From the Washington Post
Throughout [his 34-year career], Wolfowitz built a reputation as a foreign policy iconoclast, a mild-mannered intellectual with a steely ideological core, and an inept manager.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the source voiced admiration for his intellect but said Wolfowitz “couldn’t run a two-car funeral.”
After Bush’s  election, …Wolfowitz wanted to return to the State Department, but…secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, turned him down as his deputy. They weren’t “ideologically in sync,” Powell later said, and Wolfowitz was notoriously lacking in the required administrative skills.
Is anyone else seeing a pattern here? So, okay, if Paul Wolfowitz was known to be a lousy administrator, why would he be put in charge of a multinational institution owned by more than 180 governments, with 10,000 employees, and $14.6 billion (U.S.) in loans in 2006 (World Bank, Annual Report 2006)?
Is it for the same reason that we suffered internationally with John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations? That we think we know the best? That other countries can be ignored or insulted? That international institutions should be dismantled? That America’s interest du jour trumps all?
While I strongly support George Washington’s postulate that every nation works to protect it’s own interest, we need to see those interests in 21st century terms. We are no longer bound by oceans or mountains. We are joined by instantaneous communications, rapid travel, and a global economy.
I am constantly trying to get the 12-year old and the 15-year old to look beyond the noses on their faces, to extend their vision toward the horizon, to move beyond the here and now.
It’s not us against the world. It’s us AND the world.