Termination or extermination, either way works for me
On the Moral Hazard and Risk of Chief Executive George W. Bush
by mrcoder
Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:13:50 AM PDT
In the insurance industry, the term "moral hazard" is important.
It is only safe to give a policy to someone who has a clear vested interest to avoid making claims on the policy.
By contrast, it is an unsafe, risky business to give a policy to someone who has a vested interest in making a claim on a policy. No opportunity should be given to such a person.
The Chief Executive recently made statements in the news signalling that he might not want to execute our military policies as well as he should and must do.
This Chief Executive is now on the record as harboring a serious and dangerous personal moral hazard to the Iraq military policy.
mrcoder's diary :: ::
This startling headline and others like it were shown in the news on March 29:
Bush to Hold Democrats `Responsible' on Iraq Pullout (Update6) Bloomberg
Statements like the President's are seen as shocking for a chief executive charged with the proper execution of such an important policy.
In any other realm, business, government, or otherwise, if someone responsible for doing a job, signaled their intent to execute their primary job badly, would it be accepted? What would be done about it?
In a business setting, the board of directors, if they were awake, would dismiss a chief executive who threatened in advance such a bold intent to poorly execute any strategic policy of the board of directors.
We citizens are the shareholders of this country, the citizens selected this chief executive to execute the policies, we citizens underwrote all our policies, and we citizens are represented by our congressmen in the House of Representatives to write our policies.
I understand that in the insurance industry, the term "moral hazard" is important. It is only safe to give a policy to someone who has a clear vested interest against claims to the policy. By contrast, it is an unsafe, risky business to give a policy to someone who has a vested interest in making a claim against that policy. No opportunity should be given to such a person.
The level of mortal danger to thousands of American soldiers and other living human beings, and their property, and their freedom, as well as ours at home, has risen far too high with this glaring profession of moral hazard by the Chief Executive, and must not be allowed to continue to find out what happens next.
When a chief executive threatens to execute an important policy poorly, what remedy is available to the body who have defined and paid for the policy, policy which is the executive's duty to carry out, and to carry out well?
President Bush, the Chief Executive of the United States, who yesterday has shockingly signaled in public the intent to execute in bad faith the Iraq military withdrawal policy defined by the citizens and their congress, must now have his tenure of office as the chief executive seriously and formally reviewed by Congress for a stated intention of dereliction of fiduciary duties.
Moreover, the review of the office holder is essential to do before he has a chance to negatively affect the outcome of this policy.
Why would the stakeholders of the United States sit quietly by, while an official with such broad means to affect the outcome of a policy, remains in office, when this same official has publicly stated an intent to execute this very serious policy in anything but good faith?
Has not the risk level risen such that inaction to intercede with the tenure of this powerful but morally derelict politician is now the greater risk?
