Confusing apples with oranges

AP published "Cheney Pushed for More Trade With Iran" in an attempt to show inconsistency in Cheney's position on Iraq. However, they don't even discuss the reasons behind his position. At the time. Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. It was his job to try and generate more business for the company. While some would argue that companies should always have the best interests of the nation at heart, that is a different argument that goes to ethics and morals in corporate governance. It's completely unrelated to Cheney's current responsibilities and whether or not his position as VP is inconsistent with his position as CEO of Halliburton. Many will be confused by it anyway. Politics is often more about emotion than reason.

The same problem occurs in the legal profession. In order to be a strong advocate for their client, lawyers will take positions on issues that are at complete odds with their personal beliefs. Some think that's wrong. Others think it's professional. In an ideal world, a lawyer would never represent a client whose views differ with their own, but then who would represent accused criminals?

Should CEOs be held to a higher standard? Should their governance of a corporation be completely guided by their own sense of morality and ethics? Or should their governance be guided by what's in the company's best interest, which will sometimes be at odds with their own? Is Cheney's position as CEO really inconsistent with his position as VP? In the former case, his concern is free enterprise and profits - in the latter, it's the security of the US. Furthermore, the one position was taken during the 90's, when Iran wasn't nearly the threat that they are now.

Frankly, I'm not sure I know the answers to such complex issues. I just know it's not nearly as simplistic as the press and politics (but I repeat myself) tries to make it.