The New York Times reports that
"Paul D. Wolfowitz accused the bank's board on Wednesday of treating him 'shabbily and unfairly,'and appealed for more time to defend himself against allegations of favoritism and other matters,"
indicating the Directors were taken aback by his forceful demand for fair treatment. The incident which was used to smear him--the false accusations of mishandling the settlement contract with Ms Riza,-- appears to have been a red herring. The paper notes:
"[T]he bank's board is also investigating allegations that he has relied on a small coterie of aides, also with high salaries, and that he has promoted Bush administration policies in the area of family planning and climate change."(Emphasis supplied.)
The President continues to stand by him and the Bank's options seem more limited than the prior reporting would indicate. The article notes:
The board, whose members represent various countries or groups of countries, is considering a number of options. The most extreme would be to invoke governance rules allowing the board to remove a president outright, though some officials said that was unlikely.
Alternatively, the board could reprimand Mr. Wolfowitz or call for his resignation with a kind of no-confidence vote. Another alternative would be to do nothing but negotiate with the United States, the Europeans and others for Mr. Wolfowitz to resign voluntarily.
Surely the Board has known how limited its options were from the outset. That suggests to me, the slander was utilized to poison public opinion against him, compel the President to withdraw his support and cover up why it was these corrupt transnationals want him out of the Bank's highest office.In this disregard for the personal damage they have caused him and his family to advance the most political and corrupt aims, they remind me of those who ran out of office the best UN Ambassador we have ever had, John Bolton, and those who have worked non-stop to tar the name of the President himself.