SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (459268)9/16/2003 12:58:37 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 769667
 
Betrayal of Trust
_____________________________

By George Lakoff
AlterNet
September 15, 2003

The question of the L-word keeps coming up. Did the president and his chief advisors lie? I think this is the wrong question to be asking. The real issue is betrayal of trust.

The president has been criticized for using the following as justifications for the Iraq war. We went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that threatened us. He was reconstituting his nuclear weapons programs (the aluminum tubes, the uranium from Africa). He had huge stocks of chemical and biological weapons that could be launched quickly in aerial vehicles that threatened the US. Saddam was working with Al Qaeda. Iraqis had "trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

It appears these were all falsehoods. The tubes couldn't be used for enriching uranium, there was no uranium anyway, and no reconstituted nuclear weapons programs. The vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have not been found, and would be well past their use-date anyway. The aerial delivery vehicles could not go more that a few hundred miles and could not threaten the US. There is no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with the Al Qaeda attack on the US, or that there was any cooperation between Saddam and Al Qaeda, although seventy percent of Americans believe it, according to a recent Washington Post poll, and perhaps a higher percentage of men and women in the military.

President Bush's speech on September 7 used language that had the same implications. [We] "acted first in Afghanistan, by destroying training camps of terror, and removing the regime that harbored Al Qaeda. ... And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction ... Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front."

Here is the impression that a great many Americans have been left with, especially our men and women in the military and their families: We went to war in Iraq, first, to defend our country against terrorists, second, to liberate that country – selflessly, at great sacrifice, not out of self-interest.

These are false impressions, and the president continues to create and reinforce them.

Are they lies – or are they merely exaggerations, misleading statements, mistakes, rhetorical excesses and so on. Linguists study such matters. The most startling finding is that, in considering whether a statement is a lie, the least important consideration for most people is whether it is true!

The more important considerations are, Did he believe it? Did he intend to deceive? Was he trying to gain some advantage or to harm someone else? Is it a serious matter, or a trivial one? Is it "just" a matter of political rhetoric? Most people will grant that, even if the statement happened to be false, if he believed it, wasn't trying to deceive, and was not trying to gain advantage or harm any one, then there was no lie. If it was a lie in the service of a good cause, then it was a white lie. If it was based on faulty information, then it was an honest mistake. If it was just there for emphasis, then it was an exaggeration.

These have been among the administration's defenses. The good cause: liberating Iraq. The faulty information: from the CIA. The emphasis: enthusiasm for a great cause. Even though there is evidence that the President and his advisers knew the information was false, they can deflect the use of the L-word. The falsehoods have been revealed and they, in themselves, do not matter much to most people.

But lying, in itself, is not and should not be the issue. The real issue is a betrayal of trust. Our democratic institutions require trust. When the president asks Congress to consent to war – the most difficult moral judgment it can make – Congress must be able to trust the information provided by the administration. When the President asks our fighting men and women to put their lives on the line for a reason, they must be able to trust that the reason he has given is true. It is a betrayal of trust for the president to ask our soldiers to risk their lives under false pretenses. And when the president asks the American people to put their sons and daughters in harm's way and to spend money that could be used for schools, for health care, for helping desperate people, for rebuilding decaying infrastructure, and for economic stimulation in hard times, it is a betrayal of trust for the president to give false impressions.

It is telling what was not in the President's September 7 speech. He sought help from other nations, but he refused to relinquish control over the shaping of Iraq's military, political, and economic future. It was to a large extent the issue of such control that lay behind the UN Security Council's refusal to participate in the American attack and occupation. The reason for the resentment against the US, both in Europe and elsewhere, stemmed from a widespread perception that American interests really lay behind the invasion of Iraq. Those interests are: control over the Iraqi economy by American corporations, the political shaping of Iraq to suit US economic and strategic interests, military bases to enhance US power in the Middle East, reconstruction profits to US corporations, control over the future of the second largest oil supply in the world, and refining and marketing profits for US and British oil companies. The 'Iraqi people' would get profits only from the sale of crude, and those profits would go substantially to pay American companies like Halliburton for reconstruction.

In other words, it looks like the war was a war for the long-term US control of the Middle East and for the self-interest of American corporations, and not a selfless war of liberation. We see this in the administration arguments that, since the US has shed the blood of its soldiers and spent billions, it is entitled to such spoils of war. The argument is an investment argument: The war was an expensive investment and the US deserves the return on the investment of lives and money. Such arguments make the war look like much more than mere self-defense and a selfless war of liberation.

If the real rationale for the Iraq War has been self-interested control – over oil resources, the regional economy, political influence, and military bases – if it was not self-defense and not selfless liberation, then President Bush betrayed the trust of our soldiers, the Congress, and the American people. Mere lying is a minor matter when betrayal is the issue.

__________________________________

George Lakoff is the author of Moral Politics, Senior Fellow at the Rockridge Institute, and Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley.

alternet.org



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (459268)9/18/2003 1:42:52 AM
From: Selectric II  Respond to of 769667
 
Too funny, but dead wrong. The left, the Dem's are going so far as to litigate their insistence that those old paper ballots which leave audit trails be replaced by no-audit trail electronic balloting. They're even stopping Constitutionally mandated elections (CA governor) to get their way.

Obviously the Daly's vote-stealing machine from Chicago has discovered high tech, and the democrats and Daly have the ACLU and other left wing "civil rights" organizations carrying the water.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (459268)9/18/2003 9:00:50 PM
From: Selectric II  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
More fallout from the Clinton stock market bubble and fraud of the 90's, condoned and fostered by Clinton's ineffective SEC chairman, Leavitt, and now corrected by Bush's SEC chairman, William H. Donaldson. Still unwinding the Clinton fraud and corruption, and it will take some time to come. Facts is facts, chumpo.

washingtonpost.com

NYSE Ousts Grasso as Chairman
Size of Pay Package Drew Wide Criticism
By Ben White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 18, 2003; Page A01

NEW YORK, Sept. 17 -- Dick Grasso, who worked his way up from a clerk's job to become the powerful head of the New York Stock Exchange, was forced to step down today in the face of mounting criticism of how much he was paid.

Grasso resigned as chairman and chief executive after board members participating in a conference call voted 13 to 7 to ask him to leave, to help restore investor confidence in the world's largest stock market. He had fought for more than two weeks to preserve his job after the exchange for the first time disclosed his pay package -- which included a lump-sum payment of nearly $140 million.

In a statement, Grasso said he was leaving to best serve the institution.

"For the past 36 years, I have had the honor and privilege of working for what I believe is the greatest equities market in the world -- the New York Stock Exchange," Grasso said. "Today, I shared with the board of directors in a conference call that, with the deepest reluctance and if the board so desired, I would submit my resignation as chairman and chief executive officer."

The rapid fall of a man who only weeks ago was among the most powerful and respected leaders in the financial world has opened a larger debate about whether the NYSE needs to make major reforms in its practices and oversight.

Grasso's departure, two years to the day after he helped the NYSE reopen after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, caps a controversy that erupted on Aug. 27 when the exchange disclosed that the chairman would receive $139.5 million in deferred compensation, mostly covering the past eight years.

The pay package, unusually large even by Wall Street standards, was criticized by shareholder activists who said it called into question Grasso's independence as a federally chartered regulator of the securities industry and enforcer of governance standards on NYSE-listed companies.

Grasso had handpicked members of the compensation committee that set his pay. Most of the committee members came from firms that the NYSE regulates.

When the NYSE disclosed the $139.5 million payment, William H. Donaldson, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, sent a letter to the exchange saying the payment raised "serious questions" about its governance. Sources close to Donaldson say he was outraged by Grasso's pay. But in spite of the criticism, Grasso vowed to remain chairman until his contract expired in May 2007. He pledged that the NYSE would reform its governance practices.

Then, on Sept. 9, in response to Donaldson's letter, the NYSE announced that Grasso would forgo an additional $48 million he was entitled to receive over the next four years. Calls for Grasso's resignation grew louder. On Tuesday, the heads of the nation's three largest public pension funds said he should step down. Today, two Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and John Edwards of North Carolina, joined in the criticism. Even exchange director H. Carl McCall, the former comptroller of New York state and one of Grasso's staunchest defenders on the board, publicly distanced himself today from the chairman.

Grasso had also begun to lose the support of rank-and-file traders who had once loved him. Today, the head of the largest specialist firm that trades on the exchange floor, LaBranche & Co., called for Grasso to resign. LaBranche is under investigation by the NYSE for alleged trading improprieties.

Traders were outraged that Grasso was being paid so much as their revenue was falling because of lower trading volume and higher fees imposed by the NYSE. Grasso had his biggest paydays, including $26 million in 2001, as the stock market was in full retreat.

The vote to oust Grasso came after a lengthy debate in which a group of directors, led by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. chief executive William B. Harrison Jr., argued that Grasso's continued presence would be a distraction for the exchange and further damage already fragile investor confidence. Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright, who joined the NYSE board earlier this year, was one of the most outspoken advocates of Grasso's resignation, sources said.

Sources said board member Larry W. Sonsini, chief executive of a San Francisco law firm, was asked to become interim chairman. But after a second conference call late tonight, McCall said in a statement that he would serve as lead director. Robert G. Britz and Catherine R. Kinney, the exchange's executive vice chairmen, will manage the NYSE on a day-to-day basis.

While Grasso's resignation marks an end to an embarrassing episode for the exchange and the board that had approved the pay package, it doesn't end the controversy over how the exchange should be run in the future. The NYSE is empowered by federal law to be a frontline regulator of the securities industry, monitoring brokerage firms for practices that harm investors. It also enforces corporate-governance standards for its 2,800 listed companies. Critics say Grasso's lavish compensation demonstrates the inherent conflicts of interest in the current system and calls into question the NYSE's effectiveness as a regulator.

These critics say the NYSE failed to uncover improprieties that hurt investors during the stock market bubble of the late 1990s, including the issuing of biased research advice from Wall Street analysts and improper mutual fund trading practices. Some critics have argued that the SEC should divide the NYSE into two institutions, one to manage the exchange and one to regulate it, following the model of the Nasdaq and NASD. This fall the NYSE plans to submit a number of proposals for changes in its governance structure.

In resigning, Grasso said he will continue to work for the best interests of the exchange. "Throughout my career and on behalf of all exchange constituents, I have worked with great partners to build and enhance the value and brand of the NYSE. I look forward to supporting the board and the exchange in bringing about a smooth transition to a successor. I believe this course is in the best interests of both the exchange and myself." In a statement issued this evening, Donaldson, Grasso's predecessor as NYSE chairman, said the SEC was committed to updating the exchange's governance. "The SEC will continue its review of governance standards and will work closely with the new leadership at the exchange to put an appropriate structure in place that will ensure the credibility and integrity of the governance of the exchange," he said.

Wall Street historians said today that Grasso would always be remembered for his pay. But they added that until the compensation controversy erupted, he was among the most successful chairmen in the exchange's 211-year history.

Grasso joined the NYSE in 1968 after leaving the Army. He began his career as a clerk and rose through the ranks to become chairman in 1995. Along the way he made friends at every level of the exchange, from floor traders to chief executives at Wall Street's biggest investment banks. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Grasso emerged as the reassuring public face of the U.S. stock market, working tirelessly to get the NYSE opened six days after hijacked airliners destroyed the World Trade Center, just blocks from the exchange.

Grasso doubled the number of companies listed on the exchange during his tenure as chairman, updated the NYSE's technology infrastructure and successfully beat back challenges from electronic trading networks such as the Nasdaq that threatened the exchange's primacy.

"Up until the last few weeks, Dick Grasso was an exemplary chairman, the best in my lifetime," said Joel Seligman, a securities industry historian and professor at the Washington University law school in St. Louis. "He was wonderful after 9/11. He increased listings, he increased order flow. On issue after issue, he was magnificent. So this is a tragedy. It's saddening. He was so good at what he did but at the end displayed such horrible judgment."

Sonsini, the director who was offered the interim chairman's post, is one of the best-known lawyers in Silicon Valley. He ushered scores of young companies through public stock offerings during the technology boom. Sonsini, who joined the NYSE board in 2001 and who currently serves as chief executive of the Palo Alto law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, has advised such companies as Apple Computer Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc. and Netscape Communications Corp.

"There's probably no one who knows more about the field of securities registration than Larry Sonsini," said Jesse Choper, a professor of corporate law at the University of California at Berkeley, where Sonsini teaches a course. "He's been the single most successful lawyer in Silicon Valley. His name is a code word in the valley."

More recently, Sonsini represented Hewlett-Packard Co. last year in its bid to absorb Compaq Computer Corp., helping HP's top managers fight a difficult proxy battle.

Staff writer Carrie Johnson in Washington contributed to this report.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company