...busting up my brains for the words

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Wolfie, the world bank and freedom

Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters has an excellent post regarding Paul Wolfowitz' nomination by W to the World Bank and two newspaper's attacks of that nomination.
Notably, the Captain writes;

Elizabeth Becker then wrote about the "quiet anguish" in diplomatic circles, as Hugh Hewitt points out, without ever naming a single source. If that gives the impression that the NYT's two Elizabeths act in this case, at least, as an extension of the Gray Lady's editorial board, that appears exactly correct. Despite all claims of an unassailable wall between the Times' news and editorial departments, I think we have a clear case of coordination here.

That's from Ed's segment regarding the papers and bias. But he continues and addresses the need for freedom and democracy in order to wipe out world starvation.

The only way to eliminate massive starvation and to keep aid from flowing into the hands of a select few is to ensure a representative, democratic government for its reception.

So far as I am aware, this is an original idea. We've all heard and come to understand that freedom is needed to strangle terrorism. But this is the first time I've seen it put forward that we need freedom to banish hunger.

It's posts like this that make me a regular Captain's Quarters reader. But of course, you should read it yourself and read the whole thing.


  • At 10:36 PM, Blogger R-Five said…

    Maha Rushie listed W's many appointments, starting with Wolfowitz and working backwards. Per the Democrats, Wolfowitz is no good, Gonzales is no good, Rice is no good, Negroponte is no good, Chertoff is no good, Bolton is no good, ...

    Can all of these appointments be so wrong? Of course not. Their problem is that Bush, not Gore or Kerry, is making these appointments. No, the Democrates are just crying Wolfie. (Sorry! Couldn't resist.)


Post a Comment

<< Home