Wolfowitz Resigns

[Higgly]

Paul Wolfowitz, who apparently still does not get it, has resigned.

The World Bank has finally forced the resignation of Paul Wolfowitz. Perhaps a sign of George Bush's final defeat since he tried and failed to stop it. The World Bank and the appointment of its head has long been considered the exclusive property of the US.

For years, the World Bank has been the lender of last resort to countries teetering on the edge of complete financial collapse and has probably prevented many a war. However, it has always dictated very strong medicine in terms of cleaning up bad monetary practice and corruption. The World Bank, and others like it (International Monetary Fund, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank) has, more than anything, been about governance and the reform of bad government.

Even the World Bank's Staff Association, a very tame body that usually dedicates itself to straightening out pesonnel matters and arranging retirement parties, was coming out and making public statements calling for Wolfowitz to step down.

Unfprtunately, Paul Wolfowitz still does not get it, which shows why George Bush was such a moron to appoint him in the first place.

There have been commentators who have claimed Wolfowitz is really being given the boot because he was the architect of the Iraq invasion. However, Robert McNamara survived the Vietnam stain on his record and went on to serve the Bank well. Wolfowitz was fired for corruption and greed, and in the final analysis, a crime more serious than that for such a lofty position - stupidity.

Another neocon put on the sidelines where they all belong.

[GostHacked]

Things have really shaken the Bush Admin lately. Maybe in this thread we can deal with how the World Bank, the IMF. How they work, how they where created, and by who. And for what purpose.

I am not sad to see him go.

[Catchme]

The World Bank has finally forced the resignation of Paul Wolfowitz. Perhaps a sign of George Bush's final defeat since he tried and failed to stop it. The World Bank and the appointment of its head has long been considered the exclusive property of the US.

Another neocon put on the sidelines where they all belong.

The USA has historically been the largest shareholder of the World Bank, perhaps it no longer is? Their debt is getting beyond reason. In their zeal to create a theocracy fascist state, they have almsot destroyed the USA, and have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are gone, when are Cheney, Rove and Pearle going to be gone too? Oh for sure after next year, but sooner would be nice.

[Higgly]

Perle would be hard to get rid of because he's not an appointed or elected official, but sort of slinks around as a consultant. There will always be someone who is willing to pay guys like Perle to bolster their position.

[bush_cheney2004]

The USA has historically been the largest shareholder of the World Bank, perhaps it no longer is? Their debt is getting beyond reason. In their zeal to create a theocracy fascist state, they have almsot destroyed the USA, and have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.

Perhaps you are wrong...the USA retains voting control over major IBRD and IBA decisions. The US is not a "theocracy fascist state", and Iraq/Afghanistan still exist.

I think that's a hat trick.

[Liam]

The USA has historically been the largest shareholder of the World Bank, perhaps it no longer is? Their debt is getting beyond reason. In their zeal to create a theocracy fascist state, they have almsot destroyed the USA, and have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do some research. I'm not at all a Bush supporter (heck, I voted for Dukakis in '88), but this statement is silly.

In the 20th Century, two main international financial bodies were created to facilitate the development of economies, manage the fluctuation of interest rates and exchange rates, and act as a stabilizing force in global economic matters. One is the World Bank and the other International Monetary Fund (IMF). The US mostly nominates the head of the World Bank and Europe mostly nominates the head of the IMF.

[Figleaf]

Wolfowitz, apart from being instrumental in an illegal war and the needless death of at least 3000 Americans, was obviously completely nuts when it came to corporate ethics.

He basically admits to paying for nookie with company money, but asks (no demands) that the Board absolve him or he won't resign. Does that logic make any sense to anyone? Mr. Bizarro.

[myata]

Because he can ... well in the line with Bushes general approach to world affairs.

[jbg]

Wolfowitz, apart from being instrumental in an illegal war and the needless death of at least 3000 Americans, was obviously completely nuts when it came to corporate ethics.

He basically admits to paying for nookie with company money, but asks (no demands) that the Board absolve him or he won't resign. Does that logic make any sense to anyone? Mr. Bizarro.

The New York Sun editorial (link), excerpted below, provides the most cogent response to your editorial.

The Wolfowitz Standard

News out of the World Bank suggests it’s none too soon to start thinking about what might be called “The Wolfowitz Standard.” If top management of the international organizations are going to be held to the standard Mr. Wolfowitz was held to, who else should come under the microscope? Here is The New York Sun’s quick list. We don’t allege any wrongdoing. But if one is looking for offices in which to start applying the Wolfowitz Standard, here are some recent cases:

Mark Malloch Brown and George Soros. The United Nations Development Program cooperated, during the years that Mr. Malloch Brown headed it, on projects with Mr. Soros’s philanthropies. At the UNDP Mr. Soros and his aides were allowed influence and access. In some countries, the two agencies operated as one unit. Mr. Malloch Brown describes their relations as a “friendship.” While at the UNDP, Mr. Malloch Brown fetched up as a tenant in a house adjacent to Mr. Soros’s mansion in Katonah, N.Y. Mr. Malloch Brown insists he paid Mr. Soros a market-rate rent. In our opinion that’s worth an investigation. Mr. Molloch Brown was recently named vice chairman of Mr. Soros’s Quantum Fund

Shengman Zhang. Mr. Zhang was the World Bank’s managing director until 2005. His wife worked directly under him at the Bank. He recently argued that his case was different than Mr. Wolfowitz’s because there was no bank rule against married spouses working together, but there was a rule against sexual relations between bank employees. Shaha Riza was employed by the bank for seven years prior to Mr. Wolfowitz assuming the presidency. Their relationship began long before he became president.

(snip)

Kofi Annan. In one of the most written-about controversies in the United Nations, a company called Cotecna, which employed Kojo Annan, the young son of the sitting secretary-general, Kofi Annan, was hired by the United Nations to inspect goods in Iraq without an acknowledgment of conflict of interest. Unlike in the current case, where Mr. Wolfowitz never hid his relation and has stuck with several arguments to explain the situation, the Annans have changed their stories several times as further reporting found original arguments untrue.

It may be that there are extenuating circumstances in some or all of the cases cited above. We weren’t worried about Mr. Wolfowitz’s relations with Ms. Riza, but more important than any specific case is the principle that there be a standard that applies across the board. Now that Mr. Wolfowitz has decided to resign from the World Bank at the end of June, let it be just the start of a global cleanup in the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions that spend so much time preaching to the rest of the world on the dime of the American taxpayer.

Maybe, just maybe, Shengman Zhang and his wife never had sex, even though they were married. Quite possible.

As far as Kofi and Kojo Annan, maybe Daddy Dearest and his son never talked, and his son got his job of "inspector" of goods going to Iraq purely on merit. Also entirely possible.

My own view is that the knives were out for Wolfowitz at the outset. He was about to take the fun of being a Third World dictator away. Since their own countries don't produce much revenue, money from organizations such as the World Bank account for much of the lucre they can stash away in Swiss bank accounts. This money comes from my own sweat and toil, as an American taxpayer, working.

Am I in favor of helping the people of the Third World escape misery? Absolutely. But I am mad as h*** about giving money to rich, brutal thugs.

[Higgly]

Yeah, the Sun. Now there's a standard bearer for you

[jbg]

Yeah, the Sun. Now there's a standard bearer for you

Why not go over the contents of their message, not who they are?

[Figleaf]

My own view is that the knives were out for Wolfowitz at the outset. He was about to take the fun of being a Third World dictator away. Since their own countries don't produce much revenue, money from organizations such as the World Bank account for much of the lucre they can stash away in Swiss bank accounts. This money comes from my own sweat and toil, as an American taxpayer, working.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Bill Clinton too.

Personally, I know fairly little about the cases you mentioned. But there's a saying you may have heard: two wrongs don't make a right.

[Figleaf]

Yeah, the Sun. Now there's a standard bearer for you

Why not go over the contents of their message, not who they are?

Because with some sources the contents are driven purely by who they are (or who they think they are, or what they want you to think), rather than about the truth or relevance of the content.

[Higgly]

Why not go over the contents of their message, not who they are?

Because news sources like the Sun editorialize by selecting their content. Sort of like a foreign newspaper that publishes only articles that feature rape, pedophilia, murder and mayhem in the US. Oh wait. That's what the Sun does

[jbg]

Why not go over the contents of their message, not who they are?

Because news sources like the Sun editorialize by selecting their content. Sort of like a foreign newspaper that publishes only articles that feature rape, pedophilia, murder and mayhem in the US. Oh wait. That's what the Sun does

The left-wing New York Times does that all the time. For example, in 2002 they always referred to "conservative pressure" to invade Iraq. The invasion of Iraq has absolutely zero to do with conservatism. I'm in favor of the Iraq effort and I'm quite definitely not a conservative.1

1. If I were Canadian I'd be an NDP member, and an active one.

[Higgly]

You's be a lonely guy in the NDP with that foreign policy stance. Do you favour the Iraq invasion because you feel it is best for the US, or is there some other reason?

[GostHacked]

OH FFS !!! I thought I was reading a CNN 72 pt font BREAKING NEWS STORY.

I WANT TO YELL TOO! !!!!

I heard they have Tony Blair slated for the position of President of the World Bank.

[kuzadd]

ok, anyone hear about the ,very bad language filled , statement Wolfowitz made wrt the possible release of details of the pay package his girlfriend received??

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richar...uds_gather.html

"The extent of Wolfowitz's desire to keep the deal secret came out in the testimony of Xavier Coll, the human resources head, made to the internal investigation last week. After a journalist made enquiries about Riza's pay rise in March last year, Wolfowitz angrily demanded to know who could have leaked it. According to Coll's testimony, he was called to a private meeting with the president:

"Mr Wolfowitz produced a piece of paper with a question regarding the proposed increase [in the salary] of Shaha Riza, stating that it had come from a journalist writing a piece about the Bank. (I assumed it was from Ed Pound of US News and World Report.) Mr Wolfowitz note that only three people knew about the details of the increase, and asked how the journalist could have obtained the information. He asked me to whom I had provided the information about (Shaha's external service) agreement."

It was at the end of this conversation that Wolfowitz darkly threatened his bank colleagues: "If they f*** with me or Shaha, I have enough on them to f*** them too." That reaction suggests Wolfowitz had been careful to keep the details closely guarded."

Wow!

Not exactly the picture of a professional exchange at the World Bank.

leave me wondering, what exactly does he have, on whom??

[Figleaf]

Wolfowitz displays the exact same attributes we see from most neo-cons when they get power:

-a willingness to abuse office for personal or ideological reasons;

-disdain for governance and institutional practices;

-nepotism, cronyism and an overweening sense of entitlement;

-self-righteous criticism of the wrongs of others when they oppose his own wrong-doing;

-a presumption of exceptionalism -- the rules shouldn't apply to them;

-foul-natured foul-language; and

-a penchant for viciousness and bullying.

[jbg]

Wolfowitz displays the exact same attributes we see from most neo-cons when they get power:

*snip*

-foul-natured foul-language; and

-a penchant for viciousness and bullying.

Snipping was at the request of "Mr. White Space", board facilitator.

Was the Chretien regime neoconservative?

[Figleaf]

Why do you ask?

[guyser]

Was the Chretien regime neoconservative?

Nope...but good point jbg.

Maybe Carolyn Parrish was , or should have been, but alas, she was just a dumbarse who couldnt keep he yap shut.

[White Doors]

Wolfowitz displays the exact same attributes we see from most neo-cons when they get power:

-a willingness to abuse office for personal or ideological reasons;

-disdain for governance and institutional practices;

-nepotism, cronyism and an overweening sense of entitlement;

-self-righteous criticism of the wrongs of others when they oppose his own wrong-doing;

-a presumption of exceptionalism -- the rules shouldn't apply to them;

-foul-natured foul-language; and

-a penchant for viciousness and bullying.

I didn't know that Chretien was a neo-con!

Who knew?

[Alexandra]

Wolfowitz displays the exact same attributes we see from Liberals when they get power:

-a willingness to abuse office for personal or ideological reasons;

-disdain for governance and institutional practices;

-nepotism, cronyism and an overweening sense of entitlement;

-self-righteous criticism of the wrongs of others when they oppose his own wrong-doing;

-a presumption of exceptionalism -- the rules shouldn't apply to them;

-foul-natured foul-language; and

-a penchant for viciousness and bullying.

Truly ingenious of you Figleaf. Describes Pierre Trudeau to a tee.

(Chretien was merely a chip off the Trudeau block).

[Catchme]

Wolfowitz displays the exact same attributes we see from most neo-cons when they get power:

-a willingness to abuse office for personal or ideological reasons;

-disdain for governance and institutional practices;

-nepotism, cronyism and an overweening sense of entitlement;

-self-righteous criticism of the wrongs of others when they oppose his own wrong-doing;

-a presumption of exceptionalism -- the rules shouldn't apply to them;

-foul-natured foul-language; and

-a penchant for viciousness and bullying.

You forgot a few:

- inability to be responsibile for actions, blame others as opposed to self

- shifting sands of commentary, trying to slither away when facts are presented

- trying to tar others to try lessen what they are doing

- inability to see facts and hold a conflicted stance that is not based on reality, nor can it be aligned with it.

- does not get out into the real world to understand why their conflicted stance is useless in real world settings