Surely that would end up all talk of removing PW.

Does this seem at all like they are trying to deny him due process to defend himself? — one to which they agreed, even if it involved some coersion to give him a week.

The intentional media furor over the “offenses” has far outstripped whatever actually did or did not happen.

I think there is a lot of common sense in what Bush is saying which is to divorce the first issue (did he do wrong and is it fireable) from the second issue (is he the right one to lead the bank forward?).

The latest white house proposal proposes just this and keeps room open for replacing him even if he is found not to be in gross error if there is a better direction or management style for the bank.

it is really ironic to see so many people concerned about the “reputation” of the bank against corruption when it is generally well known that in many developing countries as much as a third of WB monies provided actually only line the pockets of select officials. We are talking about billions of dollars.

Beware whoever tries to stand in front of THAT gravy train.