Who Bought Bush’s Stock?

Written by Christopher Caldwell on . Posted in Miscellaneous, Posts.



"How
can Mr. Bush crack the whip on Big Business," asks The New York
Times
’ Maureen Dowd, "when he’s a wholly owned subsidiary
of it?" Before we journalists batter our way into the crack den that is
American business corruption, can we come to an agreement that we won’t
deploy cliches? When people say "wholly owned subsidiary," what on
earth do
they mean?
If one entity is "wholly owned" by another, isn’t it by definition
subsidiary to it?



But not
even bad prose can obscure that the corporate scandals are hatching a catastrophe
for Republicans. They will probably destroy this administration. Let’s
dispose of the red herrings first. The President’s sale of $850,000 in
Harken Energy stock, just days before it tanked in 1990, is not going
to get him in trouble for insider trading. Yes, his sale came just eight days
before Harken announced a weak quarter–but for an insider-trading rap to
be proved, it must be shown that President Bush had "material information."
He is not criminally culpable for having known, as a board member, that his
company was spiraling down the toilet. And, yes, the stock’s value fell
from $4 a share when he sold it to a dollar and change just weeks later. But
it also later rose to $8. Harken see-sawed enough that it will never be certain
whether Bush bailed out or "sold into good news," as his spokeswoman
Karen Hughes has always insisted.


What kills
the President is that every time Harken comes up, Democrats get to retell the
story of how he made his money. And this, basically, is the story of the spectacular
unfairness with which moneymaking opportunities are lavished on the politically
connected. It is the story of a man who has been rewarded for repeated failures
by having money shot at him through a fire hose. It is the story of a man who
talks with a straight face about having "earned" a fortune of tens
of millions of dollars, without having ever done an honest day’s work in
his life.


Let’s
retell that story as briefly as we can. Bush started an oil company called Arbusto
in the late 1970s. He was driving it into the ground when, in 1982, he was rescued
by Philip Uzielli, a Princeton crony of his dad’s troubleshooter James
Baker. Uzielli invested a million dollars in Arbusto, which was then worth less
than $500,000. In return, he got 10 percent interest in the company. No, that’s
not a misprint. Mismatches between equity and ownership–always in Dubya’s
favor–are a hallmark of our President’s financial rise.


Even after
Uzielli’s turbocharging, Arbusto was going under. Before it did, it "merged"
with a company called Spectrum 7, which took on Bush as head executive. As that
company, too, nose-dived, Harken Energy proved unaccountably eager to "merge"
with it. It offered a half-million dollars in stock and $120,000 a year to get
the Vice President’s son on the board. It also "loaned" Bush
hundreds of thousands of dollars below prime rate.


Weeks after
his father was elected president, Bush got involved in the purchase of the Texas
Rangers. He would eventually sell his Harken shares to cover the loan that allowed
him to help buy the team. He put up under 2 percent of the purchase price ($606,000
out of $46 million), but the deal called for him to be given almost 12 percent
of the stock, once the other partners cleared their initial investments. Generous
of them! In 1998 Bush sold his stake in the team–pumped up by a $135-million
publicly-financed-but-privately-owned stadium, bestowed as a gift from the taxpayers
of Arlington, TX–for $15 million.


For decades
now, the "small government" Republican Party has been slamming the
corrupt conduct of, say, trial lawyers who just suck money out of the economy
and put it in their pockets in the name of the ideal of "representing the
little guy." When they talk this way, I’m all ears. But, Jesus, this
is what they have to offer in its place?


It is no
use to say this is an old story and that people don’t care about this stuff.
In the flush times leading up until the 2000 elections, it’s true, voters
were indifferent. But as soon as people start seeing their pension funds decimated
by collapsing stock values, they simply cannot get enough of it. Don’t
take my word for it. CBS polled voters last week and found 42 percent paying
"a lot" of attention, and 37 percent paying "some." That’s
a total of 79 percent, a huge number–higher than the 70 percent who paid
attention to the Clinton sex revelations in the very first days the news broke
in January 1998.


What’s
more, Americans believe the corruption is not a matter of a few bad apples but
a society-wide state of affairs. While it’s certainly true that Martha
Stewart has been scapegoated by bourgeois-hating radicals and feminist hags,
who see in her punctiliousness and house-pride an assault on their lifestyle,
the message Americans take from her insider-trading troubles is that if you
scratch a rich person–any rich person–you’ll find some kind of
game-rigging and corporate corruption. To CBS’ question, "Do you think
U.S. executives are honest?" the answer was No, by 67 percent to
27.


Where institutional
dishonesty is suspected, a particular kind of political outrage results–the
kind that is resistant to sweet talk. Last week, President Bush tried to tell
us that corporate corruption might have had the silver lining of making us a
more ethical people. "I believe people have taken a step back," he
said, "and asked, ‘What’s important in life? You know, the bottom
line and this corporate America stuff, is that important? Or is serving your
neighbor, loving your neighbor like you’d like to be loved yourself?’"
No decent human being could disagree. But no half-intelligent human being could
fail to note that such things are a lot easier to say when you’ve already
banked your own 30 or 50 mil.


There is
no end to the political hay Democrats can make with corporate corruption. Ron
Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times suggests this as a campaign line:
"Do you want to turn over your Social Security to the same people who gave
us WorldCom and Enron?" Howard Wolfson, the former Hillary campaign flack
who’s now the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,
is tutoring his candidates on ways to link the finance scandals to everything–schools,
prescription drugs, Social Security, you name it.


There is
nothing protecting the President from electoral vulnerability except the fact
that we’re at war. And this is where Bush’s sale of Harken stock takes
an interesting twist. The important issue might not be when he sold it
but who bought it. This is information that Senate Democrats are seeking
desperately; Bush refuses to reveal it, and it is not even clear if the Securities
and Exchange Commission knows the buyer’s identity from its insider trading
investigation. If they know, they haven’t released it.


But let’s
speculate. An editorial on Harken in last week’s Wall Street Journal
noted "interesting Saudi connections on the finance side." One of
Bush’s early investors in Arbusto was James Bath, agent of Salem bin Laden
(Osama’s half-brother) in the United States. (This is not proof, as certain
left-wing publications have implied, that Bath’s money was the bin Ladens’
to begin with.) In the months after Bush came onto the Harken board, according
to a 1999 Journal report, a Saudi financier named Abdullah Taha Bakhsh
bought a 17 percent stake in the company. Bakhsh’s American representative
Talat Othman was given a seat on the board and met with then-President Bush
at the White House. And the "good news" into which now-President Bush
claimed to be selling his Harken shares was an oil-exploration deal with the
government of Bahrain–a total (but lucrative) flop that was arranged despite
Harken’s never having done any foreign oil exploration before. In fact,
the ex-president’s ne’er-do-well son appears to have been used by
the Harken board as "Arab bait," much as Democrats sold the promise
of photographs with Clinton family nobodies for cash from Asian businessmen.
("Rook! That’s me with Lodger Crinton!")


To be fair
(if only for a moment), back in the early 1990s, Saudi Arabia was known as our
unsavory but solid longtime ally against communism, not as the gang of rich
fascists who spawned Al Qaeda and are now obstructing our war against it. But
until the identity of the Harken purchaser is revealed, probing the issue will
be a no-lose situation for the Democrats. They can ask whether George Bush’s
fortune has its roots in Arab oil money. They can ask whether the corrupt Bank
of Credit and Commerce International was involved. They can ask why it was that
the entire bin Laden clan was allowed to be flown out of the country in the
immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. They won’t accuse Bush of
intentionally bungling the war on terror to please the Saudis. But they may
note that it was tragic that, at a time when thousands of Americans were murdered
by extremists whose only ultimate means of support was oil, we had an oil man
in the White House.


..