Is this the real reason we are at war? Maybe not, but it sure looks bad...

Great Debates
181

You do realize, don’t you, that you have just said, in effect: “Do as we say, not as we do.” ?

And you can’t actually be claiming that Dubya hasn’t had a chance to catch his breath since having the enormous responsibilities of the presidency thrust upon him, now are you? He seemed to have no problem getting right to work: stopping funding for international women’s health organizations, getting big stupid tax cuts passed, getting all hard over giving federal money to faith-based charities… Not to mention spending about 30-40% of his time since taking office traveling to, from, or being on vacation. What’s the expression? “That dog won’t hunt”.

And he’s gotten it. Even mine, to a point.

You wouldn’t have been one of those folks who didn’t think distracting the previous president with sexual harassment lawsuits was any kind of problem at all, would you? Sure hope not.

And how in the world does bringing these facts to light and questioning what they might mean constitute any kind of distraction at all? I do not agree that “support” means we cannot question. In fact, how might we discover misdeeds if we suppress the questions? Just hope for them to magically reveal themselves? And my OP was about questions, not direct accusations of anything.

I agree with columnist Wendy Kaminer, writing for The American Prospect

My OP gave (thus far unrefuted) information about the facts of Bush’s family businesses and connection, as well as facts which might lead one to question, as someone else put it, Bush’s ability to be completely objective in his decision making. I don’t think anyone, much less GWB, is able to purify their hearts and minds at will, filtering out anything but the most noble goals. Therefore it is not unreasonable to request that Bush do what he can to purify his goals in a more practical manner.

Which is all related to the larger issue that I have also brought up several times in this thread, as has Boris: that GWB and his cohorts might be tempted to exploit the country’s support to push their agenda down our throats, using the dead as a cudgel to beat us into submission to their vision of how things should be. Frankly, this terrifies me. And in fact they have actually given in to that temptation, as previously noted.

Incidentally finding a dozen creative ways to say “Oh, bollocks!” doesn’t really blow much of anything out of the water, and that’s mostly what is being trotted out as fabulous debating. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and to express it, but opinions don’t qualify as arguments. And unless my memory is failing me, no one * but * me has offered a single fact as evidence of anything at all in 4 pages. (did a quick check: there was one cite of Al Gore as a man who has become rich via oil investments, (irrelevant), and another cite of Unocal’s abandoned decision to run a pipeline through Afghanistan, which they did because they found the Taliban an unacceptable government (seems to fall on my side of the aisle, since it supports the idea that with the Taliban in power, getting oil from the region is a dicey proposition. And there’s no question this is so now!) And a post or two from folks learned about oil and gas about why the Caspian basin isn’t all that impressive, (which may in fact be true, but someone better tell that to Dick Cheney.)

Which is not to say that opinions are not appropriate for GD…as I had occasion to remark to someone else recently, GD is really just IMHO with cites. We bring our facts, then * debate * our * opinions * of what the facts * mean * . If the things we discussed here were matters of provable, irrefutable fact ** alone ** , there would be no Debate and we’d all just be hanging around GQ tossing facts at each other. And there’d almost certainly be no such thing as political parties, since all those irrefutable facts would reveal the One True Way to run the world…

stoid

182

Aye! That be the truth.

183

I’m thunderstruck.

184

Well, perhaps that’s because there was so much else in the OP that was just nonsense that the business of the investments wasn’t able to squirm to the top of anybody’s priority list.

But since you asked…

I’m curious to know how the prosecution of this war will help the Carlyle Group’s investment in, say, the Chicago Marriott Downtown, which they bought last year? Or their health care investments?

Heck, I’d even like to see how it would benefit most of their defense investments, since their portfolio companies are largely centered around things not likely to be useful in this particular campaign (like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, unsuited to Afghan terrain) or things not likely to need replenishment (like aircraft avionics).

Looks to me like the defense companies most likely to benefit will be those who make consumables like rockets, bombs and ammo, aircraft spare parts, etc. Are you aware of any Carlyle or Bush family investments in companies like this?

Simply being in the defense industry does not automatically mean profiting from war. One company I’m invested in, for instance, is taking a huge bath on account of they had contracts to prettify bases and expand barracks and stuff like that, activities put on hold for the time being.

So please provide some specifics.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I or affiliates of mine may from time to time invest in the Carlyle Group or various companies controlled by or affiliated with Carlyle Group. We may hold long or short positions or hold no position at all. We will not disclose in this forum the specifics of any investment or any change to the status of an investment. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Your mileage may vary. Offer not valid in Tennessee. This post may not be reproduced without the express written consent of Major League Baseball.

185

I’m obviously not claiming that they would. :rolleyes:

Excellent point. As long as the war remains in the mountains of Afghanistan… but as we’ve been repeatedly told, that’s not likely to remain the case. Which was part of my point: that Bush’s decisions to expand the war could very well be influenced by concerns other than a strict desire to stamp out terrorists.

I will be happy to try, but I’m not sure what precisely you are asking for. Specifics of the Carlyle Group’s invesments, or something else?

stoid

186

Exactly. We’ve already established that Defense Industry Company != Profit from war. So if you want to try to make your point, I’d be curious to know if you know of any specific investments by the Group (or others affiliated with Bush the Elder or Bush the other Brother who ain’t the Governor or whoever) which stand to benefit from a pruported lack of objectivity on the President’s part.

187

I forgot something.

This is more difficult to establish, of course, but I’d also be curious to know in the aggregate how the prosecution of this war will affect the Bush family investments (or at least the known investments).

Additionally, I’d be curious to see how other Bush policies might affect the investments.

I’m interested in this topic because I believe all the “thou shalt not own this or that” stuff imposed on public officeholders seriously reduces the pool of potential citizen-lawmakers and leaves politics mostly to lawyers, who can jump in and out of equity positions in their law firms fairly easily.

188

You have put before me a challenge I shall try to rise to, sir. Thank heave for the internet!

While I set about doing that, remember that my concerns are not confined to this.

stoid

189

Manny:

While interesting from an academic standpoint, I’m not sure where you’re going with this.

It’s likely to the point of near certainty that Bush & Co. have holdings that are likely to do benefit from the prosecution of the war.

In fact, it would probably be suspicious if the Carlyle Group or any other of Bush’s financial managers were not holding some positions in co’s like RTN, or GD, or heck even XOM. If they are doing their job, their maintaining diversification, and an absence of defense stocks would certainly be a conspicuous one.

Being President does not preclude George or his family from hiring good investment managers, and they may make purchases as they see fit. I certainly have upped my defense stock allocation in recent weeks.

On the other side of the coin, Bush could lose money, and still be rightfully accused of profiteering (or attempted profiteering in that case,) as I’m sure your aware it’s not necessary to actually make a profit to be guilty of trading on material nonpublic information.

So, whether or not Bush, his friends, associates, or investment managers have financial interests in co’s likely to benefit from a war is wholly and totally beside the point. They are allowed to. Hell, it’s the American way.

What would be illegal, was if anyone acted on material nonpublic information in their posession.

That is the charge for which evidence must be provided if we are to give the OP any weight.

So, in scrutinizing the holdings of family and associates we should fully expect to see defense related stocks positioned to take advantage of a war economy. Again, that’s certainly the way I’ve been doing things.

In order to suggest profiteering we need to prove the following.

  1. That Bush is or was in posession of material nonpublic information (This is pretty much a given.)

  2. That he acted on it.

In order to even give this possibility serious consideration, we need to look at the portfolio holdings of Bush and Co. and consider if there are any unusual transactions that suggest that such illegal trading has taken place.

Now, neither Bush nor the Carlyle Group disclose their daily transactions to the general public, probably for the same reason that you and I don’t, nor do we play poker with our hands showing outwards.

They are not available to us (except occasionally considerably after the fact.) However, they are available to the SEC, who’s job it is to analyze them for such suspicious activity and investigate it if warranted.

In other words, this is an avenue that we won’t be able to pursue.

Now, let’s say for the sake of argument that within all of Bush’s holdings and investment managers there is activity that looks suspicious and indeed is found to derive from material nonpublic information.

In that event, before we could hold Bush or his family culpable we would need to prove that:

  1. The information was improperly disseminated from Bush or his family.

  2. That they did so with intent to defraud.

Inside trading may in fact occur within Bush’s holdings without Bush’s knowledge, or blessing, as you’ll recall that their is a Chinese wall surrounding Mr. Bush’s assets while he is holding public office, just as their is for Greenspan’s.

You would need to show how Bush or Associates penetrated the Chinese Wall with intent to defraud.

On the other side of the coin than the transactional one, you would need to show that Bush is aware of his holdings and is manipulating events and abusing his power with the intent of enhancing their value.

When one considers the mechanics of all this, one realizes that it’s a pretty lousy scam to attempt to run, all things considered. You need a lot of people to be in on it, and the evidence is right there in the open. On top of that, you have a high degree of uncertainty. You can manipulate events to your heart’s content, but there’s no guarrantee that the market will put the spin on them that you think it will.

In conclusion, it seems that war profiteering for the President would be both extremely difficult to pull off successfully and also include a high likelihood of getting caught.

Assuming you wanted to break the law and make some quick profits as the President, there are much easier ways to pull it off.

For example, why mess around with Long term, risky, and illegal strategies, like manipulating world events to suit your portfolio?

Wouldn’t it be a lot easier and less complicated, and more of a sure thing simply to tell your investment manager to buy Lockheed and Short Boeing yesterday?

That sure as hell seems a lot simpler easier and safer than the rather paranoid scenario drawn in the OP, does it not?

Especially consider that lots of opportunities like that are constantly available to the President of the US.

The only other problem is that it’s still quite easy to get caught.

The best way to get around this of course, is not to do the activity in either your or your family’s interests or holdings.

So, even if we did have reason for suspicion, we would be looking in the wrong place if we examined Bush’s interests unless he or his managers were very very very stupid indeed.

No, if you want to do it, you need a third party.

You give the information to that third party, and let them make the profits. Let that third party take the risk with the actual transactions. A couple of years after the fact that third party pays you an outrageous fee for services you provide, and that serves to launder the money.

A really nice way to do this is if either you or your wife is a lawyer or owns a law firm. Failing that, you can use a law firm as your third party, but you still have to figure out what services you are going to render after the fact to collect your share of the split.

And, there’s need to start World War III to make your oodles of profits. If you have political power you can do it quite easily and much more safely over less obvious things than global affairs.

Real estate development, and zoning is one good way, or hell, you can simply do ACL commodity trades (Acount # later,) to filter the kickback if you don’t want to wait.

There are some really good recent examples of how to pull this kind of thing off quite brilliantly in recent political history if you catch my drift.

As you can see, the OP presents a pretty unlikely scenario. It is unfeasible, as well as stupid to attempt as stated especially considering the easier, more profitable, and safer alternatives available to an unscrupulous politician.

Not only is the OP speculating about a crime that hasn’t yet happened, it’s one that is unlikeley to occur for a variety of concrete reasons. Failing that, and assuming the crime could occur, the Op is suggesting that we look in the wrong place to find it.

In the face of such blinding ignorance and prejudice as we have faced, to combat such willfully irresponsible misinformation as has been disseminated, and to stamp out ignorance, and to bring attention to our otherwise completely ignored arguments is why others and myself have taken to the high seas and the merry life of the Freebooter.

190

Aaah, give the pirate shtick a rest, willya, Scylla?

You’re a Republican, for heavens sake, likeliest demographics white, middle-class, middle-aged, with even money on balding and paunchy. Pirate don’t wear shirts that smell like baby urp, nor are they sent on errands to fetch products for thier wives. The closest you’ll ever get to looting the Spanish Main is drinking beer and watching Nautical Naughties Vol. 6 on video. If Mrs. Scylla will let you. As to the rest of your “scurvy crew”, an advanced case of gingivitis does not a pirate make.

(Down periscope. Close outer doors on tubes one and two)

191

Just want to point something out here. Way back on page two of this train wreck, I posted, among other questions, the following :

These were directed specifically to the OP, who proceeded to completely ignore them.

Then, we see this.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stoid *
**

Say, Stoid, explain, please: did you have trouble understanding my questions as phrased?

And thanks, Manhattan for finally getting this person to at least acknowledge one of the many points of rebuttal in this discussion.

192

I am too a pirate!

193

I just saw here: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2001/10/26/107.html
that the binLaden family has severed its connection with the Carlyle Group- so I guess that’s all right, then. No really- it is. Absolutely AOK. Really. JDM

194

Back a ways, when she was actually attempting to debate, before she started merely accepting the kudos from her fans, Stoid said both of the following:

and

**

From a story today by the Associated Press:

Maybe he was just asking him about a good place to get Middle Eastern cuisine in Prague, right?

So, Stoid. Is this part of George W. Bush’s evil strategy to escalate the war? When did the government of the Czech Republic become puppets on the end of your president’s strings? Isn’t that giving an awful lot of credit to a person that you profess is a doofus?

The war will be escalated because the people and groups that are a threat to our national security don’t end with Osama bin Laden, aren’t all in al-Qaeda and aren’t all in Afghanistan.

Who ever said they were?

195

Heavens! The Czech Republic’s intelligence says this is so? Well, then it must be true, mustn’t it? I mean, when I review my profound and definitive knowledge of the Czech Republic’s intelligence services, clearly…

Oh, sorry. Turns out I don’t have encyclopedic knowledge of the aforementioned. Do you? Of course, I could be wrong about this, but might I conjecture that you do not? I think I will.

But lets just assume, just assume that it is true. Let pose a couple of scenarios. They meet, the conversation begins:

Iraqi guy: What do you want?
Al-Q guy: We’re going to thoroughly mess with America. Want in?
Iraqi guy: No. Last time we did, they tied a knot in our shorts. Screw around with them if you want, but leave us out. Don’t call me again.

Or perhaps:

Iraqi guy: What do you want?
Al-Queda guy: We’re going to hijack a couple of planes, blow up the WTC and the Pentagon.
Iraqi: Way cool! What do you want from us?
Al-Queda: Nothing, really, got all the guys in place, everything we need, just thought we would brag to our Iraqi brothers, whom we hold in the highest regard and just naturally want to share our secrets with. Say, don’t tell anyone, ok?
Iraqi: Us? Why, Heavens, no! Everybody in the Muslim world trusts us totally! Except maybe the Iranians, but they’re Shiites, you know. Not real Muslims like us! Or those camel-humping Saudi’s, with their Wahabi crapola…
Al-Q: We’re Wahabi.
Iraqi: Hey, nothing personal! Look, have a nice day, I’ll get the check.

Or:

Al-Q: We have decided to establish an Islamic governement in Iraq. Tell Saddam to move out, we’ll give him a week.
Iraqi: Allah Fong Gu!

Dumb? You betcha. We go down this road, the bumper stickers are gonna say "Support our Boys in Afghanistan! and Iraq! and Iran! and Chechnya! and Indonesia! And…(see next car)

As the Amish say, “Get thee a grip, dude”.

196

** El_Kabong **

I think perhaps the reason I ended up not answering you was this:

A) You weren’t willing to go get the cites yourself, and that ain’t quite fair. “Here, go get the cites for your position, now go get the cites for * mine, too. *”
B) And, you said, “ask yourself”, not “tell me”. So I just skimmed over it.

But I’ll take a crack at it:

A) 12 years ago.
B) Bush Daddy, not Bush Baby
C) I don’t know that he had much choice. I seem to recall that what a large number of people wanted was to push the war right into Iraq and topple Saddam, but in the end it was seen as impossible. The war was purportedly about removing Saddam from Kuwait, period. Once that was done, pushing it further was unjustifiable. Also nearly impossible, since we probably would have lost what little support we had there to begin with.
D) We couldn’t just let bygones be bygones and back to business as usual. Saddam had been established as our enemy and one evil dude. So we hadda do somethin’. But the only thing left in our toolbox was sanctions and embargos.
E) I’m not claiming that any Bush and every Bush will just use the office of president to get what they want no matter what. I’m saying it’s not at all impossible to believe that GW could try to kill a few birds, some of which are in his Daddy’s and his contributor’s portfolio’s, with one war.

  1. Dunno yet.

  2. GWB didn’t become president on his good looks. He owes lots of people. He’s friends with lots of people. Many of those people are interested in a pipline in Afghanistan. If GW opens the way for them, he’s done them a solid, no question.

Finally, Manhattan “got me” to answer in the simplest, most elegant possible way: he wrote a civilized, impersonal post.

Stoid

197

After reading this singularly unenlightening piece of shit thread, I thought I might add a comment.

First, I’m not fan of Bush. I rather consider him to be fairly dim and unimaginative.

Second, I detest knee-jerk ideologues as epitomes of ignorance by choice. I detested and still detest the rabid Clinton haters – you know who you are. I also detest the emmerging knee-jerk Bush haters for the same reason. I believe the OP knows who she is.

While I disagree with the politics of the conservatives in the thread and am all for a critical examination of current policy, I also completely support their critiques of the OP and subsequent respones. Aggressive ideologically driven ignorance is the only word for it.

Some people are no better than what they criticize.

Now, I offer two works for those who might actually desire a factually based understanding of the energy business as it concerns the MENA region. Mitchel et al The New Economy of Oil: Impacts on business, geopolitics and society London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2001. Something I just picked up in the process of educating myself about the economics and political economy of the issue. Second, Dag Harald Claes The Politics of Oil-Producer Cooperation: the political economy of global interdependence Westview Press, 2001. Both are rigorous, economically informed analyses devoid of the usual idiocies and well-informed by a rounded understanding of the politics and economics of the resources.

I’ve rather enjoyed going through them. They should help dispel paranoid myths about oil, OPEC etc etc. which seem to inform the OP’s magical understanding of the issue.

198

Well, no - I did say “when (the President) is up to no good”. Lying under oath comes under my definition of “no good”. So does sexual harassment.

I suppose you could make a case that we need to ignore even such violations during wartime, but I probably would not agree. I thought Clinton tried some such argument when he was being sued for sexual harassment, that it should be postponed until after he left office because he was so busy being President he didn’t have the time to testify.

Didn’t fly terribly well.

The hell with it, anyway. I for one am perfectly willing to let Clinton get away with his last set of moral lapses (the sale of pardons and trashing the White House) if he will just go away.

I was talking about being in wartime, as I think most of us were. Yes, I think the rules are different. Politics should end at the water’s edge, as it is said to do, and during wartime as well. We need, as I said before, to pull together on this.

Geez, Stoid, I am not sure what it is about you. No matter what you post, you can always get a thread going.

Regards,
Shodan

199

Well, no, I was referring to this, which is the whole quote:

Shame, ** shame ** on you, Shodan! Repeating discredited slander! For shame I tell you!

By the way, could you give a detailed definition of “just go away”? He’s gone. He’s living his life. He has nothing to do with you. Where is he that you want him to “go away” from? Earth? Do you want him to die?

You might wanna define “wartime”, too. It’s not like all the men between 16 and 26 are being shipped off to smash the Kaiser, or we’re struggling to stretch our meat and sugar rations as women rivet together ships and planes for our boys at the front.

We’re dumping bombs on a virtually defenseless country that was already barely out of the 10th century as a means of smoking out the Saudi version of Timothy McVeigh. That’s the war that we have to stop questioning the president for? Nah.

It’s a gift. :cool:

Regards to you,

Stoid

200

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Shodan *
**

**

Shodan at last! I’ve been waiting so long for this! Oh, goody! Totally blatant, no holds barred, Katie bar the door right wing hooey! Yowzah!

So, whats your take on Bush Sr. pardoning a couple of his very own co-conspirators in the Iran-Contra mess just before they might have been forced to testify? Got any problem with that, considering your high standards of conduct unbecoming? Lets see now, an unproven assertion that William Jefferson Clinton pardoned a stock weasel for money, as compared to the direct contravention of an act of Congress specificly stating “the Contra’s get no money. Period. End of discussion”. And they did. You know they did, I know they did.

And my personal, all-time favorite for sheer penny-ante slurs: the trashing of the White House, which was argued vociferously on this very board. Now, where did we leave it? Ponder, ponder. Ah, yes, now I recall. Ari Fleisher, the bald Ron Ziegler, last said that they were compiling the evidence and would release it as soon as they were done. Compiling. Assembling. All this evidence. Let’s see now, it has been…1, 2, 3, about 10 months now. And they are still compiling. Boy, sure must be a lot of evidence, huh, Shodan I mean, when they get done, sure not gonna be any doubt, cause they’re still compiling all that evidence. Stop, you’re killing me! [Bugs]“It is to laugh”[/Bugs]

No, wait! It gets better! Damn! “Sexual harrassment” Come on, companero that’s too rich! Monica “Lips” Lewinski was sexually harrassed! Oh, my stars and garters!
There was innocent, chaste Ms. Monica, traipsing through the White House in her Smurf thong undies, on her way to Grandmother’s house, when who should loom out of the shadows but…Da Big Bad Bill! Soon, the same dread fate befell her as befell sweet, innocent Paula Jones, the Heidi of the Ozarks!!

I can’t go on, I might bust something internally.

But thanks again. That was better than a six-pack and a bong!