It had been rumored for several weeks and now CNN is confirming that George W. Bush is nominating…. the lightning rod of lightning rods… Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank. Wolfowitz is a man who has been condemned for being, of all things, an idealist - worse, an idealist who seems these days to have been right. For a while he looked like the ultimate version of “No good deed goes unpunished.” Now he’s proposed to president of the World Bank. Good for Bush.
UPDATE: IMF support for Wolfowitz. And from The Guardian:
Reports from Washington indicated that Mr Wolfowitz’s nomination had not gone down favourably with European directors. Reuters reported that Mr Wolfowitz’s name was circulated informally among board directors several weeks ago and was rejected.
But Mr Wolfowitz has precedent on his side as no nomination has ever been rejected.
Lest we forget, the fuddy duddies at The Guardian remind us:
Robert McNamara, the US secretary of defence when America sank into the Vietnam quagmire, was president of the World Bank from 1968 to 1981.
PJM Home
18 Comments
1. Hovig:BUSH: I hereby nominate Paul Wolfowitz.
EUROPEAN LEADER: [gasps] You’re joking.
BUSH: [smiles slightly] Oh. Should I send him back to the Pentagon?
EURO: No, no! Sorry, my mistake! Umm, Vulfovitz, ja, I mean yes, great choice, vunder– uhh– wonderful guy, great to see him get away from– umm– promoted from the Pentagon position….
Mar 16, 2005 - 7:06 am 2. OJ:I am not sure of Wolfowitz’s credentials to head a financial institution. I personally think he has done a fantastic job advicing the President on military and defense matters yet I am not sure if this will translate well to the World Bank. It seems to me that 1) there are better people suited for the WB and 2) there are better positions for Wolfowitz. I could be wrong though as I have not looked at the man’s CV.
Mar 16, 2005 - 7:21 am 3. JBR:Does anyone know who will replace Wolfowitz at the Defense Department?
Mar 16, 2005 - 7:21 am 4. Bruce W.:I nominate Victor Davis Hanson to Paul’s current post.
Anyone second that?
Mar 16, 2005 - 7:37 am 5. Eric Akawie:Well, everyone knows those Neo-cons are good with money.
Mar 16, 2005 - 7:43 am 6. richard mcenroe:Oh, yeah, sure, now that those third world countries can’t ditch their Visa bills by Chapter 7, the neocons want to run the bank… *g*
Mar 16, 2005 - 8:06 am 7. jerry:J&R:
If past is prologue then it will be the current USDI, Dr. Steve Cambone. The positive news from the Mideast will probably negate the Abu Gharib negatives. A few months ago I would have said that he could not get confirmed but now I am not so sure.
Mar 16, 2005 - 8:19 am 8. Todd Pearson:Wolfowitz to replace Wolfensohn. Critics will howl.
Mar 16, 2005 - 8:36 am 9. PJ:I betcha Bono’s mad!
Mar 16, 2005 - 8:54 am 10. Mike_Nargizian:Yeah, I was thinking but you’re losing him at the Pentagon? Couldn’t Bush tell Wolfensohn to wait 2 years to retire?
I mean isn’t Wolfowitz a key, key person there?
Is the World Bank position really worth anything?
Is there any value of having him there now, that I don’t see? Its a prestigious position and that’s great for him, but is there any value to the Pres or the administration to having him placed there?
Mike
Mar 16, 2005 - 9:12 am 11. Carol_Herman:I love our president! He’s certainly making the best appointment possible. And, this is his second term. According to “pundits” second terms are supposed to be “lame duck” ones. (So said Hedrick Smith in Washington’s POWER GAMES.)
Also, it was Reagan’s misfortune to lose James Baker as Chief of Staff. When this good man switched with the incompetent, Don Regan, in Reagan’s 2nd term. And, all Reagan got was turmoil.
You know what? FDR got 4 TERMS! And, then the republicans, getting scared they were being marginalized out of the Executive Branch of government, allowed “term limits” to be applied to the presidency of the USA.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could kick butt and remove this from consideration? Why should a man like this Bush NOT get a chance to stay in office, just as FDR did?
Mar 16, 2005 - 10:07 am 12. Terrye:Maybe they need an idealist at the world Bank. Someone who will tie together deomcratic and market reforms with loans for instance.
The folks at the DU are having a cow. The loonies.
Mar 16, 2005 - 10:24 am 13. jerry:Carol:
You said: “You know what? FDR got 4 TERMS! And, then the republicans, getting scared they were being marginalized out of the Executive Branch of government, allowed “term limits” to be applied to the presidency of the USA.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could kick butt and remove this from consideration? Why should a man like this Bush NOT get a chance to stay in office, just as FDR did?”
Terms limits are good because Bill Clinton would have won re-election in 2000 and where would we be in the war against Salafism?
George Washington set the precedent of voluntary term limits because he felt that the President of the United States should not be President for Life like a King. I agree with our first President..
I also believe the founding father were right in limiting the President to only the native born [or given the contest question, been resident in the 13 colonies prior to the Treaty of Paris]. As much as I like Arnold I still think someone born in Austria should not be President.
Mar 16, 2005 - 10:58 am 14. Terrye:What the hell happened to McNamara anyway? Did he just go nuts or what?
Mar 16, 2005 - 1:27 pm 15. Terrye:CNN has an onbline poll about Wolfowitz and the vote is running three to one against him. but that is the CNN.
Mar 16, 2005 - 1:39 pm 16. JBR:Terrye: Your qualifier “but that is CNN” is spot on. The question asks whether Wolfowitz is the “best” choice. Wouldn’t a more reasonable question be whether he is a “good” choice? There’s the CNN bias for you.
Mar 16, 2005 - 1:54 pm 17. Alan Sullivan:Mr. Simon! That’s ‘lightning,’ please.
Great appointment. After Bolton, I was kind of expecting it.
Mar 16, 2005 - 2:04 pm 18. Captain Hate:“Is the World Bank position really worth anything?”
That’s hard to say; the organization hasn’t really helped any country in a financial jam since it attaches such restrictive measures to any supplicants that it precludes building a strong economy. If he could shake that up it would be a good thing. But realistically the answer is probably “No”.
Mar 16, 2005 - 5:00 pm