September 7, 2007

CEO President

In addition to the Enron accounting going on right now to cook the books when it comes to 'sectarian violence' much ink has been focused on Robert Draper's book Dead Certain and Bush's alleged approval of Bremer's decision to okay the disbanding of the Iraqi military. Martin Schram (it's not Wayne Madsen, so I feel okay quoting something from CHB) touches on something that heretofore has been glossed over in this particular story: the absolute ass-kissiness of George W. Bush's subordinates.

It gets still worse. Bremer's predecessor, retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, had argued vigorously to Rumsfeld that Bremer's decisions to disband Iraq's army, dissolve the Baath Party and dump Iraq's most capable leaders were "tragic decisions," as Bob Woodward revealed in his book, "State of Denial." But Garner joined the list of those who failed their country when he failed to tell Bush of his vehement objections to Bremer's actions. Not in his May 27, 2003, farewell memo to the president. And not in his Oval Office goodbye, when what he told Bush about Bremer (as quoted in Woodward's book) was a 180-degree wimp-out from what he had argued to Rumsfeld. "I think all the things he's doing are absolutely the right things," Garner gushed, deep-sixing the words Bush most needed to hear.
This reminds me so much of the corporate mentality that is so pervasive in our culture. No one will tell the boss when his desk is on fire. And the ones that do are marginalized and are declared not to be "team players."

(Definition of team player: Go along with the boss and/or engage in group think.)

This is what happens when you get a "CEO President" instead of one with, say, a law degree, a political science degree, or a deep and abiding respect for the law, the Constitution and small "d" democracy.

1 comment:

Desert Beacon said...

Speaking of Enron CEO's Jeffrey Skilling is seeking to get his conviction overturned. There seems to still be a great deal of "Enron" left in the Bush Administration, i.e. if you can cook the numbers creatively you can fool the investors. You're right -- just substitute "voter" for "investor," and the formula is clear.