You felt that in the 89 Bush Rangers stuff, his role as a president's son was not relevant to his later $12 million.
Not at all. I posted a piece which came right out and said that Bush was selected as managing general partner for the limited partnership that bought the Rangers precisely because of who he was, and the connections he had. I see no problem with that.
What Krugman wrote was an egregious falsehood, that when the Rangers were sold, Bush's $12 million was a political gift to a sitting governor. His exact words: 'a $12 million gift' to 'a sitting governor.'
You have diligently refused to apply yourself to understand the difference. I have no idea why. You're intelligent enough to understand the difference between political clout and graft.
I thought that was why he was selected and was directly comparable to the Whitewater stuff.
Maybe you do think this, but various fact-finding bodies disagree with you. Bush was investigated by the SEC in 1994, under the Clinton administration, and exonerated of all wrongdoing in connection with his sale of his Harken oil stock, which he used to pay off the investors in the Rangers deal.
The Clintons were cleared in the Whitewater investigation, but numerous others were not.
If you object to one, you should object to both. I, frankly, don't like either, but it is the way of the rather tight interface, in some places, between politics and business.
Politicians influence business, and vice versa? Rich men have influence that poor men lack? Stop the presses!
Neither should be worth some 60 or 70 million dollars of tax payer money to investigate them.
This must refer to Whitewater. I have no idea what bothers you about investigating wrong-doing, especially when the investigations led to numerous convictions, including that of an assistant US Attorney General (Hubbell) and a sitting Arkansas state governor (Tucker). Personally, I loathe political corruption. It is an egregious breach of the public trust that must be stamped out. |
