Thursday, March 30, 2006 11:06 AM
“The answer is that the Bush family loves rich Arabs.”
Gary, there is no way on earth you could really be that stupid. Argue about his policies, debate his programs, that’s all well and good. But this…..it’s unworthy even of you.
Comment by Jim Stegall — March 1, 2006 @ 6:01 pm
From the book, Fortunate Son, by J.H. Hatfield, “Ironically, the money used to underwrite the first business venture of a future president of the United States may have been derived at least in part, from the family fortune of Saudi terrorist, Osama Bin Ladin.”
In June, 1977, George Bush formed his own company, Arbusto Energy. James R. Bath, Texas businessman, who also was suspended from the Air National Guard at Ellington along with
Bush for “failure to accomplish annual medical examinations,” was an original investor in Arbusto.
“According to news reports, in a 1976 trust agreement drawn shortly after Bush’s father was appointed director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Saudi Sheik Salem M. bin Laden appointed Bath as his business representative in Texas. … Bath also swore that in 1977 he represented four prominent and wealthy Saudi Arabians as a trustee and used his name on their investments in the United States.”
After initially denying that he hardly even knew Bath, “the release of tax documents and personal financial records forced George W. Bush to admit that Bath had indeed been one of Arbusto Energy’s original investors.”
skip to Bush’s next failed business venture, Harken … “When the Oil and Gas Journal reported that Harken has won the exlusive rights to drill in Bahrain, questions were raised by the media as to whether the contract - believed to be possibly quite profitable - was an attempt by the Arab country to curry favor with the Bush Administration through the president’s older son, who sat on the oil company’s board of directors.”
There is more. Arab money and the Bush family have nested together over the years like two peas in a pod.
Comment by Valerie Sumner — March 2, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
oops - typo - “exclusive” - sorry
Comment by Valerie Sumner — March 2, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
So everyone who starts a business which draws rich Arabs as investors, even through a third party, “loves rich Arabs,” and there is something intrinsically wrong with that?
Tell us, Ms. Sumner, do you have a retirement account? Is it properly diversified? Do some of the companies in your portfolio do business in the Arab world? Do you think that some ‘rich Arabs’ might be invested in some of those companies? Do you work for a company in which some ‘rich Arabs’ may have bought stock? How about your family, do any of these conditions obtain with respect to their finances? If so, welcome to the community of ‘rich Arab’ lovers that Mr. Pearce and yourself have described.
Of course if you think that doing business with wealthy persons of Arab descent is morally or ethically wrong, and you and your family have avoided all such dealings, however tangentially, then I suppose you are on solid ground to criticize. But I still think it’s a silly criticism.
Comment by Jim Stegall — March 2, 2006 @ 10:06 pm
Dear Mr. Stegall … As I am as poor as a church mouse, I bow to your superior knowledge about today’s diversified portfolios. And I believe you made some good points about business being a global affair these days. Thank you.
I can’t help wondering how confusing and frightening this port deal may be for those “Christian” Republicans, who sent to me all those anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, anti-Iraqi emails thinking they were just being good, patriotic Bush followers.
It is frightening to me that another government, not company, as I hear it, may be in charge somewhat of our ports. What is your opinion on that? Do you feel comfortable with the Dubai port takeover? Why? or why not? I look forward to hearing your answer.
P.S. Please don’t call people “stupid” for raising questions or making comments that you don’t like. That Bill O’Reilly tactic is so yesterday.
Comment by Valerie Sumner — March 3, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
I would never call Mr. Pearce stupid. I think what happens here is he often tries to slip some shakey arguements past us, mostly because that’s what people in his line of work (including Mr. Wrenn) get paid to do, but also because he thinks that the rest of us aren’t smart enough to catch it. When I see him doing that I call him on it.
Yes, many of President Bush’s supporters (former supporters now?) have turned against him on the issue of the ports deal. I can certainly understand why. The media is reporting on something that most of them don’t really understand (I’m still learning the ins and outs of this myself) and many of them are taking the easy way out by framing the story in the most dramatic terms, regardless of accuracy. So far I haven’t learned anything conclusive about any danger this deal may pose to our security–if I had, I would be dead set against it in a heartbeat. I can’t say that I’m ‘comfortable’ with it yet (I’m not comfortable with the fact that there seem to be very few American companies capable of or interested in bidding on this kind of work), but I think that the reasons to go ahead with it outweigh (so far) the reasons not to.
Of all the public commentary I’ve heard, I think John McCain hit it just about right when he said we should all just calm down, not jump to conclusions, and figure this thing out.
Comment by Jim Stegall — March 3, 2006 @ 5:06 pm