teeth until his dying day to apologize for U.S. war efforts in Af-Pak, including the preposterous claim that they want us there, which he surely knows (as any good liberal who reads the Brookings Institute's public polling studies in the Middle East) that that is an outrageous lie.

Oh for crying out loud. He was the freaking taskmaster of Obama in that region. What else is he to say in that position? Shall he voluntarily divest himself of any political capital?

[/quote]

Again, do you use these excuses with von Ribbentrop? Did von Ribbentrop have to be a Hitler fanboy? No he chose to, accepted his orders, and we hung him until he was dead for it. I fail to see the gap in logic.

[Thanas]

Lying in defense of war crimes or aggressive war is a Nuremberg Crime. If we actually cared about enforcing it, yeah, most of the U.S. defense-foreign policy establishment would be hung for crimes against peace and war crimes. I'd have no problem with that. Claiming that "orders" alleviate one's personal responsibility for the crime is universally known - and derided - as the Nuremberg Defense. How is what I said not a fair reflection of the definitions of those terms and their historical employment?

Because the very definition of a job of an ambassador involves lying for the country. Which is why most of the Nazi ambassadors - besides Ribbentropp - were not accused or implicated at Nuremberg. Ribbentropp is of course different because he had the ability to set policy, which is why the same thing is different for Holbrooke.

You don't have to ride the insider track to being a Democratic Party Grey Eminence and investment bank piece of shit.

Right. Evidence that Holbrooke is responsible for the lehmann brothers scandal?

Again, do you use these excuses with von Ribbentrop? Did von Ribbentrop have to be a Hitler fanboy? No he chose to, accepted his orders, and we hung him until he was dead for it. I fail to see the gap in logic.

Ribbentrop was directly responsible due to setting policy, such as the policy towards emigrating jews, advocating the policy of shooting captured pilots etc. However, you have yet to produce a shred of evidence that Holbrooke was in any way responsible for setting the policy of the USA towards Indonesia.

[Guardsman Bass]

Right. Evidence that Holbrooke is responsible for the lehmann brothers scandal?

I doubt he had any direct role in it. Big companies do that all the time, giving honorary board positions to important former US officials - the hope is that they'll help with the lobbying in Washington.

[K. A. Pital]

As for Afghanistan, he is not talking about drugs, but for a) ending the war on opium farmers, due to it just alienating the population and b) the support for the export of nuts and fruit, which Afghanistan has many ideal grounds for.

Problem is, the "complete rethink" on the Afghanistan drugs problem has not worked. The consequences of Afghanistan's drug flow are quite severe for Afghanistan itself and for other nations.

Ah, so we are now no longer talking about him wanting to promote drugs as crops? The problem with the previous policy was that it infuriated the populace even more with little success at all. Change in that will only come if the economy in Afghanistan gets better and other crops start to become profitable. Which IMO is a much saner approach than "hey, lets just destroy the fields and pretend we do something".

And yet, it somehow worked before the Americans. Their "saner" approach required ten years of exceptional drug flow from Afghanistan and yet it's economy is in no shape to do shit. The do-nothing approach is a good idea, except it doesn't work. The USA doesn't buy up Afghanistan's opium.

Besides, like I said, AIG and Sukharto are enough, the rest is icing.

That sounds awful close to the Nuremberg Defense.

If you say so, then you might as well indict every ambassador that has ever lived, because lying for the strategic aims of a country they serve is pretty much their job description.

Bald statement there, Thanas. I thought the aims of ambassadors are to promote the interests of their nation. And not only by lying. In fact, lying is considered a bad idea because now a lot of stuff can flow free in the internet, like Wikileaks.

[Thanas]

And yet, it somehow worked before the Americans. Their "saner" approach required ten years of exceptional drug flow from Afghanistan and yet it's economy is in no shape to do shit. The do-nothing approach is a good idea, except it doesn't work. The USA doesn't buy up Afghanistan's opium.

It did not really work before, and the policy that curbed the stuff was that the Taliban started beheading people. Do you support the USA killing civilians without trial now?

Besides, like I said, AIG and Sukharto are enough, the rest is icing.

Except that both are pretty much unproven as to far actual wrongdoing is concerned, especially the first one. Yeah, he released a flattering report, I'll give you that. But the rest is still pretty much nothing unless it can be proven that he set policy.

That sounds awful close to the Nuremberg Defense.

If you say so, then you might as well indict every ambassador that has ever lived, because lying for the strategic aims of a country they serve is pretty much their job description.

Bald statement there, Thanas. I thought the aims of ambassadors are to promote the interests of their nation. And not only by lying. In fact, lying is considered a bad idea because now a lot of stuff can flow free in the internet, like Wikileaks.

Don't play this game Stas, you obviously understand what I mean. If the higher up perceive it in the best interest of a nation that an ambassador lies, then the ambassador is expected to lie. Yes, it is the job's description.

[K. A. Pital]

How does this relieve the executioner of a policy from the collective responsibility, however? If his higher-ups force him to lie, condone crimes or financial machinations, he is totally exempt from any responsibility for these acts now, is he?

As for his AIG job, what exactly is "unproven"? He was on the board of directors from 2001 to 2008, when AIG engaged in the speculation that later caused it to collapse and require billions of state funds to "save" it. You cannot be on the board of directors of a large corporation and not know about the speculation it runs.

[Guardsman Bass]

As for his AIG job, what exactly is "unproven"? He was on the board of directors from 2001 to 2008, when AIG engaged in the speculation that later caused it to collapse and require billions of state funds to "save" it. You cannot be on the board of directors of a large corporation and not know about the speculation it runs.

"Knowing" is not the same thing as having influence over it, assuming he even knew much about it (from what I've been reading, AIG was a very fragmented business, with little in the way of communication and coordination amongst its various departments even before Hank Greenberg was ousted from the CEO). As I mentioned earlier, US companies would do this all the time, offering board positions to former politicians in the hopes that it will bring better connections in Washington. It doesn't mean that they play any serious role in the top-level decision-making.

[Illuminatus Primus]

If they have no command responsibility for what goes on in their corporation, on what even theoretical pretext should they have such enormous personal remunerations we all need to "understand" is for their "talent", and there should be limited liability for the shareholders? Who is in a practical sense responsible for the consequences of these institutions' actions? Obviously this is a rhetorical question, because its obvious to all with eyes to see and ears to hear that there are zero practical responsibilities corporate and state elites ever live up to, in our ostensibly "democratic" society.

I swear, nowadays it seems mainstream concepts of responsibility are construed to be so diffuse and patched up with ad hoc self-serving qualifications such that no one in an advanced capitalist country is ever really responsible for anything bad; its like a belief system purpose-built to ensure you only find bad guys where the U.S. State Department does in "non-state actors" or "rogue states" (which I'm sure are such un-'fragmented' organizations). Never in among the cultured and enlightened. I mean I still get mandated reading Jeffrey Sachs in development class even though his advice is associated with a contraction "more than twice as bad" as the Great Depression in Russia. The only way to lose credibility as a Western insider is to mention the Emperor's (lack) of a wardrobe. Everything else is forgivable and someone else's fault and complicated and blah blah blah. Try use a single iota of those qualifications in describing complicating political situations in unapproved societies: nope, then you can just use the all-purpose moniker "dictator" (regardless if its factually inaccurate, for instance a functional oligarchy).

One gets the distinct impression that they've never, ever seen a rich white guy who is talked about nicely in privileged circles who they find unambiguously responsible for anything bad ever or deserving of something less than a famous fucking life with a hagiography on 24/7 news, lavished with universal praise by the public's disciplinarians in the educated class, and a life free of substantively social productive work because you can take sinecure investment banking jobs to ensure competition-and-democracy-defeating access for management. What a great statesman. I'm awe-struck.

Thanas: Okay, point taken. He's a lame piece of shit cog in an imperial atrocity machine. Regardless if he ought to have a noose around his neck on Nuremberg legal grounds, the way this is being covered in 99% of outlets and commentators is a fucking whitewash.

This makes him less worthy of positive and hagiographic celebration, not more. He was just a fucking tool.

[Illuminatus Primus]

As for his AIG job, what exactly is "unproven"? He was on the board of directors from 2001 to 2008, when AIG engaged in the speculation that later caused it to collapse and require billions of state funds to "save" it. You cannot be on the board of directors of a large corporation and not know about the speculation it runs.

"Knowing" is not the same thing as having influence over it, assuming he even knew much about it (from what I've been reading, AIG was a very fragmented business, with little in the way of communication and coordination amongst its various departments even before Hank Greenberg was ousted from the CEO). As I mentioned earlier, US companies would do this all the time, offering board positions to former politicians in the hopes that it will bring better connections in Washington. It doesn't mean that they play any serious role in the top-level decision-making.

I don't understand why there is such apologia for people who take the blood money and then want to have their ass smell like roses on the other end. Maybe they could not prostitute themselves out, there's a(n unthinkable) thought.

Why is it so radical the idea that if you take the money, you take some of the responsibility and you can fairly be labeled a piece of shit? Does anyone engage in such strenuous legalistic excuses for some self-serving asshole as this for how you're not being quite fair in calling him an asshole quite like that, if it is not a Grey Eminence of Democratic Party?

[Guardsman Bass]

As for his AIG job, what exactly is "unproven"? He was on the board of directors from 2001 to 2008, when AIG engaged in the speculation that later caused it to collapse and require billions of state funds to "save" it. You cannot be on the board of directors of a large corporation and not know about the speculation it runs.

"Knowing" is not the same thing as having influence over it, assuming he even knew much about it (from what I've been reading, AIG was a very fragmented business, with little in the way of communication and coordination amongst its various departments even before Hank Greenberg was ousted from the CEO). As I mentioned earlier, US companies would do this all the time, offering board positions to former politicians in the hopes that it will bring better connections in Washington. It doesn't mean that they play any serious role in the top-level decision-making.

I don't understand why there is such apologia for people who take the blood money and then want to have their ass smell like roses on the other end. Maybe they could not prostitute themselves out, there's a(n unthinkable) thought.

What the fuck are you rambling about, and what does it have to do with the likelihood that Holbrooke had little influence and knowledge over AIG's policies regarding the Subprime Crisis?

Why is it so radical the idea that if you take the money, you take some of the responsibility and you can fairly be labeled a piece of shit? Does anyone engage in such strenuous legalistic excuses for some self-serving asshole as this for how you're not being quite fair in calling him an asshole quite like that, if it is not a Grey Eminence of Democratic Party?

I personally don't care much for Holbrooke, for reasons mainly of competence (he comes across as an asshole in Woodward's account of the Obama administration and the Afghan War). However, that does not make him a "Nuremburg" criminal, and if you are going to be throwing around accusations like that, expect some of them to be answered.

If they have no command responsibility for what goes on in their corporation, on what even theoretical pretext should they have such enormous personal remunerations we all need to "understand" is for their "talent", and there should be limited liability for the shareholders?

Simply because the company's leadership (as approved by the share-holders) was willing to pay him that amount, and he was willing to accept it. No other justification is necessary.

Who is in a practical sense responsible for the consequences of these institutions' actions? Obviously this is a rhetorical question, because its obvious to all with eyes to see and ears to hear that there are zero practical responsibilities corporate and state elites ever live up to, in our ostensibly "democratic" society.

It was likely not Holbrooke, for the reason I mentioned.