Posted on 04/16/2007 7:06:00 AM PDT by Kitten Festival
The reason Paul Wolfowitz should resign as president of the World Bank has nothing to do with Iraq, or his last job as No. 2 in Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, or even his clashes with the bank’s directors and staff. He should resign because he made clean governance his main cause at the bank and has fallen far short of his own standards.
The facts are not in dispute. When Mr. Wolfowitz was appointed he was in a personal relationship with a woman employed there. Since working under Mr. Wolfowitz’s supervision would violate the bank’s conflict-of-interest rules, she was reassigned to the State Department, where she initially worked under Liz Cheney, the vice president’s daughter.
She remained on the bank’s payroll, and it now turns out that Mr. Wolfowitz helped arrange for her to receive a whopping $60,000 raise. Mr. Wolfowitz has launched a full rearguard action, apologizing to the staff, pledging full cooperation with any investigation, and appealing to staff members not to hold his “previous job” against him.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yeah just like the I-Man!
If the NYT wants him to go, then there is a 95% probability that he should stay.
Kitty, are you in league with the New York Times?
"The World Bank released its files in the case of President Paul Wolfowitz's ethics on Friday, and what a revealing download it is. On the evidence in these 109 pages, it is clearer than ever that this flap is a political hit based on highly selective leaks to a willfully gullible press corps.
Mr. Wolfowitz asked the World Bank board to release the documents, after it became possible the 24 executive directors would adjourn early Friday morning without taking any action in the case. This would have allowed Mr. Wolfowitz's anonymous bank enemies to further spin their narrative that he had taken it upon himself to work out a sweetheart deal for his girlfriend and hide it from everyone.
The documents tell a very different story--one that makes us wonder if some bank officials weren't trying to ambush Mr. Wolfowitz from the start. Bear with us as we report the details, because this is a case study in the lack of accountability at these international satrapies.
As always, it’s the seriousness of the charge.
B.S.
An interesting article at the WSJ.com regarding this.
Typically, NYT doesn’t know the facts.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110009948
NYT - Always on the side of the world’s tin horn dictators and grafters and against anyone willing to make the tough reforms. And always anxious to attack anything or anyone associated with President Bush.
Who else can we place on the sacrificial altar that will make the Dhimmis like us and accept us?
F.M.
(as in eff ‘em)
A broken clock is right twice a day, Wolfowitz is slime.
Wolfowitz was already appeasing the left through his statements under cover of office. To wit:
-Carbon credits and denouncing the US for its refusal to shut down its economy over global warming.
-Condemnation of the US for wanting to build a border wall, pure politicking reserved only for us, from a bank chief who says he doesn’t do politicking.
-Africa worship, a la Bono. Africa is the most corrupt place on earth according to transparency international and he’s stepped up their lending more than anyone in history. it is all being stolen as i speak and the place remains a hellhole, even the imf says it’s not growing. Paul loves to lend to the corrupt.
-Confronting the US administration over other matters, i will have to get more info, there was a recent open opposition to us policy. The guy is no darn good, selling his soul for the good love of the world bank staff on many levels
No.
Typical lynching of a Bush man without reporting ALL the facts.
The NYT editorial is soundly argued. But read the FT piece from the staff, i have it linked elsewhere, it debunks this spin the wsj is putting out for its favorite leaker. Paul is their leaker and they’re reporting it all his way, selectively and the ft has debunked this, Dont’ believe the wsj’s hype in defense of its leaker
Nonsense. It does not tell us that the World Bank had already recommended promotion for the girl.
Dont’ believe the wsj’s hype in defense of its leaker
Oh, by all means. Let's just enthusiastically post articles from the NYT. After all, they can be depended on to be unbiased, eh? LOL.
The documents paint a more sympathetic picture of Wolfowitz and his efforts to deal with the situation than what’s been revealed in the press thus far. And they shine a light on the bank’s board as having far more knowledge of the case than members have let on in off-record talks with the media. They also raise the specter of whether politics is driving at least some aspects of the scandal – as Wolfowitz and the board have long had a tense and sometimes acrimonious relationship over such vital issues as how to deal with corruption among bank borrowers who are also the institution’s membership.
The records show that it was partially resolved: Before his first day on the job, Wolfowitz on his own provided a statement to the board recusing himself from “any personnel actions or decisions” regarding Riza.
The Kitten has her claws out for Wolfowitz. She has been posting various articles that support her distorted version of events. She don’t need no stinkin’ facts.
Sorry but NOTHING from the NYT is “sound”.
I’m still waiting to see their “exclusive” record of evidence that “proved” the Duke players were indeed guilty.
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.