Archive for the ‘Ethically Challenged’ Category
And Now Comes Panetta
February 5th, 2009
The man with no intelligence experience but yet tapped to head the CIA, Leon Panetta, is just the latest cabinet appointee to be in some ethical problems.
WASHINGTON — The White House’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, has earned more than $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees since the beginning of 2008, with some of the payments coming from troubled financial firms and from a firm that invests in contractors for federal national security agencies, according to financial disclosures released Wednesday and reviewed by the Wall Street Journal.
Panetta received $56,000 from Merrill Lynch & Co. for two speeches and $28,000 for a speech for Wachovia Corp., according to disclosures released ahead of Thursday’s scheduled Senate hearing on Panetta’s nomination.
Both Merrill and Wachovia reported big losses last year and were acquired by larger firms. The Wachovia honorarium was dated October 30, and the last Merrill Lynch honorarium was dated October 11, according to disclosure forms filed by Panetta in connection with his nomination. At the time, Bank of America had agreed to a rescue of Merrill Lynch; Wachovia had agreed to be acquired by Wells Fargo & Co.
Emphasis mine. Admin
Isn’t there anyone in Obama’s horizon who doesn’t have a cloud over his head?
Panetta accepted money from at least one firm that invests in contractors for federal national securities agencies. He accepted money from banks that were going under during the first bailout.
Nothing to worry about, Leon. Your qualifications in the Dear Leader’s mind are so great that you will sail through the Senate. After all, he won and that trumps anyone else. 
Posted in 
GOP Asks For Ethics Investigation Into Craig
August 29th, 2007
The Republican leadership in congress has asked for an ethics investigation into Senator Larry Craig and his latest escapades.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, Republican leaders announced they will launch an ethics review of the senator.
“This is a serious matter. Due to the reported and disputed circumstances, and the legal resolution of this serious case, we will recommend that Senator Craig’s incident be reported to the Senate Ethics Committee for its review. In the meantime, leadership is examining other aspects of the case to determine if additional action is required,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement on behalf of the party’s Senate leadership.
I like that I belong to a party that wants to discipline its own. I don’t like having people who are saying one thing and doing another representing me.
If you look across the vast right blogosphere you will see calls for Craig’s resignation or at least an investigation into his conduct. We don’t circle our wagons and defend the indefensible.
Beauchamp Recants Stories He Wrote For New Republic
August 7th, 2007
Scott Thomas Beauchamp who went by the pseudonym of Scott Thomas, has recanted his stories he wrote for the New Republic, telling made-up things he and his unit did while in combat in Iraq, except he was in Kuwait.
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp–author of the much-disputed “Shock Troops” article in the New Republic’s July 23 issue as well as two previous “Baghdad Diarist” columns–signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods–fabrications containing only “a smidgen of truth,” in the words of our source.
Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:
An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.
According to the military source, Beauchamp’s recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military’s investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, “I’m willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.”
The magazine’s editors admitted on August 2 that one of the anecdotes Beauchamp stood by in its entirety–meant to illustrate the “morally and emotionally distorting effects of war”–took place (if at all) in Kuwait, before his tour of duty in Iraq began, and not, as he had claimed, in his mess hall in Iraq. That event was the public humiliation by by Beauchamp and a comrade of a woman whose face had been “melted” by an IED.
Nothing public has been heard from Beauchamp since his statement standing by his stories, which was posted on the New Republic website at 6:30 a.m. on July 26. In their August 2 statement, the New Republic’s editors complained that the military investigation was “short-circuiting” TNR’s own fact-checking efforts. “Beauchamp,” they said, “had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you.”
No more can be said except the people who checked into this and found it to be an exaggeration were right.
Why would someone do something like this?
