You say hijack, I’m sure elucidator would say “embellish”.
I think Scylla’s position is more than “it’s not obvious Bush is a crook”. He also opposes any official continuation of the SEC investigation, and I believe he argues that the lack of any compelling proof of illegality is sufficient to counter the political import of the president’s past and to deny any public interest in digging into that past. (That’s how it seems to me, but he’s been hard to pin down on the political aspect…)
Probably because, if it is political, then facts aren’t worth a damn, only suppositions and allegations.
…
“Embellish”, eh? Can we settle on “obfuscate”? 
Loathe I am to abandon amusing interplay for serious interjectory hijack, but do you consider elucidator’s --er, textual flourishes-- as intentionally clouding the issue or (as I believe) merely the product of an overly developed sense of play?
(elucidator, you may comment should your innate sense of decorum be overcome by a desire to defend your honor.)
No, we may not.
…“catfish”…? Huh? What?
Gotcha ya!
I would say that it is spiteful play which, as a hidden cost, serves to obfuscate the issue.
elucidator… noodling? Catfish? Forget it, it is an erl thing.
Tell you what, erislover, you try slugging it out over 8 damn pages with Scylla sometime…
Me: I have proof
Him: That’s not proof, that’s evidence
Me: OK, I have evidence then…
Him: It’s not evidence unless you can prove it
Me: But you just said it was evidence!
Him: Did NOT! Lord, when, oh, when will he stop lying…
etc., etc.
Ha! More like, “I have proof!” ; “I don’t think that proof means what you think it means. Allow me to explain.” ; “But isn’t it as suspicious as a black cat {obscure reference omitted}?” ; “Not really. Allow me to explain.” ; “But look at what this article says!” ; “But look at what the SEC said.” ; “But look at what an old compatriot of his said!” ; “That quote could mean anything without context.” ; “But Bush is obviously a crook, and even if he isn’t, we reserve the right to investigate suspicious dealings anyway because of Clinton/CurrentSituation/Rangers/Something!” At which point I say, “If this is the motivation for investigation, why are you throwing all this other stuff at us which don’t amount to squat?” ; “But look at the Aloha deal!”
Have I left anything crucial out?
Well, that depends. Is a “point” crucial?
has some excellent work on this issue.
Apos: I especially like how the article excoriates the press corps for the lack of coverage of these issues during the 2000 campaign. But to argue, as some have done, that the tardiness of press attention makes these stories irrelevant would be absurd.
BTW, for everyone bashing Krugman over his commentary, the Howler article specifically praises him, along with his fellow NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof for the evenhandedness of their latest columns.
More Harken internal documents have been published by the Center for Public Integrity. Looking at these latest, it’s hard to buy the “ignorant of the details” argument, and equally difficult to swallow Bush’s “selling into good news” spin. (Not that there was necessarily anything illegal going on. Just that the whole story remains aromatic.)
I kind of have a problem with The Center for Public Integrity. Are they stealing these things, or what?
Xeno:
From your cite:
From you:
Why?
What’s in there to contradict it?
Stealing them? Why, Scylla; I’m surprised at how quickly you found the quote admitting ambiguity, but how much trouble you’re having resolving your question about the source of CPI’s documents: [url"http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=434&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0"]Linky
Presuming the “it” in your question means the “selling into good news” claim, it’s Bush’s specific knowledge of the less than attractive financial state of the corporation, combined with the not insignificant probability that he knew there’d soon be a major downward adjustment in the earnings statement.
Ambiguous? Yep.
Looks completely innocent? Well, maybe to Mr. Bush’s mom (although Barbara seems pretty savvy to me, so maybe not even she would think this is all squeaky-clean).
Crap! Here’s the link, properly coded:
Oh. That’s cool, then.
You’re talking about something not much better than a wildcat drilling company. One does not buy or play with these stocks based on a desire for a secure balance sheet. Yes, Harken had liquidity problems, and was unnatractive financially. It had been so for quite some time before and after Bush’s sale. This is hardly nonpublic.
Where in the documents do you get that from?
No, these documents don’t reasonably construe guilt or innocence. They are, pretty much what you’d expect to see given the circumstances.
Of mild interest is the one where Bush chaired a committee for financing the Aloha sale to IMR. This looks like a pretty simple collateralization of the Aloha properties as security for the note.
Scylla, I understand that you find all of this of only “mild interest”. It’s for the benefit of more curious observers that I’ve continued this thread. (However, if the OP doesn’t show up, I may drop it and just start another thread when more stuff turns up relating to this administration’s business shenanigans. As it most definitely will, if not Bush/Harken, then certainly Cheney/Haliburton, White/Enron, etc.)
For your benefit, I recommend this giant squid story. No political relevance (except possibly among libertarians), but it sure is interesting.
Oh great, now you think Bush killed the squid, too.
Regardless of who you’re posting for, I feel free to chime in.
I’m still wondering where you got from those documents “the not insignificant probability that he knew there’d soon be a major downward adjustment in the earnings statement.”
I think if I apply the same logic to the giant squid story, I can argue that 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is nonfiction.
I gotta wonder, when Jr. stood there and said “You’d have to look at the directors minutes for that.”…What was he up to? Was that scripted? Did he know that two minutes later someone was going to tell the reporters “No, you can’t look at them.”
Boiled down: Not Proven. The preponderance of evidence is that Jr. was hired to be nothing more than the Designated Doofus. A chump, a patsy. Not only can’t you prove he did anything illegal, you can’t prove he did anything at all. Documents flew past him without registering on his dim awareness, conversations amongst the knowledgeable stopped dead when he entered the room.
I don’t think the Bushistas are trying to cover up illegality. I think they are trying to cover up stupidity and irresponsibility.
Which is precisely why I support further investigation. I would be quite content with an unofficial investigation. Release all the documents, and lets have a look.
Maybe somewhere therein will be a clue, some nugget of info than might explain how this vacuous and shallow frat-boy came to be installed next to the Big Button.
Never mind why he’s so stupid. Why were we so stupid?
Can’t say as I agree with your logic, Scylla. While the squid story certainly might cause one to assign more believability to the giant squid battle depicted in the Disney movie, I’m not sure why one would argue on that basis that the Verne novel is accurate reportage of true events.
Conversely, evidence that Bush was much more heavily involved and knowledgeable about Harken’s financial doings than either you or the OP have given him credit for in this thread might lead a less charitable person than you two paragons to consider the possibility that the erstwhile Director Bush had more than an inkling of the pending restatement.
BTW, thanks for your reappearance, elucidator. (Still pushing the “clueless doofus” position, though? I think that catfish got noodled a long time ago.)