The hole in the hole in the socks scandal

Here's the question about Paul Wolfowitz that I asked last week:

Why on earth would an intelligent man conduct himself in a way that was clearly against the spirit and probably the letter of the Bank's rules? How could a man running an anti-corruption drive and making internal enemies along the way, not realise that his actions regarding his girlfriend were suicidal?

The answer I gave was that he was an adviser, not a bureaucrat and used to acting outside the formal structures.

It turns out this answer isn't the correct one.

The correct one is that he didn't act against the letter or spirit of Bank rules at all. Here, via normblog, is The Wall Street Journal's anatomy of a smear.

Comments

[Sam Coates]

"We're glad the Bush Administration isn't falling for this Euro-bureaucracy-media putsch."

What a great sentence.

[bert]

The Wall Street Journal is best understood as two separate institutions. One - the news operation - is excellent. The other - the editorial side - is skewed to the point of bias.

Frequently it sinks to the level of slapstick, and if you're interested in the anatomy of a smear, you might want to look inside their book-length fluffing of the Whitewater affair. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1881944042/sr=1-1/qid=1152724964/ref=sr_1_1/104-7382516-1789551?ie=UTF8&s=books)

Occasionally the division between the two sides of the WSJ gets publicly aired (see for example http://www.observer.com/20060717/20060717_Gabriel_Sherman_media_offtherecord.asp)
in response to a particularly grating infraction.

All of which should alert you to the need to look carefully at the WSJ editorial page's claims to present the facts, and to think carefully before you present their claims as the "correct" version. They are quoting selectively from the documents. The Wolfowitz camp has done the same, using the World Bank's website, and has been criticised for it (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/32e2166e-eb84-11db-b290-000b5df10621.html).

The WSJ piece is part of a campaign to keep Wolfowitz in post, and you should be attaching the appropriate caveats. Norm Geras manages to do so. You don't, and your failure reinforces the perception that you have something of a tin ear for what goes on over there. People are still chuckling about you labelling Mickey Kaus (?!!) as someone who could break Hillary. Sharpen up.