Lynx - "That's not what I said. I said it didn't say his sending her to Iraq was a crime. It is highly likely that his other machinations in obtaining positions for her violated various criminal statues. It is even more likely that whether or not the actions were criminal, they constitute cause for his firing from the World Bank and the beginning of criminal investigations."

Are you kidding? NO ONE thinks Wolfowitz committed any crime! Well, at least no one who is a serious person of real responsibility in the world. The tinfoil-hatted moonbats at Salon and FireDogLake have different standards.

But just to take a moment of reality and explain things to you; the only reason a position was "obtained" for Shaha Riza at the U.S. State Department was because she could not remain working at the World Bank, where she had been a credible employee and free of scandal. The reason that she could not remain working at the World Bank was that Paul Wolfowitz had been nominated as President. And he promptly and appropriately pointed out the potential conflict with Ms. Riza, to the Bank Board and its Ethics Committee. Ms. Riza's 'forced' reassignment to the State Department, remaining under the World Bank pay scale, was a hardship to her in that she was taken out of the institution in which she hoped and expected to advance. She was compensated for that hardship with the assurance that she would get her expected promotional pay raises. And EVERY BIT of this deal was known to, and accepted by, the Bank's Ethics Committe and the Board. It was all duly noted on the HR data system at the Bank. There wasn't any secrecy or any phony dealing.

Now, later on, when the Bank's HR director wavered on taking charge of the Shaha Riza deal, telling Wolfowitz that he would have to execute the deal and Wolfowitz did so, that is the only aspect of this that has been called into question.

But this is all such complete b.s.

Wolfowitz is being knifed by the many people at the World Bank who don't like what he stands for as a result of the Iraq war. It all boils down to a situation in which even Wolfowitz's enemies have to concede that, "Okay, the thing with Miss Riza isn't a firing offense. But you just don't have the confidence and authority to lead anymore." What "confidence?" Wolfowitz doesn't have the "confidence" of all of the entrenched Euro-bureaucrats who wanted to sabotage him from the moment he was appointed? I guess not!

That is why I say, just turn the whole enterprise over to the Europeans. Let them run it. Let them pick the President. And let them fund the entire bank.

Let the Europeans run the World Bank. Let the Europeans appoint the next President. And let the Europeans fund the World Bank.

Ah, Robert Mugabe, the "democratically elected" president of Zimbabwe.

...If you are checking on support for the likes of Mugabe, Castro, Assad, Kim, Chavez and Ahmadinejad, you won't find much in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, or the Weekly Standard. And you won't find it in the Bush Administration, either. Although all of those fine fellows have drawn some odd little measure of support, from the Congresssional Black Caucus in the case of Mugabe, or from Congressman Delahunt in the case of Chavez, or Michael Moore in the case of Castro, or from Nancy Pelosi in the case of Assad.

Democratic left, meet Mr. Dictator...

1. In the first, the writer (probably highly informed) disputes Chris Hitchens' defense of Shaha, and calls her, from personal experience, "a nasty peice of work." As someone who resolutely defends this Presidency and Mr. Wolfowitz, I am actually willing to accept that. I have no doubt whatsoever that the World Bank, the UN and the IMF are all filled with overpaid, underworked, self-centered sinecures. I have grave doubts about all three institiutions. It is good reason to reform them or disband them.

But Shaha's personality failings are not, and never were, 'just cause' for the dismissal of Wolfowitz.

2. In the second Anonymous comment, the writer unwittingly makes my point. The World Bank now functions primarily for the purpose of exerting Euro-Social Democrat visions upon global development. The result is not much development at all. Wolfowitz, had he had his way, would have atempted to reform much of that, for the better. He stepped on too many toes, and more than anything he represented a world view that caused the entrenched bureaucratic forces at the World Bank to revolt. Beyond any doubt whatsoever, Wolfowitz was unjustly terminated; the victim of a mutiny.

Once again, this was another situation in which the American left thought that anything that was "bad for Bush" would be good for them. They are wrong.

I guess that I don't know what the point of savaging Ms. Rixa was, if it wasn't to cast apersions on Wolfowitz...

But I've got a question for you: On the subject of complete irrelevancies, since the World Bank has now concluded that Wolfowitz behaved ethically in this "scandal," and that mistakes were made by a number HR people at the World Bank in handling the case of Shaha Riza, WHY IS WOLFOWITZ RESIGNING?

The answer can be found here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010095

Sorry for the typo.