Even the most hackneyed of Hollywood schlockmeisters wouldn't dare to reuse a plot so often. Iraq. Katrina. The story is always the same. It starts with some vaguely formed plan that, while it may be packed in words we usually think of as good (freedom, democracy, etc.) lacks any real substance or detail. Said plan is then executed with blind arrogance, and a stiff-necked insistence that reality must be ignored until it can be made to conform with the goals. And while the rest of the world is forced to smash its nose against the fantasy, those in charge bumble on with the confidence that their vision is so innately superior that they can act as they will.

No one executes this script like Paul Wolfowitz. As the chief architect of Iraq policy, Wolfowitz was "certain we will be greeted as liberators." His plan called for us to march along flower-strewn streets wearing crowns of laurel leaves, watch as Iraqi's renamed their capital Georgebushdad, and ride the tidal wave of freedom that would sweep the Middle East. Funny thing is, that's still the plan. One of the core concepts of any neocon fantasy is that if at first you fail, just keep putting more people in harm's way until the bad guys tire of killing them. 100,000 U.S. casualties, maybe a million dead Iraqis. Then comes the flowers, just you wait and see.

After failing upward into the leadership of the World Bank, Wolfowitz launched a crusade against corruption.

He felt so strongly about the need to fight corruption that he moved on his own to suspend World Bank assistance to several countries because of his dissatisfaction with their anti-corruption efforts.

Stamping out corruption is an admirable goal, but then so is bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East. Anyone can have admirable goals, it's the execution that counts. When it comes to executing his stamp out corruption campaign, Wolfowitz didn't seem to consider that the only action available to the World Bank was holding up the money. In other words, he was saying to the bad guys "until you stop skimming off some of the money, I'll stop giving you the money."

The Republic of Congo, in West Central Africa, is among the countries where corruption allegations have prompted Wolfowitz to try to block international assistance. Nearly 70 percent of the population in the former French colony subsists on less than $1 per day.

You might notice one or two tiny logical problems with this. First, the people in these countries were astoundingly poor and badly in need of the money, whether or not some "strong men" were making off with much of it. Second, the strong men who had demonstrated their lack of concern for their starving populace by stealing the money in the first place, saw little reason to cooperate with a deal cutting them off from their source of iPods and plasma screens (and in the case of the Congo, those in charge were already collecting billions on oil deals, so it wasn't as if they were suffering along with their people).

Still, it was important that the bank take on corruption. There were many governments in and out of the area willing to help, and organizations ready to champion the cause. With strong cooperation from other agencies and nations who had options outside the "starve them till the leaders agree to be good" approach, it could have been a major turning point.

Unfortunately, Wolfowitz demonstrated the same concerns for others' opinions that he displayed in planning those parties in Iraq.

In the process, however, Wolfowitz angered key European governments. He also alienated many staff members who felt he was acting arbitrarily and disregarding the views of development professionals with many years of World Bank experience... "The World Bank is a development institution, not an anti-corruption institution," says Dennis de Tray, who left the bank in 2006 after more than 20 years directing programs from Indonesia to Latin America. "It's not a police force, and it's not a keeper of moral standards. The bank's approach to corruption needs to be seen through a development lens. Corruption is just one of many constraints that developing countries face."

With all of this, Wolfowitz was actually making a lot more progress toward fighting corruption at the World Bank than he had toward getting a street named after him in Baghdad. But, when you've created a huge amount of disruption and dislike within an organization, it's probably a good thing if you don't demonstrate that final part of the neocon plotline, the part where you show no rules apply when it comes to you.

Paul D. Wolfowitz’s tenure as president of the World Bank was thrown into turmoil on Thursday by the disclosure that he had helped arrange a pay raise for his companion at the time of her transfer from the bank to the State Department, where she remained on the bank payroll.

Having secured for his girlfriend a job at the State Department where the World Bank treated her to a $193,000 tax free salary (which is, by the way, greater than that of Condoleezza Rice), Wolfowitz's credentials as a fighter of corruption are now on par with Kim Jung Il's bona fides for pushing democracy.

He's followed the neocon script to the letter. Launch a quixotic but laudable-sounding quest, disregard how your actions may be harming the people you are supposedly helping, and demonstrate your disdain for the rules as they apply to yourself. Truly, nobody does it better.

But there's one part of the plot that Wolfowitz may not get to test. That lather-rinse-repeat cycle where you sacrifice tens of thousands to prove that 1 = 2.

Paul Wolfowitz's future as president of the World Bank was in jeopardy on Friday after the bank's board issued a damaging finding of facts on his role in the Shaha Riza affair and pledged to "move expeditiously to reach a conclusion on possible actions to take."

While Bush bullied the World Bank into accepting Wolfowitz as their leader, the comb-licker in chief may not be able to hold his position after giving his opponents such ammunition. After all, we're not talking about hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying because of his policies there, or tens of thousands of Africans starving for his ideals at the bank. This is paying for sex. This is something important.