I don't think any of the top people of the Bush Regime have demonstrated that they can run a corporation, big or small. Bush himself either drove his businesses into the ground or acted as figure head. Chaney seems to have acted as point-man for rent-seeking from the federal government when he was in the world of business. Who else could actually even run a corporation in the Administration?
Perhaps the contrast you are searching for in your comments is the difference between bureaucratic infighting and public relations, on the one hand, and actually running an operation or organizing a project, on the other hand.
There is something about the decline of our rulers during and since the Vietnam era that they are unable to tell the difference between their own domestic propaganda and the imperial "accomplishments" that they seek to turn into "reality". The line between deception and self-deception is almost non-existent.
My way of conceiving this is that there are two so-called "Vietnam-syndromes." The one where the population as a whole is wary of supporting a long drawn out war where they may have to make sacrifices -- the Vietnam Syndrome which we hope to broaden and turn into self-conscious anti-imperialism , the one that never really disappeared in spite of Reagan's pronouncements after the great victory over Grenada and Bush the Elder's pronouncements after Panama and Iraq I. But there is also the second "Vietnam Syndrome," the one were are leaders believe that the reason "we" "lost" the Vietnam War, was because of bad publicity and the lack of true belief. In other words the "bad publicity" came from the fact that the leaders did not propagandize the population properly and were not themselves sufficiently indoctrinated; i.e. didn't believe in the sacred mission of the United States. In other words deception must follow self-deception or else you are not with the team.
Jerry Monaco -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20061204/943ae717/attachment.htm>