Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    7,698

    Payback for Iraq.

    VDH, the man, hits the nail on the head, again.
    ---------------

    Iraqi Blowback
    Explaining why Paul Wolfowitz is a travesty and Sandy Berger is a snooze.

    By Victor Davis Hanson

    The resigned Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame’s name, a fact known to a special prosecutor charged with finding out who did and if were a crime. After hours of testimony, he was found self-contradictory under oath (though self-contradictory hardly to the extent of a Joe Wilson who said and wrote things about his yellow-cake inquiries that could not be conceivably true), and now faces a possible prison sentence.

    Ditto the exemption given to the Duke accuser who repeatedly lied in her sworn testimonials, but will apparently not be charged with perjury because her stories are so implausible that officials think she must be unhinged— a new rationale that the perjurer is apparently free from indictment when the concoctions exceed possible belief.

    Alberto Gonzalez perhaps (emphasize “perhaps,” as yet we don’t know all the facts) showed a lapse in judgment or at least of political savvy by firing politically appointed federal attorneys, something that was not unusual in past Democratic administrations.

    Paul Wolfowitz, who sought to curb corruption that undermines support for World Bank aid to Africa, likewise is facing a lynch mob over perhaps a similar one-time lapse of judgment in regard to compensation of a companion — nothing, however, ranking with the various scandals surrounding Kofi Annan, whose son profited by United Nations exemptions given through his family ties. In today’s moral calculus, presiding over a $50-billion-dollar Oil-for-Food scandal that led to frequent death in Iraq and profit among global elites is a misdemeanor, recommending a pay package for an employee one dates is an unforgivable felony.

    One could go on with the furor over the misdirected pellets from Dick Cheney’s shotgun, or the clamor for the Rumsfeld resignation. Yet contrast all this hysteria with the slight whimpers surrounding recent controversies over conflicts of interest or lapses in judgment surrounding Richard Armitage, Harry Reid, or Dianne Feinstein. The destruction of federal documents that might well alter history’s consensus by former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was a snore for most journalists.

    What, then, is the one common tie that explains all these furious efforts of the media and partisans to go after these present and former Bush-administration officials?

    Payback for Iraq.
    -------------------------
    But, soon when the dems cut-off funding for the troops, as is their wont, Iraqw will become a stable place, the terorists will leave and the world will once again be a safe place. Oh yeah, not until dhimmi pelosi makes things right with iran.
    I have one firm belief about the American political system, God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat P.J. O'Rourke





  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,679
    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    -------------------------
    [/I]But, soon when the dems cut-off funding for the troops, as is their wont, Iraqw will become a stable place, the terorists will leave and the world will once again be a safe place. Oh yeah, not until dhimmi pelosi makes things right with iran.
    odd that you think that the answer to peace in the middle east depends on staying the course...

    ...Americans will eventually pull out, another Saddam will surface and pull the country together, but it will be much different from the Iraq of the past.

    Of course there is the alternative of three independant Iraqs evolving from the current mess....and Turkey is now threatening to invade northern Iraq

    it never ends

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FODM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    What, then, is the one common tie that explains all these furious efforts of the media and partisans to go after these present and former Bush-administration officials? Payback for Iraq.
    Nope. It's actually the rampant corruption and ineptitude. Nice try, though.
    [SIZE="1"]“The only Zen you find on tops of mountains is the Zen you bring there”---Robert M. Pirsig[/SIZE]

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    7,698
    Quote Originally Posted by JM01
    odd that you think that the answer to peace in the middle east depends on staying the course...

    ...Americans will eventually pull out, another Saddam will surface and pull the country together, but it will be much different from the Iraq of the past.

    Of course there is the alternative of three independant Iraqs evolving from the current mess....and Turkey is now threatening to invade northern Iraq

    it never ends
    did I say or intimate "staying the course"? Nope. If it were up to me, I'd be a lot more agressive in stopping al-sadr and his shiite terrorists, as well as hunting down and killing the sunni terrorists. I'd be waging a huge media campaign letting the iraqi populace know that the death and destruction in iraq is caused solely by the terrorists, on both sides. I think Petraus should be even more aggresive in his actions.

    Another saddam, you say? But different, yeah this time he's going to be even more of a totalitarian dictator, enforcing sharia law. But, I'm sure you would go for that.

    Thre alternative is for the ***** eu and un to decisively act in ending any and all support for aq and the shiite tangos. Shut down iran and syria, bankrupt hamas, and lett he israelis completely destroy the hezbollaholes. You know no quarter for your perverted islamofascists.

    The reason it isn't ending is because ther e are too many wafflers that apologize for terrorism, like you.

    Nice to see that you don't think the iraqis are capable of living in a free democratic state.

    Again the answer to peace in the ME is to make the terrorist suffer so much that they:
    A) realize that they will not be able to control iraq
    B) realize that they will not win
    C) realize that if they continue to kill innocent civilians they will be hunted down and killed.
    I have one firm belief about the American political system, God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat P.J. O'Rourke





  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    7,698
    Quote Originally Posted by FODM
    Nope. It's actually the rampant corruption and ineptitude. Nice try, though.
    Nice try, more talking points from the left.
    I have one firm belief about the American political system, God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat P.J. O'Rourke





  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,939

    Too funny

    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    Paul Wolfowitz, who sought to curb corruption that undermines support for World Bank aid to Africa, likewise is facing a lynch mob over perhaps a similar one-time lapse of judgment in regard to compensation of a companion

    "In hindsight, I wish I had trusted my original instincts and kept myself out of the negotiations."

    --Wolfowitz


    Absolutely hilarious. "Instincts"!! The dolt had no "instinct" that "perhaps" it was wrong to promote his girlfriend to a much higher salary.

    "Lynch mob" heh heh! "One-time lapse in judgment" Yeah, right.

    I can't believe you have any trouble recognizing such slimey behavior.

    In Wolfowitz we have a hypocrite of the highest order. Preaching against nepotism and then doing this. Bah. Get him out. Waste of skin. He is now irrelevant on top of being ineffective. Who will ever listen to him preach? I don't use the term "idiot" lightly.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FODM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    Nice try, more talking points from the left.
    Ah, the battle cry of the 21 percent that still supports these criminals.
    [SIZE="1"]“The only Zen you find on tops of mountains is the Zen you bring there”---Robert M. Pirsig[/SIZE]

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,679
    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    did I say or intimate "staying the course"? Nope. If it were up to me, I'd be a lot more agressive in stopping al-sadr and his shiite terrorists, as well as hunting down and killing the sunni terrorists. I'd be waging a huge media campaign letting the iraqi populace know that the death and destruction in iraq is caused solely by the terrorists, on both sides. I think Petraus should be even more aggresive in his actions.

    Another saddam, you say? But different, yeah this time he's going to be even more of a totalitarian dictator, enforcing sharia law. But, I'm sure you would go for that.

    Thre alternative is for the ***** eu and un to decisively act in ending any and all support for aq and the shiite tangos. Shut down iran and syria, bankrupt hamas, and lett he israelis completely destroy the hezbollaholes. You know no quarter for your perverted islamofascists.

    The reason it isn't ending is because ther e are too many wafflers that apologize for terrorism, like you.

    Nice to see that you don't think the iraqis are capable of living in a free democratic state.

    Again the answer to peace in the ME is to make the terrorist suffer so much that they:
    A) realize that they will not be able to control iraq
    B) realize that they will not win
    C) realize that if they continue to kill innocent civilians they will be hunted down and killed.
    Saw an interesting piece on CNN this morning...an interview with one of your presidential candidates. He says its all about oil, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq...much like the op ed from our Sunday paper...

    http://torontosun.com/News/Columnist...23666-sun.html

    The death last Sunday of six Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan reminds us of Santayana's famous maxim that those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

    The soldiers were killed near Maiwand, a name meaning nothing to most Westerners. But there, on July 27, 1880, during the bloody Second Anglo-Afghan War, the British Empire suffered one of the worst defeats in its colonial history.

    Two years earlier the Raj (Britain's Indian Empire) had invaded Afghanistan for a second time. The British put Afghan puppet rulers into power in Kabul and Kandahar....

    ...The invasion of Afghanistan was marketed to Americans as an "anti-terrorist" mission and an effort to implant democracy. It was sold to Canadians as a noble campaign of "nation-building, reconstruction, and defending women's rights." All nice-sounding, but mostly untrue.

    What we are really seeing is a war by Western powers seeking to dominate the strategic oil corridor of Afghanistan, directed against the Pashtun people who comprise half that nation's population. Another 15 million live just across the border in Pakistan. What we call the "Taliban" is actually a loose alliance of Pashtun tribes and clans, joined by nationalist forces and former mujahedin from the 1980s anti-Soviet struggle....

    ... If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops do better?

    Those generals and politicians who claim this war will be won in a few short years ought to study Maiwand.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dario's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,572
    This very well may be payback for Iraq, or for Bush having done a lot of other things that are not in the best interest of the country (his tax plan, overspending, Terri Schiavo).

    But the author is making it sound like some of these items are trivial. I work for a large, well-known corporation. Any time anyone, at any level, anywhere in the corporation is found to have shown favoritism or been involved with any decision regarding a personal with whom they are "involved," they are shown the door. Immediately. No two weeks, no working to find a replacement. You are f-ing gone.

    As a manager, there is almost no worse lapse of judgment than promoting, favoring, or in any way being involved in the evaluation of someone you're boinking. This is management 101 stuff. Wolfie is either a moron (not possible), has no idea about ethics (more possible), or so so arrogant that he thought it wouldn't matter. Anyone is a position that visible who can make that kind of error simply isn't fit for the job. It's like a cop saying that taking a $20 bribe to not write a ticket was a momentary lapse in judgment.

    I'm not sure what the stripper who accused the Duke students has to do with any of this. She's getting plenty of press. Go ask the local or state DA or AG why they aren't prosecuting.

    Regarding the USA firings, the author is implying that Democrats have done the same thing as Bush. This is absolutely BS. Most incoming presidents fire all the USAs. It's fairly traditional, and is considered standard, accepted practice. Firing USAs for not prosecuting the political opposition vigorously enough, which is the charge here, is a completely different matter. Given this point, I'm not sure how you take seriously anything this guy has to say.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    7,698
    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit
    "In hindsight, I wish I had trusted my original instincts and kept myself out of the negotiations."

    --Wolfowitz


    Absolutely hilarious. "Instincts"!! The dolt had no "instinct" that "perhaps" it was wrong to promote his girlfriend to a much higher salary.

    "Lynch mob" heh heh! "One-time lapse in judgment" Yeah, right.

    I can't believe you have any trouble recognizing such slimey behavior.

    In Wolfowitz we have a hypocrite of the highest order. Preaching against nepotism and then doing this. Bah. Get him out. Waste of skin. He is now irrelevant on top of being ineffective. Who will ever listen to him preach? I don't use the term "idiot" lightly.
    You are ignoring, once again that wofowitz was completely exonerated by the ethics committee.
    I can't believe that you fall for the slime that your MSM proints solely to deffame any one that any connectiojn to this administration, and yet ,you don't say boo, when an anti9-admiistration guy or gal, is shown to bew completely devoid of morals or ethics.
    I have one firm belief about the American political system, God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat P.J. O'Rourke





  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,939

    "Completely exonerated"?

    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    Ifgnoring once agin the wofowitz was completely exonerated by the ethics committee.
    I can't believe that you fall for the slime that your MSM proints solely to deffame any one that any connectiojn to this administration, and yet ,you don't say boo, when an anti9-admiistration guy or gal, is shown to bew completely devoid of morals or ethics.

    Well, a couple of things:

    The Executive Board of the Bank did not find Wolfowitz to be exonerated. Did it severely and publicly rebuke him in ignorance?

    What absence of morals or ethics didn't I say boo about?

    What was the corporate media's fault in this?

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    7,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Dario
    This very well may be payback for Iraq, or for Bush having done a lot of other things that are not in the best interest of the country (his tax plan, overspending, Terri Schiavo).

    But the author is making it sound like some of these items are trivial. I work for a large, well-known corporation. Any time anyone, at any level, anywhere in the corporation is found to have shown favoritism or been involved with any decision regarding a personal with whom they are "involved," they are shown the door. Immediately. No two weeks, no working to find a replacement. You are f-ing gone.

    As a manager, there is almost no worse lapse of judgment than promoting, favoring, or in any way being involved in the evaluation of someone you're boinking. This is management 101 stuff. Wolfie is either a moron (not possible), has no idea about ethics (more possible), or so so arrogant that he thought it wouldn't matter. Anyone is a position that visible who can make that kind of error simply isn't fit for the job. It's like a cop saying that taking a $20 bribe to not write a ticket was a momentary lapse in judgment.

    I'm not sure what the stripper who accused the Duke students has to do with any of this. She's getting plenty of press. Go ask the local or state DA or AG why they aren't prosecuting.

    Regarding the USA firings, the author is implying that Democrats have done the same thing as Bush. This is absolutely BS. Most incoming presidents fire all the USAs. It's fairly traditional, and is considered standard, accepted practice. Firing USAs for not prosecuting the political opposition vigorously enough, which is the charge here, is a completely different matter. Given this point, I'm not sure how you take seriously anything this guy has to say.
    And if "your" guy was exonerated by the companies ethics committee? And if your guy went to the ethics committee and distinctly told them he wanted to be recused from anything having to do with the "boinkee" and the ethics committe told him it was OK, he needed to handle it?
    And if your guy did everything the ethics committeee asked of him and then someone on the ethics committee leaked only a partial account of what happened, conveniently omitting his role in the proceedings?then what?

    The duke striper, the point is simple, but I'll explain it anyhow is this: She was given a pass regarding her perjury because the DA says she is just too unbelievable, and that's OK for her not to be charged, it's a DOUBLE standard. She lied under oath many times, that's perjury.

    The USA firings: they can be fired at the presidents whim. That is the law, they are appointed by him, they work for him and serve at his pleasure. There is still not a scintilla of proof, only allegation and innuendo, that they were fired for "political" reasons. BTW the job of USA is a political appointee and if the president wants to fire them for "political" reasons, that is his perogative. Using the firings to make political hay, that is what is unethical.
    I have one firm belief about the American political system, God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat P.J. O'Rourke





  13. #13
    the cool nerd
    Reputation: sportsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    8,643
    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    The USA firings: they can be fired at the presidents whim. That is the law, they are appointed by him, they work for him and serve at his pleasure. There is still not a scintilla of proof, only allegation and innuendo, that they were fired for "political" reasons. .
    it doesn't hurt that apparently many of the e-mails were intentionally performed from non-government machines, and then "deleted", that way they can skirt the law..

    attorneys are appointed politically, but then expected to perform their jobs apolitically. a fine distinction, I don't expect you to understand.
    "The search for a perfect pint should take lifetime." M.Jackson

    Ride bikes, not goats. Just good advice

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,939

    Hmmm.....

    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    And if "your" guy was exonerated by the companies ethics committee? And if your guy went to the ethics committee and distinctly told them he wanted to be recused from anything having to do with the "boinkee" and the ethics committe told him it was OK, he needed to handle it?
    And if your guy did everything the ethics committeee asked of him and then someone on the ethics committee leaked only a partial account of what happened, conveniently omitting his role in the proceedings?then what?
    EMPHASIS mine:


    From the MSM/Corporate Media/FOX NEWS:

    Wolfowitz’s opaque apology came only hours after the Financial Times reported that Wolfowitz - CONTRARY to earlier statements made by him and his top aides — had personally ordered the bank’s human resources chief to offer Riza the pay rises. The Financial Times cited sources in the bank who allegedly saw a memo on the subject written by Wolfowitz in August 2005.

    Editors at the Financial Times are also calling for his resignation. But when asked by reporters at the Thursday briefing if he would step down, Wolfowitz dodged the question by responding, “I take FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the details. I did not attempt to hide my actions nor make anyone else responsible.”

    While it still remains unclear just what those details are, it increasingly seems that Wolfowitz had a DIRECT role in Riza’s salary hikes and job-related negotiations that may have gone BEYOND what the bank’s board was aware of. Wolfowitz insists he acted as he did in order to shield the bank from the potential threat of a lawsuit by Riza, who was forced to leave because of bank rules that prohibit employees from working for anyone with whom they are romantically involved.

    In fact, as with so many other Washington scandals, it’s what Wolfowitz did after the alleged offense that is causing the greatest problems. But that is further complicated by the ill will he has generated in a take-no-prisoners effort to change the bank’s bureaucratic and corruption-ridden culture and lending practices.

    Since taking charge of the bank, Wolfowitz has made “good governance” and “anti-corruption” the highlight of his agenda for the bank’s 185 member-nations, but his blunt and aggressive style has now turned the spotlight on his own actions.

    Wolfowitz has spoken often about the need for more openness and transparency and less cronyism in governments and World Bank lending, and he has infuriated his 24-member board - dominated by borrowing nations - by trying to attach anti-corruption conditions to loans, and sometimes blocking suspect loans outright. But the handling of the Riza SCANDAL is becoming a case study of how well Wolfowitz follows similar rules.

    “I think this whole thing would have blown away,” says a former top official at the bank, who told FOX News that he is providing details about the alleged scandal to the ad hoc board committee that is probing the matter. “But it’s the kind of thing where you try and MANIPULATE the truth, to pin it on other people, and just not be straightforward.”

    Even so, the former insider adds, “he [Wolfowitz] gave her a very substantial salary raise, COMPLETELY BEYOND the parameters of the bank, and — most importantly — he DID NOT consult about it with the appropriate bodies.”

    News of Riza’s move to the U.S. State Dept. was first broken in 2005 by a blogger for the Village Voice, but the story gained traction in late March, 2007, when the Washington Post ran a column based on information from Riza’s personnel records at the bank. At that time, Wolfowitz spokesman Kevin Kellems - who himself earns a tax-free salary of $240,000 at the anti-poverty agency - told the Post that “all arrangements concerning Shaha Riza were made at the direction of the bank’s board of directors.”

    BOARD MEMBERS began swiftly and furiously DENYING that the board gave any such directions.

    Next, on April 5, a “senior bank official” told the Financial Times that the terms of Riza’s deal were approved in 2005 by the “ethics committee” of the board — and not Wolfowitz — while Reuters reported that a “bank official” claimed that the bank’s general counsel at the time, Roberto Danino, had negotiated the deal. A day later, both Danino and the former HEAD OF THE BOARD'S ETHICS COMMITTEE stepped forward to CHALLENGE THAT VERSION of events.

    “It was entirely up to management [Wolfowitz] to determine the specific terms and conditions,” stated a spokesman for Ad Melkert, the former head of the ethics committee. Melkert added that the committee members “were not aware of, nor did they approve, the details of the agreement.” Danino, the bank's former general counsel, who has told FOX News that he is “no fan of Mr. Wolfowitz,” has issued his own DENIAL that he was involved in any way with the “implementation” of that committee’s advice.

    Wolfowitz finally stepped forward himself on April 9, with an e-mail to the bank’s staff. While accepting “full responsibility,” for the imbroglio, he insisted that he had “acted on the advice” of the bank’s ethics committee. But Wolfowitz declined to specify exactly what that advice was —infuriating staffers further. In a statement today, he added, again vaguely: “I made a good faith effort to implement my understanding of that advice.”

    By April 10, hundreds of staffers had posted angry anonymous responses to his e-mail . Among them: a complaint that staffers in the Middle East region — where Riza worked — “have had minuscule increases over the past years and been told by management that there would be no promotions (over the last 2 years) due to lack of funds.”

    Yesterday, an exasperated Wolfowitz again dodged a series of questions by reporters. " I don't think it's fair to the rest of the [anti-poverty] agenda to take up this valuable time." But in an effort to clear his name,Wolfowitz's office requested that the bank's board make public the confidential communications between him and the ethics committee regarding Riza. To date, they have not done so.

    Amid all the melodrama, the bank's frenetic rumor mill has been working in overdrive. The gossip now swirling through the bank's Washington corridors includes allegations that a very senior bank official even ordered the destruction of the Human Resources paper trail in the case. But former general counsel Danino, who appeared before the fact-finding committee on Tuesday, told FOX News he has no reason to think that's true.

    "They have the paper trail," he said.

    "What I saw is the complete paper trail. I have seen nothing missing."

    What happens next, as Wolfowitz has said, will depend on how the bank's special investigating committee judges the situation. There was no information available as to when the committee would report—or whether that report would be made public."


    I recommend you not get too far ahead of this story, sandan.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    7,698
    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit
    Well, a couple of things:

    The Executive Board of the Bank did not find Wolfowitz to be exonerated. Did it severely and publicly rebuke him in ignorance?

    What absence of morals or ethics didn't I say boo about?

    What was the corporate media's fault in this?
    try not to be so darned obtuse and stick to the facts:


    Mr. Wolfowitz had asked to recuse himself from matters related to his girlfriend, a longtime World Bank employee, before he signed his own employment contract.

    The bank's general counsel at the time, Roberto Danino, wrote in a May 27, 2005 letter to Mr. Wolfowitz's lawyers:

    "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."

    the bank board--composed of representatives from donor nations--decided to set up an ethics committee to investigate.
    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.

    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."

    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.

    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.

    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.
    I have one firm belief about the American political system, God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat P.J. O'Rourke





  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,939
    Quote Originally Posted by sportsman
    it doesn't hurt that apparently many of the e-mails were intentionally performed from non-government machines, and then "deleted", that way they can skirt the law..

    attorneys are appointed politically, but then expected to perform their jobs apolitically. a fine distinction, I don't expect you to understand.

    There is yet another angle to this in Wisconsin:

    Why were some attorneys NOT fired?

    Because what happened in WI is a blatantly political prosecution timed to coincide with a campaign cycle. An innocent woman was sent to prison. The review court was astonished at what happened.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/op...d42&ei=5087%0A

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dario's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,572
    Doesn't matter what the ethics committee said. Having anything to do with someone you're sleeping with is a clear ethics violation. Again, I'm not saying he should be fired - I just don't care. But saying "someone else told me it was ok" is just BS. He runs the place - he needs to set the higher standard. He needed to tell them that ANY involvement is too much involvement. Just because some lackeys who work for him were misguided, that doesn't making him less accountable for doing the right thing. He screwed up. Period.

    I still don't get your point on the Duke stripper. Are you asking why the media isn't going after her as hard as they are Wolfowitz? Well, first of all, she's not a public figure. Second, she's a stripper.

    Absolutely agree that the USAs can be fired for any reason whatsoever. But if they are fired for purely political reasons, and/or were asked to put aside their prosecutorial ethics in favor or smearing democrats, the administration will have to deal with the political fallout. It's not the firings that are the problem. Is the possible manipulation of justice that's the issue. No offense, but how can you not get this? This seems to be an issue with the republican party lately - people just don't see things that are blatantly wrong as being wrong at all.

    From an ethics perspective, the Wolfowitz thing is a no-brainer. He was flat out wrong, and did something that would get even the lowest level manager fired. Same with the USAs - if they were fired for purely political reasons, then Bush was playing politics with the justice department. It's one thing to hire USAs who support your agenda or lean your way politically. It's quite another to expect them to prosecute the opposition so that one party can win elections. The difference is night and day to me.
    Last edited by Dario; 04-17-2007 at 03:27 AM.

  18. #18
    outdoor miner
    Reputation: leximog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,514
    Quote Originally Posted by sandan

    Alberto Gonzalez perhaps (emphasize “perhaps,” as yet we don’t know all the facts) showed a lapse in judgment or at least of political savvy by firing politically appointed federal attorneys, something that was not unusual in past Democratic administrations.

    Paul Wolfowitz, who sought to curb corruption that undermines support for World Bank aid to Africa, likewise is facing a lynch mob over perhaps a similar one-time lapse of judgment in regard to compensation of a companion
    So many one time lapses.

    Bush cronies running relays of one time lapses.

    Patriotically.
    [SIZE=-1]Experience is like a comb that life gives you when you are bald[/SIZE]

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    402
    What I find hilarious is all the jumping up and down and screaming that "it wasn't about the blowjob", no no, the blowjob was the point, it was that Clinton lied to Congress.

    So those same pinheads see no problem at all with this administration, Gonzales included, lying repeatedly and often to Congress.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •