Paulson hangs Wolfowitz out to dry

Hank Paulson isn't going to summit with G8 bigwigs. Kimmitt will go, and probably not say much. But – and this is important – Paul Wolfowitz will turn up. What can it all signify? I think Paulson may look at his no-show as tantamount to hanging Wolfowitz out to dry.

Why isn't Paulson going? I don't buy Brookly McLaughlin's spin from St Louis, that Paulson's truancy shows his focus on talks with China. Swotting up on China is a good thing, no doubt, but a hard-living Goldman Sachs alumnus such as Paulson can swot on his G5.

John Kirton in Toronto says that Paulson should go, judging by US actions at past summits, and noting that Paulson is not ill.

Is Paulson unhappy about April's Namibia scandal? I think not. I think that Paulson's no-show has to do with Wolfowitz's showing up. Sans Paulson, discussions about Wolfowitz will not go far, so it could look as though Paulson supports Wolfowitz. But I think that Paulson in fact thinks Wolfowitz must stand down, and do so soon.

My conclusion: Paulson wants to watch Wolfowitz hang out to dry, and wants to do so from afar.

(No thanks to TC and J Galt for inspiring this post's unusual and lipogrammatical form.)