For President Bush to pretend to be shocked that some of the nation's top executives
deal from a stacked deck is akin to a madam feigning surprise that sexual favors
have been sold in her establishment. Dubya may have gaps in his education, but
ignorance of "aggressive accounting" techniques and other scams they don't teach
in Biz 101 is not one of them.
Not only was the prez and ex-businessman himself a pro at milking failed corporations
he made look good on paper, but too many family members, friends and members of
his administration have been implicated in scandals of the sort he now condemns.
For Bush to argue that the unraveling of corporate America is the work of a "few
bad apples" is a dangerous line of reasoning for him because an embarrassing number
of those apples have fallen very close to the tree of his presidency.
For example, the troubles of Vice President Dick Cheney are just beginning;
the dubious accounting practices initiated at Halliburton when he was CEO are
now the focus of a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. The SEC is
forced to investigate this and other potential business outrages despite the extreme
reluctance of its chairman, Harvey L. Pitt--who was selected for the job by George
W. himself after a career as a top lobbyist for stock brokers and accounting firms
that opposed tough SEC regulation. Cheney has also steadfastly refused to turn
over the names of energy corporation officials, including Enron executives, who
guided him in the secret meetings in which Bush's energy plan was crafted. Bush
still seems not the least embarrassed that Enron's chairman, Kenneth Lay, was
a personal friend and the largest contributor to his presidential campaign.
Enron alums remain safely ensconced at the top of the Bush administration.
Special prosecutor, anyone? Clearly, the antics of the Texas crowd make the petty
shenanigans of the Clintons and those Arkansas boys look like the work of small-time
hustlers.
When the president once referred to himself as the black sheep of the Bush
family, it was a joshing, self-congratulatory admission that he was even more
rascally than the rest. That ever-charming "what me worry'' quality stood him
in good stead as he ran through the money of numerous family friends who invested
in a long string of his losing ventures.
George W. was saved from repeated financial disaster by one merger after another,
business maneuvers that made no economic sense to the new partner beyond the acquisition
of the presumed clout of the son of a Central Intelligence Agency chief turned
vice president turned president.
The final such deal was with Harken Energy, a firm that bailed out Bush's Spectrum
7 Energy Corp., which owed the banks $2 million. Bush's political connections
appeared to pay off when Harken, which had zero experience drilling in water,
suddenly won a contract with the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Bahrain for offshore
oil exploration, which in turn boosted Harken's stock.
However, the company failed to find oil in Bahrain, and insiders like Bush
knew that banks were refusing to continue to carry Harken's considerable debt.
Bush cashed out for nearly $850,000 before the company reported a $22-million
loss and the stock lost 75% of its value.
Bush, who failed to properly report the transaction to the SEC until eight
months after the deadline, was on the audit committee of Harken's board of directors
but denied knowing of the upcoming negative quarterly report. He also claimed
ignorance of a shell game in which Harken insiders purchased one of the company's
major subsidiaries with money provided by Harken, fabricating a $10-million profit.
In the end, Bush was spared the fate of some other free-wheeling financial
hustlers--insider trading charges--by a compliant SEC. It certainly couldn't have
hurt that the SEC's then-chairman was appointed by Bush's father and that the
SEC general counsel had been Dubya's own lawyer in 1989.
How can Bush now, with a straight face, tell the nation that he will order
the SEC to brand as criminals those guilty of the same sorts of actions? As a
matter of consistency, he should in the very least demand that Martha Stewart,
a comparative innocent when judged by Bush family standards, be treated no more
harshly than he was.
Indeed, if justice were consistent, Stewart, and perhaps even Lay, might be
planning a run for the presidency.
Robert Scheer writes a syndicated column.
Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times
###
