WOLFOWITZ, NEO-CON ARCHITECT OF WAR IN IRAQ, OBJECTS TO OBAMA'S POLICY OF NOT MEDDLING IN IRANIAN ELECTIONS

Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the War in Iraq, writes an op-ed in today's The Washington Post, criticizing Barack Obama for his policy of purposely not meddling in the Iranian elections.

Writes Wolfowitz:

"It would be a cruel irony if, in an effort to avoid imposing democracy, the United States were to tip the scale toward dictators who impose their will on people struggling for freedom. And if we appear so desperate for negotiations that we will abandon those who support our principles, we weaken our own negotiating hand."

First of all, it would be a huge mistake for Obama to wade in with his support of the demonstrators. For the last 100 years or more, the United States has continuously butted into Iran's affairs. At the beginning of the 20th Century, it was to seize control of Iran's mineral resources. Then in 1953, the U.S. engineered an overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government, this time, in the name of controlling Iran's oil deposits. It was the CIA which helped the Shah regain despotic control over Iranians. Because of the U.S. interference, Iranians are very wary of further American attempts at influence. Wolwowitz seems to have little awareness of Iranian suspicions.

If Obama and the U.S. followed Wolfie's advice, it very well could lead to another confrontation with an Islamic state. Remember what happened with Wolfowitz's advice about invading Iraq. A failed policy that still handcuffs the United States to keeping 100,000+ soldiers there. Now Wolfie wants Obama to take sides in the Iranian elections.

Consider that no Iranian protester holds a sign that says, "We want the U.S. to intervene and help us." No, Iranians of all persuasions would recoil from any meddling by Obama. Any insertion of American views or preferences by the U.S. would turn even the protesting Iranians against the U.S. and possibly make them commit to the other side.

Wolfie's advice is again short-sighted and shallow on a matter affecting U.S. foreign policy towards an Islamic nation. How did this guy ever become Asst. Sec. DOD?

WHO LOST IRAQ? CERTAINLY NOT THE PEACE MOVEMENT

I want to comment on an article entitled "Who Lost Iraq?" in Foreign Affairs by James Dobbins, former assistant secretary of state to both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Dobbins claims that the entire nation failed in Iraq. Not only George Bush and Dick Cheney, but also the Democrats for not insisting on a full debate about the merits of invading Iraq, and also the generals for not objecting to what many considered a foolish invasion until they were safely retired and receiving their pensions.

I disagree most adamantly with Dobbins when he claims Iraq is the fault of the entire nation. It was most certainly not the entire nation. Has Dobbins ever heard of the anti-war movement? How about all those marches for peace and against George Bush's reckless war even before the invasion in March 2003? How about the thousands and hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters, myself included, who participated in demonstrations against the war? And how about figures like Cindy Sheehan and the Dixie Chicks?

Don't try to let George Bush & Co. off the hook by saying that the War in Iraq was the fault of the "entire nation." We all know who is chiefly responsible - the war mongers led by Bush, Cheney and the other neo-cons, such as John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz.

WHY DOES WORLD BANK ALLOW WOLFOWITZ TO STAY UNTIL JUNE 30?

I don't understand how The World Bank could have agreed to allow Paul Wolfowitz to remain president until June 30. If he has indeed resigned, then The World Bank should require that he clear out his desk and leave immediately. As president for another 45 days, Wolfowitz can do a lot of additional damage to The World Bank.

Peter S. Goodman in The Washington Post writes that The World Bank will issue limitations today on what Wolfowitz may or may not do in his remaining time.

"According to bank and Bush administration sources briefed on the negotiations, the White House on Wednesday demanded that Wolfowitz be allowed to stay for three months, fearing that otherwise an acting president would be put in place from within the bank. That could threaten the traditional American prerogative to select the head of the institution.
"They don't want to lose control," a bank official said.


"Most of the board, and particularly the Europeans, wanted Wolfowitz to leave immediately, asserting that he has lost the trust of the staff. The administration ultimately settled for a compromise, the June 30 departure date, fearing that otherwise a caretaker president might be inserted by the board over American wishes . . .

"A bank official briefed by board members said the board would today issue a second statement asserting that Wolfowitz is immediately barred from making personnel and policy decisions, assuaging the fears of some that he might otherwise fire those who have rallied against him. But in a nod to the interests of the Bush administration, the board will assert that Wolfowitz is to stay on officially in his post and will not go on administrative leave, as many staff members had hoped."

Goodman also writes of the jubilation of staff and employees of The World Bank when they received the news of Wolfowitz' resignation:

"Staff members described a celebratory mood inside the World Bank's headquarters near the White House, with people embracing, singing songs and hoisting flutes of Champagne."

WORLD BANK FINDS WOLFOWITZ BREACHED CODE OF CONDUCT

I have just been reading the Second Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Executive Directors of The World Bank on the Wolfowitz matter dated yesterday May 14, 2007.

One of the findings was that Mr. Wolfwowitz, although he was willing to recuse himself from supervision of Ms. Shaha Riza with whom he had a sexual relationship, was not willing to cut off all professional contact at with her at The World Bank. This is in violation of the ethics rules and specifically Staff Rule 4.01, Section 5.02.

"Staff Rule 3.01, Section 4, Supervisory Relationships, provides:

"4.01 Supervisors shall at all times treat staff in a fair and unbiased manner. Treatment of staff shall not be influenced by personal ties between a supervisor in the staff member nor shall it be influenced by race, nationality, sex, religion, political opinions, or sexual orientation of the supervisor or staff member.

"4.01 A sexual relationship between a staff member and his/her direct report, or direct or indirect manager or supervisor is considered a de facto conflict of interest. The manager/supervisor shall be responsible for seeking a resolution of the conflict of interest, if need be in consultation with management, who will take measures to resolve the conflict of interest. Failure to promptly resolve the conflict of interest may result in a finding of misconduct.

"Staff Rule 4.01, Appointment, Section 5, Spouses and Domestic Partners, provides

"5.02 The spouse or domestic partner of a staff member who meets the normal selection standards may be employed by the Bank Group. A husband and wife or domestic partners may be assigned to the same vice presidency or department, if neither supervises the other, directly or indirectly, AND THEIR DUTIES ARE NOT LIKELY TO BRING THEM INTO ROUTINE PROFESSIONAL CONTACT. (emphasis added). They may not be assigned to the same division or equivalent unit . . . "
(PP. 8-9)

Mr. Wolfowitz also wanted to keep The World Bank's General Counsel and other members of the Bank's Legal Vice presidency in the dark about the negotiation of terms of Shaha Riza's salary. Wolfowitz choose not to disclose "matters that had the potential to expose The World Bank to legal and reputational hazard.) (P. 49)

The Ad Hoc Committee concludes that Wolfowitz violated the Code of Conduct of The World Bank, as well as Staff Rules 3.01 (Standards of Professional Conduct), 5.02 (Consideration of Promotion for External Service), and 6.01 (having to do with the amount of salary raises allowed to employees). (P. 46 ff)

ANDREW YOUNG DEFENDS PAUL WOLFOWITZ

Today's Washington Post includes an op-ed by famed civil rights leader Andrew Young on Paul Wolfowitz' troubles at the World Bank.

I can't believe someone of Young's stature could defend the corrupt hypocritical actions of Paul Wolfowitz in pushing through pay raises and cushy State department positions for his girl friend/lover Shaha Riza.

"We must get beyond the current crisis at the World Bank, a careful examination of which will show that Wolfowitz was operating in what he felt was the best interest of the institution and with the guidance of its ethics committee.


"This crisis also should not redound to the detriment of Wolfowitz's companion, Shaha Riza, a British Muslim woman who is an admired World Bank professional and a champion of human rights in the Muslim world."

Notwithstanding Andrew Young's wishes to "get beyond the current crisis," I want the World Bank to cashier Wolfowitz forthwith and be rid of his duplicitous hypocritical dealings. Upon assuming the presidency of the World Bank, after being appointed by George Bush, Wolfowitz made a big point of stressing that the World Bank should not lend aid to countries whom Wolfowitz accused of "corruption." This was at the very same time, we now know, that Wolfowitz was arranging for Shaha Riza to get a pay raise to over $200,000 per year. If Wolfwoitz stays, how can anyone objectively look at the World Bank and not see double dealings and corruption?

MORE ON PAUL WOLFOWITZ - WHO IS SHAHA RIZA?

Stephen R. Weisman writes in today's The New York Times that Paul Wolfowitz has hired attorney Robert S. Bennett to represent him in his efforts to keep his job as President of the World Bank. I guess the salary that Wolfie is receiving is more than any other employer would pay him. He seems desperate to keep his job.

Wolfowitz was instrumental in getting his girl friend, Shaha Riza, a job at the State Department and a raise in salary to around $200,000. I wrote in a previous post that Wolfowitz should resign. For someone like Wolfie who made a point upon beginning his World Bank position that rooting out "corruption" would be the main emphasis in the Bank's consideration of making loans, it is the epitome of hypocrisy for Wolfowitz to engage in securing salary increases and cushy positions for his intimate sexual lover.

Steve Clemons writes in his blog The Washington Note that normally the State Department requires a security clearance for anyone having access to its offices. This requirement applies to all employees. However, the State Department has no record of ever granting a clearance to Shaha Riza. Clemons quotes the excellent analysis of this affair by Sidney Blumenthal in Salon.

The upshot for Steve Clemons:

"Senator Jay Rockefeller, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, or Rep. Henry Waxman, who is one of the best and most tenacious investigators of government abuses, or some other concerned member of Congress should call for a Department of Defense investigation into Riza's security clearance, Wolfowitz's role in fast-tracking the clearance, and the State Department's seeming absence of any record confirming her clearance when Shaha Riza was granted unescorted access at the Department of State."

HYPOCRISY OF PAUL WOLFOWITZ AT THE WORLD BANK

Here's Paul Wolfowitz, former neo-con-in-chief and chief engine for the war in Iraq, pushing for the World Bank to punish countries by denying World Bank aid where he suspected corruption. This is the very same Paul Wolfowitz who set up his girl friend in the State Department at a salary and benefits higher than that of Condoleeza Rice. This case should set the defining standards for hypocrisy. The American diplomat punishes poor African nations on the verge of starvation with cessation of World Bank aid, but helps his girl friend obtain a cushy deal from the State Department by using his political insider clout.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ MUST RESIGN AS PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD BANK

Paul Wolfowitz must resign as president of the World Bank. According to Knissah Williams and Sabrina Valle in the Washington Post today, Wolfowitz played a role in obtaining a large raise for a World Bank employee, Ms. Shaha Riza, with whom he had a romantic relationship. His involvement in securing monetary benefits for a girl friend shows that Wolfowitz lacks common good business sense.

Wolfowitz was former Deputy Secretary of Defense and assistant to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz was one of the main architects and engines for Bush's invasion and bombing of Iraq.

Wolfowitz exhibited poor judgment in causing the United States to go to war on the basis of false assertions about Iraq's possession of WMD. He shows the same poor judgment in his handling of personnel matters for the World Bank.