Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Ha vinto Torrieri

Wolfowitz si dimette:
http://snipurl.com/1l294
Palmiro Pangloss
-- 
Tarpaulin: Amarcord Cold War
http://tarpaulin.blogspot.com/

 
http://snipurl.com/1l294
Vergognoso.
Tb
-- 
רפוה שלמה לחולה פרנץ בן יוסף וחנה

 Vergognoso.
Toni, rassegnati, per voi neo(nazi)con  resta solo il bunker e una
rivoltella alla tempia...

 Tb
#_ Nooo!!
Non credo che si sia vergognato, manco tanto!
G.

 Wolfowitz si dimette:
http://snipurl.com/1l294
Ma no, Wolfowitz ha vinto a punti.  Proprio come Israele in
Libano  :-/
GT
PS:   Non ho vinto io.  Per una volta ha vinto l'onesta' e
l'accountability.  Per una volta.

 Vergognoso.
Non ho seguito bene, forse mi manca qualcosa.
Perchè è vergognoso? Solo in Italia il favorire le carriere di mogli, figli 
e amanti è considerato normale routine, ma è l'Italia che è vergognosa, e 
anche tanto.
Piuttosto mi fa ridere che questi pirla che identificavano Wolfowitz come il 
burattinaio n.1 dell'invincibile intreccio politico-finanziario giudaico, 
l'incarnazione del nuovo ordine mondiale, non siano colpiti nel vederlo 
cadere per un uno scandaletto da quattro soldi.
Come Blondet, che pensa che dietro la faccenda Toaff ci sia chissà quale 
astuta trama giudaica, perchè è impossibile che una roba così sfugga dalle 
tenaglie mediatiche della Lobby.
Ma pretendere che gente preda di allucinazioni sia in grado di fare due più 
due è eccessivo, mi rendo conto: leggenda e logica non convivono.
rosalucsemburg 

 PS:   Non ho vinto io.
No ammettilo, dietro a questo complotto islamofobo e sessista ci sei
tu :D
Scherzi a parte, Wolfowitz se lo merita, se non altro per quella
faccenda della moglie di Cesare.
Palmiro Pangloss

 cadere per un uno scandaletto da quattro soldi.
più prosaicamente, Wolfowitz paga l'arroganza, l'eccessiva dipendenza
dall'entourage dei falchi di Washington, i cattivi rapporti che aveva
instaurato nel board e l'incompetenza diplomatica: a suo favore, ed è
tutto dire, aveva solo qualche rappresentante africano, ben "unto"
alla bisogna . La pervicacia con cui si è aggrappato poi alla poltrona
ha rasentato il patetico, e già era al ridicolo.
Dopo esser entrato come il grande moralizzatore e fustigatore, era
chiaro che anche un piccolo passo falso gli sarebbe costato caro, e
così è stato.
Sinceramente, visto il già grande deficit di credibilità di questa
istituzione, bisogna solo essere felici di questo esito.
Il "vergognoso" di Tonibaruch è molto, molto stonato.

appare irrilevante, perderci tempo č stupido.
Infatti.  La trovo una cosa molto ma molto ipocrita. (Persio)

 due è eccessivo, mi rendo conto: leggenda e logica non convivono.
Diciamo che l'istinto e la legge dei grandi numeri suggeriscono che qualunque 
campagna sposata da questi idioti ha ottime probabilità di essere una fesseria o 
una porcheria.
E questa lo è.


 Vergognoso.
che perdita, un "serio patriota" come lui <g>

 anche tanto.
ma per i tardo-nostalgici di Craxi l'etica in politica eccetera è una
parolaccia.
 
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
 
5 per mille all'Associazione di amicizia Italia-Cuba cod.fis. 96233920584 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 istituzione,
Aldilà di ogni altra considerazione una campagna maschilista non può
diventare un'altra cosa.
Se è vero, come sembra, che ad una persona qualificata - di sesso
femminile - era   stato chiesto di dimettersi dal proprio posto  per
permettere al suo compagno ( trattasi di "amanti" non segreti
ripetiamolo...) di presiedere l'istituzione di cui parliamo
Da quello che ho letto non sembra una tipica situazione da sottobosco
italiano: Tengo famiglia (e Amanti)  da sistemare.
Non il Longanesi nostrano di "Tengo famiglia",  qui dobbiamo citare,
ma una capacità di ben organizzare - e nel lungo periodo - una
campagna anti Wolfowitz utilizzando quello che si aveva a
disposizione.
Allegra campagna maschilista, come è stato ben scritto da altri.
Ci sanno fare su queste cose i  "comitati etici"

 diventare un'altra cosa.
Eh, ma per i rossobruni tutto fa brodo.
Bambini palestinesi che crepano, se c'è da far crepare qualche "sionista", 
magari minorenne.
Oppure una campagna sessista e pippaiola, in combutta con il peggio della 
corruzione della WB, se c'è da "lottare" contro l'odiato Wolfy.


 
http://snipurl.com/1l294
Bye bye vecchio porco
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

 Tb
ahahahahhahahahahhhahahha
ahahhhahahaahhaahhahahhaah


 davano garanzie di trasparenza
veramente a me risulta che Wolfy non usava solo il criterio della
trasparenza nella scelta dei progetti, ma anche altri criteri che con
la moralizzazione non c'entrano niente, tipo tagliare i fondi ai paesi
che non adeguavano la politica estera ai voleri di Bush o quella
interna ai desideri delle imprese USA, o ancora, tagliare i fondi ai
paesi che facevano politiche attive di controllo delle nascite. Questa
non è moralizzazione, è ben altro, e non ha un buon odore....


wrote:

PS:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17373794.htm
-----------
Bank staff were jubilant to see an end to a crisis that had engulfed
the institution, which spends around $25 billion a year to fight
poverty in poor countries.
"Everyone ran into the hallways and were clapping and hugging each
other," said one employee who declined to be named.
--------------
Qualunque dirigente con un minimo di democraticita' nei principi di
gestione si sarebbe dimesso mesi fa, con un'approval rating simile.
E chiunque con un minimo senso dell'onore si sarebbe dimesso nel
momento di aver confessato di aver fatto un'errore (E Wolfowitz lo ha
fatto) invece di fermare il lavoro della banca per settimane per il
gusto di lottare fino alla fine.
Wolfowitz non ha ne' l'uno ne' l'altro.
PPS:  Segue un'ottimo articolo di Juan Cole sulla gestione di
Wolfowitz alla banca.
Fra le altre cose si ricorda che, proprio mentre Wolfowitz dava
compensi milionari all'Amante dalle casse della World Bank, era
occupato a fermare (come favore personale a Bush) tutti i progetti che
avessero a che fare con la contraccezione e la prevenzione delle
malattie sessuali in Africa.
L'ipocrisia del piccolo borghese che va al family day di mattina e a
puttane di sera c'e anche oltreoceano :-/
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/05/14/wolfowitz/print.html
Paul Wolfowitz's fatal weakness
The cronyism that may cost him his World Bank job is also what caused
the Iraq debacle.
By Juan Cole
May. 14, 2007 | The executive board of the World Bank mulled a
possible vote of no confidence in the leadership of its president,
Paul Wolfowitz, this weekend. How did the renowned neoconservative and
former deputy secretary of defense, a primary architect of the Iraq
war, come to these straits? Is he, as he claims, the victim of a smear
campaign by those who dislike his politics? Or do the charges of
favoritism and nepotism reflect genuine character flaws?
The small morality play unfolding at the World Bank tells us something
significant about how the United States became bogged down in the Iraq
quagmire when Wolfowitz was highly influential at the Department of
Defense. The simple fact is that Wolfowitz has throughout his entire
career demonstrated a penchant for cronyism and for smearing and
marginalizing perceived rivals as tactics for getting his way. He has
been arrogant and highhanded in dismissing the views of wiser and more
informed experts, exhibiting a narcissism that is also apparent in his
personal life. Indeed, these tactics are typical of what might be
called the "neoconservative style."
Soon after becoming head of the World Bank, Wolfowitz lapsed into his
typical favoritism, even while he was, ironically, decrying the
technique as practiced by governments of the global South. Instead of
having an open search for some key positions and allowing for
promotions from within, Wolfowitz simply installed Republicans from
the Bush administration in high positions with enormous salaries. He
brought Kevin Kellems from Dick Cheney's office (where he had been
communications director) and gave him a tax-free salary said to have
been as high as $250,000 a year. As Wolfowitz's new senior advisor,
Kellems was leap-frogged over hundreds of officials with serious
credentials in development work, something about which he knew little.
When representing Cheney, Kellems went to great lengths to defend the
vice president's implausible conspiracy theory linking Saddam Hussein
and Osama bin Laden.
Another controversial Wolfowitz appointment was Robin Cleveland, whom
he made his assistant. She had been an aide to Sen. Mitch McConnell
and then associate director of the White House Office of Management
and Budget. She had been implicated in a corruption and nepotism
scandal at the Pentagon, but the Department of Defense had determined
it did not have jurisdiction to investigate her. In 2003, while at the
OMB, she had lobbied then Secretary of the Air Force James Roche to
get her brother a job at defense contractor Northrop Grumman, where
Roche had been an executive. Though, like Kellems, she lacked
experience in international development, she also received a reported
quarter of a million dollars a year in compensation at the World Bank.
And also like Kellems, she is alleged to have been an abrasive and
abusive boss.
Wolfowitz appointee Juan José Daboub quietly began changing World Bank
policy on contraception, presumably as a favor to the Bush
administration, which depends heavily on the Christian right for
support. Daboub, who had been close to the right-wing government of El
Salvador, ordered all references to family planning removed from a
strategy document for Madagascar. Bank officials were said by the
Financial Times to have been afraid that the World Bank's long-
standing focus on contraception in forestalling disease was being
changed by Daboub, and that poor women would suffer as a result. When
the story surfaced, Wolfowitz told National Public Radio that the bank
had made no changes in policy on contraceptives.
Experienced, high-level World Bank officials began resigning in droves
as they saw Wolfowitz institute a reign of cronies with little
development experience and massive salaries. The management style of
the newcomers, cliquish among themselves and harsh toward outsiders,
alienated those who remained.
None of these appointments, however unpopular, proved Wolfowitz's
undoing. It was the provisions he made for his girlfriend, Shaha Ali
Riza, that finally blew up in his face. She had been working at the
bank since the late 1990s, and the two had become involved when she
divorced her husband and he became estranged from his wife. Wolfowitz
made his relationship with Riza public when it became clear Bush would
nominate Wolfowitz to head the bank. Bank ethics rules did not allow
him to oversee a lover and set her salary, though he initially
insisted that he could recuse himself from such decisions while
functioning as her superior. The bank's ethics officials said no to
this proposed arrangement. He then had her transferred to the Near
Eastern Affairs Bureau of the State Department to work with Elizabeth
Cheney, the daughter of the vice president. He arranged such
extraordinary salary increases for her that she ended up being better
paid than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
This spring, the World Bank Group Association, which represents the
institution's 13,000 employees, sent around a memo pointing out that
the pay raises received by Riza were twice what bank rules allowed.
Charges of nepotism and corruption flew. Then renewed attention was
given to a 2003 incident in which Douglas Feith, at the time
Wolfowitz's deputy, had briefly detailed Riza to a Defense Department
contractor as a consultant on Iraq democratization, and arranged for
her to receive $17,000 for a month's worth of work.
A special subcommittee of the executive board of the bank found late
last week that Wolfowitz had in fact broken ethics rules. He has been
insisting that he will not resign, even though large numbers of his
own employees are openly signing petitions against him. The aide he
brought in from Cheney's office, Kellems, did resign. Few think that
he is a big enough sacrificial lamb to feed such a large and hungry
party. The full executive board will make its decision on Tuesday.
Although member states may be reluctant to simply fire Wolfowitz,
given President Bush's backing for him, they might engineer a vote of
no confidence as a way of making it difficult for him to stay on.
The management techniques that got Wolfowitz in trouble at the World
Bank mirrored those he used at the Pentagon to get up the Iraq war.
Without cronyism, tag-teaming, and running circles around opponents of
the war such as Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director
George Tenet, the pro-war cabal could never have persuaded Bush to
launch the conflict or persuaded the American public to support it.
State Department officials have complained bitterly to me about
meetings called by Wolfowitz and others on Iraq in 2002, to which some
relevant officials were pointedly not invited, or where the agenda was
prearranged and rigidly stage-managed so as to ensure that only
neoconservative points of view were heard. Other officials have spoken
of being spied on by the neocons at the Department of Defense, to the
point where they were reprimanded for cartoons or posters that they
had hung on their office doors.
When Donald Rumsfeld appointed Wolfowitz his deputy in January 2001,
the latter plumped to have his longtime associate Feith installed as
assistant secretary of defense for policy and planning. Feith was an
odd choice to be the No. 3 man at the Pentagon, given that he opposed
much official U.S. government policy. He was, among other things, a
diehard opponent of the Oslo peace accords between the Israelis and
the Palestinians. Feith then appointed his former boss, Richard Perle,
also close to the Israeli right and a man who had advocated an Iraq
war for Israel's benefit, to head the Defense Policy Board, a civilian
oversight body for the Pentagon.
Just as Wolfowitz brought in Daboub at the World Bank to enforce
narrow ideological programs such as gutting family planning, so he had
earlier politicized intelligence at the Pentagon. Wolfowitz's tendency
toward clientelism made him vulnerable to groupthink based on
unexamined premises. In the case of Iraq, the consequences were
tragic.
Wolfowitz and his cronies were fixated on overthrowing the government
of Iraq. Richard Clarke detailed in his memoirs, "Against All
Enemies," how he had enormous difficulty in calling a meeting of high
Bush administration officials to discuss the threat of al-Qaida in
spring of 2001. When Clarke finally had the opportunity to make his
case to them, Wolfowitz "fidgeted" and "scowled" and attempted to
shoot him down. "I just don't understand," complained Wolfowitz, "why
we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Clarke says
he explained that he was talking about al-Qaida "because it and it
alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the U.S."
Clarke alleges that Wolfowitz responded, "You give bin Laden too much
credit," and insisted that bin Laden's success with operations such as
the 1993 World Trade Center bombing would have been impossible without
a "state sponsor." He added, "Just because FBI and CIA have failed to
find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."
The theory that Saddam was actually behind almost all the terrorist
attacks on the United States from 1993 forward had been laid out by
wild-eyed crank and supposed Middle East expert Laurie Mylroie in her
"Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America,"
which was published by the American Enterprise Institute (neocon
central) in 2000. Peter Bergen has pointed out that the author thanks
Wolfowitz and his then wife, Clare Selgin Wolfowitz, saying that Mrs.
Wolfowitz had "fundamentally shaped the book," while Wolfowitz himself
"provided crucial support."
On Jan. 22, 2002, Wolfowitz wrote Feith, "We don't seem to be making
much progress pulling together intelligence on links between Iraq and
Al Qaeda ... We owe SecDef [Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld] some
analysis of this subject. Please give me a recommendation on how best
to proceed. Appreciate the short turn-around."
Feith created within the Near East and South Asia bureau at the
Department of Defense a body he called the Office of Special Plans
that cherry-picked intelligence for any indication, however unfounded,
of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. This propaganda
effort came in response to Wolfowitz's special pleading. He did not
ask whether such evidence existed. He simply instructed Feith to pull
it "together."
The effort was aided by corrupt financier and Iraqi expatriate
politician Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress. Chalabi et
al. supplied endless reams of lies to Wolfowitz and others about
Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program and ties to terrorism, which
Wolfowitz accepted uncritically. He even believed it when they told
him that Iraqi Shiites were secular. For their disinformation, Chalabi
and the INC were as well rewarded as other Wolfowitz cronies. The INC
received $340,000 a month from the Pentagon even after the overthrow
of Saddam.
The tight network of neoconservatives, linked by their background in
the 1960s and 1970s as Democratic Party hawks, by their devotion to
right-wing Israeli politics, and by their previous alliances and
networking during the Reagan administration, proved able to "stove-
pipe" analysis and so-called intelligence to the office of Vice
President Cheney and thence to George W. Bush. Once the stove-piped
intelligence had helped to bring about the desired war with Iraq, any
dissenters from that preordained policy had to be punished. Domestic
critics were accused of treason; historical allies were marginalized.
When he could not strong-arm French President Jacques Chirac into
supporting his illegal war on Iraq, Wolfowitz told the U.S. Senate, "I
think France is going to pay some consequences, not just with us but
with other countries who view it that way." It was not enough that
Chirac lost the battle to stop what he saw as a ruinous Middle East
war that would likely blow back on France. Paris had to "pay."
Wolfowitz's record of favoritism, ideological blinders, massive
blunders and petty vindictiveness has inflicted profound harm on two
of the world's great bureaucracies, the U.S. Department of Defense and
now the World Bank. He has left both with thousands of demoralized
employees and imposed on both irrational policies that pandered to the
far right of the Republican Party. He has, in addition, played a
central role in destabilizing the Middle East and in leaving one of
its major countries in ruins.
Many of his Himalayan-size errors were enabled by his careful placing
of close friends and allies in key and lucrative positions. In the
end, his career suffered remarkably little from his substantive policy
mistakes. But once he moved beyond the forgiving world of high
Republican Party politics, his dependence on cronyism finally caught
up with him. That he ran into such trouble at the World Bank for
behaving in ways that apparently were business as usual for him at the
Department of Defense only underlines how corrupt the Bush
administration really is.

Wolfowitz non ha ne' l'uno ne' l'altro.
...disse il bue all'asino.... :)
<CUT delle stronzate di Juan Cole>
