Axis of Soros
The men and motives behind the World Bank coup attempt. Wednesday, May 9, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Mark Malloch Brown spoke Monday to a crowded auditorium at the World Bank's headquarters, warning that the bank's mission was "hugely at risk" as long as Paul Wolfowitz remained its president. Only hours earlier, news leaked that a special committee investigating Mr. Wolfowitz had accused him of violating conflict-of-interest rules. A coincidence? We doubt it.
Mr. Malloch Brown, remember, was until last year Kofi Annan's deputy at the United Nations. In that position, he distinguished himself by spinning away the $100 billion Oil for Food scandal as little more than a blip in the U.N.'s good work, and one that had little to do with Mr. Annan himself. Last week, Mr. Malloch Brown was named vice president of the Quantum Fund, the hedge fund run by his billionaire friend George Soros. A former World Bank official himself and ally of soon-to-be British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Mr. Malloch Brown would almost surely be a leading candidate to replace Mr. Wolfowitz should he step down. Not surprisingly, Gordon Brown cold-shouldered Mr. Wolfowitz at a recent meeting in Brussels.

The bank presidency would be a neat coup for Sir Mark, and not just because the post has heretofore gone to an American. He also stands for everything Mr. Wolfowitz opposes, beginning with the issue of corruption. Consider Mr. Malloch Brown's defense of the U.N.'s procurement practices.

"Not a penny was lost from the organization," he insisted last year, following an audit of the U.N.'s peacekeeping procurement by its Office of Internal Oversight Services. In fact, the office found that $7 million had been lost from overpayment; $50 million worth of contracts showed indications of bid rigging; $61 million had bypassed U.N. rules; $82 million had been lost to mismanagement; and $110 million had "insufficient" justification. That's $310 million out of a budget of $1.6 billion, and who knows what the auditors missed.

Mr. Malloch Brown also made curious use of English by insisting that Paul Volcker's investigation into Oil for Food had "fully exonerated" Mr. Annan. In fact, Mr. Volcker's report made an "adverse finding" against the then-Secretary-General. Among other details, the final report noted that Mr. Annan was "aware of [Saddam's] kickback scheme at least as early as February 2001," yet never reported it to the U.N. Security Council, much less the public, a clear breach of his fiduciary responsibilities as the U.N.'s chief administrative officer. Mr. Malloch Brown described the idea that Mr. Annan might resign as "inappropriate political assassination"--a standard he apparently doesn't apply to political enemies like Mr. Wolfowitz.

Mr. Malloch Brown never made any serious attempt to reform the U.N. beyond the cosmetic, while doing everything he could to block the real reforms proposed by Americans Christopher Burnham and former Ambassador John Bolton. He was, however, energetic when it came to lecturing Americans about what they owed the U.N., such as joining the "reformed" Human Rights Council (whose only achievement to date has been to castigate Israel), pursuing a "new multilateral national security," and otherwise empowering the likes of Mr. Malloch Brown, his multilateral mates and their tax-free salaries.

Views like these help explain why Mr. Malloch Brown is in such favor with Mr. Soros, who has publicly suggested the U.S. will need a "de-Nazification" program to erase the taint of the Bush Administration. So close are the two that Mr. Malloch Brown lives in a suburban New York home owned by Mr. Soros. Mr. Malloch Brown says he pays market rent, though reporting by the New York Sun's Benny Avni disputes that. In any case, it's safe to assume that Mr. Soros's widely published views are close to Mr. Malloch Brown's somewhat more guarded ones.
So it's not surprising that many on the World Bank staff would cheer Mr. Malloch Brown: He's perfect for an institutional culture in which "progressive" thinking goes hand-in-glove with a tolerance for corruption. That culture has been on vivid display in the Euro-coup against Mr. Wolfowitz. This weekend the committee investigating the claims dropped 600 pages in the president's lap and told him he had 48 hours to respond--in direct violation of World Bank staff rule 8.01, 4.09, which states that "the amount of time allowed a staff member to comment [on an investigative report] . . . will not be less than 5 business days." Following protests from Mr. Wolfowitz's lawyer, the committee gave him 72 hours.

This is the same kangaroo court that last month leaked its guilty verdict to the Washington Post before Mr. Wolfowitz even had a chance to plead his case. Our sources who have seen the committee's report tell us it is especially critical of Mr. Wolfowitz for daring to object publicly to the committee's methods and thereby bringing the bank's name into disrepute. The Europeans running this Red Queen proceeding prefer that they be able to smear with selective leaks without rebuttal.

Mr. Malloch Brown warned on Monday that, if Mr. Wolfowitz stayed as president, European countries might withhold funding from the next financing round for the bank's International Development Association. We hope he's right, though we know few European finance ministers who aren't eager to throw good money after bad. Still, it's a remarkable bit of chutzpah for the man who downplayed corruption at the U.N. to seek the ouster of the man who has fought to reduce corruption at the World Bank.

If the Bush Administration now abandons Mr. Wolfowitz as he faces a decision from the bank's board of governors, it will not only betray a friend but hand the biggest victory yet to its audacious enemies in the George Soros axis.
Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

I don't think you understand what a lie is. A lie is not something that is inconvenient to your worldview, a lie is something that is not true.

For example, you say that "abortion is a choice" is a lie. While you may not agree that abortion should be a choice, it is a fact that abortion is a choice that someone makes. No one is being forced into abortions. (In fact, the idea that women may be 'forced' to have abortions because of economic or social constraints is actually detrimental to the anti-abortion argument. Why then do you make this case?)

Turning to Wolfowitz, you claim that everything about this situation is a lie. All parties that have reviewed the facts of this have concluded that Wolfowitz violated the ethics of the World Bank. (No one says a crime took place, no one is looking to make criminal charges against Wolfowitz. I guess you're lying about that, huh?) If you think this is a lie, please provide evidence of said lie.

Otherwise, stop discussing this, you look like an idiot.

Is there any Bush-related scandal you would ever actually take seriously?

Mark,
Nepotism is wrong. If you recall in all of your job interviews they ask if you have family or loved ones in the company. Why? Because whether intentional or not we tend to look out for our buddies.

You ask what is wrong with that? Well, that means that generally the best person was not considered for the job. With the little experience she has and the close connection with him what makes her qualified? She got the promotion and raise because of pillow talk. That is plain and simple.

These are not accusations, but facts. He should be fired because that is breaking the rules. Now even the White House is trying for find a way for him to leave quietly.

Oh yeah, Wolfie's a paragon of virtue alright.

Regarding Iraq, it isn't a lie to say that Wolfowitz himself said such things as the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money for pay for the reconstruction, and that Gen. Eric Shinseki’s estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed was “wildly off the mark.” I don't think he was lying when he said those things, but he sure was "wildly off the mark".

Shortly after taking over as president of the World Bank he said, ""I work for 184 countries; I don't work for the Bush administration." The irony is that Bush is now just about the only one not calling for his resignation while most of the people he works with -- which is to say the other representatives of those 184 countries -- are. His is not a crisis that is fueled by a bunch of left wing moonbats. Rather, it is fueled by the people he works with at the World Bank.

Obviously the left wing moonbats couldn't be happier about his plight, and no doubt for the wrong reasons in most cases. But it is also obvious that many of his supporters also support him for the wrong reasons -- i.e., not because they think he did nothing wrong, but because they just aren't happy that the moonbats are happy.

mark - you never cease to astound me in your efforts to wash away the very real charges levied against yet another bush loyalist as simply baseless lies. this is a standard refrain we come to expect from only the most partisan and single-minded observers - that any charge against a neo-con, or an administration official is simply a LIE. a LIE because it's a matter of fact inconceivable that there could EVER be any wrong-doing, any criminality, any actions that would constitute behavior not becoming of that profession if it’s been perpetrated by republican.

to make such a broad and sweeping statement of exoneration with no supporting argumentative framework, you erode what spartan grain of legitimacy you might still have had in the eyes of others and make everything else you pen doubly questionable. can only imagine what a pack of loose lies must be packed into that self-published "best-seller" of yours...

explain yourself like a good little journalist mark - you have to do better than that to be taken seriously these days.

You guys are oblivious. Wolfowitz tried to recuse himself from any dealings with his girlfriend. The ethics commitee told him he HAD to deal with his girlfriend. Now they dont like his politics so they are using it as a excuse.

And Rockville, according to your logic, you should never get a job with someone you know? Is that what your saying? I guess were not allowed to date the people we work with, right? Thats ridiculous.

The truth is, you guys hate Wolfowitz for one reason only. Not because he is unethical. But because you suffer from a severe case of BDS.

Wolfowitz is associated with Bush so that means we follow our great leader's and hate him.

In my comment, I never linked the Bush administration to him.

And yes, you should not be allowed to supervise individuals that you are close with because of several reasons.
1. They may be unfairly promoted.
2. They may fall out of love and Wolfowitz may seek retaliation as a scorned lover. That in return could lead to a lawsuit for the world bank.

Most places have policies that forbid work place relationships. This is not about Bush.

Mark,
Nepotism is wrong. If you recall in all of your job interviews they ask if you have family or loved ones in the company. Why? Because whether intentional or not we tend to look out for our buddies. - rockville

Rockville and the rest of the liberal lemmings.....

Wolfowicz initially recused himself from any dealings with Riza upon his appointment to the World Bank. When, by action of committee, he was directed to take action, he brokered a position with a foundation OUTSIDE of the World Bank, albeit for more pay (but there's nothing wrong with that)

In fact this is just another red herring thrown up by mindless liberals in any attempt to discredit GW because of their complete lack of vision for anything productive for this country.

Liberals are spineless liars void of any vision, integrity or decency.

Have a nice day

...explain yourself like a good little journalist mark - you have to do better than that to be taken seriously these days. -
conscriptor

Please enlighten me conscriptor how Riza, now working for the Foundation for the Future, a company she was transferred to outside of the World Bank and Wolfowicz's supervision, rises to the level of "very real charges".

I am sure someone of your high degree intelligence, who feels the inferior need to denigrate someone of more integrity than you could hope to aspire to, could enlighten us all on the factual malfeasance of duty perpetrated by Mr. Wolfowicz.

I will await your reply, knowing that your first course of action will be to consult a dictionary and moveon.org.

Have a nice day and God does love you all.

In fact this is just another red herring thrown up by mindless liberals in any attempt to discredit GW because of their complete lack of vision for anything productive for this country.

Liberals are spineless liars void of any vision, integrity or decency.

Have a nice day

Posted by: neocon at May 17, 2007 09:54 AM

I believe it was someone like you that keeps drawing Bush into the equation.

It would have been decent of him to remove any chance of having direct contact with Riza. Instead, I will blame the committee for making me promote her. See...it's their fault. Please.

This is purely political motivated, more like a set up because of who he is. You should check the politics of those leading the charge.

I bet you find a disgruntle liberal employee.

Mark-
Bravo!!!! Although I would advise you to read about every other publication in the world besides Right Wing News because if you did you'd see that Wolfoshitz is definately out of the World Bank. He's just trying to negotiate which butt cheek he's gonna land on.
I wonder what he'll try to "negotiate" in that pesky civil suit he's a part of. He can't blame taking part in outing Valerie Plame on his girlfriend.....or can he? Hmmmmmmmm

Mark-
Bravo!!!! Although I would advise you to read about every other publication in the world besides Right Wing News because if you did you'd see that Wolfoshitz is definately out of the World Bank. He's just trying to negotiate which butt cheek he's gonna land on.
I wonder what he'll try to "negotiate" in that pesky civil suit he's a part of. He can't blame taking part in outing Valerie Plame on his girlfriend.....or can he? Hmmmmmmmm

Before you make the mistake of swallowing the “Wolfowitz-was-railroaded” line, know a few things first:

Wolfowitz knew that coming over to the World Bank and overseeing an institution that employed his mistress was a violation of the code of ethics of the Bank. And so he did what he was supposed to do: he went to the Ethics Committee and disclosed his relationship. The Ethics Committee did what they were supposed to do and advised Wolfowitz that if he were to take over, Shaha Riza would have to go.

And that’s where Wolfowitz made his fatal error. Instead of allowing Riza to go out and look for a new job herself, Wolfowitz intervened. He made personal arrangements for Riza to get a new job and an outrageous pay raise. The raise, which again was PERSONALLY delivered by Wolfowitz, was far in excess of the Bank’s guidelines in such matters. This was, therefore, a violation of the Code of Ethics.

Don’t believe me? Here’s what Paul had to say on the subject:

“I made a good faith effort to implement my understanding of [the Ethic’s Board’s] advice, and it was done in order to take responsibility for settling an issue that I believed had potential to harm the institution. In hindsight, I wish I had trusted my original instincts and kept myself out of the negotiations. I made a mistake, for which I am sorry.”

You sure did, Paul. You arranged for the promotion (along with a HUGE raise) for your girlfriend.

I know you’re wondering. Who did Riza go to work for?

Punch line, folks: it was Liz Cheney. Yeah, THAT Liz Cheney. The Vice President’s daughter.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Now....who’s telling lies about Wolfowitz? Hmmmmmm?

Mark:
Please clarify how the separation between church and state is a lie. If you actually believe that there is no separation then there is no hope for you at all. The constitution expressly states such a division. As much as you wish and hope and pray, the United States is not a christianist theocracy.

"We believe lies about all manner of things -... that there is a wall of separation between Church and State in the United States..."
When you refuse to accept the established precedents of Constitutional jurisprudence -that the 14th Amendment compels the states to maintain the same relationship with the establishment and free exercise of religion that the Federal Government must maintain; and that Jefferson's characterization of that relationship as a 'wall of separation' is the law of the land- you remind me of those tax protesters of the 90s who kept saying the income tax is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced (as they were led away to Federal penitentiary).

The constitution expressly states such a division. As much as you wish and hope and pray, the United States is not a christianist theocracy.- mdebde

Please, please, please demonstrate to all of us where in the constitution "expressly" defines "seperation" of church and state. As for the latter part of your drivel, unless clearly demonstrated that Mark has advocated a therocracy, I will call you on your LIES.

Also, I am still awaiting your rebuttal on why jihadists kill EACH OTHER because of their apparent misfortune.

It would have been decent of him to remove any chance of having direct contact with Riza. Instead, I will blame the committee for making me promote her. See...it's their fault. Please. - rockville

Again, please explain how recusing ones self and then eventually brokering employment outside of the World Bank rises to the level of a crime. Please, please define that for me in clear, unambiguous terms.

Anything short of that is nothing more than speculative deception

Hey, neocon: Pay attention. No one is saying he committed a CRIME. But he did violate the Bank's Code of Ethics (see my post above). So out he goes.

You can READ, can't you?

Rockville,

The lady worked at the bank before Wolfowitz arrived, the Board new of their relationship - there is no scandal here; just an attempt by the corrupt elements in the World Bank to force out a man who was starting to tackle the corruption.

But he did violate the Bank's Code of Ethics (see my post above). So out he goes. - cyberactor

If it is such a clear cut case of Ethics violations then please enlighten me. I will expect the statute that it pertains to, the unambiguous sequence of events that precipitated the violation and the final decisive action taken by the board.

You can PROVIDE this, can't you. I am waiting.

Jeremy,

If there ever is a Bush related scandal, I'll take it seriously...but each of the things you consider a scandal is actually the product of a series of lies by people who want to one way or another thwart Bush Administration policy. We're awash in a sea of lies - fortunately, President Bush is strong enough to stand up under the strain.

Robert,

If there's a wall of separation, then it would be in the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Can't make a national church, can't prohibit anyone from practising their religion. Thats it. No wall. Jefferson, by the way, was writing to a church and advising them that the law should be construed in a way that prohibits any State interference in a church body...nothing in there about prohibiting a church body from interfering with the State (the way you use the Jefferson letter is yet another lie fervently believed these days).

Ricorun,

We were greeted as liberators, Iraq oil money is helping to pay for reconstruction and we didn't need then, and don't need now, several hundred thousand troops in Iraq.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Mark Noonan

Furthermore, the constitutional address of this subject was designed to protect the church, not the state.

Neocon:

Of course I can, you silly idiot. In fact, let me quote the World Bank committee investigating the ethics violations. They said, in part:

"The salary increase Ms. Riza received at Mr. Wolfowitz's direction was in excess of the range established by Rule 6.01"

The rest of your questions were answered in my earlier post (see Sequence of Events above).

Any other questions?

neocon,

Yep - and, as I said in the post, I could go on for hours about the lies people believe these days. The lies are believed partially because they are endlessly repeated, but also in large measure because the lies are very comforting. Truth forces us to get up and do things, lies allow us to shirk our duty.

If, for instance, you believe the lie that an abortion is just a choice, then you are off the hook in the matter of preventing the murder of unborn children...if you believe the truth and abortion is murder, then you have to go into the difficult task of actually trying to convince people that your position is correct.

Cyber,

Well, good God, flog him!!! What you need to find out is if anyone else ever got a raise in excess of rule 6.1 and under what circumstances.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/05/17/loyalty/?source=newsletter

Cyber,

Read the following and please try and comprehend.

The bank's board was expected to deliberate later today and possibly into next week, but many bank officials speculated that the affair may yet end with some kind of declaration of good faith for Mr. Wolfowitz, as part of a deal in which he resigns.

Mr. Wolfowitz's defense was striking in that it singled out three longtime bank officials as having specifically ordered him to handle the matter of Ms. Riza himself in 2005, and that two of those officials, he said, later found that he had handled the situation properly
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/0430wolfie.php

It would certainly appear that the World Bank is on shaky ground as it relates to this "certain" Ethics violations.

Moreover, please humor mr with your opinion on William Jefferson, the cash found in his freezer and his current seat on the Homeland Security Committee. Also, please regale me with your opinion regarding Kofi Annan and his sons salary a few years back from the UN. Knowing that you are such a stickler for Ethics, I am sure you have strong opinions on these matters.

Mark, keep up the great work.

Cyber,

Read the following and please try and comprehend.

The bank's board was expected to deliberate later today and possibly into next week, but many bank officials speculated that the affair may yet end with some kind of declaration of good faith for Mr. Wolfowitz, as part of a deal in which he resigns.

Mr. Wolfowitz's defense was striking in that it singled out three longtime bank officials as having specifically ordered him to handle the matter of Ms. Riza himself in 2005, and that two of those officials, he said, later found that he had handled the situation properly
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/0430wolfie.php

It would certainly appear that the World Bank is on shaky ground as it relates to this "certain" Ethics violations.

Moreover, please humor mr with your opinion on William Jefferson, the cash found in his freezer and his current seat on the Homeland Security Committee. Also, please regale me with your opinion regarding Kofi Annan and his sons salary a few years back from the UN. Knowing that you are such a stickler for Ethics, I am sure you have strong opinions on these matters.

Mark, keep up the great work.

Cyber,

Read the following and please try and comprehend.

The bank's board was expected to deliberate later today and possibly into next week, but many bank officials speculated that the affair may yet end with some kind of declaration of good faith for Mr. Wolfowitz, as part of a deal in which he resigns.

Mr. Wolfowitz's defense was striking in that it singled out three longtime bank officials as having specifically ordered him to handle the matter of Ms. Riza himself in 2005, and that two of those officials, he said, later found that he had handled the situation properly
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/0430wolfie.php

It would certainly appear that the World Bank is on shaky ground as it relates to this "certain" Ethics violations.

Moreover, please humor mr with your opinion on William Jefferson, the cash found in his freezer and his current seat on the Homeland Security Committee. Also, please regale me with your opinion regarding Kofi Annan and his sons salary a few years back from the UN. Knowing that you are such a stickler for Ethics, I am sure you have strong opinions on these matters.

Mark, keep up the great work.

Cyber,

Have you received your talking points from Soros yet? Certainly you can recite the clear chain of events precipitating Wolfowitz's violations and the boards decisive actions, right?

Also, I'm waiting to hear your condemnation of Jeffersons appointment to the Homeland Security Committee in light of his malfeasance.

I know you want to be fair with your ethics accusations.

Mark says: "Well, good God, flog him!!! What you need to find out is if anyone else ever got a raise in excess of rule 6.1 and under what circumstances."

We sure do. See, from a guy who's primary focus at the Bank was to root out corruption and malfeasance and then, in his own backyard, doling out thousands of dollars through his connected cronies at State to the lady he's banging...yeah, that's pretty bad.

But you've never held your guys to ANY standards. I'd hardly expect you to start now. "It's only a MINOR violation!" Thanks for the distiction.

And neocon:

"Certainly you can recite the clear chain of events precipitating Wolfowitz's violations and the boards decisive actions, right?"

Already have. And you, for your part, have established an inability to comprehend clear narratives. That's an awful shame.

"Also, I'm waiting to hear your condemnation of Jeffersons appointment to the Homeland Security Committee in light of his malfeasance."

Ahem. ALLEGED malfeasance. And when and if he is brought to justice for his ALLEGED crimes, he should be thrown in prison for as long as we can keep him there. (See, we don't make excuses for our ALLEGED crooks. If they are proven to be crooks, we want 'em gone. Only Republicans toe the party line for their crooks. Get it?)

"I know you want to be fair with your ethics accusations."

You betcha.

By the way, I predict he's gone in the next two hours, if not before then. Any takers?

Ahem. ALLEGED malfeasance (William Jefferson) - cyber

Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), the target of a 14-month public corruption probe, was videotaped accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from a Northern Virginia investor who was wearing an FBI wire, according to a search warrant affidavit released yesterday.

Oh this is priceless. Tagging the ALLEGED label to Jefferson but trying and convicting Wolfowitz on the spot.

Of course that is typical of a liberal. You're dishonest to the CORE and your credibility shot.

Have a nice day in the land of make believe.

By the way, I predict he's gone in the next two hours, if not before then. Any takers? - Cyber

I will take you up on that. In fact I will bet you the entire sum of money that Pelosi's husband stands to profit from the sweetheart SF Port deal she approved.

Or the money found in Jeffersons freezer.

You choose

Neocon, having now proved that he doesn't have a brain cell in his body, is still trying the Jefferson/Wolfowitz dance.

Hey, neo? Follow the snaps, okay? For the last time: no one has said that Wolfowitz committed a crime. I don't know how often I have to type that phrase until you get it, but let's see if that's the last. There's always hope, eh?

Wolfowitz, however, underwent an internal investigation by the Bank and was pronounced to be in violation of it's Ethics board. QED, he's guilty. NOT OF A CRIME. Of an ethics violation. That's why he's getting his ass handed to him. That's why he's out the door.

Jefferson? He'll be tried in a court of law, likely convicted and sent to jail. And I'm happy about that. I'm ALWAYS happen when crooked politicians get caught and punished.

Aren't you? Randy Cunningham, Bob Ney, Safavian...aren't you happy when the Republican crooks are caught? Hmmmmm?

Wolfowitz, however, underwent an internal investigation by the Bank and was pronounced to be in violation of it's Ethics board. QED, he's guilty - psycho (oh excuse me Cyber)

Please read and again COMPREHEND the following. I will dumb it down for you if needed.

Mr. Wolfowitz's defense was striking in that it singled out three longtime bank officials as having specifically ordered him to handle the matter of Ms. Riza himself in 2005, and that two of those officials, he said, later found that he had handled the situation properly

The report did concede that the board should have dealt with potential conflict of interest issues before Wolfowitz assumed his position and that the bank's own governance procedures should be examined.

Your zeal to see Mr Wolfowitz gone is over shadowed by your lack of condemnation of Nancy Pelosi's appointment of a fellow democrat to a highly sought after seat on Homeland Security following his taped acceptance of bribes.

Is it common practice in your world to hand promotions to those NOT YET indicted for obvious crimes.

Should a member of congress currently under investigation for bribery hold such a seat influencing National Security?

By the way, Cunningham is in jail, Jefferson holds a seat on Homeland Security. Your deflection, spin and disengenous concern for ethics is laughable.

Have a nice day.

You have to give him points for consistency, don't you? Let's do this by the numbers:

"Mr. Wolfowitz's defense was striking in that it singled out three longtime bank officials as having specifically ordered him to handle the matter of Ms. Riza himself in 2005, and that two of those officials, he said, later found that he had handled the situation properly."

Who, specifically, are these officials? And what do they have to do with the price of rice? Do you even KNOW? And what evidence do you have that the Ethics Committee that investigated Wolfowitz and found him to have violated his contract was corrupt or wrong in any way? I await your answer.

"The report did concede that the board should have dealt with potential conflict of interest issues before Wolfowitz assumed his position and that the bank's own governance procedures should be examined."

Darn right they will! Because instead of handling it themselves, they left it to Paul, who botched it. And that's why HE IS GOING TO QUIT HIS JOB.

What really kills your argument, neocon? Wolfowitz admitted he made a mistake and apologized for it. So stop trying to make it sound like he didn't make a mistake to begin with. You're embarrassing yourself.

And you reference how Cunningham is in jail and Jefferson is not. First: when, exactly, was Jefferson appointed to the Homeland Security position? Before or AFTER the tape of him collecting cash came out? (Careful! Your ignorance of timelines is showing!)

Next: what is the priciple difference between Cunningham and Jeffersson? (Hint: one went to trial already and was found guilty. The other has not.) I await your answer to THAT one, too.

Gee, this guy makes it EASY.

Cyber,

I am tired of your drivel.

I have never exonerated Wolfowitz, he fell victim to the witchhunt and his small role, following his attempt to recuse himself, did POSSIBLY violate the ethical standards (which in itself is a joke)If he chose to fight it, he would be exonerated. As far as his stepping aside, I really couldn't care.

I do take exception to the selective outrage demonstrated by you and you lemmings on the left.

Never once did you see an attempt to excuse or mollify Cunninghams crimes by Republicans, yet Jefferson is afforded every benefit of the doubt by you (ahem, alledged)and every other dishonest liberal.

You're hypocrisy, dishonesty and lack of values will always haunt you.

Have a nice day

Cyber,

I am tired of your drivel.

I have never exonerated Wolfowitz, he fell victim to the witchhunt and his small role, following his attempt to recuse himself, did POSSIBLY violate the ethical standards (which in itself is a joke)If he chose to fight it, he would be exonerated. As far as his stepping aside, I really couldn't care.

I do take exception to the selective outrage demonstrated by you and you lemmings on the left.

Never once did you see an attempt to excuse or mollify Cunninghams crimes by Republicans, yet Jefferson is afforded every benefit of the doubt by you (ahem, alledged)and every other dishonest liberal.

You're hypocrisy, dishonesty and lack of values will always haunt you.

Have a nice day

Neocon gives up:

"I am tired of your drivel."

Imagine my disappointment.

"I have never exonerated Wolfowitz.."

You, sir, are a goddamn liar. In this VERY THREAD you wrote the following:

"Wolfowicz [sic] initially recused himself from any dealings with Riza upon his appointment to the World Bank. When, by action of committee, he was directed to take action, he brokered a position with a foundation OUTSIDE of the World Bank, albeit for more pay (but there's nothing wrong with that)"

Yes there is. But you tried to pretend there wasn't. You, in a word, exonerated him.

More: "...he fell victim to the witchhunt and his small role, following his attempt to recuse himself, did POSSIBLY violate the ethical standards (which in itself is a joke)."

Once again, he's making excuses for the guy. Even AFTER admitting that he violated the ethical code, neocon is still defending the guy. Unreal.

"If he chose to fight it, he would be exonerated."

Then why doesn't he?

"As far as his stepping aside, I really couldn't care."

Oh sure. Now that I've taken the facts and beaten you over the head with them...NOW you don't care. I see.

"I do take exception to the selective outrage demonstrated by you and you lemmings on the left."

Watch carefully! He's gonna lie again! Ready? Aaaaaaaaand go!

"Never once did you see an attempt to excuse or mollify Cunninghams crimes by Republicans, yet Jefferson is afforded every benefit of the doubt by you (ahem, alledged)and every other dishonest liberal."

Oooooh, I'm sorry! Thanks for playing, but I'm afraid that YOU are the weakest link! Please, if you would, explain how I am obligated in any way to "mollify" Cunningham and his ilk? And I have afforded Jefferson NOTHING except due process of law. I knoe that kind of thing sticks in your neocon craw, but that ain't my problem.

"You're hypocrisy, dishonesty and lack of values will always haunt you."

Bet they won't.

Furthermore.......

Republicans criticize Pelosi over project in water development bill
By Associated Press
Monday, May 7, 2007 - Updated: 06:16 PM EST

John Hart, a spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said that "on its face it appears to be a conflict of interest."

Pelosi’s project was part of the $15 billion Water Resources Development Act that passed the House April 19 by 394-25 and pays for hundreds of projects around the country.

Pelosi’s measure would authorize $25 million to improve San Francisco port areas, and also would put some areas off limits to navigation so cruise ships could dock.

I am sure the ethically concerned Democrats will immediately look into this. God forbid there should be an appearance of wrong doing.

Cyber,

The only thing you beat is your 3 inches.

My opinion is that Wolfowitz should and will be exonerated should he choose to challenge, however I don't care, it doesn't effect my life as it apparently does yours to the extent that you are unable to leave your mothers basement.

The VERY FACT that Jefferson occupies the seat he does states clearly the slective outrage liberal lemmings harbor towards "ethics"

The scent of Soros must be overwhelming, maybe take a shower and empty the garbage for your parents. They may up your aallowance.

Oooh! Neocon gets nas-tay!

"The only thing you beat is your 3 inches."

Oh, dear! Is that any way for a proper Christian to talk? Shame on you! You dirty, dirty boy.

"My opinion is that Wolfowitz should and will be exonerated should he choose to challenge, however I don't care, it doesn't effect my life as it apparently does yours to the extent that you are unable to leave your mothers basement."

Start at the beginning of that sentence and try to read through to the end without laughing. Go ahead. I dare you.

"Should and will be exonerated should be choose..."

But he won't choose, neo. He's gonna take his medicine like a good boy and QUIT. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But soon and for the rest of his life.

But I'm happy you don't care. How do I know you don't care? BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN WRITING ABOUT IT ALL DAY. God, what a joke this guy is...

"The VERY FACT that Jefferson occupies the seat he does states clearly the slective outrage liberal lemmings harbor towards "ethics"

Okay, let's try this: You're Nancy Pelosi. What do YOU do with Jefferson? Not what do you WANT to do with him. What are you EMPOWERED to do, short of an indictment? I patiently await your answer.

"The scent of Soros must be overwhelming, maybe take a shower and empty the garbage for your parents. They may up your aallowance."

Ha, ha! It's funny because...

Well, actually it isn't really funny. Stick to spouting nonsensical talking points and leave the comedy to me, big boy.

Unless...you've stopped caring about this issue.

Naaah. Couldn't be.

As some of my fellow conservatives famously like to say "The US attorney's serve at the president's pleasure"
In this case:
Paul Wolfowitz serves at the board of directors pleasure.

The situation is no different. They can fire him because he likes pinstripe suits.

We can sit here and argue all day long about his ethics, but the bottom line: The board of directors has the authority to fire him.

I hope he has his resume polished. He is a goner.

Oh, dear! Is that any way for a proper Christian to talk? - cyber

Cyber demonstrates his prejudicial stereotypes by assuming I am christian. Actually, I am Muslim and you have offended me, the worst crime a liberal could even think of....

The following is more evidence of liberal selective outrage as it pertains to their "ethical concerns"

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show. In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

Incidentally, I believe I won our little wager. It's been two hours and Wolfowitz has yet to resign. I choose the amount found in Jeffersons Freezer. $100,000. Just aks your parents for an advance.

Oh, dear! Is that any way for a proper Christian to talk? - cyber

Cyber demonstrates his prejudicial stereotypes by assuming I am christian. Actually, I am Muslim and you have offended me, the worst crime a liberal could even think of....

The following is more evidence of liberal selective outrage as it pertains to their "ethical concerns"

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show. In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

Incidentally, I believe I won our little wager. It's been two hours and Wolfowitz has yet to resign. I choose the amount found in Jeffersons Freezer. $100,000. Just aks your parents for an advance.

Aw, geez, neocon. I really AM sorry. I didn't mean to assume you were a Christian, but I surely did. I guess I figured that no self-respecting Muslim could agree so much with a Muslim-bashing organization like the GOP. My bad!

And, once again, neocon dredges up a Reid story from...what was that, October of last year? The land deal thing? Glad you brought that up. Whatever happened with that thing? Get back to me on that, willya? I'm dying to know.

neocon,
If your only defence of Wolfowitz is that he isn't as bad as the dems then you lost. What Reid, Pelosi and Jefferson have done have nothing to do with Wolfowitz. I agree with you they are all scum, now explain why Wolfowitz isn't.

Cyber,

I was counting on you to inform us all on the outcome of the Reid land situation, knowing of course how diligent you are on "ethics". I am shocked that one slipped by you, of course it was from so, so long ago. I guess if Wolfowitz just waited this one out the liberal "statute of limitations" on ethic improprieties would apply.

Good to know.

Of course, Republicans aren't as sensitive to other ethnicities as the liberals are.....

During an event here for Senate candidate Nancy Farmer, Clinton introduced a quote from Gandhi by saying, "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis."

LMAO

Casper,

I don't have a defense for Wolfowitz, but on the surface it appears that, although not completely above board, he was endorsed by the WB board to take action and initially recusing himself, and if he chose to fight, could probably win.

I don't much care about Pelosi, Reids, etc. underhand dealings as well, as this kind of crap has been going on on both sides of the aisle for far too long. I do enjoy the hypocrisy of the left though vis a vis the rights culpability.

When, and only when, the American public collectively stands up and demands accountability will I join them in that fight.

Neocon,

Ah, the old "b-b-but Jefferson!" defense. Corruption on one side of the aisle does not justify corruption on the other. Why are you such a blind partisan?

Mark,

"Seems that World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz will not allow a campaign of slander to force him meekly into resignation:"

So long, Wolfie, we hardly knew ye. Mark, aren't you sick of the taste of crow?

Gar Wood

So long, Wolfie, we hardly knew ye. Mark, aren't you sick of the taste of crow? - Gar Wood

E, E, E Ethics are important to the left aren't they Gar. As evidenced by the Pelosi Port deal, Reids land dealings, Bidens forgery, and Clintons Grand Jury debacle.

Blind partisan indeed.

neocon: I am sure the ethically concerned Democrats will immediately look into this. God forbid there should be an appearance of wrong doing.

They already have. According to the article I just cited, Brad Benson, the special project manager of the Port of San Francisco, said "The port initiated these requests. They came entirely from the city and county of San Francisco. [The requests] were generated at the staff level. The port initiated our request through the city and county of San Francisco. Our requests were funneled through the mayor's office on up to Speaker Pelosi's office...If anyone is claiming that Pelosi initiated these requests in some way, that's completely false."

Unfortunately, people on both sides tend to trump up allegations without ever attempting to substantiate them. When the Abramoff scandal broke, the libbies were quick to point out that everyone he and his wife donated money to were GOP. That's true. But that doesn't mean everyone he contributed to is dirty. That only means he's a member of the GOP. Likewise, lots of folks, both Dems and GOP, got money from at least one of his clients. But that doesn't make them dirty either. It only gets dirty when quid pro quo is involved.

In their book, Matt and Mark complain about how unsubstantiated allegations can be exaggerated in the media to the point where people start thinking that the allegations themselves bear the weight of guilt. And they definitely have a point. It happens all the time.

They further argue that the media is so liberally biased that they overplay allegations against GOPers while underplaying allegations against Dems. Perhaps so, but there are certainly examples of Dems getting pilloried on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations. The "Pelosi Port scandal" I just mentioned is a case in point. That particular Reid scandal you just mentioned is likely to be much of the same. It is true that he made a technical mistake, but it does not rise to the level of an ill-gotten windfall. It made no difference in terms of the money he accrued from the sale, nor the capital gains he reported on it.

Now, I'm not saying either Pelosi, or Reid, or any other Dem is squeaky clean, just that they get unjustly accused from time to time, just like GOPers.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/wolfowitz-to-resign-from-world-bank/2007/05/17/1178995324238.html

Fighting back? Or slinking away into oblivion...

Yee-hhaww!

By the way, I predict he's gone in the next two hours, if not before then. Any takers?

Posted by: Cyberactor at May 17, 2007 01:58 PM

Excellent!! You were only off by a few hours, Cyberactor. Good call.

Well C.O. You lost the bet.
Anyway, it was 5 hours.
Pay up looser!!
Is speedy gonzalez next I hope????
Aaaareeeeebaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
Maybe he too can get amnisty.

Neocon,

This thread is about Wolfowitz, not about the Democrats. Only a blind partisan would rationalize corruption on their own side by comparing it to the other side. You and Mark do that on a daily basis.

Gar Wood

Well C.O. You lost the bet.
Anyway, it was 5 hours.
Pay up looser!!

Posted by mdebde at May 17, 2007 07:32 PM

??? mdebde. If I had placed a bet, believe me, it would have been with Cyberactor not against him. I was giving my congratulations on his being so close on his call, 5 hours or whatever; it was a good one.

As for AG; he's not far behind. Perhaps Cyberactor would care to hazard a guess.

Well, C.O., I'm not one to press my luck and given that I was a whole three hours late on the Wolfowitz thing, I'd hate to guess, say, two weeks and have it turn out to be four. I'm willin to go this far, though: Gonzo is OUT.

How soon? Who knows? Most definitely by the end of the year, more likely by the end of the summer, hopefully by the end of June. But really, it doesn't matter. He's toast.

The real question is...who's NEXT?

Bwaahahahaahahahahahahaha!

Who is next? Gonzo after Goodlings testimony. What more do we need? Rove is dead meat also, thank the lord.
And hopefully Cheney will end up as the house on the cul de sac where all of this eventually winds.

Anybody takin' bets on Alberto Gonzales?

hmmm. Hard to say. My guess is that Alberto will stay around for a bit longer. As the situation continues to deteriorate Bush has been losing support from his party. The core republican party still supports him - though he is loosing moderates more and more. My guess is that eventually the Republican party will realize that unless things turn around in Iraq and make dramatic improvement they will be completely sunk in Nov 2008. Unfortunately, Bush seems as stubborn as always - and unfortunately his "plan" just won't work in the long run. He will be able to point to things here and there - but at this point things would really have to dramatically change. Thats fairly unlikely. In the next 6 months I think what you will see is similar to what happened to Nixon - he will become increasingly more separated from party..
Even the core republicans realize that nobody is going to stay elected (democrat or republican) with a "stay the course" platform...