| Author | Message | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2002 12:37 am Post subject: Dead Presidents |
| | On one of his first nights in the White House, Dubya is awakened by the ghost of George Washington. Bush is frightened, but asks: "George, what is the best thing I could do to help the country?" Washington advises him: "Be honest above all else and set an honorable example, just as I did." This makes Bush uncomfortable, but he manages to get back to sleep. The next night, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson moves through the dark bedroom. "Tom," Dubya asks, "what is the best thing I could do to help the country?" Jefferson replies, "Throw away your prepared remarks and speak eloquently and extemporaneously from your heart," Jefferson advises. Bush isn't sleeping well at all the next night, and sees another figure moving in the shadows. It's Abraham Lincoln's ghost and Dubya thinks finally, a Republican, I'll get some advice that I can use. "Abe, what is the best thing I could do to help the country?" Bush asks hopefully. Abe answers: "Go see a play." | |  | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2002 12:38 am Post subject: Rats |
| | A tourist walks into a curio shop in San Francisco. Looking around at the exotica, he notices a very lifelike life-sized bronze statue of a rat. It has no price tag, but is so striking he decides he must have it. He takes it to the owner: "How much for the bronze rat?" "$12 for the rat, $100 for the story," says the owner. The tourist gives the man $12. "I'll just take the rat, you can keep the story." As he walks down the street carrying his bronze rat, he notices that a few real rats have crawled out of the alleys and sewers and begun following him down the street. This is disconcerting, and he begins walking faster. But within a couple of blocks, the herd of rats behind him has grown to hundreds, and they begin squealing. He begins to trot toward the Bay, looking around to see that the rats now number in the MILLIONS, and are squealing and coming toward him faster and faster. Concerned, even scared, he runs to the edge of the Bay, and throws the bronze rat as far out into the water as he can. Amazingly, the millions of rats all jump into the Bay after it, and are all drowned. The man walks back to the curio shop. "Ah ha," says the owner, "you have come back for the story?" "No," says the man, "I came back to see if you have a bronze Republican." | | | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2002 5:05 pm Post subject: |
| I guess the best Bush joke is his Middle East policy. Not a very funny joke though. Venezuela, Columbia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and now Palestine (to name just the recent interventions). Is anyone going to find their balls and let Bush know that he shouldn't try to pick and choose the leaders of foreign nations? At least he ought to be told to cut the crap about democracy and liberty if he wants to persist with his lunatic plans.
$20billion for the Soviet armed forces (remember the Reds?) but only $6billion for the whole continent of Africa - in place of a fair trade agreement. Wonder what the interest repayments come to this year? Wouldn't be $6billion by any chance? Even Blair the Arms Pedlar is feeling a little uneasy. It's hard to imagine how the staunch right wing, Christofascists (supreme hypocrites that they are) can reconcile their stated beliefs with the actions and words of Bush. They might have to hit the church twice on Sundays to atone for their blind faith in the man as opposed to the supposed intent of their god. | | | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2002 11:04 pm Post subject: Dog Eat Hound |
| This is amusing as a measure of how far right is right. It seems that even the right wing Telegraph has taken issue with GW. Shift a little further to the right and you get the reasoned views of a Texan who is happy to lambast the 'socialist' London newspaper. Oh wow, strange times indeed. It's all about taxes don't you know? That should calm Afghan and Palestinian nerves no end.
By Bruce Wilson
The Daily Telegraph - London
7-1-2
The world outside the US is now getting used to the fact Americans have a fraudulently elected nitwit as their president, but George W. Bush excelled himself this past week with a "long-awaited" definitive speech on Middle East policies that stretched even the weirdest imaginations...
US embassies around the world moved to "explain" the batty future Bush saw for Israel and Palestine, but nothing could disguise that the bedbug was running the White House and anything could happen next.
Hey, look. Even Tom Cruise is worried. In London this week he said he wanted his adopted kids brought up outside the USA because of what happens inside the USA. He listed terrorism and street crime, but very cogently he listed corporate crime as a reason not to bring up kids in the old US of A.
Now, Tom Cruise is not a Grade A rocket scientist. In fact, he is a Grade A Scientologist. On the whole, though, I would say he was brighter than George W. Bush (along with my neighbour's catatonic cat) and it was most intriguing that he named corporate crime as a reason not to want to grow up in America.
The WorldCom affair comes after the Enron affair while the Andersen affair simply defies belief. It has become perfectly clear that major US corporations have been running out of control, throwing billions of dollars into a kind of international financial black hole.
In vain you ask (as I tried to do), well, where has the money gone? I mean, if you back a loser at Randwick, then you know where your money went. If these companies have lost billions - $US3.8 billion in the case of WorldCom - why hasn't somebody won it? Or got it? Where has it gone? Or, more to the point, did it ever exist?
Of course it did, said the Doormouse. Otherwise, it could never have been lost and 17,000 people sacked for the lack of it. This is Alice in Wonderland stuff, capitalism rattling around like a high-velocity round in a mental vacuum. Where was government? Where was control?
Twenty years ago, when I lived in Washington, the US was said to have a trillion-dollar-a-day economy that was so strong not even government could screw it. Now, you have to ask if things have turned, that apparent fraudsters like WorldCom can screw government.
Dubya Bush seems reluctant to address these issues. He is a Texan (although not by breeding) and there they let things take their course, execute mentally deficient minors, and generally behave like good old boys, taking the Chevy to the levee.
If it were not for September 11, Bush would be in serious political trouble in America. He may be yet, in the mid-term November elections. His shocked nation rallied around him as the personification of The Flag when the atrocities stunned us all. His personal rating broke all records.
Since then, though, what? On this side of the Atlantic he is seen as a kind of strange joke. Britons try to understand him, but in Europe they simply think of him as a sort of circus act. The Middle East pronouncement was so absurd they didn't know whether to laugh or simply ask the US senior political attache over for a commiserating drink.
These concerns are based on the belief - that seems to be proven - that Washington itself is a divided city. Colin Powell, in State, is trying to plead reason over the clamouring voices in Defence, led by Donald Rumsfeld, clearly a man not always entirely in control of his senses.
Bush is listening to Rumsfeld, and other strange voices - not least the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. And, as he does, the US looks more and more to be a long way away from the rest of the world.
bruce.wilson@newsint.co.uk
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au
Comment
From Mark Zavicar
zavy@gvtc.com
7-2-2
As Ronald Reagan would elegantly state, "Here we go again..." Yet another America-hating left winger decides to wave his socialistic banner around by slandering the American President. The tactic is an old and familiar one-support your argument with innuendos and Ad hominem "opinions" if only because the argument cannot be substantiated in truth or otherwise presented in a manner that invites constructive thought.
Mr. Wilson's commentary on the US, and President Bush in particular, is clearly at the behest of the Global forces that find America in the way towards their agenda. Perhaps Mr.. Wilson feels that Al Gore should of omitted the military absentee votes in Florida (as he so tried to do), and won this state and the Presidency. Perhaps Mr.. Wilson can look up to and admire an American President such as Bill Clinton, whom desecrated the White House with his perverted behaviors and questionable liaisons that caused much damage to our country and image.
Yes, let us only deal with facts Mr.. Wilson. Tell us about England's socialistic policies that have disarmed the civilians and created crime sprees that the UN refused to acknowledge in any anti-gun legislation or statistics. Tell us about wanting surveillance equipment to follow every move of your law abiding (or frightened) English citizens. Ask anyone in Australia if their better off with the socialistic policies being pushed in their country.
Yes, Mr. Wilson, the world does hate America and for many reasons. We as a country are the last foothold between the global elitist and individual freedom loving people. We have our problems and we are going to prevail. Your arguments are as shallow as the socialistic solutions being pushed by the UN, which I confidently believe that you support.
We are at war Mr. Wilson. Not only with the ones who hurt us on September 11, but with those who seek to derail the American way of life. You know the story Mr.. Wilson: Global taxes, UN policies that makes Mother's Day illegal, Environment protocols that destroys economies and so on. We are at war, Mr. Wilson, with people like you who spew their venom as if they have some superior perception of what is happening in this country, which you do not. The pulse of this country is changing and it's not looking good for freedom-hating hypocrites like you.
You questioned President Bush's popularity here in the States and you feel it is due to 9-11. Let this Texan (not by breeding, but by choice) set you straight. Europeans want the US taxpayer to pay at the same rate as your socialistic countries. The fact that we do not, burns you to no end and this President's popularity is driven by a diminishing middle class that sees what this man is trying to save....us. You hate us because of what we are and what we can accomplish-and have accomplished.
BTW, people like Tom Cruise, Barbara Striesand, Alec Baldwin, and others, have no conception of life in mainstream America or what it takes to survive. Haven't you read the polls Mr. Wilson? Americans couldn't care less what these people think anymore. They don't speak for us. Hey, at least I'm not paying 4 pounds for a liter of gas, pal.
Mark Zavicar | | | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2002 11:14 pm Post subject: S.F. attorney: Bush allowed 9/11 |
| This one has been kept pretty quiet. I would have thought at least some of the news agencies might consider this newsworthy. I don't know if the guy concened is a hardnut or a fruit cake but this is a genuine legal procedure. Where's the news coverage then?
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 2:11 am
Subject: S.F. attorney: Bush allowed 9/11
SF EXAMINER ARTICLE:
Publication date: 06/11/2002
S.F. attorney: Bush allowed 9/11
BY DAVID KIEFER Of The Examiner Staff
Stanley Hilton now figures his case is stronger because of a coalition of
attorneys, victims' families and bipartisan legislators who gathered in
Washington on Monday to condemn the government's lack of action in preventing
the Sept. 11 attacks.
Hilton is the San Francisco attorney who filed a $7 billion lawsuit in U.S.
District Court on June 3 against President Bush and other government
officials for "allowing" the terrorist attacks to occur.
Among Hilton's allegations: Bush conspired to create the Sept. 11 attacks for
his own political gain and has been using Osama bin Laden as a scapegoat.
Hilton said he has information that bin Laden died several years ago of
kidney failure.
"I hope it will expose the fact that there are numbers of people in the
government, including Bush and his top assistants, who wanted this to
happen," Hilton said.
His class-action suit named 10 defendants, including Vice President Dick
Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. Hilton said he
represents the families of 14 victims and that 400 plaintiffs are involved
nationwide. White House spokesman Ken Macias and Department of Justice public
affairs officer Charles Miller each said their departments were unaware of
the lawsuit.
Hilton, Sen. Bob Dole's former aide, has been publicly critical of
conservatives in books he has written about Dole and the Clinton sex scandal.
Hilton, who said he has sources within the FBI, CIA, the National Security
Agency and Naval intelligence, demands Bush's impeachment and believes the
truth will come out in trial.
Hilton claims the Bush administration ignored intelligence information,
refused to round up suspected terrorists beforehand, and during the
hijackings refused to disable pilot controls and switch to a ground-based
remote system.
He claims the government benefited from installing a puppet Afghan government
friendly to U.S. oil interests.
Hilton also says Bush used bin Laden's antagonist image to create a public
frenzy, which allowed the Bush administration to tighten its political grip.
E-mail: dkiefer@s...
********************************************************************
The world knows Bush was complicit in 9-11, see BBC & Canadian TV
documentaries below. See the ABC News documentary to understand why Bush did
it.
CANADIAN TELEVISION INDICTS BUSH / CIA IN 9-11 TERROR COMPLICITY (Real Player
Video):
http://clients.loudeye.com/imc/mayday/mediafile.ram
BBC TELEVISION INDICTS BUSH / CIA IN 9-11 TERROR COMPLICITY (Real Player
Video)::
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/attack22.ram
U.S. Spy Warned Canadian officials of September attack on World Trade Center
BEFORE 9-11:
http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=4764
Russian Air Force Chief Says Official 9-11 Story Impossible, [Posted 13
September 2001]
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm
ABC News Story on Afgan pipeline! (Real Player Video):
http://www.thelastamericanwarriors.com/ | | | | by Request | | Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2002 8:43 am Post subject: Arrogant Bush shakes British bedrock of Atlantic Alliance |
| Simpson on Sunday:
'Arrogant' Bush shakes British bedrock of Atlantic Alliance
By John Simpson
(Filed: 30/06/2002)
In 32 years of reporting on international affairs, I have never seen
Britain and the United States more separated from each other: not during
the terrible last years of the Vietnam War, not during President Reagan's
Iran-Contra dealings or his espousal of the crackpot Star Wars system.
The way George W Bush's administration deals with the outside world is
affecting even the most traditionally pro-American elements in British society.
On two occasions last week I met senior civil servants from government
departments in London who would normally be regarded as the natural bedrock
of support for the Atlantic Alliance. In both cases I found open contempt
for current American policy, especially towards the Middle East.
You might expect a certain amount of this from the Foreign Office, or from
ministries which have to deal with the US over trade. Not from the
government departments I was dealing with.
It's easy enough to spot particular elements in this change of attitude.
One is President Bush's new line on Yasser Arafat and his support for the
determination of Israel, under Ariel Sharon, to break up what little
remains of the Oslo Accords.
It took the Bush administration a good deal of internal negotiation to come
up with its ringing endorsement of the Sharon line, but leading British
civil servants I spoke to about last week's speech by Mr Bush regarded it
as - I quote - "puerile", "absurdly ignorant" and "ludicrous".
These are private opinions, but I suspect that they come from people who
would never have said anything as strong about American policy in their
lives before; certainly not to an outsider such as myself.
I should stress that these were not people I would regard as covert
Guardian readers, nor members of the pro-Arab tendency that so many
outsiders believe exists within the Foreign Office. They were mainstream,
small-c conservative figures whose work, in its different ways, sometimes
depends on maintaining good relations with the Americans.
It is possible to spot some common elements here. There is, for instance, a
rooted dislike of the "arrogance" - not my word, but that of a senior and
much respected civil servant - that enables President Bush ("a bear of very
little brain" - ditto) to announce to the Palestinians who should and
shouldn't be their leader.
And there is a parallel impatience at the "stupidity" (ditto) which will
unquestionably ensure that Palestinians of all kinds will now feel obliged
to support Yasser Arafat as their leader, for better or worse.
But it goes much wider than the Middle East. There is a feeling in large
swathes of British society that Americans now believe, post September 11,
that they have a licence to throw their weight about.
Next week we will have the latest round in the trade war that has blown up
between America and Europe over issues such as steel, where Washington
reserves the right to impose tariffs on some foreign imports and pay huge
subsidies to sections of its own ailing industry, while lecturing the
outside world about the duty to support free trade and allow US goods into
their markets at preferential rates. The moralising is starting to grate:
and it looks like hypocrisy.
Take another, completely different example. The creation of an
international criminal court is something that people across the world have
worked towards for decades.
Suddenly, it exists and has the power to try suspected war criminals; but
the US, nervous that its own citizens - from a private soldier who kills
people on a peace mission to, shall we say, Henry Kissinger - might be
dragged before the court, is demanding immunity from arrest or prosecution
for any American troops involved in United Nations peace-keeping duties.
To be honest, I can't quite work out whether this is because the Bush
administration dislikes the UN and its peace-keeping role almost as much as
it does the international court, and wants to undermine them; or whether it
comes primarily from a sense that Americans are not as other people, andn
shouldn't be subject to the same rules. For obvious reasons, other
countries find this distinctly annoying.
There are all sorts of other irritants. Over the next two months, for
instance, we will be reminded again and again how the United States, the
world's leading polluter, is trying to wreck the proposals for controlling
the gas emissions that are threatening the entire global climate.
This is one of the issues that will come up strongly at the Johannesburg
summit in August, 10 years after the Rio summit which President Clinton so
effectively undermined.
And amid all this, poor old Tony Blair has to try to stay on friendly terms
with a president whom even some of his own ministers and civil servants
regard with contempt. It won't be at all easy.
* John Simpson is the BBC World Affairs Editor
Related reports US 'blundered' in Afghan war | | | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2002 8:58 am Post subject: Bush shakes British bedrock of Atlantic Alliance |
| Simpson on Sunday:
'Arrogant' Bush shakes British bedrock of Atlantic Alliance
By John Simpson
(Filed: 30/06/2002)
In 32 years of reporting on international affairs, I have never seen
Britain and the United States more separated from each other: not during
the terrible last years of the Vietnam War, not during President Reagan's
Iran-Contra dealings or his espousal of the crackpot Star Wars system.
The way George W Bush's administration deals with the outside world is
affecting even the most traditionally pro-American elements in British society.
On two occasions last week I met senior civil servants from government
departments in London who would normally be regarded as the natural bedrock
of support for the Atlantic Alliance. In both cases I found open contempt
for current American policy, especially towards the Middle East.
You might expect a certain amount of this from the Foreign Office, or from
ministries which have to deal with the US over trade. Not from the
government departments I was dealing with.
It's easy enough to spot particular elements in this change of attitude.
One is President Bush's new line on Yasser Arafat and his support for the
determination of Israel, under Ariel Sharon, to break up what little
remains of the Oslo Accords.
It took the Bush administration a good deal of internal negotiation to come
up with its ringing endorsement of the Sharon line, but leading British
civil servants I spoke to about last week's speech by Mr Bush regarded it
as - I quote - "puerile", "absurdly ignorant" and "ludicrous".
These are private opinions, but I suspect that they come from people who
would never have said anything as strong about American policy in their
lives before; certainly not to an outsider such as myself.
I should stress that these were not people I would regard as covert
Guardian readers, nor members of the pro-Arab tendency that so many
outsiders believe exists within the Foreign Office. They were mainstream,
small-c conservative figures whose work, in its different ways, sometimes
depends on maintaining good relations with the Americans.
It is possible to spot some common elements here. There is, for instance, a
rooted dislike of the "arrogance" - not my word, but that of a senior and
much respected civil servant - that enables President Bush ("a bear of very
little brain" - ditto) to announce to the Palestinians who should and
shouldn't be their leader.
And there is a parallel impatience at the "stupidity" (ditto) which will
unquestionably ensure that Palestinians of all kinds will now feel obliged
to support Yasser Arafat as their leader, for better or worse.
But it goes much wider than the Middle East. There is a feeling in large
swathes of British society that Americans now believe, post September 11,
that they have a licence to throw their weight about.
Next week we will have the latest round in the trade war that has blown up
between America and Europe over issues such as steel, where Washington
reserves the right to impose tariffs on some foreign imports and pay huge
subsidies to sections of its own ailing industry, while lecturing the
outside world about the duty to support free trade and allow US goods into
their markets at preferential rates. The moralising is starting to grate:
and it looks like hypocrisy.
Take another, completely different example. The creation of an
international criminal court is something that people across the world have
worked towards for decades.
Suddenly, it exists and has the power to try suspected war criminals; but
the US, nervous that its own citizens - from a private soldier who kills
people on a peace mission to, shall we say, Henry Kissinger - might be
dragged before the court, is demanding immunity from arrest or prosecution
for any American troops involved in United Nations peace-keeping duties.
To be honest, I can't quite work out whether this is because the Bush
administration dislikes the UN and its peace-keeping role almost as much as
it does the international court, and wants to undermine them; or whether it
comes primarily from a sense that Americans are not as other people, andn
shouldn't be subject to the same rules. For obvious reasons, other
countries find this distinctly annoying.
There are all sorts of other irritants. Over the next two months, for
instance, we will be reminded again and again how the United States, the
world's leading polluter, is trying to wreck the proposals for controlling
the gas emissions that are threatening the entire global climate.
This is one of the issues that will come up strongly at the Johannesburg
summit in August, 10 years after the Rio summit which President Clinton so
effectively undermined.
And amid all this, poor old Tony Blair has to try to stay on friendly terms
with a president whom even some of his own ministers and civil servants
regard with contempt. It won't be at all easy.
* John Simpson is the BBC World Affairs Editor
Related reports US 'blundered' in Afghan war | | | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2002 8:59 am Post subject: |
| | The previous message was posted on behalf of Sharkman. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2002 2:07 am Post subject: Bush Took Oil Firm's Loans as Director |
| You have been sent this message from siegfried33@hotmail.com as a courtesy
of the Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com
Bush got awqay with a practice he now condemns. Let us prey!
To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52488-2002Jul10.html
Bush Took Oil Firm's Loans as Director
By Mike Allen
As a Texas businessman, President Bush took two low-interest loans from
an oil company where he was a member of the board of directors, engaging in
a practice he condemned this week in his plan to stem corporate abuse and
accounting fraud.
Bush accepted loans totaling $180,375 from Harken Energy Corp. in 1986
and 1988, according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Bush was
a director of Harken from 1986 to 1993, after he sold his failed oil and
gas exploration concern to the company. He used the loans to buy Harken stock.
Corporate loans to officers came under scrutiny after WorldCom Inc., the
long-distance carrier that last month reported huge accounting
irregularities, revealed it had lent nearly $400 million to Bernard J.
Ebbers to buy the company's stock when he was chief executive. He resigned
in April as the stock price tumbled.
Bush attacked corporate loans during his speech on Wall Street on
Tuesday, when he offered proposals to tighten the accountability of
corporate executives while stopping short of the tougher measures headed
toward passage in the Senate. "I challenge compensation committees to put
an end to all company loans to corporate officers," he said.
A senior administration official, briefing reporters on Bush's plan,
said Tuesday that Bush wants public companies to ban loans to their
officers, including directors. "Corporate officers should not be able to
treat a public company like their own personal bank," the official said.
The contrast between Bush's record as a business executive and his
rhetoric in the face of corporate scandals underscores the challenge his
administration faces in trying to credibly foster what he calls "a new era
of integrity in corporate America."
Bush was investigated by the SEC in 1991 for possible illegal insider
trading, although the SEC did not take action against him, and he has
admitted making several late disclosures to the agency, which regulates
public companies.
Harken's loans to Bush -- at 5 percent interest, below the prime rate --
were reported several times in filings to the SEC in the years before the
debt was retired in 1993 and were noted in news accounts at the time. The
loans were for the purchase of Harken stock, which was then held as collateral.
Rajesh K. Aggarwal, a Dartmouth College professor who specializes in
executive compensation and incentives, said such loans "are not unique, but
are by no means widespread."
White House communications director Dan Bartlett said Harken offered the
loans to directors to buy shares in the company as part of an incentive for
board members "to have a long-term commitment with the company." Bartlett
said the loans to Bush were "totally appropriate -- there was no wrongdoing
there."
"This is a common practice in small, medium and large companies,"
Bartlett said. "These recent abuses of certain types of loans led the
president to believe that the government should draw a bright line
concerning loans going forward. This is one of the main things that
undermined the confidence of investors and shareholders."
Bartlett said the loans were for $96,000 in 1986, for 80,000 shares, and
$84,375 in 1988, for 25,000 shares. He said that in 1993, Harken changed
its compensation policies and discontinued the loan program. He said Harken
converted to a program giving directors stock options, allowing them to buy
stock later at a fixed price.
Bartlett, asserting that Bush did not profit on the loans, said Bush
traded the 105,000 shares being held as collateral for the loans, retiring
his debt. Bush then received 42,503 options under the new compensation
plan, Bartlett said. The options were never exercised and expired after
Bush left the board, Bartlett said.
With administration officials privately expressing concern about the
impact of so much fresh attention to old questions about Bush's career, the
White House yesterday distributed talking points headlined "If you get
asked about Harken" to Bush loyalists who might be contacted by reporters.
Bartlett said the fact sheets were sent to members of Congress after they
asked for them.
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said aides to Bush have
"talked to the private accountants and private counsels who are involved in
the president's private transactions" while preparing answers to reporters'
questions during the growing debate over corporate responsibility.
Vice President Cheney also is receiving unwanted attention to his
corporate past. The SEC is investigating an accounting practice begun by
Halliburton Co., the Dallas-based energy services company, when Cheney was
chief executive before joining Bush's campaign ticket.
Also yesterday, the White House refused to release records of Bush's
service on Harken's board. Bush had pointed to those records during a news
conference on Monday when asked about his role in the sale of a subsidiary.
The transaction later was used by Harken to mask losses.
"You need to look back on the director's minutes," Bush said.
Bartlett said the administration does not have the minutes and does not
plan to ask Harken for them. "He personally would not have access to them,"
Bartlett said. "These are company documents. I can't release something I
don't have."
Harken has declined to release board records ever since questions about
Bush's record on the board were raised during his first campaign for Texas
governor, in 1994.
Bartlett also said the White House would not accept a challenge by
Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) on Sunday to ask the SEC
to make public the records of its investigation into whether Bush had
engaged in illegal insider trading of Harken stock.
Daschle said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that Bush would do well to ask
the SEC to release the file. "We've had different explanations as to what
actually occurred," Daschle said. "I think that would clarify the matter a
good deal."
Bartlett said Bush will not do that. "Those are documents in the
possession of an independent regulatory agency," Bartlett said. "I'm not in
a position to call on them to do that. We've made available every relevant
document we have in our possession."
Administration officials said they would take the same position about an
SEC investigation that resulted in Harken's restating its earnings to show
a $12.6 million loss for a quarter instead of an earlier reported loss of
$3.3 million. Bush was a member of the board's audit committee.
Staff writer Dan Balz contributed to this report. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
