Skip to comments.Wolfowitz to Resign -- Effective June 30..
Posted on 05/17/2007 3:14:10 PM PDT by yoely
click here to read article
I see today Blair in London will replace him.
Tell me the fix was not in long ago.
The first thing you have wrong is the last - "demanded". He did not make any official "demands". There was no point in his discussions where anyone said - "I think we should do X" and Wolfowitz DEMANDED "no, that's not enough, I want to do Y and I demand you do that". When the ethics official did not accept Wolfowitz attempt to recuse himself, he then approached the HR officials. By the end of their discussions - his questions, their knowledge of bank pay scales and practices and past practice in like situations, and the financial implications of various options, he submitted his preferred options to them and to the ethics official; he did not demand anyone's acceptance of anything and the HR officials or the ethics official could have, by bank policy and by their official responsibilities, formally objected and asked Wolfowitz to suggest different terms. There were no official objections.
The objections came from later (two years) public disclosure of the terms that no one, even among the directors, had objected to and they had all known of the terms. Now, what the press has not done is give as much media attention to the hypocrisy of the directors by revealing many of their own pecadillos with as much of a public crusade with which the media has made themselves the willing pawns of those directors. What is NOT a scandal at the World Bank is rampant nepotism at the highest levels. What is a scandal is that directors that don't like Wolfowitz have masqueraded their politic attack on him in the language of "ethics" while hiding the hypocrisy of their own actions.
I think your problem is that your understanding of World Bank practices and procedures, policies, their salary structures (sky high) as well as the position the person was in, whether or not she was in line for a promotion which her forced resignation would prevent, the length of the "guarantee" on a future raise, as well as the internal oversight and review given the financial particulars by the HR officials and by the ethics official, without objections - which was part of their official responsibilities to make, underscores the fact that you are unaware of the World Bank context of the entire set of conditions. The facts are that in the scheme of things for the World Bank, in their own context and within their own structure, there was nothing extraordinary or out-of-character with past practice in any of the conditions in her agreement to resign.
If there were, then the current sitting director from China could not have forced the promoted his own wife to a position that reports directly to him and the director from the UK could not be carrying on a multi-year affair (he's married) with a bank employee which he has consistently obtained promotions for which she has no education or experience for - according to the banks own job requirements for positions he has obtained for her. The fact is that the bank is a cesspool of nepotism which collectively makes Wolfowitz and ALL the actions he took look like a boy scout by comparison - for all they have done and are doing, and hiding while all his actions were transparent and open.
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.
You know nothing of the moral and ethical elitist "arrogance" and "tone-deafness" at the World Bank and particular among its European members and staff, for which their corruption, historic and ongoing unethical behavior makes their manufactured "scandal" simply a huge pot calling a small kettle black. It's international political hypocrisy at the highest. There is at least two directors and many deputy directors which Bush should have demanded the resignations of, in order for U.S. participation in the organization to continue - if they wanted to persist in their hypocritical attack on Wolfowtiz.
Wanna start a pool on who is next??
That's not necessarily so. It's simply custom that the Europeans get to pick the IMF head and the US gets to pick the head of the World Bank, and the Europeans are saying that after Wolfowitz they may decide not to allow the US to pick the World Bank head, and instead open it up as an open election by member states. That seems pretty likely, to be honest, and that means the US will lose its perogative.
True but he helped set himself up. As they say, never put your meat where your bread and butter is, if you’ll excuse the vulgarity.
I’m concerned about Blair taking over. He was raked over hot coals for his closeness to Bush, and if he takes this helm he may try to distance himself from the U.S. and administrative positions rather than encourage support for them. The poodle label was his undoing in England, and he’s likely too smart to keep on carrying that. Hoping that the administration puts an assuredly loyal person (one of the defeated Senators or an ‘06 senatorial candidate?) into that slot rather than a formally very liberal ex-ally like Blair. Sudden thought, maybe this was the deal all along—Blair for Wolf—when Wolfey found the coyotes lunging at him and it became obvious to everyone that he could only hold on for so long.
Wolfowitz was set up in more ways than one.
For one-—His moral incompetence led to this
And I suspect that “girlfriend” helped move it along.
I like Blair, but the problem with that is that it will go against the tradition of an American running the World Bank since we give most of the single nation money to it, so I’m told. Next thing you know, Kim Il Sung will want to run it, and then what do you do?
Blair’s a great guy, but not for this job. The WB needs someone to go in there with a bullwhip. Wolf wasn’t the guy for that either. He kissed up to Bono, hugged Geldof, mouthed platitudes about saving the earth, demanded that the US leave its borders unguarded, exuded pride in his carbon credits program, cried crocodile tears about the love of the Palestinian children - it was gross! - in short, he tried too hard to fit in, and compromised his principles in the process. He was I guess a rightwing guy in leftwing drag as he did all this stuff but real leftists aren’t fooled that easily. The WB needs someone whom the leftists will right away know where he stands.
The Dems sure know how to get rid of those folks who they think get in the way of their agenda. They are really experts with it. I wish the Republicans could learn this tactic from the Democrats.
The girlfriend had a lot to do with his downfall. He was afraid of her, and Bennett his lawyer said it. He told her too much, she knew too much and she was vindictive and powermad. It was a bad scene.
The US would still get a 16% vote, the biggest of the bunch. I could live with it, so long as it applies to the IMF too. It would widen the talent pool.
Another reform they need to make is to start hiring staff at market rates. The cossetted, padded salaries of the staff are an outrage. They are also the root of their arrogance.
Who are the two directors the US should have demanded the resignation of?
Oh really???? I wonder then if the set up is real...she dupes a sexually naive man and he’s toast.
IN any case, the World Blank needs to be dismantled, so while they are atill cleaning house the whole shibboleth should be deep sixed.
There is so much going going than we know, but suffice it to say that the Muslim Turks are behind this...that’s how they pay back their apologists like wolfowitz who dared to criticize them, albeit mildly, after years of bending over to them.
The director from China, whose wife is installed in a position directly under him, and the director from the UK whose paramour has been promoted, more than once, at his insistence, into positions she had neither education or experience for under the job requirements for the positions she was promoted to.
The China case was done according to standards and the Chinese guy was married to his wife and not in a supervisory role, a case very different from Wolf’s. I understand he is now suing.
As for the English guy, why was the Bank President at the time, a certain Paul Wolfowitz, merrily letting this kind of crap go on? Wolf’s office of professional responsibility, called INT, was run by an explicit crony of Wolfowitz’s, a person named Suzanne Rich Folsom, who apparently got a lot of complaints and did nothing. She was only roused to move on the guy when she leaked the reports about him to Bret Stephens, thus using a corruption issue for her man’s political advantage.
It was a move that can only be described as ‘pure Wolfowitz.’ Fine, let corruption run wild so long as it’s around. Only if there’s political advantage to be reaped is anything to be done about it, and only if it can be done by media war instead of administrative action. The cronyism, the leaks, and the failure to do anything about that UK guy problem is emblematic of Paul’s selective and politicized approach to corruption enforcement. You definitely wouldn’t want a guy like that to be your boss.
“The China case was done according to standards and the Chinese guy was married to his wife and not in a supervisory role, a case very different from Wolfs.”
BS - she, the Chinese directors’ wife, reported to him and she came into that position at his behest.
In Wolfowitz case, (1) his girlfriend and he had many operational and lines of authority between them; (2)she was not put into her bank jobs by him but was already working there when he arrived and (3)regardless of the lack of official interactions or conflicts in their work - unlike the Chinese guy - Wolofowitz and his girlfriend agreed that his taking the job would mean that she would resign. He hid nothing and tried to hide nothing about any of it and apparently the directors had no objection to it two years ago when they were given all the facts.
The acts of the U.K. guy regarding his paramour began, and were predominately, prior to Wolfowitz; and again, unlike Wolfowitz, the U.K and the bank staff elements his paramour has reported to have tried to keep all her promotions out of the public light.
They are just hypocrits and Bush should have gone public with all their hypocrisy, of which the directors are the mere tip of the iceberg. A large number of deputy directors, going back years, have spouses employed at the bank in positions representing conflict of interest. It has all been given a wink and a nod by the directors for years, and some of those deputies have as much political clout in their home countries due to their many years in the musical chairs of “international aid” positions for their nations foreign affairs offices and international lending bodies.
The World Bank is a cesspool and if anything Wolfowitz advocated some air freshner in his policy approaches and it was resented.
We’ll each have to provide sources on the chinese guy, our accounts clearly differ.
As for wolf disclosing his girlfriend, there was no merit in that, the washpost had already reported about their loud parties at her house in dc, so it was very well known already. Of course i can get you the link to that but i trust you already saw it, it’s a famous story.
as for how he got there, he was enticed there by the girlfriend who set up her own little alternative power centers and wanted a big patron (and lover) to facilitate it. when the ethics committee said she couldn’t work at the bank, they knew that that was what was going on already - she brought her boyfriend to the bank and then sought to harness his power for her own ends. that’s why she was sent out and THAT’S why she was so enraged about it - her masterplan had gone awry.
Now she was a controlling arab woman and he’d already told her a lot of secrets, probably ones he shouldn’t have, so he was afraid of her. He claimed she said she was going to sue but that is bogus because you can’t sue in us torts courts and get us style torts court settlements if you are living taxfree as a worldbank employee. your only recourse is the world bank arbitrators, and somehow they don’t give out torts settlements. so the lawsuit thing and wolf pretending to be all concerned about protecting the bank from a lawsuit is screamingly bogus. Bob Bennett told reporters that riza had dictated her inflated salary terms and if it’s him saying it, it must be true. she wanted that extra case because she knew too many of paul’s secrets and she was blackmailing him. remember: paul has lotsa zipper problems along the lines of bill clinton and she wasn’t his first honey, only the first one who blackmailed him.
as for the UK guy, go back and read the stephens story, it took place in 2006, i checked the dates myself, 2006 was solely on wolfowitz’s watch, so why he let this go on is beyond me, if he was a big corruption fighter, some action should have been taken but instead none was, the only action that was taken was to leak it to the press by folson’s office, which is the only place it could have come. well, what does that say for such a crony? she sure wasn’t interested in corruption fighting unless there was something she and her boss could get out of it politically.
I believe you meant to post against #61. But that’s OK. I think the Wolf guy is OK as far as politicans go.
I believe you meant to post against #61. But that’s OK. I think the Wolf guy is OK as far as politicans go.
I did not know that Wolf himself promoted her and raised her salary. My limited understanding was he arranged for her to transfer to another job which provided a higher salary. So I thought the receiving end was responsible for justifying her salary. Because of the conflict of interest it is not surprising that he would want her out of there. I admittedly don’t know all the precise details. So appreciate your filling me in if what you said is accurate - that Wolf himself raised her salary while she was still in his employ. Thanks I guess.
The World Bank needs to go where the United Nations should have gone a long time ago-In the Trash Bin of History.
If someone on the left did the exact things Wolfowitz did, would you also said they behaved morally?
There is absolutely nothing moral about nepotism.
Facts are your friend.
I suggest you do a little research.
Well, then please enlighten me!
I find it odd that a person would make such a statement and then not even post a simple URL if indeed the facts were on their side.
Agreed. This, unfortunately, is why the Fedgov is beyond the reach of a honest "true conservative" presidential candidate.
The next body more corrupt and unrecoverable than the Worldbank is the UN. And the only body more corrupt and unrecoverable/unmanageable than the Worldbank or the UN is the United States Federal Government.
A Ron Paul or a Duncan Hunter would be eviscerated by the bureaucrats within hours, and undercut on measure after measure without them even knowing what happened to them.
Only a Fred Thompson or a "JulieAnnie" is intellectually dirty enough to play the game and still be nominally on 'our' side.
Listen, pal. A 38 percent pay raise is extraordinary. Very few people can qualify for such a bump. Combined with guaranteed annual raises and a guaranteed job offer (with another raise) in the future? I'd be interested if one could find another instance of that anywhere.
If in your world that's status quo you must live in an interesting place.
And, if you don't think he demanded it, if in your world somehow you think poor Mr. Wolfowitz had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support this raise for the woman who he has a sexual relationship with, you have a very interesting perspective on human nature. I guess, in your mind, the presence of a top executive officer in a meeting of subordinates has nothing to do with the meeting's outcome. In your world, did Mr. Wolfowitz, try to argue something like this?
"Listen people. I've made my opinion clear. This is just too high a raise. I totally oppose this. But I'm just one voice. As you know, I staunchly believe in democracy and gosh darn it, you subordinates have more votes than I. I don't like it, but if you really think my sweetie deserves that high a raise, well, by golly, I guess I'll have to go along."
Thanks, but your attempts to write lengthy posts, full of implications that only you know what goes on when personal relationships are involved in human resource decisions doesn't pass the laugh test.
Have a nice day.
“Listen, pal. A 38 percent pay raise is extraordinary. Very few people can qualify for such a bump. Combined with guaranteed annual raises and a guaranteed job offer (with another raise) in the future? I’d be interested if one could find another instance of that anywhere.”
Again, you have nothing of the context of the World Bank, of its pay scales, of the promotion she was in line for but would not be getting due to her forced resignation, or due to standards and practices at the World Bank for how to compensate someone for the fact that they are being forced out of their job due to no fault of their own. Would the bank normally pay some kind of lump sum settlement, or would they insure higher future income in lieu of such a settlement. But, as I said, you have none of the context and you certainly have none of the context of salaries and financial compensation packages at the World Bank in general.
Thanks but your attempts to place the situation in your own context, instead of that at the World Bank, can shed no light but your misplaced rage on the subject.
“as for how he got there, he was enticed there by the girlfriend who set up her own little alternative power centers and wanted a big patron (and lover) to facilitate it”
Yea, Bush gave him the job because his girlfriend wanted him to have!! Gossip and speculation among jealous lower level staff, which the WaPo demonstrated their political bias in “reporting”.
“when the ethics committee said she couldnt work at the bank,”
There was never any question put to “the ethics committee” about whether or not she would resign and neither she nor Wolfowitz had to ask “the ethics committee” that question. The resignation was a given beforehand and they knew it.
And more D.C. gossip substantiated by “Bob Bennett” as if any of that gossip represents any facts. Not an ounce of it can be demonstrated anywhere, not in the records or in any testimony. Little people with too much time for speculation on their hands. The WaPo “reports” would have been better printed in the National Inquirer, which is would better represent the quality of them.
Just because the staff are saying this doesn’t make it untrue. Don’t be blinded by your dislike of them, I think it makes perfect sense and explains her screaming rage at being transferred from the Bank even though the job she was being moved to, working with the US vice president’s daughter, and then at her very own think tank with a $25 million budget, were clearly better jobs than the one she had. Don’t you know anything about human nature, or for that matter, controlling Arab women? They act like that, I’ve had them for roommates in college. They’re recognizable types. I am not sure by which criteria you believe your point of view, but it hardly makes sense with how washington or human nature works. I think you’re blinded by the idea of wolfie as a helpless victim and martyr when in fact his own deeds are the cause of his undoing.
As for Bob Bennett, why are you discounting him? He is Wolf’s OWN LAWYER and fought like the dickens to defend the guy for a pretty penny.
As for the ethics committee, you are obviously unfamiliar with the basic storyline of the case, the ethics committee squelched her demand to work at the bank alongside her boyfriend, knowing full well the two of them would politick together to feather their nests and those of their tight circle of cronies, to the detriment of the bank. Yes, the ethics committee said she could not be working at the bank at the same time wolf was leading it, that’s why she was ‘seconded’ to the state department working with liz cheney and then to her own think tank. Aren’t you even aware of this?
ping for later
I’m not your teacher.
I solute your efforts here - even if they fail.
“Instead of defending his loyal people, Bush has backed down repeatedly in the face of left wing pressure.”
Unless you are pro amnesty......then Bush will protect you.
You’re swatting at flies and the wrong ones at that.
The entire process of her transfer to the State Dept (1) was over two years ago, (2)was clear, in it’s particulars, to all the directors two yeas ago and, (3)was not made any issue by any official - among everyone who knew about it - not two years ago and not since, until (4)someone at the bank (most likely at the instigation of one or more directors) decided to MAKE a PUBLIC issue of matters than none of them had made an official issue, until then.
The entire process, in all its particulars, is not a “scandal” in the context of the official shenanigans, rampant nepotism, huge salaries and highly political and politicized appointments and promotions at the World Bank - a context that is institutionalized in the World Bank.
The taking, by certain directors and staff at the World Bank, of any of the particulars involving Wolfowitz and masquerading any of it as “scandal” - as contrary to many of their own inner dealings and the overall context of the environment at the World Bank - is a joke and it is only possible to have succeeded at masquerading as a “scandal” to the public and the public alone, because the shear hypocrisy of it - in the context of the World Bank - has not and will not be given equal exposure, to the public.
Thus, politically it is a public charade in which the actual, and very political motives of certain European directors - the root cause of their attack on Wolfowitz - has nothing to do with any “scandal” in how his girlfriend was dealt with. Those dealings were no more than an excuse and an excuse that could only be successful with continued public ignorance of just how much 100% of the financial arrangements in the resignation of the girlfriend of the head the World Bank was only termed a “scandal”, by certain World Bank directors because, and only because the head of the World Bank was Wolfowitz. If the head of the World Bank had been “one of them”, their official lack of any objection at the time of the “deal” would have remained their position today.
That is what is important, and not ANY of the particulars. Were it otherwise in any sense, the “scandal” would have began immediately, two years ago, not last month. The rest is political smoke and mirrors.
Not my favorite source, but http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=192571 reports:
In statements to the Bank's board, Wolfowitz has pointed to Riza's candidacy for the communications adviser post as a reason for awarding her a $47,340 compensation increase. "This raise is about double what you'd be allowed to get if you got that promotion," the official familiar with these deliberations said. "For Wolfowitz to use the argument that she was short-listed goes against what the committee said about her two years before. It does not justify the salary increase."
The Riza deal included more than that first big pay hike and annual increases. It also essentially guaranteed Riza subsequent promotions to higher pay grades. And the deal would provide her the yearly pay increases for up to ten years, if Wolfowitz remained at the Bank for a second term. By the end of a second Wolfowitz term, Riza, were she to stay a Bank employee, would make close to $400,000, possibly more.
These pay increases would lead to an outsized pension. According to a Bank source familiar with the institution's pension rules and formulas, pensions for Bank retirees are based on the average salary of an employee's last three years at the Bank. Under the Wolfowitz deal, Riza could expect an annual pension of about $110,000, if she retired in 2015 (assuming Wolfowitz served two terms). If Wolfowitz had not awarded her that initial salary hike of nearly $50,000 and she instead received steady annual raises of 4 percent over this ten-year period, her pension would be about $56,000. With the Wolfowitz deal, Riza could look forward to a rather comfortable pension.
Or, if you prefer: http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-05-16-wolfowitz-cover-usat_N.htm
Riza was no ordinary staffer. She was Wolfowitz's girlfriend, and though no one could have foreseen it at the time, the handling of her career would eventually pose a threat to his tenure, the United States' traditional hold over the global lending body and the Bush administration's relations with Europe.
The next day, Wolfowitz directed Coll to transfer Riza to a State Department job and raise her pay by $47,340 more than twice what bank rules allowed to $180,000, says the board panel investigating the affair. Wolfowitz, who says the outsize paycheck was needed to keep Riza from suing the bank, insists he was merely implementing guidance from the bank's ethics committee.
Or maybe this: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/06/341/:
Payroll data obtained from the World Bank and made public Thursday by GAP show that Riza, a communications officer in the Banks Middle East Office, who is currently working in an external assignment at the U.S. State Department, received a 47,300 dollar, or 35.5 percent, raise to 180,000 dollars after Wolfowitz arrived.
This raise was followed last year by another 13,590 dollar raise, or about 7.5 percent, to a total salary of 193,590 dollars.
If World Bank staff rules had been respected, she was not to receive percentage increases greater than 12 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. Her current salary of 193,590 dollars is about seven thousand dollars more than what [U.S.] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earns, GAP said in the statement Thursday.
Again, I'm not a big fan of these sources, but it is interesting that they seem quite different from what you claim. Also, unlike what I've provided, I notice a distinct lack of evidence to support your blustering about how ignorant many of us are about how the World Bank operates. Care to share a little proof, Wuli?