Posted on 05/17/2007 3:14:10 PM PDT by yoely
Just Breaking
Wolf is a good man. Sorry to see him go.
BuHuHaHa!
Well, we Euro-Arachnids fund 60% of the WB. Therefore we have naturally some influence.
Best wishes from the other side of the big pond. :)
A.B.
I’m afraid I blame Bush on this, once again.
Wolfowitz did nothing wrong. He was forced out because he wouldn’t go along with their policies of using the World Bank to promote family planning, abortion, and condom distribution. Therefore he had to go, because he didn’t like to use the bank to kill of third world populations.
Evidently Bush instructed Tony Snow to go out and say that Wolfowitz was on his own. When Bush pulled his support, that was the end of it.
Instead of defending his loyal people, Bush has backed down repeatedly in the face of left wing pressure.
“Corruption is often at the very root of why governments do not work,” Wolfowitz argued in a speech in Indonesia in April 2006.
"Wolfowitz wanted to change the rules in the middle of the game," says a French official who asked to remain anonymous while discussing the Congo negotiations. The World Bank Board, the official says, told Wolfowitz, "You cannot work like this."
The French and other European government representatives argued forcefully that the World Bank needed to remain engaged in poor countries such as Congo, regardless of how corrupt their governments may be.
The Wolfowitz argument that fighting corruption is a prerequisite for ending poverty is diametrically opposed to the views of many Bank professionals.
"The World Bank is a development institution, not an anti-corruption institution," says Dennis de Tray, who left the bank in 2006... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9525865
“Evidently Bush instructed Tony Snow to go out and say that Wolfowitz was on his own. When Bush pulled his support, that was the end of it.”
Especially since the US President gets to replace him, it makes sense that at some point the president just let him go.
Good idea...if that was the truth in this matter.
Not a surprise. We know that the French like to work with corrupt third world governments.
He doesn’t have any idea about the dynamics of corruption. He should read some of Hernando de Soto’s studies about how corruption happens and what it’s a byproduct of on .. surprise, the World Bank’s site. It’s obvious he’s not familiar with the material.
He’s got book deals and the lecture circuit just waiting for him, and will have ample opportunity to settle scores.
I’m confident he will.
Resign my rusty red rear!!! This jackass should be in jail!!!
He took OUR money and gave his ho the dough! That is EMBEZZELMENT!!!
The most puzzling question about this whole thing is, why would anyone have sex with Paul Wolfowitz?
The ethics committee not only cleared, but demanded that Wolfowitz take the very action for which he is now held up for international opprobrium.
In a July 22, 2005, ethics committee discussion memo, Mr. Danino noted that “there would be two avenues here for promotion-an ‘in situ’ promotion to Grade GH for the staff member” and promotion through competitive selection to another position.” Or, as an alternative, “The Bank can also decide, as part of settlement of claims, to offer an ad hoc salary increase.”
July 27, ethics committee chairman Ad Melkert formally advised Mr. Wolfowitz in a memo that “the potential disruption of the staff member’s career prospect will be recognized by an in situ promotion on the basis of her qualifying record . . .” In the same memo, Mr. Melkert recommends “that the President, with the General Counsel, communicates this advice” to the vice president for human resources “so as to implement” it immediately.
And in an August 8 letter, Mr. Melkert advised that the president get this done pronto: “The EC [ethics committee] cannot interact directly with staff member situations, hence Xavier [Coll, the human resources vice president] should act upon your instruction.” Only then did Mr. Wolfowitz instruct Mr. Coll on the details of Ms. Riza’s new job and pay raise.
It was a kangaroo court. The Europeans and bank staff thought they could get him to leave quietly if they smeared him and Ms. Riza enough in the press. But he has fought back to clear his name, the Europeans led by Dutch politician Herman Wijffels have decided to ignore evidence to justify their one-sided conclusions.
Needless to say, none of this context has appeared in the media smears suggesting that Mr. Wolfowitz pulled a fast one to pad the pay of Ms. Riza. Yet the record clearly shows he acted only after he had tried to recuse himself but then wasn’t allowed to do so by the ethics committee. And he acted only after that same committee advised him to compensate Ms. Riza for the damage to her career from a “conflict of interest” that was no fault of her own.
Please enlighten yourself by reading post #38. Everything Wolfowitz did (actually, was forced to do by the World Bank “ethics” officer even though he asked out of it) was aboveboard and approved by others. That is not “EMBEZZELMENT” as you say, which by the way could be considered libel. You should be more careful, not to mention informed.
Moral: Never piss off the corrupt, entrenched bureaucrats.
Like he wasn’t?
He’s getting an easy pass around here.
This jackass should be in jail!!!
Even worse. ...a dumbass. And a dangerous dumbass.
Here is the best analysis I have found of this dangerous fool
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/016236.php
Soros Socialists hate Wolfowitz.
So I take it you agree with the above?
If so I suggest you read the NIE report. It states a withdrawel would make things worse.
That article had almost nothing to do with Wolfowitz and the World Bank. It was primarily concerned with complaining about the Bush administration’s approach to the Iraq war. So I’m not sure why you posted it on this thread.
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.