1) You don’t know Wolfowitz’s motivation for going into the World Bank and you have no evidence that he could have gotten a higher paying job in the private sector. The private sector punishes those who have been spectacularly and publicly wrong. In the current post-Abramoff atmosphere it would have been difficult for Wolfowitz to trade on his contacts, and if he has any abilities whatsoever that could be exercised legally and ethically, it isn’t obvious to me.

2) It is common in business and governmental to prohibit spouses or domestic partners from having a direct or indirect supervisory relationship. The word “indirect” is in the World Banks employment policies and obviously excludes your, “he would not have been supervising her, or even her boss, directly.” You and Wolfowitz might have tried to Google the phrase, “world bank employment policies” as I did. It is the first result. If he did not like this policy, he was free to try to find a different employer.

Fact 3) is in dispute. While it does seem clear that the ethics committee told Wolfowitz to “take care of it” as you say, it seems that Wolfowitz specified very favorable terms instead of leaving to the HR director as the committee expected from its previous conversations.

4) Again is in dispute. They accepted the arrangement that they thought had been made, not the arrangement that Wolfowitz had in fact made.

5) See 1) although I don’t see how your speculations depend critically on those aides role. However, the fact that one of those aides has resigned, pointedly praising and thanking the bank’s staff, but not Wolfowitz, is a fact that any acceptable theory of the case would have to account for, don’t you think?

In the interest of factual disclosure, shouldn’t you mention that both you and Wolfowitz are beneficiaries of funding from the Olin Foundation. Would I be wrong in presuming that this fact might color your perception of some other facts?