Wolfowitz at the World Bank?

John Kerry opposes the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to be President of the World Bank.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 16, 2005

Statement by John Kerry on Paul Wolfowitz’s Nomination to be President of the World Bank

“Coming on the heels of the appointment of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations, this is now another mystifying choice by the Bush administration for an important role in the community of nations. It makes you wonder whether all the administration’s words about mending fences with our allies are just lip service. After Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz’s repeated and serious miscalculations about the costs and risks America would face in Iraq , I don’t believe he is the right person to lead the World Bank.”

But what Kerry doesn’t know is that Wolfowitz is really good with numbers.

Wolfie proved it prior to the war when he appeared before the House Budget Committee.

See below:

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who appeared before the House Budget Committee, refused to be pinned down, however, saying that uncertainty over the course that the war might take makes meaningful estimation of cost almost impossible. “If we cost every single (scenario), we’d maybe give you a range between $10bn and $100bn and you’d say that’s useless, and you’d be right,” he said. On the question of financial assistance from other nations, Wolfowitz said that he expects lots of contributions after the war, including from nations that oppose military action. CBS Article

Ten billion? Did he throw 10 billion out there?

11 Comments

Dean Pajevic on March 16, 2005 at 1:38 pm

Excellent analysis, Boo! May I ask a kinda dumb question (and don’t tell me there aren’t any because I’ve thought of plenty in my time)? If it’s a World Bank, how come Bush gets to choose who leads it?

P.S. I can’t post a diary. Did you get my e-mail? It’s not life and death or time-sensitive. Just puzzled why the “choose a TOPIC” option is required before I can post, but I can’t find the TOPIC option. Everything worked fine last night. Just not in the past three or so hours.

BooMan on March 16, 2005 at 1:40 pm

Andy said the problem was that your superuser status was preventing you from posting and that he fixed it. Try one more time and see if he did indeed fix it.
- Dean Pajevic on March 16, 2005 at 2:17 pm
  
  Thank you! It worked.
  
  How amusing that Wolfowitz would mention a mere $10 billion. ‘course, at the time, who knew? What were the predictions of opponents of the war?
  - BooMan on March 16, 2005 at 2:22 pm
    
    The CBS article I linked to is almost hilarious in retrospect.
    
    It has several jaw-droppers in it.
    
    Of course, it was obvious that they war would involve an occupation. They just refused to discuss it, or to plan for it, or to budget for it.
  - knowthings on March 16, 2005 at 10:54 pm
    
    He wasn’t anti war, he was just honest. He was fired for providing an accurate fiscal evaluation
    
    General Shinseki was fired for being honest too. TYhe good general estimated that we would need 100,000 to 300,000 troops to occupy Iraq
    
    Wolfowitz appeared the next day and offered his VAST MILITARY EXPERIENCE to solve the proble by pronouncing that only 30,000 troops would be needed to occupy Iraq
    
    We should have let Wolfie have his way, and the United States would have been run out of Iraq by now
- catnip on March 16, 2005 at 10:39 pm
  
  Wow! Does she have a cape?

Mnemosyne on March 16, 2005 at 4:43 pm

I’ve just been reading the stories in the Guardian and the Independent, because I can’t stomach the bad reporting in the Times any more. And I am hopeful that maybe, just maybe, Bushco has pissed off the Europeans so much that they will pull themselves together and reject this obscene appointment in public, as they apparently rejected it privately when it was proposed to them earlier.

Yes, and I do still believe in the tooth fairy. So there.

catnip on March 16, 2005 at 10:40 pm

All right-wing nuts, all the time, all over the world…

I mean, Wolfowitz? To head the World Bank? Is Bush serious??

BooMan on March 16, 2005 at 10:59 pm

And remember how Aspin resigned?

That doesn’t happen anymore.

And part of Reagan’s administration was marked by how many people were indicted, or forced to resign for unethical or criminal behavior.

But at least they resigned. They still had standards back then. You get caught, you resign. You fuck up badly and embarraass the administration? You resign.

Now it is just the opposite. No one resigns for anything.

And Tenet was 3 years too late IMO.

wolverine writer on March 17, 2005 at 4:46 am

Screw up and w encourages–practically begs–you to stay on. Allowing a resgination within the administration amounts to w making a mistake, and we all know that never happens.

ask on March 17, 2005 at 5:38 pm

Booman,
I was about to do a diary based on below NY Daily News link, but did a search and found your’s which still seems to be active.

Bush hawk gets World Bank job

The headline states it as a fact, though the story says:

WASHINGTON – President Bush named Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank yesterday, placing another administration hawk atop a key international body.

“He is a compassionate, decent man who will do a fine job,” Bush said of Wolfowitz, who will succeed World Bank President James Wolfensohn when he steps down in June.

Wolfowitz, 61, will most likely be confirmed by World Bank members without serious dissent, well-placed sources said.

The analysis further suggests that the Europeans will not put up a fight:

Europeans won’t waste political capital trying to block his appointment. In a phone call shortly after Bush announced Wolfowitz’s new post, French President Jacques Chirac signaled he would not oppose Bush’s nominee. “He will be confirmed and we will be polite about it,” a French source said.

European sources ultimately appear to support this analysis. This BBC article – Dismay at Wolfowitz’s nomination – suggests stronger scepticism than apparent in NY DN, but concludes:

US appointments to the World Bank presidency are usually unchallenged, as are European nominations to lead the International Monetary Fund.

The view in Washington is that the White House would not have announced the president’s choice unless sufficient support had already been garnered behind the scenes, our correspondent says.

The Guardian’s headline is similar in sentiment – Cool reaction to Wolfowitz move.

But also reports:

But diplomats said it was unlikely that Europe, which holds about 30% of the seats on the bank’s board, would seek to strain transatlantic relations by blocking him.

This looks like major disaster coming up. First Bolton’s nomination for the Ambassadorship to the UN and now Wolfowitz (Wolfenson, Wolfowitz – who’s next; Wolf Blitzer?).
Seems to me to be an attack on both institutions. How can a (chicken)hawk and neocon be the chief advocate for sustainable development?
They’re moving fast now….

Dean Pajevic on March 16, 2005 at 1:38 pm

Excellent analysis, Boo! May I ask a kinda dumb question (and don’t tell me there aren’t any because I’ve thought of plenty in my time)? If it’s a World Bank, how come Bush gets to choose who leads it?

P.S. I can’t post a diary. Did you get my e-mail? It’s not life and death or time-sensitive. Just puzzled why the “choose a TOPIC” option is required before I can post, but I can’t find the TOPIC option. Everything worked fine last night. Just not in the past three or so hours.
- BooMan on March 16, 2005 at 1:40 pm
  
  Andy said the problem was that your superuser status was preventing you from posting and that he fixed it. Try one more time and see if he did indeed fix it.
  - Dean Pajevic on March 16, 2005 at 2:17 pm
    
    Thank you! It worked.
    
    How amusing that Wolfowitz would mention a mere $10 billion. ‘course, at the time, who knew? What were the predictions of opponents of the war?
    - BooMan on March 16, 2005 at 2:22 pm
      
      The CBS article I linked to is almost hilarious in retrospect.
      
      It has several jaw-droppers in it.
      
      Of course, it was obvious that they war would involve an occupation. They just refused to discuss it, or to plan for it, or to budget for it.
    - knowthings on March 16, 2005 at 10:54 pm
      
      He wasn’t anti war, he was just honest. He was fired for providing an accurate fiscal evaluation
      
      General Shinseki was fired for being honest too. TYhe good general estimated that we would need 100,000 to 300,000 troops to occupy Iraq
      
      Wolfowitz appeared the next day and offered his VAST MILITARY EXPERIENCE to solve the proble by pronouncing that only 30,000 troops would be needed to occupy Iraq
      
      We should have let Wolfie have his way, and the United States would have been run out of Iraq by now
  - catnip on March 16, 2005 at 10:39 pm
    
    Wow! Does she have a cape?
Mnemosyne on March 16, 2005 at 4:43 pm

I’ve just been reading the stories in the Guardian and the Independent, because I can’t stomach the bad reporting in the Times any more. And I am hopeful that maybe, just maybe, Bushco has pissed off the Europeans so much that they will pull themselves together and reject this obscene appointment in public, as they apparently rejected it privately when it was proposed to them earlier.

Yes, and I do still believe in the tooth fairy. So there.
catnip on March 16, 2005 at 10:40 pm

All right-wing nuts, all the time, all over the world…

I mean, Wolfowitz? To head the World Bank? Is Bush serious??
BooMan on March 16, 2005 at 10:59 pm

And remember how Aspin resigned?

That doesn’t happen anymore.

And part of Reagan’s administration was marked by how many people were indicted, or forced to resign for unethical or criminal behavior.

But at least they resigned. They still had standards back then. You get caught, you resign. You fuck up badly and embarraass the administration? You resign.

Now it is just the opposite. No one resigns for anything.

And Tenet was 3 years too late IMO.
wolverine writer on March 17, 2005 at 4:46 am

Screw up and w encourages–practically begs–you to stay on. Allowing a resgination within the administration amounts to w making a mistake, and we all know that never happens.
ask on March 17, 2005 at 5:38 pm

Booman,
I was about to do a diary based on below NY Daily News link, but did a search and found your’s which still seems to be active.

Bush hawk gets World Bank job

The headline states it as a fact, though the story says:

WASHINGTON – President Bush named Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank yesterday, placing another administration hawk atop a key international body.

“He is a compassionate, decent man who will do a fine job,” Bush said of Wolfowitz, who will succeed World Bank President James Wolfensohn when he steps down in June.

Wolfowitz, 61, will most likely be confirmed by World Bank members without serious dissent, well-placed sources said.

The analysis further suggests that the Europeans will not put up a fight:

Europeans won’t waste political capital trying to block his appointment. In a phone call shortly after Bush announced Wolfowitz’s new post, French President Jacques Chirac signaled he would not oppose Bush’s nominee. “He will be confirmed and we will be polite about it,” a French source said.

European sources ultimately appear to support this analysis. This BBC article – Dismay at Wolfowitz’s nomination – suggests stronger scepticism than apparent in NY DN, but concludes:

US appointments to the World Bank presidency are usually unchallenged, as are European nominations to lead the International Monetary Fund.

The view in Washington is that the White House would not have announced the president’s choice unless sufficient support had already been garnered behind the scenes, our correspondent says.

The Guardian’s headline is similar in sentiment – Cool reaction to Wolfowitz move.

But also reports:

But diplomats said it was unlikely that Europe, which holds about 30% of the seats on the bank’s board, would seek to strain transatlantic relations by blocking him.

This looks like major disaster coming up. First Bolton’s nomination for the Ambassadorship to the UN and now Wolfowitz (Wolfenson, Wolfowitz – who’s next; Wolf Blitzer?).
Seems to me to be an attack on both institutions. How can a (chicken)hawk and neocon be the chief advocate for sustainable development?
They’re moving fast now….

Wolfowitz at the World Bank?

About The Author

BooMan

11 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments