The long-awaited resignation of the World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz dominates today's front pages and the blogosphere in the US - along with colourful details, such as the friend of Wolfowitz who says he "couldn't run a two-car funeral" and a former colleague who thought he'd be a disaster.
Standing out among the acres of post-resignation coverage is an excellent comment article on the op-ed page of the Los Angeles Times. Written by Lawrence Wilkerson, a former army officer and chief of staff to US secretary of State Colin Powell who saw Wolfowitz in action over a number of years, it is a very entertaining dismemberment of Wolfowitz's management style:
But when we heard that Wolfowitz was going to the World Bank as its president, we knew that it would be only a matter of time before disaster struck again - that Wolfowitz's lack of administrative, managerial and leadership skills would derail him once more. Now it has happened.
The Washington Post has the most complete account of the action, with the reaction of bank workers: "Staff members described a celebratory mood inside the World Bank's headquarters near the White House, with people embracing, singing songs and hoisting flutes of champagne." Another piece inside describes the "blue ribbon" campaign that opponents of Wolfowitz inside the bank wore to work in protest for the past month.
A longer Post profile of Wolfowitz and his downfall informs readers: "Another former colleague who served with Wolfowitz in four administrations said that 'the kinds of problems he got into were predictable for anybody who really knew Paul.' Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the source voiced admiration for his intellect but said Wolfowitz 'couldn't run a two-car funeral.'"
The New York Times also spends a lot of ink of the rise and fall of Wolfowitz, and mentions that his resignation was "negotiated at the bank by the British director, Thomas Scholar, a close associate of Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the Exchequer who is to become prime minister this summer." Another long analysis piece concludes: "Whether or not the denouement was inevitable, Mr Wolfowitz and his supporters came to see it as a result of the war within the bank, not the one in Iraq."
On the blogs, reaction is swift and harsh. Matthew Yglesias's excellent blog at The Atlantic opines: "I have no doubt Wolfowitz was doomed from the state. But to comprehend his doomed-ness and what to make of it, one needs to step back. Why was he given the job in the first place? He had no obviously qualifications for it."
But from the right of the political spectrum there isn't much talk at all of Wolfowitz, with far more attention on the immigration compromise announced by President Bush. At the National Review's The Corner, there is only a brief one entry, while Red State also skims over his downfall: "Apparently everyone gets out of this with a modicum of face saving," says a Red State blogger.
The news magazine US News & World Report is quick to remind readers that its investigation in March 2006 was the first into the affair that cost the president his job, while the Financial Times, which drove the story last month with a series of scoops, lines up the possible replacements for Mr Wolfowitz, pointing the finger at former US state department number two Robert Zoellick as one, and ex-Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker as a potential stand-in. The very good editor's blog at Foreign Policy names a string of possible candidates, including non-Americans such as Kemal Dervish of Turkey, Ernesto Zedillo, former president of Mexico and Leszek Balcerowicz, former finance minister of Poland.
The Los Angeles Times, meanwhile, points out that Shaha Riza's future - Wolfowitz's partner, whose pay deal caused the controversy - is a mystery, noting that the statement from the board "did not address the effect of Wolfowitz's resignation on Riza's job status."
But perhaps the most succinct comment - in a piece headlined "We were going to quit ourselves if this kept up" - came from the Washington DC political gossip site Wonkette: "According to the Board, 'blah blah acted ethically and in good faith blah blah we'll all miss him etc etc'."
