Failing upwards

So you help drag the nation into a bloody war with no exit strategy, cost the country $200 billion and counting, 1,500 American deaths and counting, tens of thousands of physical and mental injuries, and counting, and untold numbers of Iraqi dead.

All on false pretenses, with no real understanding of how our troops would be received.

How are you punished? .

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a lightning rod for controversy as one of the main advocates for the Iraq war, is President Bush's choice for World Bank president, administration officials said on Wednesday [...]

By tradition, the United States selects the World Bank president while Europeans nominate a head of the International Monetary Fund. Bush's choice of Wolfowitz must still be ratified by other World Bank members, a process that could prove unusually contentious.

Wolfowitz is a deeply controversial figure in Europe because of his role in designing and promoting the Iraq war.

He has also been a frequent target of criticism from congressional Democrats for what they called his "rosy" assessments of the Iraq war. Before the invasion, he assured Congress: "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."

Another "fuck you" from Bush to the world community. Mind boggling.

•  Not mind boggling at all, Kos.

  Business as usual.  We should expect nothing less.

  Anyone got a comb I can suck on?

  by Bill in Portland Maine on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:44:52 AM PST

  •  exactly

    The most controversial nominees...just to piss off everybody else. First it was Bolton for the U.N. Now they want Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank?

    It's clear what the message is: America is the father. Every other nation is a child. Obey America...or else be punished.

    I cannot wait until Bush is out of office in four years. We have a duty to future generations to take this country back before Bush wrecks it.

    by archerhouse on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:12:32 AM PST

    •  If Freud were here he would

      diagnose the Bush administration as Sociopaths.

      by tiggers thotful spot on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:01:15 AM PST

    •  Duty

      I felt the call of duty and did all I could (not a hell of a lot) in 2004.  I'm not so sure we can halt the pillaging - we're in the middle of it right now.  I don't see any central battle plan.

      Of course it's a giant fuck you.  Bush's whole life has been not just a falling upward, but a total fuck you.  You worked for grades?  Fuck you, my dad got me in.  You went to fight?  Fuck you, I got TANG.  You thought the voting system would work?  Fuck you, I'm in, and you're dogfood.

      by moltar on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:11:01 PM PST

  •  failing upward

    That's what Bush has been doing his entire life. It shouldn't be surprising that failing upward would be business as usual for Bush. It worked for him.

    by miasmo on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:15:53 AM PST

  •  Advice to Wolfie re Europe

    You'll need a bigger comb and a lot more spit.

    by Plan9 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:21:54 AM PST

  •  Ladies and Gentlemen

    Irony is not only dead, but it's grave has been robbed.

    by tiggers thotful spot on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:57:46 AM PST

•  European Kos Community

  Fight this the USA controls only 16.7% of the World bank, why follow the tradition when someone that isn't qualified to run a small bank in the US is going to be selected to run the worlds largest bank.....oh and don't forget the USA blocked your nomination to the IMF last year....Let Mend some fences folks!!!!

  by Mikecan1978 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:45:07 AM PST

  •  re: european kos community

    usually lurk, not post, but when as angry as now am, think it good to share. here is email just sent to Labour Party representatives (London Assembly and European Parliament). Copied it to my Lib-Dem MP. UKossacks please do same to your MEPs in particular.

    I am writing as a long-term Labour voter whose MP is a Liberal Democrat (I live in North Southwark and Bermondsey), and to whom I copy this.

    This is to let my elected Labour representatives know that the very last straw for this nearly ex-Labour voter will be if the Government does nothing to block the appointment of Paul Wolfowitz as President of the World Bank. The proposed appointment is very nearly unbelievable; and yet the BBC is already reporting the Foreign Secretary as commenting on how very distinguished Wolfowitz is, and how much he is looking forward to working with him. This very much dampened my cheering for the budget.

    On many levels this is appalling news, but two will suffice for this email.

    1) Wolfowitz is an acknowledged neo-conservative ideologue, and as such is prepared to misrepresent facts and twist policies to suit his political ends.
    He is closely associated with the US-imperialist movement exemplified by the Project for the New American Century think-tank. This is man who said this: "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon" to the US Congress before the Iraq War. Or take this gem, also to Congress: "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would to take to conduct the war itself and secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to imagine."
    Did ANYONE believe that Iraq would be easy to put back together? He is either stupid, and therefore unfit, or a liar, and therefore unfit, or a man so in thrall to his ideology he cannot approach issues in a rational manner  -  and therefore unfit.  Can we also expect the World Bank to start espousing Bush administration-type policies with regard to birth control, women's reproductive rights, etc.?

    2) As one of the main architects of the war in Iraq, his appointment is, frankly, a two-fingered salute from President Bush to the rest of the world, and a signal that that administration is fundamentally opposed to the international structures and agreements that underpin good development policy. If the European nations who apparently have a veto over his appointment do not exercise that veto, then I fear for the future of the World Bank.

    As I intimated above, I was cheering today's budget, and I have just about kept on board, voting-intention-wise (though have found it very hard, sometimes).  If, however, the government continues with  the Straw line (see above) I really can't see how I could in conscience vote Labour, and I would include local elections in that. This appointment is of fundamental importance to the people of the world, and if the government goes along with this in the very month the Africa Report is issued, then all the Prime Minister's words on Africa will have been proved to be words only. I am besides myself with anger over this.

    I urge in particular the London MEPs to whom I address this to raise this matter in the European Parliament and with their Parliamentary colleagues in London, and with Ministers.  
    If this appears to be an intemperate email, then I absolutely do not apologise for it. Lives, respect for the international community, and simple decency are at stake here. I beg the Labour Party not to be deaf to those voices expressing their outrage and fear over this proposed appointment.

    I would very much appreciate your comments on this.
    I would also appreciate it if the London Labour Party could forward this email to Kirsty McNeill, the Labour Party prospective Parliamentary candidate in my constituency.

    Thank you

    If you are privy to more of this egregious wanker's stupid quotes, please do share.

    ian xxx
    

    by ianrs on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:55:09 AM PST

    •  Thanks we need more letters like that

      John Bolton, Wolfowitz etc are just examples of how Bush is going to destroy the tenious hold The US has on international relations.

      I would love to see what Colin Powell has to say about this.

      by Mikecan1978 on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 06:41:58 AM PST

  •  You forget there IS a precident:

    Robert S. MacNamara was "punished" for getting us into Vietnam the exact same way. He was president of the World Bank for over ten years.

    by messy on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:44:29 PM PST

    •  Ah Messy

      He was also a successful CEO of Ford and he fought against the war from the inside for a long time.....take a look at the NIxon tapes....this guy often gets a bad rap.

      by Mikecan1978 on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 06:43:08 AM PST

•  "Fuck You" indeed

  The world duly notes, once more. The log is getting quite long, in't it?

  Let's see if Europe flexes its muscles and does not allow it (maybe simply as revenge for the rejection of their first candidate for the IMF the last time round, Germany's Caio-Weser, who ended up being replaced ny Italy' Rodrigo Rato)

  by Jerome a Paris on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:45:22 AM PST

  •  Is it the European Parliment

    That decides on the nomination or some World Bank board.

    by Mikecan1978 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:48:41 AM PST

    •  World bank Board

      Tradition says that Europe gets to choose the IMF head, and the US the WB one. Outsiders have put on pressure to have this changed, but not succeedes yet.

      There are diplomatic discussions before the formal vote, which is pretty much always unanimous, and that's when a candidate can be canned if many other countries are not happy with the choice. It may yet happen...

      by Jerome a Paris on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:01:26 AM PST

      •  Perfect time to change the tradition

        The US has always had the privilege of naming the World Bank head, and the Europeans the IMF chief, as has been pointed out above.

        It's a great time for the rest of the world to tell the US that its power and privileges are going to be curtailed as punishment for Bush's reckless and irresponsible foreign policies.  America's World Band privilege is not limitless, and this is as good a time as any for it to be revoked.  If Bush digs in his heels for Wolfy, he should face rejection.  

        A good Third World candidate would be a perfect counterchoice.  How about the Peruvian economist whose name escapes me, who has a sophisticated view of Third World poverty?

        by Dallasdoc on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:39:02 AM PST

        •  Hernando de Soto

          Brilliant suggestion.  Which of course means it will never happen.  I keep meaning to read his book.  If anyone who's reading this has read it, how is it?

          by Chicago Jason on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 12:33:52 PM PST

          •  Thanks for the name

            I googled Bernardo de Soto, but just got a history lesson.

            by Dallasdoc on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 12:37:46 PM PST

            •  close, no cigar

              it's Hernando de Soto ... try that

              by wystler on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:48:42 PM PST

            •  here

              The Mystery of Capital and The Other Path: The Economic Answer to Terrorism .
              

              by mimi on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:06:15 PM PST

          •  very good - read it - (nt)

            by mimi on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 04:44:26 PM PST

        •  it's a tough situation though

          As everyone's pointed out, it's a reciprocal privilege of sorts.  Europe doesn't really have the upper hand here—if they decide to revoke Bush's privilege to appoint World Bank heads, he can retaliate by revoking their privilege to appoitn IMF heads.

          by Delirium on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:09:40 PM PST

          •  Bush can't unilaterally punish the Europeans

            Neither America or the EU has a majority vote in either institution.  It's high time the leadership was opened up in both institutions.  Any instance in which international politicking is necessary to get what we want is to be welcomed.  It might start to housebreak the Bush administration, especially if we can humble it at home over Social Security and a couple of other issues.

            by Dallasdoc on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:59:16 PM PST

          •  how the hell can he do that?

            Is Bush the man who makes those rules? Has the US handed out a privilege? I don't understand.

            by mimi on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 06:42:37 PM PST

            •  it's an informal divvying up of spoils

              The U.S. and Europe (plus Japan, which backs the U.S.) together have enough votes to win any vote.  So they've basically divided the two institutions up among themselves.  The EU informally agrees to vote for the U.S.'s choice for the World Bank, and in return the U.S. informally agrees to vote for Europe's choice for the IMF.  That guarantees them both an automatic win for their respective picks.

              If the EU stops automatically voting for the US's choice for World Bank head, then US will probably stop automatically voting for the EU's choice for IMF head.  That doesn't mean they won't get their choice, but it means they won't be guaranteed a free choice anymore—they'd have to campaign among all the members of the IMF and put together enough votes to win.

              by Delirium on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 07:18:10 PM PST

              •  thanks - then it's time to understand

                why Wolfowitz would be a really bad choice.

                So far the criticism has been just on the emotional side because of his role in the Pentagon as a promoter of his "domino" theory for provoking democracy in the middle east, one country at a time, at the risk and costs to get into a war with each of them.

                I haven't seen or had time to search for a real analysis what Wolfowitz can do with the WB politically. Thy guy is not dumb, but probably a dreamer and stubborn one as well.

                by mimi on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 03:41:22 AM PST

              •  BTW - discovered your diaries

                and they are pretty good. I liked this one . It would be nice to contrast your analysis about US Democrats with an understanding about who the European democrats are.
                

                by mimi on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 04:00:13 AM PST

      •  Can't member states of the WB

        boycott the nomination threatening not to pay their membership dues as long as there is an unwelcomed nomination like this?

        by mimi on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:20:35 AM PST

      •  France and Britain have already said

        they support the Wolfowitz nomination. But this Washington Post article describes the reaction in Europe as a bit more "nuanced" than a simple support.
        

        
        Official reaction to the nomination was muted. Questioned by a reporter, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said, "It's a proposal. We shall examine it in the context of the personality of the person you mention and perhaps in view of other candidates."

        The German development minister, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, said, "The enthusiasm in old Europe is not exactly overwhelming." Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld used that term for European countries that did not join the Iraq war.

        The strongest praise came from the closest U.S. ally, Britain. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "Paul Wolfowitz is very distinguished and experienced internationally and if his appointment is confirmed we look forward to working with him."
        

        
        Which countries are sitting in the board of the WB? I understand that European countries control 30% of the board's vote? Kofi Anan has criticized the choice.

        Well, here goes the neighborhood...

        by mimi on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 04:59:29 PM PST

        •  shareholdings

          The processes are fairly complex, with a board of directors, an executive board, a president, and some other bodies, but ultimately the share each country owns in the World Bank determines the proportion of its say.

          The five top shareholders are:
          United States - 16.41%
          Japan - 7.87%
          Germany - 4.49%
          United Kingdom - 4.31%
          France - 4.31%

          The remaining 62.61% is divided among the other 177 countries, most of which have very small shares.

          by Delirium on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:20:36 PM PST

          •  If the remaining 177 countries

            would band together they would have a chance to influence the outcome. So, money talks at the WB as well as in the US Senate and Congress, how sad.

            by mimi on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 06:40:46 PM PST

            •  So write a short, witty note to each

              of their Ambassadors.

              by Heteraetcaetera on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:09:40 PM PST

            •  some are pro-US though

              In addition to the UK and Japan, the US can probably count on varying degrees of support from: Israel, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, and possibly Canada and Mexico.  Even China might stay out of it, preferring to side with neither Europe nor the US.

              by Delirium on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 06:07:34 AM PST

  •  correction

    Caio Koch-Weser was actually blocked by Clinton foe reasons I never understand because he is a brilliant  progressive economist and very experienced: A very disgraceful moment of the Clinton presidency.

    His replacement was Horst Köhler who moved on to become Germany's president last year. He was followed by rato.

    This is important, because without his promotion to the IMF, Mr Köhler would not have been able to assume the presidence which he uses to push for his rather neo-liberal agenda. thanks Bill.

    I agree: now  would be a time to pay back, but Bush would not have presented Wolfowitz without the consent of the EU leaders. I believe he got this as a welcome present when he toured Europe.

    by jandsm on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:18:53 AM PST

    •  You're right, of course

      Thanks.

      by Jerome a Paris on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:39:27 PM PST

  •  If the US already blocked a European nomination

    then hasn't the precident already been established?  Seems to me that turn around is fair play from the EU's perspective.  On the other hand, I'm so discouraged by the Bush appointments so far that I don't even care.  It seems to me that he'll only appoint someone just as bad, if not worse.  Wolfowitz is a shithead, but I'm sure there are even worse candidates, although none come to mind.

    by Nameless Soldier on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:25:33 PM PST

•  Yes, fight it

  Otherwise, this will be the economic imperialism front on neocon nation-building.

  Won't take abortion out of your family planning? Wolfie says: No money for you?

  Don't want to try GM corn yet? Wolfie says: No money for you?

  Are trying to be democratic, but you're not voting the way the US wants in the UN? Wolfie says: No money for you.

  by steverino on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:47:42 AM PST

•  Question:

  If Bush's policies are a "Fuck You" to the world, then why aren't we organizing a World-wide March accross the globe to tell Bush "Fuck Your 2nd Term Agression" and call mega attention that we are all watching and disapproving (on top of all our other endeavors to fight the neo's)?

  by wilfred on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:49:19 AM PST

  •  Good question

    Sometimes I wonder if the left is really doing anything. I think it's good that we're here trying to get out the message, but I think there is a time and place for public demonstration. Look at what happened in the Ukraine and what's going on in Lebanon. Big public demonstration really can make a difference. We really need to do something, especially since Bush can't take credit for a rally specifically set against him. Can he?

    by cuevas on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:52:46 AM PST

    •  There's nothing we can do

      ...the World Bank is going to greet him with flowers.  

      by Randomfactor on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:07:10 AM PST

      •  I hope it's Poisen Ivy

        by eddieb061345 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:28:08 AM PST

      •  flowers???

        I'd bet the vast majority of World Bank staff are pretty darn upset.  Don't forget that only 25% or so of their staff are Americans.  And I'd guess of the Americans, probably most are liberal Democrats.  They must be feeling pretty bummed just about now too...

        by American in Kathmandu on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:30:26 PM PST

    •  Opposition to Bush

      We've tried huge protests against Bush and the War in Iraq, but our mainstream media refuses to cover them, and if they do, they deliberately underestimate the number of protestors (And Bush is always shielded from actually seeing the protestors.)I've been to several of those anti-war protests.  In Washington, DC our numbers covered the Mall (anyone who knows DC, understands that that's a LOT of people--at least half a million).  In NYC just before the invasion of Iraq, protestors filled the streets from the U.N., north by a dozen blocks, and cross town by half a dozen--that's a LOT of people.  The NYPD and National Guard were out on the streets in huge numbers--the Guard with machine guns in the subways, and the NYPD with barricades and mounted police on the streets.  Both protests were overwhelmingly peaceful, yet the protestors of all ages and walks of life were sent the message that we were breaking the law by taking advantage of our Constitutional rights to peacefully gather to protest for our rights.

      I sort of see a light at the end of the tunnel as far as the media is concerned in the past few weeks.  They seem to becoming aware (especially the reporters within the Beltway) that they have been made fools of by the Bush Administration.  They seem to be finally waking up to the extent to which the Bush Administration has manipulated them, and I think they're getting angry.  However, since all their bosses are now big corporate conglomerates, they still might feel fightened enough over job loss to be intimidated into robo-reporting again.

      Clinton got impeached for lieing about consensual sex (not even the penetrative kind).  The Bush administration is getting away with the kind of lies that kill people--like lieing to take us into an unnecessary war; lieing about domestic programs, like the Medicare Reform bill, that helps Pharmacuetical companies and costs seniors more dollars; lieing about falsely labled Environmental bills that won't help, but will only further exploit and hurt our environment; lieing about the payolla of tax payer dollars being funnelled to administration friendly corporations, like Halliburton, and all it's subsidiaries, in uncontested contracts for inferior service.

      The Bush administration and the Republican Congress and Judiciary are all turning this country into a fascist state where only one party will have control, and all discenting views will be silenced---and, eventually, if we continue down this road--prohibited.

      History repeats itself, and those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.  Think 1930's Germany, where a normally sane population was lured, by cries for Patriotism, to ignore the atrosities their leaders were committing in their name. Of course, those leaders' atrosities weren't broadcast, but classified for 'national security.'

      Any bells ringing?

      by Jo Ann Simon on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 07:09:06 PM PST

      •  Protest

        Well I didn't mean to sound as if there were never any protest ever, or no one ever did anything. But I think we need to do it on a bigger level. Where we don't stop. I mean look at the Ukraine. Those people got together and said, "We will leave when we you fix this corrupt eleciton." And then they stood by it. They really didn't leave. I feel like Bush is going to extreme measures, so in turn we have to go to extreme measures back.

        by cuevas on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 03:06:42 PM PST

  •  Underbelly

    In a way, this is already happening, but not in a way traditionally watched by liberals.

    I would keep a eye wide open on which currency countries will use to buy and sell goods. Currently, it is the dollar, but there is some rumbling about switching to the Euro, especially given America's massive trade deficit and governmental debt.

    So, the fundamentals are there for countries to think realistically about abandoning the dollar, and Bush's general attitude towards the world may end up being the straw the broke the camel's back. A final "fuck you" back from the world.

    If the dollar collapses, the stock market will follow. Two recessions under one presidency? It's not so crazy. We have a weak dollar, high energy prices, a solid but herky jerky recovery from the last recession ... watch out.

    I have said it before and I will say it again. America has a big armor plated backside, but our economy is the soft underbelly. Don't think the world doesn't know it.

    by Bald Peanut on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:12:08 AM PST

  •  Because marches don't accomplish shit

    We need new ways of battling the Cons, just marching in the streets with signs and playing drums and all that.  Besides, many of us out here have jobs that we can't just leave to march for causes we believe in, unfortunately.  But on the whole, protests are nice, but they are largely ignored by policy makeres.  What we need is ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE legislation to neutralize BushCult.  A mere showing of popular support (or lack thereof...) is clearly not something they take into consideration.

    Ughhh, Wolfowitz in charge of the world's most f'd up lending institution,...that little strip of horizon indicating the coming of the end of the world just became visible...

    by itsbenj on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:20:39 AM PST

    •  Brng back the Students for a Democratic Society!

      by eddieb061345 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:29:56 AM PST

    •  Oh how wrong you are!

      without the marches and demonstrations we'd still be in Vietnam.... and i was part of them so i can vouch for the accuracy.

      by wilfred on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:50:18 AM PST

      •  But marches have become less effective

        wilfred - I agree about the effect marches had during Vietnam, but things seem to have changed.  itsbenj has a point saying that they are not so powerful anymore - it allows the opposition to blow off steam, but it doesn't drive policy as it once did.  I'm not saying give them up, but they would have to rise to the level of shutting down commerce to gain serious attention, and that attention might be even worse, martial law and the like.

        The power is in the legislatures, the courts and the media, and as some have written here, the oppoisiton doesn't seem to be grabbing and using that power very much.  

        by OutFar on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 12:14:53 PM PST

        •  it's funny that

          when we see a million people gather in the Ukraine or Lebanon it means something to us... it still does my friend. We must come up with a bigger crowd is all. And a world-wide march of many millions would do just that. As they say: the people united can never be defeated.

          by wilfred on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 12:59:13 PM PST

          •  There's a Hidden Point Here

            Lebanon? Ukraine? Yes, they played center stage in our living rooms. But non-violent protest in the US is getting the side-show treatment under best circumstances, and is often totally ignored by our media.

            It wasn't just students marching that grabbed peoples' attention in the 60s. There were the explosions (like the one at UWisconsin), the police riots (Dem Convention and SlyStone concert in back-to-back summers in Chicago), the Kent State shootings, rumors of plans to slip LSD into public water supplies.

            Yep. Terror. Pure and simple. Folks paid attention because they were worried. While they worried, they also noticed that what was going on in Vietnam might not be such a good idea.

            So yes, marching helps. But it helps more if it's not the most radical activity ...

            by wystler on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:14:53 PM PST

            •  This is why

              doing something like blockading the entrance to the World Bank headquarters, so Wolfie can't move into his office, might be effective.  And by "blockading" - I mean for as long as it takes.

              When protesters succeed at gumming up the works - that's when they are successful.  I agree that just marching down the streets with placards is easily ignorable.  Nonviolent direct action is much more effective.

              by fishhead on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:11:07 PM PST

              •  And My Counterpoint ...

                ... was that there was violence in the 60s before anything happened, and it just might require violence in this decade before the collective conscience of the masses in denial will be shaken from their collective stupor.

                (Damn, this wolfowitz crap has me pissed. I'm certainly not advocating violent action ... just observing ...)

                by wystler on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:44:20 PM PST

                •  I'm with you all on this...

                  ...but that was why I mentioned "martial law".  The government was taken aback in the 60's.  I'm not sure they would hesitate (especially post 911) to clamp down with truly oppressive measures.  Maybe that's what it will take, but if so, it will be much worse than back in the day.

                  But why pick on Wolfie? He's gonna make things better, don'tcha know?

                  Top 10 Ways Paul Wolfowitz Would Improve the World Bank

                  10. Introduce "Non-Reality-Based" accounting methods.

                  by OutFar on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:47:24 PM PST

        •  Marches would be effective

          if we had enough people.  After the election some of my friends and I were bemoaning the results.  She mentioned that she had wanted to put a bumper sticker on her car to support Kerry but didn't because she was afraid that it wouldn't ever come off.  She ended up just taping it to her bumper sticker and it eventually fell off.  She then said that maybe that was symbolic of why we lost the election.  Maybe many of us, in our own way, taped bumper stickers to our cars.

          I don't mean to say that any of us don't feel passionately about our various causes.  In fact, I would say that each of us do as much as we can without ruining our futures.  But maybe thats the problem.  To stop a juggernaut like BushCo we have to be willing to give everything away.  We have to be willing to lose our jobs, or even our lives, if need be, to accomplish what needs to be done.  The Vietnam movement was effective, in my young and admittedly inexperienced opinion, because it's members were willing to do just that.  Event like Kent State caught the nations attention because the demonstrators were willing to die for a cause and that made the nation wonder what that cause was.

          by Nameless Soldier on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:37:48 PM PST

      •  The North Vietnamese killed almost a million

        innocent people after the 1975 invasion. Then there were the boat people, almost half a million of them.

        Did they all deserve what they got?

        by messy on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:32:17 PM PST

•  The Peter Principle

  The Peter Principle does not work well in government.  But Bush seems to keep trying (probably since it was this principle that has gotten him his jobs over his entire life).

  The Peter Principle:  In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.

  I fear how this mans fuckups will affect the global economy.  

  Hrm, new Bush economic plan: "Well, we fucked up the American economy right good, but we still want to be an economic powerhouse, so since it's obvious we can't improve shit, plan B is to fuck up the global economy even worse than our own.  And I got just the man for the job..."

  by SleepyG on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:50:44 AM PST

  •  The Wolfowitz Principle

    In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence...and then higher still.

    by fpc on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:09:26 AM PST

    •  Small quibble

      I think it should more properly be called the Rice-Wolfowitz Principle.

      Condi is no less of a fuckup promoted well beyond her skills than Wolfy is.

      by Chicago Jason on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 12:35:50 PM PST

  •  More like the Dilbert Principle

    "Incompetents are promoted faster so that they can be removed from actual production, where they would do more harm."

    I personally think it's just Junior following his mom's management theory: the most important factor in promotion is loyalty to the Family. All of these management jobs probably seem like empty titles to Bush anyways: he's never understood power, just revenge.

    Apropos revenge: I wonder when he's going to get revenge on those that wouldn't give him the baseball commissioner's post...

    by Saint Fnordius on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:01:56 AM PST

•  I'm sorry

  But are we supposed to be surprised. After all President Bush gave medals to Tenant, Franks and Bremer. It isn't that big of a stretch to promote Wolf to a new post it worked for Condi.

  by p a roberson on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:52:10 AM PST

  •  not surprised either

    This administration has always rewarded loyalty and incompetence.

    by dwcal on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:34:11 AM PST

    •  You said it!

      by eddieb061345 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:37:21 AM PST

    •  It reminds me of Major League sports teams

      Always the same 20/25 names in the hat for the coaching positions. Lose your job with one team-not to worry-we'll just hire you to coach somewhere else. No new blood need apply.

      Hughs, Rice, Rove, Wolfowitz, et al.
      All recycled (the only environmental word associated with this administration) from those in the Bush inner circle. No matter how badly they f'up their previous position (Rice) they can count on another in this administration.  

      by maggiemae on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:00:56 AM PST

•  Scary: read the Top 10 things about the WBG

  1. Largest fund for education
     
  2. Largest funder of HIV/AIDS assistance

  Thats just the first 2....the pdf froze.

  by Mikecan1978 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:52:22 AM PST

•  on the bright side

  On the bright side the one-two punch of Wolfowitz and Bolton might prod other nations to re-organize the international institutions like the UN, World Bank, IMF and WTO.

  by Carl Nyberg on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:52:37 AM PST

  •  It's a pollyanna thought but it is plausible

    His defiance towards the world community strengthens the force of their opposition.

    by Agathena on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:54:58 AM PST

  •  The Other Silver Lining

    Wolfie is out of the Pentagon. Not that the World Bank is a democratic institution, but compared to the dark chambers wherein he lurked before, the bank is an open book. Military money is spent in secret, World Bank money actually has accountants looking at it.

    by easong on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:10:44 AM PST

    •  umm, yeah... no

      Wolfie's worst decisions were in the open, not secrets.

      He can do mucho harm at the WB.

      by Carl Nyberg on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:15:03 AM PST

      •  When Wolfie Gets to the World Bank

        Do you think he'll still lick his comb to slick his hair down?

        by easong on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:30:21 AM PST

        •  No

          He'll hire a Third World peasant at pennies a day to lick it for him.  It will all be part of the World Bank's new "Indentured Servitude" philosophy.

          Or maybe an Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo prisoner will fit the bill.  They work free, unless of course they're beaten to death or otherwise "disappeared" first.

          by Chicago Jason on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 12:38:51 PM PST

•  It's Bush's charity employment service.

  He knows that these people have fucked-up so much that they would have trouble getting a job on their own.

  by Agathena on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:53:23 AM PST

•  Bloomberg article

  There is an article at Bloomberg news service that says that the bush Admin wants to change the World bank's recent emphasis away from funding big infrastructure projects and toward more zero percent loans to poor countries and projects on climate change.  In other words, Wolfie would restore the old emphasis on environmentally destructive projects and quit funding that ridiculous research on global warming.  

  More money for Bechtel and Halliburton!!  More water for the coastlines and less snow for Alaska and Kilamanjaro!!  Makes drilling in ANWR easier.

  I'm sorry not to post the link but I've been having so much trouble getting in to Kos that I'm afraid to leave.

  by Mimikatz on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:55:55 AM PST

  •  Click on your browser button ...

    and open another (parallel) window.  It's easy!

    by slip kid no more on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:12:06 AM PST

  •  Do you have a link to the Bloomberg article? nt

    by mimi on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:25:02 AM PST

  •  the article said the opposite, I think

    You said above:

    
    bush Admin wants to change the World bank's recent emphasis away from funding big infrastructure projects and toward more zero percent loans

    In the article it says:

    
    "Under Wolfowitz, the Bush administration may now try to narrow the focus of the World Bank, returning the international lending institution to its roots of primarily financing large infrastructure projects and limiting the practice of handing out zero-interest loans, analysts such as Alan Meltzer, who led a 2000 congressional inquiry into the World Bank, said

    
    considering what the Bush administration has promoted so far, that what the article said is consistent.

    I guess that was just a grammar glitch in the first sentence of your comment?

    by mimi on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:39:59 AM PST

•  This is a crisis

  I work regularly with the World Bank and know many officials there, particularly in their telecommunications and information technology practice.  The Bank has gotten a bad rap over the years, sometimes deserved, for their heavy-handed approach to market-oriented development, but they have also done a lot of good.  In the telecom/IT area in particular, the Bank has been instrumental in helping to bring access to phones and the Internet to millions and millions of people in some of the poorest countries in the world.  

  What I know is that the rank-and-file staff economists and development specialists at the Bank are no fans of the Bush administration.  These are 90% non-Americans who joined the Bank out of a sincere desire to do good in the world, and who put in amazing amounts of time and effort, often spending weeks overseas in challenging locations, trying to help improve the condition of the poor and underprivileged.  In conversation after conversation (unofficially), I have commiserated with many of these experts concerning the sad state of American politics and foreign policy, and our mutual opposition to the Iraq war in particular (a number of these officials happen to be Arabs, too).  I can tell you that they will be totally demoralized by the appointment of Wolfowitz as their new boss.  I don't know if there will be an internal rebellion, a large exodus, or just a crisis of staff confidence, but this is an ugly, disgusting development.  

  I haven't been this depressed since the morning after Election Day.
  

  by dnta on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:56:07 AM PST

  •  Is it a done deal?

    Does "nomination" = "appointment"?

    Not sure how this works.

    by Joan in Seattle on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:21:09 AM PST

    •  Depends

      I Depends on the size of The European's balls

      by eddieb061345 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:33:35 AM PST

      •  Hmmm. French PM Raffarin pictured

        shaking hands with Sharon, today in RW LaLa land. I suppose Wolfie is Sharon's appointee.

        by Heteraetcaetera on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 07:10:04 PM PST

      •  Seems Sharon could be the bagman

        on some of that missing, Israeli-laundered, Irasi money. (See my earlier comment.)

        by Heteraetcaetera on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:53:05 PM PST

    •  traditionally, but not necessarily

      Traditionally, the U.S. is allowed to pick the World Bank head, and the Europeans are allowed to pick the International Monetary Fund head.  Technically, Europe can veto a US choice to the World Bank, and the US can veto a European chocie to the IMF, but this hasn't been done before.

      Whether it will be here depends.  I'm sure the Europeans will want to veto Wolfowitz, but they may be held back because if they break with the tradition of letting the US appoint the World Bank head, then the US might challenge their next choice of IMF head.

      by Delirium on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:06:39 PM PST

  •  internal rebellion and boycott

    time will tell how "they" will be punished.

    by mimi on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:23:38 AM PST

  •  "access to phones and the Internet "

    sounds like another way to attack the "free speach" internet.

    by nargel on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 07:53:35 PM PST

•  This is only because

  they ran out o Medals of Freedom!

  The World Bank has traditionally been about extending US corporate power overseas, through loans to countries to fund projects which are awarded to US companies. The money often doesn't even reach the debtor country, but is tranferred directly to the corporations. Wolfowitz will simply be projecting American power in a new way for him, yet still with the same goal of enriching his masters.

  The John Perkins book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" postulated that the Iraq war was only undertaken because Saddam refused to play by that system and pay his oil revenues to US construction and oil companies. The assassination atempts then failed due to Saddam's security measures, and that left only invasion.

  by sba on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:56:43 AM PST

  •  So Your Bottom Line Would Be ...

    ... more $$$$$$$$ for:

    • Halliburton/KBR
      
    • Bechtel
      
    • Koch family
      
    • Exxon/Mobil

    and a host of other folks who've already made their killing on the BushCo tax cuts ... i feel a primal scream coming on ...

    by wystler on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:23:51 PM PST

•  2+2 = 5 Wolfowitz

  by eddieb061345 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:57:51 AM PST

•  I just wonder

  At what point should people seriously be talking about a revolution?

  What will it take?
  

  by Crazyj on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:58:10 AM PST

  •  "Velvet Revolutions"

    Isn't that what they were called?  I've been thinking about Eastern Europe, late 1980s, this week...

    by HenryDavid on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:00:42 AM PST

  •  Ever Read De Tocqueville?

    He wrote a book called democracy in America which has a whole chapter about why revolutions will be rare in western democracies.
    The majority will not revolt because they would be scared of losing too much.

    by hypnyx on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:00:55 AM PST

    •  Well, if we keep going on like this

      there won't be a hell of a lot to lose.

      by mmacdDE on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:04:27 PM PST

    •  What is it about democracy that you don't get yet?

      When only money talks, democracy's in the toilet. There is only one way to disrupt the violent, theiving, murderous farce that is fascism.

      by Heteraetcaetera on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:50:47 PM PST

  •  Well, Bush was elected fairly...

    ...assuming no signficant election fraud.

    Prove (don't suggest or accuse-prove) election fraud on a scale large enough to change the outcome of the election, and then it's time for a revolution.  Assuming this didn't happen, we have to win at the voting booth.

    by Geotpf on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:37:25 AM PST

    •  The Proof is under the WMDs

      by eddieb061345 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:41:22 AM PST

      •  Did you want to use the SS cuts

        to fund the digging?  

        by maggiemae on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:07:05 AM PST

    •  The burden of proof

      should not be on those who question whether Bush was fairly elected to prove that he wasn't; it should be on those who claim he was fairly elected to prove it by having the ability to accurately recount the vote -- paper ballots or some other form of paper trail.  Until we have that ability, every election will be open to question.

      by marylrgn on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:52:37 AM PST

      •  This is true

        However, a revolution (violent or otherwise) is overboard by far without proof.

        by Geotpf on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:07:56 AM PST

  •  As a soldier...

    I support my elected leadership.  As a citizen (the more important part of me), the minute they lock up a dissedent I'll be in the streets.  Election fraud would definately be a motivating factor as well.  To be honest though, I think the best bet for the forseeable future is non-violence, MLK style.  Also, I think that we should demand that the next election cycle be monitored by outside bodies from the UN and the EU.  I didn't say request, I said demand.

    by Nameless Soldier on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:19:30 PM PST

•  "Orwellian Nightmare"

  
  Steve Clemons over at the www.thewashingtonnote.com declares the neocon ascendency on the international stage (Wolfowitz's nomination to the World Bank and Bolton's nomination to the U.N.) an "Orwellian nightmare."  

  He explains:  

  "I do believe that progressives and centrists need to realize that this is not just a game where the other side gets to dominate for a while -- and our team will get to call the shots in a couple of years.

  There is something radically different about this time. In political science jargon, this is a period of major, dramatic discontinuity.

  Stop underestimating the impact of these people and what is going on."

  Amen!  

  by JenK on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:01:26 AM PST

  •  You may just be right

    I heard this horrible news on NPR before I went to work this morning and it ruined the rest of a perfectly good day.  I think that there are two main motivations here. 1. BushCo simply wants to control the world.  And, related, 2. They hate me and want to see me cry.

    by Nameless Soldier on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:12:34 PM PST

•  Let's Go Europe, Let's Go!

  Get out that VETO pen and make it count....don't act like the Democrats do in this country......in other words.....don't be PUSSIES and let this idiot bastard (W) roll you on this.

  by TheRover on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:02:22 AM PST

•  Bush Administration Qualifications:

  1. Pathological liar
     
  2. Gross incompetence
     
  3. Antisocial personality disorder with   belligerence towards any oppositon
     
  4. Blind obedience to cult leader

  Wolfowitz is perfect!

  One of my life goals is to live to see the day when America again joins the world community.

   

  by Doc Allen on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:04:31 AM PST

•  Give that Man a Medal of Honor!

  When he enters the halls of the World Bank, will he need a helmet to protect himself from all of the rose petals?

  by otho on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:05:50 AM PST

•  Social Security pushback

  I'm curious about a figure, and looking it up on the SSA website.

  The "crossover" point, where Social Security starts drawing on income tax cash flows to repay the prevously-collected-and-spent Trust Fund money, is supposed to occur in 2018.

  I saw in Dean Baker's article last week, that the "draw" amount that year is something like $27 billion, and increases after that, and that will be the point we may know if the Fund effectively goes down the toilet from Bush's misappropriation of funds.

  Iraq -- Wolfowitz's handiwork -- has probably cost $300 billion already, guaranteed to go to $500 billion, and who knows how much higher?

  HOW MANY YEARS of the Social Security post-2018 "drawdown" is being squandered in Iraq?  My guess is that $500 billion (in current dollars) gets you another 10-15 years of Social Security cash flow after 2018.

  If I don't get through all those .pdf report docs today, is that estimate "close enough for government work" for y'all?  

  I can see the graphic: A Social Security card, in the shape of Iraq, burning around its edges...

  by HenryDavid on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:11:26 AM PST

  •  good Idea

    The Iraq war has cost of 10 yeards of security...now to fund the war Bush is cutting your childrens benifits.

    by Mikecan1978 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:21:49 AM PST

  •  I could be wrong about this

    but I think the statement was made that the Bush tax cuts took out a trillion dollars and some change from the Governmental budget. Not sure about this, but wouldn't that money help SS?

    by p a roberson on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:36:01 AM PST

•  Wolfowitz Wa du fuuuh/

  Hey Bush is this your version of taking wolfowitz's purple finger and sticking it Europe's Eye.

  by eddieb061345 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:12:59 AM PST

•  Who better -

  to preside over the end of the petroleum era?

  by rockin in the free world on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:14:31 AM PST

•  I was horrified to find this out at first as well

  but I read an interesting analysis in subscription-only Stratfor that makes an interesting point.  Basically it's that Bush is done with the ideologue Wolfman (relying on pragmatist Condi to set the tone now) and he is moving him away from the daily White House planning team to head an institution that, quite frankly, Bush has no use for.  Strafor also makes the point that Robert McNamara resigned as SefDef in 1967 and moved on to the World Bank, crying at the press conference.  

  So, he is going to a place where he can no longer inject his neocon ideas into Defense planning.  He will instead have to worry about how not to help the developing world develop.  Not something to be happy about, really, but don't we all prefer him gone from Defense?  And could he nominate anyone to the WB that we'd like?  Powell was talked about, but he obviously isn't on the favorite list anymore and he blew his rep with the UN presentation, anyway.
  

  by jgontero on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:21:44 AM PST

  •  Why not Nominate Powell?

    I think he'd be accepted?

    Now I don't love Powell at all but he'd be less of a fuck up.  

    by Mikecan1978 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:23:03 AM PST

    •  Powell's on the Shit list

      by eddieb061345 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:32:01 AM PST

  •  Carla Fiorina

    was the other major candidate, unless you believed the reports that U2's Bono was under consideration.  I don't know a lot about Carla, but it sure would have sent a different message to appoint a woman, not to mention someone with high tech experience.

    by dnta on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:52:34 AM PST

    •  Talk to some HP employees

      They would probably all tell you if it was between Wolfowitz and Fiorina, Wolfowitz would be the better choice.

      by Geotpf on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:11:03 AM PST

      •  One of my classmates is an HP employee

        And he would disagree with that assessment. Fiorina weasn't perfect but she'd be hella better than Wolfowitz.

        by lux on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:18:44 AM PST

    •  Fiorina? Good grief!!

      In the essay I'm developping she's one of my Orrible Examples of how insiders feed off major corporate takeovers, hand in hand with unregulated private Hedge Fundies; read: Enron Executives. Mind you, anyone at the World Bank does need a solid grasp of Mr McMarket's incredible perversity, but, cough, cough: Fiorina? Shareholders hate Fiorina as fervently as do HP employees.

      ___
      * On that Peppermint Green (not!) latex suit discovered last week containing a celebrated corpse....of a "banker"/hedgie, no less.

      by Heteraetcaetera on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:03:53 PM PST

•  Qualifications?

  What qualifications, exactly, does Wolfowitz have to run the World Bank? All of his experience seems to be in military affairs (and from the Iraq war, we know how good he is at that).

  Another example of how the Bush admin considers war an end in itself, rather than a means to an end.

  by LiberalFromPA on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:26:07 AM PST

  •  Not Qualified

    In another thread, I posted a comment comparing the qualifications of Wolfowitz to those of a predecessor at the World Bank, Robert McNamara.

    In sum, while McNamara unquestionably had the requisite background, Wolfowitz's only possible relevant experience would be one year that he spent right after college as a Management Intern at the Bureau of the Budget.  His official DoD biography page can be found here.  If anyone else finds something relevant in there, I'd like to know about it.

    by The Maven on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:26:32 AM PST

  •  Over-qualified, man.

    As Bush said, "He has run large organizations. The World Bank is a large organization."

    What more qualifications do you need?

    He could also be a stock broker. "He has picked his buss. Stocks are something you can pick."

    by al Isqut on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:38:16 AM PST

•  Nothing succeeds like

  failure in the Bush admin

  by bejammin075 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:34:36 AM PST

•  He gives good head

  by eddieb061345 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:36:26 AM PST

•  Same punishment McNamara got,

  isn't it?  That's wierd.

  by Anaxamander on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:40:18 AM PST

  •  Demote up!

    It is typical in Gov't to get rid of incompetance through Promotion.

    by eddieb061345 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:45:58 AM PST

•  It's rather encouraging...

  ...in a backhanded, bizarro sort of way.  With all the talk of incipient fascism -- which I take quite seriously, by the way -- nominations like this and the return of the Karen Hughes, are curiously comforting.  

  It's just good old-fashioned cronyism, folks!  The same names keep getting recycled over and over.  The level of competence never goes up -- even if the level of malice never goes down.

  When you get right down to it, it's kinda like the government has been taken over by Mr. Haney from "Green Acres."

  by Roddy McCorley on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:43:42 AM PST

•  jeff gannon for press secretary

  every single time i think the nightmare can't get any worse, bush goes and expands my boundaries of just how "awful" awful can be - and it's been happening that way for going on 5 years... but even cutting him the slack of just looking at his second term, first we have condi as sec'y of state, gonzales as attorney general, the recycled bag'o'nut cases that pass for judicial nominees, bolton at the u.n., karen hughes at state under condi, and now WOLFOWITZ at the world bank...??? i am literally dumbfounded... all we need to make this ideological coup d'etat complete is, when scott mc finally throws up his hands, jeff gannon gets trotted out as the new press secretary... and to think i'm leaving beautiful buenos aires next week to return to amerika... <sigh>

  by profmarcus on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:48:49 AM PST

  •  Oh to make me laugh ..

    If I didn't think that there might actually be a chance that this could happen I would be on the floor right now. I've been wondering if Bush is promoting these people, because he can. Not that he has the power to do so, but because he has bitch slapped congress around so much that they have become the battered spouse and we're waiting for congress to set fire to the bed.

    by p a roberson on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:55:51 AM PST

    •  Quiet. Don't give the Prez any ideas

      by eddieb061345 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:03:48 AM PST

  •  Oliver North for President in 2008!

    What the hell, it's the only thing left for Ollie....

    by David Mason on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:43:37 AM PST

•  NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

  Yes, I just read this piece o' crap news over at SF Gate, and that was my reaction.  Poor people of the world, flee for your lives!

  I'm kind of amused, though, in a vertiginous way, about the pure awfulness and inappropriateness of his second term appointments.  I'm just glad Bush doesn't have any say over who is appointed the next Pope, because it would for sure be the Antichrist.

  by tree hugger on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:01:43 AM PST

  •  Methodist Antichrist?

    It wouldn't be the Antichrist because (a) Bush is already too busy being President to appoint himself to the papacy, and (b) in any event, he's a Methodist.

    by fishhead on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:17:17 PM PST

•  Look on the bright side..

  This may be the last time for a long long time that the far right have any influence in government. I thought that Kerry should have won, and begin undoing the mess that Dubya created. With the election going the way it did, and with the gross fuck ups since November, at least the republicans have to take responsability for making the mess even worse. If Kerry had won, he could not have undone this mess in 4 years. The GOP spin would have been that things would have been fine if Dubya could have remained in office to finish what he started. He's finishing all right. Now the morons that voted for him can see what a total fuck up he is. Giving Wolfowitz this position is just another stupid decision in a long list. It will get worse. But the bright side may be that this is the last chance the GOP has for a generation... At least that's what I'm hoping.

  by pabos on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:02:24 AM PST

  •  So many times

    I've thought exactly the same thing (while pondering the probability of zero Supreme Court Justice replacements in the next four years...)

    I take consolation in believing the designation for Worst President Ever is being etched deeper with every passing day.

    by hazey on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:30:29 AM PST

    •  This is true

      But democrats have to position themselves as a real opposition party. Otherwise (and remember there is no logic in repworld) they will blame fuck-ups on "the government" or "big government" and get off the hook.

      by Mr Bula on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:12:34 PM PST

    •  I'm sorry, but I disagree

      Bush's hardcore base will never admit he is wrong because they believe that he is annointed.  Unfortunately, Bush's hardcore base seems to be wider than our's, even if public opinion is starting to lean in our direction.  I hope you're right, but I think that even pretending this is true might be setting us up for hardcore laziness.

      by Nameless Soldier on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:45:27 PM PST

      •  I guess I'm thinking about

        how he'll be judged in the history books.  Not in the short-term history, like people who think Ronald Reagan was a good president, but in the greater scheme of things.  

        And as I'm saying this, I get your point exactly.  25 years from now there are going to be people still slathering about how wonderful Bush was.  We still won't be able to have reasonable conversations with them.  To think that some people will never see the harm done to this country under his presidency, well, that is a depressing thought.

        You are right, though.  Laziness is not an option.  This past weekend on c-span they broadcast a program with the authors of The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib.  One of the other speakers on the program was Anthony Romero, the executive director of A.C.L.U.  He kept repeating, when questions came up about how this administration was getting away with their actions, "The story's not finished yet."

        I liked that.  He was saying, we're not sitting on our asses.  We haven't given up.  We're still working and still fighting.  And I guess you're saying we can't sit back and think Bush is doing a good enough job at being a miserable failure that we can relax and laugh about it.  (Or to be more accurate, cry about it.)

        by hazey on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:45:48 PM PST

        •  If you give someone enough rope....

          They will hang themselves.
          What I am saying is this: work like hell to change the situation. But take some satisfaction in that this horrible mess that the Bushites are playing out now will eventually backfire in a big way.
          The war, the deficit, and the loss of respect of the US in the rest of the world because of this administration IS going to come home to roost.
          Eventually.
          I hope.
          In my lifetime.
          I have to believe this, otherwise it's just too hopeless. I will still use what little leverage I have to change things, and am not saying that we can all sit back and watch this train wreck wihout working for change.

          by pabos on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:01:25 AM PST

•  one more comment

  i just finished scanning the other comments and found myself pissed that so many saw wolfie's departure from the pentagon and accession to the wb as a turn for the better possibly as a way to get him OUT of the way... c'mon, folks... dear, demented  rasputin rove doesn't work that way... it's a clear move to implant the republican ideological coup d'etat's power more solidly in another major global institution... the wb is no shining star by any means but what "wolf the comb" can do post-wolfensohn (two wolves, how 'bout that?!?), frightens me to the core... also... wake up, people, will ya...??! amerikans are woefully ingorant of the workings of the wb and the imf but, HELLO...?!?! it's out money... read jos. stiglitz' "globalization and its discontents" and you won't be ignoring either of them any more...

  by profmarcus on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:02:42 AM PST

•  The conservative

  good ole boy network continues to flourish while the really competent in society are held back because of bigotry, racism and fear of the unknown, don't you just love white con America (the used to be beautiful)!
  PEACE!

  by PC on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:04:33 AM PST

•  Not Surprised, Disgusted

  I am not at all surprised by this, but I am thoroughly disgusted. This nomination is an insult to the World Bank and the world community.

  by lux on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:16:17 AM PST

•  On the other hand

  Look at the bright side. With Wolfowitz out of Defense, there's one less Neocon in a position of power pushing the U.S. headfirst into preemptive war.

  by fubar on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:41:02 AM PST

•  dammit god f*ckin dammit

  sorry for channelling Maryscott - just had to say it

  by Thor Heyerdahl on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:58:48 AM PST

•  Wolfowitz, World Bank Pres:

  yeah, that'll happen.

  by marjo on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:04:16 AM PST

•  Wolfie looks kind of familiar

  

  by BOHICA on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:11:10 AM PST

•  I'm not sure that this is a promotion for Wolfie

  This move to the World Bank looks a lot like what happened to then Secretary of Defense Bob MacNamara.  Old Mac finally decided to show a little honesty with Congress when it came to the screw up in Vietnam (late in the game though, around 1967 I believe), so President Johnson "rewarded" Mac for his loyalty by moving him to the World Bank.  Now we have Bolton and Wolfie being moved to other parts of the government.  Bolton will be isolated and away from the center of power, and Wolfie will have to pass the fire of the Europeans to be accepted at the World Bank.  My prediction is that the Europeans will vote Wolfie down, and they will end up doing Bush's dirty work of "firing" the incompetent shithead.

  No, this does not mean that Bush will suddenly have a more realistic or multilateral approach to foreign affairs.  Bush is only getting rid of a few lightening rods is all.  Lesser ligthening rods to be sure, but ones that are expendable AFTER the election.

  by Merlin1963 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:30:41 AM PST

•  Very discouraging news

  I agree that this is one more F-you gesture on Bush's part, just like Bolton for UN.  He never backs down.  I don't think Bush would have necessarily worked it out with world leaders on his European trip because he doesn't give a flying flip what they think and he'll just plow ahead with what he wants.  It's also part of his political success - "You might not agree with me but you know where I stand."

  I know a ton of people who work at the World Bank, all of them smart, progressive, committed.  I can't imagine how sick they must feel.  If any of them have any political clout whatsoever, I hope they are on the phone to anyone who could make a difference.

  This deserves some sort of campaign.  We must pick 3-4 of Wolfie's worst predictions, quotes, actions, etc and harp harp harp on them.  I trust Krugman will have something smart to add, maybe NYTimes editorials (I'm not counting on Wash Post).

  Look, if Henry Kissinger could be hounded out of heading up the 9/11 commission, why can't we make Wolfowitz look like such an inept clown that he doesn't make it to this spot????  I think this is a job for the blogosphere.

  By the way, is there a comparable progressive blogosphere around the world?  They've got to get on this.

  by norabb on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 12:33:09 PM PST

•  I'm actually relieved...

  ... it's not Fiorina.

  by pyrrho on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 12:45:37 PM PST

  •  and I'm disappointed

    it's not Bono. ;-)

    by mmacdDE on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:10:07 PM PST

    •  and i'm angry ...

      ... that it's not somebody who's qualified ...

      PW was a failure as a diplomat (posted in Indonesia) ... a unilateralist in a multilateralist job is like appointing a steroid junkie to head up the Prez Council of Physical Fitness ... what? AS was what? nevermind ...

      by wystler on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:34:46 PM PST

•  No surprise

  President's choice comes at no surprise. George W. Bush has always been a spearhead of a few special interests groups, and the ord "consensus" is banned from his lexicon. He never hesitated to openly take one side on an issue, which will divide the nation but inrease his election chances. Very bolshevik-like in that respect.

  by aquilon on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:31:14 PM PST

•  All right, who's next?

  Scare me more.  

  Is Jerry Falwell going to be put in charge of the National Science Foundation?  

  Is Michael Savage going to head the National Endowment for the Arts?  

  Is Ken Lay Alan Greenspan's successor?

  Predictions, please!  Let's people the Hall of Infamy from one end to the other.
  

  by LaurasLamp on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 03:30:48 PM PST

  •  It's getting to the point

    at which none of these appointments would surprsie me particularly.  Like Alice, we've gone through the looking glass.

    by fishhead on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:19:40 PM PST

•  Wolfowitz : World Bank vs. Iran

  Wolfowitz is being proposed for the World Bank so that he can punish countries opposing US policy.  If you can't beat them, destroy their economy.  What do you want to bet Israel and Iraq get more loans than Iran, Syria and Palestine?

  by RepubAnon on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 03:45:23 PM PST

•  Views on Wolfowitz

  Some views on Wolfowitz from over the world:
  http://dearkitty.modblog.com/?show=blogview&blog_id=513852

  by dearkitty on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 03:47:40 PM PST

•  Damn

  Bono looks even better now.

  by Midwest Progressive on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 04:18:34 PM PST

•  Wolfowitz vs Bozo the Clown: Who's more qualified?

  So who is more qualified to lead the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, or Bozo the Clown? I put together a comparison table. Hint: It ain't pretty -- for Wolfowitz :-).

  - Badtux the Snarky Penguin

  by badtux on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:44:24 PM PST