Well, Well, Well - the D&C editorial alchemy department yet again manufactures something out of nothing. Creating issues and concerns that do not exist. Please there are enough issues to write about.

Did you check this editorial this morning - seems Paul Wolfowitz isn’t getting treated fairly. Boo Freakin Who

See people are pissed at Paul. There is the whole Iraq thing and his lack of fashion sense. But now that he apparently appointed is girlfriend to a cushy job at the World Bank (there is the promotion without oversight too) and this little gem “creating some well-paid slots for old cronies”.

Well, the D&C to the rescue. The editorial says he should be treated fairly.

“Perhaps a monetary penalty is in line, or a public censure. But the board has to be as objective as it can in this judgment. And that means looking at the whole picture.”

What are you going to say next? Bring back Alan Hevesi? I mean - he did a good job. Hell, even got reelected.

What did the D&C have to say about Alan Hevesi? I think they reluctantly endorsed Callaghan. I mean Hevesi - “only” had someone drive his wife around but was a “great” Comptroller. What is the difference between Hevesi and Wolfowitz? I would argue that Hevesi’s record is better than Wolfowitz’s yet I’m pleased how the Hevesi episode played out.

Where does the World Bank President come from? Appointed by the President of the United States. Where does the World Bank board come from? They are appointed. We are the public. Wolfowitz is a reflection on us.

This is a reflection on the integrity of the United States of America and we don’t need to excuse lapses in integrity.

That sounds fair to me

You can read editorial after the fold. Enjoy.

(April 27, 2007) — World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, as wrong as he certainly was in steering his girlfriend into a cushy government job and creating some well-paid slots for old cronies, should be judged by his board on his overall performance as head of this important institution.

The trustees are being pushed along by political winds, some of which emanate from Wolfowitz’s legion of enemies, most of whom regard him as the Darth Vader-like architect of the Iraq war. Wolfowitz was that, and he made a lot of bad calls while serving in the Bush administration. But it’s only fair to him, and to the reputation of the World Bank, that he stay or go based on what he’s done at the bank, and whether his patronage maneuvers have crippled his ability to serve.

Wolfowitz has done some positive things at the bank since he came on as president in 2005. He has insisted on withholding development grants and loans to countries where internal corruption is rampant. Some say he’s pushed too hard to change the culture of those nations while keeping needed help away from the poor. But it makes no sense to pour the bank’s money into corrupt regimes.

Wolfowitz should suffer the consequences of his arrogant efforts on behalf of his acolytes. One idea is to have the trustees oversee his activities more closely. Perhaps a monetary penalty is in line, or a public censure. But the board has to be as objective as it can in this judgment. And that means looking at the whole picture.