Full Version: The Hook-up
Why does Paul Wolfowitz still have a job? The former Deputy Secretary of Defense is now the President of the World Bank.
This guy gets caught red-handed hooking his girlfriend up with egregious raises, "short listing" her, admits to all of it, and still does not have the decency to resign.
Have we become a society that readily excepts corruption. While everyone is working hard to get Imus fired, it seems some other crooks get to stick around.
I don't get it.
Should Wolfowitz resign immediately?
Does the fact that he can still stay in place for this long amid the demands from his employees that he resign mark the degree of power and influence the U.S. has in supposedly International Organizations??
Do you wish you could hook your significant other up like this??
This guy gets caught red-handed hooking his girlfriend up with egregious raises, "short listing" her, admits to all of it, and still does not have the decency to resign.
Have we become a society that readily excepts corruption. While everyone is working hard to get Imus fired, it seems some other crooks get to stick around.I don't get it.
Should Wolfowitz resign immediately?
Does the fact that he can still stay in place for this long amid the demands from his employees that he resign mark the degree of power and influence the U.S. has in supposedly International Organizations??
Do you wish you could hook your significant other up like this??
Oh puhleeez.
The guy did everything he could to distance himself from this "scandal" before it was a scandal and shockingly the EU gang was, from the outset, looking for any reason they could find to get this guy out of the position!
From people who understand money :
"First, I would like to acknowledge that Mr. Wolfowitz has disclosed to the Board, through you, that he has a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staff member, and that he proposes to resolve the conflict of interest in relation to Staff Rule 3.01, Paragraph 4.02 by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member."
***
Based on this paper trail, Mr. Wolfowitz's only real mistake was in assuming that everyone else was acting in good faith. Yet when some of these details leaked to the media, nearly everyone else at the bank dodged responsibility and let Mr. Wolfowitz twist in the wind.
***
All of this is so unfair that Mr. Wolfowitz could be forgiven for concluding that bank officials insisted he play a role in raising Ms. Riza's pay precisely so they could use it against him later. Even if that isn't true, it's clear that his enemies--especially Europeans who want the bank presidency to go to one of their own--are now using this to force him out of the bank. They especially dislike his anticorruption campaign, as do his opponents in the staff union and such elites of the global poverty industry as Nancy Birdsall of the Center for Global Development. They prefer the status quo that holds them accountable only for how much money they lend, not how much they actually help the poor.
The guy did everything he could to distance himself from this "scandal" before it was a scandal and shockingly the EU gang was, from the outset, looking for any reason they could find to get this guy out of the position!
From people who understand money :
"First, I would like to acknowledge that Mr. Wolfowitz has disclosed to the Board, through you, that he has a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staff member, and that he proposes to resolve the conflict of interest in relation to Staff Rule 3.01, Paragraph 4.02 by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member."
***
Based on this paper trail, Mr. Wolfowitz's only real mistake was in assuming that everyone else was acting in good faith. Yet when some of these details leaked to the media, nearly everyone else at the bank dodged responsibility and let Mr. Wolfowitz twist in the wind.
***
All of this is so unfair that Mr. Wolfowitz could be forgiven for concluding that bank officials insisted he play a role in raising Ms. Riza's pay precisely so they could use it against him later. Even if that isn't true, it's clear that his enemies--especially Europeans who want the bank presidency to go to one of their own--are now using this to force him out of the bank. They especially dislike his anticorruption campaign, as do his opponents in the staff union and such elites of the global poverty industry as Nancy Birdsall of the Center for Global Development. They prefer the status quo that holds them accountable only for how much money they lend, not how much they actually help the poor.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 20 2007, 11:25 AM) 
Oh puhleeez.
The guy did everything he could to distance himself from this "scandal" before it was a scandal and shockingly the EU gang was, from the outset, looking for any reason they could find to get this guy out of the position!
From people who understand money :
"First, I would like to acknowledge that Mr. Wolfowitz has disclosed to the Board, through you, that he has a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staff member, and that he proposes to resolve the conflict of interest in relation to Staff Rule 3.01, Paragraph 4.02 by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member."
***
Based on this paper trail, Mr. Wolfowitz's only real mistake was in assuming that everyone else was acting in good faith. Yet when some of these details leaked to the media, nearly everyone else at the bank dodged responsibility and let Mr. Wolfowitz twist in the wind.
***
All of this is so unfair that Mr. Wolfowitz could be forgiven for concluding that bank officials insisted he play a role in raising Ms. Riza's pay precisely so they could use it against him later. Even if that isn't true, it's clear that his enemies--especially Europeans who want the bank presidency to go to one of their own--are now using this to force him out of the bank. They especially dislike his anticorruption campaign, as do his opponents in the staff union and such elites of the global poverty industry as Nancy Birdsall of the Center for Global Development. They prefer the status quo that holds them accountable only for how much money they lend, not how much they actually help the poor.
you should have said for the people who understand corruption, before you pointed to that link. What your link is pointing at is that the some members may have been willing to let corruption slide as long as the world didn't know, and they didn't have their hands dirty.The world found out and they left Wolfie holding the bag to fend for himself. What did he expect?? If the board was not getting involved in the decision to give his girlfreind a raise he had to iunderstand they were distancing themselves from it, because of the corrupt implications.
"Dude, you're hooking your Girlfriend up!!"
They knew what he was doing, he knew what he was doing, he got caught.
Obviously there is an ethics problem that could not be resolved with him being the President, even with his assurance that he would recuse himself. Hello, who ever his Girlfriend answered to would still, ultimately, answer to him.
Hold on, what did the experts say though...
That would have settled the matter at any rational institution, given that his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, worked four reporting layers below the president in the bank hierarchy.
Why is it irrational??... the first time Wolfie had a chance to hook his girl up.... He HOOKED her up!!!
But then again it appears he hooks up his girl whenever he can??
QUOTE
Also on Friday, the Pentagon said that a 2005 investigation by its inspector general determined that while he served as deputy secretary of defense, Wolfowitz had personally recommended that companion Shaha Riza be awarded a 2003 contract to study ways to set up a new government in Iraq. Officials refused to release the report, but said it concludes that Wolfowitz, a chief architect of the Iraq campaign, did not violate ethics regulations.
Once again... he is just hooking up his breezy... no big deal.
He just raised Shaha Riza's tax-free salary from $132,660 to $193,000.
Tax free??? Hmm what's that equivelant to about 100,000 taxable??
QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 20 2007, 03:47 PM)
But Droop it wasn't his idea to give her the promotion or the raise.
If he's guilty of something it's not seeing this coming.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 20 2007, 01:56 PM)
QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 20 2007, 03:47 PM)
But Droop it wasn't his idea to give her the promotion or the raise.
If he's guilty of something it's not seeing this coming.
It was all his idea as to what to give her. He dictated the terms of her raise without any input from the board. They may have agreed upon a raise, but don't you think a 36% raise is a little... I don't know... excessive??
Add to that there were other guarantees. Like a guaranteed 8% annual raise.
QUOTE
Three months after assuming the World Bank presidency in June 2005, Wolfowitz sent Riza on assignment to the State Department to comply with rules forbidding one partner from reporting to another. Riza, who stayed on the bank payroll, got a promotion and a 36 percent pay increase that was twice as large as allowed by bank rules, according to the Staff Association, which represents employees.
The following year, Riza, a U.K. citizen who was born in Libya, received a 7.5 percent raise, bringing her salary to $193,590, more than is earned by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Her agreement with the World Bank guaranteed her an annual raise of about 8 percent
The following year, Riza, a U.K. citizen who was born in Libya, received a 7.5 percent raise, bringing her salary to $193,590, more than is earned by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Her agreement with the World Bank guaranteed her an annual raise of about 8 percent
QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 20 2007, 04:10 PM)
It was all his idea as to what to give her. He dictated the terms of her raise without any input from the board. They may have agreed upon a raise, but don't you think a 36% raise is a little... I don't know... excessive??
Not really. But... From the same piece -
QUOTE
And it was the ethics committee that concluded that Ms. Riza's job entailed a "de facto conflict of interest" that could only be resolved by her leaving the bank.
Ms. Riza was on a promotion list at the time, and so the bank's ethicists also proposed that she be compensated for this blow to her career. In a July 22, 2005, ethics committee discussion memo, Mr. Danino noted that "there would be two avenues here for promotion--an 'in situ' promotion to Grade GH for the staff member" and promotion through competitive selection to another position." Or, as an alternative, "The Bank can also decide, as part of settlement of claims, to offer an ad hoc salary increase."
Five days later, on July 27, ethics committee chairman Ad Melkert formally advised Mr. Wolfowitz in a memo that "the potential disruption of the staff member's career prospect will be recognized by an in situ promotion on the basis of her qualifying record . . ." In the same memo, Mr. Melkert recommends "that the President, with the General Counsel, communicates this advice" to the vice president for human resources "so as to implement" it immediately.
And in an August 8 letter, Mr. Melkert advised that the president get this done pronto: "The EC [ethics committee] cannot interact directly with staff member situations, hence Xavier [Coll, the human resources vice president] should act upon your instruction." Only then did Mr. Wolfowitz instruct Mr. Coll on the details of Ms. Riza's new job and pay raise.
Needless to say, none of this context has appeared in the media smears suggesting that Mr. Wolfowitz pulled a fast one to pad the pay of Ms. Riza. Yet the record clearly shows he acted only after he had tried to recuse himself but then wasn't allowed to do so by the ethics committee. And he acted only after that same committee advised him to compensate Ms. Riza for the damage to her career from a "conflict of interest" that was no fault of her own.
Ms. Riza was on a promotion list at the time, and so the bank's ethicists also proposed that she be compensated for this blow to her career. In a July 22, 2005, ethics committee discussion memo, Mr. Danino noted that "there would be two avenues here for promotion--an 'in situ' promotion to Grade GH for the staff member" and promotion through competitive selection to another position." Or, as an alternative, "The Bank can also decide, as part of settlement of claims, to offer an ad hoc salary increase."
Five days later, on July 27, ethics committee chairman Ad Melkert formally advised Mr. Wolfowitz in a memo that "the potential disruption of the staff member's career prospect will be recognized by an in situ promotion on the basis of her qualifying record . . ." In the same memo, Mr. Melkert recommends "that the President, with the General Counsel, communicates this advice" to the vice president for human resources "so as to implement" it immediately.
And in an August 8 letter, Mr. Melkert advised that the president get this done pronto: "The EC [ethics committee] cannot interact directly with staff member situations, hence Xavier [Coll, the human resources vice president] should act upon your instruction." Only then did Mr. Wolfowitz instruct Mr. Coll on the details of Ms. Riza's new job and pay raise.
Needless to say, none of this context has appeared in the media smears suggesting that Mr. Wolfowitz pulled a fast one to pad the pay of Ms. Riza. Yet the record clearly shows he acted only after he had tried to recuse himself but then wasn't allowed to do so by the ethics committee. And he acted only after that same committee advised him to compensate Ms. Riza for the damage to her career from a "conflict of interest" that was no fault of her own.
He was parachuted into that job at the insistence of Bush was he not? not exactly the best of pedigrees given the activities of that Republican clique.
What is more does it not call into question this man's judgement, if he acts in this manner what other actions will he condone in his capacity at the World Bank.
Put another way a man daft enough to get caught with his fingers in the till is not bright enough to run a Global Corporation.
What is more does it not call into question this man's judgement, if he acts in this manner what other actions will he condone in his capacity at the World Bank.
Put another way a man daft enough to get caught with his fingers in the till is not bright enough to run a Global Corporation.
Yes... really
Whoooaaaah... If He stayed two terms, His girlfreind would be able to come back and be VP of the Bank??? That is what we call CLOUT, baby. No wonder his staff are demanding his removal.
Also that second paragraph disputes your link's claim that he (Wolfowitz) was willing to recluse himself. BA I don't for one second pretend that the board didn't know about the corruption, but none of them were willing to risk their career top fight it. However it is clear that Wolfowitz planned and designed a way to hook his girlfriend up... just look at the terms.
QUOTE
World Bank President Paul D. Wolfowitz personally dictated the terms under which the bank gave what it called his "domestic partner" substantial pay raises and promotions in exchange for temporarily leaving her job there during his tenure, according to documents released by the bank's executive board yesterday
~~SNIP~~
But the documents also revealed that Wolfowitz's description of events has been less than candid. In a May 25, 2005, letter to Wolfowitz's personal lawyer negotiating his contract, Roberto Dañino, then the bank's general counsel, acknowledged that Wolfowitz had disclosed "a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staffer" and had proposed to resolve it "by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member."
Wolfowitz lawyer Robert Barnett responded two days later with an e-mail stating that the proposal "WOULD NOT -- I REPEAT, NOT -- INVOLVE RECUSAL FROM PROFESSIONAL CONTACT" with Riza. "THIS MATTER," Barnett wrote, "MUST BE RESOLVED" before Wolfowitz would sign his contract.
~~SNIP~~
But the board insisted yesterday that it neither "commented on" nor "reviewed or approved" the agreement that Wolfowitz ordered his human resources department to make with her.
In a memo to the bank's vice president for human resources dated Aug. 11, 2005, Wolfowitz wrote, "I now direct you to agree to a proposal which includes the following terms and conditions." Riza was to be "detailed to an outside institution of her choosing while retaining Bank salary and benefits." She was to receive an immediate raise with approximate annual increases of 8 percent.
By 2010, when Wolfowitz's five-year term expired, she would reach a salary of $244,960, significantly above the maximum of $226,650 allowable for her pay grade. On her return to the bank, she would be automatically promoted to the level of senior country director; if her return were delayed another five years by a second Wolfowitz term, she would be elevated to the level of bank vice president.
~~SNIP~~
But the documents also revealed that Wolfowitz's description of events has been less than candid. In a May 25, 2005, letter to Wolfowitz's personal lawyer negotiating his contract, Roberto Dañino, then the bank's general counsel, acknowledged that Wolfowitz had disclosed "a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staffer" and had proposed to resolve it "by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member."
Wolfowitz lawyer Robert Barnett responded two days later with an e-mail stating that the proposal "WOULD NOT -- I REPEAT, NOT -- INVOLVE RECUSAL FROM PROFESSIONAL CONTACT" with Riza. "THIS MATTER," Barnett wrote, "MUST BE RESOLVED" before Wolfowitz would sign his contract.
~~SNIP~~
But the board insisted yesterday that it neither "commented on" nor "reviewed or approved" the agreement that Wolfowitz ordered his human resources department to make with her.
In a memo to the bank's vice president for human resources dated Aug. 11, 2005, Wolfowitz wrote, "I now direct you to agree to a proposal which includes the following terms and conditions." Riza was to be "detailed to an outside institution of her choosing while retaining Bank salary and benefits." She was to receive an immediate raise with approximate annual increases of 8 percent.
By 2010, when Wolfowitz's five-year term expired, she would reach a salary of $244,960, significantly above the maximum of $226,650 allowable for her pay grade. On her return to the bank, she would be automatically promoted to the level of senior country director; if her return were delayed another five years by a second Wolfowitz term, she would be elevated to the level of bank vice president.
Whoooaaaah... If He stayed two terms, His girlfreind would be able to come back and be VP of the Bank??? That is what we call CLOUT, baby. No wonder his staff are demanding his removal.
Also that second paragraph disputes your link's claim that he (Wolfowitz) was willing to recluse himself. BA I don't for one second pretend that the board didn't know about the corruption, but none of them were willing to risk their career top fight it. However it is clear that Wolfowitz planned and designed a way to hook his girlfriend up... just look at the terms.
Should Wolfowitz resign immediately?
Yes
Does the fact that he can still stay in place for this long amid the demands from his employees that he resign mark the degree of power and influence the U.S. has in supposedly International Organizations??
Yes.
Do you wish you could hook your significant other up like this??
Well lets not get all excited about this minor infraction when we have a Senator directing billions in contracts to companies owned by he husband – and they do a poor job to boot. And she has resigned form the committee but not the Senate!! She should be impeached immediately. Then we can fire the Wolf.
Wouldn't you like to have a spose who could "hook Up" lile this!!!
ON CAPITOL HILL
Feinstein quits committee under war-profiteer cloudReport documents military contracts for firms owned by senator's husband
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=54932
________________________________________
Posted: March 28, 2007
10:05 p.m. Eastern
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report linked her votes to the financial well-being of her husband's companies, which received billions of dollars worth of military construction contracts she approved.
As reported in Metroactive, an online report from the Silicon Valley, Feinstein's resignation followed six years of subcommittee work during which time her alleged conflict of interest stemmed from her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of Perini Corp. and URS Corp.
Feinstein, chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, regularly reviewed and accepted contracts from her husband's companies for not only construction work for military bases, but also addressing "quality of life" issues for the veterans of the United States military services.
Yes
Does the fact that he can still stay in place for this long amid the demands from his employees that he resign mark the degree of power and influence the U.S. has in supposedly International Organizations??
Yes.
Do you wish you could hook your significant other up like this??
Well lets not get all excited about this minor infraction when we have a Senator directing billions in contracts to companies owned by he husband – and they do a poor job to boot. And she has resigned form the committee but not the Senate!! She should be impeached immediately. Then we can fire the Wolf.
Wouldn't you like to have a spose who could "hook Up" lile this!!!
ON CAPITOL HILL
Feinstein quits committee under war-profiteer cloudReport documents military contracts for firms owned by senator's husband
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=54932
________________________________________
Posted: March 28, 2007
10:05 p.m. Eastern
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report linked her votes to the financial well-being of her husband's companies, which received billions of dollars worth of military construction contracts she approved.
As reported in Metroactive, an online report from the Silicon Valley, Feinstein's resignation followed six years of subcommittee work during which time her alleged conflict of interest stemmed from her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of Perini Corp. and URS Corp.
Feinstein, chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, regularly reviewed and accepted contracts from her husband's companies for not only construction work for military bases, but also addressing "quality of life" issues for the veterans of the United States military services.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 20 2007, 04:42 PM)
Yes... really
Also that second paragraph disputes your link's claim that he (Wolfowitz) was willing to recluse himself. BA I don't for one second pretend that the board didn't know about the corruption, but none of them were willing to risk their career top fight it. However it is clear that Wolfowitz planned and designed a way to hook his girlfriend up... just look at the terms.
OK we're just going to dance around this same point over and over.
Riza had to lose her job because her boyfriend showed up and the WBO compensated her. Probably a lot cheaper than the lawsuit she might have brought.
Even if it went down exactly like you think it did (and it didn't)... so? Nepotism happens. Deal with it. I don't see what the huge scandal is... Seems to me that the real issue here is the connection to Bush. I could bring up similar scandals in other World Institutions that make a worst case scenario here pale in comparison.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 20 2007, 02:52 PM)
QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 20 2007, 04:42 PM)
Yes... really
Also that second paragraph disputes your link's claim that he (Wolfowitz) was willing to recluse himself. BA I don't for one second pretend that the board didn't know about the corruption, but none of them were willing to risk their career top fight it. However it is clear that Wolfowitz planned and designed a way to hook his girlfriend up... just look at the terms.
OK we're just going to dance around this same point over and over.
Riza had to lose her job because her boyfriend showed up and the WBO compensated her. Probably a lot cheaper than the lawsuit she might have brought.
Even if it went down exactly like you think it did (and it didn't)... so? Nepotism happens. Deal with it. I don't see what the huge scandal is... Seems to me that the real issue here is the connection to Bush. I could bring up similar scandals in other World Institutions that make a worst case scenario here pale in comparison.
Oh I think my links have ended the dance. Wolfowitz did in fact dictate the terms of her raise and future raises.
QUOTE
Riza had to lose her job because her boyfriend showed up and the WBO compensated her. Probably a lot cheaper than the lawsuit she might have brought.
Even if it went down exactly like you think it did (and it didn't)... so? Nepotism happens. Deal with it. I don't see what the huge scandal is... Seems to me that the real issue here is the connection to Bush. I could bring up similar scandals in other World Institutions that make a worst case scenario here pale in comparison
.Even if it went down exactly like you think it did (and it didn't)... so? Nepotism happens. Deal with it. I don't see what the huge scandal is... Seems to me that the real issue here is the connection to Bush. I could bring up similar scandals in other World Institutions that make a worst case scenario here pale in comparison
So you think he is guilty of Nepotism, but you don't see why there is a huge scandal. At what point would you care about character??Let us look at the synonyms of Nepotism
QUOTE
Main Entry: corruption
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: dishonesty
Synonyms: bribery, bribing, crime, crookedness, demoralization, dishonesty, exploitation, extortion, fiddling, fraud, fraudulency, graft, jobbery, malfeasance, misrepresentation, nepotism, payoff, payola*, profiteering, racket*, shadiness*, shady deal*, shuffle, skimming, squeeze*, unscrupulousness, venality
favoritism
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: bias
Synonyms: discrimination, inclination, inequity, nepotism, one-sidedness, partiality, partisanship, preference, preferential treatment, unfairness
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: dishonesty
Synonyms: bribery, bribing, crime, crookedness, demoralization, dishonesty, exploitation, extortion, fiddling, fraud, fraudulency, graft, jobbery, malfeasance, misrepresentation, nepotism, payoff, payola*, profiteering, racket*, shadiness*, shady deal*, shuffle, skimming, squeeze*, unscrupulousness, venality
favoritism
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: bias
Synonyms: discrimination, inclination, inequity, nepotism, one-sidedness, partiality, partisanship, preference, preferential treatment, unfairness
Antonyms
QUOTE
Antonyms: honesty, incorruption, incorruptness, scruples
Antonyms: fairness, impartiality, nonpartisanship
Yeah BA... what's the big deal?!?!!?
QUOTE
He just raised Shaha Riza's tax-free salary from $132,660 to $193,000.
QUOTE
Add to that there were other guarantees. Like a guaranteed 8% annual raise.
Daaayyymn. I'd almost do the ugly sob for that kind of bank!!
Well, maybe not.....
Seriously, though, I'd like to see Wolfie twist in the wind for what he did as Deputy Secretary of Defense, like the "Office of Special Plans" work to exploit the 9/11 terrorist attacks to campaign and plot the overthrow of Saddam, and all the offenses that followed. The war is a more egregious offense than setting up his chippie with a cushy job. Or appointing an Opus Dei Catholic to remove contraception from programs in Africa. I'm sure there are many, many worst things to fire Wolfowitz over.
But, if it's a little piece of tush that gets him, that's poetic justice, my friends.
This is awesome. I get to disagree with Ted again.
Should Wolfowitz resign immediately?
No.
Does the fact that he can still stay in place for this long amid the demands from his employees that he resign mark the degree of power and influence the U.S. has in supposedly international organizations?
You don’t need Wolfowitz to demonstrate our economic interests are overrepresented in the Bretton Woods Trifecta. We pour billions of dollars into agriculture every year and every year we dismantle smaller, foreign agribusiness as a result. Anti-U.S. resentment grows, struggling democracies can’t compete without our aid, we are fined and shrug it off until the next World Trade Organization symposium, where the corporate media will dutifully focus on the theatrics of a few protesters, the approval of financers, and ignore the well thought-out objections of grassroots organizations trying to shift the focus of debate to inequalities in the rules governing the international global economy. Rules skewed in favor of first world economies.
Meanwhile, closer to home, the Mexican agribusiness is about to collapse. Mexico can’t compete with our subsidies and for some unfathomable reason they agreed to phase out their farm subsidies per NAFTA’s requirements. Talk about stupid when dealing with us. Rural Mexicans flock in groves to the U.S. and we heave and sob about Mexican flags popping up in pro-illegal-immigration rallies. What goddamn nerve.
Life. She is hard in America.
Do you wish you could hook your significant other up like this?
Why would I want to when it is apparent doing such a thing is unprofessional and questions my significant other’s credentials? That’s not what I call doing right by him.
I don’t think Wolfowitz should go because he’s done a decent job in the World Bank. He has criticized Singapore, surprising me, because that Southeast Asian state, with almost militant rules against wealth distribution is a corporate dreamland. I don’t approve of Wolfowitz’s attempts to undermine family planning. That’s the real hypocrisy revealed so far. I can’t entertain the idea that he and Riza get it on without protection.
At first I thought oh, it’s just like March 2003. Then I read Hitchens’s take on the “scandal”. Hitchens may be a stark-raving lunatic when it comes to Iraq, but I think he’s pretty spot on when it comes to social issues. (In one such fine rant he complained American cities don’t become sister cities with Baghdad and other Iraqi towns. Never mind states were busy looking for corporate fraud and abuse cases to continue offering Medicare while money was diverted to the Pentagon and taxes were cut...)
Anyway, Wolfowitz has produced internal documents that, in my opinion, clear him of any wrongdoing. He disclosed his relationship with Riza to the board from the getgo, and the rest is history. I don’t think he pushed for her pay. Instead Riza was compensated for being shuffled away from the World Bank to avoid the appearance of impropriety in the first place. The ethics committee recommended her increase:
If officials want Wolfowitz to resign it’s because they place the reputation of the World Bank before any contribution he can make to the organization. Kicking Wolfowitz out doesn’t necessarily mean he’s guilty of violating the organization’s ethics. That’s a leap in logic.
All this means is the World Bank doesn’t want to deal with the bad press and I can hate Riza for encouraging Wolfowitz to invade Iraq, but I can’t hate her or Wolfowitz for something they didn’t do.
Should Wolfowitz resign immediately?
No.
Does the fact that he can still stay in place for this long amid the demands from his employees that he resign mark the degree of power and influence the U.S. has in supposedly international organizations?
You don’t need Wolfowitz to demonstrate our economic interests are overrepresented in the Bretton Woods Trifecta. We pour billions of dollars into agriculture every year and every year we dismantle smaller, foreign agribusiness as a result. Anti-U.S. resentment grows, struggling democracies can’t compete without our aid, we are fined and shrug it off until the next World Trade Organization symposium, where the corporate media will dutifully focus on the theatrics of a few protesters, the approval of financers, and ignore the well thought-out objections of grassroots organizations trying to shift the focus of debate to inequalities in the rules governing the international global economy. Rules skewed in favor of first world economies.
Meanwhile, closer to home, the Mexican agribusiness is about to collapse. Mexico can’t compete with our subsidies and for some unfathomable reason they agreed to phase out their farm subsidies per NAFTA’s requirements. Talk about stupid when dealing with us. Rural Mexicans flock in groves to the U.S. and we heave and sob about Mexican flags popping up in pro-illegal-immigration rallies. What goddamn nerve.
Life. She is hard in America.
Do you wish you could hook your significant other up like this?
Why would I want to when it is apparent doing such a thing is unprofessional and questions my significant other’s credentials? That’s not what I call doing right by him.
I don’t think Wolfowitz should go because he’s done a decent job in the World Bank. He has criticized Singapore, surprising me, because that Southeast Asian state, with almost militant rules against wealth distribution is a corporate dreamland. I don’t approve of Wolfowitz’s attempts to undermine family planning. That’s the real hypocrisy revealed so far. I can’t entertain the idea that he and Riza get it on without protection.
At first I thought oh, it’s just like March 2003. Then I read Hitchens’s take on the “scandal”. Hitchens may be a stark-raving lunatic when it comes to Iraq, but I think he’s pretty spot on when it comes to social issues. (In one such fine rant he complained American cities don’t become sister cities with Baghdad and other Iraqi towns. Never mind states were busy looking for corporate fraud and abuse cases to continue offering Medicare while money was diverted to the Pentagon and taxes were cut...)
Anyway, Wolfowitz has produced internal documents that, in my opinion, clear him of any wrongdoing. He disclosed his relationship with Riza to the board from the getgo, and the rest is history. I don’t think he pushed for her pay. Instead Riza was compensated for being shuffled away from the World Bank to avoid the appearance of impropriety in the first place. The ethics committee recommended her increase:
QUOTE(Hitchens)
Perhaps uneasily aware that their decision involved an injustice to someone who was highly esteemed and shortlisted for promotion (and whose job was located a long way away from any decision-making by the bank's president), the ethics committee suggested that an upgrade at Riza's new job might be in order, perhaps also "as part of settlement of claims," to be accompanied by "an ad hoc salary increase." On July 27, the committee's chairman, Dutch politician Ad Melkert, sent a memo to Wolfowitz assuring him that "the potential disruption of the staff member's career prospect will be recognized by an in situ promotion on the basis of her qualifying record."
If officials want Wolfowitz to resign it’s because they place the reputation of the World Bank before any contribution he can make to the organization. Kicking Wolfowitz out doesn’t necessarily mean he’s guilty of violating the organization’s ethics. That’s a leap in logic.
All this means is the World Bank doesn’t want to deal with the bad press and I can hate Riza for encouraging Wolfowitz to invade Iraq, but I can’t hate her or Wolfowitz for something they didn’t do.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Apr 20 2007, 05:37 PM)
QUOTE
He just raised Shaha Riza's tax-free salary from $132,660 to $193,000.
QUOTE
Add to that there were other guarantees. Like a guaranteed 8% annual raise.
Daaayyymn. I'd almost do the ugly sob for that kind of bank!!
Well, maybe not.....
Seriously, though, I'd like to see Wolfie twist in the wind for what he did as Deputy Secretary of Defense, like the "Office of Special Plans" work to exploit the 9/11 terrorist attacks to campaign and plot the overthrow of Saddam, and all the offenses that followed. The war is a more egregious offense than setting up his chippie with a cushy job. Or appointing an Opus Dei Catholic to remove contraception from programs in Africa. I'm sure there are many, many worst things to fire Wolfowitz over.
But, if it's a little piece of tush that gets him, that's poetic justice, my friends.
And here's the real reason anyone cares about this at all. Thanks for putting in one perfectly stated post DG.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 20 2007, 05:13 PM)
Oh I think my links have ended the dance. Wolfowitz did in fact dictate the terms of her raise and future raises.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Riza had to lose her job because her boyfriend showed up and the WBO compensated her. Probably a lot cheaper than the lawsuit she might have brought.
Even if it went down exactly like you think it did (and it didn't)... so? Nepotism happens. Deal with it. I don't see what the huge scandal is... Seems to me that the real issue here is the connection to Bush. I could bring up similar scandals in other World Institutions that make a worst case scenario here pale in comparison.
Even if it went down exactly like you think it did (and it didn't)... so? Nepotism happens. Deal with it. I don't see what the huge scandal is... Seems to me that the real issue here is the connection to Bush. I could bring up similar scandals in other World Institutions that make a worst case scenario here pale in comparison.
QUOTE
So you think he is guilty of Nepotism, but you don't see why there is a huge scandal. At what point would you care about character??QUOTE
I'm sure you do. You're wrong however.
How am I wrong??? Wolfowitz dictated the raise and all of the other perks without anyone else's input.
QUOTE
Be honest. Be really honest. It's not Wolfowitz anymore. It's a guy from Denmark you never heard of - Do you still care? Of course not.
If I hear the story yes, because it would once again paint the World Bank in the corrupt light it should be seen in. But more importantly, why don't you be really honest. If this was a man from Denmark are we even asking what is he still doing around?? Absolutely not. Thye reason why Wolfowith has the slightest audacity to stick around is because he know who is the President, his homie, his pal, Mr. Corruption, G.W. Bush. A Denmark man, unless he has strong ties to the Whhite House would have been replaced by the President by now.
But saying all that.
I still don't get you acceptance of such blatant corruption.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 21 2007, 01:32 AM)
QUOTE
I'm sure you do. You're wrong however.
How am I wrong??? Wolfowitz dictated the raise and all of the other perks without anyone else's input.
QUOTE
Be honest. Be really honest. It's not Wolfowitz anymore. It's a guy from Denmark you never heard of - Do you still care? Of course not.
If I hear the story yes, because it would once again paint the World Bank in the corrupt light it should be seen in. But more importantly, why don't you be really honest. If this was a man from Denmark are we even asking what is he still doing around?? Absolutely not. Thye reason why Wolfowith has the slightest audacity to stick around is because he know who is the President, his homie, his pal, Mr. Corruption, G.W. Bush. A Denmark man, unless he has strong ties to the Whhite House would have been replaced by the President by now.
But saying all that.
I still don't get you acceptance of such blatant corruption.
I don't read the stroy like you do. I read the story as a hatchet job. I don't even like Wolfowitz but this is a non story turned into a major news event. This is on par with the Gonzles "firings" - big bleeping deal. The President can fire anyone who works under him.
To return to this manufactured outrage - we're not talking about millions of dollars being lost. We're not talking about hungry children gone unfed. AT WORST, at the absolute most depraved version of this story we're talking about a guy getting his girlfriend a somewhat sweeter deal. 20K more than she might have gotten otherwise - BFD! In the world of the wealthy 20K is roughly equal to me lending you 40 bucks.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 21 2007, 08:25 AM)
QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 21 2007, 01:32 AM)
QUOTE
I'm sure you do. You're wrong however.
How am I wrong??? Wolfowitz dictated the raise and all of the other perks without anyone else's input.
QUOTE
Be honest. Be really honest. It's not Wolfowitz anymore. It's a guy from Denmark you never heard of - Do you still care? Of course not.
If I hear the story yes, because it would once again paint the World Bank in the corrupt light it should be seen in. But more importantly, why don't you be really honest. If this was a man from Denmark are we even asking what is he still doing around?? Absolutely not. Thye reason why Wolfowith has the slightest audacity to stick around is because he know who is the President, his homie, his pal, Mr. Corruption, G.W. Bush. A Denmark man, unless he has strong ties to the Whhite House would have been replaced by the President by now.
But saying all that.
I still don't get you acceptance of such blatant corruption.
I don't read the stroy like you do. I read the story as a hatchet job. I don't even like Wolfowitz but this is a non story turned into a major news event. This is on par with the Gonzles "firings" - big bleeping deal. The President can fire anyone who works under him.
To return to this manufactured outrage - we're not talking about millions of dollars being lost. We're not talking about hungry children gone unfed. AT WORST, at the absolute most depraved version of this story we're talking about a guy getting his girlfriend a somewhat sweeter deal. 20K more than she might have gotten otherwise - BFD! In the world of the wealthy 20K is roughly equal to me lending you 40 bucks.
Oooh ooh! My good friends at the WSJ have published another article on this topic:
Here (sorry not the whole article):
Imagine that a top civil servant at a major multinational institution arranges a job for a fortysomething female colleague that comes with a $45,000 raise and brings her yearly salary to about $190,000, tax free. Now imagine that the couple has been photographed at a nudist beach -- him wearing nothing but a baseball cap.
The latest sordid twist in l'affaire Wolfowitz? Not at all. This is the story of Günter Verheugen, first vice president of the European Commission in Brussels.
Ah but what other difference are there?
But aside from the facts that Mr. Wolfowitz is unmarried and prefers his clothes on, the substances of the cases could not be more different. Mr. Verheugen seems to have obscured the nature of his relationship with Ms. Erler; Mr. Wolfowitz acknowledged his relationship with Shaha Riza before he took the job as Bank President.
It goes on to basically point out that Wolfowitz followed the Ethicists recommendation to give Ms. Riza a raise after she was forced out of her job. The best part is of course that Mr. Verheugen wants to know why "two adults can't do as they wish in the private lives?" Yes, indeed.
I'm sure you're horribly outraged by this Droop, but not to worry. Mr. Verheugen (who is married BTW - and not to Ms. Erler) won't be losing his job. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier defends the man who broke the code of ethics he'd written as part of his job as VP of the European Commission in Brussels as "an irreplaceable Brussels heavyweight."
We all know the Europeans have much laxer sexual ideals - strange though they only seem to apply them to other Europeans. No, Droop, this wasn't a hatchet job on Wolfowitz. This is horrific scandal that must be remedied.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 24 2007, 07:16 AM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 21 2007, 08:25 AM)
QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 21 2007, 01:32 AM)
QUOTE
I'm sure you do. You're wrong however.
How am I wrong??? Wolfowitz dictated the raise and all of the other perks without anyone else's input.
QUOTE
Be honest. Be really honest. It's not Wolfowitz anymore. It's a guy from Denmark you never heard of - Do you still care? Of course not.
If I hear the story yes, because it would once again paint the World Bank in the corrupt light it should be seen in. But more importantly, why don't you be really honest. If this was a man from Denmark are we even asking what is he still doing around?? Absolutely not. The reason why Wolfowitz has the slightest audacity to stick around is because he know who is the President, his homie, his pal, Mr. Corruption, G.W. Bush. A Denmark man, unless he has strong ties to the White House would have been replaced by the President by now.
But saying all that.
I still don't get your acceptance of such blatant corruption.
I don't read the stroy like you do. I read the story as a hatchet job. I don't even like Wolfowitz but this is a non story turned into a major news event. This is on par with the Gonzales "firings" - big bleeping deal. The President can fire anyone who works under him.
To return to this manufactured outrage - we're not talking about millions of dollars being lost. We're not talking about hungry children gone unfed. AT WORST, at the absolute most depraved version of this story we're talking about a guy getting his girlfriend a somewhat sweeter deal. 20K more than she might have gotten otherwise - BFD! In the world of the wealthy 20K is roughly equal to me lending you 40 bucks.
Oooh ooh! My good friends at the WSJ have published another article on this topic:
Here (sorry not the whole article):
Imagine that a top civil servant at a major multinational institution arranges a job for a fortysomething female colleague that comes with a $45,000 raise and brings her yearly salary to about $190,000, tax free. Now imagine that the couple has been photographed at a nudist beach -- him wearing nothing but a baseball cap.
The latest sordid twist in l'affaire Wolfowitz? Not at all. This is the story of Günter Verheugen, first vice president of the European Commission in Brussels.
Ah but what other difference are there?
But aside from the facts that Mr. Wolfowitz is unmarried and prefers his clothes on, the substances of the cases could not be more different. Mr. Verheugen seems to have obscured the nature of his relationship with Ms. Erler; Mr. Wolfowitz acknowledged his relationship with Shaha Riza before he took the job as Bank President.
It goes on to basically point out that Wolfowitz followed the Ethicists recommendation to give Ms. Riza a raise after she was forced out of her job. The best part is of course that Mr. Verheugen wants to know why "two adults can't do as they wish in the private lives?" Yes, indeed.
I'm sure you're horribly outraged by this Droop, but not to worry. Mr. Verheugen (who is married BTW - and not to Ms. Erler) won't be losing his job. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier defends the man who broke the code of ethics he'd written as part of his job as VP of the European Commission in Brussels as "an irreplaceable Brussels heavyweight."
We all know the Europeans have much laxer sexual ideals - strange though they only seem to apply them to other Europeans. No, Droop, this wasn't a hatchet job on Wolfowitz. This is horrific scandal that must be remedied.
I seriously don't get your point. You think this other guy should keep his job. Why do you appease corruption from your own government and your own leaders.
Truthfully, the only problem that i saw was this guy is hooked his mistress up with a good job. I don't care what wolfowitz does with the female, nor do I care what Mr. Verheugen does in their personal life. This is not an issue about sexual morality to me.
Wolfowitz get caught redhanded personally dictating a raise that(as I pointed out was) egregious. The employees are ready to mutiny. How many jobs do the employees wear ribbons to show disapproval from their boss.
I give you a link where it shows that Wolfowitz lawyer said his client
"WOULD NOT -- I REPEAT, NOT -- INVOLVE RECUSAL FROM PROFESSIONAL CONTACT"
Wolfowitz set it up so he would be able to hook his woman up. If he stayed two terms she would come back to the World bank as VP.
So now you come back... and i'm like... "oh man, what info did this guy find??"
And all you have with all that
QUOTE
Oooh ooh! My good friends at the WSJ have published another article on this topic:
And all you comeback with... is another story of corruption
This is how you operate? Is that why you love those Wall Street Guys... What? Are they crooks you can respect??
Why don't you find a story about how Wolfowitz isn't the corrupt son of a gun that was hooking up his boo. You haven't advanced this debate, your in the same place wallowing in corruption and LOVING it.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 24 2007, 12:23 PM)
Truthfully, the only problem that i saw was this guy is hooked his mistress up with a good job. I don't care what wolfowitz does with the female, nor do I care what Mr. Verheugen does in their personal life. This is not an issue about sexual morality to me.
Wolfowitz get caught redhanded personally dictating a raise that(as I pointed out was) egregious. The employees are ready to mutiny. How many jobs do the employees wear ribbons to show disapproval from their boss.
Cut down for space
Droop, do you not see this as a similar situation? There are glaring differences. The gist of which are Vs mistress was kept a secret and he GAVE her a sweet job. Ws girlfriend was forced to quit her job for no other reason than her boyfriend went to work there. The ETHICIST suggested she be compensated then INSISTED that Wolfowtz give her the raise. THEY SET HIM UP. THEY SET HIM UP. THEY SET HIM UP. Ahh. That's better.
This scandal is a total joke. The only reason you care is because you don't like Wolfowitz. Had he never done anything to get your ire before becoming the President of the World Bank you wouldn't care less. How does Verheugen get a pass with "Truthfully, the only problem that i saw was this guy is hooked his mistress up with a good job." And Wolfowitz must resign?
Just admit this story is only remotely of interest to you because you came into it disliking Wolfowitz. Frankly you could close the entire World Bank and it wouldn't change my day a whit. In fact, I don't care if Wolfowitz resigns! I am just bored to tears with manufactured outrage.
I dislike corruption.
Also I have a question, because in this other story I did not see it. Did mr. V give his girl a job at the place he worked??
Anyways.. it still just as irrelevant. Why is Wallstreet or you for that mattertrying to find other stories of corruption?
Second important question in my links (i amm pointing it out a third time) I showed.
So the Bank's lawyers tell Wolfowitz lawyer that he needs to recuse himself professionally from Mrs Riza. Wolfowitz Lawyer replies... that his client recuse himslf from Mrs. Riza professionally.
Why would Wolfowitz not recuse himself from mrs Riza professionally?? Because he wanted to make the terms.
Again, it is not that his girl go a raise... it is the fact it is egrigious, and it is all the other promises involved.
- got a promotion and a 36 percent pay increase that was twice as large as allowed by bank rules
He didn't go just beyond the Bank rules he went twice as high
- By 2010, when Wolfowitz's five-year term expired, she would reach a salary of $244,960, significantly above the maximum of $226,650 allowable for her pay grade.
Amazing in 4 years she would have maxed out and exceeded her grade.
-in 5 years senior country director; if her return were delayed another five years by a second Wolfowitz term, she would be elevated to the level of bank vice president.
the suggest a promotion he says let's make her a director. In ten years if I'm still here we'll maker the VP..
Again, compensation is due, excessive compensation is corruption. Wolfowitz bent the rules for his Girlfreind, explain why he shouldn't step down??
Also I have a question, because in this other story I did not see it. Did mr. V give his girl a job at the place he worked??
Anyways.. it still just as irrelevant. Why is Wallstreet or you for that mattertrying to find other stories of corruption?
Second important question in my links (i amm pointing it out a third time) I showed.
QUOTE
In a May 25, 2005, letter to Wolfowitz's personal lawyer negotiating his contract, Roberto Dañino, then the bank's general counsel, acknowledged that Wolfowitz had disclosed "a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staffer" and had proposed to resolve it "by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member."
Wolfowitz lawyer Robert Barnett responded two days later with an e-mail stating that the proposal "WOULD NOT -- I REPEAT, NOT -- INVOLVE RECUSAL FROM PROFESSIONAL CONTACT" with Riza. "THIS MATTER," Barnett wrote, "MUST BE RESOLVED" before Wolfowitz would sign his contract.
Wolfowitz lawyer Robert Barnett responded two days later with an e-mail stating that the proposal "WOULD NOT -- I REPEAT, NOT -- INVOLVE RECUSAL FROM PROFESSIONAL CONTACT" with Riza. "THIS MATTER," Barnett wrote, "MUST BE RESOLVED" before Wolfowitz would sign his contract.
So the Bank's lawyers tell Wolfowitz lawyer that he needs to recuse himself professionally from Mrs Riza. Wolfowitz Lawyer replies... that his client recuse himslf from Mrs. Riza professionally.
Why would Wolfowitz not recuse himself from mrs Riza professionally?? Because he wanted to make the terms.
Again, it is not that his girl go a raise... it is the fact it is egrigious, and it is all the other promises involved.
- got a promotion and a 36 percent pay increase that was twice as large as allowed by bank rules
He didn't go just beyond the Bank rules he went twice as high
- By 2010, when Wolfowitz's five-year term expired, she would reach a salary of $244,960, significantly above the maximum of $226,650 allowable for her pay grade.
Amazing in 4 years she would have maxed out and exceeded her grade.
-in 5 years senior country director; if her return were delayed another five years by a second Wolfowitz term, she would be elevated to the level of bank vice president.
the suggest a promotion he says let's make her a director. In ten years if I'm still here we'll maker the VP..
Again, compensation is due, excessive compensation is corruption. Wolfowitz bent the rules for his Girlfreind, explain why he shouldn't step down??
From the article:
The NEXT LINE in your quoted story is...
and then from YOUR quoted article
So again... I don't like corruption either. I also don't like to see people getting set up.
QUOTE
Riza, a Tunisian-born British citizen who worked at the bank as a communications specialist, made it clear that "I did not wish to leave the Bank." She said she had objected to the arrangements for her departure. "My effort to accommodate the Board's Ethics Committee and avoid creating distractions for Staff, Board and Management from their noble mission while protecting my interest, has only resulted in the most vicious public attacks on me."
QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 24 2007, 01:36 PM)
QUOTE
In a May 25, 2005, letter to Wolfowitz's personal lawyer negotiating his contract, Roberto Dañino, then the bank's general counsel, acknowledged that Wolfowitz had disclosed "a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staffer" and had proposed to resolve it "by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member."
Wolfowitz lawyer Robert Barnett responded two days later with an e-mail stating that the proposal "WOULD NOT -- I REPEAT, NOT -- INVOLVE RECUSAL FROM PROFESSIONAL CONTACT" with Riza. "THIS MATTER," Barnett wrote, "MUST BE RESOLVED" before Wolfowitz would sign his contract.
Wolfowitz lawyer Robert Barnett responded two days later with an e-mail stating that the proposal "WOULD NOT -- I REPEAT, NOT -- INVOLVE RECUSAL FROM PROFESSIONAL CONTACT" with Riza. "THIS MATTER," Barnett wrote, "MUST BE RESOLVED" before Wolfowitz would sign his contract.
The NEXT LINE in your quoted story is...
QUOTE
The board eventually ruled that "professional contact" between the two violated bank policy and instructed Wolfowitz to order the personnel department to arrange her departure and compensation.
and then from YOUR quoted article
QUOTE
In a memo dated Sept. 9, 2005, Wolfowitz aide Robin Cleveland, a former White House official he brought with him to the bank, wrote that Wolfowitz had hired an outside counsel to review the agreement since Dañino, the general counsel, worked for the bank and thus had a conflict of interest. Wolfowitz, the memo said, had selected the Washington firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, "based on their ability to present a strong team within 24 hours which included, among others, the former U.S. solicitor General and Eugene Scalia, a personnel policy expert."
In a letter to Wolfowitz after its review, the firm judged the pact "a reasonable resolution . . . that avoids, among other things, the risks of protracted legal proceedings."
In a letter to Wolfowitz after its review, the firm judged the pact "a reasonable resolution . . . that avoids, among other things, the risks of protracted legal proceedings."
So again... I don't like corruption either. I also don't like to see people getting set up.
QUOTE
The board eventually ruled that "professional contact" between the two violated bank policy and instructed Wolfowitz to order the personnel department to arrange her departure and compensation.
If they ruled that professional contact was against Bank rules then why would they then direct Wolfowitz to determine the the terms of her contract with World Bank??
But that's exactly what they did.
And why would he do it??
And again why would his lawyer demand that he be allowed professional contact??
The answer is right there. They left him holding the bag. They did NOT set him up, they have nothing to gain. Do you know some one become President of the World Bank?? They are appointed by the President of the United States.
So they set up Wolfowitz just to have another Bush appointee shoved down their throat??
No they let the boss do what he wanted while distancing themselves. HE wanted to dictate the terms of the agreement. He did not have it approved by the board, why?
Setup?? He set hisself up. He hung himself by his own rope, and the board members let him.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 24 2007, 02:40 PM)
QUOTE
The board eventually ruled that "professional contact" between the two violated bank policy and instructed Wolfowitz to order the personnel department to arrange her departure and compensation.
If they ruled that professional contact was against Bank rules then why would they then direct Wolfowitz to determine the the terms of her contract with World Bank??
But that's exactly what they did.
And why would he do it??
SNIP
So they set up Wolfowitz just to have another Bush appointee shoved down their throat??
SNIP
From your article:
QUOTE
"The issue now, as far as many of us are concerned, is a matter of corporate governance," said a senior bank staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. "The Europeans want him out. The U.S. remains silent, and the board is divided."
They offed him in the hopes of getting a European in that position. BTW I give up. Hang him. He's the most evil man on the planet. You've totally convinced me that this wasn't a hatchet job.
QUOTE
They offed him in the hopes of getting a European in that position. BTW I give up. Hang him. He's the most evil man on the planet. You've totally convinced me that this wasn't a hatchet job.
I'm not advocating locking him up, he didn't have to take the position and if he did choose to take the position he should have demanded that he not be involved on a professional level. And if he did put it in his hands he should have made sure nothing egregious took place.
So simply put he should step down... not be hanged, not be deemed evil , not be excused forhis improper use of power... merely resign.
Hey BA, I'm confused. Could you explain how Wolfowitz was set up step by step? Maybe, I'm slow but I don't get it (and I want to).
QUOTE(logophage @ Apr 24 2007, 07:39 PM)
Hey BA, I'm confused. Could you explain how Wolfowitz was set up step by step? Maybe, I'm slow but I don't get it (and I want to).
1. Wolfowitz is named President of the World Bank
2. W tells them he has a girlfriend that works there and initially recuses himself from any contact with her.
3. World Bank demands she must go.
4. W's lawyers (who are oddly no longer representing him and whom I can find nothing more about) demand that W NOT recuse himself from professional contact (although I only have this sourced from WaPo) This demand is not met. W's girlfriend is fired.
5. WBO insists that W set up compensation for girlfriend because they are firing her and do not want a lawsuit.
6. W complies. Compensates girlfriend as requested by WBO.
7. WBO complains that W has given his girlfriend a raise.
8. WBO requests he step down.
So Wolfowitz followed the WBOs recommendation. Set up a compensation pack designed to avoid a lawsuit. The WBO cries FOUL and leaks the story through a lawyer who was let go for his own conflicts of interest. Wolfowitz is guilty of not noticing that WBO wanted a European in the position and subsequently set him up to look like he wontonly gave his Girlfriend a gigantic raise just because he could. No one seemed to care about the compensation package when it was given by the way:
QUOTE
In a memo dated Sept. 9, 2005, Wolfowitz aide Robin Cleveland, a former White House official he brought with him to the bank, wrote that Wolfowitz had hired an outside counsel to review the agreement since Dañino, the general counsel, worked for the bank and thus had a conflict of interest. Wolfowitz, the memo said, had selected the Washington firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, "based on their ability to present a strong team within 24 hours which included, among others, the former U.S. solicitor General and Eugene Scalia, a personnel policy expert."
In a letter to Wolfowitz after its review, the firm judged the pact "a reasonable resolution . . . that avoids, among other things, the risks of protracted legal proceedings."
In a letter to Wolfowitz after its review, the firm judged the pact "a reasonable resolution . . . that avoids, among other things, the risks of protracted legal proceedings."
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 24 2007, 09:01 PM)
4. W's lawyers (who are oddly no longer representing him and whom I can find nothing more about) demand that W NOT recuse himself from professional contact (although I only have this sourced from WaPo). This demand is not met. W's girlfriend is fired.
Is that what the Post says? I thought the ethics board told him that, despite offering to recuse himself, it wasn't enough an Riza would have to be moved to another job (hence the pay raise for inconveniencing her).
QUOTE(WSJ)
Finally, and equally important, Mr. Wolfowitz had proposed to the Board to recuse himself from any personnel decisions or actions affecting me in order to avoid any potential conflict. Indeed his proposal set a stricter standard than existing practice of the most senior officials in the institution, including arrangements pertaining to the then Managing Director which continued unquestioned until his departure.
Nevertheless, the Board's Ethics Committee in its wisdom, without any explanation I am aware of as to how they reached that conclusion, resolved to ask me without even talking with me, to go on external assignment contrary to my wishes.
I have now been victimized for agreeing to an arrangement that I have objected to and that I did not believe from the outset was in my best interest. My effort to accommodate the Board's Ethics Committee and avoid creating distractions for Staff, Board and Management from their noble mission while protecting my interest, has only resulted in the most vicious public attacks on me.
Nevertheless, the Board's Ethics Committee in its wisdom, without any explanation I am aware of as to how they reached that conclusion, resolved to ask me without even talking with me, to go on external assignment contrary to my wishes.
I have now been victimized for agreeing to an arrangement that I have objected to and that I did not believe from the outset was in my best interest. My effort to accommodate the Board's Ethics Committee and avoid creating distractions for Staff, Board and Management from their noble mission while protecting my interest, has only resulted in the most vicious public attacks on me.
Here is the 102-page report (.pdf) in case no one has posted it.
I'm hardly ambivalent about Riza allegedly being led through security hoops with the aid of Elizabeth Cheney, Douglas Feith and who knows who else. However, considering the administration we're discussing I think it's more likely that his "competent" connections in the White House screwed him up more than anyone else. A setup seems unlikely.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Apr 24 2007, 09:33 PM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 24 2007, 09:01 PM)
4. W's lawyers (who are oddly no longer representing him and whom I can find nothing more about) demand that W NOT recuse himself from professional contact (although I only have this sourced from WaPo). This demand is not met. W's girlfriend is fired.
Is that what the Post says? I thought the ethics board told him that, despite offering to recuse himself, it wasn't enough an Riza would have to be moved to another job (hence the pay raise for inconveniencing her).
Well the WPO has an email from Ws lawyers demanding that W NOT be recused from professional contact with Riza. Which frankly makes no sense. However, that demand was either ignored or over-ruled since we know that Riza was forced to leave the bank.
QUOTE
I'm hardly ambivalent about Riza allegedly being led through security hoops with the aid of Elizabeth Cheney, Douglas Feith and who knows who else. However, considering the administration we're discussing I think it's more likely that his "competent" connections in the White House screwed him up more than anyone else. A setup seems unlikely.
If you follow the recommendations of your company and then they point at you and say, "HA! Look what you've done." You've gotten set up. Wolfowitz is extremely unpopular in the anti-war WBO. They wanted him out, and a European in from the outset.
***
Droop - if you haven't already you might want to read the Annexes of the document posted. I cannot see ANY WAY the WBO did not know about the package created for Riza.
***
Not sure of the leanings of the Bangor Daily News but here's a version of the tale.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 25 2007, 08:00 AM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Apr 24 2007, 09:33 PM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 24 2007, 09:01 PM)
4. W's lawyers (who are oddly no longer representing him and whom I can find nothing more about) demand that W NOT recuse himself from professional contact (although I only have this sourced from WaPo). This demand is not met. W's girlfriend is fired.
Is that what the Post says? I thought the ethics board told him that, despite offering to recuse himself, it wasn't enough an Riza would have to be moved to another job (hence the pay raise for inconveniencing her).
Well the WPO has an email from Ws lawyers demanding that W NOT be recused from professional contact with Riza. Which frankly makes no sense. However, that demand was either ignored or over-ruled since we know that Riza was forced to leave the bank.
Man that Post article is confusing where it states:
QUOTE(Washington Post)
But the documents also revealed that Wolfowitz's description of events has been less than candid. In a May 25, 2005, letter to Wolfowitz's personal lawyer negotiating his contract, Roberto Dañino, then the bank's general counsel, acknowledged that Wolfowitz had disclosed "a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staffer" and had proposed to resolve it "by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member.
It almost looks like the Post is saying Roberto Dañino was Wolfowitz's personal lawyer. Anyway, here is the section the Post quotes, in context. The email is from Wolfowitz's lawyer, Barnett, to the WB's general counsel, Roberto Dañino:
QUOTE(WSJ.com; Ethics Committee Case)
MR. WOLFOWITZ UNDERSTANDS THE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. HE HAS PROPOSED A FAIR AND APPROPRIATE RECUSAL PROCESS THROUGH CONSIDERATION BY THE ETHICS COMMITTEE. THAT RECUSAL PROCESS WOULD NOT—I REPEAT, NOT—INVOLVE RECUSAL FROM PROFESSIONAL CONTACT. GIVEN THE ATTITUDE THAT THE BANK HAS EXPRESSED WITH RESPECT TO THIS MATTER, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS MATTER MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE A CONTRACT IS SIGNED."
And general counsel Roberto Dañino's response:
QUOTE(WSJ.com; Ethics Committee Case)
"Conflict of interest. We understand from your response that Mr. Wolfowitz proposes now that the potential conflict arising horn the disclosed pre-existing relationship would be resolved before a contract is signed. We can agree to this request. The mechanism he has proposed for resolution is consideration by the Ethics Committee, which is a mechanism within the legal framework of the Bank. Based on his request, we will arrange for the Ethics Committee to deal with this matter as soon as possible."
What am I missing? It sounds like Barnett is saying recusal doesn't matter or won't be enough in this case, and Dañino says fine, we'll go ahead and let the Ethics Committee decide.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 25 2007, 08:00 AM)
If you follow the recommendations of your company and then they point at you and say, "HA! Look what you've done." You've gotten set up.
Then perhaps you and I read those recommendations differently or Wolfowitz is a bigger jerk than I thought because Robert Barnett has been a partner at the D.C.-based Williams & Connolly LLP for twenty-nine years and Wolfowitz recently hired Jonathan Kravis from the same private practice to investigate the email document leaks (.pdf) to Fox News. What's the problem Wolfowitz; not enough lawyers to go around in D.C.? As far as I know Barnett is still Wolfowitz's lawyer, or at least, I haven't heard about a falling out. In any case there is a potential conflict of interest with two lawyers from the same private practice investigating the WB for Wolfowitz. A stupid risk to take for a man already under so much scrutiny.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 25 2007, 08:00 AM)
Wolfowitz is extremely unpopular in the anti-war WBO. They wanted him out, and a European in from the outset.
Since the last time I posted on this thread I found out that not only did Wolfowitz circumvent WB policy on sex education, but he's undermined climate change as well. I don't know whether I should even give a damn at this point, because as this AlterNet article points out, the Bank’s sound and fury rings typically hollow:
QUOTE(Sacrificial Wolfie)
The truth is that the bank's credibility was fatally compromised when it forced school fees on students in Ghana in exchange for a loan; when it demanded that Tanzania privatize its water system; when it made telecom privatization a condition of aid for Hurricane Mitch; when it demanded labor "flexibility" in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami in Sri Lanka; when it pushed for eliminating food subsidies in post-invasion Iraq. Ecuadoreans care little about Wolfowitz's girlfriend; more pressing is that in 2005, the Bank withheld a promised $100 million after the country dared to spend a portion of its oil revenues on health and education. Some antipoverty organization.
Russia under the leadership of the recently departed Boris Yeltsin was a case in point. Beginning in 1990, the Bank led the charge for the former Soviet Union to impose immediately what it called "radical reform." When Mikhail Gorbachev refused to go along, Yeltsin stepped up. This bulldozer of a man would not let anything or anyone stand in the way of the Washington-authored program, including Russia's elected politicians.
After he ordered army tanks to open fire on demonstrators in October 1993, killing hundreds and leaving the Parliament blackened by flames, the stage was set for the fire-sale privatizations of Russia's most precious state assets to the so-called oligarchs. Of course, the Bank was there. Of the democracy-free lawmaking frenzy that followed Yeltsin's coup, Charles Blitzer, the World Bank's chief economist on Russia, told the Wall Street Journal, "I've never had so much fun in my life."
When Yeltsin left office, his family had become inexplicably wealthy, while several of his deputies were enmeshed in bribery scandals. These incidents were reported on in the West, as they always are, as unfortunate local embellishments on an otherwise ethical economic modernization project. In fact, corruption was embedded in the very idea of shock therapy.
The whirlwind speed of change was crucial to overcoming the widespread rejection of the reforms, but it also meant that by definition there could be no oversight. Moreover, the payoffs for local officials were an indispensable incentive for Russia's apparatchiks to create the wide-open market Washington was demanding.
Russia under the leadership of the recently departed Boris Yeltsin was a case in point. Beginning in 1990, the Bank led the charge for the former Soviet Union to impose immediately what it called "radical reform." When Mikhail Gorbachev refused to go along, Yeltsin stepped up. This bulldozer of a man would not let anything or anyone stand in the way of the Washington-authored program, including Russia's elected politicians.
After he ordered army tanks to open fire on demonstrators in October 1993, killing hundreds and leaving the Parliament blackened by flames, the stage was set for the fire-sale privatizations of Russia's most precious state assets to the so-called oligarchs. Of course, the Bank was there. Of the democracy-free lawmaking frenzy that followed Yeltsin's coup, Charles Blitzer, the World Bank's chief economist on Russia, told the Wall Street Journal, "I've never had so much fun in my life."
When Yeltsin left office, his family had become inexplicably wealthy, while several of his deputies were enmeshed in bribery scandals. These incidents were reported on in the West, as they always are, as unfortunate local embellishments on an otherwise ethical economic modernization project. In fact, corruption was embedded in the very idea of shock therapy.
The whirlwind speed of change was crucial to overcoming the widespread rejection of the reforms, but it also meant that by definition there could be no oversight. Moreover, the payoffs for local officials were an indispensable incentive for Russia's apparatchiks to create the wide-open market Washington was demanding.
Sweet Jesus I hate neoliberal economic policies! The Bretton Woods Trifecta is a pathetic Cold War relic. How can the WB be anti-war when U.S. presidents have always nominated WB presidents? Sure, Europe probably wants to knock Wolfowitz out to get the first European president, but that doesn't mean the Bank's policies will change. If anyone is blackballing Wolfowitz, BA, start looking for American and/or European financial interests Wolfowitz may have blown off.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Apr 29 2007, 07:02 PM)
Snipped For Space
Ok here's two things. Wolfowitz hiring a second lawyer actually makes sense since Barnett can't reasonably do both things at once and even if her did THAT would be a conflict of interest...
Second thing, do you at least agree the W wasn't "hooking up his breezy" in this matter?
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 29 2007, 08:37 PM)
OK here's two things. Wolfowitz hiring a second lawyer actually makes sense since Barnett can't reasonably do both things at once and even if he did, THAT would be a conflict of interest. Second thing, do you at least agree the W wasn't "hooking up his breezy" in this matter?
I am as skeptical of that as I am as skeptical about your conspiracy theory. I don't mean to be rude but that's what it looks like at this point.
Possible conflict of interest issues are
- Did Williams and Connolly raise the potential conflict of interest with Ana Palacio when she retained the firm to conduct the investigation into the Fox News stories?
- Did Williams and Connolly raise the potential conflict of interest with Ana Palacio when she retained the firm to conduct the investigation into the Fox News stories?
- Was an appropriate waiver signed by Ms. Palacio on behalf of the client, the World Bank Board?
- Did Palacio disclose the potential conflict of interest to the Board and secure their agreement prior to signing any waiver on their behalf? And
- Who is supervising Mr. Kravis' work on this issue?
QUOTE(Lesly @ Apr 29 2007, 08:58 PM)
I am as skeptical of that as I am as skeptical about your conspiracy theory. I don't mean to be rude but that's what it looks like at this point.
You yourself have agreed that it is like at least SOMEONE wants Wolfowitz out so I am confused why you think I have a conspiracy theory. Yours is infinitely more convoluted. In fact, the Washington Post had this to say on Saturday:
...the Washington Post cited "three senior bank officials" as saying that the committee has "nearly completed a report" concluding that Mr. Wolfowitz "breached ethics rules when he engineered a pay raise for his girlfriend."
This is key because they are supposed to be discussing this this week, yet they have already "nearly completed a report" with a conclusion. Further:
According to bank officials the timing of the committee's report and it's conclusion have be choreopgraphed for maximum impact in what has become a full blown campaign to persuade Wolfowitz to go."
And since the Ethics Panel KNEW about the pay deal I don't see how this is scandal at all!
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 30 2007, 10:01 AM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Apr 29 2007, 08:58 PM)
I am as skeptical of that as I am as skeptical about your conspiracy theory. I don't mean to be rude but that's what it looks like at this point.
You yourself have agreed that it is like at least SOMEONE wants Wolfowitz out so I am confused why you think I have a conspiracy theory.
I assume you meant to say “it is likely at least SOMEONE wants Wolfowitz out”. And I haven’t subscribed to your conspiracy/setup theory, BA. I’ve been wanted out of at least one job myself, but I didn’t subscribe to a conspiracy theory, let alone pay attention to office gossip. Simply acknowledging WB employees want Wolfowitz out of the WB does not mean I have to entertain the idea that there has been or will be a concerted effort to kick him out.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 30 2007, 10:01 AM)
Yours is infinitely more convoluted.
What is convoluted? My theory? I have none.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 30 2007, 10:01 AM)
In fact, the Washington Post had this to say on Saturday:
[...]
This is key because they are supposed to be discussing this week, yet they have already "nearly completed a report" with a conclusion.
[...]
This is key because they are supposed to be discussing this week, yet they have already "nearly completed a report" with a conclusion.
You have taken me to the wrong Washington Post article. I see Peter Goodman’s story implicates US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson supports Wolfowitz stepping down. Perhaps they’ve gotten to him, too. Furthermore, am I to assume every time a reporter contacts an agency to get a head’s up on a soon-to-be-published report and the agency provides the report’s conclusions someone has an ax to grind?
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 30 2007, 10:01 AM)
And since the Ethics Panel KNEW about the pay deal I don't see how this is scandal at all!
Well if the ethics panel is playing dumb about the pay deal, why does Wolfowitz’s lawyer, Robert Bennet, say “Wolfowitz planned to submit documents to the committee on Monday that make clear that the pay raise he arranged for his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, had the full understanding and assent of the institution's ethics committee”? It’s in the same (second) Post article you cite.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Apr 30 2007, 11:35 AM)
What is convoluted? My theory? I have none.
I'm sorry I thought you had suggested that this was the work of the Cheney's or American and/or European financial interests Wolfowitz may have blown off
QUOTE(Lesly @ Apr 30 2007, 11:35 AM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 30 2007, 10:01 AM)
And since the Ethics Panel KNEW about the pay deal I don't see how this is scandal at all!
Well if the ethics panel is playing dumb about the pay deal, why does Wolfowitz’s lawyer, Robert Bennet, say “Wolfowitz planned to submit documents to the committee on Monday that make clear that the pay raise he arranged for his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, had the full understanding and assent of the institution's ethics committee”? It’s in the same (second) Post article you cite.
It sounds to me like he's going to make sure the Ethics Committee can't wiggle out of this.
Well all in all this was a bizarre ending to this tale... not that it's entirely over...
Paul Wolfowitz will resign at the end of June but the World Bank admits he was completely ethical and that, in fact, the World Bank erred when it did not allow Paul Wolfowitz to recuse himself from any decision made regarding his girlfriend.
Essentially the World Bank backed down from an UP/Down vote and instead basically exonerated Wolfowitz and even took some of the blame. There are two simple reasons for this turn around:
They may not have had the votes necessary. The seats are weighted so even though the US only has one seat that seat has ~16% voting rights. In the shake out it looked like it would be 65~45 to KEEP Wolfowitz. The other reason is in an Up/Down vote various countries would make enemies and basically create a rift between them.
Another reason is that if pressed the World Bank would have had a lot of dirty laundry aired about it's operations - not the least of which one of the people calling for Wolfowitz' resignation Sherman Zhang whose wife was swiftly promoted while he was the number 2 at the bank. Same old, same old.
Paul Wolfowitz will resign at the end of June but the World Bank admits he was completely ethical and that, in fact, the World Bank erred when it did not allow Paul Wolfowitz to recuse himself from any decision made regarding his girlfriend.
Essentially the World Bank backed down from an UP/Down vote and instead basically exonerated Wolfowitz and even took some of the blame. There are two simple reasons for this turn around:
They may not have had the votes necessary. The seats are weighted so even though the US only has one seat that seat has ~16% voting rights. In the shake out it looked like it would be 65~45 to KEEP Wolfowitz. The other reason is in an Up/Down vote various countries would make enemies and basically create a rift between them.
Another reason is that if pressed the World Bank would have had a lot of dirty laundry aired about it's operations - not the least of which one of the people calling for Wolfowitz' resignation Sherman Zhang whose wife was swiftly promoted while he was the number 2 at the bank. Same old, same old.
Here is a link to the World Bank's announcement of Wolfowitz's resignation: Link
They frame it as Wolfowitz's decision, and agree that he acted ethically. They applaud him for his service. I find the whole episode an amusing example of the double standards in many situations.
They frame it as Wolfowitz's decision, and agree that he acted ethically. They applaud him for his service. I find the whole episode an amusing example of the double standards in many situations.
Well, the worker bees sure seem happy to see him go. According to the Union Tribune:
BA who in the WB is saying he acted ethically? According to a former ethics committee member, they weren't consulted. Meanwhile it looks like Bush is going to replace Wolfowitz with Blair or Frist. The Bank doesn't need an economist or financial analyst. That's too non-partisan an appointment.
QUOTE(UT)
Wolfowitz and the Bush administration were seeking a face-saving deal with the board that would allow Wolfowitz to resign and escape some blame for the furor involving his girlfriend's compensation. Under one proposal, Wolfowitz would be able to stay on as president for a short period, after which an acting president would be appointed.
BA who in the WB is saying he acted ethically? According to a former ethics committee member, they weren't consulted. Meanwhile it looks like Bush is going to replace Wolfowitz with Blair or Frist. The Bank doesn't need an economist or financial analyst. That's too non-partisan an appointment.
QUOTE(Lesly @ May 18 2007, 12:34 PM)
Well, the worker bees sure seem happy to see him go. According to the Union Tribune:
BA who in the WB is saying he acted ethically? According to a former ethics committee member, they weren't consulted. Meanwhile it looks like Bush is going to replace Wolfowitz with Blair or Frist. The Bank doesn't need an economist or financial analyst. That's too non-partisan an appointment.
QUOTE(UT)
Wolfowitz and the Bush administration were seeking a face-saving deal with the board that would allow Wolfowitz to resign and escape some blame for the furor involving his girlfriend's compensation. Under one proposal, Wolfowitz would be able to stay on as president for a short period, after which an acting president would be appointed.
BA who in the WB is saying he acted ethically? According to a former ethics committee member, they weren't consulted. Meanwhile it looks like Bush is going to replace Wolfowitz with Blair or Frist. The Bank doesn't need an economist or financial analyst. That's too non-partisan an appointment.
Read the link in Amlord's post for the info.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ May 18 2007, 11:51 AM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ May 18 2007, 12:34 PM)
Well, the worker bees sure seem happy to see him go. According to the Union Tribune:
BA who in the WB is saying he acted ethically? According to a former ethics committee member, they weren't consulted. Meanwhile it looks like Bush is going to replace Wolfowitz with Blair or Frist. The Bank doesn't need an economist or financial analyst. That's too non-partisan an appointment.
QUOTE(UT)
Wolfowitz and the Bush administration were seeking a face-saving deal with the board that would allow Wolfowitz to resign and escape some blame for the furor involving his girlfriend's compensation. Under one proposal, Wolfowitz would be able to stay on as president for a short period, after which an acting president would be appointed.
BA who in the WB is saying he acted ethically? According to a former ethics committee member, they weren't consulted. Meanwhile it looks like Bush is going to replace Wolfowitz with Blair or Frist. The Bank doesn't need an economist or financial analyst. That's too non-partisan an appointment.
Read the link in Amlord's post for the info.
BA you were asked a direct question and you passed the buck.
To answer Lesly's question, why don't you go to Amlord's link, and post the pertinent passages. Oh, I know, that would require a little work on your part, wouldn't it.
QUOTE(BoF @ May 18 2007, 01:56 PM)
BA you were asked a direct question and you passed the buck. To answer Lesly's question, why don't you go to Amlord's link, and post the pertinent passages. Oh, I know, that would require a little work on your part, wouldn't it.
Whoa. Hold on BoF. I'm capable of telling others off myself, you know.
Anyway, I wasn't going to respond, but if you juxtapose Amlord's link with my Union Tribune story, it's pretty clear to me the statement from the executive directors ("He assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution, and we accept that.") and Wolfowitz's message ("I am pleased that after reviewing all the evidence the Executive Directors of the World Bank Group have accepted my assurance that I acted ethically and in good faith in what I believed were the best interests of the institution, including protecting the rights of a valued staff member.") is simply part of the face-saving deal mention in the Tribune, but I doubt this matters to BA.
It's time to close this thread, as Wolfowitz has resigned so the questions to be debated no longer apply. Please feel free to start another topic with more relevant questions.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.