PeteEU

BBC NEWS | Business | World Bank head Wolfowitz to quit

They should have fired him, but this is almost as good.

Now the big question what wacko will Bush put there now?

__________________
PeteEU

mikhail

Wouldnt be surprised to see Tony Blair come in very good timeing for him.

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

Stinger

They couldn't just fire him, they had no grounds to sustain it. As I said it was a set-up from the beginning.

"

When Paul Wolfowitz became President of the World Bank in 2005, our private prediction was that it would take about a year before the bureaucratic interests at the bank and in the global "development" industry made a play to oust him. We were off by a few months.

The forces of the World Bank status quo are now making their power play, demanding that the bank's board ask him to resign over an ethics flap involving his girlfriend. The dispute is so trivial that it betrays that this fracas has little to do with Mr. Wolfowitz's ethics. The real fight here is over his attempt to make the bank and its borrowers more accountable for results, especially by exposing and punishing corruption.

Given his role in the Bush Administration, Mr. Wolfowitz was never going to have an easy time of it at an "international" institution as hide-bound as the World Bank. Its employees make tax-free salaries far larger than most would make at home, or in the private sector. For decades they have been measured not by how much poverty they alleviate, but by how much "lending" they shovel out the door.

Mr. Wolfowitz has tried to institute more accountability, especially on corruption. Who could be against fighting corruption? Well, for starters, a global poverty industry that thinks "governance" is a distraction from the only real measure of development, which is how much money "rich" nations choose to redistribute to poor ones. Never mind that many of these countries stay poor year after year precisely because they squander or steal foreign aid. "Governance" ought to be a crucial lending criterion, but in trying to make it so Mr. Wolfowitz is bucking decades of old thinking."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...ust_say_n.html

So now the elitist at the WB can continue their corrupt activities and the blackhole for money it has become.

__________________
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
Proud member of the Gang of Five, the gang that is always right!
No Personal Attacks, if you can't debate the issue go elsewhere.

PeteEU

Bla bla bla..

Your man is out because he is a corrupt elitist himself. He relied solely on "Bushies" at the top, not involving the rest of the bank. He wanted to promote "Bush policy" on various issues, including human reproduction and was blocked not only by the rest of the bank but by the board. He wanted to fight corruption and yet he saw no problem (like you) that he personally arranged a promotion and wage hike for his girl friend who was working under him...

But knowing Bush he will probally promote some wacko again.. what is John Bolton doing these days? Hitting women again?

Stinger

Bla bla bla....once again you purposely misrepresent the facts and ignore that he was order to settle with Riza and to make sure she recieve and very good settlement

From the WSJ http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009948

The paper trail shows that Mr. Wolfowitz had asked to recuse himself from matters related to his girlfriend, a longtime World Bank employee, before he signed his own employment contract. The bank's general counsel at the time, Roberto Danino, wrote in a May 27, 2005 letter to Mr. Wolfowitz's lawyers: "First, I would like to acknowledge that Mr. Wolfowitz has disclosed to the Board, through you, that he has a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staff member, and that he proposes to resolve the conflict of interest in relation to Staff Rule 3.01, Paragraph 4.02 by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member." (Our emphasis here and elsewhere.)

That would have settled the matter at any rational institution, given that his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, worked four reporting layers below the president in the bank hierarchy. But the bank board--composed of representatives from donor nations--decided to set up an ethics committee to investigate. And it was the ethics committee that concluded that Ms. Riza's job entailed a "de facto conflict of interest" that could only be resolved by her leaving the bank.


Ms. Riza was on a promotion list at the time, and so the bank's ethicists also proposed that she be compensated for this blow to her career. In a July 22, 2005, ethics committee discussion memo, Mr. Danino noted that "there would be two avenues here for promotion--an 'in situ' promotion to Grade GH for the staff member" and promotion through competitive selection to another position." Or, as an alternative, "The Bank can also decide, as part of settlement of claims, to offer an ad hoc salary increase."

Five days later, on July 27, ethics committee chairman Ad Melkert formally advised Mr. Wolfowitz in a memo that "the potential disruption of the staff member's career prospect will be recognized by an in situ promotion on the basis of her qualifying record . . ." In the same memo, Mr. Melkert recommends "that the President, with the General Counsel, communicates this advice" to the vice president for human resources "so as to implement" it immediately.
And in an August 8 letter, Mr. Melkert advised that the president get this done pronto: "The EC [ethics committee] cannot interact directly with staff member situations, hence Xavier [Coll, the human resources vice president] should act upon your instruction." Only then did Mr. Wolfowitz instruct Mr. Coll on the details of Ms. Riza's new job and pay raise.


Needless to say, none of this context has appeared in the media smears suggesting that Mr. Wolfowitz pulled a fast one to pad the pay of Ms. Riza. Yet the record clearly shows he acted only after he had tried to recuse himself but then wasn't allowed to do so by the ethics committee. And he acted only after that same committee advised him to compensate Ms. Riza for the damage to her career from a "conflict of interest" that was no fault of her own.


Based on this paper trail, Mr. Wolfowitz's only real mistake was in assuming that everyone else was acting in good faith. Yet when some of these details leaked to the media, nearly everyone else at the bank dodged responsibility and let Mr. Wolfowitz twist in the wind. Mr. Melkert, a Dutch politician now at the U.N., seems to have played an especially cowardly role.


In an October 24, 2005 letter to Mr. Wolfowitz, he averred that "because the outcome is consistent with the Committee's findings and advice above, the Committee concurs with your view that this matter can be treated as closed." A month later, on November 25, Mr. Melkert even sent Mr. Wolfowitz a personal, hand-written note saying, "I would like to thank you for the very open and constructive spirit of our discussions, knowing in particular the sensitivity to Shaha, who I hope will be happy in her new assignment."

And when anonymous World Bank staffers began to circulate emails making nasty allegations about Ms. Shaha's job transfer and pay in early 2006, Mr. Melkert dismissed them in a letter to Mr. Wolfowitz on February 28, 2006, because they "did not contain new information warranting any further review by the Committee." Yet amid the recent media smears, Mr. Melkert has minimized his own crucial role.






So are you just speciously playing along with the set-up or are you willing to take the blinders off and recognize and admit he was set-up for something that happen TWO YEARS ago solely because he was turning up corruption and was going to reform the WB into something that actually did some good?


I hope the US tells the WB to go jump in a lake and we withdraw from it and it's scandalous behavior and stop supporting it's worthless programs.



I note you did not refute anything in my previous post.

PeteEU

I dont need to refute your post anymore as I and others have totaly debunked (with many of your OWN links) your baseless conspiracy theories in other threads. And when will you learn not to link biased right wing sites to prove your conspiracy theories.. not to mention linking editorals with no links to the original material? And the link you did provide is so biased and twisted that its almost laughable... it basicly says that there was no conflict of interest and thinks Wolfowitz did nothing wrong.. which is bull****.

Fact is he was sitting on BOTH sides of the table in the case and that is a classic conflict of interest. It does not matter if he thought the bank agreed with his methods, or thought he was given the green light or was "set up" as you claim. He should have known better! He is a freaking politican and he should know what a conflict of interst is!

And again, the problem is not her promotion or her pay hike.. its that he was involved on BOTH SIDES and dictated matters. Its a clear conflict of interest, but your right wing brain seems not to comprehend such things.

Its funny how a right winger has been caught yet again in some sort of corruption or other "issues" and yet again the hardcore right are screaming "conspiracy" or "not that big a deal" and defending the criminial tooth and nail... and if that dont work, throw out baseless accusations against the people accussing. So what if the Bank "set him up" or there were unclear lines of communication.. he should have KNOWN BETTER!

PeteEU

Okay I admit I was wrong..

It is worse than I thought. I have been reading the offical findings and the documents linked to the investigation... they dont paint a pretty picture.

Basicly Wolfowitz set himself up by being arrogant, stupid and a moron.

I mean the man acutally thought that the memo suggesting him to hand off the case to a deputy meant that he (Wolfowitz) was in charge and was the one to "get things done" and "to have responsbility for negotiatons"... how stupid can you be? The whole issue was to avoid a conflict of interest and here he is leading the negotiations for the bank while having pillow talk with the person he is negotiating with?

And the link you have provided Stinger, have left out details that debunk your accusations even more. The links are biased as hell frankly. For one they dont say why the ethics commettiee said no to the recusal.... you do know that the original recusal was not about the "deal" but about working and interacting with Ms Riza? (the links you provided did not mention this at all and even I did not know it). That is what the ethics commettiee said no to.. it was not enough to recuse himself from any professional interaction with her, and that she had to "go" as per bank rules.

Also Mr Coll was instructed by Wolfowitz not to talk to the Banks lawyers about the matter and the banks lawyers were not consulted until after the agreement had been accepted.

Also the accusation that the ethics commettiee signed off on the deal is totaly debunked in the investigations (not to mention the Fox News Memos). The ethics commettiee was never told of the deal details and how it was reached, but only that it had been reached. They assumed that it was done in accordance to bank rules and regulations and that the matter was over. Now with hindsight one could say that they should have requested more detailed material, but as they have stated themselvs, the ethics commettiee does not involve itself directly in personnel matters.

Woflowitz pulled the classic "I dont recall" btw... real classy

Ms Riza pulled the race and sexist card too during the investigation.. real classy....

The report is extremly damaging and I think that the Bank Board have done everything to make Wolfowitz exit as "painless" as possible.. cause they could have fired on the spot for the crap he pulled. And I dont expect Ms Riza to come back to the bank after accusing them of racism and sexism.

Mr Coll recounting of what happened (where Wolfowitz dont recall btw) is so damaging.

Not to mention Woflowitz own memos and actions.

But I am guessing you dont belive me, and that the report on the World Bank website (The World Bank) is "biased" and "incomplete".

Red_Dave

Dr Strangelove

Stinger

You've done nothing of the sort, if you want to participate in this little charade so be it.

They contain the direct quotes.

When you can refute the facts let me know.

PeteEU

Okay lets look at the opinion piece.

Of course there is missing a key element of the quoted bit, as it does not really fit into the pieces "little world". What is missing is the following.

"A determination on whether a recusal is sufficient to resolve the conflict would be made within the legal framework of the institution, namely the contract, the Code of Conduct, and the Staff Rules. I would be gratefull if you could confirm our understanding on these two points".

It totaly changes the meaning of the memo quoted, from an ankowledgement to a question. A question that Woflowitz understood that any determination on whether a recusal on certain matters was enough had to be taken in context with the banks rules. There is nothing in the memo that says that anyone agreed or disagreed about the recusual and it was only the start of much deliberation. The actual determination came later.

So what basicly happened here, is that the writer took a memo out of context to "prove" something.

The memo stated above is from 22 May 2005, and the ethics commettiee came with its determination on 22 of July 2005, which changes the meaning even more.

Again this is the opinion of the biased reporter, and not based in fact. The Bank rules are very clear on this matter and because we are talking about the bank president, who is the boss over everyone and not just the few people who report to him, then any personal relationship between him and a bank employee is a clear breaking of the banks own rules. This is the same conclusion the board came to.

On the 22 of July meeting of the Ethics Committee the records show the following.

So on July 22 2005 the ethics committee concluded that Wolfowitz proposed recusal was not enough under bank rules. They then proposed

Here it is very clear that the ethics committe recommended that she be moved outside the reach of Wolfowitz "potential" supervision.

Yep she was on a promotion list... so what? The ethics committee agreed that a promotion and hence a pay rise should be in the consideration when resolving the case, as long as it was with in the Banks rules. That she got a higher pay raise than the bank rules allowed is probally the issue that got the whole mess to the forefront, because people were pissed. Not to mention the ethics committee was never notified of the details of the promotion or wage rise.

The writers basicly shoots himself in the foot here. Here it states clearly as it does in the final report, that the banks ethics committee could not according to bank rules, interact directly with staff members situations.

No where does it state that the banks president, the one in a de facto conflict of interest should be any where near the case, but only that he should tell someone to deal with it. In fact the banks Code of Conduct forbids people involved in a conflict of interest to be anywhere near the case.

Now we can probally agree that the communication is not as clear as it could have been on this point, but anyone with half a brain should know to stay clear of any case where they are in defacto conflict of interest. The report says this in more proffessional terms several times. He infact should have known better, as it is stated in the Code of Conduct rules which he signed when he signed his contract. How he could ignore the Code of Conduct is beyond me.

Total spin here not backed up by the facts.

The media has every right to suggest that Mr. Wolfowitz pulled a fast one. She not only got a promotion but got a higher pay rise than she was intitled too according to bank policy and rules. That Mr. Wolfowitz directed this "deal" and was personally involved all the way, and never mentioned his involvement to the board or the ethics committee, nore involved the banks lawyers, shows a very very poor judgment at best or direct corrpution and neoptism at worst.

The ethics committee also did not think that recusal was enough (something the writer continues to leave out in his hatchet job) because of the status of Mr. Wolfowitz. They recommened she be moved out of the bank and compensation pack be arranged as per the bank rules. They did NOT say that Wolfowitz should "handle" it personally as that would be in a clear breach of the banks Code of Conduct, something Wolfowitz should have known as he signed the damn paper. And it should not be needed for the ethics committee to stipulate to him that he should keep his fingers out of the case, as not only does the Code of Conduct prevent hims involvement, but common sense should have stoped him. The offical report gets in on this time and time again through out the report. Also Wolfowitz admitted his "poor judgement" on this matter.

Again more spin. The paper trails shows clearly that Wolfowitz was not happy with the situation and belived that a recusal from any personnel or professional matters involving his girlfriend was enough for her to stay in the bank. A clearly shortsighted and ignorant idea.

Ahh yes, more spin. The facts here are very clear. Mr. Wolfowitz NEVER told the committee that he had ordered the terms to be accepted and never told how the terms had been arrived too. Something that the writer forgets to mention. And the report from the bank makes this clear. The ethics committe assumed that the "deal" was done in accordance to bank policy and rules, when it in fact was not. Hell the banks lawyers were not even involved as Mr. Wolfowitz had ordered Mr. Coll not to involve them. The testimony of Mr. Coll, which is also on the world bank website, really shows how arrogant Mr. Wolfowitz and Ms. Riza were. Mr. Wolfowitz "can not recall" much btw...

Yes the anonymous emails. A bit more spin. The writer forgets to mention that the emails accusations were dismissed not once, but at 2 times before the "rumblings" began to become a bit too big for the board not to do anything. In fact it was not until the media got hold of the story that the Bank started to look into it and thats when Wolfowitz admitted wrong doing.. and then the ball started to roll.

Continued in next post...