So Wolfie got his girlfriend a raise among other morally bankrupt actions -- he's hardly the problem: an "ethical" president of the World Bank is an oxymoron (at least until the World Bank stops gunning to consolidate the worldwide plutocracy with high-interest loans to cash-starved developing nations).

GetReal has it right. The institution's chief goals are not feeding the hungry, but securing markets and resources for corporations under the guise of altruism.

For more on Wolfie and what the World Bank really does check this article by Naomi Klein: http://www.straight.com/article-88535/world-bank-sullied-before-wolfowitz

Wolfowitz is the Zionist neocon that convinced Bush to go into Iraq so Iraq would no longer support the freedom fighters in occupied Palistine. He is evil.

Wolfowitz is an imperial-minded prick of the highest caliber. I agree wholeheartedly. He's egomaniacal, dangerous, and without compassion for the vast amount of human sufferring he has caused. But at the end of the day he's just one man, a powerful man yes, but one with (hopefully) greatly reduced influence.

The real story stemming from his much deserved departure is how corrupt and damaging the World Bank is. How it solidifies and instituationalizes poverty while claiming to fight it, and how it faithfully serves multinational corporate interests.

Look at how quickly European investors wanted to liquidate Wolfowitz when word got out about his 'transgression'. It wasn't just becuse they disagree with his politics, it was because they're afraid of media exposure. They like to operate under a cloak of darkness, the last thing they want is people to question what it is that they actually do.

In the end it was their fear of 'us' - basically everyone not residing in a palatial mansion with a fleet of vehicles - inquiring about 'them' that led them to capitulate to Wolfowitz's bullshit accept-no-guilt resignation speech.

Look into the World Bank's track record, it ain't pretty!

I concede the World Bank is problematic in its own right, yes. And clearly already has a credibility problem, but what Bush and Wolfowitz did was like kicking the fouled soccer player in the (guardless) shins after you've been red-carded for fouling him.

Wolfowitz is out and Tony Blair is in. It is Europe's time to take the torch. Rule Britannia.

The World Bank is a terrorist organization, guilty of financial terrorism on behalf of primarily US corporations, thats why it's always controlled by the US. The World Bank and the US government is frequently little more than an extension of US corps. Just look at the fine job they have done in Mexico, Central and South America at keeping the people poor and so easily manageable for the benefit of the US plutocracy.
Now so many South American countries are described as left leaning, that means they are working for the benefit of themselves and their people. If thats left leaning then so am I. Even though I have been an independant voter since the late sixties due to the Vietnam debacle. 58,000 dead in the last political/politician run war(Johnson and Nixon).
Europe seems to run on a higher moral plane than our republican republic. The EU should pull out of the World Bank and have their own 'World Bank'. Methinks they would do a better job, at least they should try. If as one poster said Tony Blair gets the Wolfie job he will be just another extension of Bush and our rethugs. So nothing gained. A EU world bank needs someone of higher credentials and morals than Blair. I would not wish Blair on the world anymore than I wish Bush/Cheney/Rove/ or any member of the Bush family and the Republican party on the rest of the world. An EU 'World Bank' would be a more secular organization and secular= absence of decadent religions=better for human beings= better for poor human beings.

Wolfowitz's brief reign was the icing on top of a multilayered and pungent wedding cake. But lets not kid ourselves in thinking that the Europeans have some kind of moral high ground here b. They appoint the president of the IMF and thats not exactly a vessel for goodness, its not some yellow submarine dispensing rainbows and capital to those most in need.

It gives loans and grants, often unneeded, on the condition that the West gets first crack at looting treasuries and stealing resources. They often choose nations that are recovering from natural or man-made disasters, or going through a tumultuous poltical change.

And their policies like the World Bank's always serve banks, insurance companies, multinational corporations, and the investment class at the expense of everyone else. To the average Joe and Jill it means years of extreme hardship or utter destitution.

Their formula is simple privatize everything, slash corporate taxes while increasing sales taxes, jack up interest rates and limit credit and currency. And what happens next? Jobs instantly disapear while everything gets more expensive.

This is well documented from Argentina to Russia.

Here's a look at how the IMF helped Hungary adjust to the capitalist global economy: http://www.cfoss.com/IMF-poison.html

The World Bank's comments on the failure of their ethics boards are far too generous to themselves. First of all their policy that forced out Shaha Riza seems both unfair and inconsistant. She was only marginally under his supervision. THe World Bank allows husbands and wives to work together under certain restrictions, but not unmarried couples. What is this vestige of religiousity doing in an international financial institution? Shaha would have influence over Wolfowitz whether she worked at the bank or not.
I cannot understand why the ethics board ordered Wolfowitz to deal with the matter personally rather than assigning a senior manager. They received complaints in January 2006 from a disgruntled World Bank employee about the pay raise, and concluded that there was no evidence of misconduct.
This persistant laziness is not evidence of incompetence: the bank leadership held their fire until such time that the European governments decided Wolfowitz had to go.

Wolfowitz did not exemplify the highest moral behavior for somebody who was suppose to clean up corruption. He did a bad job of handling Iraq and then he gets a promotion to the World Bank. His handling of the Iraq situation is grounds enough to send him to the garbage pile of history, along with his puppet Bush. His promotion was also corruption.