Replies

You raise some interesting views on this, and obviously you have given it quite a bit of thought.

Actually, it's not his "view", it's the facts he described, which are kept being ignored by the "get Wolfowitz!" crowd.

I’m impressed. As such, I won’t dispute any of your assertions. --- and yet you do exactly that, right in the next sentence --- I’ll just note one more time the following; Banging an employee always ends badly.

At no time she was his employee; he was, as you eloquently put it, "banging" her before joining WB, and specifically took steps to eliminate "conflict of interest" by notifying the Board, and trying to recuse himself from all matters involving her reassignment. The condition for his joining WB was her transfer to equivalent or better position somewhere else. They demanded that he put his signature on transfer agreement that they negotiated with her, specifically to avoid "conflict of interest" --- Mr Wolfowitz informed the board that he had a pre-existing relationship with Shaha Ali Riza, one of the bank's Middle East experts.

If Ms Riza's contract was "not vetted by World Bank lawyers" , it's the fault (or deliberate dereliction of duties) of the Board and Ethics Committee of WB, which in October 2005, four months after Wolfowitz joined WB, concluded that "conflict of interest" had been resolved. And in February 2006, in response to pseudonymous e-mail messages (no doubt from the disgruntled WB employees who didn't like the corruption exposed and gravy train stopping), WB Ethics Committee said "allegations did not appear appropriate for further consideration by the committee".

Here's more about Riza :
According to a profile of Wolfowitz published in the London Sunday Times of March 20, 2005, Riza "shares Wolfowitz’s passion for spreading democracy in the Arab world" and "is said to have reinforced his determination to remove Saddam Hussein’s oppressive regime."