Paul Wolfowitz, still with us

Good Wolfowitz apologism.

I can see why Rick Stengel employs you.

On the one hand, it is hard to be too critical of Wolfowitz for more or less following the in house ethicists advice, but if my in house ethicist were like that, I'd follow his advice alot too. I guess the real story is that this is what passes for ethics in Washington - it's reasonable that you move the girlfriend, but I doubt that her troubles mertied a $50k raise. It's just one drop of water in the deluge of entitlement and elitism.

I think the reason liberals will be angered by your lead paragraphs is that this is exactly the kind of pseudo/micro-scandal that routinely plays against democratic candidates, and we want our turn benefitting from pseudo/micro-scandal.

For example, Edwards' haircut. For golly's sake, I'm sure all the major candidates get professional hair and makeup done, and it is expensive for all of them because the groomers travel to the candidate, and because it is done professionally. Maureen Dowd is busy comparing the cost of her policeman dad's haircut 50 years ago to Edwards'. It's absurd.

And the Wolfowitz thing is something that isn't a pseudo-scandal, but a micro-scandal, and liberals are going to want fair play.

Unfortunately, what we ought to demand is an end to the covereage of pseudo/micro-scandals so we can discuss serious grown-up issues instead, like the best way to deal with poverty in the world.

"The World Bank is undeniably in crisis. But not because its president, Paul Wolfowitz, got his girlfriend a raise."

This is nonsense. Its fine to identify things that you think are wrong with the way the World Bank functions, but to claim that the WB is in "crisis" because of those (perceived) problems is pure hyperbole.

And the bottom line is that Wolfowitz' continued presence at the bank does represent an actual crisis, because he has lost the confidence of the employees and the Board of the Bank. Until he goes, the bank cannot function properly, because he cannot provide leadership -- the lower level bureaucracy will feel free to undercut and sabotague Wolfowitz, knowing that such actions have the tacit approval of the Board -- even if Wolfowitz stays because of pressure from Bushco.

My big problem with this -- and this is something I see a surprising amount of from business writers -- is that it fails to acknowledge that Wolfowitz is not an effective leader for the World Bank. He has no background doing this kind of thing, he has angered his subordinates, and even if you take the most charitable view of his dealings with his girlfriend here, at the very least he's created a public relations disaster for himself.

If the World Bank were a company, we'd all agree he should be fired (right?) -- why are the standards so much lower for the person who runs the World Bank?

This is something I will never, ever understand: why it is that Republicans and business writers -- both of whom extol business, say the government should run more like a business, etc. -- always accept such pitiful performance from the people who run government agencies. If government should run like a business, Wolfo should have been fired a long time ago. In fact, he should have been hired in the first place.

Would you hire Paul Wolfowitz to run Proctor and Gamble?

Critiques duly noted. I swear, all I was trying to do was use the Wolfowitz mess as an excuse to talk about some important but deeply wonky stuff involving the World Bank. (Next week: "Forget about John Edwards $400 haircut; the real issue is hygiene standards at barbershops")

As for hiring Wolfowitz to run P&G: Uh, no. But unlike the three guys who preceded them, both of the Wolfmen (Wolfowitz and Wolfensohn) did at least want the job of World Bank president.

It is worth noting that Robert McNamara, for all of his flaws, was an effective World Bank president and had been president of Ford (before becoming SecDef).

The Agreement on Agriculture calls for the continuation of the reform process by substantial progressive reductions in support and protection. These negotiations are aimed at determining what further commitments are necessary to achieve the objective of establishing a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system. In doing so we need to take into account non-trade concerns and special and differential treatment to developing countries.

Therefore, while considering non-trade concerns governments should not undermine the objective of these negotiations (i.e. delivering the fundamental reform for trade in agriculture) and should also be mindful of the consequences for developing countries.

Argentina, as much as every other WTO Member, has important non-trade concerns to take care of at home. Some of these are particularly related to the consequences of existing trade restrictions and distortions.

Argentina's non-trade concerns are aimed at promoting Human Welfare. Some of the world's most acute problems could only be relived by correcting and preventing restrictions and distortions to trade in agriculture.

Rural poverty, unemployment and environmental protection make three of our main non-trade concerns. We believe these are legitimate non-trade concerns because they could be pursued by all WTO Members consistently with the objective of establishing "a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system".

As we further on explain, these three legitimate non-trade concerns are all intrinsically related to current trade-distortive policies implemented by some of our richest trading partners.