The scandal over Paul Wolfowitz’s alleged nepotism at the World Bank is growing. Many World Bank staffers are wearing blue ribbons to show their support of his dismissal and the European members of the board are not hiding their desire for Wolfowitz’s exit. But the facts of the case continue to grow in complexity as Wolfowitz’s defenders and detractors argue over his fate.

Robert B. Holland III, a former World Bank board member, offers his take on why Wolfowitz is being targeted. It’s the politics stupid, not financial infidelities.

Sydney Blumenthal sees Wolfowitz’s tenure at the world bank as “yet another case study of neoconservative government in action.” For Blumenthal the Wolfowitz scandal is marked by other neoconservative traits: “grandiosity, cronyism, self-dealing and lying—followed by an energetic campaign to deflect accountability.”

The Washington Post argues that we shouldn’t rush to judgment of Wolfowitz. The facts are complex, and though Wolfowitz did apparently make some bad choices, this might not be the scandal his detractors would like us to believe.

David Rieff says that the staff of the World Bank were gunning for Wolfowitz from the day he was nominated. This is unfair, perhaps, but Wolfowitz gave them the “loaded revolver with which to do the deed.”