Wolfowitz

About an year ago, precisely 10 months ago I had a discussion with a freind of mine. The discussion was about the presidential nomination of Paul Walfowitz at the direction of the World Bank. The instinctive reaction of the "liberal" world about that news was of shock. To them he was one of the most prominent element of the White House in the post-war Iraq administration. It was just a blind folded side-taking. Everybody started to write their personal ideas and their vision of the truth about Wolfowitz. But I knew his new policy was the winning one: no funds whatsover if the governement is corrupted or it will use it for other stuff or if they are committing crimes against the population. An easy concept, everybody would agree with that, it's goodsense. Well since now it has always been the opposite. Now tell me, what good can it be if we delete the debts of a country, if we give them funds and the government of that country is using them for the "friends of the government", to buy weapons, to just feed the beurocracy and the corruption? Take a look at this post then. Now after 10 months the Washington Post, Financial Times, New Republic, they all seem to notice that things are going "surprisingly" well with the new World Bank administration. To get the whole insight about it read this. To end this I'll just add: I told you!