Oh yeah, and I got a couple of chrome balls, too. You need them around here sometimes.
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.
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.
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.