From all accounts I’ve read, Wolfowitz is more of a “lone gun” type manager. That style may work OK in government, or even running a university, but it is sheer poison in an organization that thrives on consensus.
Bottom line, if you can’t be a team player in an organization that absolutely requires it, you’re history.
And it doesn’t matter what your religion is.
I see no intellectual merit to your claim.
If you read the Post article you pretty much find an admission from the World Bank staff that they were looking for a way to force him out. 92 percent of them disliked him. This is what you mean by “team player.” Who are we playing against?
European politics is grounded in its fundamental contempt for President Bush and all things associated with the war in Iraq. Wolfowitz was simply prey that they were waiting for.
The entire premise of removing him regards the removal of his girlfriend to AVOID the conflict of interest. She lost her job at the World Bank in order to remove even the appearance of a conflict of interest. This is the basis of the ethics violation against Wolfowitz.
That is ridiculous. Bolton was right, we could lose ten stories of the UN. I think the World Bank should be one of those ten stories.
The idea that there is something other than all of the worst dimensions of UN politics going on here is overshadowed by stupid hatred of Bush.
Team player at the UN means “do you hate Bush? — NO?” You are gone.
This is all of the worst bigotries in the world rolled together and I am happy to dance on the stupid bigotry of this organization.