Glenn: The U.S. is the leading developer and perpetrator of cyberwarfare, not the leading target

i've posted extensively on the mutual back-scratching between the u.s. government, michael mcconnell and booz allen hamilton (see here)... this tawdry relationship pumps millions of dollars into the booz coffers as well as mcconnell's pocket and has made cyber-security technology one of the biggest profit contributors in the booz portfolio of taxpayer fleecing projects... mcconnell has appeared repeatedly on news segments decrying the imminent danger posed by cyber attacks and making the case for massively increased government attention spending focused on mitigating such threats...

glenn greenwald, always vigilant about spotting hypocrisy, immediately seized on today's nyt story glorifying obama's role in instigating cyber attacks on iran to make the point that, far from being the potential victim of cyber attacks, the u.s. is very likely the principal perpetrator, adding yet another chapter to the lengthy chronicle of u.s.-sponsored terrorism...

The primary fear-mongering agenda item for the National Security and Surveillance State industry is now cyberwarfare. The Washington cadre of former military officials who seek to personally profit by exploiting national security issues — represented by Adm. Michael McConnell and Gen. Michael Hayden — has been running around for several years shrilly warning that cyberwarfare is the greatest threat posed by Terrorists and other of America’s enemies (and, just coincidentally, they also argue that it’s urgent that the U.S. Government purchase wildly expensive cyber-security technology from their private-sector clients as well as seize greater control over the Internet to protect against the threat).

But — as is usually true when it comes to Washington warnings about the evils of Others — this is pure projection. The U.S. is the leading developer and perpetrator of cyberwarfare, not the leading target. The New York Times this morning has a long excerpt from a new book by its hawkish national security reporter David Sanger — the book is entitled “Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power” — which reveals that President Obama personally oversaw the development, and ordered the deployment, of the world’s most sophisticated computer virus, unleashed (in cooperation with Israel) on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility.

[...]

Isn’t it amazing how the U.S. is constantly the world’s first nation to use new, highly destructive weapons — at the same time that it bombs, invades, and kills more than any other country by far — and yet it still somehow gets its media to tell its citizenry that it is America’s Enemies who are the aggressors and the U.S. is simply a nation of peace seeking to defend itself.

Needless to say, if any cyber-attack is directed at the U.S. — rather than by the U.S. — it will be instantly depicted as an act of unparalleled aggression and evil: Terrorism. Just last year, the Pentagon decreed that any cyberattack on the U.S. would be deemed “an act of war.” As Rudy Giuliani said about whether waterboarding is torture: “It depends on who does it.”

once again, i'm led to speculate that the u.s. engages in such hypocritical and provocative behavior precisely because it does engender acts of reprisal which the u.s. then uses as justification for continuing to pump more cash into the pockets of our super-rich elites...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Reuters interview with Mike McConnell on cybersecurity - a misinformation case study

we're all reasonably aware of the ability of news media to shape the national dialogue by focusing on subject matter that the ptb wishes to highlight in the public consciousness... we're also pretty much aware of how little context we get with most news stories where often critical background information is conveniently omitted that, if included, would give a story significantly deeper meaning... and we're also aware that key public figures will often make themselves available for interviews to news outlets when they are trying to soften the public up for an event or decision that might not sit well... rarely, however, do all of these come together in one article...

Ex-U.S. spy chief says may take crisis for new cyber law

U.S. intelligence agencies have unique capabilities that can help protect American companies from cyber espionage and attack, but it will probably take a crisis to change laws to allow that type of cooperation, a former spy chief said on Monday.

Intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency are authorized to operate abroad but generally are restricted from working within the United States,

"Until we have a banking collapse or electric power goes off in the middle of a snowstorm for eight weeks, or something of that magnitude, we're likely just to talk about it and not do much," Mike McConnell, former director of national intelligence, said.

[...]

The House intelligence committee in December approved a bill that would allow U.S. spy agencies to share cyber-threat intelligence with private companies. Some critics worry that could lead to government surveillance of private data.

[...]

"There are unique things that the government can do. For example code-breaking. The private sector out there does not do code-breaking," McConnell, a former National Security Agency director, told Reuters in an interview.

"How would you harness that capability and then make it available to the private sector in a way that their infrastructure could be better protected?"

[...]

McConnell gives an example that if NSA, which conducts electronic eavesdropping to detect foreign threats, observed a cyberthreat against the U.S. private sector, "NSA is powerless to do a thing other than issue a report."

He said in the area of cyber exploitation, such as reading an adversary's mail without leaving fingerprints, the United States, Britain and Russia are probably the best.

The United States also has the ability to conduct cyber attacks, which would be to degrade or destroy an adversary's computerized system, and has used it.

Has the United States used its cyber attack capability? "Yes," McConnell said. Did it work? "Yes."

McConnell, now vice chairman at the Booz Allen Hamilton consulting firm in charge of cyber activities, did not elaborate on the use of a cyber attack capability.

"Do we have the ability to attack, degrade or destroy? Sure. If you do that, what are the consequences? That is the question," he said.

McConnell said the priority is to protect the country's critical infrastructure such as the financial sector, the electric power grid and transportation from cyber attack and stop the theft of intellectual property through cyber espionage.

"There will be a thousand voices on what is the right thing to do," and it will probably require a crisis to reach consensus, he said.

i'll give credit where credit is due... at least they bothered to mention mcconnell's position with booz allen even if it took 'em 14 paragraphs to do it...

what might have been additional contextually significant information is that mcconnell is a poster child for the revolving door between top u.s. government posts and the corporations that feed off of government contracts... mcconnell served as senior vp for intelligence and national security at booz after retiring from the navy as nsa director and before being appointed as the director of national security by george bush and went immediately back to booz again as a senior vp seven days after the obama presidential inauguration and has since assumed the post of booz vice chairman (see here)...

other information about booz that would have been relevant is that booz is the 9th largest u.s. government contractor with annual revenues of over $5B, does an enormous amount of work with the u.s. government in the area of technology and cybersecurity, is majority owned by the carlyle group and has a strong profit motive to push an increase in government cyber capability by fronting a former dni who just so happens to be its current vice chairman (see here and here)...

now, what to make out of mcconnell's statement that "it will probably require a crisis"...? if there isn't one that occurs naturally and spontaneously, can we assume one will be created...? are we being tipped off...? does mcconnell know something we don't...? is it a veiled threat...?

why can't news organizations give us the information we need to make sense out of a story...? just because i happen to be a news junkie, i am aware of all this relevant background but why can't such information be a legitimate part of the news...? it would certainly help people discharge their responsibilities as informed citizens...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Remember, the fear must be sustained if the resources are to flow

i signed off the previous post with my own solid advice - "don't give in to the fearmongers"... not more than an hour later, i'm faced with former intelligence director, currently a booz allen defense contractor vp and ace fear-monger mike mcconnell shoveling it out as fast as he can...

Speaking at the Washington Ideas Forum at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., former Director of National Intelligence and Director of the National Security Agency Mike McConnell said that the U.S. is unprepared for a cyberattack and must overhaul its defenses.

"The warnings are over. It could happen tomorrow," he said of a large-scale cyberattack against the U.S., which could impact the global economy "an order of magnitude surpassing" the attacks of September 11. McConnell, in a panel with Bush administration Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend and Washingtonian reporter Shane Harris, called cybersecurity "the wolf at the door."

McConnell and Townsend both argued that the U.S. should overhaul how it defends against cyberattacks. Townsend warned that U.S. intelligence and security agencies lack the organizational ability and authorization to prevent and respond to cybersecurity threats.

never mind that mcconnell and booz have gazillions of dollars at stake based on how much fear they can stoke in the administration, congress and the american public... never mind that the atlantic can't be bothered to identify mcconnell in his current role as a senior vp at booz allen... the message is all about fear...

could a sophisticated cyber weapon like the stuxnet worm be developed, directed at the u.s. internet infrastructure and possibly shut it down...? why, sure... i don't doubt that it's a possibility... but, fercryinoutloud, is it necessary for someone like mcconnell to pop up every six months with his patented chicken little routine, particularly when our esteemed news media aren't even interested in giving us the rest of the story...?

fortunately, a commenter writing in the uk guardian hasn't taken leave of his senses...

There is now an extensive police and industrial lobby in Britain dependent for its resources on maintaining a high level of public fear. The lobby thrives on its own failures. The incidents in America on 9/11 (2001) and in London on 7/7 (2005) saw the greatest ever peacetime growth in spending on security. Unlike most forms of public spending, this one could by its nature demand cash with menaces and with no account of value for money.

The fear must be sustained if the resources are to flow.

as in britain, as in the us - as always, follow the money...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Ya just gotta laugh at another context-free NYT "news" story

so... lemme get this straight... gm is moving away from government involvement in its operations... hmmmmm...

Profit Strong, G.M. Names a New Chief

A transition at the top, for a successor chosen by General Motors’ board, was taken as a sign of the government’s shrinking role in the automaker.

[...]

[T]he company underscored its rapid pace of change when its chief executive, Edward E. Whitacre Jr., said he would be leaving on Sept. 1 — a clear indication of the federal government’s shrinking role in overseeing the company. Federal officials said they had no involvement in the G.M. board’s choice of one of its members, Daniel F. Akerson, as Mr. Whitacre’s successor.
[emphasis added]

it's stunning to me how what passes for journalism in this country can blithely leave out any reference whatsoever to the bio of the guy who's taking over gm... not once in the article is mr. akerson's background cited...

here is daniel akerson's bio from his previous principal employer, the carlyle group, well-known for its government-private sector revolving door...

Daniel F. Akerson
Managing Director
Washington , DC

Daniel F. Akerson is a Managing Director of The Carlyle Group and is the Head of Global Buyout. He serves on the firm's Executive Committee and is based in Washington, DC.

Mr. Akerson is a seasoned executive with extensive operating and management experience having served as Chairman, Chief Executive Officer or President of several major companies, including General Instrument, MCI, Nextel and XO Communications. His corporate management experience, private equity track record and deep understanding of Carlyle’s global operation provide a strong foundation for his leadership of Carlyle’s buyout activities in Asia, Europe, Financial Services, Infrastructure, Japan and the United States.

Prior to joining Carlyle, Mr. Akerson served in several key roles at MCI Communications Corporation from 1983-1993 including Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from 1987-1990 and President and Chief Operating Officer from 1992-1993. During his tenure, Mr. Akerson formulated and executed MCI’s global strategy. Mr. Akerson left MCI in 1993 to become a General Partner of private equity firm Forstmann Little & Company, during which time he served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Instrument Company from 1993-1995. While at General Instrument he lead a successful effort to develop and deploy the first digital video, satellite and cable systems domestically and internationally. Following that, Mr. Akerson served as Chairman from 1996-2001 and Chief Executive Officer of Nextel Communications, Inc., from 1996-1999 where he transitioned the company from a regional analog walkie/talkie provider into a unique, leading edge national digital wireless competitor. From late 1999 until January 2003, Mr. Akerson served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of XO Communications, Inc. where he led the successful restructuring of the company.

Mr. Akerson earned his B.S. in engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy and his M.Sc. in economics from the London School of Economics.

Mr. Akerson is a member of the Board of Directors of the American Express Company, Booz Allen Hamilton, Freescale Semiconductor and General Motors Company.

well, let's hear it for ol' dan... i don't know about you, but i sure will rest easier knowing that ol' dan is steering general motors away from government oversight, the same thing he's no doubt doing for booz allen...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

I've posted a lot on Mike McConnell but Glenn has the final takedown

my last post on mcconnell was in response to his disgustingly self-serving wapo editorial on 28 february... i find that i often have the same reaction to things as glenn greenwald who, imho, delivers the ultimate take-down of this not-very-well-disguised denizen of the corporatocracy...

[I]t isn't that people like Mike McConnell move from public office to the private sector and back again. That implies more separation than really exists. At this point, it's more accurate to view the U.S. Government and these huge industry interests as one gigantic, amalgamated, inseparable entity -- with a public division and a private one. When someone like McConnell goes from a top private sector position to a top government post in the same field, it's more like an intra-corporate re-assignment than it is changing employers. When McConnell serves as DNI, he's simply in one division of this entity and when he's at Booz Allen, he's in another, but it's all serving the same entity (it's exactly how insurance giant Wellpoint dispatched one of its Vice Presidents to Max Baucus' office so that she could write the health care plan that the Congress eventually enacted).

In every way that matters, the separation between government and corporations is nonexistent, especially (though not only) when it comes to the National Security and Surveillance State. Indeed, so extreme is this overlap that even McConnell, when he was nominated to be Bush's DNI, told The New York Times that his ten years of working "outside the government," for Booz Allen, would not impede his ability to run the nation's intelligence functions. That's because his Booz Allen work was indistinguishable from working for the Government, and therefore -- as he put it -- being at Booz Allen "has allowed me to stay focused on national security and intelligence communities as a strategist and as a consultant. Therefore, in many respects, I never left."

the wapo editorial was a blatant pitch focusing on three main points... one, the u.s. cyber-network is highly vulnerable to hostile attack... two, we should be very, very afraid, and three, the task of strengthening defenses against such attacks should be given to defense contractors... but glenn says it so much better than i do...

The overarching theme is all-too-familiar: we face a grave threat from Terrorists and other Very Bad People ("cyber wars"), and our only hope for protection is to vest the Government with massive new powers. Specifically, McConnell advocates a so-called "reeingeer[ing] of the Internet" to allow the Government and private corporations far greater capability to track what is being done over the Internet and who is doing it:

The United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are losing. It's that simple. . . . If an enemy disrupted our financial and accounting transactions, our equities and bond markets or our retail commerce -- or created confusion about the legitimacy of those transactions -- chaos would result. Our power grids, air and ground transportation, telecommunications, and water-filtration systems are in jeopardy as well.

Scary! And what do we need to submit to in order to avoid these calamities? This:

The United States must also translate our intent into capabilities. We need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace, identify intrusions and locate the source of attacks with a trail of evidence that can support diplomatic, military and legal options -- and we must be able to do this in milliseconds. More specifically, we need to reengineer the Internet to make attribution, geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment -- who did it, from where, why and what was the result -- more manageable.

In one sense, this is just typical fear-mongering of the type the National Security State has used for decades to beat frightened Americans into virtually full-scale submission: you are in grave danger and you can be safe only by vesting in us far greater power, which we'll operate in secret: here, allowing us to "reengineer" the Internet so we can control it.

glenn continues...

But there's something even worse going on here. McConnell doesn't merely want to empower the Government to control the Internet this way; he wants to empower private corporations to do so -- the same corporations which pay him and whose interests he has long served. He notes that this "reengineering" is already possible because "the technologies are already available from public and private sources," and explicitly calls for a merger of the NSA with private industry to create a sprawling, omnipotent network for monitoring the Internet...

[...]

In other words, not only the Government, but the private intelligence corporations which McConnell represents (and which are subjected to no oversight), will have access to virtually unfettered amounts of information and control over the Internet, and there should be "no borders" between them. And beyond the dangerous power that will vest in the public-private Surveillance State, it will also generate enormous profits for Booz Allen, the clients it serves and presumably for McConnell himself -- though The Washington Post does not bother to disclose any of that to its readers. The Post basically allowed McConnell to publish in its Op-Ed pages a blatant advertisement for the private intelligence industry while masquerading as a National Security official concerned with Keeping America Safe.

yeah, even though i did my own sound-off on this obscene op-ed piece and the incredible hubris of a guy like mcconnell, it's worth having another go at it...

my other posts on mcconnell, dating back to 2006 can be found here...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 1 comments

The Booz Allen Executive VP, former Admiral and former intelligence chief, fear-mongers for his company

all in the name of national security, of cuss, of cuss...

Mike McConnell on how to win the cyber-war we're losing

The United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are losing. It's that simple. As the most wired nation on Earth, we offer the most targets of significance, yet our cyber-defenses are woefully lacking.

o-o-o-oook... so, check the next paragraph...

The problem is not one of resources; even in our current fiscal straits, we can afford to upgrade our defenses. The problem is that we lack a cohesive strategy to meet this challenge.

translation: we need to increase defense spending even MORE, and, oh, btw, my company is a prime defense contractor... we also need to develop a national strategy, and, oh, btw, my company can do that too...

and what does this dinosaur put forth as the model for protecting against this high-tech challenge...? why, the cold war, the boogieman that made so many of these old farts and their companies rich beyond measure...

During the Cold War, deterrence was based on a few key elements: attribution (understanding who attacked us), location (knowing where a strike came from), response (being able to respond, even if attacked first) and transparency (the enemy's knowledge of our capability and intent to counter with massive force).

Against the Soviets, we dealt with the attribution and location challenges by developing human intelligence behind the Iron Curtain and by fielding early-warning radar systems, reconnaissance satellites and undersea listening posts to monitor threats. We invested heavily in our response capabilities with intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines and long-range bombers, as well as command-and-control systems and specialized staffs to run them. The resources available were commensurate with the challenge at hand -- as must be the case in cyberspace.

Just as important was the softer side of our national security strategy: the policies, treaties and diplomatic efforts that underpinned containment and deterrence. Our alliances, such as NATO, made clear that a strike on one would be a strike on all and would be met with massive retaliation. This unambiguous intent, together with our ability to monitor and respond, provided a credible nuclear deterrent that served us well.

it seems obvious that we're being prepped for the next great enemy... first, it was the soviet union and the threat of nuclear annihilation... then, it was terrorism and the fear of someone wearing a suicide vest under every bed... now, we need to quake in terror of an electronically savvy enemy penetrating the very networks that makes our interconnected life possible...

ask yourself... who stands to lose the most if mcconnell's vision of the horrors of cyber war comes true...? would it be you and me...? probably not... would it be the super-rich elites whose billions and billions of dollars/euros/pounds/yen/renminbi electronically circle the globe thousands of times every day looking for a place to land where it can make them yet more...? yes... that's who would suffer... poor babies... ain't buyin' it...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 1 comments

Using pharmacies as basic health care resources

i just love the way this article treats the using of pharmacies as basic health care outlets as some brand-new innovation that will revolutionize health care access while completely failing to point out that the rest of the world has been using pharmacies in that capacity for freakin' ever...

in my travels, i have had several occasions to drop by pharmacies in other countries to ask for a consult on some minor health problem and have always been treated to fast, accurate and free advice... not only that, but many medicines available only through a prescription in the u.s. are available over the counter in most pharmacies around the world, often at surprisingly low prices...

As the debate over health-care reform reveals extensive unmet needs for better basic medical services in the United States, an unexpected player with the power to drive significant change may be as close as the corner drugstore. With new incentives and business strategies coming into play to repair and improve the health-care system, local pharmacies are positioned to help meet the top two goals of reform: providing convenient, expanded access to medical care and controlling costs.

Pharmacies — many of them operated by large publicly traded companies such as Walgreens, CVS, and Walmart — have already begun to reach beyond their traditional role as pill dispensers to meet new demand from patients. Consumers, who have become more responsible for their own medical care in recent years, are turning to retail pharmacies for help in managing medical conditions and their out-of-pocket health-care spending. Walmart’s US$4 generic drugs program, for example, which offers a wide range of prescription medication and 1,000 over-the-counter medications at $4 for a 30-day supply, has had a major impact on making medication more affordable — especially because other pharmacies have quickly followed suit.

The innovation does not stop at pricing. Drugstores are experimenting with in-store clinics, wellness programs, health screenings, and disease management services. In one notable program, the city of Asheville, N.C., has been using local pharmacists to provide free counseling and coaching to diabetes patients, generating substantial savings and health improvement. More recently, the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration launched a similar experiment dubbed the “Patient Safety and Clinical Pharmacy Services Collaborative” in an attempt to integrate evidence-based clinical pharmacy services into the management of high-risk and high-cost patients.

it makes me crazy when i see publications and authors either deliberately or blindly ignoring reality and treating the u.s. as an island of all there is to be known... people in the u.s. have no idea just how backward we are in so many areas... the media should live up to its responsibility to present information in context and not to foster the kind of smug arrogance for which we americans have become famous around the globe...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

So, now Carlyle gets to control the part of government business it doesn't ALREADY control

well, at least they're keeping it all in the family...

The consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton said yesterday it is splitting up, selling its U.S. government business to private-equity firm Carlyle Group for $2.54 billion and spinning off its commercial business into a separate company.

< rolls eyes >

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Glenn reviews CNN's John King's interview of Mike McConnell

our government bought-and-paid-for propaganda machine at work...

[DNI Mike] McConnell is burdened by one of the most glaring conflicts of interest that we've seen in any significant political debate over the last seven years. His career before becoming DNI was devoted to the very private telecom sector on whose behalf he's now demanding immunity. When he claims that the Fate of the Nation rests on granting retroactive immunity to the telecom industry, he's advocating for his long-time partners, colleagues, and business associates. In the job he held prior to becoming DNI -- director of defense programs at Booz Allen -- he was directly involved with the very people, and possibly the very programs, for which he is now demanding amnesty

[...]

CNN invited a high government official onto its news program to issue extremely dubious, fear-mongering demands for more government surveillance power and for a huge gift for the industry of which he was long a critical part, threatening Americans that they would be in severe danger if they didn't assent in full. They had nobody on with him or afterwards to contradict anything he said. The interviewer confessed to knowing almost nothing about the topic and spent his time doing very little other than vouching for the government official's honesty and apolitical integrity. After several minutes of airing uncontradicted government propaganda, the interview ended and the interviewer profusely thanked the government official for coming on.

do these "news" outlets really get it that we're on to them...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

"Government lawbreaking has become formally legitimized"

i posted yesterday on mcconnell's interview... glenn greenwald has some thoughts of his own...

McConnell clearly described that in 1978, we enacted a law prohibiting warrantless eavesdropping; the Bush administration broke that law repeatedly; and the telecommunications companies actively participated in that lawbreaking. And now -- as a matter of national security -- the Bush administration is demanding that Congress pass a new law declaring that telecom companies are immune from any and all consequences -- both civil and criminal -- in the event they are found to have violated the law. It is hard to imagine open contempt for the rule of law being expressed more explicitly than this.

What possible reason is there to protect anyone -- including telecom companies -- with a special law enacted to declare that they are relieved of all accountability for illegal behavior? And the premise of this argument is even more dangerous than the conclusion: it is all premised on the claim that these companies were only acting at the behest of George Bush, and therefore were entitled, even obligated, to do what they did. In other words, the President has the power to order private actors to break the law and when those orders are obeyed, the private actors are immune from the consequences of their lawbreaking, because they acted at the Leader's behest.

That government officials like McConnell feel so comfortable openly admitting that the government broke the law, obtaining amendments to legalize that behavior after the fact, and then demanding immunity for the lawbreakers, demonstrates how severely the rule of law has been eroded over the last six years. It is not hyperbole to say that government lawbreaking has become formally legitimized.

the entire article is well-worth reading, particularly UPDATE II at the bottom, where glenn excerpts tim shorrock's earlier salon article that details mcconnell's extensive contacts within the defense telecommunications industry he developed as director of defense programs at booz allen...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Assuming, of course, you’re the kind of boss who doesn’t WANT to be sucked up to

it is to laugh… the following is excerpted from a regular newsletter i receive from booz allen hamilton on strategy and business… senior vice president for booz allen, you may remember, was the most recent position held by mike mcconnell, the recently-confirmed director of national security… perhaps mike could wrangle a few minutes with george and go over the key points of the article…

Not one [presidential] profile has ever included a desired behavior that reads “effectively sucks up to management the president.” Although given the dedication to fawning and sucking up in most corporations presidential administrations — and how often such behavior is rewarded — it probably should. Almost every company president says it he wants people to “challenge the system,” “be empowered to express their opinion,” and “say what they really think,” but there sure are a lot of companies presidential administrations that are stuck on sucking up.

Not only do companies presidents say they abhor such comically servile behavior, but so do individual leaders their subordinates. Almost all the leaders presidents I have met say that they would never encourage such a thing in their organizations administrations. I have no doubt that they are sincere. Most of us are easily irritated, if not disgusted, by derrière kissers. Which raises a question: If leaders presidents say they discourage sucking up, why does it dominate the workplace Bush administration? Keep in mind that these leaders presidents are generally very shrewd judges of character. They spend their lives sizing people up: taking in first impressions and recalibrating them against later impressions. And yet, they still fall for the super-skilled suck-up. They still play favorites.

(as you can see, i’ve taken the liberty to make a few changes…)

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments