Followed it. From what I can tell, Wolfie was caught with his, er, hand in the cookie jar and it should have been a no brainer that he would get caught. But what surprised me is that others held him accountable for it.

I don't see it as anti-Americanism on the part of foreign powers. They knew Bush will probably get to choose the replacement. I think the best spin one can put on it was that Wolfie should have known that the corruption of the Bush administration would make people suspicious and ALL impressions of impropriety should be avoided. They weren't. Didn't seem like Wolfie was beyond the more or less normal bounds of international corruption, but he was vulnerable because he worked for Bush during a particularly failed set of policies. So things should have been done better. I am sure there is a great deal of ass covering by the board and I don't think they were innocent. But these days once you have the Brits turning your back on you you know you overplayed your cards.

So thanks for the backhanded compliment...I do appreciate it. But not sure I agree with you this time either.

I will say that I am skeptical that Wolfie would have helped Zimbabwe either, but I see enough of a hint that I will consider the possibility. Republicans DO do the right thing from time to time, though you see scant evidence of it under Bush. It is quite possible that once outside of the direct Bush influence Wolfowitz would have shown a more traditionally conservative attitude, which could well have led to some good policies. Conservativism is not by definition bad. It just is too often misapplied.