[jtfanclub]

mike777, on May 17 2007, 05:49 PM, said:

if you want to ruin this man's reputation based on your sources, fine.

Buh-bye Wolfie!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070517/ap_on_..._bank_wolfowitz

I don't plan on ruining anybody's anything. I'm not a reporter. I didn't even start the thread. I just found the justification interesting.

[mike777]

Winston did you read where he claims that he was forced to do this. He was not allowed to remove himself from the process? As I said this was all reported by the WSJ and other sources. Wolfowitz presented evidence to proof this. I quoted the memo's and other reported sources.

Is it true, I do not know I did not do the reporting. Bottom line I do think this was a witch hunt to ruin a man's reputation and it worked. OTOH many think he got was he deserved and seem to think he is unethical and a man of illrepute. You decide.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on May 17 2007, 06:13 PM, said:

Winston did you read where he claims that he was forced to do this. He was not allowed to remove himself from the process? As I said this was all reported by the WSJ and other sources. Wolfowitz presented evidence to proof this. I quoted the memo's and other reported sources.

Is it true, I do not know I did not do the reporting. Bottom line I do think this was a witch hunt to ruin a man's reputation and it worked. OTOH many think he got was he deserved and seem to think he is unethical and a man of illrepute. You decide.

Mike, I agree that what is termed "reporting" is mostly slanted to establish a point of view - makes it hard to know the ins and outs of what is and what isn't accurate.

The interesting thing to me is the thread description - do the actions by Wolfowitz and Gonzales show determination, stubbornness, or arrogance? To me, the answers to those questions is more important as to whether they should be in positions of power.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on May 18 2007, 02:13 AM, said:

Winston did you read where he claims that he was forced to do this. He was not allowed to remove himself from the process? As I said this was all reported by the WSJ and other sources. Wolfowitz presented evidence to proof this. I quoted the memo's and other reported sources.

You two are talking past one another:

The memos clearly establish that the World Bank forced Wolfowitz to transfer Shaha Ali Riza. Wolfowitz repeated claimed that this was not required, however, he was over ruled. No one disputes this fact.

The issue at hand is the manner in which Wolfowitz affected the transfer.

1. Wolfowitz designed an extremely generous compensation package for Shaha Ali Riza. She received an ridiculous raise and a big bump in pay scale. The transfer agreement required that Shaha Ali Riza receive the highest possible review and pay raise throughout the remainder of Shaha Ali Riza's tenure. (It should be noted that Shaha Ali Riza had been passed over for raises and promotions on multiple occasions before Wolfowitz joined the bank... In the business world, this is normally a sign that they're looking to get rid of you)

2. Wolfowitz was informed on multiple occasions that this compensation package violated World Bank procedures. He went forward with this anyway and ordered his subordinates to conceal the compensation package from the World Bank's HR and legal departments.

[hrothgar]

The NYT has an interesting article regarding Wolfowitz's tenure at the bank

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/18/washingt...&hp&oref=slogin

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on May 17 2007, 12:39 AM, said:

1) Many news reports say he did nothing, nothing unethical. All this girl friend stuff was approved and everyone knew it.  News reports say he is trying to clean up the bank and this is payback.

Hi,

there was an article about it in the Herald Tribune,
and I believe it did sum it up as well.

The problem was not the increase, it was unethical,
but this happens, and people knew it.
The problem was, that he made lots of people his
enemy, people, who work there, and who are mostly
democrats, but only a small margin is fundamental.
If you behave in a way, that tells people, that you
ignore their advice, tell them, that the work they have
done counts for nothing, than you better make sure, that
all, what you do is 100% clean, because you will turn
the non fundamentalists in fundamentalists.

The case was used to to get him out.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Winstonm]

P_Marlowe, on May 18 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

mike777, on May 17 2007, 12:39 AM, said:

1) Many news reports say he did nothing, nothing unethical. All this girl friend stuff was approved and everyone knew it.  News reports say he is trying to clean up the bank and this is payback.

Hi,

there was an article about it in the Herald Tribune,
and I believe it did sum it up as well.

The problem was not the increase, it was unethical,
but this happens, and people knew it.
The problem was, that he made lots of people his
enemy, people, who work there, and who are mostly
democrats, but only a small margin is fundamental.
If you behave in a way, that tells people, that you
ignore their advice, tell them, that the work they have
done counts for nothing, than you better make sure, that
all, what you do is 100% clean, because you will turn
the non fundamentalists in fundamentalists.

The case was used to to get him out.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Of my three listed choices, it seems you are saying his own arrogance did him in.

[mike777]

1) Board of Directors accept that Wolfowitz acted ethically and in good faith.
2) Board of Directors say number of mistakes were made by the ethics panel.

Former Director Dennis de Tray says that corruption at the bank is not a big deal and should not get in the way of the bank.

Former number 2 at the bank Shengman Zhang's wife was swiftly promoted while working under him.

I mentioned Executive Director Tom Scholar and his girlfriend already.

If you need a source, talk with Board of Directors.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on May 18 2007, 10:38 PM, said:

1) Board of Directors accept that Wolfowitz acted ethically and in good faith.

2) Board of Directors say number of mistakes were made by the ethics panel.

In all serious Mike, do you believe for a moment that this is anything other than a political compromise designed to avoid an ugly fight?

The Board wanted Wolfowitz gone as soon as possible. Giving Wolfowitz a bit of political cover was the expedient thing to do.

I very much doubt that Board believes that Wolfowitz acted ethically or in good faith. (I certainly don't)

[Winstonm]

mike777, on May 18 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

1) Board of Directors accept that Wolfowitz acted ethically  and in good faith.
2) Board of Directors say number of mistakes were made by the ethics panel.

Former Director Dennis de Tray says that corruption at the bank is not a big deal and should not get in the way of the bank.

Former number 2 at the bank Shengman Zhang's wife was swiftly promoted while working under him.

I mentioned Executive Director Tom Scholar and his girlfriend already.

If you need a source, talk with Board of Directors.

You seem to be attempting to defend Wolfowitz with claims that "he is no worse than anyone else" so what's the problem. That is distraction rather than defense.

Regardless of what else occured at the bank, the question at hand is what did Wolfowitz do. He violated the bank's ethics codes, regardless of what the parting niceties claim. Had he not, he would not have been forced out.

[mike777]

Ok ok if you guys do not accept the facts that all this was is politics and they wanted him out one way or another ok....He was a marked man and they found this way or some other way to stop him. If you think this was about ethics ok....I will not let the facts confuse you.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on May 18 2007, 11:58 PM, said:

Ok ok if you guys do not accept the facts that all this was is politics and they wanted him out one way or another ok....He was a marked man and they found this way or some other way to stop him. If you think this was about ethics ok....I will not let the facts confuse you.

For what its worth, Mike I agree with you: The ethics charges that were brought up against Wolfowitz are (obviously) part of a political process. I believe that the ethics issues are best viewed as a proxy for managerial competence. If Wolfowitz weren't such an incompetent / hated manager, I doubt that that situation would have festered the way that it did...

We seem to differ about whether or not Wolfowitz should stay at the Bank. I don't believe that Wolfowitz was qualified for the position. After two years running the bank, his employees were in open revolt. Many of them were demonstrating in the streets demanding his removal. In part, I suspect that Wolfowitz's problems can be attributed to his reform agenda. However, I think his personal style and lack of managerial experience was a lot more significant... (The New York Times and the Washington Post both published lengthly articles documenting numerous managerial failures on Wolfowitz's part)

Wolfowitz tried to act as a dictator and impose change from above without building any support within the institution. He had no implementation plan. In many ways, his failure at the World Bank parallels his failure in Iraq...

[mike777]

I am on record as saying I could care less about Wolfowitz the manager. Sure this all stinks and I am on record saying I would not miss the bank being dissolved, now. I just rant about the public ripping of a man's honor and integrity.