CNN: White House April 2000 Terrorism report DOES NOT EVEN MENTION Al Quaeda.

Stop getting your "facts" from the left-wing propaganda sites. They have a habit of leaving some very pertinent facts out of their stories. And try staying on the subject of the post, not going off on some wild tangent.

If you want the whole story of Bush's Harken stock transactions with the leftist spin undone try Beware the Scandal Mongers. If you think for one second, if this story had any legs it would not have been top of the hour, front page news in the liberal media you have been living under a rock.

First, I realize we've strayed off topic, but it began when you sounded off on Harken and George Soros. The paragraph that I contributed was in relation to Salem bin Laden and Khaled bin Mahfouz and their connection to funding Harken to help keep it afloat. This relates to the Saudi sources of funding for al Qaeda, which is at least related to the topic. Another source* says that, "Khaled bin Mahfouz is indirectly linked to George W. Bush through (Sheikh) Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, a Saudi investor and partner of Mahfouz and Ghaith Pharaon. Bakhsh became an 11.5% shareholder in Harken Energy Corp. in 1987." There is also a connection outlined through James R. Bath, a Texas financiar, who invested in Bush's Arbusto 79 Ltd. and Arbusto 80 Ltd. oil companies to help get them off the ground. James Bath was the U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden and also the legal representative for Mafouz. So it agrees with my original source.
*Forbidden Truth, by Brisard & Dasquie (2002).

Second, I scanned several sources to get information about Harken, Soros, and Bush. I contributed straightforward information. I didn't deny that Soros was a major shareholder at one time. I didn't deny that Bush was not a major shareholder.

Third, I didn't say that Bush was guilty of insider trading. That story does not have legs, as you point out. I said he had a habit of reporting stock transactions late to the SEC, which was something the SEC noted. I also said he used his position to "loan" himself money from the company and never repay it. I said Harken was struggling company while Bush was there, yet he made a lot of money in ways he later said himself are wrong. Bush was actually on the "restructuring" committee, that is he worked on restructuring Harken's debt because they were in bad financial straits.

Fourth, there are many other details to the Harken story that I didn't go into before in an effort to keep this off-topic exchange brief. I've read the SEC report on Bush's stock deal. I read your "Beware the Scandal Mongers," which was pretty sparse and provided only slivers of useful information (trying to discredit Paul Krugman). I have not read Krugman's articles about Harken, by the way, so that wasn't one of my sources of information.

The information I supplied was to discredit the propaganda from your link at cooperativeresearch.net. About all I saw at that site was a gathering of left wing conspiracy theories. That’s why I called it propaganda. It was a cluster of seemingly related facts pasted together with a generous amount of conjecture to imply a dark conspiracy linking Bush to terrorist funding.

Now you reference the book Forbidden Truth, by Brisard & Dasquie. So I checked it out on Amazon and here is what they have from a Publishers Weekly review:

Among their more surprising charges (though they admit there is no direct evidence of the links) is that scandal-ridden BCCI-of which one of bin Laden's brothers-in-law is a former top executive-"is now at the center of [bin Laden's] financial network," supporting him with an intricate chain of business, banking and family ties. Other points-such as the implication that Bush administration officials have some guilt in the September 11 attacks because they worked for oil companies that had dealings with Saudi oil companies and had an interest in oil pipelines running through Afghanistan-rely also on heavily circumstantial evidence.

So, let me get these red herrings straight, Salem bin Laden and Khaled bin Mahfouz were funding Harken to help keep it afloat. You have already listed 3 major investors (George Soros - 1/3, the Harvard Management Fund - 1/3, and Sheikh Abdullah Bakhsh – 11.5 %). Along with Bush’s share, and any other non-terrorist investors you haven’t listed, there doesn’t seem to be much left for bin Laden and Mahfouz to be considered “major investors” as your first posting regarding this claimed. Add to that, the authors of the book admit there is no direct evidence to link Bush to the Saudi investors. This link was between Salem bin Laden (who died in 1988) and Bush’s friend Mr. Bath.

So Bush is guilty of filing some late reports with the SEC, knowing someone who had dealings with someone with a last name of bin Laden, and a questionable loan which has surely been thoroughly investigated. Wow.

If you’re interested, Mr. Brisard, coauthor of your referenced book, testified before the Senate Banking Committee on terrorism financing. The only red herring mentioned in your references that appears in his testimony was Mahfouz.

Be careful when reading those conspiracy theories. They use much more conjecture than fact.

Just for the sake of consistency, let's give the whole review from Publisher's Weekly. We value giving the whole story so as to not be simply spinning it, right?
There's a lot that's intriguing in this examination of the economic links between the United States and Middle East oil and the diplomatic side of the war on terrorism-but this expos occasionally suffers from insinuations that outstrip the evidence presented. The authors, both French intelligence experts, attempt to detail how "political channels, financial networks, oil stakes and secret diplomatic deals" helped support Osama bin Laden and his band of fundamentalist terrorists. They do spell out how worldwide Islamic charities helped fund terrorism and the fact that al-Qaeda received substantial funds from Saudi sources. Relying on both primary and secondary sources, the authors also add nuance to our understanding of the situation, noting, for example, that Libya, after an assassination attempt against Khadafy, was the first country to issue a warrant for bin Laden's arrest, in 1998. Among their more surprising charges (though they admit there is no direct evidence of the links) is that scandal-ridden BCCI-of which one of bin Laden's brothers-in-law is a former top executive-"is now at the center of [bin Laden's] financial network," supporting him with an intricate chain of business, banking and family ties. Other points-such as the implication that Bush administration officials have some guilt in the September 11 attacks because they worked for oil companies that had dealings with Saudi oil companies and had an interest in oil pipelines running through Afghanistan-rely also on heavily circumstantial evidence. This was a bestseller in France, but here it may be buried in the flood of September 11 books. (Sept. 20)

Then, there is a little confusion about Bakhsh and Mahfouz.

Along with Bush’s share, and any other non-terrorist investors you haven’t listed, there doesn’t seem to be much left for bin Laden and Mahfouz to be considered “major investors” as your first posting regarding this claimed.

Bakhsh held 11.5% of Harken Energy. Mahfouz was Bakhsh's business partner, thus he shared in this business holding. Salem bin Laden was connected more indirectly, through business associations and again through Mahfouz, who's sister married Osama bin Laden. So, I don't think that these are red herrings. Also, it turns out that Bush was the third largest, non-institutional investor in Harken.

And then there is the matter of Bush's $180k loan to himself that he never paid back. This is something the President of the United States has condemned as an unethical if not illegal business practice.

Bush criticized such corporate loans during his speech Tuesday, when he offered proposals to tighten the accountability of corporate executives. "I challenge compensation committees to put an end to all company loans to corporate officers," he said.

A senior administration official, briefing reporters on Bush's plan, said that Bush wants public companies to ban loans to their officers, including directors. "Corporate officers should not be able to treat a public company like their own personal bank," the official said.
(Washington Post Thursday, July 11, 2002)

I believe the article is mainly referring to the 2000 report, and making comparisons with the 1999 (last year) report. The reference to Colin Powell is because the article was actually written in April 2001.

Yeah,but the Communist News Network and their brethren will once again count on the overwhelming ignorance of the('rat) populace.

You’re beating a dead horse. Nothing in your post provides any more facts to support the implied connection between Bush and Mahfouz or bin Laden. Nor does it make your prior posts any more credible. Saying "Mahfouz was Bakhsh's business partner, thus he shared in this business holding" is like saying Bush was Soros’ business partner and shared in his other holdings.

It's obvious that this is going nowhere.

Feisty Jim Angle ping!!

Saying "Mahfouz was Bakhsh's business partner, thus he shared in this business holding" is like saying Bush was Soros’ business partner and shared in his other holdings.

It's obvious that this is going nowhere.

I disagree that those two things are the same. Mahfouz and Bakhsh being business partners is a legal relationship. Bush and Soros and Bakhsh coincidentally being shareholders in the same company is not a monetary and legal relationship, and they were not business partners. They did share a common interest in the operations of Harken Energy.

I agree that this is going nowhere, although I did learn a couple of interesting things through your points and some checking I did. Have a good weekend.

bump

?....South Asia.....does NOT.....NEVER-EVER.....to include connections to the Philippines Islands areas.....?

/banking gulag..........

(Keep the....'INS'....out of this......tourist businesssss$$$$$$)