President Bush and David Begelman

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

Many of my purported friends tell me that when I write stuff that I should be facile enough not to look back on my own career to establish "metaphors." Sorry about that, and here I go again.

As I write this, The General is doing "expert" ritual dancing before one congressional committee or another. I do not consider him to be a joke in that he is speaking about issues that continue to plague our nation, and of course, the rest of the world. In a manner of speaking, he is only following orders. It is the process that is going on that is a joke.

I do not know if it is plagiarism when you copy from stuff you have written before, but this stuff surely helps me explain what position I am taking. In any event, here it is:

"A finance group rescued Columbia Pictures when it took control of the company in 1973. The new head of the motion picture division was an agent, David Begelman. I worked with David for about six years. He was everything that you could want as a studio head. He was very bright, charming, outgoing, creative, and anything else that was positive that you could say about a man in his position. He was the best executive I ever reported to. In the late seventies he left the company."

David was not unemployed very long -- he was hired to run the moribund MGM. He was responsible for creating a full slate of motion pictures that were released during the following years, and, as a group, they failed miserably. He was fired.

It was at lunch a few months later with David that I told him he didn't deserve his fate, in that there was no way to tell what movies would or would not be successful. I will always remember his reply. He said "Norman, I was hired to do a job, and I didn't get the job done, and I deserved to be fired."

The citizens of The United States "hired" President Bush to do a job, and at least as far as Iraq is concerned, he has, as was the case with Begelman, failed. President Bush is the CEO of the largest enterprise in the world, and he has not as yet done anything to acknowledge his failure in Iraq, nor has he resigned, or turned the wars pursuit over to another executive.

David Begelman worked for, and reported to his board of directors. George Bush works for no one and abhors his directors (Congress).

While the Congress is taking a "C-Span" moment with the General and the Ambassador who are having a re-run of their prior testimony, the President continues to be the CEO of a war in Iraq now in its sixth year, and our boys and girls are continuing to die or be wounded in pursuit of some sort of "noble cause."

I would just love it if one Senator or Congressman asked why the Executive in Charge, (the President) was not testifying as well.

When a CEO of any major American business has failed big time as ours has done, he would either resign or be fired.

WHY IN HEAVENS NAME AREN'T AMERICANS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES JUMPING UP AND DOWN IN OUTRAGE RATHER THAN PLAYING VERBAL "FOOTSIE" WITH THE GENERAL AND THE AMBASSADOR?

Norman Horowitz
Who will go stark raving mad if another Congressperson uses the words "withdraw from Iraq with honor."

Comments

[hopeless277]

One reason is that Bush is not the President of The United States. He is the Unitary Executive. The Unitarty Executive, unlike the president, does not have to answer to congress, the American people, or the people of the planet. He alone stands above human and devine law. He alone guides the planet on all aspects of existance. He dictates laws and punishment. He is law, order, and punishment. He is God-like in his devine power. So far, congress alone recognizes him for what he is: King. Never to be questioned. Never to be seen by any but the chosen few of congress or his hand-picked audiences. So please, in the future, be sure to make that distinction. Congress has coronated and crowned George W. Bush King of the United States. Long may he reign.

[Kundera]

"withdraw from Iraq with honor."

BEGIN.