Roger L. Simon: Wolfowitz's pathetic story

To the degree I understand Paul Wolfowitz's actions at the World Bank - I am writing, of course, of the current scandal surrounding his helping his girlfriend Shaha Reza get a lucrative job at the institution - I am appalled by his arrogance and stupidity. Didn't this man realize the extent and power of his enemies? This pathetic story is obviously reminiscent of Clinton's, although in this case Woflie's main squeeze was in her fifties, not twenties, and both parties are single. Still... we live in a go-for-the-throat culture and if you have ideals you purport to support, you better stay clean or those ideals will be washed down the toilet with you.

Reading the AP coverage of the Affaire Wolfowitz this morning, I discovered this interesting paragraph:

[The World Bank's] European members have long had doubts about Wolfowitz's suitability to be bank president and have clashed with him over his emphasis on rooting out corruption in developing countries and holding up loans for countries with poor governance records.

UPDATE: I have now turned agnostic on this story. [Isn't that the easy way out?-ed. It is.] But encourage others to post their views here - with evidence, if possible.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

May I be forgiven in the current rash of fishing expeditions / hearings over improprieties with no named crime attached of wanting to wait for some definitive proof on Wolfowitz?

You may know more than I, but a perfunctory read of you article indicates the usual level of AP quality of reporting. A listing who's supporting, who's not, and some 'diplomatic' quotes. In other words, innuendo, mostly.

A major risk is that real scandals like OFF will get a jaundiced roll of the eyes because we are exhausted by a 24x7 scandal cycle.

Roger, you might want to read this before any sort of pronouncement on Wolfowitz is rendered:

That basically shows that the World Bank was working with Wolfowitz on the issue, went through the legal hurdles, and found no impropriety in it through 2 separate reviews.

I think this is a burecratic attempt to get rid of Wolfowitz, rather than anything else. The original story seems to me, to have been leaked to the press without all the pertinent information. That screams political intrigue more than anything.

Ethics 101: you don't raise the pay of that person whose skirt you raise. You hand it over to the HumRro lads and lasses and let them deal with it; your fingerprints never appear.

"Bonehead" Gonzalez appears on the Hill this weekend to save his incompetent hide. A Fox News Special on the Sandy Berger scandal this weekend detailed the Bushies acting stupidly through Gonzalez when they failed to stick Berger with
a asskicking sentence and then failed to confront the 9/11 Commission with the details of his theft thinking the Commission was a non-political event.

The Bushies, country club types, believe the folly that politics is saintly, a higher calling when the Clinton Dems have perfected the art of gutter politics.

Wolfy now searches for support among the noble nations of the world. What a babe in the woods!!

Yes, jdwill, I may know more than you do in this instance, although your point is well taken. Still... we live in really dangerous times. There's blood on the tracks everywhere. You have to be particularly careful about handing potential ammunition to your enemies. Wolfowitz wasn't and we lose. (Yes, some friends of his are very angry.)

That you (like IBD)were taken in by this ridiculous report shows how hard it is to get people to wait before passing judgement on the "scandal" of the day. The Fox report is brilliant because it includes the underlying documentation which establishes his only "mistake" was in following the directive of the Bank's ethics committee that he get personally involved in the resolution of the matter. The WSJ also has a find editorial on the subject today.

Instead of this being a case of nepotism, what we have is a resolution of a justiciable claim against the Bank by a long time officials. Instead of this being a sweet pot, we have the need to consider that Bank officials and staff are grossly over compensated--far higher salaries and benefits that would curl your eyebrows--than US civil servants. Moving her briefly to State (she's now out of there) where her considerable talents were needed, hardly was adequate compensation at the normal salary levels there prevailing.

Oh, and why did the AP find it necessary to reveal Riza's religion? Take a guess.

Well, damn. I have heard Paul speak a few times, and I feel he is one of the best of the neocons. I had high hopes for his influence at the WB. I will still wait for more info, though I can see the argument that he may have left himself open to attack unnecessarily.

jdwill--I was wrong. I checked the AP story and didn't see it there. It's in this Arab News story which others (i.e. judicial watch cited) and which have made there way around.http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=60884&d=23&m=3&y=2005

Riza is no arm candy as even this leftist blog notes:
But it’s not as though his relationship with Shaha Riza wasn’t known about when he took the job and she’s hardly some brainless bit of arm candy. World bank employees complained at the time of his appointment in 2005:

From Inside the WB: Discontent over Riza We hear from Bank insiders that Shaha Ali Riza, whom Paul Wolfowitz has been dating for a couple of years, is not popular with her colleagues. As acting manager for External Relations and Outreach in the Middle East/North Africa region of the World Bank, she is to some degree the institution’s public face on that region.

Her personnel file at the Bank reportedly contains several complaints about her job performance as well as about a certain “lack of people skills.” This, we are told, is part of what is behind the World Bank Staff Association’s relatively more open disagreement with the U.S.’s choice.

The WBSA raised loud complaints a few years ago when Wolfensohn named Nick Stern as Chief Economist. Several staffers pointed out the Bank’s strict anti-nepotism laws should have prevented that move, since Stern’s brother was on staff at the Bank. Their complaints were never addressed seriously.

It should be noted that at least one civil society organization believes that Riza is one of the most effective gender experts working at the Bank.

Everytime I hear this story pop up I cant get the juvenile idea that "wolfowitz has a girlfriend?" out of my head. i mean i guess theres someone for everyone and this is proof,right?

I also keep hearing that great line from cloris leachman as frau blucher in "young frankenstein' go through my mind:

Somewhere out there is a life long bureaucrat type woman who now has to justify to her girlfriends what it was that she found so particularly attractive in of all people - "paul wolfowitz" so as to risk the ruin of her career and the now constant mockery of everyone she knows.

"we have the need to consider that Bank officials and staff are grossly over compensated--far higher salaries and benefits that would curl your eyebrows--than US civil servants. Moving her briefly to State (she's now out of there) where her considerable talents were needed, hardly was adequate compensation at the normal salary levels there prevailing."

This is not about overcompensation, this is not about the need for proper administation at DOS; this is about Wolfowitz's hamhandedness and how he made what may prove a fatal error costing him his job and another self inflicted black eye to the Bush Administration.

Reading the German position akin to "Paul, Baby, save thyself" it appears to be Sayonara

"In the August memo -- which wasn't reviewed by the bank's directors, ethics committee or general counsel -- Mr. Wolfowitz told Xavier Coll, vice president for human resources: "I now direct you to agree to a proposal which includes the following terms and conditions..." The memo went on to detail the salary that Shaha Riza, then a communications officer, would earn when she was assigned a job outside the bank at the bank's expense. It also set out her future raises and her status when she returned to the bank after Mr. Wolfowitz's term as president."

Now the B/D can "now direct' Saint Paul to take a hike for one simple reason: stupidity.

I'm guessing the right site to dissect this will be JOM, however, I've now glanced at a few WAPO articles and actually read Wolfowitz's memo (via the Fox article linked above by amuro316) where he asked to be recused and the memo where he outlined the job shift parameters and then complained that he felt this was not his job and noted he had asked to be recused.

I am not sure, but it looks like a part of the WB organization told PW to forget about recusal and resolve the issue of SR's job and then another part of the same WB organization roasted him for it via leaks.

My immediate snark reaction is that this may be about bad pennies driving out good.

The over compensation of Bank employees is an issue because the critics have emphasized that she was getting a salary higher than Rice's. World Bank employees get free or heavily subsidized meals, medical care for life, generous pensions, free tuition for all their children's education (and that includes college if they go abroad), yearly paid trips home, virtually free country club membership.(Wolfenson reduced these benefits for new hires, but for someone in Riza's category these have substantial onetary value) and in considering a proper severance arrangement that had to be taken into account.

If you read the Progressive Gold blog, I cited upthread--the "inside scoop" provided by WB staff to the blog indicates that they hated Paul and Riza because of their support for the war, because they were working to get Bank funds for Iraq reconstruction and because he was on a big anti corruption camign.

I am sorry but that comment about skirt raising is not called for. Reza is not some skirt, she and Woflowitz have had an above board and long time relationship and she is a professional woman who does not need to be "kept".

I think the fact that so many people are so ready to believe any scandal and assume the worse and pass judgment so quickly is part of the problem as well. I realize all the critics maybe perfect and above reproach themselves and never ever ever do or say anything that might be construed as wrong, but we mere mortals sometimes find ourselves in difficult situations. Especially if all it takes is innuendo and an agenda to put us there.

I think it was clarice in another venue that referred to such people as the clean toga crowd. All some critic has to do is make an accusation and they are ready to throw the accused under the bus.

Yes, I have read that Wolfowitz has made an issue of not giving money to people who did not deserve it. That bothered people. I heard the end of an NPR report about this the other day and the reporter said that there were people who thought Paul W. should worry more about poverty and less about corruption. As if he could not do both.

First, I have always admired Paul Wolfowitz. And I think he has tried to do a good job at the World Bank. Going after corruption is never a winner. BEING corrupt means you have a safety deposit box full of gold, and never having to say you're sorry.

This whole 'scandal' makes me think of hyenas gathered around a weakened gazelle. It is a lesson to us all as to what happens when your power leaks away: all of Bush's appointees are under attack. It doesn't matter what they have done or haven't done: a leak occurs, the media howls, and the Democrats go in for the kill.

Roger thinks that Wolfowitz should have been more careful, smarter. Well, the careful & smart thing to do would have been to resign last November, when such as Waxman, Conyers and Levin took over leadership of the Congress. This new bunch is going to make it its business to punish every Bush appointee with public humiliation and grinding lawsuits that will financially cripple them

This attack on Wolfowitz is simply vicious, malicious sniping in a preposterously false cloak of morality. It is akin to the potbanging of the Duke "Group of 88" faculty attacks on the lacrosse team. One cannot reason with the unreasonable; one must simply resist, awaiting the opportunity to throttle the whole vile lot of them.

To Roger, clarice et al, Please explain, taking these references into account: http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1494 and http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009948

I suggest reading the WSJ editorial on this (available online). The position taken there is that this is nothing more than a bloated governmental bureaucracy that is unaccostomed to accountability using selective leaks to take out one not-its-own that posed a threat of reform (cf. CIA). The left may not have held the presidency or, until recently, Congress, but that does not mean that it hasn't been running things.

......."The paper trail shows that Mr. Wolfowitz had asked to recuse himself from matters related to his girlfriend, a longtime World Bank employee, before he signed his own employment contract. The bank's general counsel at the time, Roberto Danino, wrote in a May 27, 2005 letter to Mr. Wolfowitz's lawyers:
"First, I would like to acknowledge that Mr. Wolfowitz has disclosed to the Board, through you, that he has a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staff member, and that he proposes to resolve the conflict of interest in relation to Staff Rule 3.01, Paragraph 4.02 by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member." (Our emphasis here and elsewhere.)

That would have settled the matter at any rational institution, given that his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, worked four reporting layers below the president in the bank hierarchy. But the bank board--composed of representatives from donor nations--decided to set up an ethics committee to investigate. And it was the ethics committee that concluded that Ms. Riza's job entailed a "de facto conflict of interest" that could only be resolved by her leaving the bank.

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.

My skirt comment is metaphorially appropriate.
It is not that the woman is accomplished, high achieving; proper corporate governance deplores overt favoritism and for PW to play any part in his girl friend's pay scale regardless of ethics committee approval is worthy of rebuke. When invited by the WB Ethics Committee he should have passed it back to them and said no; this is your problem since you see the conflict, so you make the call on compensation and if you are sued then so be it. He went for the Committee's poisoned apple invitation, not carefully evaluating the mendacity of his enemies.

I am familar with the WB perqs. But, free this, free that, all tax free, irrelevant to my point; my charge is that PW acted foolishly and deserves what he gets. He will find little support from the Europeans and if he goes, he goes. Major damage to the administration and to the institution. He should have known the hornet's nest the WB is and avoid this "relationship issue."

It is not that this issue was not throughly vetted by lawyers of the highest quality in DC. It was.

Although I harbor no warm feelings for the World Bank operatives who are attempting to bring Wolfowitz down, this "scandal" is the direct result of the level of arrogance with which Wolfowitz pushed the Iraq War: piece a' cake, we'll be greeted as liberators, they'll take to democracy like ducks to water, we'll leave behind an ally and a force for stability in the middle east. No sense of the intractability or downright viciousness of ones opponents. He goes on to head the World Bank and, having learned nothing, runs into a buzzsaw. We inherit the whirlwind.

Ethics 101: you don't raise the pay of that person whose skirt you raise. You hand it over to the HumRro lads and lasses and let them deal with it; your fingerprints never appear.

Apparently Wolfowitz did exactly what jedrury suggests. And they responded by saying "Here's what we would like to do, but we lack the authority. So please tell HR to follow our recommendations." Which he did. And now he's being pilloried for it.

That is the point of the WSJ editorial this
AM. It suggests a poison apple intrigue. PW's fingerprints never should have appeared on
any email or document. Once the words "conflict of interest" appear coming out of an ethics committee, it is the eBola for him. The past 5 years in DC have been alive with electricity for PW, any act is scrutinized, this "relationship matter" is so fraught with scandal and peril for him that any contact with it is so volatile that he will be suspect. Proceed with utmost caution, Saint Paul. Fool !!!!

So which do we want for rulers? The left leaning liberals that seem incapable of putting together a coherent strategy, or the right leaning conservatives, who seem incapable of implementing a coherent strategy, due to their ineptness in dealing with political intrigue. Instead of the malevolent entity that so many paint this administration as, I see a much less dangerous, more confused, befuddled and downright naive group of idealists.

What's worse are the excuses being made for them... as though we shouldn't expect these guys to be smart enough to outwit the idiots that are going for their throats. What country do these apologists live in? Our nation has been filled with vitriol, backstabbing and political scandal, for years. The president has often been at odds with the media, at odds with the other party and at odds with the American People. Sometimes they're smart about it (see The Gipper, Clinton or Roosevelt) sometimes they completely fail to maintain control of the dialogue (see Nixon, Carter, Bush Sr). If the president and his party have control of both houses and the Administration and still can't control the public dialogue, then what the hell will they do on the world stage?

If they can't maintain the good will of their own people, how quickly will they fall to the ill will of competing nations? GWB seems to have been a perfect example. Neither he, nor anyone within his administration has managed to outwit or out maneuver their enemies. Further, they haven't been able to maintain the upper hand with the nations dialog. I personally think this may be because their initial way of control tied closely with fear. That is, they didn't have to work at controlling the dialog, or the press or their political foes, because we were all afraid of what was happening. Maybe this made them lazy, or maybe they didn't get that initial set of experiences to prepare them for 8 years of fighting. Maybe they thought the fear would simply hold them through.

Whatever the case, naivety and incompetence appear as siblings in the world of politics.

After today's well-documented WSJ editorial (Anatomy of a Smear) you should go further than declaring yourself agnostic, roger. This was a smear from beginning to end, aided by the perfidy of that socialist hack Melkirk. If you want accountability at the WB Paul is your best chance. If he resigns or is forced out the ka-ching corruptocracy will ramp up full bore.

Oh come on. One of the reasons conservatives always end up getting their asses handed to them is that they can not avoid any and every oppurtunity to attack each other.

I don't care if it is Duncan Hunter carrying Hillary's water through that whole ridiculous Dubai nonsense, or if it is Sessions asking for Gonzales to resign. The first hint of trouble and all you see is their butts disappearing out the door.

I never saw any arrogance in Wolfowitz, in fact on the rare occasions when he did speak in public, he was very soft spoken.

So, I guess he was supposed to tell the little lady to go home and sit on her ass until the Democrats won back the White House. Because if there was even a hint of anything even a little smelly, we can expect the church ladies on the right and the loons on the left to attack.

You are so far right you are in bed with the left. It is getting harder and harder to tell the extremes apart.

if there was even a hint of anything even a little smelly, we can expect the church ladies on the right and the loons on the left to attack.

As terrible as it sounds... they should have, at least, assumed this. They should have assumed it about Dubai Ports, about Alberto and the PA's, about emails saying that the Geneva Convention was 'quaint' etc. etc. etc.

Politics seems to be about 25% theory/ideal 25% work and 50% PR. The Dems lose on the first 50% and the GOP consistently loses in the last 50%.

Surely, somewhere in this country are people ably to get at least a 75% average..... aren't there?

Why is there even a World Bank? Money is now paper, a note, a electronic credit. The World is awash with paper, notes, bonds, bills and new financial instruments every day. Anyone who wants it can get all they want, and more, provided they pay back. So, what we have is a truth and lie problem. Why does there have to be a self-serving intermediately between the truth keepers and liars? All parties know each other.

The WB is just another comfy backwater, providing good living on the taxed backs of productive truckers, teachers, fishermen, businesses large and small.

Here’s another criticism of Wolfowitz just to give you an idea of where this is coming from:

“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 article excoriates him as well for believing that there were connections between Saddam and AQ--well, there were.

This is the first time I have seen Jordan described as a "right-wing" government. What a crock! It just shows that no matter *how* careful Wolfowitz was, they would have figured out some way to demonize him.

If you knew anything much about Paul Wolfowitz you would have taken this story with a large grain of salt and given him the benefit of the doubt when you first heard it. He is as honourable man as you will find anywhere never mind in public life and it isn't surprising that the crooks at the World Bank would be looking for ways to be rid of him and not be too worried if the ways were unethical.

April 15, 2007: Wolfowitz's pathetic story

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post