Wolfowitz - bent as a nine-bob note
This is priceless :laugh4:
Printable View
Wolfowitz - bent as a nine-bob note
This is priceless :laugh4:
Heh. Moron.
I'm surprised it took this long to link him to some form of corruption. Whats the old saying "the apple dosent fall to far from the tree"
I find it hard to believe that any woman, no matter how amazing, is worth $200,000 a year just for sex. (After all, Wolfie already has a wife and three kids.)
I mean, really, $200k for this:
The man should be let go for taste issues, let alone his corruption.
Isn't it generous of us to share our red rot with the World Bank?
Way to go... moron. :wall:Quote:
The executive board of the World Bank has said it did not approve a hefty pay rise ordered by its president Paul Wolfowitz for his partner.
Mr Wolfowitz has faced calls to resign after admitting he helped his partner Shaha Riza win a promotion to a high-paying job at the World Bank.
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by article
This statement looks a bit like odd ... why would not being American absolve her from paying tayes?
Gift tax rules with respect to expatriatesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Nonresident noncitizens generally are subject to gift tax on certain transfers by gift of U.S.-situated property. Such property includes real estate and tangible property located within the United States. Unlike the estate tax rules for U.S. stock held by nonresidents, however, nonresident noncitizens generally are not subject to U.S. gift tax on the transfer of intangibles, such as stock or securities, regardless of where such property is situated.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...sel=TOC_25410&
It's an old link and I probably cited the wrong paragraph. Let me try to find a better one.
He's President of the World Bank, and he's this inept at nepotism? I don't know whether to be pleased that he's been so honest in the past that this bungling attempt is the best he can do, or worry that he is so thick that even when $200,000 for the job, plus his own if caught necessitates some planning he's still this inept.
If I were in his position I'd have given every member of my family a high paying consultant job counting marbles in the Caribbean - but I hope I'd do a better job at hiding it!
http://images.despair.com/products/d...s/nepotism.jpg
:thumbsup:
~:smoking:
Divorced in 2002, apparently. But yeah to the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Oops, makes ya wonder about the "Wonkette's" fact checking doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Not that it makes the rest of what's publicly known any better. :shame:Quote:
The girlfriend ofthe marriedWolfowitz, Shaha Ali Riza, now earns $193,590 per year from the World Bank
Well, can't complain about inaccurate titles.
Sounds like he ought to be fired.
CR
Try the World Bank.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
SECTION 9. Immunities from Taxation
(b) No tax shall be levied on or in respect of salaries and emoluments paid by the Association to Executive Directors, Alternates, officials or employees of the Association who are not local citizens, local subjects, or other local nationals.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTE...:73154,00.html
It seems he created an inner cabal, hijacked the bank and used it as a cash cow for Bush. All shock and no awe, as usual.
Over time, Mr. Wolfowitz created an impression that at critical moments he was putting American foreign policy interests first, most notably when he suspended a program in Uzbekistan after the country denied landing rights to American military aircraft, and directed huge amounts of aid to the countries he once recruited to sign on to Washington’s counterterrorism agenda.
It did not help that he relied heavily on a pair of aides drawn from the Bush administration, Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems, who created an inner circle that the bank’s professional staff members said they had great trouble piercing.
link
Thanks a lot for the clarification, Spetulhu :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
Wasn't that the point of his appointement ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Perhaps so, but it's not corrupt to prop up US foreign policy. It's expected that the system works like that. Giving your woman a pay hike is bad since the President didn't order it. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Only neo-Cons would expect that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
This administration has serious issues. It would be better for all, and even for them, if they were gone yesterday.
Corruption is less of a problem than incompetance. A corrupt politician/executive who is also competant makes it so you never notice he's corrupt. I.e. you don't really suffer from his corruption.
? --> you do suffer from his corruption, but you don't notice :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Riza is a long-standing political ally of Wolfowitz. Already in the nineties they worked together at the Iraq Foundation. And there is more. At this level, there is always more.
Like I said, this administration has serious issues. And they are unravelling one by one.Quote:
(Washington, D.C.) – The Government Accountability Project (GAP) has learned that Shaha Riza, long-time companion of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz and fellow Bank staffer, did not receive Bank approval for outside employment as a consultant for a major U.S. defense contractor during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
According to an article published in Vanity Fair last month, Riza was a “subject matter expert” for the Middle East during the Iraq War run-up at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a firm focused on defense capabilities and intelligence gathering. At that time, Paul Wolfowitz was the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Inside sources at the Bank have verified to GAP that Riza never applied for nor received permission to provide these consultant services to SAIC. This is a gross violation of World Bank staff rules, which require Bank employees to clear extracurricular professional activities with the Outside Interests Committee in order to prevent conflicts of interest. Such undisclosed parallel employment, GAP sources say, would never have been tolerated by the Bank and are grounds for dismissal.
“Considering that Riza was reportedly romantically involved with Wolfowitz at the time, that the Iraq War was imminent, that SAIC was a defense contractor, and that the World Bank had active projects in Iraq, multiple conflicts of interest probably existed,” said GAP International Program Director Bea Edwards.
link
Now my memory isn't the greatest, but didn't Uzbekistan deny US military rights in response to criticism from the US of Uzbekistan's human rights record? To me, it doesn't seem that it's too big a leap to think that an aid program would also be suspended for the same human rights abuses. The NYT gets so much wrong, so often, that it's tough to take them seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I'm not looking to defend Wolfowitz, but while we're throwing the rope over the tree branch, let's make sure we've got the right charges. Next we'll be hearing about how he ate babies.
And more.
Quote:
WASHINGTON, Apr 13 (IPS) - Of the top five outside international appointments made by embattled World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz during his nearly two-year tenure, three were senior political appointees of right-wing governments that provided strong backing for U.S. policy in Iraq.
The latest appointment came just last month when former Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher was named senior vice president for external affairs.
Muasher served as King Abdullah's ambassador here in Washington in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002 and reportedly played a key role in ensuring Amman's co-operation in the March 2003 invasion.
During and after the invasion, when he served first as foreign minister and then as deputy prime minister, he was considered among Washington's staunchest supporters in an increasingly hostile Arab world.
Muasher's appointment came nine months after Wolfowitz named former Spanish foreign minister Ana Palacio as the Bank's senior vice president and general counsel. As foreign minister, she was an outspoken proponent of the U.S.-led Iraq invasion, to which her government, led by former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, contributed 1,500 troops.
Also in June 2006, Wolfowitz named former Salvadoran Finance Minister Juan Jose Daboub as one of the Bank's two managing directors. In addition to his financial post, Daboub served as chief of staff to former President Francisco Flores when, as a charter member of the U.S.-led "Coalition of the Willing", he sent nearly 400 Salvadoran combat troops to Iraq, more than any other developing country.
The fact that Wolfowitz also took with him to the Bank several key right-wing Republican aides -- none with any development experience -- who had worked closely with him on Iraq-related issues while he was at the Pentagon also bolstered that impression.
There have been reports of elaborate off-the-record efforts on Wolfowitz's part, during his tenure at the Bank, to persuade prominent journalists that the administration's pre-war allegations of an operational link between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were indeed true.
It is in that context that Wolfowitz's appointments of non-U.S. individuals who were not already working for the Bank to top posts appear significant.
"I believe that Paul Wolfowitz has used his tenure in part to reward those governments and individuals who were particularly helpful to the U.S. in the Iraq War," said Steven Clemons, director of the American Strategy Programme of the New America Foundation, who has closely followed Wolfowitz's career on his much-read blog, www.thewashingtonnote.com.
link
Yes, let's. Does it strike anyone else as odd that Riza was given a secondment with the U.S. State Department where she worked to further American policy under Dick Cheney's daughter while receiving an exorbitant salary out of an international public budget? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
If that were the case , then woudn't there be matching suspensions of aid for those other countries in the region who also got the same human rights criticisms from the US but didn't revoke their military assistance .:yes:Quote:
Now my memory isn't the greatest, but didn't Uzbekistan deny US military rights in response to criticism from the US of Uzbekistan's human rights record? To me, it doesn't seem that it's too big a leap to think that an aid program would also be suspended for the same human rights abuses. The NYT gets so much wrong, so often, that it's tough to take them seriously.
So that isn't the case is it. In fact they got a boost for the aid programs at the time when Uzbeck got its suspended .
SAIC, the firm where Riza acted as a consultant in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, isn't just any old security firm. It's spook central where former NSA directors and CIA staff walk in and out.
Guess what job they gave SAIC in Iraq, among other things? The job of setting up the Iraq Media Network that was supposed to conquer hearts and minds. Since cloak and dagger stuff doesn't mix well with freedom, transparency and tolerance, this was a failure. A failure that cost the U.S. taxpayer $82 million.
Here's what else was in the SAIC contract.
And can you guess who oversaw this contract as Deputy Secretary of Defence? :yes:
Meanwhile, in an office in the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington, Ms Riza is earning her $193.00 salary by heading the Foundation for the Future, an institute thatw as given a $56 million budget two years ago with which to promote democracy and civil society in the Middle East.
Can you guess what the foundation has done so far? How many grants it has made? What it has contributed to democracy and civil society in the Middle East?
Uh-oh.. :yes:
LoL, oh-ell, oh-ell. for that money, I just hope it's something snazzy, with a globe and flowers, and smiling girls, and stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by A2's 'uh-oh article
So. Maybe we have malfeasance, on top of inappropriate personnel decisions? yikes
Speaking of cabals, how many of GW's original, unelected advisors remain? Condi = 1. Others?
With the brains of Dubya, the compassion and integrity of Rumsfield and the honest nobility of Wolfowitz - the neo-con express chugs over the horizon into history where they will be reviled with the distaste they are due.
Oh, I don't think it has left the station quite yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Since Mr Wolfowitz appears to have the backing of the White House (and assorted African leaders who are just gagging to be present at Paul's next speech on corruption in their continent) it is not at all certain he will be leaving.
Even if he does get levered out, I hear tell that his replacement may well be the noted liberal thinker fresh from the UN - John Bolton.
:stupido2:
Ah, now that would be an interesting choice. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
The American media finally find the guts to report on the SAIC affair.
I checked my bank account, I'm not missing $200,000 and I don't recal being forced to sleep with his robo-ugly mistress so no harm no foul eyemo.
Oh dear , now the board is investigating these two , something about their grade of pay being way in excess of the level it should been set at according to their level of experience .Quote:
It did not help that he relied heavily on a pair of aides drawn from the Bush administration, Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems,
They should investigate the Bank's policies for Iraq, Afghanistan &cetera as well. Manipulation of the World Bank for U.S. policy purposes is part of the Bush administration's security doctrine and Wolfowitz and his companions in the Bank are proponents of that doctrine. How much Bank money has disappeared down the black hole of American private contractors in Iraq?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
And while we are at it, why don't we just scrap this institute as a whole? The WorldBank is a totally useless estabishment, except for some of its statistics and analyses.
Eek, Adrian II, you are starting to sound like some of our American "fans" of the UN. Personally, I don't think the World Bank does a bad job. It's basically a polygot organisation of economists who do at least try to base their decisions on the statistics and analyses that you recognise are not useless. The fact that the staff have picked up on Mr Wolfowitz's failings surely says something to their credit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Currently, the World Bank is the lead institution for channelling and overseeing the vast sums of aid that go to Africa and many other places. Africa desperately needs that money - in some countries like Uganda, it pays for half of the health, education etc budgets. Yes, a lot more could be done with the money than currently is being done, but we have to be realistic: the Bank are dealing with sovereign states and there is a limit to what you can do given the politics on the ground. I'd still rather see that money go to Africa than be returned to the pockets of fellow rich country taxpayers who would scarcely notice it.
Without the Bank, some of the aid money would probably dry up but you would still have to find an alternative way of channelling the rest. What's the alternative? The IMF, with its narrow and blinkered approach? Other UN agencies, whose statistics and analyses are often truly useless? Direct bilateral aid, with all its ties and political motivations?
If you look at their policies, that nice picture explodes right in your face.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The Worldbank uses its clout with poor nations to impose extremely short-sighted, destructive 'structural adjustment' packages on them. Such packages include rogue privatization, deregulation, and cuts in spending on essential infrastructure such as health care and education. Such packages create economic benefits, but the downside is that those benefits end up in the hands of an elite. Like most development 'aid', it is really aid to the rich and corrupt.
I don't feel like going into all the details right now. Here is a good overview of the issues involved: The Policy Roots of Economic Crisis and Poverty.
The Bank is essentially an instrument of U.S. economic policy, it makes the same mistakes and fails to learn from them for the same reason: free market extremism. If you want to learn more about the causes and consequences of this extremism (for instance the rise of anarcho-capitalism in Russia after the Worldbank's 'shock therapy') you may want to read John Gray's False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism as a back-grounder.
Don't believe all you read, Adrian. I've done bits of work for the Bank on and off for twenty years and you would not believe the amount of ill-informed blinkered twaddle that is peddled about it. BTW, I believe the correct term nowadays is "Poverty Reduction Strategy Programmes", not "structural adjustment".Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
It really does vary by country - the typical SA package had 50-100 conditions, hammered out by negotiation between the Bank and the country. The country had the ultimate veto and typically did less than half what is signed up to anyway. Yes, privatisation and deregulation are commonly advocated by the Bank but that's often because the governments are running services with lamentable inefficiency and their regulations stop the private sector filling the gap. (On the services, the Ghanaian cocoa marketing board at its worst employing about 30,000 ghost works and another 30,000 that could be dismissed without affecting performance. On the regulations, Kenya had law that required new entrants to a market get letters of "no objection" from incumbent firms.)Quote:
Such packages include rogue privatization, deregulation, and cuts in spending on essential infrastructure such as health care and education.
As for health and education, where the country was facing declining income, then yes sometimes spending on health care and education fell. But the fall in income would have happened with or without the programme, and statistically the spending would have fallen with or without it too. (Take Zimbabwe, for example - do you really think anything the Bank did or did not do in that country would have much impact given its current leadership?) The Bank did not tend to target spending on health and education for specific cuts. That was a myth circa 1987, based on a few examples blown way out of proportion by critics. Much more common was the Bank insisting that the sectors be protected and that money be shifted from the tertiary facilities (universities and urban hospitals) that did tend to serve the elite to primary facilities that served most people.
That's not proven. For example, more than half the Ugandan primary health budget comes from donors; it does not all benefit the rich and corrupt. Conversely, a lot of liberalisation often hurts the rich and corrupt, because it removes important sources of kickbacks (e.g. liberalising foreign exchange stopped corrupt officials getting a black market premiums).Quote:
Such packages create economic benefits, but the downside is that those benefits end up in the hands of an elite. Like most development 'aid', it is really aid to the rich and corrupt.
Thanks for the reference, I will read it. But be aware that, unlike most World Bank output, what passes for evidence and analysis in much NGO commentary would not meet basic quality control standards in most economic journals.Quote:
I don't feel like going into all the details right now. Here is a good overview of the issues involved: The Policy Roots of Economic Crisis and Poverty.
A current list of Bush appointees who either left under suspicion or are facing conflict-of-interest charges. Seems Wolfie is pretty average for this bunch.
Thanks for the heads-up, I was just about to. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
It seems almost intentional (on their part) that so many high ranking Bush appointees are being outted for corruption, or at the very least incompetence and political agenda building. For me it is as if they are daring someone (the Dems, hopefully?) to do something about it, as though it will give them the focus to counter the negativity by having an open opponent to attack for their own corruption.
One of the things I keep hearing from interviews with Whitehouse reps is, "if they think we did anything wrong, then impeach". It is as if this might allow some kind of diversion from their reality, or force a rallying around the Prez reaction from those that were once "true believers" but now feel cheated by the everyday exposure of new corruption in the administration. Personally, I can't remember a President's reps asking for impeachment - can anyone?
As to Wolfie - something I saw on Mojo-blog - that I had to laugh at, but ... It seems she is an Arab feminist, the article goes on about her agenda and ends that it was curious to put a Zionist in charge of the bank. Did laugh about the last part.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/...wolfowitz.html
Update: Wolfie sends letter to board of directors, very concerned about fairness.
— Escalating his campaign to remain president of the World Bank, Paul D. Wolfowitz accused the bank’s board on Wednesday of treating him “shabbily and unfairly,” and appealed for more time to defend himself against allegations of favoritism and other matters.
Mr. Wolfowitz, increasingly isolated at the bank and facing a board seemingly determined to force his resignation, sent a letter to the head of a board panel dealing with issues affecting his leadership, asking to appear before the board next week in the interest of “fairness to me” and “good governance” at the bank.