[Robert A Cook PE]

Because, uhmmmm, maybe because about two-three years later the stock that Bush had sold at around 3.00 per share was selling at a little OVER 8.00 per share?

Think THAT had anything to do with it?

This "stunning drop" that supposedly Bush had inside information on was a ONE DAY affair more than TWO MONTHS after his sale. It dropped, RECOVERED the next day to around the previous level, then much more slowly dropped over a period of several years until it got very high later. Why are you so "worried" about Bush's sale two prior to the drop than the sales and buys THAT DAY and the next - when the money was made?

I'd be inclined to say that BUSH was the foolish one because HE didn't hang on to the stock until it made 8.00 per share.

[rdb3]

G.W. did in fact lose money on this deal, which is why I'm wondering about all of the hoopla. I could see something if he would have made untold millions off of this deal, but he didn't.

Granted, the Left is still looking for something for this November's election. But what about those on the Right? What's their angle? And why on earth would they want to appear to be even slightly aiding and abetting the enemy (the Left)?

That doesn't make sense.

[DallasMike]

I'd be inclined to say that BUSH was the foolish one because HE didn't hang on to the stock until it made 8.00 per share.

Exactly. And RDavis ought to be a lot more curious about how Hillary managed to turn $1,000 into $100,000 the one and only time she tried investing in cattle futures. That's a real trick! Or about how Terry McAuliffe turned $100,000 investment in Global Crossing into $18 million right before they screwed their investors and went bankrupt.