 $42.99 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
But for fifty bucks you get twenty-two hours of pretty good TV! |
Posted on 05/01/2007 12:32:28 PM PDT by dervish
FOR the past few weeks, the world has been riveted by the difficulties of Paul Wolfowitz, president of the World Bank, regarding a potential conflict of interest involving the salary of his partner, also a senior official there. With the bank’s board deliberating this week over how to handle the charges, the controversy now needlessly and regrettably threatens Mr. Wolfowitz’s presidency, which has been largely defined by his energetic support for a new Africa that is struggling to emerge.
Over the last two years, Mr. Wolfowitz has effectively directed the bank’s energies toward fighting poverty and improving human life. He is a champion of using international development institutions to deal with some of the world’s major problems. And he has been a steadfast supporter of the efforts of African organizations to rescue our people from the scourge of misrule, which leads to poverty, disease and early death.
Over the last three years, Nigeria, once the emblem of outlandish corruption, has become a leading reformer, and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, which I head, has been at the cutting edge of these efforts. The enormous challenges we face would have proved almost insurmountable without external help, especially from the World Bank under Mr. Wolfowitz.
When disgruntled lawmakers here tried to cut off our financing and shut down critical aspects of our operation, a World Bank grant of $5 million allowed us to bring to closure important cases of political corruption involving key members of Nigeria’s ruling elite, including members of the executive branch and Parliament.
'snip'
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Wolfowitz is one of Washington’s bureaucratic insiders. For this reason alone he should be fired.
I really can’t believe the NYT published this... I’m speechless, really.
See post #3 for the answer. ;)
Oops...#2, that is.
I think bureaucratic turn over is good. Especially when cronyism and “poor judgement “ is exhibited when it comes with my tax dollars.
I think he should stay simply because he pisses off liberals.
Unlike the runaways at State and the CIA, Mr Wolfowitz has been a loyal member of Pres Bush’s team and followed the agenda set by the President. The hatchet job being done on him now is the product of European’s miffed at how he is tackling corruption and appointing outsiders (read the article) - the same European crowd that runs the UN.
If you see this as positive you are misreading it. Wolfowitz, though a long time government employee, represents the ‘new’ here not the old way.
Wolfowitz an insider? Well, maybe, but all the other insiders hate his guts.
I’m not sure why they ran this editorial, but the writer is not a timesman. He is a Nigerian, who evidently appreciates the fact that Wolfowitz is actually trying to use World Bank money to help people, instead of using it all to promote third-world abortion and arcane global warming nonsense.
Africa is already full of dying people. They really don’t need more “family planning,” which they are already getting from the UN and the Euroswine. They need help improving their economies, which the conservative Wolfowitz does better than some nincompoop leftist.
It is unusual for the Times to run this, but once in a blue moon they do the right thing.
But it's depressing--
He knew the waters had sharks
but he still got bit
over a stupid
affair with a staff woman.
If he can't handle
the in-house bad guys
out to get him, how could he
play on the world stage
where the real bad guys
presumably play harder
than disgruntled staff?
That Mr Wolfowitz pisses off marxist liberals speaks volumes about the profound commitment to corruption and totalitarianism espoused by these elitists.
His commitment to do good backed up by real action is an insufferable affront to the lovers of tyranny. Let his enemies be cursed and villified. They deserve no better.
This personal loyalty is what created the problem with the war in Iraq. Those who spoke truth, like Army chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, were marginalized and put out to pasture. Wolfowitz was part of the crowd that sided with Rumsfeld in the inter-pentagon strife before the war. Being a retired army officer, I will trust the institution of the army always above politicians looking to advance their career. You might recall that Wolfowitz later said that Gen. Shinseki's estimate of the number of soldiers required to subdue Iraq was off the mark. How would Wolfowitz know? Did he ever attend an officer advanced course? The command and general staff college? The war college? Those are the institutions that study such military actions as campaigns.
Based upon this, my experience at the pentagon, and my study at the command and general staff officer's course, I conclude that Mr. Wolfowitz is just another pencil necked geek bureacrat at DoD whose bureaucratic infighting skills trumped the professional advice of the US army.
That is why I have no use for him and I hope he gets fired!
Any money or other type of aid to any part of Africa for any cause is wasted. The closest Africa has come to being part of civilized society was during colonizations. I’ve seen this for 70+ years.
Right on sir. Thanks for your service from an old USAF E-7.
My understanding is that Wolfowitz recused himself over employment & compensation questions involving his girlfriend. The people to whom he delegated the decision-making gave her the raise, then said Wolfowitz was responsible. They basically knifed him in the back. The real obsenity is that he’ll probably still be fired over this situation when he handled it perfectly.
I hope you don’t mind this amateur asking you this question:
How much did the rapid, unconventional takedown of Afghanistan affect the strategic & operational thinking toward Operation Iraqi Freedom? In a lot of ways we were a victim of our own success — which is not unprecedented in warfare.
I was retired at the time and out of the loop. Any answer I would give to your question would just be speculation.
I have been commenting here on FR since 1999. Some of my earlier posts even before the invasion of Iraq reflect a distrust of Mr. Rumsfeld because I thougt he was looking to win a war cheaply while accepting what we call strategic risk.
I'm a little pressed for time. Later on I will expand on my comments if you are still interested.
Speaking of Wolfie. It’s interesting to note what it costs these days to get a woman to stick her tongue in an old man’s mouth.
$42.99 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
But for fifty bucks you get twenty-two hours of pretty good TV! |
he should stay just for his work on Iraq
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.