Only if you assume wrongdoing. If he simply sold because he needed cash to pay off his loan, then it makes sense.
Having said that, I don't like cheats, period. But you'll have to do better than Krugmans klaptrap to convince me of that.
I don't think Bush's motive is legally relevant IF he had negative inside information that was publically available and subsequently ended up profiting from that information. What we don't know is whether the inside information was negative, and whether it in fact pushed the price down below what Bush sold at when it became public. We may never know that, given the pace of other events. The most exculpatory fact I think might be that the 10Q only depressed the stock price for one day, suggesting that it really didn't have an impact on the price after the information was absorbed.
What's Krugman got to do with this? I didn't reference him. If I want polemics I go to Krugman. But this isn't about polemics. It is about the evidentiary trail.