Wolfowitz for World Bank?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The Los Angeles Times nominated Bono to be the next World Bank president, and Bono nominated Colin Powell. But that all turned out to be one big rhetorical exercise, because the Bush administration has just made its choice: Paul Wolfowitz. This may come as a bit of surprise given that only a few weeks ago, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita suggested that Wolfowitz would be staying on at his current job. Even current World Bank president James Wolfensohn didn’t think Wolfowitz was a serious contender. When asked whether he thought Wolfowitz met the criteria to be a solid World Bank president, Wolfensohn quipped, “I submitted the name of my son and I think they got it mixed up.”

There are plenty of arguments against the nomination of Wolfowitz to this job. Check out here for the roundup. My main hesitancy applies less to Wolfowitz personally than to the Bush administration’s intention of pressuring out Wolfensohn, who has pushed the World Bank in a distinctly humanitarian direction, while replacing him with a guy who thinks that manhandling countries into democracy is the key to promoting world peace. It’s also hard to figure out the intent behind pushing John Bolton and Wolfowitz into global positions—either it’s a way of getting these guys out of Washington, or a chance to push the neoconservative agenda even further.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate