Guest Post by Morbo
Now that World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz has resigned, it’s time to examine an overlooked issue from the sorry affair: Why did the Religious Right support this embattled neocon? What did this issue have to do with religion, abortion, gay rights or any of the other obsessions of the neo-Puritan brigade?
Maybe the Religious Right backed Wolfowitz because they are partisan hacks. Let’s say a Democratic president appointed some guy to run the World Bank. Let’s say it came to light that this guy had arranged for his girlfriend to get a cushy, high-paying job at the Bank with regular enormous salary increases and then transferred her to another high-paying job elsewhere while still receiving her Bank salary. The Religious Right would call that no big deal, right?
I think not. I think they would turn purple and, backed by the Fox News Channel, would wage war until the guy resigned.
But here’s Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, on the Paul Wolfowitz matter:
“To his credit, Wolfowitz had disclosed his relationship with the ‘companion’ before joining the Bank, asked for ethics advice, received it, and followed it. There are few things uglier than a partisan policy war masquerading as a scandal.”
Oh, I see. Wolfowitz is really a man of integrity. He was forthcoming about everything, and the whole matter is really just another attempt by Democrats to embarrass the Bush administration. It’s too bad the executive board of the Bank sees it differently.
But as the Carpetbagger says, “Wait, it gets worse.”
I suspect you’ve been hearing the same rumors I have: that Wolfowitz isn’t even divorced. If true, this makes Shaha Riza not his “girlfriend” or “companion” but his “mistress.” The Religious Right may be defending a flat-out adulterer!
The question of Wolfowitz’s marital status is definitely unclear. Even his Wikipedia entry mentions it:
In the mid-1960s Wolfowitz met anthropologist Clare Selgin Wolfowitz while they were both studying at Cornell University. They married in 1968, had three children (Sara, David, and Rachel), separated in 2001, and, according to some sources, were divorced in 2002, though, according to other sources their marital status appears to be uncertain.
Furthermore, some people suspected as far back as 2005 that Wolfowitz’s unusual relationship with Riza might lead to problems. The London Daily Mail reported on March 20, 2005, that Riza enjoys great influence over Wolfowitz and might even have pushed him to be more aggressive on supporting the war in Iraq.
[I]t is his tangled private life that could stop him taking up the World Bank post. Critics say it would be impossible for Wolfie – as he is nicknamed by Bush – to make independent decisions when his lover, who works on Middle Eastern and North African issues, is so committed to overthrowing Middle Eastern regimes.
“His womanising has come home to roost,” a Washington insider said. “Paul was a foreign policy hawk long before he met Shaha but it doesn’t look good to be accused of being under the thumb of your mistress.” One of his opponents at the bank said: “Unless Riza gives up her job, this will be an impossible conflict of interest.”
Gee, do you think?
Personally, I think Wolfowitz should have been expelled from public life after he was shown using his own spit to comb his hair on “Fahrenheit 9/11.” His departure now is welcome. Hasta la vista, Paul! I’m sure there’s a nice chair waiting for you at the American Enterprise Institute.