First, Alberto.....
As TPM states (with video!!):
Are you crazy to think all the recent news on Republican corruption investigations is connected to Al Gonzales and Co. not being able to obstruct them any longer? We think you're on to something.
......and this:
Oversight can produce results:
The Justice Department is removing political appointees from the hiring process for rookie lawyers and summer interns, amid allegations that the Bush administration had rigged the programs in favor of candidates with connections to conservative or Republican groups, according to documents and officials.
While one can argue that "the damage has already been done", at least hiring new "damagers" isn't going to continue.
And still more, by the Pulitzer Prize Fighter, Josh Marshall:
....there's been such an avalanche of developments in recent days and weeks [in Republican scandal investigations], that I think it's now quite reasonable to conclude that the turnaround is related to the fact that Gonzales and his crew are flat on their backs and aren't able to block them any more.
We now have some good evidence of a pattern of 'soft' obstruction of Republican corruption investigations by officials at Main Justice -- in the Cunningham-Lewis-Wilkes-Foggo investigation and the Renzi probe. If that's their MO, it shouldn't surprise us to learn they've done the same in the Abramoff probe. Nor should it surprise us that Gonzales's slow-motion fall -- along with the resignations of Sampson, Goodling and others -- is opening up the flood gates.
So how exactly will Gonzales's scandal troubles speed up these myriad investigations?
- The DOJ may be more inclined now to PROVE that they aren't partisan, by speeding up Republican investigations, which they had previously hampered. In other words, taking a "hands-off" approach, just to be safe.
- In spending so much time covering their tracks, producing documents, meeting with lawyers, and testifying before Congress (including study-time), they don't have the time they used to have for making illegal calls to USA's to obstruct justice.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Then there's Randall Tobias:
The Bush administration's policy requires that groups receiving US money "have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking." That policy, said Jacobson and others, has led to the closure of numerous programs that had been teaching job skills to sex workers, forcing many prostitutes out of brothels and into the street.
[snip]
Randall L. Tobias , the Bush administration official responsible for foreign assistance who resigned late Friday because of his use of an escort service allegedly involved in prostitution, was ridiculed as a hypocrite yesterday because he supported US policies that forced overseas organizations not to help prostitutes.
Others, who called Tobias a strong manager, said that he was so integral to US foreign aid that the Bush administration may now retreat from some initiatives rather than draw attention to the circumstances of his departure.
Good news for STD and AIDS activists and prostitutes for that matter. If they're going to ply their trade no matter what, then they at least should be helped to stop the spread of these diseases. Although, my instincts tell me that fundamentalist Christians would just as soon see them (and their Johns) die for their sins.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
And finally Mr. Dr. Wolfowitz:
Do you recall this self-serving editorial, by Wolfie, from 2004?
Iraqis are doing more than helping. By our own count, which is probably a significant underestimate, nearly 400 Iraqis have died in the past year for the cause of an Iraq free from tyranny and terror. Despite the enemy's attempts to intimidate them, Iraqis continue to step forward in large numbers to defend their country.
However, U.S. and other coalition forces are indispensable to preserve security while Iraqi forces build their strength. To counter the Saddamists and terrorists who are desperately trying to undermine Iraq's transition to democracy, we will keep our troops in place at whatever level is required. Our commanders in Iraq constantly reassess the numbers of troops they need to meet the mission. As we have often said, and as the president reiterated in his recent address to the nation, if our commanders on the ground ask for more troops, they will get more troops.
Or, if our commanders DON'T ask for troops, and say that a surge is ludicrous, we will fire them and hire ones that DO. Either or.
The point here is that that editorial was published in the Wall Street Journal on June 9,2004. Wolfowitz was installed at the World Bank on June 1st, 2005. Any bets on whether he changed his mind on the necessity to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely in that short year? Any bets on whether he is PRESENTLY using the World Bank to keep the war in Iraq raging?
Paul Wolfowitz was THE PRINCIPLE ARCHITECT of the Iraq war. Is he invested in it? You bet. Has he been the leader of one of the most powerful and wealthy institutions in the world for almost two years? Uh-huh. Did he use his girlfriend (then at the World Bank), the same girlfriend whose salary he raised higher than Condoleeza Rice's, to make a trip to Iraq, so that she could visit Iraq: and then use her influence at the World Bank to do Wolfie's bidding.....then, in 2003, he had no direct influence over the organization.
The Defense Department directed a private contractor in 2003 to hire Shaha Ali Riza, a World Bank employee and the companion of Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense, to spend a month studying issues related to setting up a new government in Iraq, the contractor said Monday.
[snip]
After her trip to Iraq, Ms. Riza briefed members of the executive board of the World Bank on efforts to rebuild after the American invasion and specifically on the status of Iraqi women, according to Ms. Riza's supervisor at the time.
Wolfowitz gone, means a substantial blow to Bush's arsenal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq forever. It's been said that, like McNamara before him, the installment at the World Bank could be his way to "make things right" after being so woefully involved in one of the country's most tragic strategic blunders. But I say it's the opposite. I say Wolfie's there to use the World Bank to FURTHER his power over what happens to that poor contry.
And his underlings at the World Bank know this best of all. This is the main reason they are so adamant to get him GONE.
Scandals Have Consequences.....indeed
Comments are closed on this story.