Why Wolfowitz had to go
It hasn't taken long for the people behind the ousting of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz to come out of the woodwork and state their true reasons for wanting him out.
I found an interesting item in the Washington Post today (Saturday). Reporting on the discussion surounding Paul Wolfowitz's forced departure from the World Bank, the paper gives us this intriguing titbit to ponder over:
"Paul Wolfowitz's problems at the World Bank stem in part from a widespread perception that he disproportionately represents U.S. interests rather than objectives that command a global consensus," said a letter signed this week by more than 200 people, including heads of aid organizations, and sent to the executive boards of the World Bank and the IMF. The letter called for the traditional arrangement to be "abandoned and replaced with selection procedures that reflect two key principles: transparency of process, and competence of prospective leadership without regard to national origin."
Mhm. We were given to understand that Wolfowitz's problems stemmed from a widespread (or, shall we say, widely spread) perception that he'd given his "girlfriend" too much compensation for voluntarily giving up her job at the World Bank in order to avoid a conflict of interest. Of course, this was always bullshit. But it's good to see that more than 200 people are now ready to admit that all they really wanted to do was stick it to the USA.