Posted on 04/17/2007 11:11:18 AM PDT by Kitten Festival
President Paul Wolfowitz of the World Bank should apologize once more (since multiple apologies are the norm) for succumbing to the petty temptation of favoritism, and step down. His work to arrange a State Department job with unreasonable promotions and raises for his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, an employee of the World Bank when Mr. Wolfowitz took over in 2005, are clearly unethical. Such impropriety is particularly unacceptable in an organization that strives to reduce poverty and promote development through good governance. Mr. Wolfowitz's agenda for the bank is the right one, but he has surrendered his ability to pursue it.
In March, the World Bank released a thorough report detailing its focus on governance and fighting corruption. -SNIP- the report puts forth the World Bank's plan to reduce corruption "as an integral part of its work to reduce poverty and promote growth." To champion and promote good governance the bank itself must exemplify it. No matter how sincere his apology, nor how otherwise laudable his policies, Mr. Wolfowitz has lost the reputation for ethical impeccability on which the World Bank relies.
Wolfowitz defenders argue that his transgressions were unwitting, resulting from an effort to work in good faith and follow the direction of the ethics committee, and were subsequently misrepresented by a subjective presentation in the press. The argument first asserts that Mr. Wolfowitz tried to recuse himself completely from all matters pertaining to Miss Riza, but the World Bank's board nonetheless set up an ethics committee to review the situation. Only after specific instructions from the ethics committee, the argument then asserts, did Mr. Wolfowitz contact the human resources vice president with instructions for dealing with Miss Riza. The first assertion is false, and the second only half true.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Hey, all Wolfie needs to do is check into rehab....
Actually, Christopher Hitchens, in a Slate article, gets it correct while the Washington TIMES gets it wrong.
Wolfowitz is a reformer that the Europeans want driven out, and they set up a trap for him - and now are mischaracterizing what happened to smear him and get him driven out.
Since Wolfowitz tried to totally recuse himself - but then was essentially required to sign off on actions involving his girl-friend - I think that he was set up.
Read the Hitchens article ... figure out why he was set up.
I will trust the WSJ article and Hitchens - because the facts speak plainly!
Mike
She’s an old academic crony of his. I don’t take what she is saying seriously, she has an obvious conflict of interest. Hitch is more credible.
There’s one interesting detail about the loosely argued LA Times article - the woman states that Wolf and his girl are LONGTIME lovers. If that is so, and Wolf just recently got his separation done, what was he doing having an affair with this person? Is he a prowling tomcat on the lookout for easy nookie? The Wolfowitz pal revealed more than she should have.
Didn’t Bill Clinton get Monica a job at the Pentagon? Too bad he wasn’t forced to resign.
The girlfriend had a job at World Bank BEFORE Wolfowitz was named to his post there. As a previous poster said, he tried numerous times to recuse himself from any personnel decisions regarding her. But, she was given a promotion on which his signature was required. As soon as he signed - THEY swooped.
A setup - a hit - on another Bush appointee.
And we attack him.
No wonder the “Rs” are the Stupid Party.
Link?
If a google search doesn’t give it to you ...
try:
http://www.slate.com/id/2164368/?nav=navoa
Title says a lot: Sliming Wolfowitz; The World Bank president did nothing wrong.
Mike
Another detailed Wall Street Journal article that shows the goal is to trash Wolfowitz so that the World Bank can continue with its corruption - unchecked.
See:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010012
It really is disheartening at how one person can be trashed for trying to avoid impropriety - and others do far more, deliberately, and act as if there is a difference. And there is a difference. Wolfowitz tried to recuse himself, and was told he needed to sign off on the actions ... and it appears that the only reason he was forced to sign off the actions was to set up the trap. And the actions that were proposed for his girl friend were reasonable and appropriate ... while it appears that others managed to get far more - and probably less appropriate - and yet unpunished.
Hypocrisy is thy name!!
Mike
There was a thread around her somewhere that had statements from both Wolf and his lady defending themselves. Fascinating. He had to know it was a trick, yet, in the end, he signed his name. NOW, he has no choice but to stand them down.
I first heard about this from a friend.....who was bitterly disappointed in him. My only disappointment is that he couldn’t have found a way out of it in the beginning.
I am not seeing and sympathy for his lady out there....none of the women’s libbers have ever cared a hoot for a muslim woman or a republican woman......only their own kind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.