March 17, 2005
Why NOT Paul Wolfolwitz?
The New York Times is still sniveling about President Bush's nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to be president of the World Bank. In an editorial today, the Times says,
Even those who supported the goals of the invasion must remember Mr. Wolfowitz's scathing contempt for estimates that the occupation of Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of troops, and his serene conviction that American soldiers would be greeted with flowers. Like the nomination of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador, the choice of Mr. Wolfowitz is a slap at the international community, which widely deplored the invasion and the snubbing of the United Nations that accompanied it.
But wasn't Wolfowitz right?
We didn't need hundreds of thousands of troops. Nearly two years after we went in, Iraq had their first free elections since Saddam Hussein took control of the country over thirty years ago. Iraqi troops and police are being trained, and while President Bush is (correctly) not predicting when we'll be able to bring our troops home permanently, things are looking a lot better in Iraq now then back in 2003.
Then of course, there's that annoying little word invasion. Usually when one country invades another, it's to take it over...like when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. But of course, we can't expect the Timesto admit that our presence in Iraq wasn't to conquer it, but to liberate it.
Paul Wolfowitz was instrumental in Iraq's success. He laid the groundwork, helping the country to get out of a terrible mess. And that's a big reason why he'd be so great as president of the World Bank. Don't forget, the World Bank is a United Nations institution...and we've seen how well the UN has been doing of late (Oil for Food and sex scandals in Africa come immediately to mind). Some consider the UN to be sacrosanct, above question. But the bloated bureacracy's credibility continues to unravel at an alarming pace. If we won't get out of the UN, at least we should be sending good people there. John Bolton will be another great addition as the US ambassador.
So Wolfowitz made the international community feel bad? Good gravy, when is the Times and the other leftist media going to let go of that old chestnut? It's so tiring to hear of how we need to take the international community's interests in mind before we do so much as sneeze. Should we use Kleenex brand tissue? Scott? Scented or unscented (mustn't annoy people allergic to perfume)? Recycled?
Ugh. We snubbed the UN...boo hoo. The UN and its other member countries couldn't bring themselves to make good on the numerous resolutions it made regarding Saddam's dangerous activities while dictator...er, president of Iraq. Then, when the big bad United States decided to finally do something about it, suddenly Saddam's wasn't such a villain...he's just needed some more time to see the light. "Let the inspectors do their jobs." It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
What it boils down to is the Times can barely give Bush credit for all of the good his policies are doing in Iraq and elswhere in the Middle East, let alone having the man who helped carry them out be a part of their precious, progressive UN. They also can't stand the fact that Bush continues to do what he feels is best for the interests of the United States without asking for the world's permission. Did France and Russia ask us if it was okay to sell arms to Iraq when sanctions were supposedly in place? But to ask that question would be tatamount to admitting there's a double standard in place. The Times must do all it can to maintain its lame fiction of being an impartial recorder of "all the news that's fit to print."
The hate America drum corps marches on, with the New York Times up front with the baton. I'm looking forward to its disbanding.
Show Comments »
