Wolfie To The Wolves

Paul Wolfowitz defended himself against spurious charges before the World Bank board today. After running a hit-piece on him Saturday (ignoring exculpatory evidence that had already appeared in the WSJ), yesterday's and today's WaPo stories acknowledge the truth of the matter. The only thing Wolfie did wrong was trust an ethics panel. Why is the blogosphere not rising to speak for their man? As we've been discussing, the European board members dislike Wolfie because he seems to be doing a stellar job. Ending corruption. Not allowing the Bank to push an abortion agenda.

Bloomberg (curtsy Instapundit) notes another wrinkle on the story: the scandal of the World Bank salary scale.

But the WaPo stories tell the real tale of why Wolfowitz' job is on the line. He is hated because of his previous job. Otherwise, why is this line the 2nd sentence in the Sunday piece?

Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq war in his preceding Pentagon job.

I don't see why his previous line of work is relevant to whether he's committed nepotism now, but --lookee-- here it is again, 6th sentence in today's story:

The controversy has prompted calls for the resignation of Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq war in his preceding Pentagon job.

See, if he was for the war in Iraq, we're justified in anything we say about him or do to him! Here, in evil pdf files, are Wolfie's document submissions and opening statement, both of which are quite damning to his accusers. The Bank's decision is expected sometime this week; if they call for his resignation --and the Right let them do so without any effort to shame them out of it--well, shame on everyone.