June 28, 2002
Restating the Obvious: George and Martha
by Tom Rhule
By now, there is little doubt that Martha Stewart was unfortunate to have had the good sense to sell off her shares of ImClone Systems Inc. just before they plummeted. As the SEC -- very publicly -- threatens to broaden investigations, the media continuously runs this story, seriously undermining public confidence in Ms. Stewart's Home Decorating company. Her companies' stocks have declined around 25% since that story first surfaced.
It may well be that Martha Stewart dodged her bullet by dropping some stocks at an opportune moment. However, if she took unfair advantage of insider knowledge, let her pay the fine. Big deal.
But, isn't anyone curious why the SEC and the national media continue to grind on this story, possibly until Martha Stewart completely loses her viability? Why do they even care? All she did was try to limit her losses.
I have a theory.
There is (was) an obvious connection between ENRON and the Bush administration, which will become evident just as soon as the SEC, or a Congressional Committee, or anyone in the media, simply look at when the Bush camp got rid of their Enron stocks.
Why won't the pit bull press or the SEC "think" to look into when either Neil or George (Sr.) Bush dumped their Enron holdings? Also, why won't they look into when any of the many members of the Bush Administration, who held large amounts of Enron stock, did the same?
As the pit bulls very publicly tear into Ms. Stewart's assets, we're being distracted from a revelation of far greater evil. While top Enron execs bailed with huge sums of cash and deposited it in various offshore banks, they left the rank-and-file to crash and burn with their gutted company retirement fund. Although this is widely recognized as one of the worst insider acts of the 21st century (thus far), let us not forget the incredible amount of influence top execs at Enron had over official U.S. Energy policymaking, to the detriment of California and the rest of the U.S.
So, why would anyone suspect the Bush family of taking unfair advantage?
There is, of course, the matter of brother Neil Bush's Silverado Savings and Loan, and the subsequent bailout by Poppy Bush. And what about the four (FOUR!) times that George W. Bush violated SEC laws in connection with Harken, another Energy Company, and the suspected Poppy cover-up connection? And let's not forget about the Bush (Sr.)/Carlyle/Bin Laden affiliation. Poppy's Carlyle Group will forever enjoy the spoils of his son's never ending war on terror.
My theory is that Martha Stewart is merely a distraction, a temporary scapegoat for the Bush family's scurrilous big business dealings with Enron and other campaign financiers. We all remember when Dubya promised to "run the country like a CEO."
Besides, this Martha Stewart cover is already shopworn. So what's next? Another Gary Condit frenzy? Let's hang Arafat out to dry. Where's Monica? Dirty dirty DIRTY bomb.
Is it any wonder that the NASDAQ is convulsing like a crack baby?
* * *
