I wish this was a surprise

It should be fully clear by this point, with all that has been coming to light in D.C., that the administration really sucks. Not because of their political positions, but because of their underhanded back room corruption and sense of entitlement.

But I know I am wasting my time with this post. Everyone who has half a brain and an ounce of integrity knows how insulting and embarrassing the Bush Administration has been - regardless of your position on Iraq.

Turmoil Grows for Wolfowitz at World Bank

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON, April 12 — Paul D. Wolfowitz’s tenure as president of the World Bank was thrown into turmoil on Thursday by the disclosure that he had helped arrange a pay raise for his companion at the time of her transfer from the bank to the State Department, where she remained on the bank payroll.

In a chaotic day of revelations and meetings at a normally staid institution, Mr. Wolfowitz apologized for his role in the raise and transfer of Shaha Ali Riza, his companion, to a few hundred staff members assembled in the bank building atrium, only to be greeted by booing, catcalls and cries for his resignation.

Earlier, the bank’s staff association had declared that it was “impossible for the institution to move forward with any sense of purpose under the present leadership.” The association had helped spearhead an investigation into Ms. Riza’s transfer and raise, details of which came into the open in the last 24 hours.

The events injected a new ugliness into what had already been a bitter rift between Mr. Wolfowitz and many of the bank’s employees, who have questioned his suitability for the job as a former deputy secretary of defense and architect of the Iraq war, and have challenged many of his policies at the bank, especially those cracking down on corruption in which he suspended aid to several countries without consulting the board.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/world/13wolfowitz.html

Frogs

At the risk of relying too heavily on the news for my inspiration, I direct you to this headline from the NY Times:

Chirac Unfazed by Nuclear Iran, Then Backtracks
By ELAINE SCIOLINO and KATRIN BENNHOLD
France's president said that if Iran had one or two nuclear
weapons, it would not pose a big danger. A day later, he
retracted many of his remarks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01france.html

This is how he back-tracked:

Mr. Chirac said repeatedly during the second interview that he had spoken casually and quickly the day before because he believed he had been talking about Iran off the record.

“I should rather have paid attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on the record,” he said.

That is not exactly a statement that he was wrong, but that he shouldn't have said what he said. This is why people in America don't like France. Don't get me wrong, our president says and does stupid horrible things. But if there is one thing that the world (at least the west) should be unified about, it is that Iran with nukes is very very bad. This is not complicated.

I can't help but think that part of the reason Chirac can have such a nonchalant attitude is that if Iran ever did do anything, it would be the US that has to respond. When Iran launches a nuke at Israel, do you think it is going to be France that initiates the counter strike? Obviously Israel is pretty capable of retaliating on their own, but these kinds of things inevitably fall at the feet of America. I don't remember North Korea holding out for bi-lateral talks with France.

All of this responsibility is due to the way we have positioned ourselves in the world, and is fine with me. It's just frustrating when the people who are supposed to be our allies are so blind to realities of world hegemony.