I've just put up an article about Wolfowitz's resignation.
Gracchi:Why didn't you talk about the fact that Wolfowitz tried to recuse himself from the matter at hand and the board would not allow it?Yes he was railroaded, yes there was 'scandal', but if you look into it, it wasn't wolfie that had the scandal, but the whole World Bank.
oh: note:I don't like wolfowitz :)
Lord N- I agree with you there does seem to be some culpability on the part of the ethics board as well- I have to say I hesitated to comment on the entire scandal because I don't know- the Board's statement seemed to indicate that they accepted W's explanation on teh grounds that he resigned.I suppose even if there was a problem on the ethics committee my feeling is that Wolfowitz should have himself known that this would provoke a problem- it seems obvious to me that he should have insisted upon doing something about it- erecting a wall between himself and any decisions to do with Miss Riza instead of relying on the ethics committee.They didn't do their job and I think should consider their positions- but I also think he could have avoided it- if neccessary by making a wall between him and Miss Riza a condition of his employment- he must have known when he was offered the job that this would be a problem.
Perhaps Wolfowitz's job has now been freed up for Tony Blair ;)
Gracchi: That is the point, Wolfowitz did indeed 'do something' about it, he attempted to recuse himself from any dealings that had to do with her. They (the board) refused and made him handle it.Was she qualified for the position, seems so according to everyone involved, then why the scandal?
Post a Comment
Subscribe in a reader