Is World Banks Wolfowitz Being Treated Fairly

Is it "what goes around comes around," "At issue is Mr. Wolfowitz's role in arranging for a pay and promotion package for Shaha Ali Riza, his companion, when he became bank president in 2005. Ms. Riza had been a bank employee for seven years and was detailed to the State Department to avoid a potential conflict of interest for Mr. Wolfowitz." (NY Times, 042607) Is this the entire picture, so that we are debating the fate of an accomplished businessperson, with knowledge of the incredibly complex workings of the World Bank, based on what is essentially a management style question? After this individual, has voluntarily given over to instructor guidance, about that very thing. Is there something else taking place here? Conspiracy theory demagogs are going to have a field day with that, only, would they be right this time?

"Mr. Wolfowitz, increasingly isolated at the bank and facing a board seemingly determined to force his resignation, sent a letter to the head of a board panel dealing with issues affecting his leadership, asking to appear before the board next week in the interest of "fairness to me" and "good governance" at the bank." (NY Times, 042607) Does this seem to be the actions of a concerned leader, not just taking into account his own hide, but being concerned for the organization? There is a time to withdraw, a time to fight, and a time when neither is appropriate, in this instance, can you see where it makes sense for the organization for Wolfowitz not to back down?

"Bank officials described many on the 24-member board as having been taken aback by the tough tone of the letter but said the board appeared likely to grant Mr. Wolfowitz at least some of his request, perhaps by allowing him to appear next week, though not necessarily with his newly hired lawyer, Robert S. Bennett." (NY Times, 042607) So let's get to the crunch questions on this:
1) If it's not just Wolfowitz under attack, who else would be in the line of fire?
2) How is what is essentially an internal matter of administrative discord brought into the public arena, with nobody asking about it? (Is Ms. Riza the real issue?)
3) What else might be at stake in an issue involving Mr. Wolfowitz?

In the line of fire is a President of the United States, Mr. Wolfowitz was nominated by him, a nomination which brought differing reception A British-based campaign group, the World Development Movement, described the nomination as a "truly terrifying appointment". (BBC, 17 March 2005) As to the matter being ostensibly internal administration, let's consider the normal progression, of people who work with people, who become powerful? Can you detect any hypocrisy in these 24 board members choosing the size of their "stones" to toss against Wolfowitz over Ms. Riza? Which brings us to the decisive factor, what else might be at issue; and the alarming response takes us back to a nation that has become the media's beat boy for poor treatment by the world, Africa. Accompanying this piece is a picture of the home page World Bank, and a child who displays the need that the media keeps bringing to our attention. This need; Mr. Wolfowitz has been praised by the President of the U.S., for trying to help with. Do you think it's possible that this unpopular assistance is also part of the heat in this issue.