[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Neocon Nuttery See other Neocon Nuttery Articles Title: Wolfowitz Hires Prominent Lawyer in Fight to Stay at World Bank [there's no evidence that he raped Shaha says Uncle Bob] Wolfowitz Hires Prominent Lawyer in Fight to Stay at World Bank By STEVEN R. WEISMAN Published: April 24, 2007 WASHINGTON, April 23 — Paul D. Wolfowitz, signaling anew that he will fight for his job as World Bank president, has enlisted a prominent lawyer who defended President Bill Clinton against accusations of sexual misconduct to help convince the bank’s board that Mr. Wolfowitz has done nothing to justify being ousted. Robert S. Bennett, the lawyer selected by Mr. Wolfowitz, said in an interview that before the bank’s board acted on charges of ethical lapses, he and Mr. Wolfowitz wanted more time to prepare a case showing that the bank president had acted properly on all matters that the board is investigating. “I am very worried about the rush to judgment,” Mr. Bennett said. “We just had a wonderful example of that in the Duke lacrosse case. I have reviewed the essential documents, and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Mr. Wolfowitz exercised good faith and that everything he did was in the best interests of the bank.” It was unclear whether Mr. Wolfowitz intended to pay his legal fees himself or whether he would seek reimbursement from the bank. His latest sign of apparent determination to keep his job came as the furor over his record continued to spread. Bank officials said that after several days of canvassing hundreds of employees, about 25 vice presidents of the bank were preparing to document that the overwhelming majority of the employees favor Mr. Wolfowitz’s departure. The vice presidents met with Mr. Wolfowitz in the afternoon and some bank officials said that they would present their conclusions about bank sentiment to the board of directors, the 24 representatives of various countries and groups of countries that run the bank’s day-to-day affairs in tandem with the president. The Financial Times reported on Monday that the independent agency within the bank that assesses the effectiveness of bank programs concluded last week that “swift changes in management” were needed to restore its credibility. In addition, a group of more than 40 former top officials at the bank, many of whom departed after clashing with Mr. Wolfowitz, issued a public call for him to resign. Mr. Wolfowitz has tangled with the board and staff members on various issues, especially his anticorruption agenda, since he arrived in 2005 after serving as deputy secretary of defense and a chief architect of the Iraq war. But anger erupted this month over Mr. Wolfowitz’s acknowledgment that he had played a much larger role than previously understood in the pay-and-promotion package given to Shaha Ali Riza, his companion, two years ago. Ms. Riza, who had worked at the bank for seven years, was detailed to the State Department at that time. In the last week or so, concern over two other issues — family planning and the environment — was spreading new rancor in the bank, contributing to the criticism. Documents have surfaced indicating that one of Mr. Wolfowitz’s two top deputies, Juan J. Daboub, a managing director and former finance official in El Salvador, had deleted language referring to “family planning” and “climate change” in separate bank documents. Some bank officials charge that these changes were made at the behest of the Bush administration. But they say that Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Daboub have denied during internal meetings that they intended to carry out any kind of policy change. “None of the editorial changes that were made at my direction changed, or intended to change, the bank group’s program in the area of family planning,” Mr. Daboub wrote in an e-mail message to the bank’s vice presidents last week. On Monday, the bank’s chief scientist, Robert T. Watson, said in an interview that Mr. Daboub “literally tried to eliminate the words ‘climate change’ everywhere in a policy paper” but that the words were put back. He said he was “absolutely convinced” that Mr. Wolfowitz had no role in the efforts. Nevertheless, bank officials said that these issues were roiling the bank and that many officials wanted the board to make them part of its widening investigation of Mr. Wolfowitz into matters beyond Ms. Riza. Mr. Bennett, a longtime player in Washington’s legal and political scene, said in the interview that he had not completed his own review of the Wolfowitz documents but was convinced that, on the matter of Ms. Riza, he had acted in good faith and that whatever his shortcomings — such as becoming involved directly in the matter of her salary — were being seized upon by people with other agendas. “I don’t see any hanging offenses here, certainly no violations of law,” Mr. Bennett said. “People with their own private or personal agendas are using this incident to accomplish broader goals inconsistent with the mission of the bank.” Mr. Bennett would not give details, but Mr. Wolfowitz’s supporters maintain that European directors of the bank are using the episode to wrest control of the bank away from Mr. Wolfowitz and the Bush administration. Mr. Bennett was the lawyer last year for Judith Miller, the former reporter for The New York Times who was jailed for refusing to testify to a grand jury in the investigation of the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame as a Central Intelligence Agency operative. He represented Mr. Clinton in the case brought by Paula Jones and helped settle the lawsuit. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
Guess what you drunken sod, the World Bank does not belong to the Bush Administration.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The US has veto power because it has 16% of the stock. All major decisions, such as the firing of Wolfie require an 85% majority. IF Wolfowitz goes, I am wondering who the successor might be. We had Wolfensohn, now we have Wolfowitz. Who's next? Naomi Wolf?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Good idea!
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
It should be called what it truly is, "family killing", not family planning. True family planning would produce families. What they are producing is the slaughter of unborn children. It's more like birth control and orgy planning.
God is always good! Therefore, Wolfie did the right thing, then he lied about it? It's getting soooooo confusing. It's like the Bush, spending trillions to kill millions... 'for peace'. Or the Bush randomly imprisoning and torturing for... freedom and for justice.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Once there was a little boy whose name was Wolf. The other kids made fun of little Wolf Blitzer, until he cried and cried. Perhaps you've heard of the little boy Wolf, who cried.
Did you know that Adolf Hitler's secret name, during the times of his party's illegality, was "Wolf"? The Wagner family always called him "Onkel Wolf." By all accounts, Wolfensohn was a decent head of the World Bank, unlike his successor.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||