Bush - the ultimate insider

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
from NYTimes 07/02/2002



<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/02/opinion/02KRUG.html"; target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/02/opinion/02KRUG.html</a>;

(free registration required)



Now to the story of Harken Energy, as reported in The Wall Street Journal on March 4. In 1989 Mr. Bush was on the board of directors and audit committee of Harken. He acquired that position, along with a lot of company stock, when Harken paid $2 million for Spectrum 7, a tiny, money-losing energy company with large debts of which Mr. Bush was C.E.O. Explaining what it was buying, Harken's founder said, "His name was George Bush."



Unfortunately, Harken was also losing money hand over fist. But in 1989 the company managed to hide most of those losses with the profits it reported from selling a subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, at a high price. Who bought Aloha? A group of Harken insiders, who got most of the money for the purchase by borrowing from Harken itself. Eventually the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that this was a phony transaction, and forced the company to restate its 1989 earnings.



But long before that ruling ? though only a few weeks before bad news that could not be concealed caused Harken's shares to tumble ? Mr. Bush sold off two-thirds of his stake, for $848,000. Just for the record, that's about four times bigger than the sale that has Martha Stewart in hot water. Oddly, though the law requires prompt disclosure of insider sales, he neglected to inform the S.E.C. about this transaction until 34 weeks had passed. An internal S.E.C. memorandum concluded that he had broken the law, but no charges were filed. This, everyone insists, had nothing to do with the fact that his father was president.



[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: wwwork ]</p>
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,019member
    Whatever.
  • Reply 2 of 23
    wwworkwwwork Posts: 140member
    [quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:

    <strong>Whatever.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yeah, I guess we're used to his stealing by now. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 3 of 23
    i always found it quite humorous the way he and his supporters always portrayed GW as a successful business man. from what i've seen, the only thing remotely successful in the private sector was his connection to the texas rangers organization which ultimately landed him in the govs office. interesting how even though most of the businesses connected to his name have gone south, he managed to come out relatively unscathed and usually richer than he was before. take with that the checkered financial dealings of his siblings (can you say S&L) all of which happened during bush seniors term in office.



    [ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: running with scissors ]</p>
  • Reply 4 of 23
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    [quote] Whatever.



    __________________



    Beyond Windows. Way Beyond.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <hr></blockquote>



    There it is . . . . this is what we get. Refusal to see what is right in front of the eyes.



    Read the whole article SDW!!!!!!



    Its the only article I have come across that comes close to acknowledging that the strictures hampering the SEC, put in place by corporate power, might possibly be responcible for the climate of constant and acceptable corporate crime that we see erupting on the surface these days!!! ITS THE ONLY ARTICLE



    I hope that people read this, and we start to see some real thinkng about these issues, unstead of bald faced hypocricy on the part of those who want to keep the business usual.



    The new head of the SEC, when asked why he thought the auditing firms should police themselves, and be allowed to finacially consult and work with the companies that they audit, said, in a nearly incomprehensible slather of words: ( paraphrase) "well, the auditors need to stay in the know of the tax system .. . . what better way for them to learn then by working with the financial side of the corporations"



    can someone explain this logic: what tax tricks are the corporations doing that the auditors need to learn by working from the inside? And since the auditors are now serving as finacial advisors as wel as auditors aren't they also telling them how to work this tax trickery? ....it seems so.....



    And as far as Bush and his dealings: this is standard practice with corporations because IT CAN BE . . . thanks to thirty years of well paid Congressmen (including Dems especially Lieberman and Dodd!! the pigs!!) and corporate money and campaigning to erase any real governmental oversite and regulation.
  • Reply 5 of 23
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    This is the man that's going to clean up big business? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 6 of 23
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    I wonder if Finboy will bother reading this article or will he pull an SDW on us.
  • Reply 7 of 23
    Having got it's token airing, you can bet your ??? that this one will get dropped like the proverbial hot potato, never to publicly resurface. It would take more than than an $850,000 fraud to nail our Teflon Pres!
  • Reply 8 of 23
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Wait wait wait, a criminal president?



    Business as usual in D.C. I see.
  • Reply 9 of 23
    Leave W alone. He is busy fighting evil
  • Reply 10 of 23
    I'm confused. Is the topic W's incompetence or his immoral ways?



    Btw, he's a great businessman. It is just that his judgement was a little clouded from time to time since he was sauced out of his mind so often in the days of wayback. I have no doubts though that if he were running the Texas Rangers today he would have the best last place team in all of baseball.
  • Reply 11 of 23
    zarathustrazarathustra Posts: 264member
    Thanks wwwork for the post..very interesting.



    Is this really not hot news in America? Seems like it should kick up a storm esp. in light of Enron et al and after the fuss made when Clinton redfined sexual relations.



    Seems like George is screwing a lot more than one intern!
  • Reply 11 of 23
    vargasvargas Posts: 426member
    [quote]Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath:

    [QB]I'm confused. Is the topic W's incompetence or his immoral ways?<hr></blockquote>



    Perhaps his incompetence is just a disguise for his immoral ways. :eek:
  • Reply 13 of 23
    [quote]Originally posted by Zarathustra:

    <strong>Is this really not hot news in America? Seems like it should kick up a storm esp. in light of Enron et al and after the fuss made when Clinton redfined sexual relations.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I blame the axis of liberal media for this.
  • Reply 14 of 23
    [quote]Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath:

    <strong>I have no doubts though that if he were running the Texas Rangers today he would have the best last place team in all of baseball.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    yes, they suck.
  • Reply 15 of 23
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,019member
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>Wait wait wait, a criminal president?



    Business as usual in D.C. I see.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    LOL.





    I think it is interesting that one word from my mouth can generate about two hundred out of pfllam's.



    SJO writes:



    [quote]Having got it's token airing, you can bet your ??? that this one will get dropped like the proverbial hot potato, never to publicly resurface. It would take more than than an $850,000 fraud to nail our Teflon Pres! <hr></blockquote>



    This is, perhaps, the funniest thing SJO has ever posted. Remember when the Bush DUI came out (personally ordered by Gore, in my understanding)? It backfired on Gore because Bush actually admitted it and took repsonsibility. Yeah, that's "teflon". Maybe he could have shook his finger at the camera and said "I want you to listen to me: I never drove with that beer in my system. I never asked anyone to lie. Not one time, EVER"



    Bush didn't repeat the Clinton performance. He flat-out took repsonsibility. He could have tried to spin it or "lie to protect his family" (how noble).



    There goes SJO again.



    [ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 23
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    [quote]Bush didn't repeat the Clinton performance. He flat-out took repsonsibility. He could have tried to spin it or "lie to protect his family" (how noble).<hr></blockquote>



    It's too bad that Bush isn't doing the same thing now then, isn't it? Just saying that the matter is 'closed' doesn't make it better, does it?
  • Reply 17 of 23
    trick falltrick fall Posts: 1,271member
    Hey, the thieves can police themselves.



    You should all read The Power Broker by Robert Caro.
  • Reply 18 of 23
    wwworkwwwork Posts: 140member
    [quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:

    <strong>

    Bush didn't repeat the Clinton performance. He flat-out took repsonsibility. He could have tried to spin it or "lie to protect his family" (how noble).



    [ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Whenever Bush is in trouble the Bushies start talking about Clinton, blaming Clinton for whatever they may be facing. For them, it's practically like admitting guilt.



    However, the childlike strategy of "He did it first." or "He was worse than me." is transparent and indefensible.
  • Reply 19 of 23
    [quote]Originally posted by Gringo Viejo:

    <strong>Leave W alone. He is busy fighting evil</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What evil?



    Lame excuse IMO



    He is not the generalissimo of the US, he is accountable for what he does/has done!



    Keywords: Democracy, Rule of Law, Accountability, etc.
  • Reply 20 of 23
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    [quote]I think it is interesting that one word from my mouth can generate about two hundred out of pfllam's. <hr></blockquote>



    SDW... if you botherd to read my post you woud have sen that I only said teh following to you?:

    [quote] There it is . . . . this is what we get. Refusal to see what is right in front of the eyes.



    Read the whole article SDW!!!!!! <hr></blockquote>



    The rest I'm sure you will not read. Why? because you wouldn't understand it . . . apparently my diction is just a little too high for you . . . but I think, if you tryyy really haarrrdd and focus maybe you can read it and follow what it says



    . . .and repeat after me:

    .....I think I can.....

    .....I think I can.....

    .....I think I can.....

    .....I think I can.....

    .....I think I can.....

    .....I think I can.....



Sign In or Register to comment.