Comments on: Partisanship and Hypocrisy: Thoughts on The Wolfowitz Affair

By: kritter

kritter — Thu, 17 May 2007 02:24:54 +0000

The thing is, I’m wondering what he did to deserve the job in the first place. He was the architect of Iraq and I don’t think anyone is arguing anymore that it isn’t a terrible quagmire. He doesn’t seem to have felt that he had to build up any kind of following there- which may be why he’s on his way out.

I think they saw him as just another arrogant American trying to push his weight around without regard to the rest of the organization. Now, he refuses to leave unless someone at the Bank shoulders a big share of the blame. Just give him his job reference and show him the door. Regardless of what the official reason is, he’s failed at leading the Bank and failed at planning the war. Just Why did he get the Medal of Freedom again?

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 16 May 2007 22:03:53 +0000

My self-professed radical friend in DC has worked at, among other places (like the IRS, where she never saw so many truly obese people in her life), none other than the World Bank, whose members have exploited their fellow foreign nationals. (Read: treat them as slaves)

By: domajot

domajot — Wed, 16 May 2007 20:50:58 +0000

The ‘others were worse’ line is cropping up more and more. ‘
For me, that argument holds no water. The “Johnny did it first” excuse is childish IMO.

If Wolfowitz and the WH wanted cover under those conditions, then they would have done well to drop their arrogance long enough to make friends among
the other staffers. If you don’t want to join the club, there is no reason to expect favors from it.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 16 May 2007 20:47:24 +0000

AR,
Point taken. Certainly there are far worse people at the World Bank and UN than Wolfie, but that doesn’t mean that Wolfie deserves our pity.

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Wed, 16 May 2007 20:42:44 +0000

Chris -

First, I think he is being railroaded, as I stated above.

Second, I never presented that as an ‘excuse’ of any sort. I used it to tee up my point of the real hypocrisy at the World Bank, that it is but another terminally corrupt multi-national NGO that now exists strictly to enrich itself and protect the patronage jobs it creates.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 16 May 2007 20:26:07 +0000

And, you should check out the villaâ€™s, vacations, payoffs, etc., done for wives, children, girlfriends, and lovers of other World Bank members.

That’s a valid excuse?

By: kritter

kritter — Wed, 16 May 2007 20:11:39 +0000

That’s not what the head of the ethics board testified to -unless you believe the WSJ editorial.

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Wed, 16 May 2007 20:09:42 +0000

Fair hearing? Horseshit. You obviosly have not been following this closely.

In a nutshell, he requested to be recused, was refused, then requested advance guidance from the Ethics board, which he followed, then reverified the guidance, which was affirmed.

And, you should check out the villa’s, vacations, payoffs, etc., done for wives, children, girlfriends, and lovers of other World Bank members.

That is the hypocrisy. Wolfie was trying to shake things up, and for all of everyone’s complaints at times about our government and corruption (and we all do it, from one side or the other), almost nobody in our system can hold a candle to the sense of entitlement, graft and corruption of either the EU, World Bank, or UN.

This is just getting rid of a threat to the status quo.

By: kritter

kritter — Wed, 16 May 2007 19:45:23 +0000

The latest word is that the WH is in negotiations with the Board over Wolfie’s impending departure. My guess is that many of the Europeans didn’t like having the architect of the Iraq War heading the Bank, and didn’t like the fact that he brought over henchmen from the Pentagon, and insulated himself with them. The girlfriend thing was just the last straw. It just was a bit hypocritical, considering his anti-corruption stance. Well, he got a fair hearing…….

By: George Sorwell

George Sorwell — Wed, 16 May 2007 18:33:13 +0000

My complaint is with the media coverage, or rather with the lack of serious media coverage. Because, God knows, this is being covered! There’s endless superficial coverage of the scandal, including the colorful novelistic detail of his dropping a few f-bombs. The sound of axes being ground–sorry, I meant to say, informed opinions being expressed–is overwhelming everything else. Where’s the reporting? Beyond the whole, you know, “girlfriend” thing? Aren’t there billions–even trillions–of dollars at stake?

When it’s all over, the World Bank will go back to being invisible. Not that I’ve ever given much thought to the World Bank. But now that I am paying attention, is there nothing available beyond this Paris Hilton level of journalism?

By: Michael Stickings

Michael Stickings — Wed, 16 May 2007 18:11:11 +0000

Very good point, Jason. From what I can tell, based on the limited reading I’ve done, he doesn’t seem to have done a bad job.

By: Jason Steck

Jason Steck — Wed, 16 May 2007 18:00:01 +0000

George, that would require having a consistent set of objective metrics for organizational performance of the World Bank. Unfortunately, the World Bank bureaucracy (the same people who are after Wolfie’s head) are the same ones who have long resisted the establishment of ANY metrics for organizational assessment, accountability, or transparency.

Hmmmm……

By: George Sorwell

George Sorwell — Wed, 16 May 2007 17:56:42 +0000

Is it even possible to know if Wolfowitz is doing a good–or poor, or indifferent–job?