Oh the media loves a good scandal.
Paul Wolfowitz is the brain-damaged wonk who came up with the idea to invade Iraq. As a reward for such a brilliant idea, George W. made him head of the World Bank. That, apparently, was fine.
What is not fine, by contrast, is that Wolfowitz wrongfully promoted his girlfriend within the World Bank. This is news and did provoke an apology from Paul.
He doesn't apologize for egging on our president to invade Iraq but he apologizes for a few thousand dollars wrongly spent on his paramour?
Ai ya ya.
I have lived in this country for 46 years and I still haven't got the hang of its strange customs.
4 comments:
Brain damaged wonk? Hardly. Avoid using these kind of tags admidst your turmoil over the world's ills. As for Wolfy, he's just part of the sad human condition you write about like Clinton and Monica before him and most recently Feinstein and her spouse. In today's Sac Bee under Religion and Ethics Calendar for the coming week it includes: "Fun4 Rainbow Families Festival, sponsored by Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Family Support Network..." At nearly 72 I'm just getting more confused. Not that there's anything wrong with it mind you.
David,
Wolfowitz came up with the keen idea of invading and occupying Iraq as a means to settle the Middle East. How would label the mind that came up with such a plan? A mind that has never, to my knowledge, expressed the least regret for such an atrocious idea. Bush has taken a great deal of well deserved blame for how things have gone in Iraq. By contrast, Wolfowitz has gone inexplicably unscathed through all this, a freedom from personal consequence that seems immoral. Brain damaged? Myopic? Simple-minded? Reckless? You really think that he ought to get nothing more than a huge promotion as a consequence? We must be miles apart on this one. It seems to me that someone pointing out an apparent flaw in his skills of reasoning ought to be the very least of the consequences he lives with.
Ron,
I think criticizing Wolfy for everything about Iraq as a Middle East peace plan assumes too much that's all. In reality the decision process to invade Iraq was widespread and included intelligence from various sources, support from Arab leaders, other nation's leaders, US Cabinet concurrences, etc. Most nation-state opposition was hardly moral. I believe there was faulty reasoning about what the aftermath of removing Saddam would be but then that's always easier to say with hindsight. I don't know that the failure to predict either factionalism's impact or the extent of support for the terrorists from other states was his failure exclusively. No one need apologize for ousting Saddam and his sons.
When you are a leader or a high level policy-maker, you are responsible for the unintended consequences of your actions or your recommendations.
Of course no one should apologize for ousting Saddam and his sons, but that logic fails unless you consider the entire set of outcomes. It's like saying it's OK that I burned down the house since I killed the rats.
Leaders everywhere (government, business, church,etc.)are evaluated on the overall success of their initiatives. Did we win the war? Did we make a profit? Did our people follow God's instructions?
Wolfowitz was reckless in his Iraq predictions, and he was reckless with his girlfriend's job and perks. Bush should consider him "0 for 2", and fire him from the World Bank. Fat chance. Birds of a feather fly together.
Post a Comment