Washington File

Bye Bye Wolfowitz, one scumbag bites the dust.

Bullshit may get you to the top, but definately not for long. Advice to all bush appointees start searching for cover. Hypocrisy 101 hit a home run.

Of course I may have said goodbye to Mr. Wolfowitz too quickly: it is not a foregone conclusion that the World Back will do the right thing and show him the door. The Bush administration twisted arms to get him the job in the first place, after the wheels began to fall off their chariot in Iraq. There is no saying that the bank won't cave in again under similar pressure.

The Bush administration may be badly wounded, but it still wields immense clout--and is infamous for doing terrible things to people who thwart it.

"PS: if memory serves, Wolfowitz did not 'spit' on his comb, he licked it."

Ronald: I appreciate your "dry" sense of humour . . .

But seriously, if you really believe that Mr. Wolfowitz's plan for Iraq is succeeding "inch by inch," then you may be more in denial than you realize. It seems that every former supporter of the war--except President Bush and Vice-President Cheney--is looking for a way to get the U.S. out of there. "Winning," at this point, is not even a consideration.

As to Mr. Wolfowitz's suitability for the World Bank, credentials only get you in the door; it's what you do after you sit at the desk that matters. Having even the slighest sense of your own hypocrisy is an asset. Alas, in this case it has turned out to be "goodbye Wolfie; your place in history is writ."

When somebody says: “remember that it was done with the co-operation and blessing of the management.” The blessing of which management? The board of directors? The management who called the media to inform them about the wrong doing? The management staffs who take their order from Wolfowitz? Where is the FACT here? Let those who prepared their homework answer this direct question only!!

Paul Wolfowitz has various degrees in studies including: mathematics, chemisty, and politics. He worked for the US Bureau of the Budget, as well as an aide to a Democratic senator studying arms control treaties, in the Pentagon under Jimmy Carter. He also marched with Martin Luther King Jr. His future employment prior to Bush Jr., would include studies in politics/economics/weapons in volatile areas of the world specifically with the State Department.
Based on these "facts", it is my "opinion" that he was qualified to become head of the World Bank. As for the affair/job/pay raise controversy that is the basis of this article, remember that it was done with the co-operation and blessing of the managment. This could be seen as no different than, let's say, a Democratic president having sex in his office (Kennedy or Clinton), so-called controversial firings of US attorneys. In fact, it is eerily familiar with the attacks on the honourable Lord Conrad Black, which if you are following the trial, is becoming an implosion for the prosecution.
He is being attacked like many Bush administration officials, riding high to November 2008 (the higher the climb, the higher the fall!).

PS: if memory serves, Wolfowitz did not 'spit' on his comb, he licked it.

Chris,

The only real lesson to be offered is that some people spend more time exercising their right to free speech than their right to free thinking. I agree with Sarah.
1) Being opinionated is not the same as being right.
2) People who don't agree with you aren't automatically wrong.
3) If you expect others to change their minds, you should be prepared to change yours.

Now what were we talking about? Ah yes, mr Wolfowitz..
I think the real questions here are: After gving his love interest a really nice raise, who picks up the check when they go to dinner?
IS Condi fuming now that she knows that Paul's girlfriend makes more than she does?

"It is not the facts which guide the conduct of men, but their opinions about facts; which may be entirely wrong. We can only make them right by discussion."
Norman Angell 1872-1967, British Writer

Chris,
How do you know that most people here are lazy and don't do their research? You know that your facts are correct and I know my facts are right. Who is there to decide? Just because my FACTS are different than yours doesn't mean that they are unresearched. I can say the same of yours. Of course, you think that Mr. Potter can teach us all a lesson because his FACTS are so much similar to yours and it seems that you can't give out your FACTS without mentioning the word "left-wing" at least once in your posts.
No matter what anyone say, the matter of fact is that most of the times our interpretation of the FACTS is influenced by what we truly believe in.

It's astounding that some adamately claim they have facts, when these so called "facts" are nothing more than what's spouted from the mouth of the left wing media. Maybe more should set aside their laziness and read some documented facts and maybe take a history lesson or two.
Ronald Potter can teach a few of you a lesson.

I did read MacDonald's column on the decency of Americans and agree wholeheartedly: virtually everyone I've ever met in the US has been kind, decent, outgoing, generous, hard working, etc. Despite this they still managed to elect a lousy president who appointed a rotten cabinet. Criticizing Bush is NOT slamming the people, and being anti Bush is not a sin.

Mr. Potter, your comments are not "cold, hard, facts," they are simply your opinions. You are welcome to your point of view, as is everyone else.

In addition, the video displaying Paul Wolfowitz's sense of personal hygiene is neither left wing or right wing. It is just a video of a man spitting on his comb and then running it through his hair. Shooting the messenger, as you do, does not change the facts.

As I previously alluded to, this article has prompted (not for the first time), more and more factless attacks against Bush and company, for no other reason than it is the 'soup-du-jour' of the past half century. I am glad that it has sparked such a spirited debate but accurate and real historical facts must be submitted.
My statements written about Wolfowitz, Bush, Iraq etc are the cold, hard truth.
Canada should have been beside our traditional allies, U.S. & Great Britain, from the start. Since Pearson & Trudeau first invented the anti-US bias in this country, it has grown to digusting reaches.
Also, if you read the article printed on this site by the CBC's Neil MacDonald 'On American Decency', you will also see a side of the US that isn't "newsworthy" for general & widespread consumption because it is a feel-good story about American generosity and the belief that doing good in the world is a noble effort that unfortunately also makes them a convenient target. (also see the creation of the UN-the idea first championed by Roosevelt, and the complete rebuilding of Europe & Japan using almost entirely US dollars). Where's the gratitude?
As a proud member of the Royal Canadian Legion and an avid historian, I know only too well Canada's military accomplishments, specifically in both World Wars, Korea, NATO and peacekeeping. This proud history proves that we should have been fighting along side our allies in Iraq.
As for Fahrenheit/911, Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of this tripe. It was a left-wing biased, wholly inaccurate attempt to unseat Bush during the 2004 election. The intelligence of the American public shone through in the results !
Any pop-culture reference to the Vietnam war will say that it was a US war loss and totally unnecessary. If you were to read any of dozens of in-depth books on it, you will see that it the US did not loose the war and that it was necessary to halt Soviet expansion. The domino theory was proved to be right. The treaty of Paris ended the war in the spring of 1973. The US left and North & South retreated to their borders. Only in March of 1975 did the North attack again and swallow up the South.
If you want to blame anyone for US foreign policy over the 60 years, blame the greatest leader in the history of the world, my personal hero, Sir Winston Churchill. On the day he became PM he was asked by his son how he was going to win the war. Churchill stated, "I shall drag America into it !". If he had not his gifted foresight, the world would be a much scarier place.

I dunno..
The CEO of Mcdonald's running Sick Kids is a bit of a reach. Completely different type of operations. But maybe he would know more about world finance than Mr. Wolfowitz.

With respect: Mr. Wolfowitz is not in trouble because of his love life; he is in trouble because he believes that the ends justify the means--just as he did in cooking up the rationale for invading Iraq. And besides, anyone who would let himself be filmed combing his hair with a (probably filthy) comb he has just slobbered on by passing it repeatedly through his mouth (see Roger Moore's "Fahrenheit 911")is not fit to be invited to dinner, never mind to run an important international institution.

Well said Potter. However it won't change the unresearched attacks that are so regular on here.

Wolfowitz et al. wrote the PNAC long before Bush ever got to the White House so their part in warmongering has long been established. Equally well known, Mr. Potter, is the fact that UN weapons inspectors were diligently pursuing their mandate to find, catalogue and despose of Iraqi WMDs. At first, the Bush whitehouse, with Colin Powell foremost among them, stated repeatedly that Iraq was not a major concern, did not have an active weapons program, and were not on the radar, so to speak. All of that changed with 9/11 and suddenly the mood changed: Bush and co. waged a non stop propaganda campaign of their own to paint Iraq with the 9/11 brush regardless of UN efforts to continue the hunt for WMD. US intelligence agencies were divided in their opinion on WMDs, despite that, and despite the fact there was no definitive evidence whatsoever, the US and Britain - virtually alone in the world - went to war. Colin Powell's strident and embarrassing performance at the UN notwithstanding, the US never did prove WMD weapons charges against Iraq and blocked any further attempt by inspectors to determine the truth of the matter one way or the other. Those are the facts Mr. Potter, whether you like them or not. Wolfowitz was a major player in all that went on in whitehouse planning until his departure to the world bank. Given the astounding levels of criminality the monsters in the whitehouse are guilty of, it's a wonder anyone regards corruption as the exception when it is in fact the rule wherever this bunch lands. The travesty is not that there are constitutional limits the number of terms a president may serve, the real travesty is that the current thug has not yet been impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Mr. Potter

Be careful now if you draw the conclusion that Canada did not act with honour as it did not take unilateral action and invade a sovereign nation. Canada assisted in the development of the UN and naturally we should ensure the integrity of same. If you need examples of Canadian Honour you need only glance to Vimy, Ypres; Normandy;Korea;Medak Pocket; SW Afghanistan. BTW I am not a anti US supporter, nor support slaming a country for the sake of its political atmosphere.

I want to ask if the current DEMOCRACY in Iraq is secular. When the constitution divides the Iraqis according to their religion, what we call this? To those who do not know history, Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Syria under Al-Assad are the only secular countries in the whole Middle East. There was not fighting between Shi’ite and Sunni under Saddam. There were 35 Shi’ite leaders out of 55 in the wanted list announced by the Americans when they invaded Iraq! What does that mean? That means there was no difference between Sunnis and Shi’ites. If we want to go back centuries; the Americans were fighting the British before just two centuries!!!!
The IAEA did not say Saddam had WMD. Until now the head of the inspectors in Iraq Mr. Blix attacks the policy of the USA before the war because they did not let him put his final report. No body said about the Mushroom cloud and having uranium from Africa, except Mr. Bush!
It does matter what had happened. To kill more than 600 thousand civilian Iraqi inhabitants then say it does not matter!! How? Are they not human being? Or just the 3000 Americans are human being? You consider the people living in the west deserve to live!! All the the other nations are disqualified from life!!
What kind if peaceful the Iraqis do have now? Killing at least 100 civilians every day? What kind of secular the Iraqis do have?? The ruling of Shi’ite clerics?

Dear Fact Cheker et al: what makes Wolfowitz qualified to run the World Bank, or be Deputy Secretary of Defence or as an administrator in any capacity, in any large government/corporate entity is the same as when any PM or President pick Cabinet members or a Board of Directors, a new CEO. Being educated & experienced in management of any kind is what is necessary. When a PM shuffles his cabinet, he selects people based on their executive experience, not on the particular ministry etc. The CEO of McDonalds could and successfully run Chrysler or the Sick Kids Hospital. Wolfowitz has excellent managerial skills in any forum.

As previously stated, for all outgoing administrations, the opposition attacks on a broad front to build up their side with an election coming. This is the history of politics since the beginning of recorded history.
As for the Iraq war, the increasing bloodshed is the same story as we previously saw in Northern Ireland and the former Yugoslavia. Opposing religious sects trying to wipe out the other. Shiites & Sunni's have been murdering each other by the hundreds of thousands for more than 10 centuries. AND, as for the reasons of going to war, I will state again for those who refuse to do their 'homework'. Not only was it the US intelligence depts that stated Hussein had WMD's. The UN, the IAEA, British, French, German and Russian intelligence all said the same thing. However, only the US, British and those countries with honour chose to right a wrong. It doesn't matter now what happens except that Iraqi's be allowed to have the peaceful secular existence they want. Note the recent protests in Turkey AGAINST Islamic rule.
My apologies for going off on a related, yet unnecessary tangent but, too many people on here post comments ONLY to bash the US without having any current or historical facts to back up their statements.
If you want to bash the US, just because it's there, join the Liberal or NDP parties.

When Mr. Bush came to the white house he declared he would clean up Washington!! Washington was in disgrace because of Monica Lewinski scandal. Now after six years of Mr. Bush in Washington how many scandals are there in Washington?
The problem of Washington now, there is no leader. Mr. Bush is not qualified to run a small company and not a nation. What are his qualifications? I challenge somebody to tell me one! He disgraced the presidency of the USA. Those who were around him were bellow the average Americans. They were influential because they did have a very weak president. Look at Mr, Cheney. He is the in-charge. Bush even cannot express on the TV the decided and written policy. Cheney who read it.
Wolfowitz is one of the corrupted working around Bush. What did he accomplish in the bank? I want someone to tell us one thing he had accomplished. His role is to hold aid from the poor states who are against the USA policy. That is it. Because he do not understand anything else. How many countries are cured from corruption at the time of MR. Wolfowitz? Zero.

It is very convenient and easy for Wolfowitz to criticize other people and get them to correct their actions (corruption etc). Now that he has committed a similar mistake let us see how sincere and honest he is about admitting it or rectifying the situation. Herein lies the stature of the man.

A word to Dale Shortliffe. It is in fact entirely plausible that Bush will dismiss Wolfowitz, his 'toady' as you call him, over this matter. Witness Bush's eventual cave-in to public pressure over the dismissal of Donald Rumsfeld, an official whom Bush ahd staunchly supported throughout his adminsitration despite calls for Rummy's resignation by the public and from within the American government.
At the end of the day, Bush's interest lies in preserving what is left of his presidency's reputation. It can do him no good to stand beside an official with a mandate to combat corruption now stained by corruption himself. And whatever else he might be, Bush is a man who has prided himself on his principles, no matter how tangled or misguided. Honesty is nominally one of those principles, and sure as sunshine Bush will turn on Wolfowitz if it becomes apparent enough that the public believes he lied.

Does anyone really believe that Bush will actually DO something about this? ...That he will somwhow reprimand his "toady"??

Bush doesn't listen to ANYONE but those who tell him what he wants to hear. Wolfowitz is perfectly safe!

Note To Ronald Potter...You mentioned that Wolfowitz is an excellent choice..can you tell us, the ignorant people, how many years of experience does Wolfowitz has in the banking world or running a business..I mean his only qualification was he is a good buddy of G W Bush (And AIPAC)...and how do you go from justifying killing muslims in Iraq to lending money to others..

Wolfowitz is an ideologue who should fall on his own ideological sword.

What he did with his "friend" was corruption, pure and simple.

There is no question the fight against corruption, in the US or in the developing world, is a worthwhile effort. But how well does it look when the chief advocate of this constant struggle is himself using his position for the benefit of a friend? Do Third World leaders and bureaucrats do anything else? Can he "talk the talk" but not "walk the walk"? Is he the only person within the Bush administration circles who can lead the World Bank? What credibility will he have in his so called "fight against corruption" when confronting African ministers and officials who demand personal favors before implementing new economic policies? Will he be able to stop staff members who are offered incentives (including money...) by financial aid recipient countries in order to secure World Bank loans?
Somebody with personal dignity would have resigned and moved on already...

Fire Wolfowitz NOW. Not content with plunging the globe into chaos with his looney views on Iraq, the poorer countries of the world are now subject to his double standards as they starve but his girlfriend gets a massive pay increase.

Boot him out TODAY!!!

Sure, resolve and patience are required to fight an enemy, but would you even know who that enemy really is, or why? Of course not. For every Wolfowitz out there, there's a whole cadre of ignorant bigots, greedy chickenhawks, and plain old weak and pathetic apologists, willing to put on their cheerleader pom-poms, no matter how corrupt or tyrannical their PNAC heroes' actions are. For the record, Wolfowitz's Iraq war has turned out to be as phony as he is, and just like his career, is on its way to ending in disgrace. Somehow I doubt that the stinging slap of reality will convince the professional boot-lickers out there to see Wolfowitz for what he really always was: rotten to the core.

I'm a regular watcher of the news - CBC, CNN, BBC - and I can't remember the last time I heard a story, good or bad, about the World Bank. That is, until now. Is Wolfowitz guilty of poor judgement, corruption, or what? In this era of corporate responsibility perhaps there ought to be a zero tolerance policy when scandals such as this threaten to undermine the day to day operations of the bank. As for the Republicans under attack across a broad based front, as Mr. Potter alludes to in his post, they've held majority power in the US since the Nixon years so it's no surprise to me that such is the case. Iraq is going badly with no end in sight: Afghanistan remains a potential grave yard for NATO forces with no end in sight: Al Queda has gone from being a small group of fanatics to an international force. On and on it goes. Things are going badly for the right in the US largely because of ill-advised choices and arrogant foolishness on a grand scale. No wonder they're under attack - the same thing is happening to them as happened to the Liberal Party of Canada. It may be that a Democratic candidate may not win the Whitehouse, but at least a balance will be restored when they win another majority in congress. If there had been a few more "checks and balances" available the past few years we may not have ended up in the mess we're in now. As for Paul Wolfowitz, his position has been so undermined that he may as well step down: no one will give him the benefit of the doubt nor does he deserve one.

Wolfowitz was an excellent choice for head of the World Bank and should remain. These petty arguments against him have nothing to do with the actual facts of the complaint or his handling of the job (a sworn crusader to rid the third world of poverty AND corruption is extremely admirable AND he is doing a great job).

The bottom line to this attack on him along with the similar ones on the US Attorney General is simple: since President Bush cannot be re-elected to a third term (a constitutional travesty), the left-wing, led by the Democrats, is trying now to attack all of his Administration, each day widening their attacks to anything remotely Republican. Since their possible Presidential candidates (chiefly Obama, Clinton & Edwards) have, in reality, no chance of winning the 2008 contest (despite what some pundits say), the only recourse left is to attack the Republicans on a broad front.
For the record, the Iraq war, despite what you see on the 6:00 o'clock news each day (the media makes its money selling blood, death, sex & drugs NOT feel-good stories), is being won inch by inch AND the war on terror is also being won. Fighting an enemy that is cowardly and inhumane requires more resolve and more patience than most bleeding-heart, pacifist fence-sitters can bear.

The fact that Wolfowitz was appointed to the World Bank at all was an outrage. This man was an chief planner of an illegal invasion of another country! Yet as the US invasion of Iraq turned sour, he was allowed to skip out on the "responsibility" phase and be given a cushy patronage appointment. I mean, for all the blame Rumsfeld gets, it was the whole Project for a New American Century cabal that were the architects of the "unilateralist" doctrine the Bush regime swears by - so the international community should not let any of those people be installed in any instution that's suppoed to be truly international. Forget the tall tales about "ending corruption" there, this was clearly a move to protect Wolfowitz from (much deserved) disgrace, and enforce PNAC ideology through yet another world body. I wouldn't be suprised if the WB under his watch has been used to reward the "coalition of the willing" countries, and punish those that did not toe the US line on Iraq. And now, to put the exclamation point on this disgrace, "anti-corruption" Wolfowitz gets caught shovelling large amounts of money to his girlfriend. Just proves that the hubris of these PNAC types goes on no matter where they are installed.

Nelson Mandella said from his jail cell that he was well aware of the fact that the sanctions being leveled against South Africa were hurting the poor the most. But, he said, sanctions hurt the rich too. And so, in the end, sanctions will work. And so, he said, sanctions must remain. Because in the end, the poor who are hurting so very much now, will be so very much better after sactions have worked. These are not Nelson Mandella's words verbatum, but they certainly are the gist of his words! I remember the interview!

Immediately eradicating corruption among those who receive our money which we believe we are giving to the poor is way, way over due! I commend Mr. Wolfowitz for his stnd on this. And I say shame to all those who are his subordinates and who will still allow blatant, hurtful, wasteful, illeagal corruption. By corruption I mean: stealing our money from the poor we thought we were giving it too! I mean: TAKING FOOD OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF STARVING CHILDREN, FOR GOODNESS SAKES!

Enough is enough! How much longer are we to be made fools of!?

As for the Iraq war and Ms. Reza'a new salary, I say shame on Mr. Wolfowitz!

Funny how a person can be so flawed and yet so principled, eh? I am not being glib! How could Mr. Wolfowitz ensconce himself so deeply in the Bush Whitehouse, and then turn around and start a crusade against Third World corruption?

Think of the billions the Bush Whitehouse has wasted! And Wolfowitz was right there!

I wonder what his reaction would have been to an equal amount waste at the hands of a President of the USA who was an African-American Democrat?

I think we would see his flawed side again.