It’s a quaint local custom.

J.

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.”

So right up front he asks to be recused from all matters relating to his girlfriend, a long time World Bank employee.

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.”

The ethics committee, not Wolfowitz, decides that the girlfriend should be compendated with a 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.

The ethics committee chairman suggests that Wolfowitz start the promotion process, despite the fact that Wolfowitz had asked to be recused.

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.

The ethics committee chairman then pressures Wolfowitz to get involved, telling him that only he can make this promotion happen.

If you read Wolfowitz’s actual statement on the World Bank website (which the NYT obviously didn’t), you see he’s actually apologizing for not trusting his original instincts to keep himself out of the negotiations, rather than for giving his girlfriend “a sweetheart job”. Not exactly the mea culpa that the NYT spun it to be.

Going to update your posting to reflect the actual facts of the situation, O-Dub?

Pres. Clinton trailed scandals from 1992 to 2000, like toilet paper stuck to his shoe.

If he went a week without a scandal, I don’t know which week it was.

Maybe, just maybe it could be bogus charges brought forward by paid liars?

See Olin, Scaife, Coors families, the Bradley Foundation, the Pacific Research Institute, Ted Olson, Landmark Legal Foundation, Judicial Watch, David Hale, and the “Arkansas Project”.

Paula Jones was just a tool.

Like, would that maybe be Paula Jones’ deposition?

You mean her testimony, the one that the Republican judge threw out and declared Clinton innocent of all charges before the whole thing even went to trial? And she appealed, and the Appeals Court threw out her appeal, too? And rich Right-wingers hellbent on taking Clinton down made sure she never paid a penny in legal costs, and was well compensated for her time?

That one?

You wingnuts are PATHETIC.

Whatchyu talking about, Wellstone?

Bushies understand this, and that is why they are completely STUNNED when they get called up on charges.

It’s been a PLEASURE to see the complete AMAZEMENT, the total SURPRISE on the faces of Rethugs under indictment like Ney, Safavian, Claude Allen, Foley, Libby, the Dukester, DeLay, Doyle, Kerik, all of them when they get called to account.

They CANNOT, like Frank, understand for the life of them what they did wrong, other than get caught.

…as a foreign national working for an international institution, Riza isn’t subject to the same U.S. income taxes as Rice.

Maybe I am naive, but I don’t get where you draw the line.

Actually, I’m not. You’re naïve to think that this is a big deal. Big shots hire their girl friends all the time.

German chat room laugh: LÖL

I do have to wonder about a man like you who makes pennies on the dollar of the raise that Riza received and who can’t seem to care about the issue.

That gets a big, “Who cares?”

Damn, are you guys naïve!

Questions swirl?