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
Yep. Done in by a woman, I think. He lets himself be led around by the nose by some of them.
well said - no one brought this up, but his screeching and clinging to the chandelier instead of resigning when the time was right didn’t do our country much good. i hope he’s happy. bitter guy.
Read the rest of my posts on the thread, or even a few of the other informed ones; from others, like me, who have gone to sources beyond the LameStreamMedia to learn what has actually taken place, vis-a-vis Wolfowitz and the World Bank.
Of course not, you have nothing from which anyone would obtain and education.
If you weren’t so eager to pick a fight you might realize that we’re basically in agreement. Anyway, rage on if that’s what pleases you....
“If you werent so eager to pick a fight you might realize that were basically in agreement. Anyway, rage on if thats what pleases you....”
If you were NOT so eager to invoke a fight you would not have been so oblique in your statements.
I think he did say that. Maybe he has something more than seeing that his girlfriend got a great big raise that he doesn't want to come out.
Maybe Robert Mugabe could take over at the World Bank. I think he meets the high exacting moral standards of the UN and the World Bank.
He didn't give her a raise.
Nope. With his credentials I'm sure he'll find another job. He doesn't need anyone to "provide" him anything.
Wolf is a good man. Sorry to see him go.
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. :)
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 members 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. Rizas 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 wasnt 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
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.
I wont label her muslim. She is Arab, but she is secular, fighting for women rights in the Muslim world and supporting democratic development. Thats 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?
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?
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.
Ping-a-ling to this article: