Apr 14 2007
Mea Culpa On Wolfowitz
Personally, I would not mind seeing Wolfowitz get booted for his preferential treartment (and insane salary) for his lover. But there is one thing which has changed my mind on this – the World Bank authorized the action with full knowledge.
But FOX News has analyzed more than 100 pages of internal bank documents dating to 2005 that paint a far more complex portrait of the case – and suggests that the bank’s own ethics committee had known the terms of the settlement with Riza for at least a year.
The documents show that while Wolfowitz did indeed dictate the lucrative terms of Riza’s salary to the bank’s human resources chief, he also took steps to try and determine if what he was doing was right – seemingly trying to navigate his way through an arcane bureaucracy with a maze of unusual rules and procedures.
The documents also show that, while many board members have claimed that they only learned the details of Riza’s case – and salary hike — this week in newspapers, the board’s Ethics Committee has been fully aware of all the details since early 2006, when it conducted a probe and determined that the allegations “did not appear appropriate for further consideration.â€
OK, that is a much different story (and the news media should now be taken to task for inaccurate reporting – except that is their highest standard they can achieve it seems). If Wolfowitz went through the effort to get the move blessed and it was blessed that is something the World Bank is responsible for letting happen. His lover should still be let go – there is no place for this stuff at work. And Wolfowitz should be reprimanded. And the World Bank should be investigated for other incidents of the same or similar kind. I am sure it is rife with them. Time to clean house, and maybe Wolfowitz is the perfect person to do the job as part of his punishment.
If, as it has been reported, it is true that the lady claims that she did not want the transfer and promotion in question and was practically coerced into accepting it, do you still feel that she should be let go? If no, are you not maybe guilty of the same error as obviously the media is?
Cheers,
I would like to see that we get out of UN, get rid of IMF and World Bank. None of them have served in the best of our interests.
Hypothetical question:
In times of a war, many Americans support Bush. How many of you would continue to support Bush during peacetime? If 9/11 had not happened, would you still support Bush?
Still wrong, AJ:She is not on the govt payroll any longer and hasn’t been for some time. She works for a private foundation.
Throughout this, you seem to be shooting from the hip.
LOL!
Clarice – I care so little about this it is not funny. The fact is Wolfowitz was wrong, but he is not any more or less guilty than the world bank. That’s about as much as he will get out of me. I have zero respect for the man now. There are plenty of others out there to fill his shoes.
Lurker,
I agree to some degree. The institution is not a bad idea – it is the way it is abused which is the problem. Of course, this entire mess (yes, I am not following it in an great detail – why should I?) is not helping.
Clarice,
I guess I would add why should I go out of my way, expend my energy and defend this guy for this crap? We have lots of big issues we need to keep supporting (like Iraq and dealing with the Stem Cell issues and Gonzales) that I see him as a waste of time now. Gonzales needs defending because he did nothing but his job. Wolfowitz does not – on this issue. That is the difference here. And I could care less about how the left does things. They are not a role model worth following into the sewer.
He is brilliant and is doing a great deal to advance US interests at the World Bank and to end corruption there. Perhaps you missed the end of the Fox report:
[quote]In fact, in October 2005, Melkert wrote to Wolfowitz to formally acknowledge the case was closed. (The board was also informed that the “conflict of interest was dealt with appropriately.â€) And in November, in a handwritten note, Melkert wrote Wolfowitz “just to confirm the outcome regarding this extraordinarily difficult issue,†and to thank him “for the very open and communicative spirit of our discussions, knowing in particular the sensitivity to Shaha.†He even invited Wolfowitz and Riza to join him at “our place†for a social gathering.
Finally, in January 2006—some 14 months before the scandal exploded this week— the ethics committee had another opportunity to revisit the issue. An anonymous whistle-blower calling himself John Smith wrote a lengthy letter to the committee taking exception to Riza’s deal in great and accurate detail.
The ethics committee, led by Melkert, met on the subject with the bank’s anti-corruption unit – which investigates internal wrongdoing. According to the documents examined by FOX News, after what Melkert called a “careful review,†the committee decided that the case had been resolved back in autumn 2005 and didn’t “warrant any further attention.†Case closed – again.
Click here for February 2006 letter to Wolfowitz from Ethics Committee dismissing Riza allegations
Has this week’s furor over Wolfowitz’s actions been all a tempest in a boardroom teapot? Wolfowitz himself has apologized to the bank’s staff for mistakes in his handling of the issue, and has said he would accept the board’s decision on what would come next.
The scandal was clearly exacerbated this week by shifting explanations by Wolfowitz’s top aides, as well as his own dodging of questions from reporters. Yet with the public declaration by Canada that he was blameless – the country’s finance minister says that “selective leaks†have colored the situation — the political tides may have turned decisively in his favor.
But one intriguing issue still unexplained was why the pay hike question suddenly boiled up again, just as the World Bank was holding its annual spring meeting, and Wolfowitz was ripe for embarrassment.
The long-term question was whether the fuss had weakened Wolfowitz’s already diminished ability to push through a reform agenda for the bank—and whether that, indeed, had been the point of the leaks in the first place.[/quote]
Perhaps if you are not interested enough in this issue to pay attention to it, you shouldn’t blog it.
Once again, the clean toga club which demands the resignation of every Administration appointee whenever crap is flung at him proves to be unreliable allies–so unreliable that they do not even wait to hear all the facts before throwing important allies under the bus.
“How many of you would continue to support Bush during peacetime? If 9/11 had not happened, would you still support Bush?”
I would. He’s a generally conservative, patriotic Republican.
The war on Terror would be real even without 9/11.
What would be the alternative? A Democrap?
.
How many of you would continue to support Bush during peacetime? If 9/11 had not happened, would you still support Bush?
Certainly, he’s generally a conservative, patriotic Republican. What’s the alternative? A Democrap?
“and the news media should now be taken to task for inaccurate reporting”
HA! Like THAT ever happens!
Yes, I would support Bush anyway. The Democrats just plain drove me away.
And from what I hear, Wolfowitz has made some folks mad because he is trying to clean up the place. In other words, he has tried to push an agenda of fighting corruption, some people say this agenda has been at the expense of the poor. My guess is Wolfowitz has tried to tie together reform with loans a few too many times for the likes of certain people.
I think that this story is important because the people who are trying to destroy Wolfowitz are the same people who are trying to destroy this President, Gonzales, Rummy, Libby and any others they deem conservative. The destroyers are the same do gooders who are willing to spend billions of tax payers dollars to pretend that they are good and caring people who throw my money at any and every problem in the world and could care less about the outcome. The “I feel your pain” people who will tar and feather me because I want results if my hard earned money is to be spent. Wolfowitz dared to think that results are important and for that they will bring him down, that is why this story is important. Get another Bush man, we will destroy them all. Then they can add another name to their phony culture of corruption. I’m sick of it. Thank you Clarice for putting the facts out there. Kathie
a very large group of people have been gunning for wolf since he got the job. in fact they did everything to try to prevent his getting it in the first place. a casual perusal of previous bank lending practices will tell you everything you need to know. wolf’s reform practices are attempting to end one of the world’s largest least known public teats. when you try to take away the punch bowl of this size some people will stop at nothing.
personally i’m happy to see he’s still gatting laid………
I will like AJ admit I jumped to fast the other day to say he should resign.
I should have known better to wait for more info to develop, my bad on that count.
Maybe I am too much in the clean toga camp Clarice is talking about, and I should take that on advisement and modify my outlook.
She could be very accurate with that assessment.
At the minimum the initial stories painted a somewhat less than full disclosure picture to build a good decision from.
Overall now this seems to be shaping up as another left wing spitball trying to make something stick.
Sundays Opinionjournal.com reiterates what Clarice has said.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009943
“How many of you would continue to support Bush during peacetime? If 9/11 had not happened, would you still support Bush?”
I voted FOR Bush in 00, Against Kerry in 04!
Bush Disgusts me with his domestic spending and postition on Illegals, but I’d vote the same way again! The opposition, well, What ya gonna do??
“Lesser of Two Evils!” Sure would like to Vote FOR someone someday!
Go Fred, Duncan, Tom-I could vote for any of these gentlemen!
Gee whiz , you gotta wonder about this one
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070414/wr_nm/worldbank_wolfowitz_speculation_dc_1
Web site http://www.worldbankpresident.org first came to prominence in 2005 airing speculation over who would replace former World Bank chief James Wolfensohn, making available to all the backroom gossip around the capital.
The Web site was revived this week as the scandal over Wolfowitz’s pay rise and promotion for his girlfriend escalated and many commentators predicted it was only a matter of time before he would be forced to quit his post.
Web-site contributors are touting South African Finance Minister Trevor Manuel and Nigeria’s former finance minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, as possible successors to Wolfowitz.
Testing to revise my link
“Wolfowitz story