Bushwater

[Scylla]

What you said, that I contradicted was that the investigation was thorough.

Do your chickens quack?

If you think the investigation was not thorough, on what do you base this assertion? Where’s your evidence?

I’m still waiting for you to show me where I missed it so that I can give you that apology.

Still waiting…
Let’s see, what else did you say… uh, ok whitewater was mean , uummm Republicans are hypocrites, blah blah, blah.

Oh ok.

The undisputed facts at this point show that Bush was repeatedly given money for failing. Now that may be normal where you work, but it certainly shouldn’t be. The pattern of pay for failure all by itself is suspicious enough to warrant an investigation. You keep wanting to make this entirely about Harken, perhaps because that’s the one part of this that you believe you can point to and say “See - no laws broken here!”. But Harken is only part of the pattern. There’s also Arbusto, Bush Exploration, Spectrum 7, Rangers stadium.

Undisputed? Jesus Christ, you’re embarassing.

Actually I’m happy to talk about other things as well. The Krugman article was about Harken. That’s what we’ve been talking about if you want to talk about Arbusto, go right ahead and start your own thread on it, perhaps I’ll join in.

with your own strawman, yep.

You like that term, don’t you. Maybe someday you’ll use it properly.

The investigation was not thorough.

And you keep saying that as if were true or anything but a half-witted unsupportable piece of partisan drivel. A vile allegation, a slimy imprecation. back it up, or wipe it off the bottom of your shoe, Huckleberry.

I laugh at you stupid assertion.

Ha ha ha!.
Yes it was thorough.

A simple assertion requires only another to refute it.

Put up or shut up.

You don’t know anymore than we do what information Bush had,

Au contraire, you’re ability to pass information from your brain like a rotten oyster through a colon is becoming your hallmark, as we shall see when we reexamine the poorly recycled crap you post from previous threads.

you assume a lack of information on his part that is contradicted by his job title

Outside Director?

one of his co-directors,

Didn’t the living shit get bashed out of that in a previous thread? Don’t you feel ashamed and dirty bringing that up here as if it means something?

I feel sleazy, and vile just looking at it again. Isn’t that too low for you?

and common sense

Yes, common sense would clearly show that Bush posessed information which was not yet in existence. Yes, I see your point.

The sale was NOT part of a pre-existing plan, we know this because Bush signed a six month lockout during the time period you claim he was planning to sell.

Once again thoroughly addressed and refuted in another thread. You were in that thread. It was so obviously a non-issue that Elucidator didn’t even bother with it.

[quote]
And the ‘information’ that Bush didn’t have (that the SEC would rule the Aloha sale bogus) wasn’t the only possible insider information.

[Scylla]

elucidator:

Ahh, you make a fine point. Of course how long the investigation took has no bearing on the quality in which it was done.

It just makes it harder to use “Cursory” or “curt,” or such.

I’m not going to bother with Tejota anymore since he seems to be recycling bullshit.

I especially love this:

They never even interviewed him, or any of the Harken officers. And yet, according to you, they investigated thoroughly and found that he had no insider information. That, my friend, is called making shit up. It’s frowned on here in the SDMB.

I see. Better report me to a moderator then.

No Tejota you are making shit up, or operating from ignorance and pretending it’s strength. And I beleive you’re wrong, too. The Sec did speak to some officers, I believe.

Anyway, I would wonder why you think that calling up an Officer on the phone and asking him to if he did anything wrong is superior investigatory technique to examining the paper trail, requesting a chronology, and others communicating via fax and letter so that there is a written record of the assertions being made?

You’re really not worth my time, you know?

[Scylla]

And I might as well finsish off tejota’s plane wreck of a post:

And the ‘information’ that Bush didn’t have (that the SEC would rule the Aloha sale bogus) wasn’t the only possible insider information.

Of course not. It was the only potentially material nonpublic information in question though. If you have another idea of what information that was Both material an nonpublic that you think Bush could have had and acted on please let us know. You can post it right after you post your evidence that their was something wrong the investigation.

I can hardly wait.

The issue before us now is political, not legal.

Well then, I’m not really interested, and I certainly would not countenance the use of tax-dollars, and the resources of the investigatory arm of a Federal agency to satisfy political bloodlust.

And yet, it is pretty clear from looking into the way Bush acuired his wealth (notice that I don’t say earned), that he isn’t very likely to recognise that the laws need fixing.

Total bullshit. Neither Clinton, nor Gore worked a single day in the private sector, IIRC. Yet Clinton seemed to deal effectively with big business. Clinton never served in the military yet he seemed to do a decent job as commander in chief. Gore never flew in space, but he did a fine job supporting NASA.

Embarassing, man. Pathetic.

In fact, it’s highly unlikely that he will ever see that need, because to do so would be to admit to himself that he didn’t earn his fortune . Very, few people are capable of the level of self examination necessary to see the wrong in their own behavior. I suggest, that at 56 years old, Bush’s very sanity depends on not being able to see the basic unfairness in his wealth acquisition. And so, he simply cannot help but be a foe to the sort of reforms necessary to return trust to the market.

Elucidator, Xenophon? Do you want to help me out with this one? I don’t want to be cruel. I so prefer a worthy opponent capable of a rational argument.

This is very convenient for you, since every republican president since Nixon has been corrupt.

Oh yes, of course. Nixon of course being the last honest Republican.
OH GOD! Somebody Help me!

Oh Jeez. man. That’s great.

It takes a certain kind of genius to claim that the republican’s misuse of the power of the special investigator precludes the democrats from ever investigating honestly. Bravo, Scylla, you’ve outdone yourself.

Ahh yes. And I am that genius. Call me Fu Manchu. I can see from where you’re sitting that you might very well consider me a genius, but just consider how impressed a hamster is with Magilla gorilla’s cerebral powers and you’ll probably have a more accurate assessment of our relationship.

Of you can ask Xenophon or Elucidator about my genius. They’ll probably give you a worthwhile answer.

I gotta hand it to you, Scylla you are truely a gifted rhetorician.

Though I file this with the “genius” comment, I sincerely appreciate the sentiment. It’s nice of you to say so.

I wish I could return the compliment but your arguments suck.

This is not a criminal investigation, but a moral one.

Well great! Let’s have the investigation then! Cool. I thought you guys wanted the SEC involved, and subpoenas, and coerced cooperation and all that.

And here all along what you wanted was an ethics seminar with your spiritual advisor. Perhaps we can appoint Al Franken as Stuart to chair the commission. I mean he’s good enough. He’s smart enough, and doggone it, people like him!

There is no special prosecutor to run amock, just a public’s demand for transparency, and that they be allowed to compare his past behavior with his current rhetoric.

Oh sure they can do whatever they want. Who cares? I can’t imagine why you’d expect him to cooperate though.

Like I say, you truly are gifted. It’s a shame that you choose to use that gift in service of such a small man.

Oh GOD, no!!
Elucidator, I’m going to ask you to do something about this guy. I mean he’s on your side, and you can’t be happy about that.

[CyberPundit]

I haven’t following this debate much but I have to say that if the ratio of actual argument to trash talk in the latest exchange is any guide, Tejota has been winning this one hands down.

Let me just make one comment:

“Total bullshit. Neither Clinton, nor Gore worked a single day in the private sector, IIRC. Yet Clinton seemed to deal effectively with big business. Clinton never served in the military yet he seemed to do a decent job as commander in chief. Gore never flew in space, but he did a fine job supporting NASA.”

You obviously didn’t understand the point. You are citing examples where lack of experience didn’t prevent effective policy where Tejota is making the argument that Bush has the wrong kind of experience to make good policy on corporate governance. In other words he is arguing that Bush’s extenstive experience with crony capitalism makes him unsuited to attack it. You may disagree with that argument but citing Gore and NASA or Clinton and the military doesn’t refute it.

[xenophon41]

Elucidator, Xenophon? Do you want to help me out with this one? I don’t want to be cruel. I so prefer a worthy opponent capable of a rational argument.

Nope, sorry. I have it on good-- well, actually your authority that we’re both partisan spreaders of bullshit, with no substance to our arguments.

I’ll give you this, though: Tejota’s psychological profile of Bush doesn’t wash with me, either. I don’t think the man’s sanity “depends on not being able to see the basic unfairness in his wealth acquisition.” That’s ridiculous, IMO. I believe he’s quite happy with the unfairness of his wealth acquisition.

[Scylla]

Cyberpundit:

Ahhh, yes. His lack of inexperience is clearly an impediment.

I don’t think anybody’s shown that Bush has done anything wrong or illegal so far. What we’ve seen are unsubstantiated allegations, and an attempt at guilt by association.

And, even if we grant the guilt by association:

The last time something like this happened (and it was remarkably similar,) it was Teddy Roosevelt, big business crony extraordinaire who led reform pissing off all his interests. He even appointed Ed Kennedy, the biggest manipulator of all time to institute market reform.

Historical precedent would suggest that if Bush is in bed with corrupt big business, he’s exactly the man for the job.

[CyberPundit]

“I don’t think anybody’s shown that Bush has done anything wrong or illegal so far”
Illegal maybe not. It’s always been pretty clear though that Bush has made an enormous fortune not through any particular business skill or hard work but mainly by being helped at the right time by Daddy’s rich friends. That would strike many people as being wrong.

“Historical precedent would suggest that if Bush is in bed with corrupt big business, he’s exactly the man for the job.”
I thought the last time you used this argument you more or less admitted you weren’t entirely serious.

In any case your Ted Roosevelt analogy is probably wrong. Whateve his past may have been, Roosevelt went after big business both at the rhetorical level “malefactors of great wealth” and the substantive level and was far more radical than his party on those issues. Bush OTOH has shown zero interest in taking on corporations beyond the strict politically neceessary minimum and he is very much a loyal member of the business wing of his party.

And as you probably know Bush’s (or more accurately Rove’s) role-model is not Roosevelt but his predecessor McKinely who AFAIK was anything but a radical corporate reformer.

In any case I suspect Roosevelt is an exception not a rule. Most insiders who have profited from a corrupt system try to protect it not destroy it.

[CyberPundit]

Oh and btw I am assuming that by invoking Teddy Roosvelt now, you are conceding my point that your Gore/NASA and Clinton/military arguments were off the mark since they make pretty much the opposite point to the one you are trying to make. (ie. it’s an outsider who makes good policy)

[Scylla]

Cyberpundit:

Sure. I’m conceding that my Clinton/Gore analogy was incorect.

My Teddy R. one is spot on, though. He was very much an animal of big business when we was elected and it was quite a thing for him to turn on his supporters and do the needed reform.

Whether or not Bush follows suit is another thing, but so far the parallel is appropriate. Bush’s business connection don’t disqualify him, they further qualify him. The proviso of course is that like Teddy he does the right thing.

[stofsky]

I am amazed that nobody has brought up Bush Sr.'s history of protecting his boys from investigation and prosecution during his term. Does “Silverado” ring a bell? “S&L Scandal?” Neil Bush?

Daddy took care of his boys, all of them.

[Scylla]

Stofsky:

Yeah, I know what you mean. I mean there’s this whole fertile field and where do they choose to plant their seeds?

The one rocky spot.

Typical.

[elucidator]

Elucidator, I’m going to ask you to do something about this guy. I mean he’s on your side, and you can’t be happy about that.

Well, actually, to my eyes it looks like he’s kicking your sorry ass from here to Wednesday.

Besides, how can I help? I’m a “liar”. Remember?

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**

Well, actually, to my eyes it looks like he’s kicking your sorry ass from here to Wednesday.

**

I don’t believe you. I wonder why?

**Besides, how can I help? I’m a “liar”. Remember? **

Oh yeah, that’s why! Thanks for reminding me.

[Scylla]

And I’m still patiently waiting for somebody to show me where somebody made an argument, presented evidence, or gave a reason why the investigation was improper.
How about somebody just make one up now?

I suspect it will be a long wait.

It’s no fun to have to support baseless allegations.

[taggert]

Amen Greek brother. Harken and Halliburton have been fully vetted and the public knows this and all the details. The vengeful democrats should just let it drop and let the people get back to their business.

[tracer]

Could we call this scenario something other than “Bushwater”? It’s a fun name and all, but it makes it hard to get any work done when I’m giggling like Beavis and Butthead.

[hansel]

How very convenient for conservatives to take the moral high road now that it’s their guy under attack.

[ElvisL1ves]

Scylla, what makes you think this is, and always will be, only about Harken? Or Halliburton? Or the Rangers stadium? Or Bush’s entire business “career”? Or his acceptance of responsibility? You’ve defined the subject matter very carefully to stay narrowly within your comfort zone, but reality tends to get messier around the edges than any of us like.

As you keep refusing to acknowledge in the other thread, this isn’t just a legal or regulatory matter, but a political one, in the word’s broader sense of statecraft. As we kept getting preached to for eight long years lately, there are broader issues of leadership and accountability and public trust that must be considered and addressed.

But if you’re happier keeping your fingers in your ears and yelling “La la la, it’s all about payback for Starr, la la la”, then there’s no point in continuing.

[ElvisL1ves]

Oh, and Scylla, we’re still looking for a reason (from you, or anyone else) why those “exculpatory” documents are being kept secret by the White House. Surely, if an investigation thorough enough to satisfy even you cleared Bush and the rest of the Harken management, he’d be eager to demonstrate that.

[ElvisL1ves]

And finally, were you as indignant over the treatment of Clinton then as you are now? I don’t seem to recall many posts from you on the matter. Am I mistaken about that, or did something change in the meanwhile? :cough, cough: