Hall of Shame: Song for the Traveling Bribery Men

Hey, hey … there’s nowhere to run

The SAD’s sensitive air operations
Is sad, sad and swept up in a fraud

Hey, hey … there’s nowhere to run

Conspiracy, conspiracy, had no mercy
But gov’s $40 million is no controversy
Cuz it’s all classified information, anyway.


Okay … I’m too tired to hunt for more rhymes and I’m sleep-deprived today but I did want to post this quickly …


This one
on Kyle Dustin “Dusty” Foggo, the disgraced former No. 3 official at the CIA from Marcus Stern of ProPublica (February 25, 2009) “Corruption Touched CIA’s Covert Operations.” Excerpts below, read the full report here.

According to prosecutors and testimony included in the filing, Foggo arranged for his family to remain in Europe at taxpayer expense while he moved to Langley. He then arranged a CIA job for his mistress, identified only by the initials ER. At first the CIA ruled that ER was ineligible for employment because a background check found that she had an improper relationship with a superior in her previous government position and had destroyed evidence being sought by the inspector general of that agency.

“Instead of being receptive to her supervisor’s critiques and suggestions, ER made it clear that she had influence with Foggo. Indeed, she did,” the prosecutors’ sentencing memo [2] states. “Her supervisor had been an attorney with the (CIA’s Office of General Counsel) for 20 years, during which time she received numerous performance awards and even the Career Intelligence Medal, which rewards ‘exceptional achievements that substantially contributed to the mission of the Agency’ over the course of her career. Within months of crossing Foggo’s mistress, however, she suffered a humiliating firing by Foggo.”

The government’s 24-page reply [1] to Foggo’s sentencing memorandum, 31-page sentencing memo [2] and 82-page appendix [3] are full of such previously undisclosed material.

But here is the great part – Foggo is asking for the court’s consideration because he is a family man (p.17).

In the Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, the Acting US Attorney writes: “The Court will see that, despite his effectiveness as an administrator, Foggo was never a truly honest public servant. His charm and guile took him to the highest ranks of the Central Intelligence Agency, where he was finally exposed. For his crime, which spanned more than three years, and for the public he deprived of his honest services when they needed them most, Foggo deserves to be imprisoned for over three years.”

And then here’s the other one.


AP
reports that Michael John O’Keefe, Sr. who was formerly the deputy nonimmigrant visa chief at the U.S. Consulate in Toronto, Canada, has pleaded guilty to accepting an illegal gratuity, a felony that carries up to two years in prison and a $250,000 fine. It also reports that O’Keefe is to be sentenced on June 19 so he can finish the semester at Southern New Hampshire University, where he is now a professor.

The Union Leader however, reports that officials at Southern New Hampshire University, where Michael O’Keefe had worked as a part-time instructor since fall were stunned and said O’Keefe would no longer teach at the school. “Obviously, we will immediately remove him from the classroom,” said Paul LeBlanc, the school’s president. “We had no idea.”

Hey, hey…there’s nowhere to run…

Update: The wires is reporting that it’s a 37-month sentence for Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, which matched the prosecutors’ recommendations. He pleaded guilty to a single count of fraud.

Advertisements

Hall of Shame: Song for the Traveling Bribery Men

Hey, hey … there’s nowhere to run

The SAD’s sensitive air operations
Is sad, sad and swept up in a fraud

Hey, hey … there’s nowhere to run

Conspiracy, conspiracy, had no mercy
But gov’s $40 million is no controversy
Cuz it’s all classified information, anyway.


Okay … I’m too tired to hunt for more rhymes and I’m sleep-deprived today but I did want to post this quickly …


This one
on Kyle Dustin “Dusty” Foggo, the disgraced former No. 3 official at the CIA from Marcus Stern of ProPublica (February 25, 2009) “Corruption Touched CIA’s Covert Operations.” Excerpts below, read the full report here.

According to prosecutors and testimony included in the filing, Foggo arranged for his family to remain in Europe at taxpayer expense while he moved to Langley. He then arranged a CIA job for his mistress, identified only by the initials ER. At first the CIA ruled that ER was ineligible for employment because a background check found that she had an improper relationship with a superior in her previous government position and had destroyed evidence being sought by the inspector general of that agency.

“Instead of being receptive to her supervisor’s critiques and suggestions, ER made it clear that she had influence with Foggo. Indeed, she did,” the prosecutors’ sentencing memo [2] states. “Her supervisor had been an attorney with the (CIA’s Office of General Counsel) for 20 years, during which time she received numerous performance awards and even the Career Intelligence Medal, which rewards ‘exceptional achievements that substantially contributed to the mission of the Agency’ over the course of her career. Within months of crossing Foggo’s mistress, however, she suffered a humiliating firing by Foggo.”

The government’s 24-page reply [1] to Foggo’s sentencing memorandum, 31-page sentencing memo [2] and 82-page appendix [3] are full of such previously undisclosed material.

But here is the great part – Foggo is asking for the court’s consideration because he is a family man (p.17).

In the Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, the Acting US Attorney writes: “The Court will see that, despite his effectiveness as an administrator, Foggo was never a truly honest public servant. His charm and guile took him to the highest ranks of the Central Intelligence Agency, where he was finally exposed. For his crime, which spanned more than three years, and for the public he deprived of his honest services when they needed them most, Foggo deserves to be imprisoned for over three years.”

And then here’s the other one.


AP
reports that Michael John O’Keefe, Sr. who was formerly the deputy nonimmigrant visa chief at the U.S. Consulate in Toronto, Canada, has pleaded guilty to accepting an illegal gratuity, a felony that carries up to two years in prison and a $250,000 fine. It also reports that O’Keefe is to be sentenced on June 19 so he can finish the semester at Southern New Hampshire University, where he is now a professor.

The Union Leader however, reports that officials at Southern New Hampshire University, where Michael O’Keefe had worked as a part-time instructor since fall were stunned and said O’Keefe would no longer teach at the school. “Obviously, we will immediately remove him from the classroom,” said Paul LeBlanc, the school’s president. “We had no idea.”

Hey, hey…there’s nowhere to run…

Update: The wires is reporting that it’s a 37-month sentence for Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, which matched the prosecutors’ recommendations. He pleaded guilty to a single count of fraud.

Insider Quote: The Leadership Gap Where?

A number of very distinguished professional diplomats have been director general, plus some time-serving mediocrities. While in the Foreign Service, I was privileged to know a few of the better incumbents, but even they did not play a true leadership role in the Service nor enjoyed much recognition among the ranks of embassy and State Department staffs. The stature of the director general’s office has sadly declined over many years. It is certainly not the job to which the best of the Foreign Service aspire.


Foreign Service leadership gap
?
E. Wayne Merry
The Washington Times, February 26, 2009

E. Wayne Merry was a career Foreign Service Officer and is now a senior associate at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, D.C.

The last five Directors General of the Foreign Service are below. Click here for the full list of Directors General.

Insider Quote: The Leadership Gap Where?

A number of very distinguished professional diplomats have been director general, plus some time-serving mediocrities. While in the Foreign Service, I was privileged to know a few of the better incumbents, but even they did not play a true leadership role in the Service nor enjoyed much recognition among the ranks of embassy and State Department staffs. The stature of the director general’s office has sadly declined over many years. It is certainly not the job to which the best of the Foreign Service aspire.


Foreign Service leadership gap
?
E. Wayne Merry
The Washington Times, February 26, 2009

E. Wayne Merry was a career Foreign Service Officer and is now a senior associate at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, D.C.

The last five Directors General of the Foreign Service are below. Click here for the full list of Directors General.

Diplomatic Bloggers: Web 2.0 Door Opens

Once, a Political Counselor had a small dinner with his local contacts in a foreign country. He was very well liked and his host government contacts all showed up. After good food and wine, while sitting around in his living room, one of his closest contacts cornered him and asked, “C’mon just between us, what do you really think about ….?” The seasoned Political Counselor never skipped a beat, smiled and replied, “I am a diplomat, the official position of my government is my opinion.”

And such is the life of a diplomat in the service of his/her country: that he/she spends a good chunk of his/her life abroad; that he/she knows when to keep his mouth shut; and that his/her personal opinion has no place in official discourse and severely limited even in private capacity. And this one, from Kenneth Thompson: “The diplomat is the bearer of a view of the outside world which his fellow citizens cannot entirely follow or accept.”

The central uniqueness of service in the Foreign Service or any diplomatic service is that the employee is a representative of his/her government, considered to be on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. And in the FS employees “must observe especially high standards of conduct during and after working hours and when on leave or travel status.” Carl Rowan who was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Kennedy Administration even had this advice to diplomats in 1963: “My advice to any diplomat who wants to have a good press is to have two or three kids and a dog.” The idea presumably is that the diplomat’s life even in private must reflect well and favorably on his/her employer.

Applicants to the U.S. Foreign Service are routinely asked during the hiring process if they can support the position of their government even if they personally disagree with it. When they are hired, they become not only “world-wide available,” they also are required to publicly support the policy of the U.S. Government. If you disagree on substantive foreign policy issues, you may go through the official dissent channel. And when the time comes when you are no longer willing to serve where they want to send you (in case of directed assignments) or can no longer publicly support the official position of the government, then the only choice left is to hang up your hat and walk away.

There is an old State Department saying about the caution of bureaucrats: “There are old bureaucrats and there are bold bureaucrats, but there are no old, bold bureaucrats.”

This is kind of a roundabout way of introducing what I want to write here – about those blogging diplomats. But the preceding entry is hopefully helpful in understanding the universe from which these folks operate.

~ ~ ~

The 9/11 Commission quotes US Ambassador Richard Holbrook wondering, “How can a man in a cave out-communicate the world’s leading communications society?”

[…] the United States Government is behind nearly everybody, except in certain discrete areas, in terms of technology. And we are, in my view, wasting time, wasting money, wasting opportunities, because we are not prepared to communicate effectively with what is out there in the business world and the private world. So I care passionately about this, especially since I’ve been deprived of my Blackberry, so – at least during the day, anyway – so, I am, again, soliciting your advice.

That’s Secretary Clinton during her first town hall meeting at the State Department. She acknowledged that “there are legitimate concerns about security, but I believe we cannot just take that at face value and stop thinking about it. We’ve got to figure out how we’re going to be smarter about using technology. […] On the security issue and on outreach and public diplomacy, we must figure out a way consistent with security to use these new tools. There is no doubt in my mind that we have barely scratched the surface as to what we can use to communicate with people around the world, and in fact, to use them as tools, as this gentleman pointed out, to further our own work and to be smart about it.

The Web 2.0 door is now open. State has jumped on the Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr and the blogging bandwagons, but it’s also running a social networking site and official public diplomacy site (See The State Department’s Online Ventures).

If you open the door, will they come?

Diplomatic Bloggers: Web 2.0 Door Opens

Once, a Political Counselor had a small dinner with his local contacts in a foreign country. He was very well liked and his host government contacts all showed up. After good food and wine, while sitting around in his living room, one of his closest contacts cornered him and asked, “C’mon just between us, what do you really think about ….?” The seasoned Political Counselor never skipped a beat, smiled and replied, “I am a diplomat, the official position of my government is my opinion.”

And such is the life of a diplomat in the service of his/her country: that he/she spends a good chunk of his/her life abroad; that he/she knows when to keep his mouth shut; and that his/her personal opinion has no place in official discourse and severely limited even in private capacity. And this one, from Kenneth Thompson: “The diplomat is the bearer of a view of the outside world which his fellow citizens cannot entirely follow or accept.”

The central uniqueness of service in the Foreign Service or any diplomatic service is that the employee is a representative of his/her government, considered to be on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. And in the FS employees “must observe especially high standards of conduct during and after working hours and when on leave or travel status.” Carl Rowan who was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Kennedy Administration even had this advice to diplomats in 1963: “My advice to any diplomat who wants to have a good press is to have two or three kids and a dog.” The idea presumably is that the diplomat’s life even in private must reflect well and favorably on his/her employer.

Applicants to the U.S. Foreign Service are routinely asked during the hiring process if they can support the position of their government even if they personally disagree with it. When they are hired, they become not only “world-wide available,” they also are required to publicly support the policy of the U.S. Government. If you disagree on substantive foreign policy issues, you may go through the official dissent channel. And when the time comes when you are no longer willing to serve where they want to send you (in case of directed assignments) or can no longer publicly support the official position of the government, then the only choice left is to hang up your hat and walk away.

There is an old State Department saying about the caution of bureaucrats: “There are old bureaucrats and there are bold bureaucrats, but there are no old, bold bureaucrats.”

This is kind of a roundabout way of introducing what I want to write here – about those blogging diplomats. But the preceding entry is hopefully helpful in understanding the universe from which these folks operate.

~ ~ ~

The 9/11 Commission quotes US Ambassador Richard Holbrook wondering, “How can a man in a cave out-communicate the world’s leading communications society?”

[…] the United States Government is behind nearly everybody, except in certain discrete areas, in terms of technology. And we are, in my view, wasting time, wasting money, wasting opportunities, because we are not prepared to communicate effectively with what is out there in the business world and the private world. So I care passionately about this, especially since I’ve been deprived of my Blackberry, so – at least during the day, anyway – so, I am, again, soliciting your advice.

That’s Secretary Clinton during her first town hall meeting at the State Department. She acknowledged that “there are legitimate concerns about security, but I believe we cannot just take that at face value and stop thinking about it. We’ve got to figure out how we’re going to be smarter about using technology. […] On the security issue and on outreach and public diplomacy, we must figure out a way consistent with security to use these new tools. There is no doubt in my mind that we have barely scratched the surface as to what we can use to communicate with people around the world, and in fact, to use them as tools, as this gentleman pointed out, to further our own work and to be smart about it.

The Web 2.0 door is now open. State has jumped on the Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr and the blogging bandwagons, but it’s also running a social networking site and official public diplomacy site (See The State Department’s Online Ventures).

If you open the door, will they come?