Author Topic: The Wolfowitz non-story  (Read 2582 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
The Wolfowitz non-story
« on: April 21, 2007, 12:19:18 AM »
Why the World Bank chief and his girlfriend are victims of scandal peddlers, not their own judgment.
By Ruth Wedgwood
RUTH WEDGWOOD is professor of international law and diplomacy at Johns Hopkins University's School for Advanced International Studies.

April 17, 2007

ON TAKING office, World Bank President Paul D. Wolfowitz set two priorities for the world's premier development institution. He asked for a focus on Africa's persistent poverty, and he targeted corruption that diverts aid dollars from the poor.

African leaders endorsed this vision, but not all bank bureaucrats were thrilled by Wolfowitz or his policies. Still, any friend of the bank's work should be dismayed by the disruption caused by a manufactured scandal at a time when the bank needs to replenish its coffers. The imbroglio rattling the World Bank during its spring meeting of finance ministers is a rehash of its clumsy attempt to resolve the status of Shaha Ali Riza, a veteran bank professional and Wolfowitz's longtime romantic partner.

The authors of this acrid affair have nakedly forgotten the standards of fairness and due process owed Riza, who is a member of the bank staff association and entitled to its fiduciary protections. And the scandal-mongers have recklessly ignored a written record of bank documents that serves not to condemn but to exculpate Wolfowitz.

Moreover, the case reveals the bank's executive board and its ethics committee as organs of haphazard judgment. In 2005, the ethics committee surprisingly denied Wolfowitz's written request that he be allowed to recuse himself from all decisions touching on Riza's status because of their relationship. Then it disqualified her from remaining at the bank yet insisted that she be compensated for this disruption to her career. Next, it insisted that Wolfowitz re-enter the chain of command to execute its advice concerning Riza. And now, board members apparently have criticized Wolfowitz for doing exactly what the ethics panel directed.

To be sure, news stories about Riza have revealed that the pay of World Bank staff far exceed what comparable professionals would earn elsewhere. The public may rightly be dismayed to learn that Riza and other World Bank "lead" professionals can earn from $132,000 to $232,000 — in some cases more than U.S. Cabinet secretaries. And because the bank is an international institution, staffers who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents are not taxed by Washington. A foreign bank employee with a salary of $132,000 can support the same lifestyle as someone with a taxable gross income of more than $200,000. This should be changed.

But this does not excuse a mob mentality that abuses the reputation of a particular female professional, much less a bank president. The internal documents released last week — at Wolfowitz's request — show that this slow-moving institution had no protocol for figuring out how to accommodate the career of a professional woman when her spouse or partner came to work in the same chain of command. This is becoming a more serious problem in today's workplace.

Riza was a veteran of the bank, working as a senior communications officer in the Middle East/North African public outreach program before Wolfowitz was picked as bank president in 2005. With more than 15 years' experience in the field, able to speak Arabic, English and French, she was short-listed for a senior-level job. The bank's ethics committee in July 2005 gave "informal" advice that Riza had to give up her eligibility for promotion and leave the bank. It acknowledged that this step would disrupt Riza's career for a substantial period. For a 52-year-old bank employee facing mandatory retirement at age 62, losing a promotion and a long period of service is not trivial. The ethics committee thus reasonably concluded that Riza should receive some compensation for her forced transfer.

According to the documents on the bank's website, it was the ethics committee's own idea — not Wolfowitz's — to give Riza a promotion as she was being moved out for four years. She was transferred to the State Department to work on a grass-roots democracy project that has been praised by Secretary Condoleezza Rice. She was given the mid-range salary for her new level. This was a lot of money, but it was based on the bank's existing pay scales. It was certainly not a corrupt favor to a girlfriend.

The most amazing thing is that all the facts were reviewed for a second time by the World Bank ethics committee last year, and again it found nothing wrong. The chairman of the ethics committee pronounced in a Feb. 28, 2006, letter that "the ethics committee decided that the allegations … do not appear to pose ethical issues." It is hard to square the record with the entertaining claim that the World Bank's president somehow concocted a do-nothing job for his girlfriend. It's a bum rap, and one that women professionals in dual-career families might worry about.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wedgwood17apr17,1,4221206,print.story

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Wolfowitz non-story
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2007, 06:31:29 AM »
Wolfowitz's girlfriend problem

Not only did the World Bank president find his companion Shaha Ali Riza a cushy job in the State Department, but she received a security clearance -- unprecedented for a foreign national.

By Sidney Blumenthal

April 19, 2007 | Paul Wolfowitz's tenure as president of the World Bank has turned into yet another case study of neoconservative government in action. It bears resemblance to the military planning for the invasion of Iraq, during which Wolfowitz, as deputy secretary of defense, arrogantly humiliated Army chief of staff Eric Shinseki for suggesting that the U.S. force level was inadequate. It has similarities to the twisting of intelligence used to justify the war, in which Wolfowitz oversaw the construction of a parallel operation within the Pentagon, the Office of Special Plans, to shunt disinformation directly to the White House, without its being vetted by CIA analysts, about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to al-Qaida and his weapons of mass destruction, and sought to fire Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, for factually reporting before the invasion that Saddam had not revived his nuclear weapons program. Wolfowitz's regime also uncannily looks like the occupation of Iraq run by the Coalition Provisional Authority, from which Wolfowitz blackballed State Department professionals -- instead staffing it with inexperienced ideologues -- and to whom Wolfowitz sent daily orders.

Wolfowitz's World Bank scandal over his girlfriend reveals many of the same qualities that created the wreckage he left in his wake in Iraq: grandiosity, cronyism, self-dealing and lying -- followed by an energetic campaign to deflect accountability. As with the war, he has retreated behind his fervent profession of good intentions to excuse himself. The ginning up of the conservative propaganda mill that once disseminated Wolfowitz's disinformation on WMD to defend him as the innocent victim of a political smear only underlines his tried-and-true methods of operation. The hollowness of his defense echoes in the thunderous absurdity of Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial: "Paul Wolfowitz, meet the Duke lacrosse team."

Superficially, Wolfowitz's arrangement for his girlfriend of a job with a hefty increase in pay in violation of the ethics clauses of his contract and without informing the World Bank board might seem like an all-too-familiar story of a man seeking special favors for a romantic partner. Wolfowitz has tried to cast the scandal as a "painful personal dilemma," as he described it in an April 12 e-mail to outraged employees of the World Bank, who have taken to calling the neoconservative's girlfriend his "neoconcubine." He was, he says, just attempting to "navigate in uncharted waters." But the fall of Wolfowitz is the final act of a long drama -- and love or even self-love may not be the whole subject.

Wolfowitz's girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, is a Libyan, raised in Saudi Arabia, educated at Oxford, who now has British citizenship. She is divorced; he is separated. Their discreet relationship became a problem only when he ascended to the World Bank presidency. Riza had floated through the neoconservative network -- working at the Free Iraq Foundation in the early 1990s and the National Endowment for Democracy -- until landing a position in the Middle East and African department of the World Bank. The ethics provisions of Wolfowitz's contract, however, stipulated that he could not maintain a sexual relationship with anyone over whom he had supervisory authority, even indirectly.

Back in 2003, Wolfowitz had taken care of Riza by directing his trusted Pentagon deputy, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith -- who had been in charge of the Office of Special Plans and had been Wolfowitz's partner in managing the CPA -- to arrange for a military contract for her from Science Applications International Corp. When the contract was exposed this week, SAIC issued a statement that it "had no role in the selection of the personnel." In other words, the firm with hundreds of millions in contracts at stake had been ordered to hire Riza.

Riza was unhappy about leaving the sinecure at the World Bank. But in 2006 Wolfowitz made a series of calls to his friends that landed her a job at a new think tank called Foundation for the Future that is funded by the State Department. She was the sole employee, at least in the beginning. The World Bank continued to pay her salary, which was raised by $60,000 to $193,590 annually, more than the $183,500 paid to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and all of it tax-free. Moreover, Wolfowitz got the State Department to agree that the ratings of her performance would automatically be "outstanding." Wolfowitz insisted on these terms himself and then misled the World Bank board about what he had done.

Exactly how this deal was made and with whom remains something of a mystery. The person who did work with Riza in her new position was Elizabeth Cheney, then the deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. And Riza's assignment fell under the purview of Karen Hughes, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. But these facts raise more questions than they answer.

The documents released by the World Bank do not include any of the communications with the State Department. How did Elizabeth Cheney come to be involved? Did Wolfowitz speak with Vice President Dick Cheney, for whom he had been a deputy when Cheney was secretary of defense in the elder Bush's administration?

Riza, who is not a U.S. citizen, had to receive a security clearance in order to work at the State Department. Who intervened? It is not unusual to have British or French midlevel officers at the department on exchange programs, but they receive security clearances based on the clearances they already have with their host governments. Granting a foreign national who is detailed from an international organization a security clearance, however, is extraordinary, even unprecedented. So how could this clearance have been granted?

State Department officials familiar with the details of this matter confirmed to me that Shaha Ali Riza was detailed to the State Department and had unescorted access while working for Elizabeth Cheney. Access to the building requires a national security clearance or permanent escort by a person with such a clearance. But the State Department has no record of having issued a national security clearance to Riza.

State Department officials believe that Riza was issued such a clearance by the Defense Department after SAIC was forced by Wolfowitz and Feith to hire her. Then her clearance would have been recognized by the State Department through a credentials transmittal letter and Riza would have accessed the State Department on Pentagon credentials, using her Pentagon clearance to get a State Department building pass with a letter issued under instructions from Liz Cheney.

But State Department officials tell me that no such letter can be confirmed as received. And the officials stress that the department would never issue a clearance to a non-U.S. citizen as part of a contractual requisition. Issuing a national security clearance to a foreign national under instructions from a Pentagon official would constitute a violation of the executive orders governing clearances, they say.

Given these circumstances, the inspector general of the Defense Department should be ordered to investigate how Shaha Ali Riza was issued a Pentagon security clearance. And the inspector general of the State Department should investigate who ordered Riza's building pass and whether there was a Pentagon credentials transmittal letter.

Wolfowitz's willful behavior, as though no rules bound him or facts constrained his ideas, should not have surprised anyone. At the Pentagon, Wolfowitz was an insistent force behind an invasion of Iraq, bringing it up at the first National Security Council meeting of the Bush administration, months before Sept. 11. For years he had been a firm believer in the crackpot theories of Laurie Mylroie, a neoconservative writer, who argued that Saddam was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and even the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. After Sept. 11, Wolfowitz pursued his obsession by sending former CIA Director James Woolsey on a secret mission to attempt to confirm the theory. Woolsey came back with nothing, but Wolfowitz continued to believe. His beliefs are stronger than any evidence.

Surrounded by his Praetorian Guard, Wolfowitz insulated himself at the World Bank from the career staff. There, as at the Pentagon, Wolfowitz pushed aside the professionals and replaced them with a small band of politically reliable assistants. Wolfowitz rewarded them, too, on his own authority, with enormous tax-free salaries. Consider Kevin Kellems, his public affairs officer at the Pentagon, who had guided conservative media from that perch and is known as "keeper of the comb," for having been the person to hand Wolfowitz the infamous comb he licked before slicking down his hair in the Michael Moore film "Fahrenheit 9/11." Kellems was given a salary of $240,000, at least equal to what World Bank vice presidents with years of service earn.

Wolfowitz had spent his career staging neoconservative insurgencies against what he considered to be liberal establishments. But at the World Bank he tried to model himself after Robert McNamara, who had turned his presidency at the bank into his vehicle for redemption for his part in the Vietnam War. Wolfowitz, the chief intellectual and policy advocate for the Iraq war, no longer mentioned it. Now he pleads to the World Bank board that his corrupt dealings be overlooked for the greater good of his crusade against corruption. His refusal to resign discredits and paralyzes the institution he had hoped would vindicate him.
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Wolfowitz non-story
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2007, 07:44:32 AM »
...she received a security clearance -- unprecedented for a foreign national.

Wrong. Over the years, I have worked with many foreign nationals who had security clearances and were cleared to work with material the US deemed classified, or in areas where clearances were required. Any and all classified material up to and including Top Secret may be accessed by foreign nationals with the proper clearances in the performance of their duties. The exception, however, is a category called NOFORN, short for 'no foreign nationals'; this material is not always classified Top Secret (the highest category), and may simply be Confidential or Secret, or even simply FOUO (for official use only).

That's the simple version. Within each category of classification (Confidential, Secret and Top Secret), there are what you might call subcategories. I had a DoD Top Secret Crypto clearance when I worked in communications, and a DoE 'Q' clearance (their version of Top Secret) when I worked in the nuclear field. Neither of them gave me blanket access to everything. National security is very compartmented, and even at NSA, in order to work on a project in, say, 'X' Group, I had to be granted an additional access to even work in their area. Someone else with the same clearance I had but no 'X' access would not be allowed in. Some programs - in fact, most of them, but by no means all - carry a blanket NOFORN prohibition, meaning no foreign nationals are allowed access to any of their material.

A simple example - when I worked on the F-16 flight simulator, we had to simulate classified systems on the aircraft, thus the simulations themselves were classified. However, we also trained pilots from other NATO member nations on our simulators, so they had to be cleared and have access to those classified systems. On the other hand, we had software for some simulations that was classified NOFORN, and could not, under any circumstances and penalty of law, be booted up on the systems when any foreign nationals were present. To even have a NOFORN disk pack loaded into a drive and not spun up, or even just out of the locked storage cabinet, when a foreign national was in the area was a secutiy violation.


"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Wolfowitz non-story
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2007, 10:17:32 AM »
...she received a security clearance -- unprecedented for a foreign national.

Wrong.

OUCH.  That had to be painful



"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Mucho

  • Guest
Re: The Wolfowitz non-story
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2007, 10:38:24 AM »
...she received a security clearance -- unprecedented for a foreign national.

Wrong.

OUCH.  That had to be painful





Most of the lies told by RW apologists are painful to other people. You dont give a shit anyway if it serves your evil ends.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Wolfowitz non-story
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2007, 12:26:39 PM »
Quote
Most of the lies told by RW apologists are painful to other people. You dont give a shit anyway if it serves your evil ends.

One day you will see the reflection in the mirror as your own.

The World Bank Ethics Committee cleared this not once, but twice. This is a manufactured scandal. And you dare talk of caring about the truth?

Mucho

  • Guest
Re: The Wolfowitz non-story
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2007, 02:02:50 PM »
Quote
Most of the lies told by RW apologists are painful to other people. You dont give a shit anyway if it serves your evil ends.

One day you will see the reflection in the mirror as your own.

The World Bank Ethics Committee cleared this not once, but twice. This is a manufactured scandal. And you dare talk of caring about the truth?

This proves one of my fave theories: that Repubs always have to pay for sex. I bet Moni gave Bill a raise without him having to give her one.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Wolfowitz non-story
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2007, 02:19:49 PM »
<<...she received a security clearance -- unprecedented for a foreign national.

Wrong.>>

Thanks, Hnumpah, glad to know this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6550995.stm
Here's another article about the Wolfowitz/Riza story.
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Wolfowitz non-story
« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2007, 04:24:35 PM »
Quote
This proves one of my fave theories: that Repubs always have to pay for sex.

In this case your theory falls flat. No surprise. You are consistently wrong.

Mucho

  • Guest
Re: The Wolfowitz non-story
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2007, 06:18:41 PM »
Quote
This proves one of my fave theories: that Repubs always have to pay for sex.

In this case your theory falls flat. No surprise. You are consistently wrong.


You dont think giving an underling a raise for sex is not paying for it? You are much worse off than I think in the mental deficiency diagnosis.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Wolfowitz non-story
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2007, 06:57:08 PM »
Quote
You dont think giving an underling a raise for sex is not paying for it?

The story i read said that the ethics committee recommended both the raise and the transfer/promotion, so unless they were getting laid your theory falls even flatter.

Mucho

  • Guest
Re: The Wolfowitz non-story
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2007, 11:23:46 PM »
Quote
You dont think giving an underling a raise for sex is not paying for it?

The story i read said that the ethics committee recommended both the raise and the transfer/promotion, so unless they were getting laid your theory falls even flatter.


I heard that the world's intelligence thought there were WMD's in  Iraq and that was also false. You guys just make shit up as you go along and now everyone knows it.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Wolfowitz non-story
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2007, 01:11:53 AM »
According to the documents on the bank's website, it was the ethics committee's own idea — not Wolfowitz's — to give Riza a promotion as she was being moved out for four years. She was transferred to the State Department to work on a grass-roots democracy project that has been praised by Secretary Condoleezza Rice. She was given the mid-range salary for her new level. This was a lot of money, but it was based on the bank's existing pay scales.

From the story at the top of the thread. From the LA Times.

Mucho

  • Guest
Re: The Wolfowitz non-story
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2007, 02:29:21 PM »
According to the documents on the bank's website, it was the ethics committee's own idea — not Wolfowitz's — to give Riza a promotion as she was being moved out for four years. She was transferred to the State Department to work on a grass-roots democracy project that has been praised by Secretary Condoleezza Rice. She was given the mid-range salary for her new level. This was a lot of money, but it was based on the bank's existing pay scales.

From the story at the top of the thread. From the LA Times.
[/quote

Maybe they did it as a trap like Ken Starr was to see how corrupt & horney this asshole is.

Turnabout is fairplay dontchaknow:


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-rieff22apr22,0,401614.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
From the Los Angeles Times
Wolfowitz walked into a trap
Many World Bank staffers were gunning for the former administration official when he began his tenure.
By David Rieff
DAVID RIEFF is the author of "At the Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention" and "A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis."

April 22, 2007

THERE IS STILL a lot we don't know about the scandal that has engulfed Paul D. Wolfowitz, the former U.S. deputy secretary of Defense who is now president of the World Bank and who is under fire for his reported role in giving a hefty raise and job transfer to his companion, Shaha Ali Riza. But we do know this much: The current crisis is only the latest installment in a long-standing war not just of personalities but of cultures that has roiled the institution since even before Wolfowitz took over in 2005.

The World Bank, dreamed up at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 and created in the days just after World War II, is viewed by most knowledgeable people today (except a few hard-line critics on the extreme left and extreme right) as an essential institution. But even the bank's staunchest supporters concede that in many ways it is also a very peculiar one. In particular, its governance seems radically at odds with its mission.

That mission, more than anything else, is to alleviate poverty and encourage development in the poorest parts of the world. Yet poor countries have very little say in the bank's operations. Instead, it is controlled by its "shareholders," whose votes are apportioned according to the amount of money they contribute to its operations. In practical terms, this means that Japan, Europe and, especially, the U.S. still control policy, which, as the bank's left-wing opponents often point out, recapitulates the balance of power in the world economic system that dominated the world political system before post-World War II decolonization.

To add insult to injury (from the developing world's point of view, anyway), the presidency of the World Bank has been viewed since the institution's inception as a U.S. preserve, just as the directorship of the International Monetary Fund has been reserved by tradition for a European. In reality, all others need not apply. (Former World Bank presidents include Washington Post owner Eugene Meyer; lawyer, banker and foreign policy "wise man" John J. McCloy and Vietnam-era Defense Secretary Robert McNamara.)

The bank itself, however, is staffed by people from all over the world. Sociologically, they resemble the staff at comparable institutions, such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. The very least that can be said about them is that they share a suspicion of U.S. motives and the increasingly negative opinion about the U.S. that polls suggest is pervasive throughout most of the world (especially among elites).

The decision of the Bush administration to nominate Wolfowitz, a leading American neoconservative, to succeed the banker and philanthropist James Wolfensohn as the World Bank's president was widely viewed within the bank as the equivalent of naming John R. Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations — a gesture of contempt for the institution's values and a naked declaration that, as the "sole remaining superpower," the United States would do what it wished, when it wished, no matter what the rest of the world might think.

That Wolfowitz is widely regarded as the architect of the Iraq war — and that he arrived at the bank surrounded by a coterie of Bush loyalists with neither experience in international institutions nor expertise in development (his senior advisor, Kevin Kellems, was Vice President Dick Cheney's erstwhile spokesman) — was bound to stir up opposition.

Wolfensohn also arrived with a "reformist" agenda. But, unlike Wolfowitz, he was neither saddled with the baggage of the Iraq war nor did he bring in his own team of less-than-qualified aides and give them extraordinary decision-making powers. Instead of a Kevin Kellems, Wolfensohn chose as his right-hand man Mark Malloch Brown — an Englishman who had begun his career in the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and was, by the time of his appointment, a recognized expert on development.

Wolfensohn's tenure was hardly without controversy, and he certainly had his critics within the bank; they clashed on issues such as how much emphasis to put on human rights and the building of civil society in developing nations.

But Wolfensohn never had to face what Wolfowitz has had to deal with from the first moment of his tenure — a staff in a perpetual state of near mutiny. Even if Wolfowitz had considerably greater gifts for conciliation and administration — his failings on the latter point were an open secret within the Bush administration — he would have had a difficult, if not impossible, time winning over the bank's staff.

There is an old psychoanalytic joke that goes: "When the right person does the wrong thing, it's right; when the wrong person does the right thing, it's wrong." In a sense, for all his tone-deafness and arrogant disregard for the sensitivities of the bank's permanent staff, Wolfowitz exemplifies the truth of the saying. The fact is that both his focus on Africa and his determination to put anti-corruption campaigning at the center of the bank's efforts are eminently defensible priorities.

The problem with getting on your high horse about corruption in the developing world, however, is that you have to be irreproachable yourself. Headquartered in Washington and staffed by people who receive very high salaries (far more than in the U.S. government, for example, and often tax-free to boot), the World Bank has always had to fight the perception that its officials are the kind of people who write stiff notes to poor countries about fiscal discipline before going off to expensive lunches in Georgetown.

By appearing to maneuver a pay raise for his companion, Wolfowitz has done more to confirm that perception than anyone in the history of the bank. As such, he has done great damage to the institution — damage from which it is unlikely to recover until he is out of office.

The tragedy for Wolfowitz, of course, is that many people at the bank were already gunning for him. But they cannot have expected him to hand them the loaded revolver with which to do the deed.

 

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Wolfowitz non-story
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2007, 06:15:19 PM »
Quote
Maybe they did it as a trap like Ken Starr was to see how corrupt & horney this asshole is.

Turnabout is fairplay dontchaknow:

So the ethics commmittee recommends the transfer and the raise. Which is what my article said and you say it was done as a trap. Turnaround being fair play.

Which may be true but it also proves it is a manufactured scandal.

And that means your side is spending credibility like water and you don't have that much credibility to begin with.