This morning, the Paul Wolfowitz scandal at the World Bank seems to be all over but the blaming.

The controversy hit an absurd point yesterday when Wolfowitz's lawyer, Bob Bennett, declared his client "will not leave under a cloud." Wolfowitz wants a statement from the Bank's board of directors (which is again meeting today to deal with the Wolfowitz affair) saying that he had committed no intentional wrongdoing when he arranged a generous salary boost for his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, who worked at the bank (and who had to be reassigned out of the Bank when Wolfowitz arrived as president). Team Wolfowitz is demanding that the board note that Wolfowitz received bad advice from others at the Bank. Sure, this is an obvious attempt at face-saving. But it is an odd position. If Wolfowitz had done no wrong, why should he leave?

The problem is this: a special committee of the board found that Wolfowitz broke the rules and engaged in a conflict of interest (at the urging of Riza) for Riza's financial benefit. She stood to gain millions of dollars due to his action. The panel's report was a strong indictment. ( I explain that here.) That is, the cloud is already there. Bennett cannot blow it away.

Wolfowitz, who never had to pay for the mistakes he made that led to the disaster in Iraq, is trying to dodge accountability. With the White House now signaling it would be okay with a Wolfowitz departure, Wolfowitz is trying to blackmail the Bank: if you don't denounce the findings of your own panel and clear me, I won't resign; I'll force you to fire me.

Though the Bank's board and Wolfowitz have yet to work through whatever convoluted terms might be crafted, it seems it would be impossible for Wolfowitz to remain at the Bank at this point. Think of Alec Baldwin and Kim Bassinger getting back together. Absent a surprise ending worthy of Hitchcock, Wolfowitz is destined to be the first Bank president to resign under fire since the institution was founded in 1944. The final moves are merely about spin.

The Bank's special committee concluded that Wolfowitz has been preoccupied "with self interest over [the] institutional best interest" of the Bank. With his last stand, Wolfowitz appears to be confirming this finding. It's a display of the same sort of arrogance and hubris that landed the United States in a mess in Iraq. Coincidence? I think not.

Posted by David Corn at May 17, 2007 11:23 AM