Possible bombshell: World Bank admits to real reason behind Wolfowitz’s ouster?

Saw this little blurb at the WaPo’s Editorialist blog:

WSJ … notes that Herman Wijffels, the head of the committee that accused World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz of ethical violations, recently admitted that the charges against Wolfowitz “were just an alibi to force Mr. Wolfowitz to resign” …

I would really like to read that entire article, but I am not a WSJ subscriber. Anyone out there reading this who is one, would you email me the text of the article or even a summary so I can read this in context? On its face, it’s a stunning admission, but I’d like some context just to be sure. I said a couple of weeks ago when I was blogging about this that it looked like a set up, and it sounds to me that that indeed was the case.

Of course, now after the media swarmed over the issue, and noted how Wolfie’s girlfriend’s allged ‘sweetheart deal’ was the crux of the ‘issue’ at the World Bank, Wijffels is saying it was Wolfie’s “incompentency” that lead to his forced resignation:

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands: Paul Wolfowitz’s shortcomings as an effective manager of the World Bank were the primary reason for his ouster, not the pay hike he approved for his girlfriend, said two Dutch politicians who helped engineer his resignation.

During his two years at the helm, Wolfowitz “had not developed any coherent strategy for the World Bank,” said Herman Wijffels in an interview published Monday.

“I attempted to talk to him about it, but he wasn’t interested,” Wijffels told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant.

Wijffels is the executive director who chaired the special panel that blasted Wolfowitz for mixing bank business with his personal relationship with bank employee Shaha Riza. His report was widely seen as making Wolfowitz’s position untenable.

“If he had otherwise been a good leader, this may not have come so far,” he said.

Development Minister Bert Koenders, who along with his German counterpart brought the Riza affair to the bank’s attention, said the bank was in “crisis” under Wolfowitz’s leadership.

Koenders said the Netherlands and other European countries had tacitly threatened to cut their funding to the bank if Wolfowitz remained.

“The name of the bank was on the line, and all European countries together make up the largest donor,” he told the Nova television program at the weekend.

And when money talks, damn the facts.

Bonus question: How does the World Bank parallel with the Democratic party? Both claim to want ‘reform‘ but when it comes to doing it, they’d rather keep things at the status quo/business as usual by resisting the very changes they claim to want to implement. Their promises are absolutely meaningless.