World Bank’s Wolfowitz Embroiled In Scandal
Can it be? Can someone connected with President George Bush possibly be at the center of an untidy controversy or a messy scandal? Add this one to your list of Bush associates involved in controversies and/or scandals (you may be on page two or three already on this list):
World Bank president and George W Bush ally Paul Wolfowitz is fighting to save his career after becoming embroiled in a row over pay rises and promotions given to his former colleague and romantic partner.Mr Wolfowitz issued a full apology after admitting he had approved plans to give a bank employee Shaha Riza such substantial salary increases that she now earns more than US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
The Bank’s administrative board is meeting tonight to decide the fate of Mr Wolfowitz, an arch neo-conservative, who as deputy secretary of defence was one of the prime proponents of war with Iraq.
Looking chastened and sombre, he used a press conference at the opening of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings in Washington to launch a comprehensive defence of his position.
He said: “I made a mistake, for which I am sorry.
“Let me also ask for some understanding. Not only was this a painful personal dilemma, but I also had to deal with it when I was new to this institution and I was trying to navigate in uncharted waters.
“The situation was unprecedented and exceptional.�
He needs to post his comments HERE.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
21 Responses to “World Bank’s Wolfowitz Embroiled In Scandal”
Oh come on…”navigate in uncharted waters”…rubbish.
Wolfowitz is many things, but he is not that stupid. This is venality, pure and simple.
Did he seriously think he could get away with that? She received $193,000 (tax free!!!).
Talk about arrogance. And he barely squeaked into the job as well. One would think he would be circumspect. Pure arrogance.
Really. Where does he think he works, the UN?
I got to agree on this one. No excuses. He is supposedly one of the really bright ones. And his ‘excuse’ is truly pathetic. Not only was this a painful personal dilemma, but I also had to deal with it when I was new to this institution and I was trying to navigate in uncharted waters.
What, was she going all Lysistrata on him if he didn’t get her a big raise? LOL!
As I observed on my blogpost on the subject at CaliBlogger.com
Pure arrogance and stupidity, always a deadly combination.
Still, mostly I’m just curious which late night talker will come up with the best joke on the “former White House official gives girlfriend big raise” theme.
He IS one of the ‘bright’ ones! Even to those of us who don’t like the way Carl Rove is running the United States it’s embarassing.
Wait’ll ya see what comes out in this weeks episode of “The Late Friday Afternoon White House Press Release” I’ll give you a hint: 5 MILLION emails.
> I got to agree on this one. No excuses.
Same here. I’m not surprised this story is on this site already; while so much hatred toward “the neo-cons” is irrational and worse, here is a case where one of them is going down in flames.
Uhm, am I the only one who finds it kinda strange that the president of a Bank, even the World Bank, can just merrily insert someone into the State Department and then determine her pay raises? Are we so dulled to corruption that the very cronyism of her job (let alone her pay) just can’t faze us anymore?
It’s not hatred DLS… Disappointment, disgust and distrust? That I’ll give you.
If you haven’t taken the time to find out about the Who*, When, Where, Why and When of the Neocons being talked about check out their website: Project for the New American Century.
*Partial List of Founding Members – Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld , I. Lewis Libby, Jeb Bush, William J. Bennett, William Kristol…
Steve[ ]K. said:
> It’s not hatred DLS… Disappointment,
> disgust and distrust? That I’ll give you.
Well, in this case, “distrust” takes on a whole new meaning. See below.
[Project for the New American Century] I’m fully aware of this as well as the hype over it by the opposition (far more alarmist than what you see from the far Right when it comes to globalist organizations or movements.)
“Benevolent Global Hegemony” — opposition to this is over-hyped, along with the critics’ follow-ups (the new Romans, true neo-colonialists, etc.).
The USA is incapable of ruling the entire world, period, and doesn’t try.
I was waiting to see if Kritter was going to chime in and chortle over this –
Wolfowitz now has a hypocritical, “Bookie of Virtues” problem, inasmuch as his most noteworthy objective at the World Bank was fighting corruption.
“In his first 15 months as president of the World Bank, Paul D. Wolfowitz has made the fight against corruption in poor countries a hallmark issue…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/business/14wolf.html?ex=1315886400&en=cb130a950d337b28&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/19/AR2006021901137.html
This makes me kind of sad. When Wolfowitz was appointed to the World Bank I was concerned that he’d just use it to ram through a US-centric program and it’d be yet another thing that everyone hated us for.
But everything I read (from all sides) actually said he took his job seriously and was doing a good job of clamping down on corruption and helping poor countries develop the financial institutions that they need for the future.
All in all I felt like he was doing the best job of promoting free enterprise in a positive fashion…I’m just disapointed that he did something so stupid. Makes me the kind of angry that Bill Clinton makes me.
I was waiting to see if Kritter was going to chime in and chortle over this –
Not really, DLS. I’m too busy chortling over the image of Wolfie walking around with those matching holes in his socks a few months ago. He’s a brilliant idiot- a Woody Allen figure. My biggest beef with the neocons is that they take themselves too seriously, the Bush administration took them too seriously, and their ideas just don’t work in the real world. Benevolent hegemony??? Like we have in Iraq , I suppose!
> My biggest beef with the neocons
> is that they take themselves too
> seriously, the Bush administration
> took them too seriously, and their
> ideas just don’t work in the real
> world.
The outcome in Iraq didn’t turn out as advertised.
> Benevolent hegemony??? Like we have in Iraq , I suppose!
I love those controlled borders — not only there, but here. *scowl*
Well, also- we seem to be so wrapped up in what is happening in Iraq, that we are ignoring what is happening in Pakistan, where the government seems to be on the verge of collapse, and support for extremists is on the rise.
Kritter (or is it K. Ritter?) said:
> Well, also- we seem to be so
> wrapped up
and *** TIED UP ***
> in what is happening in Iraq,
> that we are ignoring what is
> happening in Pakistan, where
> the government seems to be
> on the verge of collapse, and
> support for extremists is on the rise.
and this is already a country whose military wanted to hand Pakistani nukes to the Taliban for safekeeping.
> we are ignoring what is happening in Pakistan
India isn’t. It’s time for another missile test. Agni III has been tested.
We’ll see what shape the Pak government is in by what reaction we see, namely if the Pak government responds promptly with a chest-thumping launch of its own, which is standard procedure, or if it is too dysfunctional currently.
Its K. Ritter. But kritter is ok too, because we have a lot of furry kritters as pets. Anyway, I really don’t think its wise to farm out our foreign policy problems to India. Its not working too well to farm them out to Saudi Arabia now is it, lol?
I can’t for the life of me think what the advantage is of running our military into the ground, because we can’t achieve “Victory”. And what were Wolfie’s qualifications for running the World Bank again? Oh that’s right he got a Presidential Medal of Freedom for his outstanding work as the outstanding Dep. Sec Def. to the outstanding Sec Def Rumsfeld. Gee Rummy didn’t get promoted after his years as an abject failure- he only got a medal of freedom and a going away party.
Aren’t you Bush apologists getting a little embarrassed yet? This administration is so bad, that its not sporting to take pot shots at it anymore!
K. Ritter or kritter said:
> I really don’t think its wise to
> farm out our foreign policy
> problems to India. Its not
> working too well to farm them
> out to Saudi Arabia now is it, lol?
We’re not farming our Subcontinent problem to India. We’re having a lousy time with the Saudis (Abdullah is no friend of us, anyway) but with both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (the same is true for places like Egypt that aren’t as much on the radar), where we do prop up governments, what is the (likely) alternative if those governments fall? The governments are bad and are acting against us despite whatever they may claim; but the alternatives are worse.
> Gee Rummy didn’t get promoted after
> his years as an abject failure
Yeah, we won’t see him running in 2008, will we?
Someone had to be thrown overboard after the 2006 elections. The results were not 100% about the war, but you and everyone else knows that was most of why the Republicans were pounded. (They still look to be pounded that way in 2008, to me.)
> Aren’t you Bush apologists getting a little embarrassed yet?
Don’t mislead yourself and think I’m an apologist. I’ll defend Bush still from the more degenerate hatred directed toward him (which often also goes against other things, like the good ol’ U.S. of A., Israel, and the other Good Guys of the world), but I don’t apologize for him; I have criticized him. I find his press conferences to be tortious to hear and I actually laughed so hard I cried after one press conference when on the radio the next thing was a commercial for a vocabulary improvement product. “YOU ARE JUDGED BY THE WORDS YOU USE…”
Well, then you do deserve some credit. If you ever listen to Washington Journal on C-span- you hear too many who feel that Bush’s only problems are the treasonous Democratic Congress and the left-leaning, biased MSM.Its really mindboggling- but at least he engenders the kind of loyalty among his followers that he demands among his WH staffers.
“I’m just disapointed that he did something so stupid. Makes me the kind of angry that Bill Clinton makes me”……Mikkel
Yes, I think everyone agrees, Bill Clinton is the cause of the current administration’s problems. Of course. What other reason could there be?
Why should Bill Clinton still make people angry? He made his mistake, lied about it then admitted it and was punished for it.
I guess we really don’t believe in redemption in this country, because he’s also used his time as an ex-president to raise billions for the world’s poor, victims of the tsunami and the Katrina victims. But-oh he lied about sex-that should never be forgiven or forgotten!
Lol, I love the “arch neo-conservative” wording in that article.
Haha kritter you should know me better than to think I’m angry he lied about sex! He could have been caught snorting cocaine off a dead prostitute (to borrow Edwin Edwards’ line) for all I care.
Also I actually believe that his presidency was one of the best in the 20th century. I’d put it in the 3rd or 4th.
But no he makes me very angry because he had:
a) The best economic expansion ever
b) A republican congress that in the first couple years of power was performing checks and balances to a T (whatever you say about the tactics, the outcome was very positive for all the country IMO)
c) The man is a freaking genius
d) He is probably the most popular politician on the global stage in history
e) I agree with the Clinton/Gore outlook on policy on basically everything (if they were in power their few big government leanings would be held in check anyway and they’d find a compromise)
No most of the stuff isn’t his fault directly, but if he hadn’t been stupid we would have had a very similar White House after him and the last six years would have been a lot better. Still he had a chance to have one of the best presidencies (and legacies) ever and his stupid personal failings destroyed it.
Nah I’ve forgiven him on a personal level and in fact in some ways it’s better that this happened because he has been great for helping develop sustainable policies on a global level. I think the goals he’s pushing and especially the way they are pushed have a chance to improve the world a lot more than if they were done with the old model (something that he agreed with on the Daily Show). But still, like with Wolfowitz it makes me upset because they are the embodiment of doing things the right way but not being able to keep their morals in check [to be fair I'm angrier at people for making a big deal about Clinton while Wolfowitz was plain corruption but still...]