Oh wait, no he's not. He's a wolf in wolf's clothing.

Paul Wolfowitz was nominated to be the next head of the World Bank. For those not familiar, the World Bank, is supposed to be an international organization that's duty is to help poor and developing countries with financial aide. They have come under alot of heat for not being as successful as many would like.

Well shrub has nominated his deputy Secretary of Defense, who many believe is the major architect of the invasion of Iraq. Now how much he had to do with the post war Iraq, I do not know, but if that is any indication of whether or not a person can be successful at aiding developing countries, then I think Paul Wolfowitz truly is the worst man for the job.

But worse than that, its a kick in the teeth to Europe, who shrub tried to reassure in his tour of Europe a few months ago. So how about some reactions across the world. I know, I know, who the f--- cares?! All that matters is the U.S.. Well just bear with me.

"Clare Short, the former international development secretary, described the nomination of the Bush administration's leading neoconservative hawk as the equivalent of sticking up 'two fingers to the world'. 'This is really shocking,' she told Channel 4 News. 'It's as though they are trying to wreck our international systems.'

Caroline Lucas, a British Green and member of the European Parliament, described the nomination as 'an insult to the world's poor'. 'As a leader of the neoconservative movement,' she added, '[Wolfowitz's] belief in unfettered free markets and a philosophy that what is in the US's interest is thereby in the interest of the entire world spells disaster for many countries in the developing world.'

Much of the criticism of Mr Wolfowitz is focused on his lack of direct experience of the financial sector and his limited exposure to development issues - for much of his life he has been an academic and a diplomat focused on military and strategic questions. Many experts and government officials also found it troubling that the Bush administration, in nominating someone for a job dependent on consensus-building, would pick someone who has become a symbol of US resistance to that very consensus."

Yes I question the intelligence of nominating someone who seems to be mostly against international cooperation, for something such as the head of the World Bank. But oh well, anyways, lets brace ourselves for the next nose thumbing.