“The China case was done according to standards and the Chinese guy was married to his wife and not in a supervisory role, a case very different from Wolf’s.”
BS - she, the Chinese directors’ wife, reported to him and she came into that position at his behest.
In Wolfowitz case, (1) his girlfriend and he had many operational and lines of authority between them; (2)she was not put into her bank jobs by him but was already working there when he arrived and (3)regardless of the lack of official interactions or conflicts in their work - unlike the Chinese guy - Wolofowitz and his girlfriend agreed that his taking the job would mean that she would resign. He hid nothing and tried to hide nothing about any of it and apparently the directors had no objection to it two years ago when they were given all the facts.
The acts of the U.K. guy regarding his paramour began, and were predominately, prior to Wolfowitz; and again, unlike Wolfowitz, the U.K and the bank staff elements his paramour has reported to have tried to keep all her promotions out of the public light.
They are just hypocrits and Bush should have gone public with all their hypocrisy, of which the directors are the mere tip of the iceberg. A large number of deputy directors, going back years, have spouses employed at the bank in positions representing conflict of interest. It has all been given a wink and a nod by the directors for years, and some of those deputies have as much political clout in their home countries due to their many years in the musical chairs of “international aid” positions for their nations foreign affairs offices and international lending bodies.
The World Bank is a cesspool and if anything Wolfowitz advocated some air freshner in his policy approaches and it was resented.
We’ll each have to provide sources on the chinese guy, our accounts clearly differ.
As for wolf disclosing his girlfriend, there was no merit in that, the washpost had already reported about their loud parties at her house in dc, so it was very well known already. Of course i can get you the link to that but i trust you already saw it, it’s a famous story.
as for how he got there, he was enticed there by the girlfriend who set up her own little alternative power centers and wanted a big patron (and lover) to facilitate it. when the ethics committee said she couldn’t work at the bank, they knew that that was what was going on already - she brought her boyfriend to the bank and then sought to harness his power for her own ends. that’s why she was sent out and THAT’S why she was so enraged about it - her masterplan had gone awry.
Now she was a controlling arab woman and he’d already told her a lot of secrets, probably ones he shouldn’t have, so he was afraid of her. He claimed she said she was going to sue but that is bogus because you can’t sue in us torts courts and get us style torts court settlements if you are living taxfree as a worldbank employee. your only recourse is the world bank arbitrators, and somehow they don’t give out torts settlements. so the lawsuit thing and wolf pretending to be all concerned about protecting the bank from a lawsuit is screamingly bogus. Bob Bennett told reporters that riza had dictated her inflated salary terms and if it’s him saying it, it must be true. she wanted that extra case because she knew too many of paul’s secrets and she was blackmailing him. remember: paul has lotsa zipper problems along the lines of bill clinton and she wasn’t his first honey, only the first one who blackmailed him.
as for the UK guy, go back and read the stephens story, it took place in 2006, i checked the dates myself, 2006 was solely on wolfowitz’s watch, so why he let this go on is beyond me, if he was a big corruption fighter, some action should have been taken but instead none was, the only action that was taken was to leak it to the press by folson’s office, which is the only place it could have come. well, what does that say for such a crony? she sure wasn’t interested in corruption fighting unless there was something she and her boss could get out of it politically.