Do Businessmen Make Good Presidents? Public Radio sidesteps Bush/Cheney answer

When I heard the host of Public Radio International's The World ask whether businessmen make good presidents and continue with,

But does business experience give a head of state a leg up? And why does a nation turn to a CEO for leadership?

CONTEXT 

I assumed they were going to go for the obvious recent example in American history: George W. Bush and his Halliburton CEO VP, Dick Cheney.

Instead, the story went on to talk about Vicente Fox, a president of Thailand, Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, and even non-president, Donald Trump.

As odd as the absence of Bush and Cheney was the absence of a very obvious question: do businessmen in office use their skills for the public good, or do they simply use the office to help their business and cronies who will reciprocate later? I'm sure their are lots of the first kind, but far more often, businessmen see public office as a way to pursue business by other means, just as their campaign donations are far from altruistic, and a pretty strong relationship exists between an industry's donations and getting a favorable outcome on legislation that effects them.

Another odd twist on this story was how they described Romney's business experience, as doing ''business turnaround as a management consultant.''

Isn't that a bit like calling a cannibal as doing health turnaround as a weight loss consultant?

NPR and Public Radio International do the public a disservice when they practice historical revision like this, and making conservative epic catastrophe that which shall not be mentioned.

Condoleezza Rice on Bush Poison Scare

It was just a few weeks after 9/11 when then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice received an alarming message from Vice President Dick Cheney: President Bush may have been fatally poisoned.

She later found out that the president had gone to the White House kitchen for a snack, but the entire kitchen staff was in a meeting, so he began looking through cupboards and cabinets for  himself.

Cheney found him lying on the floor unconscious, his clothing stained with amonia and bleach-scented cleaners, which he feared the president ingested, thinking they were alcoholic beverages since he would be unable to read the labels.

The president was rushed to secure emergency room in the White House basement where his stomach was pumped.

Rice said the story had a happy ending.  Bush had apparently found a bottle of peppermint schnapps, drank the whole thing and spilled some on his shirt.

Not wanting to take the time to go back to his room and have the valet change his shirt for him, he tried to remove the stain himself with various kitchen cleaners and declining coordination until he blacked out from the schnapps.

"We learned an important lesson about the president's security that day," Rice said.  "We had to be prepared for every contingency."

She said Vice President Cheney supervised the installation of child-proof locks on all liquor cabinets and cleaning supplies cupboards throughout the White House and even tested them by watching the president try to open them.

The only damage done to the president was some scrapes on his face from his fall that were not explained to the public at the time.

"If we had told people what had happened, the president's life would have been at risk every time we traveled, simply by terrorists disabling child-proof locks on cleaning supplies. The public's right to know was outweighed by the president's safety.

Frost/Nixon vs. Bush/Cheney

Nixon was hounded out of office for offenses that pale in comparison to the record of Bush & Cheney. They committed his sins and more, and publicly confessed to a couple like violating the Geneva Convention standards on torture and wiretapping Americans without warrants (which Bush admitted after lying about it until it was documented). And for good measure, they covered up the crime of outing Valerie Plame, which is possibly the closest parallel to Watergate.

More disturbing than their actions though is that the Washington political and press establishment lined up and saluted while Bush & Cheney were doing those things and even now treat prosecuting them the same way they did the grassroots effort to impeach them: as a fringe idea not worthy of even refuting.

Looking at the difference between that time and now, it seems like one or two things happened:

• The press was co-opted the corporate political establishment
  
  
• Nixon committed some sin that pissed off the powerful, so they turned the dogs on him for offenses they would otherwise overlook.
  

I suppose those aren't mutually exclusive, but separately or together, it's sad how far we as a country have fallen in respect for our democratic process, or at least how far our elected leaders have fallen.

Prosecuting Bush administration not politics, but matter of national security

After ignoring the grassroots movement to impeach Bush, which had twice as much support as impeaching Clinton and about as much as impeaching Nixon the night before he resigned, the mainstream media is now pooh-poohing the idea of prosecuting Bush administration officials for their domestic and war crimes.
If restoring Constitutional checks and balances and showing that the rich and powerful aren't above the law, especially laws of basic human decency like the Geneva Convention, isn't reason enough, there are some very immediate national security reasons to do so, related to 9/11 and the Iraq War.

In the case of 9/11, that day George W. Bush said,

I have directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

LINK

The Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 found that the Saudi government helped the hijackers, and declassified FBI documents show a Saudi agent picked up two of the hijackers at LAX, set them up in an apartment in his own building, and funneled checks to them from the Saudi ambassador's wife.

Did the Bush administration use this information to punish Saudi Arabia or change the nature of our relationship with them in any way?

No.

He even protected them by classifying the Saudi pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry's report and tried to smooth over uproar caused by the sketchy details that did leak out.

He likewise said little to nothing about Saudi terrorists entering Iraq even though more came from there than any other country according to Israel, our Pentagon, and even the Saudis themselves.

Why didn't Bush do anything about this? Even if you don't believe the Bush administration was involved in 9/11, covering up the Saudi role is at least a bigger crime than Richard Nixon covering up a second rate burglary.

Worse, it means that we may be vulnerable to another terrorist attack because for all the Patriot Act bluster and trampling of our civil rights, the Bush administration did nothing punish or restrain the real perpetrators.

There is a similar issue with how we became involved in the Iraq War. What was once considered a conspiracy theory, that the Bush administration intentionally lied to get us into the war, is more or less accepted as fact by the mainstream media now.

However, if we don't prosecute those responsible, they are free to return to government at a later date, and do the same thing. That is exactly what Cheney and Rumsfeld did after lying about the nature of the Soviet threat in the 70s.

While the lies and liars from within the administration are pretty well documented, their helpers outside the administration, like those who forged the Niger document claiming that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake, have not been outed and put out of business.

Perhaps most importantly, we have not had a public airing of WHY Bush bothered to trump up a war against Iraq and who it was meant to benefit. There are some clear clues like Cheney's secrecy about the energy task force he led that was pouring over maps Iraq's oilfields, and the Bush commissioned Hydrocarbon Law that would have given 88% of Iraq's oil income to foreign oil companies, a law that Iraqi legislators refused to pass even after being offered millions in bribes each by the oil companies. But those are just clues.

Without a definitive record of who lobbied for the war, who listened to them, and how they got their way, we are vulnerable to being misled into a war again in the future. If those who planned to profit from the war were punished, we would be even less likely to see it happen again.

It is a matter of public record that Bush diverted our attention from those responsible for 9/11 and fabricated a case for war, leaving us vulnerable to terrorist attacks from those he protected and squandering military resources we should have saved for real threats.

We are less safe because of it, and without the complete investigation and prosecution of those responsible, we will continue to be at risk.

If it does not happen, it would be because our government is looking after the interests of the very wealthy at the expense of the rest of us.

Bush to pardon at last minute to give more time for crimes

President Bush will not grant any pardons until immediately before Barack Obama's inauguration, so that he won't leave any of his administration's crimes unpardoned, a high ranking White House official said.

"We plan to be working until the very end of the administration, and the president wants to make sure his cabinet and staff are protected from prosecution for all their work," the official said.

In an earlier press conference, the president had revealed his thinking on this, saying, "One mistake my dad made was pardoning his fellas for Iran Contra on Christmas Eve, which my advisers tell me is nearly a month from the leaving office day. They could a done a lot of work for Poppy in that month and they wouldn't a had immunity. That would have a tragedery, which is to say a strategic tragedy."

The official said president Bush will take a stack of pardon forms with him to the inauguration with most of the crimes of administration officials filled in, but space left to write in last minute actions on behalf of the administration.

A likely candidate for needing a very last minute pardon is Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. His claim that Wall Street needed $700 billion or the country would collapse into chaos hasn't stood up under scrutiny of economic data and looks even more suspect since the money doled out was used on mergers, executive bonuses, and massive parties with male prostitutes and swimming pools full of cocaine. Those receiving the bailout funds will likely be pardoned in order of their contributions to the George W. Bush Presidential lieberry.

Dick Cheney will certainly be pardoned, but the nature of his last minute actions needing pardon is not clear. It may be anything from negotiating his salary for his return to Halliburton based on the size of last minute no-bid contracts he can throw to the company, coercing the CIA into claiming that Osama bin Laden is hiding in Venezuela, or simply strangling a child's puppy to savor the moment when the life goes out of its eyes.

Karl Rove's last minute pardonable offenses are also difficult to predict. His role in outing covert CIA agent Valerie Plame and the firing of US attorneys unwilling to pursue partisan prosecutions is already on the record, and growing evidence points to his role in electronic vote rigging. His last contribution could come in any of these areas: smearing, undermining our judicial system, or tampering with elections.

Since Alberto Gonzalez has already left the administration, his pardon could be completed now since his role in drafting and approving memos that allowed torture so long as it didn't result in organ failure or death is firmly in the past. Gonzalez has done nothing noteworthy since, largely because he can't find a job. The corporate world loves toadies, but even they have some limits of taste if not decency.

The greatest mystery is what President Bush himself will do that will need pardoning. Ironically, in spite of his own claims of guilt in authorizing torture and warrantless wiretapping and joking about lying about WMD in Iraq, legal scholars are unsure if Bush can be prosecuted for any of the actions of the administration since he probably didn't actually authorize anything and could barely read let alone understand the talking points on cue cards about his administration's actions.

"It's a classic legal conundrum," Professor John Doakes of Bethesda University said. "How incompetent does someone have to be before they aren't responsible for their actions? For example, if someone gives a monkey a gun, and he shoots someone, who do you prosecute, the monkey or the person who gave them a gun?"

Bush may pardon himself just to be safe even if he might not actually know what a pardon is.

ANIMATION: Is support for impeaching Bush more like Cliniton or Nixon?

Click to see animated version

FULL-SIZED STILL
(suitable for mailing your corporate boot-licking, lobbyist wannabee, supposed representatives in DC)

More details on sources

Wear orange until Bush and Cheney are impeached

I went to the fabric store to buy three different kinds of orange fabrics to mess around with. The high school girl who cut it for me ask why so much of the same color and I told her the World Can't Wait has come up with this campaign to show national, public support for impeaching Bush & Cheney. She got excited and said she was going to get all her friends to do it too.

The campaign would like to get critical mass on this by Labor Day, and especially have people wearing orange on ORANGE FRIDAYS.



The choice of colors has a couple of advantages:

• It echoes the orange revolution in the Ukraine, which is a great irony since Bush criticized that government for rigging elections when the exit polls didn't match the vote.
  
  
• Orange is a bright, annoying color, most people don't wear in most situations.
  
  
• Enough construction workers wear orange that it will make it look like even more support the campaign.
  
  
• It is also the color of the jumpsuits of the prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.
  
  
• Rush Limbaugh has been selling orange "Club Gitmo" wear for a while, so some dittoheads will unwittingly be participating in the campaign.
  
  

The World Can't Wait has bandanas and tees, but if you can't afford to buy anything from them, you could go to a thrift store and buy a couple of orange tee shirts, or a strip of fabric from a fabric store to make a bandana, scarf, or armband. You can also buy one of those rubber wristbands in orange.





Some variations you can do with this:

• Tie an orange ribbon to the antenna on your car or side mirrors.
  
  
• Send an orange postcard to your senators and reps with just the words IMPEACH NOW on it. (or maybe tell them you'll wear orange until they do their job and impeach, so every time they see the color they'll remember they aren't doing their job).
  
  
• Send that postcard to the White House too. What the hell. You know you're on the list already.
  
  
• Put an orange banner or background on your blog.
  
  
• You might also send a nice orange tie or scarf to your favorite White House press corps reporter and say you would be honored if they wore it at press conferences, especially when they're with Bush himself. (Whether or not you tell the reporter the significance of the color is up to you). Hell, Helen Thomas might wear it even if you tell her what it's for.
  
  
• Even better, when Cheney goes hunting, he will be supporting impeaching himself.
  
  

Will you participate in this campaign?

Impeaching only Cheney good on principle AND politics

It is fairly obvious that the only reason the Democrats are holding back on impeachment is they are afraid it will hurt their political chances in 2008, whether they remove Bush or not.

The Democrats want Bush and Cheney in place so 2008 will be a referendum on their corrupt, destructive government. If they are removed, they will be history, and for Americans, history is anything that isn't in the current news cycle, and only a handful of eggheads care about history.

They also mistakenly believe the rest of us are so stupid we can't tell the difference between the politically motivated impeachment of Bill Clinton and trying to remove the most dangerous, reckless, and corrupt president in our history.

However, if they impeached Bush & Cheney and they was NOT removed, they would not only still be in place, but the media would be forced to cover the hearings and a lot of the public would be hearing about their impeachable offenses. That would make the anti-republican tsunami even greater in '08.

But it would also make the Bush & Cheney offenses so obvious, enough republicans would vote to impeach,just to get the albatross off their neck, and they would be removed.

While I would prefer to see both removed, and sent to prison here or sent to the Hague, impeaching just Cheney could meet the needs of our constitutional system for accountability, and still leave an emasculated Bush in place as the political punching bag they want. With Cheney gone, half of Bush's brain would be gone.

And impeaching just Cheney is exactly what Dennis Kucinich proposed in his bill.

The objection to this is it may give Bush a chance to give one of the GOP candidates for president some prestige by appointing them as VP, and possibly catapult some seeming moderate to the GOP nomination who might otherwise not have made it through the gauntlet of American Taliban voters (if Bush appointed a far righty, that would be the best of all possible worlds since the guy would have the same pedestal, but be doomed in the general election no matter what). A 'moderate' VP would have a real problem as long as Bush was in office though--he would have to defend the corruption, destruction, and failure of his boss, so his appointment would only be a gift if Bush resigned or was impeached himself.

I doubt that Bush would do something as selfless as resign just to help the party.