I dunno. When you screw up, even by accident, the manly thing to do is get out ahead of the situation by admitting you did wrong. Oddly, I work with with kids (think 'Welcome Back Cotter') who rarely assume responsibility for their actions...it's always someone fault besides themselves. I'm not sure what he did was such a bad thing, but then I don't know all the details...still, it seems a bit wussy to me. Wadda' 'ya think?
2007-05-28 04:50:24 · 6 answers · asked by Noah H 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A World Bank president who refuses to see the link between family planning and poverty/development.... just imagine.
Also he stopped several sexual education programms with the immediate effect of an increasing growth of new infections in Afric.... thanks Mr Wolfowitz.
People in the bank have been constantly complaining for his backwards biased ultra-conservative views.
This is simply a job for somebody:
- honest
- realistic
- smart
2007-05-28 04:55:19 · answer #1 · answered by NLBNLB 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Mr. Wolfowitz's problems stem from management style, his attempt to clean up the rampant corruption at the world bank and YES the media which is out to get any Bush administration person that it can.
You do realize that Mr. Wolfowitz asked for some one else to handle the promotion of his girlfriend. He was told by the ethics panel that it was OK for him to do it. Now personally I think the guy is a Knucklehead but in this case he was had and everyone (except obviously you) knows it.
ADD: Well obviously IF he is a NEOCON all requirements for fairness and truth go out the window. When do you think we ought to schedule the Lynching? Hmmm so fair so just so liberal of you all.
2007-05-28 11:59:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I think his problems are because he acted in a stupid manner and doesn't realize it.
You can't get away with having an affair with a subordinate and giving her a promotion she did not deserve. He is a public servant, not the owner of a family business.
A person is always responsible for the mess they make. From an existential point of view, he had freedom of choice and thus is responsible for the consequences of his acts. He was apparently a Bush "ideologue", but you can't let political ideology get in the way of responsibility for one's actions. I can't let him get a "free pass" just because he is Bush's friend. One could have foreseen that he would be in trouble for favoring his "girl friend", and that is why he should have avoided using his influence to promote her. In fact, she should not have had ANY kind of official office under his jurisdiction.
There is a matter of what is wrong or what is right. What he did was wrong. In public office, one must go one step further > one must avoid the public perception that one has done something wrong.
HISTORY IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED, IT IS WHAT PEOPLE THINK HAPPENED.
2007-05-28 11:55:50 · answer #3 · answered by Mark 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is either a neocon or supported by neocons and Bush. Since neocons and Bush have a habit of always blaming someone else it stands to reason that he does not admit to anything. The problem with those guys is that if someone admits wrong doing and strives to improve people often forgive and forget. By blaming others and not admitting the obvious they make things worse on themselves.
2007-05-28 12:14:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yeap, the Jewish media really hates him for no reason. Maybe they hate him because he is Jewish?
2007-05-28 12:18:33 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. USA U 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it is all that woman's fault.
2007-05-28 11:53:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋