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.
Who are the two directors the US should have demanded the resignation of?
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.