Bush as CEO
A friend turned to me while we were having sushi and said "I don't want to talk politics all night, but I'm wavering. If Bush were the CEO of any corporation he would be fired. So why should I vote for him"?
He went on to intimate that his main concern was the missing WMD's in Iraq and that an error of that magnitude would doom anyone in the private sector.
I answered that we are not only deciding whether or not to replace Bush, but is the alternate choice an improvement. I went on to mention that the administration gave a laundry list of reasons to go to war, including violations of 17 U.N. resolutions and Saddam's violations of the armistice ending Gulf War I. The most compelling reason (WMD's are the simplest reason) is the attempt to "drain the swamp" of the environment that creates terrorists and that installing a functioning democracy in the center of that swamp is the most powerful and effective tool we have.
This seemed to resonate with him and we went on to a great evening.
Later, I started thinking about his initial premise. Would Bush be replaced had he been a CEO with his record?
To answer this honestly, you have to think about what your thoughts of the future were on the morning of September 11th after watching the World Trade Center Towers collapse. Did you dare hope that the United States would not suffer another attack in 3 years? Did you dare hope our economy, which was already sliding into recession by the time Bush took office, would recover to the extent that it has? 3 years hence, would you have settled for 5.4% unemployment, repeated quarterly GNP growth, repeated quarterly job growth, low inflation, low interest rates, ever increasing home values?
...and a tax cut?
Do you think on that morning had you been offered the above scenario you would have gladly taken it? Yes. Now lets add the Taliban would be routed, Saddam would be in prison awaiting trial, Afghanistan would have already held free elections and Iraq would be preparing for elections.
Bush deserves a raise.
He went on to intimate that his main concern was the missing WMD's in Iraq and that an error of that magnitude would doom anyone in the private sector.
I answered that we are not only deciding whether or not to replace Bush, but is the alternate choice an improvement. I went on to mention that the administration gave a laundry list of reasons to go to war, including violations of 17 U.N. resolutions and Saddam's violations of the armistice ending Gulf War I. The most compelling reason (WMD's are the simplest reason) is the attempt to "drain the swamp" of the environment that creates terrorists and that installing a functioning democracy in the center of that swamp is the most powerful and effective tool we have.
This seemed to resonate with him and we went on to a great evening.
Later, I started thinking about his initial premise. Would Bush be replaced had he been a CEO with his record?
To answer this honestly, you have to think about what your thoughts of the future were on the morning of September 11th after watching the World Trade Center Towers collapse. Did you dare hope that the United States would not suffer another attack in 3 years? Did you dare hope our economy, which was already sliding into recession by the time Bush took office, would recover to the extent that it has? 3 years hence, would you have settled for 5.4% unemployment, repeated quarterly GNP growth, repeated quarterly job growth, low inflation, low interest rates, ever increasing home values?
...and a tax cut?
Do you think on that morning had you been offered the above scenario you would have gladly taken it? Yes. Now lets add the Taliban would be routed, Saddam would be in prison awaiting trial, Afghanistan would have already held free elections and Iraq would be preparing for elections.
Bush deserves a raise.
posted by Richard at
1:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home