Saturday, April 21, 2007

Psychopathic Personality Disorder on Display

It's fascinating. In the world where I work (what I want to think of as "real people"), I can get in quite serious trouble if I am careless in completing my timesheet - and doggedly doing so on a daily basis - because we are a Federal contractor. We are routinely harangued over the threat of random Federal audits. The fine points over which I or a co-worker could be called on the carpet are numerous and complex. And rightly so - they are there to reduce the chance of contractors defrauding the government and the taxpayers through improperly billing the government.

Meanwhile, back in the world of the neosycophants, Mr. Wolfowitz is apparently just one of scores of folks who have been schooled in an entirely different set of rules. The words to express my feelings about this are still seeking out the weakness in the thin shell of tougher yet-unmelted rock skin above them.

But in essence, this particular wolf (sorry eponymous canines - this dog does not deserve the name and with his behavior would never survive in a true wolfpack) gives every sign of a familiar scary profile. From my reading ("Mask of Sanity" at the moment, h/t Kurt V), the psychopathic personality commonly includes severe limitations in the ability to empathize with others and serious constraints on emotional involvement in personal interactions. Taking responsibility for anti-social behavior, commonly including criminality and abuse of social norms, is almost absent. Lying and creative dissembling are standard behavior. Confronted with evidence of their typically routine lying, cheating, manipulative behavior, and etc., the psychopathic personality tends to simply cheerfully and unapologetically tend to brazen their way through.

Doubtless that behavior rings more than one bell with many of you. The current world bank head would have serious trouble I believe if we were doing any profiling. But it is hard not to consider most of the actual bush-junta in this light, wouldn't you say?

Sidney Blumenthal has more details on the sordid sort of stuff that apparently has become routine in the last six years when unthinking loyalty, bootlicking, and a general absence of anything resembling conscience seems to have become almost the norm in the operations of the never-actually-elected administration so apparently dedicated to eliminating democracy in America in our time.

Paul Wolfowitz's tenure as president of the World Bank has turned into yet another case study of neoconservative government in action. It bears resemblance to the military planning for the invasion of Iraq, during which Wolfowitz, as deputy secretary of defense, arrogantly humiliated Army chief of staff Eric Shinseki for suggesting that the U.S. force level was inadequate. It has similarities to the twisting of intelligence used to justify the war, in which Wolfowitz oversaw the construction of a parallel operation within the Pentagon, the Office of Special Plans, to shunt disinformation directly to the White House, without its being vetted by CIA analysts, about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to al-Qaida and his weapons of mass destruction, and sought to fire Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, for factually reporting before the invasion that Saddam had not revived his nuclear weapons program. Wolfowitz's regime also uncannily looks like the occupation of Iraq run by the Coalition Provisional Authority, from which Wolfowitz blackballed State Department professionals -- instead staffing it with inexperienced ideologues -- and to whom Wolfowitz sent daily orders.

Wolfowitz's World Bank scandal over his girlfriend reveals many of the same qualities that created the wreckage he left in his wake in Iraq: grandiosity, cronyism, self-dealing and lying -- followed by an energetic campaign to deflect accountability. As with the war, he has retreated behind his fervent profession of good intentions to excuse himself. The ginning up of the conservative propaganda mill that once disseminated Wolfowitz's disinformation on WMD to defend him as the innocent victim of a political smear only underlines his tried-and-true methods of operation. The hollowness of his defense echoes in the thunderous absurdity of Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial: "Paul Wolfowitz, meet the Duke lacrosse team."

Superficially, Wolfowitz's arrangement for his girlfriend of a job with a hefty increase in pay in violation of the ethics clauses of his contract and without informing the World Bank board might seem like an all-too-familiar story of a man seeking special favors for a romantic partner. Wolfowitz has tried to cast the scandal as a "painful personal dilemma," as he described it in an April 12 e-mail to outraged employees of the World Bank, who have taken to calling the neoconservative's girlfriend his "neoconcubine." He was, he says, just attempting to "navigate in uncharted waters." But the fall of Wolfowitz is the final act of a long drama -- and love or even self-love may not be the whole subject.

Wolfowitz's girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, is a Libyan, raised in Saudi Arabia, educated at Oxford, who now has British citizenship. She is divorced; he is separated. Their discreet relationship became a problem only when he ascended to the World Bank presidency. Riza had floated through the neoconservative network -- working at the Free Iraq Foundation in the early 1990s and the National Endowment for Democracy -- until landing a position in the Middle East and African department of the World Bank. The ethics provisions of Wolfowitz's contract, however, stipulated that he could not maintain a sexual relationship with anyone over whom he had supervisory authority, even indirectly.

Back in 2003, Wolfowitz had taken care of Riza by directing his trusted Pentagon deputy, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith -- who had been in charge of the Office of Special Plans and had been Wolfowitz's partner in managing the CPA -- to arrange for a military contract for her from Science Applications International Corp. When the contract was exposed this week, SAIC issued a statement that it "had no role in the selection of the personnel." In other words, the firm with hundreds of millions in contracts at stake had been ordered to hire Riza.

Riza was unhappy about leaving the sinecure at the World Bank. But in 2006 Wolfowitz made a series of calls to his friends that landed her a job at a new think tank called Foundation for the Future that is funded by the State Department. She was the sole employee, at least in the beginning. The World Bank continued to pay her salary, which was raised by $60,000 to $193,590 annually, more than the $183,500 paid to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and all of it tax-free. Moreover, Wolfowitz got the State Department to agree that the ratings of her performance would automatically be "outstanding." Wolfowitz insisted on these terms himself and then misled the World Bank board about what he had done.

Exactly how this deal was made and with whom remains something of a mystery. The person who did work with Riza in her new position was Elizabeth Cheney, then the deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. And Riza's assignment fell under the purview of Karen Hughes, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. But these facts raise more questions than they answer.

-clip-

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home