Replies

You raise some interesting views on this, and obviously you have given it quite a bit of thought. I’m impressed.

As such, I won’t dispute any of your assertions. I’ll just note one more time the following;

Banging an employee always ends badly.

As it has in this case, as it has in every case where I’ve heard of it happening.

I’m not a ‘Wolfowitz basher’. I honestly don’t care about the World Bank, outside of the fact its sucking taxpayer dollars away from this nation, and distributing to despots for no material or political gain.

You want to make an exception for Wolfowitz’s mistake(s) be my guest. Doesn’t change whats about to happen, doesn’t change the fact having sex with a co worker, no matter how you try to rationalize it, is just plain dumb, on multiple levels.

Doesn’t work at McDonalds, doesn’t work at the World Bank, didn’t work in the Clinton Whitehouse.

You raise some interesting views on this, and obviously you have given it quite a bit of thought.

Actually, it's not his "view", it's the facts he described, which are kept being ignored by the "get Wolfowitz!" crowd.

I’m impressed. As such, I won’t dispute any of your assertions. --- and yet you do exactly that, right in the next sentence --- I’ll just note one more time the following; Banging an employee always ends badly.

At no time she was his employee; he was, as you eloquently put it, "banging" her before joining WB, and specifically took steps to eliminate "conflict of interest" by notifying the Board, and trying to recuse himself from all matters involving her reassignment. The condition for his joining WB was her transfer to equivalent or better position somewhere else. They demanded that he put his signature on transfer agreement that they negotiated with her, specifically to avoid "conflict of interest" --- Mr Wolfowitz informed the board that he had a pre-existing relationship with Shaha Ali Riza, one of the bank's Middle East experts.

If Ms Riza's contract was "not vetted by World Bank lawyers" , it's the fault (or deliberate dereliction of duties) of the Board and Ethics Committee of WB, which in October 2005, four months after Wolfowitz joined WB, concluded that "conflict of interest" had been resolved. And in February 2006, in response to pseudonymous e-mail messages (no doubt from the disgruntled WB employees who didn't like the corruption exposed and gravy train stopping), WB Ethics Committee said "allegations did not appear appropriate for further consideration by the committee".

Here's more about Riza :
According to a profile of Wolfowitz published in the London Sunday Times of March 20, 2005, Riza "shares Wolfowitz’s passion for spreading democracy in the Arab world" and "is said to have reinforced his determination to remove Saddam Hussein’s oppressive regime."

I’ll just note one more time the following;

Banging an employee always ends badly.

You must not get around much. I've known several instances where it led to much marital bliss. And others where the love birds simply walked away from their previous startched-shorts employers and started a very successful businesses of their own.

Always is a pretty big word to use when describing human interaction.

I was not saying there was an exception for Wolfowitz and I honestly think initially his ethics committee was doing a decent job except as they are composed of political hacks that where possibly rubbing their hands as they read him chapter and verse.

I am saying, that the way it was handled seems proper to me and that all things considered what happened was a proper outcome. My point is that this is an entirely manufactured scandal for the purpose of hurting Wolfowitz and the administration and protecting corruption at the World Bank.

I frankly believe that the World Bank is a hopelessly corrupt enterprise if Wolfowitz can't fix it. If he gets put out the door, the World Bank should be completely defunded and ejected from the United States. If the US wants to have an agency like this, we should fund it and manage it ourselves ALA the Federal Reserve.