Bush administration finally gets its own sex scandal

Scripps News ^ | 18 April 2007 | Scripps News

[montag813]

How can there be a “Sex scandal” when the two participants are so un-sexy? Wolfowitz’s diaperhead girlfriend is so damn ugly! And what does he do for foreplay—lick his comb and style her hair?

[isom35]

she’s not hot so it will blow over fast

[Kitten Festival]

Hitch is a friend of wolf’s, nothing he says has any objectivity. Notice how fact-free it all is, and how eager he is to attack wolf’s critics without examining what they are saying. Not his finest hour, he made a fool of himself with that essay. But the cocktail parties over at chez wolfowitz will always clink for him. What a selfdealer.

[jwalsh07]

LOL, you’re unconvinceable. Wolfowitz is not a member of the Bush Administration which makes your article utter and complete nonsense. A bush administration sex scandal? Give me a break Kitten.

[woofie]

Ping

[woofie]

Kitten Festival seems to be sliming away on her own

[the Real fifi]

Melkert ordered him to do so as you certainly know by now or would have if you took time to read the documents instead of searching for more false, slanderous stuff to post.

[Kitten Festival]

It’s more complicated than that. And it’s got a lot of he-said, she-said in it to sort out. If the Journal was so sure Wolf was set up, why didn’t they point the finger squarely at Melkert? I am watching this, though, maybe a snakish Melkert set him up.

[oust the louse]

Can you help me understand how Wolfowitz is not a member of the Bush administration? I’ve just not been following this closely and am curious...who put him there?...just wondering...

[the Real fifi]

Monday’s WSJ editorial did suggest it was a set up and did name Melkert specifically, quoting from some of his correspondence on this. The Fox story gives all the documents and says much the same thing.

[Kitten Festival]

But it was buried, he was just named a little, it wasn’t centered on his role as being central to the case. It didn’t shift the momentum toward him. They didn’t make the case all that strongly, i thought, it seemed more speculative.

[Rottweilerson]

“I made a mistake, for which I am sorry.”—P.W.

I’m so sick of powerful people who get caught doing something obviously wrong or illegal and act like it’s only a little mistake & apologize & some maybe go to rehab. Their 1st step is usually lie & deny, their 2nd step is the (hey, we are only human, we all make mistakes. So, let just move on) shuffle.

They all do it on all sides, both parties.

This was not a “mistake”, it was a contrived, well thought out plan put into action. They weighed out the risks & went ahead with it.

A mistake is using too much salt when cooking or passing your exit on the highway etc... Not giving your girlfriend a shady raise.

[the Real fifi]

Utter B.S. His mistake was not understanding that he was being set up by the Euro weasels.

[Kitten Festival]

I think a lot of people see it that way. It explains why we aren’t winning elections.

[Rottweilerson]

How is it “utter BS”? He’s the one who said he was sorry & that he made a mistake. His words, not mine. That to me is an admission of wrong doing. Maybe he was being set up for a downfall. But he gave them the ammo to do it with.

[the Real fifi]

BURIED? Surely you never read it: "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. 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. Mr. Melkert, a Dutch politician now at the U.N., seems to have played an especially cowardly role. In an October 24, 2005 letter to Mr. Wolfowitz, he averred that "because the outcome is consistent with the Committee's findings and advice above, the Committee concurs with your view that this matter can be treated as closed." A month later, on November 25, Mr. Melkert even sent Mr. Wolfowitz a personal, hand-written note saying, "I would like to thank you for the very open and constructive spirit of our discussions, knowing in particular the sensitivity to Shaha, who I hope will be happy in her new assignment." And when anonymous World Bank staffers began to circulate emails making nasty allegations about Ms. Shaha's job transfer and pay in early 2006, Mr. Melkert dismissed them in a letter to Mr. Wolfowitz on February 28, 2006, because they "did not contain new information warranting any further review by the Committee." Yet amid the recent media smears, Mr. Melkert has minimized his own crucial role." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009948

[Kitten Festival]

But they never prominently lay on him the badguy role. He just comes and goes in this story.

[Paige]

When Clinton was being investigated, the investigation was about perjury (lying under oath) obstruction of justice... sex was the evidence.

[RichInOC]

Isn't a sex scandal supposed to have...you know...some sex? A vice bust or two? Rumors that the intern kissed the President there...and there? Even a slightly charred gerbil?

[the Real fifi]

You’re asking someone who said the WSJ editorial which clearly tagged Meltert as the weasel didn;t say that. (see above.)