http://slate.com/id/2114929/ Fred Kaplan: Paul Wolfowitz might be a good choice to lead the world bank. I think he may well be a good choice too—I agree that Wolfowitz is deeply idealistic, and to the extent that he’s a hawk, he’s a hawk not because he believes has a high regard for the use of force. His interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair is worth reading. (One thing that Wolfowitz may have trouble with is the requirement that aid be provided “without regard to political or other non-economic influences or considerations”—democracies can’t be favoured.) 05:00
Gulfstream
Entry Posted March 18, 2005
What others say about this link
novus.liber (novus.liber.us):
… ‘Hindsight has a way of making history seem inevitable. Two years ago, when Paul Wolfowitz was named World Bank president, Iwrotethat he was "not so bad a choice" for the job. Now it seems he was a terrible pick, and for reasons that should have been plain. ‘My (unenthusiastic) endorsement stemmed from an impression that, of all the neocons, Wolfowitz seemed to be the most …
Notebook (www.96mm.com):
… increased its lending thirteen-fold, expanded its research department, and welcomed China as a member.” In short, McNamara reshaped the Bank into what it is today. When President Bush chose Wolfowitz to the Bank in 2005, Fred Kaplandescribedthe future Bank president as a man “who has displayed strikingly poor analytical judgment as deputy secretary of defense,” who “isn’t an economist,” and had “little experience in development work beyond a stint as Ronald Reagan …
(Links provided by Technorati.)
