Good News, Bad News
Posted by MEC on May 17, 2007
(illustration from Punch, volume 1, 1841)
The Good News: Wolfowitz to resign from World Bank
The Bad News: George W. Bush gets to nominate his successor.
It is traditional in the Bush regime to replace a bad choice (e.g. John Ashcroft) with a much worse choice (e.g. Alberto Gonzales).
Since we’re talking about Paul Wolfowitz here, “a much worse choice” will have to be very bad indeed. My money’s on Ahmed Chalabi.
13 Responses to “Good News, Bad News”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Mercury Rising 鳯女 
Eli said
I think Bolton’s available…
Phoenix Woman said
Whoever he/she/it is, PNAC membership is essential.
shrimplate said
My money’s on Jack Abramoff. After a quickie pardon, of course.
Charles said
I actually think ‘Berto is better than Ashcroft. He’s incompetent.
As for a replacement, Ken Lay is dead, so that lets him out. But I’m sure there are other people of similar talents,
whig said
Lee Raymond should be available, since he’s retired.
MEC said
“Ken Lay is dead, so that lets him out. But I’m sure there are other people of similar talents”
Jeffrey Skilling’s available.
Charles said
We have a candidate!
MEC said
dsduryea of Salon’s Table Talk has suggested the “perfect” candidate to head the World Bank:
Neil Bush.
WE HAVE A WINNER!
joedemocracy said
It’s time to rethink the whole idea of giving the US, especially the ‘oaf’, the sole right to appoint the next president of the world Bank. Did I hear someone say, Tony Blair?
MEC said
“Did I hear someone say, Tony Blair?”
That one made me flinch.
Phoenix Woman said
Hell, if John Negroponte doesn’t get the gig I’ll be shocked. He’d be the most offensive candidate outside of Orlando Bosch or John Bolton.
MEC said
After the debacle of Paul Wolfowitz, will the World Bank board be any less likely to rubber-stamp Bush’s nominee?
whig said
I understand there are lists of candidates which are being considered for acceptance by all parties. Of course I wouldn’t expect George Bush to pick from that list. But who ought to be on it?