Wolfowitz to head World Bank

If one had to select two men who exemplify the extremes of the limits of acceptable discourse (the "bounds of the expressible" as Chomsky once put it) in US politics, Joseph Stiglitz (former World Bank chief during Clinton era, now fierce critic of US-led "liberalization" and privatization in developing countries) and Paul Wolfowitz would be ideal candidates. The announcement that President Bush is nominating Wolfowitz to head the World Bank brought a great many questions to mind. One is how on earth the authority to make the appointment got given to the US President in the first place - it was news to me, but perhaps should not be surprising for an organisation in which the US holds a de facto veto on any decisions made (it's 1 dollar, 1 vote).
But a more pressing question, I feel - and harder to answer, for me anyway - is: what does the appointment of John Bolton as US Ambassador to the UN and of Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank signify for the Bush Administration and the neoconservatives in and around it? Is it part of a strategy to integrate neo-conservative favourites in to the powerful global institutions for ideological reasons, or does it have to do with in-fighting within the administration. In other words, if the US government largely ignores decisions made in the UN and the World Bank, is giving Bolton and Wolfowitz those important-sounding but not-very-influential posts a means by which Condaleeza Rice and her allies can dominate the foreign policy establishment, perhaps other branches of government. I don't know enough about in-fighting in the Bush administration to answer, but if anyone thinks they have an answer, let's hear it!