Maybe you're right. Had he not been unethical maybe he COULD have done something for Zimbabwe. Too bad Wolfowitz put corruption and immorality above his job. Sadly, that seems to be the Republican way these days, something that is driving true conservatives out of the party. There really was a time Republicans, though I might disagree with them, at least valued effective government. Now Republicans are all about corruption and not about efficiency, fiscal responsibility or even ethics.

Wolfowitz didn't do a thing wrong. He contacted the Bank very early on, informing them of his relationship and asking to recuse himself from ANY dealings with her at the Bank. This, of course, should have been enough. But then then the Bank got back to him and said they were putting together an ethical council do rule on the matter. Fine. Then the ethical council contacts him and tell him that she is to be transferred and get a pay raise, and he is to be in charge of it. He followed the instructions of this council to a T and then then the Europeans railroaded him out of revenge for Iraq. All the documentation about this was made public record (at Wolfowitz' insistence.) Oh well, it's only slaughter, right?

That was not the finding of the World Bank's board. And that was not the opinion of Europe's leaders, including the Brits. Now, let's keep in mind that the World Bank is no hot bed of liberalism. And Europe is supposed to be our close ally. Yet only Wolfowitz and the White House and some right wing extremists claimed it was okay for Wolfowitz to order a pay raise and promotion for his girlfriend.

You and I disagree on many topics, but I've always thought of you as a highly intelligent critical thinker. I can't except you being willfully obtuse on this matter. You don't need to outsource your sense of critical reasoning to the World Bank board. All the relevant documentation and all the records are out in the open. Look at them for yourself, follow the timeline and then let me know what your ruling is.

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.