Wolfowitz won't resign? Good

Why should he -- or the Bush administration -- get a face-saving exit deal? The World Bank should fire his ass. Plus: My favorite things on Salon right now.

Published May 16, 2007 10:35PM (EDT)

It's good news when everything I want to blog about has been well covered by others on Salon. You've got Glenn Greenwald and Tim Grieve on the continued shock waves from former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's testimony yesterday (who knew we'd miss John Ashcroft!); Andrew Leonard on the real meaning of Paul Wolfowitz's almost-demise; Michael Scherer on last night's GOP debate, also known as "Who wants to be a waterboarder?" My favorite piece up today, though, is Teletubby Tinky Winky's farewell to Jerry Falwell. Read it if you need a chuckle.

But just as I was wrapping up this news-free post comes word from ABC that Wolfowitz is refusing to resign his World Bank post "under this cloud," according to his lawyer, and wants to force a vote of the bank's board of directors. I say, good for Wolfy! He should be fired, and I expect he will be fired, but why should he -- or the bank's board for that matter -- let the Bush administration duck the full consequences of imposing the arrogant architect of the Iraq debacle on the World Bank in the first place? There will be no face-saving deal -- nor should there be. Let's watch this one play out. And whatever happens, read Sidney Blumenthal tonight for the best overview on what the Comey revelations, Alberto Gonzales' sleazy behavior and Wolfowitz's contortions all have in common.

The unraveling of the Bush administration this week is as dizzying and sick-making as the unraveling of the Sopranos clan. But Heather Havrilesky already wrote about "The Sopranos," too! The reader discussion is still going strong, though, and it's worth checking out.

By Joan Walsh

Related Topics ------------------------------------------