Skip to comments.Wolfowitz will not resign from World Bank: lawyer
Posted on 05/16/2007 4:09:08 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz will not resign under the current "cloud" and would rather push the matter to a vote of the bank's board to clear his name, his lawyer said on Wednesday.
"Mr. Wolfowitz will not resign under this cloud and he will rather put this matter to a full vote," Wolfowitz's lawyer, Robert Bennett, told Reuters.
I hope this is true because the international community needs to have its bluffs called on Anti Americanism.
This is a solid opportunity.
I thought I just heard on ABC radio news that he had resigned because he lost support of the White House. Hope I heard wrong.
He’s posturing. The man is a goner.
I haven’t followed this at all, but... I *like* Wofie! I hope he hangs in there.
I wish he would shut down the organization, then resign.
You did hear wrong. ABC news with its typical misinformation to try and get the outcome they want. Liberal turds they are.
He may be posturing, but he should have some leverage. Imagine the book he could write, and how the institution and, I imagine, certain people might come off in it.
Cool. I would bet that Wolfowitz’ predecessors ensured that there are a hundred hoops that have to be cleared to unseat the president. think UN...
Your entire premise is flawed. You haven't actually followed this story very closely, have you?
Hey, somebody who won’t cave to liberals!
Reformer comes to counterproductive — indeed, corrupt — organization, informs them of potential conflict of interest.
Counterproductive — indeed, corrupt — organization, later demands that Reformer re-assign potential conflict of interest and arrange for pay raise for potential conflict of interest as compensation.
Reformer reassigns potential conflict of interest with pay raise.
Counterproductive — indeed, corrupt — organization attempts to cashier Reformer for alleged conflict of interest.
Interestingly, representatives of the under-developed countries that counterproductive — indeed, corrupt — organization was chartered to provide aid to support Reformer.
Counterproductive — indeed, corrupt — representatives of failed Euro-states conspire to calumny Reformer.
You can’t make this stuff up.
First in line for “The Book”!
I don’t think he was especially serious about corruptionfighting, it had already started when he came and it will continue as ever when he leaves. He did make a big deal of it in words, but his actions showed that corruption only applied to regimes he didn’t like - ergo, Uzbekistan was corrupt, Tajikistan wasn’t, oh give me a break! Also, he was big on lending to Iraq, transferring the ‘Africa Model’ for becoming a worldclass power to a place that already was a hellhole on its own. Iraq is the second-most corrupt place in the world according to Transparency International. He certainly didn’t care about corruption in a country that was his “baby,” Iraq. He was very loud about being a corruption fighter and very selective in declaring who he thought was corrupt. The other world bankers would comment on how he’d declare one ‘corrupt!’ and scrap the whole thing, without any investigation, and then let an obvious case go by. He just didn’t do his homework, which is why he was unpopular with the staff. He wanted to rule by fiat, like The Red Queen, and it caught up to him. No, he wasn’t very serious about corruption - and as far as himself, personally, that didn’t count at all, the great hog wallow was there for him to harvest from and he dined plentifully.
No it isn’t. I think you’ve been reading all the emotional hysteria from wolf’s small clique of friends who mostly focused on attacking their accusers and questioning their motives rather than seeking truth. They were the ones who distorted the case and made up things - it all boiled down to a guy who couldn’t keep it in his pants.
Hmmm... Your own comments have a certain edge to them that looks a lot like the kind of “emotional hysteria” that you denigrate. Do you have any facts that you care to put on the table to support your position? You don’t actually take the World Bank panel’s report at face value as an objective statement of the facts, do you? You don’t believe that internal bank politics and international jockeying for position had nothing whatsoever to do with the manufacture of this “scandal”, do you?
What do you want to argue? My view is similar to the board’s view. They evaluated the facts. All the facts, not just the selective ones Wolfowitz and his clique highlighted for their own selfish benefit.
It was stupid for him to accept the top job at a place where his girlfriend was working in the first place.
You call ‘em as you see ‘em!
Sounds to me like another “Good job, Brownie” moment for President bush.
. . .
What do you want to argue? My view is similar to the boards view.
OK, I'll admit that I have not read the board's actual report, rather I have only seen news reports about it. I'll have to get my hands on a copy - I'm especially looking forward to reading the part where the board boils down the entire incident and blames it on "a guy who couldn't keep it in his pants"...