Some months ago I remember being shocked by an editorial in The New York Times praising Paul Wolfowitz, one of the leading neo-con originators of the war against Iraq. (Why am I shocked by NY Times editorials? Am I falling victim to the Right's constant prattling about the "liberal media" and thus, expecting The Times to actually be so?) In their editorial, they lauded Wolfowitz, who had recently left the Rumsfeld War Department at the Pentagon to fill Bush's appointment as director of the World Bank. The Times wondered about people at the Bank "mistrusting" him and complaining that he wouldn't be given a fair chance to prove himself because they were judging him for "championing the disastrous Iraq war." Huh?
"When Paul Wolfowitz speaks publicly these days, he is usually making good sense. The head of the World Bank (formerly No. 2 at the Pentagon) has criticized Chinese banks for ignoring environmental and human rights standards when they lend to Africa, told the White House it needs to do more to alleviate African poverty, and has vowed that corrupt officials won’t be allowed to siphon off money from projects that are supposed to benefit the poor."Sometimes, you just wonder whether they're living in the real world at The Times. To take serious the Times' notion that someone of the ilk of Paul Wolfowitz, assigned by the morally bankrupt Bush Administration, could lead a campaign on behalf of the world's poor one would have to take at face value that Bush or his underlings at FEMA really care about the people of New Orleans. Or that the President, touring Latin America recently, really meant it when he told people there that his government is serious about fighting poverty in that part of the world. Please give us all a break!
So it came as no great surprise (and actually a wonderful delight) when I picked up today's newspaper to read that Mr. Wolfowitz is in deep doo-doo at the Bank. It seems that when he entered the directorship of the Bank he came on like gangbusters with an anti-corruption campaign (shades of John Bolton at the U.N.). However, at the same time, it seems he was dictating to subordinates there that his girlfriend be given a post with a salary of $193,00 (more than the salary of a U.S. cabinet member and an increase from her previous $133,000. Wolfowitz wrote his underlings:
“I now direct you to agree to a proposal which includes the following terms and conditions. You should accept immediately her offer to be detailed to an outside institution of her choosing while retaining bank salary and benefits.”This is chutzbah to the nth degree and not surprising given the history of this arrogant bunch in control of our White House. But The Times, given its history of permitting Judith Miller's sucking up to the war bunch, is ever true to itself. I wonder if tomorrow's paper will reverse its previous editorial which ended with these pathetic words:
"He needs a more inclusive management style and a more diplomatic inner circle, and to articulate broader goals beyond stopping corruption. That way he would have the credibility to fight the good fight."Someone's got to clue them in how ridiculous and pitiful they sound when they commit such nonsensical words to paper.
Caught by Michael Moore in Farenheit 911 ... Here's Creepy - licking his comb and then combing his hair with it.
Here are the links to the two Time's pieces:
-- The editorial
-- The article