| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Alone Again, Naturally; The World vs. Wolfowitz | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 17 2007, 05:42 AM (178 Views) | |
| QuirtEvans | May 17 2007, 05:42 AM Post #1 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews Nearly all Board members (except the U.S. member, of course) agree that Wolfowitz violated the Bank's ethical rules. I guess the fact-finders, the ones with the evidence in front of them, have done their fact-finding, huh? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 17 2007, 05:50 AM Post #2 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
|
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 17 2007, 06:25 AM Post #3 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
And here is a vivid example of the dangers of acting like The Commander Guy, I Make the Decisions and Everyone Else Has To Live With Them:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/wor...witz/index.html |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Jack Frost | May 17 2007, 07:06 AM Post #4 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
May 17, 2007 NY Times The President and Wolfowitz By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF As Paul Wolfowitz is to the World Bank, the U.S. is becoming to the world. We should look at the battle unfolding at the World Bank not as the story of one man falling to earth, but as a moral tale of the risks the U.S. faces unless the Bush administration spends more time rebuilding bridges it has burned all over the world. Mr. Wolfowitz genuinely aspired to help Africa develop, but he ended up isolated, friendless and vulnerable; receiving no credit for his genuine accomplishments; and unable to make progress on the issues he cares about. And the U.S. is in a similar position today. The similarity arises in part because although President Bush’s best-known role has been as a conservative hawk — and everything he has done in that role has been a disaster — he has also aspired to fight poverty and help Africa. And Mr. Bush has genuinely scored some major accomplishments as a humanitarian. O.K., pick yourself off the floor: It’s true. In the world of foreign aid, Mr. Bush has done better than almost anyone realizes — or gives him credit for. It’s his only significant positive legacy, and it consists of four elements. First and most important, Mr. Bush started Pepfar, his Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in Africa — the best single thing he has done in his life. It’s a huge increase over earlier programs and will save more than 9 million lives. Granted, it has been too ideological about promoting “abstinence only” programs, but at the grass-roots level it is increasingly pragmatic (don’t tell the White House, but the U.S. still gives out far more condoms than any other country). Second, Mr. Bush started a major new foreign aid program, the millennium challenge account. This involves giving large sums to countries selected for their good governance and from top to bottom reflects smart new approaches to foreign aid. Third, the Bush administration elevated sex trafficking on the international agenda. Mr. Bush spoke about it to the U.N., and he appointed a first-rate ambassador for the issue, John Miller, who until his resignation late last year hectored and sanctioned foreign countries into curbing this form of modern slavery. (Alas, since Mr. Miller left, the administration’s anti-trafficking efforts have faltered.) Fourth, Mr. Bush has begun to focus attention and funds on malaria, which kills more than 1 million people a year in poor countries and imposes a huge economic burden on Africa in particular. So why doesn’t Mr. Bush get any credit for these achievements? Partly, I think, because he never seems very interested in them himself. And partly because, like Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Bush’s approach to governing is to circle the wagons rather than build coalitions; they both antagonize fence-sitters by coming across as unilateralist, sanctimonious, arrogant and incompetent. In December, the White House held an event to call attention to malaria. But Mr. Bush’s staff barred me from attending: They apparently didn’t want coverage of malaria if it came from a columnist they didn’t like. I can’t recall an administration as suspicious and partisan as this one, one so disinclined to outreach, one that so openly adheres to the ancient Roman maxim of Oderint dum metuant: Let them hate, so long as they fear. So Mr. Bush, unwilling to concede any error, unwilling to reach out, unwilling to shuffle his cabinet, staggers on. And the U.S. itself has been tainted by the same haughtiness; long after Mr. Wolfowitz has gone, and even after Mr. Bush has gone, the next president will have to detoxify our relations with the rest of the world. Moreover, even in those areas where Mr. Bush has done well, like foreign aid, our strained relations with the rest of the world have undermined our ability to succeed. Indeed, Bill Clinton (who wasn’t nearly as generous with foreign aid as Mr. Bush when he was in the White House) has shown in recent years how much can be accomplished when a leader cooperates with partners on issues like AIDS and development. If Mr. Clinton were pursuing Mr. Bush’s development agenda, it would be in a flurry of meetings and visits and multilateralism that would be far more effective in seeing that agenda put in place. But instead the international stage is riven in ways that mirror the World Bank itself. And it looks as if we’re drifting toward the end of a failed presidency of the United States that parallels Mr. Wolfowitz’s failed presidency of the World Bank. jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| Spike Lee from DC | May 17 2007, 07:08 AM Post #5 |
|
Junior Carp
|
Say what you will about Wolfie, you got to hand it to him... He does have the huevos grande... And he's a 'doer' & not a 'talker'... Speaking of being a 'doer'... I have trouble conjuring up a visual image of Wolfie & Shaha on the front lawn... help me out here... |
| "Do the Right Thing" | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 17 2007, 08:34 AM Post #6 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Great article, Jack. The mistakes of the Bush Presidency will haunt not only us, but our children, for decades. It's a lot easier to destroy a reputation than to build one. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 17 2007, 04:46 PM Post #7 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
This little story, from the NY Times, encapsulates much of what is wrong with the Bush Administration:
|
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | May 17 2007, 04:48 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Dude, When you open up with a three post soliloquy, you ain't discussing, you're preaching. The kind of preaching where the preacher likes to hear himself talk... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| George K | May 17 2007, 04:56 PM Post #9 |
|
Finally
|
Wolfowitz is gone, as of June. Do you think they'll continue cleaning house? Nah, I don't either.... =-=-=-= World Bank Scholar Paul Wolfowitz's judges may have ethical issues of their own. BY BRET STEPHENS Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT In the winter of 2006 an email was sent to the investigations hotline of the World Bank's Department of Institutional Integrity, or INT. Its subject was the "Hypocrisy of ED Tom Scholar." "Please know," read the text of the email written by a bank employee, "that UK ED Tom Scholar is continuing an affair with [a bank employee]. This woman has been given preferential treatment in [the department] because of her relationship with this powerful ED, this affair is well known, and is in violation of the Bank Staff Rules and the Boards Standards of Conduct." "ED" means executive director. There are 24 such directors at the World Bank; collectively, they form the board that oversees the bank's work on behalf of its 185 member countries. Mr. Scholar is the ED from the United Kingdom. This week, all eyes were upon these officials as they decided on Paul Wolfowitz's future as president of the bank. Whether their conclusion is fair is a subject for another time. But no less important is whether, while penalizing Mr. Wolfowitz, the board isn't also covering up its own multitude of sins. I first became aware of the 37-year-old Mr. Scholar--a former private secretary to British Chancellor Gordon Brown who also serves as an executive director at the International Monetary Fund--following the publication of my May 1 column, "Notes on a Scandal." The column, which detailed the hypocrisy of some of Mr. Wolfowitz's public detractors, including former World Bank senior managers with conflict-of-interest issues of their own, clearly struck a nerve within the bank. Many former and current bank staff wrote me to share stories of other bank managers or directors who, they claimed, had violated staff rules with impunity. Mr. Scholar's name kept coming up. In one email, a correspondent wrote to say that "just like Wolfowitz, Scholar has a romantic relationship with a female employee at the World Bank. Scholar has never officially disclosed this relationship even though it clearly interferes with his oversight responsibilities as a Board member." The author signed off by saying that he (or she) "regrets to have to stay anonymous for fear of reprisal and hope for your understanding in this respect." Given the seriousness of the allegation, I spoke with Mr. Scholar's secretary three times and twice left messages on his cell phone asking that he call me back for comment, most recently yesterday. He never replied. I have deleted the name of the woman with whom he is alleged to be involved, as well as the department in which she works, because the conflict of interest is not hers. And I have left vague the precise date of the original complaint and job description of the bank employee who filed it in order to secure the person's confidentiality. The existence of the original complaint does not in itself prove the truth of the allegation. It does show that a complaint about Mr. Scholar was indeed filed with the INT. Because the subject of the complaint is an executive director, the INT was obliged to notify the board, which in turn is required to refer the matter to its own ethics committee. Membership of that committee--itself comprised of three members of the board--is a closely held secret at the bank. But it does highlight an inherent conflict of interest in the way the board of directors operates: Where allegations of impropriety regarding its own members are concerned, the board serves as its own judge and jury. What's more, the board's code of conduct requires board officials to "protect the security of any information obtained in the performance of their duties," a requirement that applies to those officials "without limitation, after the terms of service as board officials has expired." In other words, it's a closed loop. Since the original complaint was filed about Mr. Scholar more than a year ago, there has been no indication that any action has been taken by the board--and no way of finding out if the matter was even discussed. But a new complaint regarding Mr. Scholar was sent directly to eight members of the board this Tuesday. Signed "John Smith"--it is not clear whether the author is the same person who filed the earlier complaint--the one-page letter restates the allegation regarding Mr. Scholar's undisclosed liaison with the bank employee. It also adds significant new detail: "Mr. Scholar has used his privileged position as an executive director to influence Bank staff to manipulate [Ms.] ---- job description in a way to suit her limited professional qualification. Without Mr. Scholar's intervention she would clearly not occupy her present position. "Several staff members have in the past reported these facts to HR [human resources] and INT. These complaints have been ignored. Given that Mr. Xavier Coll--VP for HR--and Mr. Roberto Danido [sic, should be Danino]--former General Counsel--have been involved in [this] case, one can certainly speculate about the reasons. The case against Mr. Wolfowitz rests solely on the testimony of these two people. . . . "The experience of the last two months has clearly demonstrated that complaints are only effective if they are made public." The letter was sent to eight members of the board of directors, including Dutchman Herman Wijffels, who led the board's inquiry into Mr. Wolfowitz's conduct. It will be interesting to see what comes of it. Given the board's previous apparent nonfeasance, the answer would almost certainly have been nothing had the matter not been brought to public attention. Why does any of this matter? For one thing, it suggests the board lacks the most basic institutional mechanisms to police the conduct of its own members. This ought to call into question its fitness--and particularly Mr. Scholar's fitness--to judge the conduct of others. For another, the Daily Telegraph has reported that Mr. Scholar is likely to become Gordon Brown's chief of staff once the latter moves to 10 Downing Street. But it matters most of all because the departure of Mr. Wolfowitz is being demanded by his most vehement critics to show that the World Bank is serious about setting the right example when it comes to governance. If it's a spring cleaning they want, why stop there? |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | May 17 2007, 04:59 PM Post #10 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
It seems more to encapsulate what is wrong with the World Bank. At any rate, to find that it says anything about the Bush Administration betrays a fixation that is almost shocking. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 17 2007, 09:40 PM Post #11 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Let's see. Stubborn refusal to modify his position in any way at all. Willingness to believe that the end justifies the means. Attacking anyone who disagrees as stupid or evil. Yep, sounds like the Bush Administration to me. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 17 2007, 10:35 PM Post #12 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
check.
check.
check.
You got me on that one! :lol:
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 18 2007, 06:20 AM Post #13 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Meanwhile, Wolfowitz's girlfriend continues to play the part of the injured victim, having to endure an almost 50% pay raise because her boyfriend got a better job.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews I appreciate that it was difficult for her career, but you know what? That's true in any high-powered relationship. One person gets a new job, and it might be in a new place, so the other person has to move, which means leaving her (or his) job. Or it might affect their career in other ways ... you make a joint decision, and you get over it. Do you think Obama's wife's career is totally unaffected by his decision to run for President? Do you think Elizabeth and Bob Dole didn't have to make compromises at various points in their career, when one or the other took a new job? When Gates became the Defense Secretary, you think that might have affected his family somehow? Moreover, Riza had choices, if she didn't like the way that cards played out. She could have told Wolfowitz not to take the World Bank job. She could have married him, which would have addressed many of the ethical issues. She could have broken up with him. Spouses, male and female, face that sort of choice every day when their spouse gets promoted to branch manager in Des Moines, or gets an offer of a better job at twice the salary in Denver ... or gets a high-powered offer in a business in which their spouse already works. As for the single mother card ... please. She was making well over six figures, roughly triple the median family income in this country. Not exactly a welfare mom struggling to support her children on three jobs. Riza, however, does not appear to have handled the situation gracefully. Here's how Robin Cleveland, one of Wolfowitz's aides, described Riza's reaction to the whole situation:
|
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








You got me on that one! :lol:

6:16 AM Jul 11