Posted on 05/17/2007 3:14:10 PM PDT by yoely
Just Breaking
I won’t label her muslim. She is Arab, but she is secular, fighting for women rights in the Muslim world and supporting democratic development. That’s contrary to anything Islam stands for.
Funny fighting for women’s rights in America is called Feminism. Boy the World here on FR has gone crazy.
>>Why should our money go to this corrupt organization?
That’s a good question. Why does our money go to the World Bank?
All they seem to do is create more urban concrete jungles that our troops will have to deal with.
I would have bet my bottom dollar that loans would have been conditioned on accepting those "programs" aimed at reducing the populations of third world countries. If I was wrong I will need to reevaluate my assessment system before I bet any money on anything.
Not to belabor this topic, but his being a “good man” is your opinion. Not everyone holds the same opinion.
~ And yes, he has the credentials to be hired by whomever he wants, but they all do stick together and provide for each other to a nicety.
Have a good day.
Question for you please, since you seemed to be very informed on this (my stepmom is a WB employee so I want to be prepared).
I always thought this editorial in the WSJ was good: http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009948
My question is - it’s about a month old - has anything come out since then that contradicts anything in this article?
...and clintonh8r fails to realize that he's also annoyed third-parties reading the thread, who see the oblique comments as merely hot air.
or never give your girl friend a big fat raise
Was she that good?
Money.
It’s the World Bank itself, that needs to resign.
Nothing has become public that either Wolfie or his girlfriend did anything the board wasn’t aware of.
Where have you been? - He automatically ordered her promotion to staff level H, and raised her pay from $132,660 to $180,000.
That’s a nice story.
Have you any reputable references to back it up?
Thanks.
Basically, just about all the international aid organizations have family planning as their central mission. And regretably, for the liberals who control them, family planning is a euphemism for reducing population.
Even USAID, after 7 years with Bush in office, spends a large part of its money peddling condoms and strong-arming pro-life governments in places like South America to try to force them to legalize abortion. It’s a constant struggle.
The Europeans have a very liberal take on family planning, and of course so did the clintons. Hillary was a major presence at the meetings in Cairo and Beijing that pushed family planning and the rights of women to have abortions.
Try re-reading the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily and the New York Sun, particularly their editorial, pages since the beginning of the issue. The WSJ has done the most in delineating the pre-existing, and continuing nepotism in the World Bank as well as the corrupt history, in international development aid, of the major European actors, currently and formerly part of the World Bank, who have created this non-scandal due to their political opposition to Wolfowitz and his heightened attempts to place more requirements for governmental reform and anti-corruption measures in the recipient countries, into more World Bank funding projects.
Nothing has come forward to contradict what WSJ then wrote, but there has been more than once-a-week additional reporting on the case, by the WSJ editors, confirming and butressing what they wrote then. Including, demonstrating the very nuanced statements made to Wolfowitz, particularly by the head of the ethics committee, and by which that person has re-framed those comments to Wolfowitz, in his reporting on them to the other board members, as only his thoughts on the matter and not advice to Wolfowitz; in spite of the fact that his role and the reason he was approached by Wolfowitz is precisely because he is supposed to represent the board's advice on ethics matters - not merely his personal opinion to which no concern need be given. In addition, apparently some bank employees, having read the WSJ reports on the issue, contacted the WSJ editors with inside information on the Wolfowitz issue and information about previous and current nepotism (and promotions due to that nepotism) at the bank, some which involves some current directors sitting in judgement of Wolfowtiz. I suggest you try to obtain links to their editorial pages, every day since April 16th. If you can't, let me know, I might have stored links to many of them, and if WSJ has not moved them, I will send them to you.
My understanding is that the $50K raise, guaranteed 8% raise per annum, and guarantee of a future job and raise upon return to the World Bank are absolutely extraordinary. It's the magnitude of the financial rewards that Wolfowitz demanded for his paramour that led to this problem. If he had not done that, I doubt any of this would have transpired.
It looks wrong because it is wrong.
Moreover, it shows astounding arrogance and tone-deafness on Wolfowitz's part to have done it. That's not the kind of behavior any organization -- business or otherwise -- wants to have at its head.
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.