Posted on 04/26/2007 10:15:24 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
The New York Times reports that
"Paul D. Wolfowitz accused the bank's board on Wednesday of treating him 'shabbily and unfairly,'and appealed for more time to defend himself against allegations of favoritism and other matters," indicating the Directors were taken aback by his forceful demand for fair treatment. The incident which was used to smear him--the false accusations of mishandling the settlement contract with Ms Riza,-- appears to have been a red herring. The paper notes:
"[T]he bank's board is also investigating allegations that he has relied on a small coterie of aides, also with high salaries, and that he has promoted Bush administration policies in the area of family planning and climate change."(Emphasis supplied.) The President continues to stand by him and the Bank's options seem more limited than the prior reporting would indicate. The article notes:
The board, whose members represent various countries or groups of countries, is considering a number of options. The most extreme would be to invoke governance rules allowing the board to remove a president outright, though some officials said that was unlikely.
Alternatively, the board could reprimand Mr. Wolfowitz or call for his resignation with a kind of no-confidence vote. Another alternative would be to do nothing but negotiate with the United States, the Europeans and others for Mr. Wolfowitz to resign voluntarily.
Surely the Board has known how limited its options were from the outset. That suggests to me, the slander was utilized to poison public opinion against him, compel the President to withdraw his support and cover up why it was these corrupt transnationals want him out of the Bank's highest office.In this disregard for the personal damage they have caused him and his family to advance the most political and corrupt aims, they remind me of those who ran out of office the best UN Ambassador we have ever had, John Bolton, and those who have worked non-stop to tar the name of the President himself.
Fresh spit in his comb. Look out.
The anti-war lefties are naturally to find in every “world body”... (unfortunately now also in almost every US Political body aswell).
The “Wolfowitz scandal” is nothing but a liberal circus to purge the EEEVIL Neocons.
Stick to your guns Wolf.
At last we see the true motive. Fight on, Wolf.
Yes. This was pretty clear from the start.
The best solution would be to abolish the World Bank and return the money to the donor states. Short of that, Wolfowitz is doing a far better job than any lefty replacement would do.
So, he’s not spending all the available funds on condom distribution and carbon credits? Time to replace him with a Kofi Annan clone!
Don’t let them do to you what they did to Bolton...fight on!
Connect the dots...the Clintonistas are pushing this..because if they can take down Wolfie, then they can turn on Obama...whose wife recently got a big promotion AND a tripling of her salary....why?????
Next to an outstanding TAX FREE PAY rate. Free medical, free private education for kids, one month per year vacation with travel paid to home country for entire family. They hold a Diplomatic Passport and are allowed to bring in a slave to do their house work. Party all the time.
One, a US citizen moved in next door and paid 200K over market for the house. Last year they held a big Webb party.
Africans for Wolfowitz (WSJ Editorial)
The Wall Street Journal | 27 April, 2007 | Peter Berkowitz
Posted on 04/27/2007 2:21:59 AM EDT by The Pack Knight
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1824418/posts
World Bank’s Wolfowitz stands firm
Reuters | 30 April 2007 | Reuters
Posted on 04/30/2007 3:32:47 PM EDT by Kitten Festival
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1826112/posts
Wolfowitz Says Ethics Charges Are Unwarranted
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Published: April 30, 2007
WASHINGTON, April 30 — Paul D. Wolfowitz declared vigorously today that it would be “unjustly and frankly hypocritical” for the World Bank’s board of directors to find him guilty of ethical lapses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/washington/30cnd-wolf.html?hp
“O’Sullivan’s First Law: All organizations that are not actually right wing will over time become left wing.”—John O’Sullivan, columnist and former editor of National Review.
Unquote: I heard this four years ago, but it’s still correct. Examples of organizations whose agendas have gradually gotten more leftist include the American Civil Liberties Union, the Ford Foundation, the League of Women Voters, the YWCA, UNESCO, UNICEF, Planned Parenthood, the Episcopal Church, Canada and most of Europe.
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.