I mean we have a giant squid. We know there’s submarines. Lots of ships got sunk during that time period, and nobody’s sure how.
What more do you want?
Why don’t we get that guy who found the Titanic to go searching for the Nautilus?
It must be a coverup or a conspiracy, but we know the truth, don’t we?
It certainly has the aroma of truth, and, if Captain Nemo is out there, we need to know.
Tell you what. If you can show me that they cut open that Australia squid and found a chunk of submarine hull identifiable as a piece of USS Thresher inside of it, then, then I’ll start calling for an investigation of giant squid malfea-ance.
(Really, Scylla, you should let go of this Nemo obsession. Moriarty’s a more likely suspect, in any case.)
xeno:
I’ll ask for the third time where you get this from?
The idea that Bush was aware or had an inkling of a pending restatement prior to or at the time of his sale is in direct contradiction with the evidence that we’ve been discussing for almost ten pages.
I thought you’d given up on that dead horse.
Maybe if you just say it again, I’ll get tired of proving it false, not bother, and you can pretend its true.
xeno, I find that position very defensible. And perfectly adequate for my virulently partisan purposes.
Nonetheless I agree without reservation that further investigation would be necessary to finally resolve that issue. And I agree that the issue is worthy of such resolution.
I don’t think a special prosecutor is necessary unless there is stonewalling. Then legal force would need to be brought to bear.
To my mind, it boils down to two: crook, but not necessarily an indictable crook, or “clueless doofus”. Anybody got a third?
Oh, you’d like that wouldn’t you?
I suppose you just want me to turn a blind eye to the whole Nemo/Whitewater thing, don’t you?
And, it’s been proven that Moriarty was nowhere near the Watergate hotel, and that he was just following orders in that Contra arms for drugs thing, so don’t even go there.
Scylla: I’m sorry. I must’ve missed where you “proved false” the possibility that Bush had prior knowledge of the restatement.
elucidator: You left out the perfectly plausible “perspicacious plutocrat” scenario, wherein our Hero is shown to be the model of upright business acumen, whose pluck and ability to grasp opportunity makes him no more and no less than an exemplary business manager, representative of self-reliance, moral clarity and, above all else, ethical stricture.
Glad to help.
Moriarty “following orders”? Ha! Risible.
It was those 8 pages preceding this one, more specifically, the ones dealing with the SECs Investigation summary, concluding that Bush was not privy to matters that were strictly the purview of the executive committee, and that it may not have even been possible for him to know even if he was privy since the information itself did not exist at the time of the sale.
Hmm. I thought I was the one who had to go reread the debate!
[thbbbt!] 
[hijack]
The minute I saw that story, xenophon, I started a MPSIMS thread for Libertarian’s benefit. (I’m hoping a mention in GD will draw him over; he’s not often a MPSIMS visitor.)
[/hijack]
xeno I am stunned to confess you are entirely correct! I have overlooked that “PP” scenario! To my distress and shame, I must, in the interests of fair play and truth, call for an exhaustive and relentless investigation to prove exactly that!
Capt. Nemo was not on the Navigation Committee. His title as “Captain” was largely honorific, and he was entirely unaware of the unfortunate “squid” incident as he had been asleep in his cabin for about a week. There is some evidence that he thought it unusual that calamari was served at the Officers Mess for about three months afterward, but that doesn’t prove anything! Only releasing the Nautilus’ captains log will resolve that issue, and those documents are unavailable for entirely legitimate reasons that are none of your beez-wax.
Take our word for it. Trust us. We’re the grown ups. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain…
I thought y’all might appreciate some words of wisdom from the Captain himself.
From today’s New York Times:
*"In a highly unusual violation of the unwritten rule against presidential pronouncements of how markets will act, President Bush today predicted that as stocks become a better value “you’ll see the market go back up.”
…
“…I believe people are going to come back into the market. But listen, I’m not a stock broker. I’m not a stock picker. My attitude on Wall Street is they’ll buy you or sell you, depending upon if it’s in their interest.”"*
Should we reconsider the clueless scenario?
“… My attitude on Wall Street is they’ll buy you or sell you, depending upon if it’s in their interest” - resident G.W. Bush.
Oh My. This is priceless!
Definitely clueless.
Well, we knew he was no evil genius, didn’t we? (Keep talkin’ George; let the voters hear you.)
But guys, don’t confuse Bush’s carlessness of speech with cluelessness of action. The guy’s not an idiot. Just a major league— well, you know.
No. I don’t. Your conclusion seems to be that he smells funny. Hardly a revelation that his detractors would think so, and on the face of it, it says a lot more about his detractors than it does about him.
Never been so close to the man that I could’ve made that determination. As usual, your presentation of my “conclusion” isn’t very accurate.
I’ve asserted that the Harken situation reeks of venality, that the Aloha deal has the aroma of a confidence game, and that the stonewalling tactics our President prefers have the stench of coverup to them. Those are the funny smells I’ve mentioned.
My conclusion is that I’m in favor of further investigation. I applaud the belated reportage by the mainstream press. I’m relieved that the public seems finally to find the business histories of the Bushies relevant. I would be gratified if Congress were to authorize a more official line of inquiry, but I don’t think they will.
But I will repeat myself. Bush will no longer be allowed by the press corps or by the public to leave his history unexamined. And that’s a good thing.
Xeno, you’re quite right – this belabored debate is irrelevant.
Bush and Cheney’s corporate ethics and prior actions are now “In Play.” Even the New Yorker is taking blatant shots at the CEO Administration’s lip service:
Well then look to thine own partisan armpit before you doth pronounce another’s stinky. George Bush’s trades have the Mennen Speed stick of an SEC investigation deodorizing them, and I still eagerly await your addressing the question of what in those newly revealed documents has caused you to say the Bush had foreknowledge of a devaluation.
Thou has not answered, and I say “why?”
The answer though is clear to me now. Thou art afraid of thine own partisan stink which noxiously wafts up from the smelly socks or your baseless accusations.
Funny article Ace.
xeno: “But guys, don’t confuse Bush’s carlessness of speech with cluelessness of action.”
You’re absolutely right. I’ll retract “clueless” in favor of Freudian Slip of the Year ;).
Scylla, I’m not sure I’d see myself as a Bush detractor; more of a Bush onlooker. The more you look at the Bushes, the more they self-detract. So few admirable accomplishments; so many mediocrities and under-the-carpet sweepings. I think that says more about them than about me.
OTOH, you already know that you have my vote for spinmeister par excellence.
Scylla just saw your last in preview.
I would say there’s been some rolling on, but that the jury’s still out on the odor.
Really? I’m not spinning anything.
I’m just pointing out that a selective and partisan view of the facts leads to bullshit, and unsupportable conclusions.
I feel quite validated that I’ve done a good job of that, as my opponent’s arguments have degraded to the point where they do nothing but make generalized comments about smells they don’t like.
For them, to be specific is to be self-refuting, because as the SEC states.
Doubtless there are grounds in Bush’s past to ask questions or raise suspicion. It seems idiotic to pursue it an area such as this which has been so thoroughly documented, and to use Bush’s word “vetted.”
You’d think that if you wanted to cast aspersions on a man, you’d look in an area which was ambiguous.
Proving a negative is pretty much impossible, but this comes about as close as possible to proving that Bush acted properly.