Bush advisers cashed in on Saudi gravy train

Boston Herald ^ | Tuesday, December 11, 2001 | by Maggie Mulvihill, Jack Meyers and Jonathan Wells

[michaelje]

The Boston Herald is considered one of Boston's right-of-center newspaper. Interesting article.

[michaelje]

Ping.

[Maceman]

The Boston Herald is considered one of Boston's right-of-center newspaper.

It is on the editorial page, but their political news stories are always grade-A prime left.

[michaelje]

Compared to the Boston Globe ?

Politicially, they have been a pro-Bush paper well before 9/11.

[kaboom]

To summarize...past US officials with ties to President Bush are conducting business with Saudi's, and the author of this article cannot provide proof that it is improper or that there is a conflict of interest directly impacting the President's decision making.

[danneskjold]

To summarize...past US officials with ties to President Bush are conducting business with Saudi's, and the author of this article cannot provide proof that it is improper or that there is a conflict of interest directly impacting the President's decision making.

In other words...much ado about nothing...

[Wphile]

Ho hum...trying to kick the same darn can again. The Dems always resort to the same playbook.

[WhiteGuy]

The public has a right to feel their leaders are making independent judgments without the influence of private interests.

I can count on one hand the number of our "leaders" who might not be doing the bidding of their "campaign donors"

or "future employers"

[meenie]

To summarize further, this country and government was not founded to advance the cause of business. When business and government unite and form political relationships, the term is called fascism.

Any deviation from this in the form of influencing elections or officials, ie. political campaign financing, revolving doors from government to corporations, is called corruption.

The same can be said of the other side of the coin in the labor organizations and their lackeys in the Congress. No artificial personalities, corporate or organization, should be able to influence elections or officials in a perfect republic.

Alas, this is a dream, and we have to put up with the tainted forms of corruption and favoritism.

[Maceman]

Compared to the Boston Globe ? Politicially, they have been a pro-Bush paper well before 9/11.

I guess you haven't noticed Andrew Miga's political reporting (not a reporter on this story). His "news articles" on Bush since before the election read like they were written by Al Hunt.

[michaelje]

Yeah Miga is a leftist. But perhaps you havent read columns by:

Howie Carr, Cosmo Macero, Don Feder (editorial), and JM Lawrence

[drjimmy]

These intricate personal and financial links have led to virtual silence in the administration on Saudi Arabia's failings in dealing with terrorists like bin Laden, said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog group.
I daresay that the majority of Freepers understand and have commented on the connections between Saudi Arabia and the terrorists. Is Lewis correct that the administration has been largely silent on that subject, and if it has been silent, does anyone here have a better reason why?

[scottiewottie]

To extend this even further, this editorial neglects the prospect of leverage. The ruling Saudi family is dependent upon US investment and resources that cannot be found elsewhere. The Saudi family must cooperate with the US and allies at the peril of distrust of their own population. The cooperation we have with Saudi Arabia would be non-existent without investment ties to the US. The more influence we have upon Saudi business, the more cooperation we will gain from them.

[scottiewottie]

Both your points in #9 and mine in #13 are correct. Investment in Saudi Arabia in the context of fascism, actually permits foreign nations to purchase our electorate and gain benefits from our government that we as citizens cannot.

[scottiewottie]

Is Lewis correct that the administration has been largely silent on that subject, and if it has been silent, does anyone here have a better reason why?

The silence is more of a political courtesy, since both parties leverage financial support by the same means. Because of this relationship both parties, try to keep such discussion out of the main stream press. The party in charge of the executive branch, be it Democrat or Republican, usually will have the edge.

[scottiewottie]

Miga's political perspective is irrelevant. Certain facts are presented that by themselves are important. I certainly do not agree with his myopic attack of only this administration, but the facts are stark on their own. The same case of profiteering could be made with the Clinton Administration. Both parties use foreign investment to leverage support, that is where Miga's integrity is waning.

[Maceman]

Yeah Miga is a leftist. But perhaps you havent read columns by: Howie Carr, Cosmo Macero, Don Feder (editorial), and JM Lawrence

Of course I have read them. But they are opinion columnists. Left wing bias isn't about opinion columnists -- it's about NEWS coverage. Miga's articles are always on the front page, and are disgraceful.

[drjimmy]

The more influence we have upon Saudi business, the more cooperation we will gain from them.
That influence and cooperation have gotten us lots of oil and a few thousand dead people at the hands of terrorists. Oh, and a few folks at the higher echelons of both political parties a few million dollars.