|
|
|
| You are here: HOME - A number of Problems with Wolfie's Resignation | About - Get involved - Contact us |
A number of Problems with Wolfie's Resignation So, I'm just beginning to look over the communiques from the Board and from Wolfowitz. There are a number of problems/unanswered questions. I'll begin with those I see and ask for more in the comments. 1) The Board statement is fairly short and extremely complimentary. It looks like something that Benett may have drafted. Bit humiliating, I should think. 2) There is no mention of any process to select the new President, except "the Board will begin the process immediately." That may be a good thing; is there room for breaking with the precedent? 3) Wolfowitz's resignation date is June 30? Why on earth would he do this? Is it the rumored extra compensation that kicks in after he's been on two years? If so, a word of advice to le loup: you'll make a lot more money pimping for the private sector where you belong. I wouldn't worry about nickel and diming the World Bank. 4) Most of Wolfowitz's statement is extolling all the good that he's done for the institution. We can have a lot of fun making a list and publicizing all that he's done wrong. That's all I got for now. What are your thoughts? Sameer Dossani ~ May 18, 2007
Staying on after June 2 is worth $400,000 to Wolfie! JPJ ~ May 18, 2007, 12:10 AM "He assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution, and we accept that." They only accept his belief, not the fact. It's a bit of a sell-out. I'd like to have seen this go to a vote. The FT, as usual, was first on the ball with an accurate account. We'd probably never have got rid of him but for the FT's 'Without Fear and Without Favour' continuous reporting, not that the FT would ever claim that. "Wolfowitz bows to pressure and quits World Bank Published: May 17 2007 23:12 | Last updated: May 17 2007 23:12 Paul Wolfowitz announced his resignation as president of the World Bank shortly after 6pm on Thursday, bringing to an end a turbulent two-year tenure as chief of the world’s leading development institution. His decision came after the US administration reluctantly yielded to pressure from European and other governments who insisted that he could not continue as bank president. This follows the publication of a devastating report Monday into his handling of a secondment package for Shaha Riza, a bank official with whom he was romantically involved. The report found that Mr Wolfowitz had broken the bank’s code of conduct, three staff rules and the terms of his contract. In a statement, the board on Thursday accepted Mr Wolfowitz’s claim that he acted in good faith. His resignation will be effective June 30 His resignation while in good health is unprecedented in the history of the bank and marks what is likely to be an enduring shift in the balance of power at the institution, which has traditionally been dominated by the US-nominated president. ... " http://www.ft.com/cms/s/023bffd4-03cb-11dc-a931-000b5df10621.html Peter Jones ~ May 18, 2007, 12:11 AM "He assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution, and we accept that." What it really says: "He assured us..." "He believed were the best interest..." "and we accept that." Of course the EDs accept that. PW has in his mind what he is doing is sacred... nevermind that no one else share that view except his cronies.
Note that there is no qualification that the others involved acted ethically and in good faith IN THEIR OWN MINDS. That is like saying, "Hitler is justified in starting a World War in his own mind.", or "he is a classic in his own class".
What it means is that no previous President have come in with a view to wage war against the safeguards, and of course, the systems are not built to fight corruption at the President's level.
Note that there is no linkage between the two. It could not be said it was achieved BECAUSE of PW. At least it avoided saying what was achieved was IN SPITE OF PW. In other words, short of pleasant words that are meaningless, the Board gave away nothing to him.
Since when does the Board nominates? It has always been the US nominate the President, and the Board affirm / confirm the nomination in a perfunctory fashion. Has the US given up its right to name the President? Or has the right to name the President been diluted to a Veto? If true, the US lost big. Thanks to PW.
None ~ May 18, 2007, 12:17 AM What a liar. All that sugar-coating on something unmentionable. He's taken this opportunity to praise himself. As usual, it's all about what he can get out of it. It's all about him. I am repelled. none ~ May 18, 2007, 12:27 AM http://www.stuff.co.nz/4064136a13.html The Bank's statement takes back the slanders tossed out by anonymous posters like those here. His name is cleared. The Bank's is not for allowing this to go on and for allowing Melkert, Danino, Coll and the staff to leak confidential matters and spin this in the most damaging way. You will taste ashes yet before this is over. clarice ~ May 18, 2007, 12:27 AM I agree with "NONE." Getting rid of PW was not easy as it seemed. Behind him fully were slimebags such as Cheney and Rove--who cared less about anything or anyone but their own! So, let's settle for this "grace saving" for now. The other PW cronies don't even stand a chance! Washingtonian ~ May 18, 2007, 12:28 AM My thoughts? Barf alert. anon ~ May 18, 2007, 12:29 AM I have just read the Board statement and Wolfowitz's apologia. Unbelievable. I think I am going to be sick. If anything were needed to prove that this Board is spineless and managed by the US, this disgusting statement is it. Maybe they ended up feeling a bit sorry for the blubbering sleazeball in front of them. A few words of faint praise might be acceptable (it is traditional in the World Bank to sing the praises of any senior manager who leaves regardless of circumstances). But this is over the top. After convicting Wolfowitz of acting unethically they said he actually acted ethically. They forgot to add that they also accepted that Wolfowitz genuinely believed that Saddam had WMDs and possessed irrefutable proof to that effect before he dismembered Iraq and murdered thousands. Now that Wolfowitz is a private citizen, I am eagerly awaiting the summons to him from the International War Crimes Tribunal. Surely that is an international organization that is not headed by people whose noses are brown from hanging out at the wrong end of the White House for too long. Nausea Strikes ~ May 18, 2007, 12:30 AM The German magazine Der Spiegel (www.spiegel.de) states that Bush is not willing to give up his "right" to nominate a US national as next Bank president...so nithing has changed? I am extremely disappointed at this outcome. The board has not held up to its promises. Why have the European not come forward with relinquishing their right to nominate the next IMF head. This would clearly have set a better precedent... otto ~ May 18, 2007, 12:30 AM
Sounds like you got your first suspect for who took down your site... WBP.ORG None ~ May 18, 2007, 12:31 AM Good riddance to bad rubbish. The Mahdi ~ May 18, 2007, 12:32 AM CLARICE sounds very bitter! Washingtonian ~ May 18, 2007, 12:33 AM We need Wolfie here in the Green Zone as a scarecrow and a lawnmower (2 in 1)! Viceroy of Baghdad ~ May 18, 2007, 12:37 AM I am completley disgusted by PW's final statement, not a single mention of any of the reasons that led up to this debacle. He acts as if he's ending a wonderful 10 year term at the bank, talking about all the good he's done for the bank, rather than "resigning" which is just the polite term for people in his position for being fired. wolfiegoesdown ~ May 18, 2007, 12:41 AM Can you believe the moxy of this guy? He admits to nothing, apologizes for nothing, still acts as if he's done nothing wrong, and after wasting Bank resources for the past month and refusing to step down, now he has the gaul to stick around for another month! Unbelieveable that the board went along with this. Get a clue Paul, nobody wants you around, just leave and get on with your life elsewhere. Simon ~ May 18, 2007, 12:44 AM Clarice is bitter for sure. Yul ~ May 18, 2007, 12:46 AM Clarice sounds a bit down ... http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/the_attempted_putsch_at_the_wo.html Jack the Zipper ~ May 18, 2007, 12:48 AM I know a great deal about the Bank and its skeletons. Bret Stephens knows more, and better--his email addy is easy to get, Unless there is a major change in the internal operations except so much adverse publicity and drop in funding that the staff salaries and percs will more clearly approximate what they should be. clarice ~ May 18, 2007, 12:50 AM PeeWee has a new job already...and getting lots of emails from female co-workers, evidently. There's even talk of his becoming Israeli Prime Minister; well why not? http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i18314 The Mahdi ~ May 18, 2007, 12:50 AM Pee Wee and Internet Yahoo in Likud Yul ~ May 18, 2007, 12:51 AM End of phase one, more trouble in the horizon? bdfact ~ May 18, 2007, 12:53 AM Taste ashes? I wonder what kind of purge Wolf has in store for the bankers now that he has nothing to lose? I bet he will settle old scores, the 'ashes' remark seems to signal it. Bret Stephens wrote one story about some English guy associated with the bank who had a 'girlfriend' problem and apparently Wolf, the President Of The Bank, the captain of the ship when this corruption was going on, did nothing about it, nor did his ITN watchdog, Suzanne Folsom's office. The story only leaked, and where else could it have leaked from but out of her office, when it provided an ample opportunity for Wolf to win political points. Otherwise, it would have just gone ignored on his watch because he didn't really care when there wasn't anything he could get out of it. So much for the sincerity of Wolfowitz on corruption, he had a flaming example of corruption in his office going on but only exposed it when he saw he could get political advantage, and political payback, for it. When he saw something in it for him. Does the guy even realize how corrupt this makes him look? anon ~ May 18, 2007, 12:57 AM Clarice yul ~ May 18, 2007, 12:59 AM Now we know who CLARICE is! The high school dropout from www.americanthinker.com. Blue-Ribbon Wearer ~ May 18, 2007, 01:00 AM I think he probably abused the reporters at the FT, looking down on them as young and Indian, and that's what piqued their curiosity. PeeWee has always been clannish, but he's also had a snobbish streak, as in 'kissing the head of the man above while kicking the head of the man below.' That would explain his sucking up to Cassidy at the New Yorker and his cultivation of relations with the NYT - he's an 'only the best' kind of guy, and I'd guess he looked down on the young FT reporters as unimportant, motivating them to want to learn more. My guess. pogo ~ May 18, 2007, 01:02 AM The world Bank and its regional sisters are genetically deformed, as is demonstrated over and over gain, despite all the protestations of being do-gooder agencies. This saga, while out of the ordinary, is just one more manifestation of these flaws at birth. Their genes are what they are with power politics -- under the convenient cover of immunities and privileges outside of accepted standards of governance -- and they cannot be truly reformed from within since the expression of force --la loi du plus fort .....-- is ultimately what drives them. We would have to start all to remedy them -- not a simple task of "re-engineering" however well-intentioned and sound in appearance. Changing the MDBs would first require a shift in the underlyinf power relationships -- in the usual speak among the "stakeholders", and this would be truly revoltionary -- yet without any assurance that the good will outweigh what the costs would surely be. jm ~ May 18, 2007, 01:06 AM Let's look at that statement again: "He assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution, and we accept that." What this says is: "We accept his assurance that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution." What does this mean? Take the sentence: "I will lend you five Dollars because I accept your assurance that you will repay me tomorrow." It means "I will lend you five Dollars because I believe that it is true that you will repay me tomorrow, as you have assured me." So the Board has said: "We believe that it is true that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution, as he has assured us." So he acted ethically and in good faith. So says the Board. If he was mistaken in his beliefs about the best interests of the institution, that does not make his actions unethical, it just means these beliefs were wrong. But since he held his beliefs "in good faith" he really is innocent of anything other than an unfortunate misunderstanding. Lawyer Bennet: You have earned your fee. I hope it is large and absorbs whatever generous financial settlement the Board has awarded their disgraced former leader. Grammaticus ~ May 18, 2007, 01:09 AM I dont blame the board for releasing a face-saving statement to end a protracted battle that has torn the heart and soul of the World Bank and all who care about it. However, I just can not believe the Wolf-man is planning to stay an extra month- is that to get an extra paycheck? Someone better cross-check everything he signs on behalf of the Bank!! No one wants him around and it is unbelievable that he and his cronies can not see what is as plain as day. He has lost the support of the staff and of the clients he purports to serve. What really galls me and makes me feel like throwing up is the way people always use the poor africans as an excuse! Wolfowitz' receiving a call from an african leader who is probably as corrupt as he is does not benefit any of the poor africans. people should stop using the poor africans each time they are in a corner. The Bank will do better when Wolfowitz finally packs his bags for good!! At least then, the poor africans who have been tossed by him as pawns will stand a chance!! John Lada ~ May 18, 2007, 01:10 AM Your team lost, Clarice. Better that, your team is going to jail. Last time I checked, Congress held the purse strings and Congress was controlled by a party keen to see Wolfie out of the way before they started funding the institution again. So, not only is your schoolyard banter childish, it also runs counter to basic logic. Thank you and goodnight. Clarice Clarified ~ May 18, 2007, 01:11 AM Clarice R. Feldman. Attorney in DC. Google it if you want. No Name ~ May 18, 2007, 01:15 AM
Can one use the freedom of information policies in the UK to extract this from the Treasury. Old UK colleagues can you help? A $750k good bye package needs to be stopped before June 30th. Jack the Zipper ~ May 18, 2007, 01:20 AM Every day brings new degradation in PeeWee's display of chutzpah, and that resignation statement is, as they say in London, completely over the top. The man's just been exposed in the Ad Hoc Committee's report as an aldulterer, a thief, a liar, a low-class vulgarian and a pathological narcissist, a PR suicide-bomber of what used to be a highly prestigious institution...and he writes a many thousand word paen to his accomplishments? Now as to the Board's performance here -- they get a zero on a scale of 1 to 10. The AHC's Report was the equivalent of a unanimous jury verdict of guilty, and this organizational murderer gets to stay in the job, write the announcements, and told "Heckuva job, Wolfie"? Maybe what accounts for this ugly, limp-dick finale is the proximity of 1818H Street to the White House? As in, idiot-gas seepage up the block? Rove getting ahold of the word processor? The Mahdi ~ May 18, 2007, 01:21 AM All these dealings have brought to light details about the president's contract. Wy should a president get paid $400,000? And why should he get $400,000 whether he stays on the job or not? This is a not a private company where officers skim off profits in the guise of bonuses. anonymous ~ May 18, 2007, 01:24 AM I was just perusing PW's contract (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/BODINT/Resources/CONTRACT06-02-05.pdf) and couldn't find anything in it which would imply that he could draw a full-year's salary for working part of the year. Feel free to contradict. His termination allowance of a full year's salary is explicitly there, though, and is payable regardless of the circumstances of the dismissal. There is nothing the Board could do to legally exempt themselves from paying it. Thus, I can't really find too much in this resignation agreement that suggests the Board somehow caved to Wolfowitz' demands. The language was standard diplo-speak and I really don't know how anyone could have hoped or expected anything different. Gary ~ May 18, 2007, 01:39 AM Utterly disgraced and completely ineffective, his refusal to resign immediately will be a lasting testament to his contempt for the WB and its mission. He joins the other members of the Bush Crime Family in continuing to embarass our country and disgust the overwhelming majority of its citizens. CitizeninVa ~ May 18, 2007, 01:44 AM So now that Wolf's out, will Riza return from the eight-hour lunch breaks? anon ~ May 18, 2007, 01:46 AM Grammaticus: >Take the sentence: "I will lend you five Dollars because I accept your assurance that you will repay me tomorrow." It means "I will lend you five Dollars because I believe that it is true that you will repay me tomorrow, as you have assured me."> "I will lend you five Dollars because I accept your assurance that you will repay me tomorrow." means "I will lend you five Dollars because I believe it is your intent, as you have assured me, to repay me tomorrow. I make no value judgement on your intent." Recognising the above, and also noting that ethics and good faith arise, follow from, belief, "We accept his assurance that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution." means they accept his belief but pass no judgement on his ethics or faith. As None points out, "We also accept that others involved acted ethically and in good faith." is not qualified. In this situation one believes one party or the other. The Directors are saying they believe their own staff and not Wolfowitz. Implicity, his belief was a delusion. They've simply appeased a nut! Peter Jones ~ May 18, 2007, 01:54 AM Does anyone notice that in his Eddie-Haskell-like exit statement, praising himself, and the Bank (after all that f-word screaming) that he claims he's going to give his ''full support' to the next bank president? What, pray tell, could that mean, for someone that bitter? Does anyone think the deal he cut included the right to name his successor, in a bid to make his enemies 'taste ashes' and keep the buried bodies hidden? I wonder what he meant by that. vida ~ May 18, 2007, 01:57 AM SOS-URGENT: Send Wolfie and his entourage to us in the Green Zone at least until June 30. We are in desperate need of a surge of toxic waste! Viceroy of Baghdad ~ May 18, 2007, 02:08 AM PORTRAIT OF PAUL WOLFOWITZ
larmee ~ May 18, 2007, 02:13 AM The intent of the board is clear: "One person close to the board said: “It was obvious what the deal was. He would go but we had to accept his assurance that he acted in good faith.” “Read what we said carefully,” the board insider added." http://www.ft.com/cms/s/023bffd4-03cb-11dc-a931-000b5df10621.html Peter Jones ~ May 18, 2007, 02:17 AM DEAL UNACCEPTABLE... The World Bank Staff Association--while welcoming PW's resignation has rightly denounced the terms of his departure. Importantly, he should be sent immediately on administrative leave (preferably to a quarantine (undisclosed) location where he can no longer spread malaria). Second, his cronies who are proven crooks--must be recused to avoid cover up of shenanigans. Blue-Ribbon Wearer ~ May 18, 2007, 02:25 AM
The board did NOT accept his assurance he acted in good faith --- The board accepted that he thought he acted in good faith. Few others on the Board thought so. In PW's mind he did nothing wrong.... you see... None ~ May 18, 2007, 02:33 AM Staff Association Reaction to Board Statement Welcome though it is, the President’s resignation is not acceptable under the present arrangement. It completely undermines the principles of good governance and the principles that the staff fight to uphold. Staff of the WBG, Board of Governors, Executive Directors and staff cannot rebuild an institution’s reputation under such an agreement. The staff of the World Bank have waited – patiently – for nearly six weeks, trusting that the Board of Directors would reach a solution that reflects the Development Committee's statement of April 15th. In this statement, the Board of Governors charged the Executive Directors "to ensure that the Bank can effectively carry out its mandate and maintain its credibility and reputation as well as the motivation of its staff." Given the comprehensive report by the Ad Hoc Group (on May 14, 2007), we are shocked by the statement from the Board today which represents a full reversal of their own findings and fails to meet the fiduciary responsibility placed on them by the Bank's Governors. Place Mr. Wolfowitz on Administrative Leave In addition, we believe that in order to protect staff and safeguard against any retaliation, the Board should also ensure that Mr. Wolfowitz is prevented from making any decisions affecting the work of the Bank or its staff. We will press the Board to answer the staff's justified concerns regarding their statement. World Bank Group Staff Association Executive Committee anon ~ May 18, 2007, 02:33 AM Good statement, Staff. But does it address the crony issue? Retaliation may not come from PW, but it certainly could come from the lingering and embittered cronies, whose lifestyles are sure to be less lavish if they leave the bank. Incompetents like Suzane Folsom and Robin Cleveland are still on staff, pulling in a quarter million apiece and Wolf's outside allies are openly warning that staff will "taste ashes." One of those women has access to all bank records and has shown willingness to leak and otherwise use them for political purposes. Since something's likely to happen with people that bitter, shouldn't more be urged to protect the staff? anon ~ May 18, 2007, 02:49 AM Great that the match has been struck. Now maybe the Ethics Committee and the Board can deal with a colleague's sexual harassment case she filed and won - resulting in the senior Bank official's termination - but absolutely nothing done to remedy her damaged reputation, loss of income, and emotional damage. Ready for the next scandal? Stay tuned. Emily Emily's Ashes ~ May 18, 2007, 02:49 AM If I don't know who she is, how can I think bad thoughts about her now that her reputation has been "damaged"? Joker ~ May 18, 2007, 02:52 AM TO: EMILY: PW's departure is not about scandals! The issues are the deception, hypocricy, and cover-ups--all committed in a state of hubris! Maybe SR can now recompense the colleague you mentioned. Not CANDICE ~ May 18, 2007, 03:11 AM I thought the text of the resignation letter from board and the PW was unacceptable and strongly disagree that PW was allowed to sing his own praise. But I am depending on the Board to get agreed upon text that they could get under the circumstances. I am ok with the agreement as long as A. PW does not make any decision (small, medium or large) related to WB from today. B. He should not be allowed to enter without a WB escort. C. His appointments of cronies or political hacks in every position in the WB should be put on Admin. Leave. I think these cronies are now going to try to ruin other's and destroy as much as they can because their time is up. Get them all out ... NOW Don't Forget the cronies ~ May 18, 2007, 03:19 AM Now that this is settled, it's time to take care of the others including Cleveland, Folsom, Palacio, Daboub, Brigati, and Ellis. Clair ~ May 18, 2007, 03:29 AM TO: Don't Forget the Cronies. Addendum: (a) PW becomes a cellmate of Noriega; and Not aCRONY ~ May 18, 2007, 03:34 AM Add to the list of cronies Karl Jackson, that fool should be the first one to get thrown out on his ear. anonymousbankstaff ~ May 18, 2007, 03:37 AM If PW had stayed on; the WB Group by the year's end would have become a neo-con hangout-down to the level of interns. Governance Advocate ~ May 18, 2007, 03:40 AM That would be $100,000/yr interns! anon ~ May 18, 2007, 03:44 AM PW--through his arrogance and refusal to recuse himself by proceeding on administrative leave during the ongoing Board investigation--caused six weeks of paralysis at the institution. Given that the Bank's annual administrative budget is US$1.2 billion, this wastage in lost staff time totals US$150 million. This amount should be recovered from Wolfowitz and his lawyers/cronies. Financial Integrity Advocate ~ May 18, 2007, 04:05 AM If Wolfie did indeed act "ethically and in good faith," why is he resigning? That's the $1 Million question. yul ~ May 18, 2007, 04:35 AM Shaha probably has not yet completed her assignment. Keeping the Wolf at the door until June just bought her more time. Is Clarice talking about regular ashes, or red heifer ashes which have the power to make the impure holy? Magician's Assistant ~ May 18, 2007, 07:15 PM Intersting http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=6886 jos ~ May 20, 2007, 02:17 AM |
"Keep track of the rumored candidates, power plays and buzz." Next & Previous « Wolfowitz resigns! | HOME | Here is the best comment I have seen on Wolfowitz's resignation. » Categories "Offering the rumors and gossip usually reserved for Washington's bars and back rooms." WBpresident.org in the news Wolfowitz-Riza-Cleveland: New Evil-doing? "Accomplished and intelligent… sifts through the speculation and brings you the latest news." Recent Rumours Zoellick bearhug photo. Links The World Bank Search this site Archive
May 2007 
|
| © Copyright 2004 Powered by Movable Type 2.64 |
