Waaaagh!

Dumb question...

People agree to most of the facts surrounding Wolfowitz's involvement in obtaining a job/transfer/raise for his 'companion' (though his defense - "They are trying to cover their tracks, but the fact is that nobody advised Mr. Wolfowitz that he could not do what he did. That was a dereliction on their part. They owed him clear guidance, and they never gave it." is almost laughable)

But my question is - why does the press insist on using such neutral terms when describing her?

"when he arranged a pay raise and promotion for his companion"
"Mr. Wolfowitz arranged in 2005 for Shaha Ali Riza, his companion and a bank employee"

I mean... why not say 'Paul Wolfowitz was married to his college sweetheart in 1968 - with whom he separated in 2001 after she discovered he'd started banging a slutty coworker - for whom he later engineered an absurdly high-paying job in clear violation of the rules of the world bank if not an obvious example of gross ethical misconduct.' I mean - let's talk about family values here... "Mr President, when Paul Wolfowitz started banging his secretary over at Defense - and his wife of 40 years separated from him and claimed there might be national security implications yet you backed him regardless - how does that fit in with the traditional republican 'family values' voter?" or "Ms Ali Riza, who's job description apparently included 'swallowing' had no comment."

I miss gonzo... he'd have loved this story.