Wolfowitz's Deluded Self-Defense

Washington, DC/Present Day:

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz on Monday decried what he called a "smear campaign" against him and told a special bank panel that he acted in good faith in securing a promotion and pay raise for his girlfriend.

Uh, wait a minute. He's appointed to one of the top public-service economic institutions in the world, an exceedingly high-profile, high-visibility, highly political position requiring national-level nomination and confirmation as well as acceptance by the governments of the world, and yet he believes he's done nothing wrong in dictating the terms of his girlfriend's employment in the same organization he's running? And this is supposed to be one of the smartest political men in the United States?

It's one of three things:

1) He is an absolute moron, and really, truly believes he's done nothing wrong. This is highly unlikely, or he wouldn't have gotten to where he is today. Although, given the Chief Executive, one can never be too sure.

2) He's a liar. He knows he was wrong, and wrong from the beginning. He knows it'll blow over, that people will forget the moment there's an airliner crash or a baby stuck in a well or a white high school girl who disappears from her class trip. He's just stonewalling until something more salacious takes the heat off him, which it will. He knows America has no stomch for protracted struggle, no fortitude to take a principled stand and not let go of it, and he's just going to wait them out. And the sad part is that he's probably right. This is most likely the case.

3) He's one of those politicians whose personal view of himself has risen above reality and his constituents, who genuinely believes he's done nothing wrong. He'll take a polygraph on the issue, and pass with flying colors, because way down deep he doesn't think he's done anything wrong. This is the worst kind of abuse of power, and I really get this flavor from his public statements. He's evolved past mere normal, day-to-day mortal, and is now in the realm of the black chauffered limosine and perks and unquestioning deference to his every whim. The bastard probably doesn't even carry a wallet anymore, doesn't even put on his own coat or polish his own shoes. The only thing he probably does on his own is go to the bathroom. He and his quite frankly quite highly unattractive mate deserve this merely because of who he is, and we rabble's questioning of his priorities and decision-making are childish, pointless braying, and ultimately futile. He is above and beyond us, and therefore beyond our non-applicable ethical and moral structures for the consideration of others.

In a prepared statement to the panel, Wolfowitz said the institution's ethics committee had access to all the details surrounding the arrangement involving bank employee Shaha Riza, "if they wanted it."

Wolfowitz told the panel that: "I acted transparently, sought and received guidance from the bank's ethics committee and conducted myself in good faith in accordance with that guidance."

So the fact that he was apparently above-board as he was dictating an obscenely large raise and a promotion and a move, not for some friend or the son of a college buddy, but the equivalent of his wife is somehow okay? It's okay that you're open and honest when, as you first take over this highly political position where every other move you take you should be asking yourself, "Is this within my ethical bounds?" you dictate to your organization where your lady will work, who she will work for, who will work for her, and how much she will be paid?

Sorry, Paul, but the buck stops with you. This is about leadership, and you can't delegate responsibility. YOU are the one who should've realized this was wrong from the beginning. And YOU are the one who should have, at some point, said, "Stop." Or better yet, even backtracked, admitted publicly that you'd made a huge mistake, and then made the attempt to make it right. That's leadership. Yeah, the lawyers may argue that it's not expressly wrong from the World Bank's rules/regulations perspective, and they're probably right. But on its face, when two adults look at each other across the table: it's wrong and I know it, and you know it.

The special bank panel is investigating Wolfowitz' handling of the 2005 promotion of bank employee Riza, who was scheduled to appear later in the day.

The controversy has prompted calls for Wolfowitz's resignation. The bank's 24-member board is expected to make a decision in the case this week.

What about Riza's resignation? Where are the calls for her to get her ass out of town? She's also mature enough to know that what was done for her was wrong. Complicit or not, she needs to do the right thing and resign. She's been receiving her pay and position not based on merit, but based on what clearly is nepotism, except they're not married. She was promoted and paid out of touch with the realities of the institution, unfairly, based on her personal connections within the organization, and there wasn't a single minute when she did not know this. When is Riza going to do the right thing?

Wolfowitz lamented that the controversy over the pay package was part of an effort to oust him from the office, which he has held for nearly two years.

Yeah, that's exactly right. You should be out of the office for this. Never mind your role in the Iraq war, which will haunt you and your descendants for decades to come. But that's a whole 'nother story.

"The goal of this smear campaign, I believe, is to create a self- fulfilling prophecy that I am an ineffective leader and must step down for that reason alone, even if the ethics charges are unwarranted," Wolfowitz said.

Yeah, this does speak directly to your leadership, Paul. It's flawed and unethical and at its core completely dishonest and self-serving. Yeah, that seems to spell out ineffective leadership pretty clearly, if one of the first things you do in office is arrange position and pay for your partner. You see, Paul, and it's reflected so undeniably clearly in the single sentence that you've uttered, is that you don't even begin to see how questions about your ethics are part and parcel of your leadership ability. You can't lead, and now no one will follow because at the very least people have doubts about your motives. It looks an awful lot like you place the needs of those closest to you above the needs of your organization and its personnel. At worst, you are cynical and dishonest, knowingly abusing power and privilege to benefit someone close to you, at the expense of the organizaiton you are supposed to be leading. Yeah, that's more than enough for me to make a judgment about your leadership abilities. You ARE ineffective.

Let's paint a picture: It's World War I, the Battle of the Somme. We're in our trench, and the call to go over the top is coming shortly. Captain Paul Wolfowitz, who last week made sure that his batman got new boots and a new blanket and a rifle that works reliably, as well as a new coat and 2 pounds more a month going home to his family, draws his .38 revolver and checks his six puny cartridges, wiping the tiny beads of condensation from the pink primer rings. We troops know that much about the batman and his treatment, but not the details, the how or the why, or what Captain Wolfowitz's reasons were. All we know is what we see. But that's more than enough. And the batman isn't giving the stuff back. He's happy with it, is keeping it, keeping his mouth shut, and probably wants more. He's sticking with the Captain, knowing that he's not doing the right thing, and is only thinking of himself. It's almost time now; the artillery barrage is starting to lift, the deafening pounding ligthening surprisingly quickly to a deathly silence. Then come the startling whistles up and down the trench to go over the top. Captain Wolfowitz hits the ladder, yells, "C'mon, lads, I'm not an ineffective leader!" and heads right on up.

And who do you think will follow? What do you think his fate will be?

He vowed to fight for his job. "I will not resign in the face of a plainly bogus charge of conflict of interest," he said.

Uh, I don't think we're necessarily talking conflict of interest here, Paul, at least not in a large sense. We're talking ethics violations taking place in the context of nepotism. But conflict of interest? Well, yeah, I guess. He's clearly shown that when it comes to the best interests of his partner, he's got no conflicts at all, despite his sworn oath to the contrary.