Skip to comments.World Bank board negotiating Wolfowitz exit [Done Deal]
Posted on 05/16/2007 1:26:18 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
WASHINGTON, May 16 (Reuters) - The World Bank's board is negotiating details of Paul Wolfowitz's exit as bank president, board sources said on Wednesday following pressure by European countries over his handling of a promotion for his companion.
"They have resumed the meeting and are finalizing a deal," one of the board sources told Reuters after an adjournment of a board meeting earlier at the request of the United States.
The board sources from developed and developing countries said details of a package, including financial compensation, were being discussed with Wolfowitz's lawyer.
Under a contract he signed in 2005 when became World Bank president, Wolfowitz would receive a year's salary, which would be around $375,000, if his service was terminated by the board or if he resigned.
Wolfowitz's resignation would end a tumultuous two years at the poverty-fighting institution where he was dogged by a legacy as an architect of the Iraq war, despite focusing attention on Africa's needs and launching a controversial campaign against corruption.
Lesson learned -- never have sex with that woman.
Wait a minute. Isn’t Europe very cosmopolitan and sophisticated about liasons of a romantic nature? Don’t they expect this sort of thing is just the way it’s done?
The UN is composed of anti-semitic and anti-american venom.
This is but one more installment in its hatred of all things Bush.
The euro commies refuse any change to the international institutions they have infiltrated. First Bolton, now Wolfowitz. Instead of trying to change them, we should now put those organisations down.
They said that a source close to Wolfowitz says there are no negotiations and that he will not resign with a cloud of scandal over him.
I guess we will know for sure by tonight.
What is the purpose of keeping the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the United Nations and its agencies, and NATO, all of which date to an era long gone?
The World Bank and IMF were created when the United States was the greatest creditor on earth. The bank was to lend for the reconstruction and development of Europe and Asia. The IMF was to provide loans to help members with balance of payments problems.
When Europe and Asia recovered, the need for the World Bank came to an end. By 1971, when the United States closed the gold window and let the dollar float, the need for an IMF to maintain fixed rates of exchange, in a world of floating rates, disappeared.
Yet both institutions reinvented themselves as lenders of last resort to bankrupt Third World regimes, and Republican presidents and a Republican Congress went along. Why? Why should the United States, now the world's largest debtor nation, go out into the capital markets and borrow billions, so the World Bank and IMF can continue to subsidize the most corrupt and least competent regimes on earth? Does this make sense?
Between them, the Japanese and Chinese have amassed $2 trillion -- two thousand billion dollars -- in reserves. Why not turn the IMF and World Bank playpens over to them? Though the soft-loan window of the World Bank, the Institutional Development Fund, was created to help "the poorest of the poor," 8,000 of the 10,000 World Bank employees live and work in the Washington area, where "World Bank neighborhood" is a realtor's way of saying, "You can't afford it."
But Wolfie went there
KNOWING they'd want to get him
and he still allowed
a clear paper trail
linking him to his girlfriend.
Everything he did--
even when he tried
to distance himself from her--
was done half-assed so
the bad guys always
had just enough smoking gun
to run Wolfie out.
How does Reuters know this?
Why is Reuters so fixated on this?
(They put out a new “news” report every two hours).
Wolfie padded the tab for his babe, period. In real life ordinary people can’t get away with that kind of stuff. But, there, in that rareified atmosphere, the Wolfies actually think they can fight to justify it. And, also, think that the rest of us can’t see the forest for the trees.
All the Euro lefties are obsessed with this. The Guardian has been going nuts over this for the last two weeks. But we all know that the BBC takes its cues from the Guardian. In two of the last three nights, the BBC World News has led their broadcasts with this story. Now honestly, is this the most important news event that has happened over this time period? To the Bush-deranged lefty Euros, it is.
I wonder if the woman in question will be going back to the World Bank after the dust settles. She did not want to leave in the first place. It appears that the enemies of Wolfie and Shaha, those crazy lovebird kids, won this battle of political in-fighting.
All the Euro lefties are obsessed with this. The Guardian has been going nuts over this for the last two weeks. But we all know that the BBC takes its cues from the Guardian. In two of the last three nights, the BBC World News has led their broadcasts with this story. Now honestly, is this the most important news event that has happened over this time period? To the Bush-deranged lefty Euros, it is."
In other words, British owned Reuters, the Guardian, the BBC and the rest of the leftwing "media" are stooge operations acting as agents for whatever the latest left wing agenda is.
The Wall Street Journal
has had interesting coverage.
very strongly. But their news
his mis-steps as well.
If all papers were like that
more folks would read them.
You have to understand that the NY TIMES and the Washington Post save time by putting their editorial opinons on their front pages as “news.”
This is totally disgusting. Another Bush surrender.
The WSJ notoriously has a conservative editorial page and a leftist news staff.
Promise to always post on my threads?
Oh yeah, and I got a couple of chrome balls, too. You need them around here sometimes.
If you're referring to Wolfowitz's "corruption clean-up campaign" -- he was talking about corruption in the countries the World Bank loaned money to -- not to corruption at the World Bank.
(Although that could be one and the same. But that's another story.)
LOL. That's just crazy. Why would Fox do that? It's the Internet's top news story.
Well, in this case, I totally agree with Pat. He's a Libertarian -- so he knows a thing or two about economic reality.
You know, I don't see anything SO terrible about all this. However, the dog ate my moral compasss.
I don't see this as a Bush surrender. Do you think the world sees it that way?
Bush should not have commented on Wolfowitz's problems in the first place. What the heck was he thinking?
The real lesson is that the US shouldn't be funneling money into a "World Bank." Unfortunately, that's not a "lesson learned," -- not in a Washington D.C. where "conservatives" like Wolfowitz want $400k per year (tax free?) jobs at bonndoggles like the World Bank.
The old-fashioned conservatism I believed in, appears to be dead.
Why do you care? Why should we care? Why should conservatives care who sits at the head of this boondoggle? We should be fighting to abolish it, not to get "our guy" at the top of the trough.
You've been spund. That's not what the evidence shows; period, semicolon, comma or ampersand.
The facts are that Shaha was short listed for a promotion within the bank. The ethics committee told Wolfowitz she could not remain with the bank, and that he (Wolfowitz) should facilitate her transfer out of the bank. Her salary increase at State was in line with what she would have received anyway from her impending promotion at the World Bank.
Any employee with a record of excellence, involuntarily forced out over a conflict of interest, would -- quite rightfully -- expect a competent agent (and remember it was at the ethics committee's insistence that Wolfowitz acted as the agent) to secure them a deal that resulted in no net lose of expected compensation.
In short, when ALL the facts are considered, Shaha did NOT get special treatment. Period.
Either you don't know what a Libertarian is, or you don't know what a Pat Buchanan is. (Somewhere a Libertarian is screaming.)
The old-fashioned conservatism I believed in, appears to be dead.
You know, if a funny, convoluted way, your position might be more liberal than conservative.
We put money in the World Bank because we WANT countries to default on those loans. Those defaulting nations put up their natural resources as collateral for those loans. When they default, the lending country can seize those resources.
I actually thought it was odd (anti-capitalist) that Wolfie wanted to stop this "corruption." Maybe he didn't get the memo from Shell et al. (That just might be why he's in so much trouble over a nonsense-issue.)
I plead ignorance! What the heck IS Pat B? I can't figure him out.
The usual moniker is "paleocon," which basically means pretty much the opposite of (and the term being created in reaction to) "neocon".
Neoconservatives were (historically, although the term has gradually been losing the sense of this historical reference) liberals who moved to the conservative side of the fence driven principally in horror of Jimmah Cahtah's feckless and inept foreign policy, and the general softness of the left on issues of national security.
Neocons, then, generally favor forward leaning foreign and national security policies. Paleocons tend, by contrast, to be isolationist. Now there IS a similarity here to many libertarians who also tend to be isolationist wrt the projection of American military and political energy. But the difference is on economics. Paleocons (and Pat Buchanan specifically) are also economic isolationists, i.e. protectionists. Libertarians (although often suspicious of government management of trade and economic relationships and agreements) are definitely opposed to protectionist policies.
The World Bank when Wolfowitz took it over was totally corrupted. He has done a pretty good job of straightening it out. The Euros don't like that, because they like the idea of using it to push family planning and similar agendas instead of actually trying to help people.
There would seem to be three possible ways of dealing with this:
1. Abolish the World Bank and pull our money out.
2. Keep Wolfowitz in charge and tell the Euros to get back in their cages.
3. Throw Wolfowitz over the side and let the Euros take over, although that violates the historical agreements.
Now, maybe #1 is the best option, but it's not politically feasible with a Democrat controlled congress. Option #3 is unacceptable. That leaves option #2 as the best outcome at this time.
Yes. That's a preferable alternative to fighting to be "top dog" in this worthless organization.
"Forward leaning"? Huh? You mean wasteful, bureaucratic, profligate (as in "World Bank")?
“Politics is the art of the possible.” That means that if we want to achieve more, first we have to set up the circumstances to make it possible to do it.
In this case, there’s no way Bush could abolish the World Bank now, even if he wanted to, because there are treaties and congress would not agree to abrogate them. Moreover, I very much doubt that Bush would want to abolish the bank, which means it could only be done with another president.
So, if you want to abolish the UN or the World Bank, that could only be done by electing a more conservative president and a much more conservative congress. Otherwise, it ain’t gonna happen.
And even if we succeeded, there might be more important things to spend the political capital on, such as appointing conservative judges, cleaning out our federal bureaucracy, reducing spending, lowering taxes, implementing a sane energy policy, fixing the immigration mess, fixing the massive Democrat cheating at the voting booths, and so forth.
Thanks so much for the explanation of Paleocons vs. neocons.
I get it now.
I am in your debt.
Fine. But I couldn’t care less whether Wolfowitz wins his fight to stay, because he’s shown no inclination to push for ultimate abolition of the World Bank. He’s acted like any other tax-money-distributing bureaucrat, even calling, recently, for new and bigger spending programs “for the world’s children.” Thanks, but we can elect Democrats to do that for us. I’d like to be able to keep more of my pay so I can do right by the children in my own family, thank you.
You really do know nothing do you.
You certainly know nothing about what Bush and Wolfowitz have been trying to do at the World Bank.
You know nothing of how he and Bush have tried to get at the corruption in the countries the bank makes loans to, and how many of those countries, particularly in Africa have admitted the problems there and praised him for his anti-corruption efforts and have at the same time been opposed to the attacks on him; while the Europeans, who want him out, have been fighting him on those efforts (because it is THERE favorite projects that feed so much of the corruption, so it is there favorite projects that require so much additional anti-corruption scrutiny).
But, you wouldn’t know anything about any of that would you?
You’re responses are always like a simpleton, with pat little know-nothing cliche type ideas that are not ever informed ideas at all - they just fit your fixed and uninformed view of everything that you know little about.