World Bank's Staff Association calls on Wolfowitz to resign

[Samantha]

Wolfowitz is one of the neo-con architects of the Iraq war. He was Rumsfeld's deputy at the time. Now he is the President of the World Bank. He arranged a higher paid job at the State Department for his lover, Shaha Ali Riza, and is now under ethical scrutiny and being called on to resign.


The transfer of Ms. Riza from the World Bank to a higher-paying job at the State Department has caused resentment among employees of the World Bank, and at an unfortunate time. The controversy threatens to overshadow the annual meeting of the World Bank and its sister organization, the International Monetary Fund, in Washington this weekend. The yearly event draws finance ministers from hundreds of countries.


The World Bank’s staff association said today that Mr. Wolfowitz had “compromised the integrity and effectiveness” of the bank and “destroyed the staff’s trust in his leadership,” and so should resign, The A.P. said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/world/12cnd-wolfowitz.html?hp

I can't wait until all of these neocon liars and crooks are out of the top positions in which they now reside.

[loosecannon]

Wolfowitz is one of the neo-con architects of the Iraq war. He was Rumsfeld's deputy at the time. Now he is the President of the World Bank. He arranged a higher paid job at the State Department for his lover, Shaha Ali Riza, and is now under ethical scrutiny and being called on to resign.





http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/world/12cnd-wolfowitz.html?hp

I can't wait until all of these neocon liars and crooks are out of the top positions in which they now reside.



WOW!

Chomsky was saying Wolfowitz was kinda in a safe place at the world bank, surrounded by beaurocracy and unable to do much damage.

But he couldn't keep it in his pants.....

Well one more Bushbot bites the dust. It is almost one a week now.

Thanks sam for the scoop.

[Dilloduck]

Wolfowitz is one of the neo-con architects of the Iraq war. He was Rumsfeld's deputy at the time. Now he is the President of the World Bank. He arranged a higher paid job at the State Department for his lover, Shaha Ali Riza, and is now under ethical scrutiny and being called on to resign.





http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/world/12cnd-wolfowitz.html?hp

I can't wait until all of these neocon liars and crooks are out of the top positions in which they now reside.

You want just the neocon crooks out or do you think it might be a good idea to go after ALL crooks. :poke:

[Samantha]

You want jsut th neocon crooks out ot do you think it might be a good idea to go after ALL crooks. :poke:There haven't been any other kind of crooks lately. But sure, of course all crooks need to go. The neocon crooks are the ones running things right now.

[loosecannon]

You want jsut th neocon crooks out ot do you think it might be a good idea to go after ALL crooks. :poke:

Exactly, ALL neocon crooks would be more accurate

[Dilloduck]

There haven't been any other kind of crooks lately. But sure, of course all crooks need to go. The neocon crooks are the ones running things right now.

right--liberal politicians are pure as the driven snow :lol: -----exactly how stupid are you willing to appear ??

[loosecannon]

right--liberal politicians are pure as the driven snow :lol: -----exactly how stupid are you willing to appear ??

This may be impossible for you to digest, but the neocon regimes of Bush, Bush and Reagan were the most crooked in US history.

Speaking relatively The only other dem pres's in that era were Clinton and Carter who were moral giants compared to their couterparts.

[Dilloduck]

This may be impossible for you to digest, but the neocon regimes of Bush, Bush and Reagan were the most crooked in US history.

Speaking relatively The only other dem pres's in that era were Clinton and Carter who were moral giants compared to their couterparts.

Moral giants ? OMG this is getting good ! Democrats trying to claim the moral high ground. :laugh2: :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

Moral giants ? OMG this is getting good ! Democrats trying to claim the moral high ground. :laugh2: :laugh2:

In the past 30 years the democrats are far from perfect, in fact they suck, but they OWN the moral high ground when compared to the contemporary GOPers.

[darin]

What is WITH the moon-bat ILLOGICAL libs on this board lately? Where are the REASONABLE Liberals with whom we can foster INTELLIGENT debate?

You guys - you crackpot libs in this thread - don't debate, you filibuster. You act like you can make your point of view valid by posting as much ignorance as you can. Nauseating.

[manu1959]

In the past 30 years the democrats are far from perfect, in fact they suck, but they OWN the moral high ground when compared to the contemporary GOPers.

sticking a cigar in an employees snatch in the oval office is the moral high ground?.....yes kennedy did set the bar pretty low

[Dilloduck]

In the past 30 years the democrats are far from perfect, in fact they suck, but they OWN the moral high ground when compared to the contemporary GOPers.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: oh please--stop :lmao:

[stephanie]

The only moral high ground Bj Clinton had??

Was for him to sit on the desk..while Monica knelt on the floor....:coffee:

[loosecannon]

sticking a cigar in an employees snatch in the oval office is the moral high ground?.....yes kennedy did set the bar pretty low


That was the lowest point in 30 years.

On the GOP side Reagan negotiated with enemies to release the hostages an hour after his innaugeration. That is a felony, and treason.

The comparison between a blow job and felony treason should be clear even to you.

[manu1959]

The only moral high ground Bj Clinton had??

Was for him to sit on the desk..while Monica knelt on the floor....:coffee:

you know what her she said the first time?.........."looks a lot like a penis only smaller"...............your wife's is much larger"

[Samantha]

right--liberal politicians are pure as the driven snow :lol: -----exactly how stupid are you willing to appear ??Make a thread on a liberal politician who is involved in a scandal and we can discuss it. Until then, it's obvious who appears stupid in this thread ;)

[Dilloduck]

Make a thread on a liberal politician who is involved in a scandal and we can discuss it. Until then, it's obvious who appears stupid in this thread ;)

I think its already been done Saint Samantha :coffee:

[stephanie]

you know what her she said the first time?.........."looks a lot like a penis only smaller"...............your wife's is much larger"

:lol: aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yuk..

[Samantha]

What is WITH the moon-bat ILLOGICAL libs on this board lately? Where are the REASONABLE Liberals with whom we can foster INTELLIGENT debate?

You guys - you crackpot libs in this thread - don't debate, you filibuster. You act like you can make your point of view valid by posting as much ignorance as you can. Nauseating.After you finish puking, why don't you start the debate. Do you have a comment on Wolfowitz being called to resign?

[stephanie]

What's there to debate??

So what if they asked him to resign...:poke:

[avatar4321]

This may be impossible for you to digest, but the neocon regimes of Bush, Bush and Reagan were the most crooked in US history.

Speaking relatively The only other dem pres's in that era were Clinton and Carter who were moral giants compared to their couterparts.

The only reason it would be difficult to digest is because its completely fabricated.

[avatar4321]

In the past 30 years the democrats are far from perfect, in fact they suck, but they OWN the moral high ground when compared to the contemporary GOPers.

I was unaware that baby killing, genocide promotion, and selling out our nation and our allies for campaign funds is a moral high ground for you. It tells me lots about yourself.

[avatar4321]

What is WITH the moon-bat ILLOGICAL libs on this board lately? Where are the REASONABLE Liberals with whom we can foster INTELLIGENT debate?

You guys - you crackpot libs in this thread - don't debate, you filibuster. You act like you can make your point of view valid by posting as much ignorance as you can. Nauseating.

Oxymoron man. Oxymoron.

[loosecannon]

I was unaware that baby killing, genocide promotion, and selling out our nation and our allies for campaign funds is a moral high ground for you. It tells me lots about yourself.

That sounds like the GOP, you sure you have your parties straight?

LINKS????

And the topic is wolfowitz being asked to resign by his coworkers.

[Samantha]

OK so on this board, instead of discussing the issue, the rabid righties attack the lefties. Is that what goes on here?

No one wants to talk about Wolfowitz and the World Bank and neocon scandals? I understand at this point that Stephanie doesn't post anything of substance anywhere, just giggles and pokes. I understand there are lots of righties that love to fill all the threads with insults for liberals.

But aren't there any people on this board that discuss shit? Is it just all hijacked threads and insults?

[avatar4321]

That was the lowest point in 30 years.

On the GOP side Reagan negotiated with enemies to release the hostages an hour after his innaugeration. That is a felony, and treason.

The comparison between a blow job and felony treason should be clear even to you.

The only reason the hostages were held so long is because Carter was a complete bungler when it comes to negotiation. There were two artificial deadlines in the negotiations. The First was Election day, up until then Carter had everything to lose and the Iranians had everything to gain for holding out. The Second, was Innaguration day, because by that point Carter had nothing to lose and the Iranians has everything to lose because Reagan promised be a harsh negotiator with them and Carter was willing to give them what they wanted. It was only natural they would hold out as long as they could and then accept the best deal they could get.

Oh, and the blow job wasnt the low point of the clinton administration. That would be selling Nuclear secrets to China for campaign contributions and giving North Korea the equipment they needed to create nuclear weapons.

[avatar4321]

Make a thread on a liberal politician who is involved in a scandal and we can discuss it. Until then, it's obvious who appears stupid in this thread ;)

there are severl hundred on the board. I dont see you discussing any of them.

[avatar4321]

That sounds like the GOP, you sure you have your parties straight?

LINKS????

And the topic is wolfowitz being asked to resign by his coworkers.

The topic is your baseless accusations of the mythological neocons "crimes."

And if you dont know the details then you have to have been living on Mars in a cave with eyes closed and your ears shut for the past 30 years.

[loosecannon]

It was only natural they would hold out as long as they could and then accept the best deal they could get.

But Ronald reagan still negotiated with the Iranioans before he was president offering to give them what they wanted, plane loads of arms in echange for the hostages.

He admitted it. He the one who was harsh as you falsely claim, he is the one who went around the law and negotiated with our enemies TO GET ELECTED to the presidency.


Oh, and the blow job wasnt the low point of the clinton administration. That would be selling Nuclear secrets to China for campaign contributions

BS alert, LINKS???


and giving North Korea the equipment they needed to create nuclear weapons.

We gave Iran two whole nuclear power plants. It was a common practice decades ago for the US to sell the technology because we needed the spent reactor fuel to make our weapons.

Since 3 mile island the US needs to import spent fuel to replace it's aging arsenals.

We gave nuclear technology to lots of nations.

[Samantha]

there are severl hundred on the board. I dont see you discussing any of them.Link me to them. I saw the one about Pelosi, but that's a fake scandal. I haven't heard of any real ones lately.

[stephanie]

OK so on this board, instead of discussing the issue, the rabid righties attack the lefties. Is that what goes on here?

No one wants to talk about Wolfowitz and the World Bank and neocon scandals? I understand at this point that Stephanie doesn't post anything of substance anywhere, just giggles and pokes. I understand there are lots of righties that love to fill all the threads with insults for liberals.

But aren't there any people on this board that discuss shit? Is it just all hijacked threads and insults?

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/thtantrumgr7.gif

:laugh2:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

OK so on this board, instead of discussing the issue, the rabid righties attack the lefties. Is that what goes on here?

Yes.


No one wants to talk about Wolfowitz and the World Bank and neocon scandals?

No.



But aren't there any people on this board that discuss shit?

No.


Is it just all hijacked threads and insults?

Yes.

Welcome to Debate Policy.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/thtantrumgr7.gif

Ah, the George W Bush baby picture again... cute. (not really)

[stephanie]

Ah, the George W Bush baby picture again... cute. (not really)

Maybe you'd like this one better...

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/StripJointL.gif

YES???:coffee:

[Samantha]

OK, while Stephanie plays her little girl games, let's learn about Wolfowitz. Stephanie, you go play while the grownups talk.

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1290989/article_images/headline_1176479518.jpg

Bush is standing by Wolfowitz, as he stood by Rumsfeld, Libby, Delay, Gonzales and all the rest of the corrupt Republicans.


Calls of "resign, resign'' resounded through the World Bank's atrium yesterday when Wolfowitz, 63, addressed employee representatives. Staff Association head Alison Cave said it was the first time the group had called for a bank president to go. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atnRfneKlCNw&refer=home

Wolfowitz has been fucking up the World Bank's quest to help feed starving people by bring accusations of corruption, which ends the funding for the needy, but without any evidence so the countries cannot defend themselves from the accusations.

Even without this scandal he is involved in right now, he should be removed from his position. He is a PNAC neocon and they are all fucking up our country and the world with their greed and lies.


"Accusations were brought about corruption in one particular country, and when that country said, 'We want to see the evidence, we want it prosecuted if there's a problem,' that evidence was not forthcoming," Stiglitz says. He characterizes the country in question as having "strong democratic procedures" and being determined to uphold the rule of law. "It wanted to make sure it was doing the right thing," Stiglitz says, "but it was not able to defend itself against the charges."

Stiglitz would not identify the country, but other former World Bank officials say the circumstances fit what happened in India. Wolfowitz and his senior management team suspended a huge health program there in response to allegations of corruption in the contracting process. The problems had been uncovered in an earlier inquiry, and investigators found that the bank staff and the Indian government were taking corrective actions.


Wolfowitz also faced criticism for his decision in 2005 to reject a proposed bank assistance strategy for Uzbekistan. That action came shortly after the government of Uzbekistan announced it would no longer grant U.S. military aircraft access to an airfield in Uzbekistan, thus hampering the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. At a press conference in Washington on Thursday, Wolfowitz insisted that his decision to suspend World Bank activity in Uzbekistan had nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy concerns. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9558497

[loosecannon]

just more examples of team Bush politicizing every aspect of government while proving themselves piss poor administrators.

[stephanie]

OK, while Stephanie plays her little girl games, let's learn about Wolfowitz. Stephanie, you go play while the grownups talk.

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1290989/article_images/headline_1176479518.jpg

Bush is standing by Wolfowitz, as he stood by Rumsfeld, Libby, Delay, Gonzales and all the rest of the corrupt Republicans.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atnRfneKlCNw&refer=home

Wolfowitz has been fucking up the World Bank's quest to help feed starving people by bring accusations of corruption, which ends the funding for the needy, but without any evidence so the countries cannot defend themselves from the accusations.

Even without this scandal he is involved in right now, he should be removed from his position. He is a PNAC neocon and they are all fucking up our country and the world with their greed and lies.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9558497

Your still trying to milk this cow..:cow:

[Samantha]

Thanks for bumping it up Stephanie. Now go run along and play with your toys.


"Of course President Wolfowitz has our full confidence," White House spokesman Tony Fratto told Reuters. "In dealing with this issue, he has taken full responsibility and is working with the executive board to resolve it," he added.

U.S. President George W. Bush nominated Wolfowitz, a former U.S. deputy defense secretary, for the job in 2005. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WAT007316.htm

Wolfowitz is a member of the Project for a New American Century. PNAC. Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Bill Bennet are among the members as well. They are the reason we are at war with Iraq.

Wolfowitz is the reason for the "Iraq seeking uranium from Niger" lie in Bush's state of the union.


.....The previous afternoon, as Wolfowitz was preparing to board his plane at Andrews Air Force Base, an aide had handed him a report containing some vexing news. Wolfowitz’s boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had just delivered a speech in New York and, in a question-and-answer exchange afterward, had declared that he had not seen any “strong, hard evidence‿ linking Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein’s regime. Rumsfeld’s unexpected remark—undercutting one of the Administration’s principal arguments for going to war—had already prompted press inquiries at the Pentagon, suggesting a bad news cycle ahead. Meanwhile, the Washington Post was preparing to report that L. Paul Bremer, the former administrator of the American-led occupation of Iraq, had faulted the U.S. postwar plan for lacking sufficient troops to provide security—affirming a principal contention of the Administration’s critics. In addition, the government’s Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles Duelfer, was about to release a final report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; already the report’s substance was being summed up in headlines as “report discounts iraqi arms threat.‿ And the Times had learned of a new C.I.A. assessment casting doubt on links between the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Saddam’s regime—undermining yet another of the Administration’s rationales for the war.

Wolfowitz has been a major architect of President Bush’s Iraq policy and, within the Administration, its most passionate and compelling advocate.http://pnac.info/index.php/2005/the-believer-in-depth-look-at-paul-wolfowitz/

[Yurt]

WOW!

Chomsky was saying Wolfowitz was kinda in a safe place at the world bank, surrounded by beaurocracy and unable to do much damage.

But he couldn't keep it in his pants.....

Well one more Bushbot bites the dust. It is almost one a week now.

Thanks sam for the scoop.

Why do you have to bring up Bill Clinton in every post?

[loosecannon]

Why do you have to bring up Bill Clinton in every post?

I didn't, you did.

We really do have to explain everything to these clowns.

[Dilloduck]

just more examples of team Bush politicizing every aspect of government while proving themselves piss poor administrators.

and the democrats do so well in keping politics out of government----when are dweebs gonna figure out that ALL of em are screwed up? This my party is better than your party pissing contest is boring.

[Samantha]

and the democrats do so well in keping politics out of government----when are dweebs gonna figure out that ALL of em are screwed up? This my party is better than your party pissing contest is boring.That's just the Republican's way of admitting their party has been hijacked by the extreme right, fundamentalist, evangelical, speaking in tongues, warmongering, dirty trick, sleaze bag neocons.

You don't want to say your party sucks right now, so you fall back on the old "they are all like that" excuse.

THAT's what's boring.

[manu1959]

That's just the Republican's way of admitting their party has been hijacked by the extreme right, fundamentalist, evangelical, speaking in tongues, warmongering, dirty trick, sleaze bag neocons.

You don't want to say your party sucks right now, so you fall back on the old "they are all like that" excuse.

THAT's what's boring.

you have been saying this for eight years....if what you say is true then there is no way you would lose two pres elections....then you will say bush cheated...and he is a moron....then i will say how smart are you if a moron can cheat you twice and you can't catch him...then you will insult me....tell me of the moderate wing of your party...move on . org...yea that will bring the country together...btw are you hot?:poke:

[loosecannon]

and the democrats do so well in keping politics out of government----when are dweebs gonna figure out that ALL of em are screwed up? This my party is better than your party pissing contest is boring.

well excuse me Steamy Pile,

But actually I really do not like the dems. I tolerate dems, begrudgingly.

But I absolutely despise Bushbots, Bush and neoCalvinists like the PNAC crowd.

The REALITY is that the Bush admin politicizes everything.

Whether it is staging a display of Saddam's statue being dropped, or an aircraft carrier pep rally celebrating mission accomplished, or staging a fake rescue of a female soldier, or pretending Pat Tilman was killed in action, there is no shortage of energy or priority to getting the job done.

I didn't mention outing an undercover agent for poli reasons or politicizing the justice dept because when you think about it, every day there are two new examples of the Bush admin politicizing something.

But when it comes to governing, they are like a bunch of clowns who govern like Billy Joel drives. They can't execute a war as well as a nation like France, they lose an entire fucking city on their watch without a response 1/3 as good as what Cuba can do, they watch the twin towers fall and can't put down a fucking book, they squander $2 trillion in deficit spending after inheriting a budget surplus, they are simply the most incompetent imaginable government when it comes to actually GOVERNING.

THAT is reality. You GOPers throw Bush out on his ass tommorrow and throw his treasonous ass in JAIL and I will stop bashing you and shake your hand.

But IF you start defending his worthless terms in office, well FUCK YOU!

And take your partisan BS and shove it.

Is that clear Duck?

[Dilloduck]

well excuse me Steamy Pile,

But actually I really do not like the dems. I tolerate dems, begrudgingly.

But I absolutely despise Bushbots, Bush and neoCalvinists like the PNAC crowd.

The REALITY is that the Bush admin politicizes everything.

Whether it is staging a display of Saddam's statue being dropped, or an aircraft carrier pep rally celebrating mission accomplished, or staging a fake rescue of a female soldier, or pretending Pat Tilman was killed in action, there is no shortage of energy or priority to getting the job done.

I didn't mention outing an undercover agent for poli reasons or politicizing the justice dept because when you think about it, every day there are two new examples of the Bush admin politicizing something.

But when it comes to governing, they are like a bunch of clowns who govern like Billy Joel drives. They can't execute a war as well as a nation like France, they lose an entire fucking city on their watch without a response 1/3 as good as what Cuba can do, they watch the twin towers fall and can't put down a fucking book, they squander $2 trillion in deficit spending after inheriting a budget surplus, they are simply the most incompetent imaginable government when it comes to actually GOVERNING.

THAT is reality. You GOPers throw Bush out on his ass tommorrow and throw his treasonous ass in JAIL and I will stop bashing you and shake your hand.

But IF you start defending his worthless terms in office, well FUCK YOU!

And take your partisan BS and shove it.

Is that clear Duck?

eh ?---could you repeat that in ebonics please ?

[manu1959]

eh ?---could you repeat that in ebonics please ?

do you think morons look up to her?

[Samantha]

you have been saying this for eight years....if what you say is true then there is no way you would lose two pres elections....then you will say bush cheated...and he is a moron....then i will say how smart are you if a moron can cheat you twice and you can't catch him...then you will insult me....tell me of the moderate wing of your party...move on . org...yea that will bring the country together...btw are you hot?:poke:
8 years? How would you know that. I only just virtually met you a few days ago.

You can read my mind and predict the future about what I will say?

You're all over the place and there's not much I can reply with.

[Samantha]

Meanwhile at the World Bank where Wolfowitz was heckled today:


Paul Wolfowitz's tenure as president of the World Bank was today increasingly under threat, after the bank's powerful governing body indicated that he broke their ethical guidelines in awarding pay increases to his partner.


In a statement released this morning, the board said its investigation found that Mr Wolfowitz had approved promotions and pay increases for Shaha Riza - a World Bank staff member with whom he was romantically involved - without a review or decision by the bank's ethics committee or board of directors.
That contradicts an earlier statement by Mr Wolfowitz's office which claimed: "All arrangements concerning Shaha Riza were made at the direction of the bank's board of directors."

Ah, so now he is pulling a Gonzales contradicting statements move.


The latest blow for Mr Wolfowitz came the day after he was heckled and booed by staff members - with some chanting, "Resign, resign" - at the bank's headquarters as he attempted to address them.

But he's been heckled before. He was an architect for the Iraq War. One of those guys who planned the invasion, but forgot to plan for anything afterward. American people boo him a lot.


ATLANTA, Dec 11 (Reuters) - Iraq war protesters interrupted a speech by World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz on Sunday calling him a war criminal and saying he lied during the run-up to the war.

Wolfowitz, who was a deputy U.S. defense chief to Donald Rumsfeld and a key advocate of the Iraq war, was in an Atlanta synagogue to speak about the relevance of Africa for Americans.

At one point a man stood up silently at the front of the audience wearing an orange jumpsuit, seen by protesters as symbolic of clothes worn by prisoners at the U.S. jail at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"You lied about the Iraq war! You are a war criminal!" shouted another woman as she was escorted from the synagogue. Some in the audience booed while a few said silent protests should be allowed.

Europe can't stand this guy. He is a horrible choice for the job of World Bank President. He's just another croney.


So far, individual countries have not voiced any public support for Mr Wolfowitz, with executive board members awaiting instructions from their country's finance ministers.

Wolfie, you're doing a heck of a job.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2056501,00.html

[loosecannon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/washington/14assess.html?hp


When President Bush appointed Paul D. Wolfowitz as the president of the World Bank two years ago, the White House had to put down an insurrection among European nations that viewed the administration’s best-known neoconservative as a symbol of American unilateralism and arrogance.

For a while, Mr. Wolfowitz seemed to defuse those fears, even taking on the Bush administration over how best to aid the poorest nations of Africa. But now it is clear that the chorus of calls in recent days for Mr. Wolfowitz’s ouster is only partly about his involvement in setting up a comfortable job, with a big pay raise, for a bank officer who is Mr. Wolfowitz’s companion.

At its core, the fight about whether Mr. Wolfowitz should stay on at the bank is a debate about Mr. Bush and his tumultuous relationship with the rest of the world, particularly the bank, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which have viewed themselves — at various moments since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 — as being at war with the Bush White House and its agenda.

As finance ministers gathered in Washington on Friday for the bank’s weekend meeting, Mr. Wolfowitz worked behind the scenes, seeking support for keeping his job. But there were few endorsements of his leadership beyond those offered by the Bush administration.

In foreign capitals, and among the bank’s staff members, it has been noted that Mr. Wolfowitz’s passion for fighting corruption, which he has said saps economic life from the world’s poorest nations, seemed to evaporate when it came to reviewing lending to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, three countries that the United States considers strategically vital. Some longtime bank staff members complained that Mr. Wolfowitz relied too little on experts in international development and too much on a pair of aides who served with him in the administration.

Members of the bank’s board from around the world began comparing what they called the murky way in which the bank made some policy decisions to the secretive habits of the Bush administration.

Members of the bank’s board from around the world began comparing what they called the murky way in which the bank made some policy decisions to the secretive habits of the Bush administration.

Bush fought the World and the World won. Duh.

He should have thought about that before he trusted himself to handle foreign affairs.

Everyone in the world knew better cept for Bush and his loyal Bushbots.


“There is a sense that we’re finally at a moment when Bush needs the world more than the world needs Bush,” said a senior foreign official who flew into Washington recently for the annual meeting of the bank and the International Monetary Fund. “And there’s more than a little of that mixed in this whole argument over Wolfowitz’s fate.”

[Samantha]

Wolfowitz didn't really care about fighting corruption if he had pet countries to give aid to and he denied countries aid on the word from his aids that they were corrupt instead of listening to experts. Then when people started asking for proof he didn't have any to give, and those countries didn't get the aid. It happened in India, see the opening post.

Where are all the neocons? Don't they want to talk about the head neocon?

[stephanie]

Milking milking milking...:cow: :cuckoo:

[Samantha]

Thanks for bumping my thread up Stephy.

Now if only you could use that brain god gave you and post something of meaning.

[stephanie]

Thanks for bumping my thread up Stephy.

Now if only you could use that brain god gave you and post something of meaning.


Your accusing me of being a Idiot, in that post of yours..
I can read between the lines.......
I'm telling on you...
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/thbaby-crying-1.gif

You do have a thing about bumping? Weird:coffee:

[Samantha]

Wolfowitz hasn't been a good President of the World Bank all along. Now that this scandal has surfaced, I don't think it will be long before he loses his job.


Over time, Wolfowitz created an impression that at key moments, he was putting U.S. foreign policy interests first, most notably when he suspended a program in Uzbekistan after the country denied landing rights to U.S. military aircraft, and when he directed huge amounts of aid to countries he once recruited for the Bush administration's counterterrorism agenda.

It did not help that he relied heavily on a pair of aides drawn from the Bush administration, Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems, who created an inner circle that the bank's professional staff said they had great trouble piercing.

Wolfowitz's defenders say he was right to come in with a mission of shaking up the ingrown bureaucracy at the bank. But even they acknowledge that management has never been his strong suit, and that his judgment in dealing with the transfer of his companion to the State Department -- where she remained on the bank's payroll -- was questionable.

In the backlash against Wolfowitz, though, there is also an undercurrent of settling scores -- including those that go beyond the World Bank. Europeans still fume over Bush's decision to send John Bolton, one of the biggest critics of the United Nations, to New York to serve as ambassador there -- an experiment that ended when it became clear that the newly Democratic Senate would not confirm him to finish Bush's term.

Others recall that the administration tried to fire Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian-born head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who famously declared in early 2003 that there was no evidence Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program. ElBaradei proved to be right and was soon awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/14/MNGHNP8M941.DTL

[Dilloduck]

Wolfowitz hasn't been a good President of the World Bank all along. Now that this scandal has surfaced, I don't think it will be long before he loses his job.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/14/MNGHNP8M941.DTL

Will he go on unemployment or find another job ?

[Samantha]

Will he go on unemployment or find another job ?How would I know?

Germany and Britain are now among the voices critisizing Wolfie. How long will Bush support this loser? As long as he let Rummy stick around? That went on WAY too long.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The fate of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz overshadowed meetings of global finance chiefs on Saturday, as Britain said his actions had damaged the bank and critics stepped up calls for him to quit.

As the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank kicked off, Bank staff and anti-poverty activists prepared to stage a protest calling for the resignation of Wolfowitz over his role in the promotion of his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, for which he has apologized.

Britain, the bank's second largest shareholder after the United States, said that the scandal had damaged the institution and that a decision on his fate should now lie with the bank's board.

"While this whole business has damaged the bank and should not have happened, we should respect the board's process," British development minister Hilary Benn said in a statement.

"I am sure these views will be shared by other governors who will also be considering their responses."

German development minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul said Wolfowitz should decide if he still has the credibility to lead the institution, which spends around $25 billion annually to fight poverty and aid development in the developing world.

"For me the most important thing is that the moral authority and the financial stability of the World Bank must not be harmed," Wieczorek-Zeul told Reuters.http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1422387520070414?pageNumber=1

[Said1]

Wolfowitz hasn't been a good President of the World Bank all along. Now that this scandal has surfaced, I don't think it will be long before he loses his job.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/14/MNGHNP8M941.DTL

Institutions are simply platfroms from which ALL memeber states try to protect interests, regardless of it's funding. Nothing new here, move along.

[Samantha]

Institutions are simply platfroms from which ALL memeber states try to protect interests, regardless of it's funding. Nothing new here, move along.When the President of the World Bank declares he is going to stop feeding the poor in countries that have corruption, while he himself is corrupt, he should be removed from his job.

[Said1]

When the President of the World Bank declares he is going to stop feeding the poor in countries that have corruption, while he himself is corrupt, he should be removed from his job.

LOL. Sure. And keep feeding the dictators who in turn need to keep their soldiers strong enough to hold a gun. Sounds fair to me. I mean really, what good is a man if he can't load and shoot due to fatigue and malnurishment. Then there's scurvey, what if his limbs begin to fall off? :laugh2:

[manu1959]

When the President of the World Bank declares he is going to stop feeding the poor in countries that have corruption, while he himself is corrupt, he should be removed from his job.

that logic would wipe out every elected and self appointed official around the world....hey wait ...that is not a bad idea

[Yurt]

When the President of the World Bank declares he is going to stop feeding the poor in countries that have corruption, while he himself is corrupt, he should be removed from his job.

Yeah, those that screw with interns..........

cough, BS

[Samantha]

LOL. Sure. And keep feeding the dictators who in turn need to keep their soldiers strong enough to hold a gun. Sounds fair to me. I mean really, what good is a man if he can't load and shoot due to fatigue and malnurishment. Then there's scurvey, what if his limbs begin to fall off? :laugh2:He accused countries of corruption without proof, without listening to the experts, he did it to distribute the money to countries we wanted to reward for political gain, for the USA. This is money from the WORLD to feed to poor, from the G7. Wolfie is corrupting the World Bank, with the Bush administration's backing and support and probably on their orders.


that logic would wipe out every elected and self appointed official around the world....hey wait ...that is not a bad ideaI don't think every leader is corrupt. There are some that lead for the good of the country and it's people. We've had some leaders like that right here in the USA. It's hard to imagine now, in this time of the worst President in the history of our country.


Yeah, those that screw with interns..........

cough, BS
Does this have anything to do with the topic? Are you talking about Mark Foley and the school boys he sent sexy emails to?

[Said1]

He accused countries of corruption without proof, without listening to the experts, he did it to distribute the money to countries we wanted to reward for political gain, for the USA. This is money from the WORLD to feed to poor, from the G7. Wolfie is corrupting the World Bank, with the Bush administration's backing and support and probably on their orders.

Again, how is he different from anyone else, leading or belonging to ANY other international institution? The World Bank was corrupt at it's inception, ditto for the rest of the world bodies.

[loosecannon]

The World Bank was corrupt at it's inception, ditto for the rest of the world bodies.

Assuming you know how the World Bank was founded and for what purpose, how are you gonna back up that claim?

Ditto for the rest of the world bodies?

OK, conceivably true. Upon what definition of corruption is this statement relying?

Can you elaborate?

[Samantha]

Again, how is he different from anyone else, leading or belonging to ANY other international institution? The World Bank was corrupt at it's inception, ditto for the rest of the world bodies.I'd also like to see your source that tells you the World Bank was corrupt at inception. Anywhere there is big money, there will be thieves. And now we know the President of the World Bank is corrupt, the very same President vowing to weed out corruption. Why won't he weed himself out and step down? Why do neocons stay so long in jobs after they are shown to be corrupt/incompetent?

[Said1]

Assuming you know how the World Bank was founded and for what purpose, how are you gonna back up that claim?

Ditto for the rest of the world bodies?

OK, conceivably true. Upon what definition of corruption is this statement relying?

Can you elaborate?


:laugh2: What definition? You mean there are others? Corruption is corruption, no need to rush right into semantics, although I have a feeling that this is where this discussion is going. Anyho, until I know other wise, I'll simply repeat myself 'world bodies are merley platforms for member states to protect their interests'. Is it your position is that this is false, or are you simply chosing not to have a postion at this point,( assuming that you are aware of that fact that I have read some of your other posts)? How about you name one instituion that hasn't behaved in this manner (including now defunct orgs) and I'll address your other questions. Show me your not a lib bot.

[Said1]

I'd also like to see your source that tells you the World Bank was corrupt at inception. Anywhere there is big money, there will be thieves. And now we know the President of the World Bank is corrupt, the very same President vowing to weed out corruption. Why won't he weed himself out and step down? Why do neocons stay so long in jobs after they are shown to be corrupt/incompetent?

I don't need to prove it, you obviously believe yourself.

Good day to you, mame. :)

[Samantha]

Actually we were asking you to back up your statement that the world bank was corrupt at inception. Do you withdraw that statement now?

[Said1]

Actually we were asking you to back up your statement that the world bank was corrupt at inception. Do you withdraw that statement now?

No, whatever gave you that idea? I, don't believe I have do argue that fact or prove anything to you or LC because I happen to think you agree. Is this not the case? You honestly think the world bank wasn't created to indept and control developing nations? How much reform have you seen within the governments of these nations? For example, have the literacy rates improved as they're exports have increase? Has leapfrogging technologies had any long term economic benfits?

[loosecannon]

: Corruption is corruption

Then define the corruption that the world bank was founded upon.


'world bodies are merley platforms for member states to protect their interests'

Noam Chomsky would have said exactly that.

That doesn't imply corruption automatically.


How about you name one instituion that hasn't behaved in this manner (including now defunct orgs) and I'll address your other questions. Show me your not a lib bot.

If you are looking for absolutes then you asked an airtight question.

If you are speaking generally there are many exceptions.

I think you know this and are avoiding clarifying your position.

[loosecannon]

You honestly think the world bank wasn't created to indept and control developing nations?

You know it is entirely possible that the world bank was created for multiple purposes, both charitable and cynical.

The world bank was founded ostensibly to assist the rebuilding of Europe after WWII.

To deny the ulterior motives behind that effort is as dishonest as denying the primary purpose.

[Said1]

Then define the corruption that the world bank was founded upon.

Semantics, again.




Noam Chomsky would have said exactly that.

That doesn't imply corruption automatically.
Yes, saying something doesn't make it so.. Words mean things etc, etc.




If you are looking for absolutes then you asked an airtight question.

If you are speaking generally there are many exceptions.

I think you know this and are avoiding clarifying your position.

I did clarify my position.

[Said1]

You know it is entirely possible that the world bank was created for multiple purposes, both charitable and cynical.

The world bank was founded ostensibly to assist the rebuilding of Europe after WWII.

To deny the ulterior motives behind that effort is as dishonest as denying the primary purpose.

Yes, I've read their bio.

The world bank is a bank, to deny that banking isn't it primary purpose is dishonest. Claiming it was founded on chariy and good will is quite possibly the funnniest thing I've heard today. They sure have great pr people, don't they?

So let's clarify shall. In your opinion, the World Bank was fine insitution until Wolfowitz came along and corrupted the place?

[loosecannon]

Yes, I've read their bio.

The world bank is a bank, to deny that banking isn't it primary purpose is dishonest. Claiming it was founded on chariy and good will is quite possibly the funnniest thing I've heard today. They sure have great pr people, don't they?

So let's clarify shall. In your opinion, the World Bank was fine insitution until Wolfowitz came along and corrupted the place?

I think we should agree NOT to trust you to clarify my opinion.

You just slinked by a whole series of requests for clarification of your opinion while only offering vague explanations of what your position is.

The world bank is not ANY bank.

It has definitely migrated in it's purpose.

I would terminate all of it's operation tommorrow if I was in charge.

Do you feel better now?

Did you actually have something to say or are you on a fact finding mission?

[Said1]

se
I think we should agree NOT to trust you to clarify my opinion.[quote]

Then perhaps YOU should do it.

[quoteYou just slinked by a whole series of requests for clarification of your opinion while only offering vague explanations of what your position is.

I have clarified it, to you and oneother person, more than once. Unlike you. :laugh2:


The world bank is not ANY bank.

It has definitely migrated in it's purpose.

I would terminate all of it's operation tommorrow if I was in charge.

Do you feel better now?

Did you actually have something to say or are you on a fact finding mission?

Heh? Do you have anything to add? Probably not. Let me just say you are very transparent. I'll leave you to the name calling threads given that seems to be what you are looking for -surely someone will indugle you. Good day to you too.

[loosecannon]

The chameleon has left the building

[Said1]

The chameleon has left the building

No, you're still here. Although chameleon is a stretch.
:laugh:

[loosecannon]

No, you're still here. Although chameleon is a stretch.
:laugh:

(i was talking about you)

You seem to be playing some kind of abstract game of stealth more than building any kind of conversation upon your comments about the world bank.

[Said1]

(i was talking about you)

You seem to be playing some kind of abstract game of stealth more than building any kind of conversation upon your comments about the world bank.

Stealth?:lol:

Anyway, you've made enough claims without proof on your own as well. I'm still waiting for links, from you in other threads. And besides,you agree with me anyway, unless you think there were no corporate interests to protect and shady deals made even back in 1945. You don't, do you?

[loosecannon]

Stealth?:lol:

Anyway, you've made enough claims without proof on your own as well. I'm still waiting for links, from you in other threads. And besides,you agree with me anyway, unless you think there were no corporate interests to protect and shady deals made even back in 1945. You don't, do you?

I am not agreeing with anything unless you write it out in contract form. Then I will let my attn see it.

If you really want to talk about the World bank carry on.

[Said1]

I am not agreeing with anything unless you write it out in contract form. Then I will let my attn see it.

If you really want to talk about the World bank carry on.

Actually, I would like to, although I don't know if it's discussion you want. Why don't you google 'odius debt' or 'corruption mulilateral banks' for starters. Let moi know what legitimate academic findings you stuble upon. :laugh:

[loosecannon]

Actually, I would like to, although I don't know if it's discussion you want. Why don't you google 'odius debt' or 'corruption mulilateral banks' for starters. Let moi know what legitimate academic findings you stuble upon. :laugh:

lets say you google them and post em.

[manu1959]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%27corruption+multilateral+banks%27&spell=1

[Dilloduck]

I am not agreeing with anything unless you write it out in contract form. Then I will let my attn see it.

If you really want to talk about the World bank carry on.

Contract form ???:lmao: :lmao:

[Samantha]

So let's clarify shall. In your opinion, the World Bank was fine insitution until Wolfowitz came along and corrupted the place?You are asserting it wasn't, show us that it wasn't. Do you back up what you say? Show us some corruption before Wolfowitz. You must know about some, you wouldn't just make it up would you?

[Said1]

You are asserting it wasn't, show us that it wasn't. Do you back up what you say? Show us some corruption before Wolfowitz. You must know about some, you wouldn't just make it up would you?

:lol: WFT are you trying to say?

[Samantha]

:lol: WFT are you trying to say?If you know about some corruption in the world bank before Wolfie as you claim to, show us some. Do you understand that sentence?

Meanwhile at the World Bank, Wolfowitz is digging in his heels, just like Gonzales is over at the Department of Justice. Just like Rummy did for years after constant and long demands for him to resign.


WASHINGTON, Apr 15 (IPS) - As the World Bank handed out a communiqué that talked about "transparency" and "equity", beleaguered Bank President Paul Wolfowitz deflected a barrage of questions from journalists seeking more information about allegations of nepotism involving a Bank employee who is personally involved with him.

But despite his diminishing credibility at the helm of the Bank, Wolfowitz, who started his tenure in June 2005, said he wants to keep his job.

Looks like most everyone wants the neocon Iraq war achitect gone, but on he stays...


In a near chaotic scene, the moderator of the panel on which Wolfowitz spoke tried to cut short a Swiss reporter who told Wolfowitz that he had "lost the trust" of his staff and some of the shareholders at the Bank. A Bank employee even tried to seize the microphone from the reporter.

Another reporter asked whether it was "hypocritical" on Wolfowitz's part to continue at the Bank, preaching anti-corruption and transparency -- especially to African nations -- when he is embroiled in allegations of cronyism.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37356

[Said1]

If you know about some corruption in the world bank before Wolfie as you claim to, show us some. Do you understand that sentence?

You're tuff. Like Carmella Suprano tuff. I scared. :laugh2:

One of your own senators is conducting and intense investigation stemming back to 1946 as we speak. Like I said, you know as well I do; corruption didn't magically appear with Wolfowitz. Hit Manu's link, you might find a thing or two.

On the other hand, I don't honestly believe you are being honest in this thread, all this false bravado is just an act. You support the World Band pre-Wolfowitz as much as you support DDT.

And furthermore, your post wasn't exactly accurate. You do understand the difference between what I actually said, and what you said I said don't you? :laugh2:
.

[Samantha]

You're tuff. Like Carmella Suprano tuff. I scared. :laugh2:

One of your own senators is conducting and intense investigation stemming back to 1946 as we speak. Like I said, you know as well I do; corruption didn't magically appear with Wolfowitz. Hit Manu's link, you might find a thing or two.

On the other hand, I don't honestly believe you are being honest in this thread, all this false bravado is just an act. You support the World Band pre-Wolfowitz as much as you support DDT.

And furthermore, your post wasn't exactly accurate. You do understand the difference between what I actually said, and what you said I said don't you? :laugh2:
.
Playing word games isn't "winning" the argument. It's just dancing around the fact that you refuse to back up your claim of corruption at the world bank before Wolfie, so when will you show us another world bank prez who was corrupt? Or other leaders at the world bank that were corrupt? Or any corruption at all?

Until you do, we'll just live with the fact that you make up stories and refuse to back them up with facts.

The world bank helps feed hungry people around the world. I support that, don't you?

[Said1]

Playing word games isn't "winning" the argument. It's just dancing around the fact that you refuse to back up your claim of corruption at the world bank before Wolfie, so when will you show us another world bank prez who was corrupt? Or other leaders at the world bank that were corrupt? Or any corruption at all?

Until you do, we'll just live with the fact that you make up stories and refuse to back them up with facts.

You are so freaking funny it's unreal. With each and every single thing you post, you inspire laughter. Yes. I'm a lier lier pants on fire. I didn't win. I make things up. Just like you, almost like looking in the mirror isn't it 'Samantha'? :laugh2:


The world bank helps feed hungry people around the world. I support that, don't you?

You really have no clue. Go answer some of the other questions I posed to you. So the poor got to eat gruel, so what? I'm glad you support that. It's too bad they can't feed themselves as a result of growing economies, too bad they have literacy rates as low as 60%. At least someone made them dinner, who needs to read while they're on the shitter, they can just look at the pictures, right?

[loosecannon]

The world bank helps feed hungry people around the world. I support that, don't you?

That is really a stretch.

The world bank's primary mission today is to heap massive debt upon third world countries and then exact concessions around "economic reforms" that kill those economies further.

We have two issues, Wolfowitz, a bush cronie, is obviously fucking up his out to pasture position while he employs the "bank" as a bush agenda appliance.

Then we have the WB.

I was intrigued by 1Said's comments about "since it's founding", because that was a very pivotal period in history:

>The british empire ended while the American one took off

>The allied nations split the spoils of war after WWII

> the cold war alliances were cemented

> the US dollar won out in the Bretton Woods accord as the world reserve currency

So I was deeply interested in what specifically she might have meant.

[Kathianne]

That is really a stretch.

The world bank's primary mission today is to heap massive debt upon third world countries and then exact concessions around "economic reforms" that kill those economies further.

We have two issues, Wolfowitz, a bush cronie, is obviously fucking up his out to pasture position while he employs the "bank" as a bush agenda appliance.

Then we have the WB.

I was intrigued by 1Said's comments about "since it's founding", because that was a very pivotal period in history:

>The british empire ended while the American one took off

>The allied nations split the spoils of war after WWII

> the cold war alliances were cemented

> the US dollar won out in the Bretton Woods accord as the world reserve currency

So I was deeply interested in what specifically she might have meant.

I thought these might be of interest to you:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wedgwood17apr17,1,5667494.story?ctrack=2&cset=true


The Wolfowitz non-story
Why the World Bank chief and his girlfriend are victims of scandal peddlers, not their own judgment.
By Ruth Wedgwood, RUTH WEDGWOOD is professor of international law and diplomacy at Johns Hopkins University's School for Advanced International Studies.
April 17, 2007

ON TAKING office, World Bank President Paul D. Wolfowitz set two priorities for the world's premier development institution. He asked for a focus on Africa's persistent poverty, and he targeted corruption that diverts aid dollars from the poor.

African leaders endorsed this vision, but not all bank bureaucrats were thrilled by Wolfowitz or his policies. Still, any friend of the bank's work should be dismayed by the disruption caused by a manufactured scandal at a time when the bank needs to replenish its coffers. The imbroglio rattling the World Bank during its spring meeting of finance ministers is a rehash of its clumsy attempt to resolve the status of Shaha Ali Riza, a veteran bank professional and Wolfowitz's longtime romantic partner.

The authors of this acrid affair have nakedly forgotten the standards of fairness and due process owed Riza, who is a member of the bank staff association and entitled to its fiduciary protections. And the scandal-mongers have recklessly ignored a written record of bank documents that serves not to condemn but to exculpate Wolfowitz.

Moreover, the case reveals the bank's executive board and its ethics committee as organs of haphazard judgment. In 2005, the ethics committee surprisingly denied Wolfowitz's written request that he be allowed to recuse himself from all decisions touching on Riza's status because of their relationship. Then it disqualified her from remaining at the bank yet insisted that she be compensated for this disruption to her career. Next, it insisted that Wolfowitz re-enter the chain of command to execute its advice concerning Riza. And now, board members apparently have criticized Wolfowitz for doing exactly what the ethics panel directed....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009965


The Real World Bank Scandal
Why the bureaucracy wants to oust Paul Wolfowitz.

BY ROBERT B. HOLLAND III
Friday, April 20, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

By the time this is published, I don't know if Paul Wolfowitz will still be president of the World Bank. Regardless of his fate, many of the problems and agendas underlying his current predicament will remain unresolved and must be confronted if much-needed reforms have any hope of implementation.

Before addressing those matters directly, a few words about the Shaha Riza situation are in order. Ms. Riza is, of course, Mr. Wolfowitz's companion who left the World Bank to join the State Department when he became the Bank's president. First, the shabby treatment Ms. Riza endured at the World Bank began long before Mr. Wolfowitz's nomination was unanimously approved by the Bank's Board of Executive Directors in 2005. I should know, I represented the U.S. on the board from 2002 to 2006. Without board authorization or knowledge, several members of senior management--including several now trying to dust their tracks--pressured Ms. Riza to leave the World Bank while Mr. Wolfowitz's nomination was pending.

Second, Ms. Riza is a well-known advocate of women's rights in the Middle East, a reputation that made her unpopular among some of my board colleagues well before Mr. Wolfowitz's nomination. In my opinion, the pressure to which she was subjected was typical of a culture that many female employees frequently complain is oppressively sexist.

Moreover, Mr. Wolfowitz acknowledged the conflict promptly upon his nomination. I believe that he consistently acted in good faith attempting to carry out the board's wishes that the conflict be resolved without unduly penalizing her for making a career move she did not seek. He would have avoided much grief if he had simply presented the details of the arrangement to the ethics committee, if in fact he didn't, but it wasn't unreasonable to assume he was acting as directed, especially since the committee expressed satisfaction with the outcome. A clearer public explanation also would have helped, but no fair reader of the released documents would call his actions a "scandal."

Those interested in the success of the World Bank should be under no illusion as to what is really motivating the staff revolt now playing out and what the consequences are likely to be. Many are opposed to Mr. Wolfowitz's anti-corruption emphasis, some on the good faith basis that he is placing disproportionate emphasis on the issue at the expense of other development priorities. Others, however, are opposed on the selfish basis that elevating anticorruption and governance considerations will result in lower lending levels and more difficult negotiations with borrowing governments. Still others may fear exposure of corruption among staff itself and possible adverse donor reaction if widespread corruption appears to plague Bank operations.

Regardless of the fates of Mr. Wolfowitz and the anticorruption initiative, the Bank faces an existential financial problem because of the combined effect of its declining relevance and attractiveness as a funding source for many middle-income countries like China, India, Mexico and Russia, and an annual administrative budget exceeding $1 billion. It's a positive development that many countries no longer are dependent on Bank lending, but the income consequences to the Bank need to be addressed because the administrative budget is a serious burden on the world's poor and donor taxpayers.

The most important cost drivers are staff salaries and headcount, and it is here where some of the most pernicious effects of the staff association's union characteristics are felt. Over the years, the Bank's legal department has constructed a complex set of rules and procedures governing employment practices, particularly terminations, designed to avoid a court of law somewhere imposing something more onerous in the name of "due process."

The unfortunate result is a system of such Dickensian complexity that virtually all bank managers have concluded that no one can be fired. This, and the tendency of many Board members to intervene in individual cases to protect or promote their nationals, has resulted in far too many employees, many of whom are widely viewed as incompetent, and costly salaries and severance packages (compared to which Ms. Riza's package is a pittance).

...