E,
That article from the VV was, IMO, a poor attempt at a hatchet job. What the article says, in essence, is:
1. Bush was an entrepreneur, a risk taker, and some of his early risks failed. As most entrepreneurial risks do. That's why they call them "risks".
2. Harken ultimately became his business venture and was strangely rescued by Bahrain at a time when they were cozying up to Bush Sr. Nowhere does the article say that Bush Sr. (or Dubya) did anything inappropriate with respect to Bahrain (a longtime U.S. ally) that could be linked even remotely to that relatively small transaction.
3. Bush sold stock as an insider to buy a baseball team, and reported it late, but the SEC decided after a review (how do they know it was "perfunctory"?) not to pursue the matter. (This is the review we debated last week whether it constituted "exoneration").
4. Other Bush family members did questionable things, including his grandfather and some brothers. Well, guess what, my brothers and father have probably done things I am not proud of. And if anyone judged me based on those things I would get really pissed off. Why is one-third of this article about Bush's relatives doing bad stuff? Because it's a hatchet job, and an inartful one at that. |
