What's up with Wolfowitz?

This morning's NY Times informs us that the Europeans have proposed a deal wherein if Wolfowitz resigns quickly, they will let the U.S. pick the next leader of the World Bank.

WASHINGTON, May 7 — Leading governments of Europe, mounting a new campaign to push Paul D. Wolfowitz from his job as World Bank president, signaled Monday that they were willing to let the United States choose the bank’s next chief, but only if Mr. Wolfowitz stepped down soon, European officials said.

European officials had previously indicated that they wanted to end the tradition of the United States picking the World Bank leader. But now the officials are hoping to enlist American help in persuading Mr. Wolfowitz to resign voluntarily, rather than be rebuked or ousted.

Frankly, I don't get it. Wolfowitz is going to go one way or the other. If he doesn't resign, they're going to give him the boot. So, what's in it for Europe to try to get him to go quietly? Yes, Bush can try to screw them, but he's got less than two years to run and only about six months more in which he has any kind of clout. So, once again I ask, what's in it for Europe?

Meanwhile, how will Bush react to this? He doesn't fold easily, even when his highest card is a deuce (and not a wild one either). He may just tell Wolfie to hang in there, and, when Wolfie is finally skewered, demand to pick the next World Bank leader anyway. What's to stop the King of the World from doing anything, anyway?


Update:

Meanwhile, right after posting this, I came across this piece at Raw Story:

A World Bank panel has found President Paul Wolfowitz guilty of a "conflict of interest," according to a breaking report at the New York Times website.

"A bank committee formally transmitted its findings that he was guilty of a conflict of interest in arranging for a pay raise and promotion in 2005 to Shaha Ali Riza, his companion," wrote Steven Weisman late on Monday afternoon.

The panel's finding have not been made public, and Weisman added that "It was not clear whether the committee, consisting of 7 of the bank’s 24 board members, would remove Mr. Wolfowitz from his post or, more likely, express a loss of confidence in his leadership in a manner that might persuade him to resign."

The news came as Wolfowitz's adviser Kevin Kellems resigned, complaining that the cloud over the Bush appointed president made his work at the institution useless.

Frankly, the two stories seem to be somewhat inconsistent to me. So, what's up?