Why the CEO in Chief Needs an Audit

[ze_dscherman]

The Bush White House is run on a business model. The president is the CEO. He delegates to others, including the vice president, who was once a CEO himself. It therefore should come as no surprise that George W. Bush, a Harvard MBA after all, is doing what other CEOs do when they get into trouble. In his case, he's "restated" his reasons for going to war.

SNIP

Restatement follows restatement until we poor stockholders have no choice but to conclude that either the Bush administration did not know what it was talking about when it came into office or does not know what it is talking about now. Not even in corporate America can you hold two contradictory positions simultaneously. One of them, as any CEO can tell you, has to be restated.

SNIP

Still, all these restatements suggest a business plan that was both flawed from the start and implemented with an appalling level of incompetence. Despite that, the CEO of this mismanaged operation is not held accountable and remains popular with the shareholders. It used to be that the buck stopped with the president. To state the obvious, that's been restated.

-----
By Richard Cohen, Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35747-2003Jul9.html?nav=hptoc_eo

[Simeon Salus]

1. Perfectly put!

Thanks for the post.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on this commentary.

The dogs of scandal are running loose. Eventually they will run up Pennsylvania Avenue.

Perhaps even media whore Bob Woodward is now rethinking his bubbly recanting of the GOP position on 9/11. He sure looks shakey on Larry King.

[indepat]

2. The only difference here is that this CEO is not accountable to anyone:

not the Constitution; not the law; not international treaties; not the Geneva Convention; not the Congress; not the people; and certainly not the scrutiny of the mainstream media.