[WRhine]

What I find interesting after reading the responses to this article is that no one commented directly about the charges that Bill Black and James Galbraith leveled against GW Bush and his family. The posts seemed to fall under three categories "this is a democrat hit piece", "bush was cleared of any technical improprieties", "everyone does it". After 8 years of railing against the Clintons and their legacy of crimes I find the remarks on this thread eerily familiar.

[Republican Wildcat]

We've already been through this a hundred times or more and refuted the lies you apparently endorse. What do you expect out of people after seeing this baloney over and over again other than the equivalent of a collective sigh?

[jwh_Denver]

I find the remarks on this thread eerily familiar.

The SEC did investigate GW Bush on this and did not charge him with anything. Though George Sr. was the Prez at the time.

The whole damn government is far more corrupt than these corporations they're going after.

[ArGee]

I would tend to agree with you, except that the piece is written as a hit piece without footnotes or otherwise citing sources with which we can disagree. For example, if I translate the paragraph about Bush correctly he:

1) Got a loan based on his shares of Harken stock
2) Was on the Harken board because his name was bush (which is connected to 1 how?)
3) Used the loan to buy the Texas Rangers (nothing illegal here)
4) Sold the Rangers at a profit (A-HAH! Now I see the allegation. Bush is a successful CAPITALIST. We must eviscerate him!!!!!!!!!)

Sorry, but I don't see what I'm supposed to refute.

Shalom.