Shvitz Search
Contribute
Featured Book
Featured Album
DAILY SHVITZ
| The Purging of Paul Wolfowitz: an absurd non-scandal might cost the World Bank president his job | |
 by Michael Weiss, May 7, 2007
|
|
When once confronted with a sneering remark about the Washington Post, I.F. Stone replied: "It's a great paper. You never know on what page you'll find a page-one story." One can play a similar game with the New York Times today: You never know in which paragraph you'll find the buried lede. It took me all of three (paragraphs, that is) to disinter the news item in this otherwise unshocking and unenlightening article entitled, "World Bank Panel Finds Wolfowitz at Fault; Aide Resigns":
Bank officials, speaking anonymously because the proceedings are supposed to be confidential, said that the special committee was still working today on what to recommend.
Breaking the rules is such a subjective enterprise these days. But at least Paul Wolfowitz must be smiling at the grim nostalgia of it all. At the Pentagon he was hobbled by leaks from "anonymous" officials at the State Department, and now as top dog at the World Bank he's being undone by a similar don't-ask-don't-cite practice of blabbing to the media.
As ambassador to Indonesia, Wolfowitz amassed plenty of experience in using "soft power" to coax an island dictatorship into overdue projects of reform and liberalization, if not total regime change. So whatever you think of his contribution to the state of modern Iraq, it can't quite be said he was unqualified for the presidency of the World Bank. In the grand Proustian cycle of embattled American war architects, this gig was already known as Credibility Regained, and Wolfowitz has always (and will always) hold up well in comparison with his predecessor as teller to the third world, Robert McNamara. A macabre joke has now been delivered at the World Bank's expense: You can defoliate jungles and rice paddies, and maximize peasant casualties in an illegal war to bail out French colonialism, but whatever you do, you must stay true to the wife.
At the outset of l'affaire Shaha, the Daily Mail quoted one Washington insider as saying: "[Wolfowitz's] womanizing has come home to roost. Paul was a foreign policy hawk long before he met Shaha, but it doesn't look good to be accused of being under the thumb of your mistress." (You know how it goes with centers of global financial power and things coming home to roost.)
Though apparently it wasn't Riza's influence on her boyfriend that scared the pinstriped pharisees. It was that she wasn't married to him. Shengman Zhang, the former Managing Director of the Bank, helped his wife Lingzhi Xu, a World Bank employee at a footling level compared to Riza, go from a "Level D" job status (valued at around $52,000) to a "Level G-G" job status (valued at around $123,000) in record time. According to Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal, Xu's fast-track success "never seems to have raised an eyebrow within the bank's management." It was the sort of by-the-book nepotism that everyone appreciates.
Riza, on the other hand, had been a longtime employee of the bank. She was shortlisted for promotion well before Wolfowitz got there, and her excellent job record would have assured her the same quantity of Condi-surpassing lucre for which she is now so notorious. One might still raise an eyebrow at this, however, were not Riza's ascent so demonstrably reluctant, so evidently coerced and thick with pettifogging nonsense as to make a total non-story out of her and her partner's travails.
The chairman of the World Bank Ethics Committee, Ad Melkert, was characterized by the New York Times on May 1 like this:
Mr. Melkert, a Dutch political figure active in the Labor Party in the Netherlands, said that instead of arranging for the salary and promotion package, Mr. Wolfowitz should have given the job in question to someone neutral.
That's cute. No mention here of the fact that Wolfowitz brought his personal relationship with Riza to the Ethics Committee's attention, and that Melkert was the one who instructed him not to recuse himself from Riza's reassignment. The following is a series of letters exchanged among Melkert, Wolfowitz and Xavier Coll, the Vice President of the World Bank's Human Resources, dating back to shortly after Wolfowitz's assumption of the bank presidency. These messages are worth reading in full:
July 27, 2005 – Memo from Ethics Committee Chairman Ad Melkert to PW
“Having considered different options, the EC advises:
a) That the staff member will be relocated to a position beyond (potential) supervising influence by the President and therefore will withdraw from the current selection procedure for job promotion within the MENA department;
b) That at the same time the potential disruption of the staff member’s career prospect will be recognized by an in situ promotion on the basis of her qualifying record as confirmed by her shortlisting for the current job process and as consistent with the practice of the Bank;
c) That the President, with the General Counsel, communicates this advice to the VPMENA and VPHR so as to implement a) and b) with immediate effect.”
August 8, 2005 – Letter from Ethics Committee Chairman Ad Melkert to PW
1) The EC cannot interact directly with staff member situations, hence Xavier should act upon your instruction.
2) The interaction with the staff member at this stage is only for information purposes, by way of courtesy, as both you and the EC have been preoccupied from the outset to have a procedure in place and an outcome reached that would duly recognize the record and career perspectives of the staff member, taking into account the scope of the EC which is limited to Board officials.
August 11, 2005 – Memo from PW to Xavier Coll, Human Resources VP
“As you know, I recused myself from any personnel action or decision related to Shaha Riza, a proposal which would have afforded her the opportunity to continue on her professional career course at the Bank while avoiding any appearance of conflict of interest. The Ethics Committee advised me that my proposal was unacceptable. In addition, they stated that it was not appropriate for them to ‘interact with staff member situations’, therefore, I was directed to instruct you to inform her of their conclusions and develop a plan which ‘duly recognizes (her) record and career perspectives,’ and that I should complete the action by the end of this week.”
“I understand your preference would be to offer her a financial settlement that would compensate her for both the lost opportunities related to promotion and the pain, suffering, and damage to her professional reputation that has been involved in her forced departure.
“Based on your advice, I direct you to provide her a choice between her proposal and your alternative of financial compensation in lieu of promotion to I or J level. The H promotion should be included in either alternative.”
“Finally, I wish to reiterate my deep unhappiness with the whole way of dealing with a situation that I still believe, and have been advised by experienced labor legal counsel, should have been resolved by my recusal.”
September 1, 2005 – Letter from Human Resources VP Xavier Coll to Shaha Riza
"There is no precedent of this kind and no personnel policy that clearly applies to resolve it.”
October 24, 2005 – Letter from Ethics Committee Chairman Ad Melkert to PW
“I am writing on behalf of the Ethics Committee to acknowledge the resolution of the conflict of interest in line with the guidance provided by the Committee, as conveyed through my informal draft of July 27, 2005. Your memo confirms that the staff member has agreed to be detailed outside the Bank Group, and that you withdraw your proposal for recusal. Because the outcome is consistent with the Committee’s findings and advice above, the Committee concurs with your view that this matter can be treated as closed.”
November 25, 2005 – Letter from Ethics Committee Chairman Ad Melkert
“Dear Paul, This is (formally needed for the records) just to confirm the outcome regarding this extraordinarily difficult issue. I would like to thank you for the very open and constructive spirit of our discussions, knowing in particular the sensitivity to Shaha, who I hope will be happy in her new assignment.”
February 28, 2006 – Letter from Ethics Committee Chairman Ad Melkert to PW
“Dear Paul, This is to inform you that the Ethics Committee has reviewed two emails from ‘John Smith’ dated January 21, 2006 and February 15, 2006, respectively, which were sent to the Bank’s Investigations Hotline and copied to the Executive Directors. The emails allege ethical lapses by the President of the World Bank.”
“On the Basis of a careful review of the above-mentioned documents and the information provided by the President at the informal board meeting with Executive Directors on February 3, 2006, the Ethics Committee decided that the allegations regarding appointments of Bank staff do not appear to pose ethical issues appropriate for further consideration by the Committee. The Committee also decided that the allegation relating to a matter which had been previously considered by the Committee did not contain new information warranting any further review by the Committee.”
So, then: The "conflict of interest" was formally resolved on October 24, 2005, then followed a month later by a warm personal note from Melkert in which he thanked Wolfowitz for his transparency and cooperation, and wished Riza well in her future endeavors. The case was then shortly re-opened in January 2006 at the prompting of two anonymous emails to the World Bank's "Hotline," alleging Wolfowitz's "ethical lapses." It was then closed again on February 28, 2006 when those emails' charges were shown to be unwarranted.
So what's at issue here, particularly when, as Coll states it, there was "no precedence" for such a personnel reshuffling in the bank's history? Why does Wolfowitz look very likely to lose his job? Because of 1) the dollar amount Riza's raise (she went from a Bank salary of $132,660 to $193,590), 2) the fact that Wolfowitz "dictated" the terms of her reassignment to Coll, and 3) Wolfowitz's failure to proceed through the proper advisory channels in effectuating 1 and 2. What were the proper advisory channels? Well, according now to the Board and Ethics Committee, he should have consulted both in the hashing out all further details relating to Riza's status. However, these were details that he was given autonomy to see to—and given it by the Ethics Committee's own chairman! How is it that the official who denies the bank president's request for recusal would then forget to explain just how much more thoroughly involved the president would have to be in resolving his own conflict of interest? Who is negligent here—Wolfowitz or Melkert?
All that the Bank's own bylaws state with regards to such nebulous matters of "conflicts of interest" and Board notification of their resolution is the following: "On the question of communications with Executive Directors, it was agreed that Executive Directors should be notified, in case they would inquire, only after the Requestor had resolved the conflict of interest. Any such communication should only indicate that the Ethics Committee considered the request and confirms that the conflict of interest has been dealt with appropriately." This does not specify who should do the notifying, but the second sentence implies that the Ethics Committee's imprimatur is the one most needed, and so that body—not the "Requestor," in this case the bank president—should communicate with the Board.
As cited above, Wolfowitz, acting on Melkert's instruction, wrote to Coll at HR:
“Based on your advice, I direct you to provide [Riza] a choice between her proposal and your alternative of financial compensation in lieu of promotion to I or J level. The H promotion should be included in either alternative.”
"Based on your advice" is important. So is the simple fact that Xavier Coll cannot have been the head of Human Resources and unaware of the typical compensation that attends an "H promotion." Indeed, Coll—not Wolfowitz—was the one to arrive at the exact figure of Riza's new income, as this letter proves [Note: "Robin" refers to Wolfowitz's staff assistant Robin Cleveland]:
Even if Wolfowitz had written Coll: "I want to pay Shaha her fair share because she'll do that thing with my ear that drives me crazy," how would that have been in direct violation of the course of action set out for him by Ad Melkert? At what point did he try to maneuver sub rosa to get his girlfriend a sweeter deal than she deserved? If Wolfowitz's motives are still murky, what are we to make of his evident frustration in having to involve himself in this decidedly awkward situation?
“Finally, I wish to reiterate my deep unhappiness with the whole way of dealing with a situation that I still believe, and have been advised by experienced labor legal counsel, should have been resolved by my recusal.”
I should think if graft were my objective, I would not complain that I was being made the sole enabler of my own ill-gotten fortune.
At what point, then, does Wolfowitz's politics or "image" not come galloping into this agonizingly drawn-out and pathetic vendetta? If Fantasy Anti-Globalization League World Bank President Joseph Stiglitz had gone to such lengths to ensure his partner's reassignment and pay package were on the up-and-up, you can be sure his name would now grace the pages of the London Review of Books in close proximity to the term "witch hunt."
Interestingly enough, in Melkert's case, the big bad neocon used to be regarded with some favor—that is, until Melkert's own judgment as a World Bank functionary became subject to scrutiny. Check out this extraordinary letter, dated July 14, 2005, and sent by Melkert to Wolfowitz on the occasion of the ten-year anniversary of the Srebrenica Massacre. I especially love how Melkert even requests the English part of what I hope was a Hebrew prayer that Wolfowitz delivered to commemorate the genocide of Balkan Muslims:
The Times, as ever, helps put things in perspective:
This [anonymous World Bank] official said that the overwhelming sentiment in Europe, as expressed in editorials, political commentaries and even web logs, was that European governments should never again let the United States pick the president of the World Bank all by itself.
I would challenge that official to explain how overwhelming sentiment pertaining to World Bank procedure has any bearing on an investigation into the probity of one man. But while we're on the subject, it's worth asking why the chorus of European opinion—normally so vexed by the career advancement of secular Muslim feminists—chooses now to demand that a half century of custom in naming the World Bank president be rescinded. The United States has a majority share in the institution and is thus entitled to a majority voting right, which means that it chooses the executive. (Never mind the fact that the bulk of the bank's resources, lent more profligately than Wolfowitz or anyone with a conscience would like, come from the United States.)
So if we're to understand that Paul Wolfowitz's fate is inextricably tied up with the need for future gestures of multilateralism in the administration of international organizations, fine. I'll assume that the next demarche appearing on continental broadsheets and websites will be to grant Washington a stake in the Europe Union's setting of currency rates.
 |
Michael is a contributing editor of Jewcy and the New York editor of Pajamas Media. His work has appeared in Slate, New York, Democratiya, The New Criterion and The Weekly Standard. His blog is More... |
Anonymous
Now, I've had it.
The guy gave preference and a huge salary to his girlfriend! How much more transparent does the corruption have to be?! Can we please have a liberal commentator now?
One?
JUST ONE?!?!?!
Joey Kurtzman
Purge!
I think all of us here are liberal in some respects (gay marriage now! vegetarianism now! liberal immigration policy now!). But I agree with Michael. Wolfowitz is being purged for his support of the Iraq war. Unfortunately, left-liberal politics still play a hugely important role in establishing group identity in activist groups. If you've seen baboons groom each other, you have a sense of how it works. That's why it was almost laughable when Bush appointed Wolfie to his current position. Was there anyone more hated by the activist left than he? Still, I'm amazed that the Riza non-event is taken seriously by so many. For those who are interested in such trivia, this article gives a sense of what the cost of the purge will be for those who most need the support of the World Bank.
Anonymous
And, again...
Ruling the World Bank like it's your personal fiefdom and appointing your girlfreind to a salary more than that of the Secretary of State's is not a non-issue. Nepotism at a public institution is never a non-issue!
To call this a non-issue is to say "I'm totally ok with corruption. Maybe he can have his goldfish draw a salary, too. It's ok because of all the good work he does!"
Even if he was doing good work (and I disagree that he is), why doesn't this corruption bother you in and of itself?
Mark Grueter
copying Hitchens, again
Michael,
I started laughing when I saw that you had written this defense of Paul Wolfowitz. What, was Hitch's defense of Wolfowitz in Slate (as if even that were even necessary) somehow inadequate? Does one of the most powerful men on earth, Wolfowitz, still need more defenses written on his behalf, as if he were somehow incapable of defending himself, or as if your insights would somehow turn the tide for the man? In addition to being an obvious suck-up job to power, this piece is yet another shameless ripoff of Hitchens - similar language (i.e. "ridiculous non-scandal"), while quoting that I.F. Stone line that Hitchens himself is often fond of quoting. You need to shut off your act. You've become a caricature of yourself. Why don't you start thinking for yourself, for a change?
Michael Weiss
Did you read any of the above?
Riza's reassignment and promotion were determined by the Ethics Committee. See this letter from Melkert to Wolfowitz:
"That the staff member will be relocated to a position beyond (potential) supervising influence by the President and therefore will withdraw from the current selection procedure for job promotion within the MENA department; b) That at the same time the potential disruption of the staff member’s career prospect will be recognized by an in situ promotion on the basis of her qualifying record as confirmed by her shortlisting for the current job process and as consistent with the practice of the Bank."
Moreoever, Riza was due for a promotion based on her exemplary record at the bank, and if you'll read up on the history of how conflicts of interest are resolved there, you'll find that the promotion-and-raise course is the most typical. It's intended to keep the affected staff member from quitting due to public obloquy; also to remove her from the supervision of her boss. (The first part surely wasn't accomplished given the media coverage of this non-story, but the second part was.)
This procedure was followed by Wolfowitz. The only unprecedented aspect of the Riza case was that she wasn't married or a resident partner of the "Requestor"-- had she been, the rules would have been more firmly established.
But please explain how it's a sign of corruption to present your relationship before an insititutional ethics committee and say, "I'd like to remove myself from all further decisions regarding this employee"? That Melkert decided Wolfowitz couldn't do that, and that it was going to be up to him to handle Riza's reassignment, is hardly the fault of Wolfowitz.
Also, all World Bank employees' income is tax exempt, which fact makes Riza's salary more than a lot of U.S. officials. So what?
Michael Weiss
I figured you were still lurking around these parts, Mark
And I know the voices in your head are still furious because I refuse to talk to you anymore. But honestly, short of writing Seung-Hui Cho's eulogy or agreeing that your expulsion from Siberia was part of a far-reaching government plot to silence you, what could I do to win you over again?
Joey Kurtzman
Whacking Wolfowitz
I confess that my history may be a bit rusty, but I don't recall that the lord of a fief commonly announced a potential conflict of interest and sought the ongoing guidance of a fief ethics committee in resolving it.
A reasonable lesson here is that the ethics committee needs to establish an unambiguous protocol for resolving future such situations. Unfortunately that didn't exist for Wolfowitz, and the ambiguity is now being exploited by others to resolve unrelated grievances with him. That's the only glaring ethics violation here. Misrepresenting a knifing in a turf war as an issue of ethical probity. Though I suppose that's how these things work. In any case, the idea that he should lose his job over this is laughable.
"Does one of the most powerful men on earth, Wolfowitz, still need more defenses written on his behalf?" Whether the head of the World Bank is "one of the most powerful men on Earth" is neither here nor there. The people who need defense are those who most need an effective World Bank. If members of the organization are spending their energy and time trying to whack Western political opponents rather than focusing on the problems of the developing word, then yes, this needs to be written about.
Anonymous
Now I know...
"And I know the voices in your head are still furious because I refuse to talk to you anymore. But honestly, short of writing Seung-Hui Cho's eulogy or agreeing that your expulsion from Siberia was part of a far-reaching government plot to silence you, what could I do to win you over again?"
Name calling and snark. No wonder you're on the same payroll as Chris Hitchens.
Mark Grueter
lying servants of power
Shouldn't the World Bank have the right to decide for itself who its leader is? My feeling is that they have to right to get rid of Wolfowitz for any reason they want. Don't try to tell me the World Bank cannot focus on the problems of the developing world without him. As far as I know, he was placed there against the wishes the Bank in the first place. The US needs to back off and allow the European Union - the primary sponsor of the Bank - to have more of a say over these matters.
Michael, I don't care if you ever talk to me again or not. I know you're whole bag is to pick fights with people and then run away. That's what almost all conservatives do. As soon as anyone fights back, you guys go running for the hills, crying foul.
Anonymous
I particularly like...
I particularly like the way Mike and Joey double-team on anyone who disagrees. Since they usually have the same point of view, it's not exacly a rare ocurrence.
Michael Weiss
Actually
Joey and I disagree all the time. For instance, he thinks Anonymous commenters with nothing substantive or clever to say should be engaged. I don't.
Joey Kurtzman
You win
"My feeling is that they have to right to get rid of Wolfowitz for any reason they want."
The naked will-to-power of the mob as the governing principle of an organization that seeks facillitate good governance, accountability, and the rule of law among its aid recipients. As with Mr. Miyagi's crane kick, there can be neither defense nor counterattack. You win.
Joey Kurtzman
Disagreements
Yes, Michael and I disagree incessantly. For example, despite my almost superhuman patience in explaining to him the moral folly of his carnivorism, he persists in eating meat. He even taunts me by expressing doubt that my pleather shoes are not in fact leather. You could say that I am a polyanna and he is a cynic; but it would be truer to say that the man is just mean. I'm a Mahatma, a great soul, and he's a cranky Anglicized Yankee intellectual who tries to trip me up as I practice my JoeyDharma. It's an awkward and difficult pairing, much more so than you can possibly imagine.
Mark Grueter
the great governance of the Wolfie appt.
You act as if Bush's "almost laughable" (as you wrote yourself) appointment of Wolfowitz was an exercise in good governance and accountability. About the furthest thing from it. No, his reign was imposed on the Bank, and they have every right to reject him, even if it means resorting to pretenses when provided with no other alternative. I frankly don't care about the particulars of whether or not what he did amounts to corruption. My hunch is that it does, and people in the World Bank obviously believe it does, and they're perfectly capable of arguing the case themselves. The larger point, however, is this: shouldn't the matter be heard and the decision be made BY the World Bank, rather than, say, Mike Weiss?
Michael Weiss
Now that was funny
"The larger point, however, is this: shouldn't the matter be heard and the decision be made BY the World Bank, rather than, say, Mike Weiss?"
What magnificient decison-making powers over the hiring practices of the World Bank have I just been granted?
Mark Grueter
poor, suffering Paul
"What magnificient decison-making powers over the hiring practices of the World Bank have I just been granted?"
Fortunately, none. But who wakes up in the morning and says: "I must write an article defending poor Paul Wolfowitz today. I know my hero Christopher Hitchens has already gone to great lengths to defend the man, but what the hell? It could score me some more points with the right people."
Michael Weiss
So he's not worth defending because Hitchens has already done?
Not sure I follow the logic here. But then, I've not followed anything you've said or thought for some time...
Anonymous
...
Main point here is that even if the move to oust Wolfowitz is essentially just 'political' then it's still justified because it's only being done as a way to cancel what was initially a 'political' appointment.
If Paul were as brilliant as we're led to believe, he would've been more careful not to give the Bank a reason to get rid of him.
Joey Kurtzman
Lickspittle Servant of Power Weiss
Well yeah, I suspect that the World Bank will continue to make its own staffing decisions, but since you're asking how they ought to make these decisions, which is another question entirely, I don't think I'm out of place in admitting that I'd prefer that member countries of the Bank and contributors to the Daily Shvitz be given equal voting rights in the operations of the Bank. If the member countries are "resorting to pretenses when provided with no other alternative," I don't see what harm could come new blood, even if that means Weiss, who wakes each morning thinking up new ways to lick the boots of power.
Mark Grueter
motive
For me, on this issue, it's about motive, not logic. I don't care enough about the case to debate you on the logical points of whether or not what Wolfowitz has done amounts to corruption or not. I'm sure there are already plenty of others making that case.
What I don't get is why you would feel the need to defend the guy at all? What is the point? Can he not defend himself? Is he calling for people to come to his defense? Isn't he as good as dead now anyway, as far as the Bank is concerned?
Hitch's defense was already a rather obvious attempt to defend a fellow pro-war ideologue. So when I saw that you were now doing the same rather obvious thing, I just thought it was too much. It's an act that is totally lacking in self-awareness.
Mark Grueter
equal voting rights
I believe the member countries have voted, and they want Wolfowitz out. But 'equal voting rights' is precisely what the US does NOT want. The US government believes it should have the power to make arbitrary appointments, that it should much more power than other member countries. That's the way it behaves, anyway.
Michael Weiss
My motive
And then I really must let you go. It's been real and all.
The number one news item of the day -- not to mention a chorus of international opinion-makers -- portrays a man as a corrupt and venal bureaucrat when in fact he's not. Why the hell not write about this? And what does Wolfowitz's being able to defend himself have fuck-all to do with it? I'm sure your favorite sociologist Mark Ames can argue his own case, yet that didn't stop you from swooping to his defense in your prior contribution to this site's comments section, did it?
As for self-awareness, I find this beyond sad coming from someone who admits to not knowing his ass from his elbow about a lead story, yet then declares he's only interested in with what gets me out of bed in the morning to comment on it. Is this what now passes for renegade journalism in the dank corners of your mind? I'll make easy on you: the State Department, the Weekly Standard, Dick Cheney's Guatemalan housekeeper and internet service provider of Little Green Footballs all bought me a Bentley in exchange for drafting this post.
You've become pathetic and boring, Mark, and now you've truly wasted enough of my time. Buzz off. Go update your self-composed Wikipedia entry.
Mark Grueter
Buzzing off
Oh, Mikey. What's nice about the Internet is that if you tell someone to 'buzz off' the joke is on you. I should've thought you would know this by now, but then I'm reminded of your Blog, and how you saw it fit to suppress anyone who disagreed with your stubbornly narrow views. I guess that's why nobody even tries to comment on your site anymore. That combined with the fact that practically every post is an extended soliloquy - a series of unintentionally laughable and aburdly pompous rants that only pretend to engage an actual audience.
What lies behind my defense of Ames is a defense of substantive issues that profoundly affect American society. I've laid out those arguments on this website and you've chosen to not reply. What lies behind your defense of Wolfowitz? His right to give a $200,000 raise to his girlfriend?
Just because I don't particularly care to argue with you on the merits of the Wolfowitz case doesn't mean that I haven't been paying attention. The internal review was conducted, and the committee determined that he committed ethics violations. That is, in my opinion, their prerogative.
NYT: "That mood has changed, many European officials say. As expressed in editorials, political commentaries and even blogs, European sentiment is against Mr. Wolfowitz and in favor of more aid for poor countries."
What's pathetic is that you defend Wolfowitz without receiving those perks. You just do it because you're a born suck-up.
By the way, you look like a puppetoon character in that photo. You should consider replacing it...
Anonymous
from the actual news!
"A bank committee formally transmitted its findings that he was guilty of a conflict of interest in arranging for a pay raise and promotion in 2005 to Shaha Ali Riza, his companion," wrote Steven Weisman late on Monday afternoon.
The panel's finding have not been made public, and Weisman added that "It was not clear whether the committee, consisting of 7 of the bank’s 24 board members, would remove Mr. Wolfowitz from his post or, more likely, express a loss of confidence in his leadership in a manner that might persuade him to resign."
soni
Oh Michael
You really are a faithfull little puppy dog to Mr Hitchens.
It's rather cute.
xxx
Sonic
Michael Weiss
Thanks, glad to see you've made a new best buddy, too
Xoxo.
sonic
I'll put a little post up at
I'll put a little post up at your favourite blog, I always like you to know that I still care.
Feel free to turn your disdainometer up to 11
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2007/05/his-masters-voice.html
Hugs
S
Michael Weiss
Awesome
Thanks, Sonic. The last time you did that, you even boosted my traffic. Although might you also include a link to Snarksmith while you're at it? I've got ad revenue coming in now, bills to pay, etc.
Keep up the great work!
Say hi to Grueter for me, under whatever gamer cognomen he's adopted as your special tip-feeder.
sonic
I did put in a link to
I did put in a link to Snarksmith mate, always happy to help out the less fortunate in the blogging community.
Adverts on the blog though, a little bit mercenary don't you think?
Michael Weiss
Not really, might as well earn a quick buck, you know?
Not a less fortunate blogger, either. You get around 300 hits a day. I get about 700 or so. Also a handful of emails from your readers who worry that your mum will one day pull the plug on your internet access and end the best compendium of Hitchens articles on the web.
By the way, any chance you'll ever, you know, offer a name to go along with the biting wit?
sonic
Exactly, 300 hits a day, who
Exactly, 300 hits a day, who would bother with putting advertising on something that small eh?
Oh and "your mum" joke, to think witty and unique stuff like that only gets you 700 hits a day, it's a crazy world!
You want a name, Eric ok? I could add Stuart and Angus if you prefer.
Michael Weiss
But why not a real one?
Who's being witty? I place you at around 16 or 17, tops. Don't tell me you've actually got a job given how much time you spend stalking the comments threads of HP, etc., not to mention tending your own admirable shrine to the Hitch.
I am curious, though, given your acute concern for vice and dishonesty, don't you think it's even a little cowardly to stake an opinion with nothing tying you to it? What are you hiding, Eric/Stuart/Angus? I promise I won't tell anyone.
sonic
I see you are one of those
I see you are one of those sad people who inhabit the internet who, without an ad hominem to hang their hat on, is lost for an argument.
As we can see above with Mark G.
Perhaps your writing career might be rather more succesful of you concentrated on the actual points people are making rather than try to resort to pointless name calling.
Whats next, a "Your mamas so fat" joke?
Still I do hear that you rarely mess up the coffee order at Slate these days, so not all is lost!
x
Hugs
S
Michael Weiss
Yikes, must have hit a nerve there
Sorry, sorry, okay, you're gainfully employed and a big boy to boot.
Ever try hanging your hat on an ad hominem? Rather difficult, I should imagine.
By the way, I'm glad to see you're chums with MG. He wrote me a note last March asking me to respond to something one of your co-bloggers posted, adding that it might be worthwhile if only because, unlike your drooling idiocies, this new guy's stuff actually had merit. Would you like me to send you the email?
xoxox
Joey Kurtzman
Damn
Sonic, you so unemployed your blog pays you time-and-a-half! Your blog's so weak it wouldn't get a visit if it requested a copy of Watchtower. Damn.
What can I do to insinuate myself into this conversation?
sonic
Goodness I've had better
Goodness I've had better discussions at the children's kindergarden.
But I see we have moved beyond "you are an unemployed teenager" to plan B, "divide and rule" viz.
"you're chums with MG He wrote me a note last March asking me to respond to something one of your co-bloggers posted, adding that it might be worthwhile if only because, unlike your drooling idiocies, this new guy's stuff actually had merit"
If he means Greywolf he has a good point, the guy is an excellent poster, far better than little old me, well done to Mark for noticing!
I've been told that New York is the home of some of the worlds smartest, hippest and most sophisticated, you wouldn't know a blog where I could read some stuff like that do you?
I know the American remake of The Office worked out well, your attempt to do a similar trick with Harry's place is not.
Joey Kurtzman
Kiwis for Yanks
Sonic, seeing as you're a kiwi, do you know Denis Dutton?
sonic
Sorry Joey, afraid not.
Sorry Joey, afraid not.
Michael Weiss
Thanks
"Goodness I've had better discussions at the children's kindergarden"
Well, I knew we'd get to the bottom of your identity sooner or later. Next time, though, ask 'em to teach you to spell.
sonic
Oh I made a spelling
Oh I made a spelling mistake! well that is my whole argument up in flames then. How clever of you to notice Michael.
Who knows, if you give up your laughable attempts at politics you could always get a job as a proof reader!
Anonymous
Broadening The Scope
And to think, some people say that bloggers are nothing more than whiney, self-absorbed wankers who can't see the forest for the trees. This heated exchange certainly lends no credence to that claim, does it?
Come on guys, these comments are literally of pertinence ONLY to the two people calling each other names. Go play a round of Dungeons and Dragons, and get your petty differences (and name calling) out that way.
And bringing up Hitchens--Christ you talk about him as if you meet him at Odeon for drinks twice a month. I have worked with him for more than a decade and I can assure you he's a pompous windbag and an intellectual bully who bends every situation to fit his own need for self-promotion.
The writer of the essay at hand, at least, was attempting to make a point, albeit one that perhaps didn't need to be made (though he obviously felt it did). Grant him the right to say his piece. The rest of you just sound like jealous schoolgirls who didn't get asked to the cheerleader try out. Grow up. Add a comment if it's substantive, but don't reduce this place to a middle school hallway during lunch break.
Also: It's not "clever" to notice a spelling error. It's a simple act of observation. If you're going to post comments, read what you've written and clean it up before you hit send, as it were.
Mark Grueter
Thanks, pal
Well, thank you Mr. Anonymous Asshole for setting us all straight. I don't know where any of us would've been without your high-minded conclusion on today's comments.
I gave my critique of the piece in question, which you might've noticed had you bothered to read all of the comments. I can't do as much as scroll your mouse back up for you, but I can at least tell you that it's there.
"I have worked with him for more than a decade and I can assure you he's a pompous windbag and an intellectual bully who bends every situation to fit his own need for self-promotion."
Okay, who are you? And why would you continue working for a man who you believed was a pompous windbag, lying, sonofabitch?
JewcyCraig
What's more
As far as I know, Weiss was hanging out with him last week.
Anonymous
Pleather
Just wanted to offer some solidarity to Joey on the pleather issue--its hard enough to have to wear em without being made fun of, I know. Anyway, you guys are right about the Wolfie witch hunt, who can't see that?
Joey Kurtzman
Pleather, Wolfowitz
Anon, you'll be pleased to know that synthetic leather is now of equal quality to stripped/tanned cattle flesh. You can hardly tell the difference, except that former is less expensive.
As for Wolfie, well sure, yeah. But as a wise man once said, "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." I hope this article helped.
Mark Grueter
the great visionary Joey
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
Except for you there, Joey. You apparently see all. Thanks for all of the profound visionary insights you've made on this thread.
But seriously, I just went back and tried to find your weightiest contribution and this is what I came up with:
"The people who need defense are those who most need an effective World Bank. If members of the organization are spending their energy and time trying to whack Western political opponents rather than focusing on the problems of the developing word, then yes, this needs to be written about."
I think the response here is that the World Bank felt as though Wolfie's conservative politics were interfering with their ability to effectively deal with the problems of the developing world. Which is why I quote that snippet from the NYT above: "European sentiment is against Mr. Wolfowitz and in favor of more aid for poor countries."
So the attempt to 'whack western political opponents' is an attempt to counter the initial "almost laughable" appointment that was imposed on them, but also an attempt to deal more effectively with the problems of the developing world. Get it?
Michael Weiss
World Bank ethics
From today's WaPo:
"The committee gave Wolfowitz a copy of its report accompanied by transcripts and other documents exceeding 600 pages late Sunday, telling him he had until the end of yesterday to submit a written response, Bennett said."
It was originally 700 pages, but they wanted to make sure he had enough time to fashion his reply.
Mark Grueter