Wolfowitz Never Heard of a $50 Trick

[insert_namehere]

There's a standard technique in magic known as misdirection. I assume the same principle is used in other things, such as sports, picking pockets and apparently, politics.

This is the only justification I can use for the President's brain trust and staff. Seriously, while we can assume at this point that Dick Cheney is some sort of immortal Satanic imp attached to Bush until Beelzebub FINALLY collects his soul, how else do you explain Carl Rove, Alberto Gonzales and Paul Wolfowitz?

I've come to the conclusion that George keeps them around so that he looks less venal, stupid, immoral and soulless than his entourage. F'chrissakes, Wolfowitz steals nearly $200,000 from poor people to pay for NOOKIE?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/04/09/wolfowitz-responds-to-controversy-over-staffer

This sort of happy horsepucky makes GWB look like St. Francis of Assisi by comparison.

Wolfowitz stated that he wished to get back to "helping the world's poor". One hopes this might include poor MEN and homely women.

[chefmike]

Bush was Wolfowitz's $50 dollar trick...just like he was Cheney and Rummy's $50 dollar trick...

[svenson]

Bush was Wolfowitz's $50 dollar trick...just like he was Cheney and Rummy's $50 dollar trick...

are they even worth a 50 dollar trik may 5 dollars. like the cheep whores they are.

[chefmike]

Bush was Wolfowitz's $50 dollar trick...just like he was Cheney and Rummy's $50 dollar trick...

are they even worth a 50 dollar trik may 5 dollars. like the cheep whores they are.

Good point. That bunch of war-profiteering crooks and liars make even crack-whores look like upstanding citizens.

[White_Male_Canada]

This sort of happy horsepucky makes GWB look like St. Francis of Assisi by comparison.

Wolfowitz stated that he wished to get back to "helping the world's poor". One hopes this might include poor MEN and homely women.

1. Wolfowitz is on an aggressive camapign to end corruption at the World Bank. No surprise they come up with anything at a get-back.

2. Canada’s Finance Minister, James Flaherty, declared that Wolfowitz had done nothing wrong.

3. The WorldBank ethics committee had known the terms of the settlement with Shaha Riza as far back as 2005 when Wolfowitz himself notified the bank’s general counsel and the board’s Ethics Committee that a potential conflict of interest existed, due to his longstanding relationship with Riza, who had joined the bank in 1997.

4. An anonymous whistle-blower calling himself John Smith wrote a lengthy letter to the committee taking exception to Riza’s deal in great and accurate detail.


5. The ethics committee, led by Ad Melkert, met on the subject with the bank’s anti-corruption unit – which investigates internal wrongdoing. According to the documents, after what Melkert called a “careful review,” the committee decided that the case had been resolved back in autumn 2005 and didn’t “warrant any further attention.”

6. Case closed

[insert_namehere]

3. The WorldBank ethics committee had known the terms of the settlement with Shaha Riza as far back as 2005 when Wolfowitz himself notified the bank’s general counsel and the board’s Ethics Committee that a potential conflict of interest existed, due to his longstanding relationship with Riza, who had joined the bank in 1997.****

4. An anonymous whistle-blower calling himself John Smith wrote a lengthy letter to the committee taking exception to Riza’s deal in great and accurate detail.


5. The ethics committee, led by Ad Melkert, met on the subject with the bank’s anti-corruption unit – which investigates internal wrongdoing. According to the documents, after what Melkert called a “careful review,” the committee decided that the case had been resolved back in autumn 2005 and didn’t “warrant any further attention.”

6. Case closed

Granted, the Executive Directors of the World Bank seem to be in no big hurry to have Wolfowitz' butt served up on a plate. Thanks to anonymous inside tipster who can't stop blabbing (and probably won't since the Ethics committee seems to enjoy damage control more than actually giving Diamond Paul the gate) they released a whole slew of documents yeterday in an attempt at transparency. Included was this GEM of a summary:

***"At the request of the Executive Directors, the President sought guidance from the Ethics Committee. The guidance given on an informal basis was that the employee should be re-located to a position beyond potential* supervising influence by the President or assigned to external service and compensated for the potential* disruption to her career by an in situ promotion as consistent with the practice of the Bank, and that the President, with the General Counsel, should communicate this advice to the Vice President, Middle East and North Africa, and the Vice President, Human Resources, so as to implement it with immediate effect."

*potential is a terrific word, isn't it? Potentially, I could be a super robot that shoots lasers out of my nose. POTENTIALLY, I could flap my arms and fly to the moon. Nest time my director send me off to some podunkus backwater to piddle around correcting other people's mistakes, I'm going to ask for a bajillion dollars to cover the POTENTIAL mazooma I could have made by NOT being stuck in some backwater.


the other part I like is "informal". Informal advice is great - and obviously Paul thought so too, since he sent a memo (darn those tattle-tale insiders who shut up!) to HR requesting that he give his personal knob-gobbler the transfer AND the raise without getting the approval of... or for that matter, even formally talking to the Ethics Committee about it.

See, as long as that horrible little snitch inside the World Bank keeps leaking copies of shit that counters the official line, it's JUST not GOING TO GO AWAY.

Case still as open as Shaha's legs, I'm athinkin'.

[White_Male_Canada]

3. The WorldBank ethics committee had known the terms of the settlement with Shaha Riza as far back as 2005 when Wolfowitz himself notified the bank’s general counsel and the board’s Ethics Committee that a potential conflict of interest existed, due to his longstanding relationship with Riza, who had joined the bank in 1997.****

4. An anonymous whistle-blower calling himself John Smith wrote a lengthy letter to the committee taking exception to Riza’s deal in great and accurate detail.


5. The ethics committee, led by Ad Melkert, met on the subject with the bank’s anti-corruption unit – which investigates internal wrongdoing. According to the documents, after what Melkert called a “careful review,” the committee decided that the case had been resolved back in autumn 2005 and didn’t “warrant any further attention.”

6. Case closed


Granted, the Executive Directors of the World Bank...

*potential is a terrific word, isn't it? ...
.
the other part I like is "informal"....

See, as long as that horrible little snitch inside the World Bank keeps leaking copies of shit that counters the official line, it's JUST not GOING TO GO AWAY...

This is like the phony Fed prosecutors nonsense(we all know clinton fired all 93. Ahem~ madison guaranty referral).

(1) Wolfowitz disclosed the relationship when he came aboard.

(2) He acted promptly to transfer Riza out of range of a conflict of interest.

(3) He rubber stamped the World Bank's buyout package.

(4) The Board and other relevant Bank officials were apprised of what was going on.

Shaha Riza was forced from a well-compensated position for no fault of her own and the Bank was trying to minimize the damage to her.

Case closed.

[trish]

wolfie has been dead wrong about everything on which he ever expressed an opinion. the administration would do well if they used this as an excuse to jetison him like the refuse he is.

[svenson]

wolfie has been dead wrong about everything on which he ever expressed an opinion. the administration would do well if they used this as an excuse to jetison him like the refuse he is.

yes this would be a good thing to do