Another one bites the dust, celebratory festivities erupt as globa-phobic intelligentsia forget that Bush will appoint his replacement. Lesson learned: don't shit where you eat.
Goodbye Paulie, we knew you once (literally, once, you tenure was a joke).
_________________
punkdavid wrote:
Make sure to bring a bottle of vitriol. And wear a condom so you don't insinuate her.
--PunkDavid
Last edited by deathbyflannel on Fri May 18, 2007 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:49 pm Posts: 2674 Location: the internet side of things
invention wrote:
not much of a win: rumor has it blair is the replacement. one iraq boy for another one.
I doubt it'll be Blair. In all likeliness it's going to be another American.
But I'm glad Wolfowitz left. He had no other option. It's a good thing they didn't allow him to stay based solely on the fact that he's a Bush croney.
I'm curious as to the exact reasons, though. This Dutch World bank board member has claimed Wolfowitz was to be fired anyway because of his faulty leadership in general.
But good to see him go. Hope he doesn't show up somewhere else. Seriously, what a way to fight corruption on a global scale, by bordering on it yourself.
And even then he didn't want to leave. What integrity.
_________________ big song and drum and bass very speed mader fucker good
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
Timber wrote:
invention wrote:
not much of a win: rumor has it blair is the replacement. one iraq boy for another one.
I doubt it'll be Blair. In all likeliness it's going to be another American.
But I'm glad Wolfowitz left. He had no other option. It's a good thing they didn't allow him to stay based solely on the fact that he's a Bush croney.
I'm curious as to the exact reasons, though. This Dutch World bank board member has claimed Wolfowitz was to be fired anyway because of his faulty leadership in general.
But good to see him go. Hope he doesn't show up somewhere else. Seriously, what a way to fight corruption on a global scale, by bordering on it yourself. And even then he didn't want to leave. What integrity.
According to the Economist, the particular reason is some benefits he gave to his girlfriend, who left when he took his position but got some nice compensation in return. That pretty much exploded into a struggle betwixt himself and the board and they weren't able to get much else done. But there very well might have been more for all I know.
yeah from whatever i've read in the paper most people under him wanted him out and everybody lost confidence in him or whatever. if you have a leader that nobody trusts, thats no good. and if hes a douchebag like wolfoqitz thats even worse. good riddence. i would like to see tony blair take his place but that would go against how many years of tratitoion of having an american leading the world bank. pretty rediciuolous.
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:48 pm Posts: 4320 Location: Philadelphia, PA
The ridiculous part is having someone in charge of the World Bank with absolutely no experience in the field. Of course he was a poor manager. He didn't know what he was doing.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:52 pm Posts: 1727 Location: Earth Gender: Male
"Leave it to the Bush Administration to appoint a jew who can't run a bank." -Bill Maher
_________________ "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." -Noam Chomsky
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
