ANALYSIS-Wolfowitz crisis challenged U.S. leadershi--the UNgraceful

[rodeodance]

exit of Wolfie did nothing for our credibility -----esp. with the WH almost begging to let him stay!




http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17355865.htm


ANALYSIS-Wolfowitz crisis challenged U.S. leadership
17 May 2007 23:09:46 GMT
Source: Reuters

Background
Iraq in turmoil
More
(Updates with Wolfowitz resignation, quotes)

By Carol Giacomo and Lesley Wroughton

WASHINGTON, May 17 (Reuters) - The ouster of Paul Wolfowitz as World Bank president, in another rift between the United States and its European allies, poses an unprecedented challenge to U.S leadership of the global financial system.

Weakened by chaos in Iraq, low popularity and his lame-duck status, President George W. Bush was unable to prevent Wolfowitz's forced departure -- the first of a World Bank president -- after weeks of resistance and public acrimony over his promotion of a companion.

Some U.S. officials and experts expressed alarm that the controversy could force the United States to give up its World Bank preeminence and long tradition of appointing the president.

Others argued that a radical overhaul of the system of selecting the president and bank lending policies is the only way for the institution to regain credibility.

"There is growing discomfort with this idea that the United States should hand pick the World Bank president with no consultation," said Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund.

[Kagemusha]

1. The idea that a popular US president could make them keep Wolfowitz...

That's just insulting. The very idea that if Bush wasn't a lame duck, wasn't weakened, wasn't unpopular, that he could force the world to swallow the retention of an OPENLY CORRUPT ANTI-CORRUPTION CZAR, is completely insulting to the intelligence...

[cliss]

2. Well, I have mixed feelings about this.

Is the US weak, or is the US powerful enough to jerk around the rest of the world?

Answer = both.

The US still commands an unbelievable amount of power to push other countries around. Especially the weaker ones, like the Philippines where they are dependent on us for foreign aid. They'll get in line REAL QUICK and do our bidding, no questions asked.

But it's not unlimited power. THAT's the real problem facing the White House. It's not unlimited, and it's a lot less than 6 years ago. Countries which are a little bit stronger, like Venezuela or India, are going to stand up to the US and say, "no".

George Bush begging?
Maybe so. Are we at that point now, of begging? Not sure.

[sutz12]

3. Real leadership involves convincing the 'followers' that they want to be led.

Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Condi. None of them have any real leadership ability. Never had. Never will.

Edited title.

[AtomicKitten]

4. His negotiations on the terms of his departure were as

... interesting as they were audacious, trying to insert into the proceedings that there had been no wrongdoing. That mindset is emblematic of this administration. They are begging to be called on the carpet decisively and with little fanfare. As an embarrassment to the U.S., he should shut his pie hole and leave tout suite.

[Karenina]

6. But certainly NOT before collecting $400k!

:shrug:

[rocktivity]

5. The Bush Oval Office had to weigh losing U.S. pre-eminence

over the World Bank against losing Wolfie. No contest--and buying out his contract amounted to paying pennies on the dollar.

All together now--"Oh Wolfie, oooo Wolfie, ain't you the one..."


rocknation