In " God has a Dream" by Bishop Desmond Tutu, he states that God loves our enemies as well as our friends. He also states that during the Apartheid era in South Africa that the white South Africans who tortured the black South Africans dehumanized them. As a result, white South Africans involved in the torture also became dehumanized.

When I learned that American soldiers had taken photos and videos of their torture of those Iraqi prisoners, I was reminded of Bishop Tutu's statement about dehumanization. The torturer and the tortured are both dehumanized by the process. May God forgive us Americans for our mistreatment of those Iraqi human beings.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2004

Answers

My Dear Brother God is good despite ourselves and your prayer is indeed most profound. I have seen some video of some of these acts and am very concerned for all service persons in the theater of operations. President Bush told the United Nations and the wrold he would go in alone after Sadam and his weapons of Mass Destruction. Now we have watched as the death-toll increases daily while these acts have been going on. The credibility of President I believe may be in its worse condition in his Presidency and such the intent of the American Government on Middle East Policy.

I continue to pray for you, your Government and your service personel engaged in thsi exercise as this will not end anytime soon. Sadly I believe what Bush has started will outlive his Presidency.

Blessings to you all

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2004

Jazzman, thank you for your post. It is very hard for me to respond because it is too painful to see what my government can do to a people. I well understand that Saddam did this to his people as well, but it is wrong for the USA to take such a high moral stand and then degrade humans as such. The pictures are obscene and just plain hateful to look at, and there are more that are even worse. This is a time to remind ourselves that God still sits on the throne.

2 Chronicles 7:14 - if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2004

A few questions. Were was the moral outrage when 4 Americans were killed and publicly displayed by Iraqi murderers last month? I don't recall a thread being started on this BB which pointed out those atrocities. Why the moral posturing now that a few MPs abused their duties? I simply fail to see the "we", "us Americans" and "USA" in this so-called crisis. The events at Abu Ghraib represent an abberration not the norm. TO implicate the greatest Army in the world due to actions of a few over zealous members is reckless, irresponsible and myopic. The MPs who were responsible for these abhorrent acts will be dealt with according to the Military Code of Justice. Who ever said the USA was perfect? This is aafterall war and sometimes the rules of engagement will be broken. Mistakes were made but I'm confident they will be corrected. Interrogating prisoners is a critical process to determine military intelligence in order to minimize death. This has been going on throughout the last 1/2 dozen major battles. Is anybody willing to offer a more humane and effective way to obtian intelligence data? Exposing these photos only compromises the security of captured American troops. Were the descriptions of Iraqi prisoners dehumanizing? Yes. Public ridicule? Yes. Brutal torture and excruciating pain? Perhaps. I'm disappointed at what appears to be a breakdown in the chain of command but I'm not going to suggest that a moral code, Geneva or otherwise should be invoked. What is even more dehumanizing than the photos of naked men are the milquetoast opinions being offered by anti-war liberal op-ed columnists, Democratic politicians and their supporters who wish to score political points with this incident. In my view that is truly reprehensible. QED

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2004

Professor Dickens,

I agree that the Islamic clerics should have denounced the violence such as the execution of those civilian contractors. However, I was incensed when I saw pictures of American soldiers smiling as they were torturing human beings. It angers me when people delight in the suffering of others. These individuals then had the audacity to take several hundreds of photos and videos. This suggest to me a lack of objectivity in interrogating these individuals. Truly war brings out the evil in men.

It further shows our insensitivity to the cultural norms of the muslim world. The Muslim world has strict prohibitions against nudity and sexual issues. I am certain that this conservative portion of the world was inflammed when they learned that a foreign army forced their citizens to similate these immoral acts. It is the height of Eurocentric/Western arrogance but nevertheless consistent with our wanton disregard for other cultures in the world. We invade your country and dethrone your leader and then dictate to you as to what kind of government you are supposed to have while physically, emotionally, and sexually abusing your citizens. What right does a country which is only 228 years old have of telling a country whose origins date back to the very location of the Garden of Eden of how to run its government. We should apologize, donate foreign aid and get out of there this week.

Jazzman

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2004

Jazzman -

US officials, Bush, Rice & Rumsfeld, have publicly apologized profusely about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. In contrast, I don't recall a single Islamic political leader who publicly condemened Al Queda & Bin Laden after 9-11. The international double- standard is simply sickening. It seems to be OK in the corrupted minds of some that the loss of innocent US lives is justified yet photos of a female MP making unflattering gestures about a male Irai prisoner's genitalia is somehow evil incarnate. We are truly living in a surreal world. Calls for Rummy's resignation are riding high by prominent Democratic Senators like Joe Biden. The problem has been identified and I believe appropriate punishment will be meted out to those responsible. Despite this setback the mission remains incomplete until the transfer of power to Iraqi leaders on June 30, 2004. Leaving Iraq tomorrow will only confirm US weakness in the minds of Islamic terrorists. Is this what you want? Will such a hasty retreat fortify US security at home and abroad? I don't think so. If Sen. Kerry wins the Presidential election in November he will find out quickly that governing and serving as the leader of the world's sole superpower is much different once you are working inside the Oval Office as oppossed to offering criticisms from the outside. He will also discover that the UN will be the achilles heel of his foreign policy agenda. Recall, the last Democratic President did nothing (Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton but Bill refused to act), contrary to Richard Clarke's assertions, to help exterminate terrorism. QED

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2004

Brother Dickens,

Respecting your views as I do, I'm resisting my first impulse to believe that you would throw your hat in with the demagogs. Can reason be satisfied in a comparison of 9-11 to a century of U.S. and European hegemony in Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Lebannon, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, Afganistan, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza, etc? Are our senses not confounded by the recklessness with which this present administration set out to 'make things right?' Your use of the word 'surreal' is an adequate description, I prefer 'upside down.' History will be the final arbiter of our high ideals, compassion, and of the actions we take in the name of freedom and justice for all. For now, we should all take stock of the scene unfolding before our eyes, understand the historical context in which it takes place, and with all the sincerity at our command, pray that the killing will stop, the intimidation and degradation end - for all concerned. We as a nation are better than this. Who could believe that a people, that can kill by the hundreds of thousands with 'shock and awe', is above abusing criminals in their custody? How can the world trust a super-power that has publicly relegated them to irrelevance? We are better than this. Partisanship is the refuge of scoundrals and for non-politicians a harbor for ignorance. This is an American issue, not Republican or Democrat. The November election is not a choice of the more perfect man, as much as it is a choice between lesser evils. In any case, we await the Lord, when all things will be made new. Let us all pray for His speedy return.

In Love, In Christ,

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2004

I had a thought that this thread might bring out more than just the issue of mistreatment in the prison. It is my hope that political engagement not be the order of the day. This action is horrific regardless of who is responsible. The world is in deep shock because it would never been even thinkable that the United States would engage in such actions. The fact that it is video taped and photographed only shows the level of dignity denied.

This action has nothing to do with 9/11. There were many Islamic clerics (seen on CNN) who immediately spoke up in both shock and embarrasement at the actions Bin Laden and have helped tighten the noose around him.This prison action is both distrubing and disappointing for all of us around the world. I am sorry to take a different position than the my Distinguihed Prof. Dickens but this is a result of a war started without the consent of the International Community, The U.N. and the type of coalition designed by former President Bush. I am no supporter of either Republican or Democrat since I can look at this as an outsider.

As with my previous post My prayers are for the Government and armed forces in the theater of operation as their job was just made harder. Handing over power back to Iraq will have issues and I pray that we start a process that will reduce the bloodshed.

Jazzman you are to be commended for raising this point as all of us are ashamed. God be with you all

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2004

To my respected Brothers Nalton & Ron:

You both make compelling counter-arguments. I desire above all peace and a cessation to ALL hostilities. However, it is clear in my mind that efforts to achieve a lasting and respectful peace requires cooperation from both sides. Currently, I see very little cooperation coming from the last vestiges of Saddam's minnions who only wish to serve as a subterfuge in their nefarious plot to undermine the transfer of power. The prisoners at Abu Ghrahib chose not to cooperate with US officials and as a result the consequence of their defiance is further interrogation. Now moral posturuing aside, I don't like this form of intimidation but I do understand why it is used. Rehashing the history of neo-colonialism or European hegemony doesn't excuse the behavior of Iraqi insurgents. Hearing the irresponsible comments coming from the senior Senator from Massachusettes (Kennedy) associating the infamous photos as evidence that Saddam's terro camps have been re-opened is nauseating and numbing. I could comment on Mr. Kennedy's "checkered" history but to do so would pull me down to the gutter level where he lives. I choose to take the high ground and let others comment about Chappaquidic. All roads point to "9-11". This singular event has re-defined the US outlook on world affairs much like 1810, circa, when the Brits burned the White House or December 7, 1941, aka Pearl Harbor. We'll see what happens after June 30, 2004. QED

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2004

Dear Bro. Bill I appreciate your position and agree that Kennedy is the last person who should be talking. I do believe that there is the possibility that this war was inevitable before 9/11. I believe this was going to happen Bin Laden or not. I believe that 1 or 2 roads lead somewhere else. For your consideration Blessings to you and your family

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2004

Brother Dickens,

It is as you say, 9-11 was the singular, pivotal event that changed the US, and subsequently, the world as we knew it. Our clay feet were unveiled for all the world to see and we, for the first time in a long time, knew vulnerability. Frightened by the revelation, in haste, we acted out. Determined to disuade those who might think us weak, we projected our power upon the world with reckless abandon, desiring to regain our irretrievable persona of invincibility, only to reveal the fragility of our feet the more. You speak of a "lasting and respectful peace." If there were such a thing, surely it cannot be achieved by force-of-arms, which is essentially the arguement against our present course.

Saddam's minnions? No, I rather suspect that these people are acting out of considered self interest. We shouldn't expect them to cooperate with invasion and occupation of their land, any more than we would expect to cooperate under similar circumstances. In any case, failure to cooperate should not result in either sodomy or beheading.

Lastly, I wouldn't call placing the conflict in its appropriate historical context a rehashing of neo-colonialism-European hegemony. For in this context it not only excuses the insurgents behavior, but justifies it. For good reason, it is the intelligencia of our great land that most vehemently oppose our course in Iraq. The same are labeled liberal, unAmerican, peace- nicks or some other debasing name and assigned the role of whiners, leaving them one avenue - the democratic process - to exercise their voices and opinions. So Be It. Jan. 30, 2004 is not the pivotal date, its rather Nov. 3, 2004.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2004

Just to make note about people's pasts and "not mentioning" them. Our president was a drunkard and a failed businessman in the past; however, he was able to pull his life around. Stay in the present. If Jesus is capable of forgiving so should you. Remember, only a devil is an accuser.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2004

Mary -

Well the old saying still holds, "if you live in a glass house, don't throw no stones". This is precisely why he is in no poistion to offer critical commentary about ethical lapses or moonlight as judge and accuser. Senator Kennedy routinely forgets this principle. and other matters of public importance. But, I didn't call him a devil, you did.

Apparently you are not familiar with President Bush's complete hisory as a businessman. Since I happen to enjoy sports I recall when then private citizen G.W. Bush was a minority owner of the major league baseball team, Texas Rangers. His initial investment of $606,000 grew into a $15 million profit when he sold his stake in the team a decade later. Now I don't know what standards you use to describe business failure but that transaction represents keen business acumen and entrepreneurial savvy not ineptitude as you suggest. If you need additional insight about this aspect of Bush's entreneurial history you should consult with the respected Wharton scholar Kenneth Shropshire who has written extensively on sports and business. Ken also happens to be one of a few tenured black professors at Wharton, the other being my former NEA President Bernard Anderson. QED

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2004

Bill,

Hogwash! He failed. Second, we are all devils when we stand as accusers. You... me... and others as well. If God has forgiven it is forgiven. At times we are forced to judge notwithstanding our pasts. He who is without sin cast the first stone.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2004

Mary -

Hogwash???? Please explain how a business investment of $606,000 which ultimately yielded a profit of $15 million dollars constitutes failure? If you did the same thing I would extend the same entrepreneurial compliments to you as well. Your Orwellian view of failure ( making money is unproductive) may be acceptable within totalitarian societies but in free market economies such a view is repudiated on the simple grounds of logic, efficiency and common sense. I would also caution that your universal indictment of "accusers" is very problematic. To make an accusation is not by definition a sinister act. When preachers warn their congregations about the dangers and consequences of living a sinful life have they not engaged in accusations? When your personal physician criticizes your diet, weight and exercise routines as unhealthy is this not a medical accusation? When the Virginia District Attorney stood before the Circuit Judge and declared that John Muhammad was the mastermind killer during the DC-MD-VA killing spree of 2002 is this not a public charge of wrong (i.e. accusation)? I'm having a difficult time folowing your application of accusers and accusations as applied in this topic. QED

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2004

Bill:

Here is your explanation. I believe you are right. Bush is an exceptional businessman. I thank God that I am not what he is in this light. The money I've earned has been earned by me by the good graces of God. Nor have I left others owing millions of dollars of my debts. Funny you never questioned the drunkeness.

Bush as businessman How the Texas governor made his millions Brooks Jackson/CNN May 13, 1999 Web posted at: 6:00 p.m. EDT (2200 GMT) ARLINGTON, Texas (May 13) -- In Austin, Texas, not everyone admires Gov. George W. Bush. Radio host Jim Hightower is one such Bush critic. "He says he's a compassionate conservative," Hightower said. "I say he's a crony capitalist." "Crony capitalist?" Maybe. Multi-millionaire? Certainly. Bush started in the Texas oil business, after Yale University and Harvard Business School. Wealthy family friends and others invested millions with him, but with poor results. A 1985 disclosure shows Bush's track record: Investors got back only 45 cents on the dollar, but few complained. Investors also got tax deductions averaging more than 80 cents on every dollar invested. Those early Bush ventures were mainly tax shelters. When his father was president, there were suspicions that the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain tried to enrich the younger Bush. Bahrain granted an exclusive drilling contract to Harken Energy Corporation, in which the younger Bush held stock. But he says he opposed the deal. Bush spokesperson Karen Hughes says, "He felt the company just was not large enough, that it was outside the scope of their experience." And the deal turned out to be a loser, abandoned after two expensive dry holes. In 1990 Bush unloaded most of his Harken shares for $835,000 about two months before Harken announced a big loss. That triggered an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into possible insider trading by Bush, but the SEC took no action. A look at Harken's stock price may show why: Bush sold for $4 a share. Harken stock did dip to $2.38 the day after the bad earnings were released, but four days later bounced right back to $4 a share, exactly what Bush had been paid. And the stock kept rising: Bush attorney Robert Jordan said, "A year later, in fact, the value had doubled to $8 a share." So Bush could have done much better if he had waited. Bush did not make his fortune in the oil fields. He made it at a major-league ball park heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Bush takes credit for conceiving The Ballpark at Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which he bought in 1989 with a wealthy group of investors. Among them: billionaire Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth. Bush invested just over $600,000, but Arlington taxpayers invested a lot more. "It was $135 million worth of sales tax money," said attorney Glenn Sodd. "The city donated a good bit of land to the project. They got a sales tax exemption on all the items that were purchased for the stadium. We have a property tax in Texas and they were given as part of the deal a property tax exemption." A total of at least $200 million, according to Sodd. And there's more: Sodd sued the Rangers on behalf of two families whose property was seized for stadium parking. A jury found they were paid about one-seventh of what the land was worth. But the Rangers defend the deal. "Basically, what we think we did was to create a model public-private partnership in which both sides came out ahead," said Bush partner and Rangers President Tom Schieffer. Bush declined to be interviewed, but Schieffer says taxpayers got their money's worth. "That's what we have always said in this process: 'If this wasn't good for Arlington, don't do it.' And that's the way we took it to the voters," Schieffer said. "We said, 'This is going to be good for the Rangers, no question about it. This is going to be good for us. But if it's not going to be good for you, don't do it.'" The team threatened to move, and Arlington taxpayers voted in a half- cent increase in the sales tax. The vote was 2-to-1. The new, subsidized stadium turned out to be a great deal for Bush. He was the most visible partner, and the publicity helped launch him into the governorship in 1994. And when the team was sold last year Bush's share came to at least $14.9 million with perhaps another $1 million or $2 million still to come. Jim Runzheimer is one Arlington resident who opposed the deal. "He put $600,000 into this project and he did a little bit better than Hillary Clinton," Runzheimer said. "She only made ... $100,000 or $200,000, from her dealing in commodities. Gov. Bush has made $15 million." Fans love the stadium. And the team has flourished financially. "Looking at it from the perspective of a businessman, this was an awfully sweet deal for the business," said Sodd. "Looking at it as a public official, we think it's lousy policy to use government money to subsidize billionaires in the pursuit of their business interests." So Bush the businessman did prosper. But not by his bootstraps -- with help from wealthy friends and taxpayer subsidies.

Bush as businessman How the Texas governor made his millions Brooks Jackson/CNN May 13, 1999 Web posted at: 6:00 p.m. EDT (2200 GMT) ARLINGTON, Texas (May 13) -- In Austin, Texas, not everyone admires Gov. George W. Bush. Radio host Jim Hightower is one such Bush critic. "He says he's a compassionate conservative," Hightower said. "I say he's a crony capitalist." "Crony capitalist?" Maybe. Multi-millionaire? Certainly. Bush started in the Texas oil business, after Yale University and Harvard Business School. Wealthy family friends and others invested millions with him, but with poor results. A 1985 disclosure shows Bush's track record: Investors got back only 45 cents on the dollar, but few complained. Investors also got tax deductions averaging more than 80 cents on every dollar invested. Those early Bush ventures were mainly tax shelters. When his father was president, there were suspicions that the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain tried to enrich the younger Bush. Bahrain granted an exclusive drilling contract to Harken Energy Corporation, in which the younger Bush held stock. But he says he opposed the deal. Bush spokesperson Karen Hughes says, "He felt the company just was not large enough, that it was outside the scope of their experience." And the deal turned out to be a loser, abandoned after two expensive dry holes. In 1990 Bush unloaded most of his Harken shares for $835,000 about two months before Harken announced a big loss. That triggered an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into possible insider trading by Bush, but the SEC took no action. A look at Harken's stock price may show why: Bush sold for $4 a share. Harken stock did dip to $2.38 the day after the bad earnings were released, but four days later bounced right back to $4 a share, exactly what Bush had been paid. And the stock kept rising: Bush attorney Robert Jordan said, "A year later, in fact, the value had doubled to $8 a share." So Bush could have done much better if he had waited. Bush did not make his fortune in the oil fields. He made it at a major-league ball park heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Bush takes credit for conceiving The Ballpark at Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which he bought in 1989 with a wealthy group of investors. Among them: billionaire Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth. Bush invested just over $600,000, but Arlington taxpayers invested a lot more. "It was $135 million worth of sales tax money," said attorney Glenn Sodd. "The city donated a good bit of land to the project. They got a sales tax exemption on all the items that were purchased for the stadium. We have a property tax in Texas and they were given as part of the deal a property tax exemption." A total of at least $200 million, according to Sodd. And there's more: Sodd sued the Rangers on behalf of two families whose property was seized for stadium parking. A jury found they were paid about one-seventh of what the land was worth. But the Rangers defend the deal. "Basically, what we think we did was to create a model public-private partnership in which both sides came out ahead," said Bush partner and Rangers President Tom Schieffer. Bush declined to be interviewed, but Schieffer says taxpayers got their money's worth. "That's what we have always said in this process: 'If this wasn't good for Arlington, don't do it.' And that's the way we took it to the voters," Schieffer said. "We said, 'This is going to be good for the Rangers, no question about it. This is going to be good for us. But if it's not going to be good for you, don't do it.'" The team threatened to move, and Arlington taxpayers voted in a half- cent increase in the sales tax. The vote was 2-to-1. The new, subsidized stadium turned out to be a great deal for Bush. He was the most visible partner, and the publicity helped launch him into the governorship in 1994. And when the team was sold last year Bush's share came to at least $14.9 million with perhaps another $1 million or $2 million still to come. Jim Runzheimer is one Arlington resident who opposed the deal. "He put $600,000 into this project and he did a little bit better than Hillary Clinton," Runzheimer said. "She only made ... $100,000 or $200,000, from her dealing in commodities. Gov. Bush has made $15 million." Fans love the stadium. And the team has flourished financially. "Looking at it from the perspective of a businessman, this was an awfully sweet deal for the business," said Sodd. "Looking at it as a public official, we think it's lousy policy to use government money to subsidize billionaires in the pursuit of their business interests." So Bush the businessman did prosper. But not by his bootstraps -- with help from wealthy friends and taxpayer subsidies.

Bush as businessman How the Texas governor made his millions Brooks Jackson/CNN May 13, 1999 Web posted at: 6:00 p.m. EDT (2200 GMT) ARLINGTON, Texas (May 13) -- In Austin, Texas, not everyone admires Gov. George W. Bush. Radio host Jim Hightower is one such Bush critic. "He says he's a compassionate conservative," Hightower said. "I say he's a crony capitalist." "Crony capitalist?" Maybe. Multi-millionaire? Certainly. Bush started in the Texas oil business, after Yale University and Harvard Business School. Wealthy family friends and others invested millions with him, but with poor results. A 1985 disclosure shows Bush's track record: Investors got back only 45 cents on the dollar, but few complained. Investors also got tax deductions averaging more than 80 cents on every dollar invested. Those early Bush ventures were mainly tax shelters. When his father was president, there were suspicions that the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain tried to enrich the younger Bush. Bahrain granted an exclusive drilling contract to Harken Energy Corporation, in which the younger Bush held stock. But he says he opposed the deal. Bush spokesperson Karen Hughes says, "He felt the company just was not large enough, that it was outside the scope of their experience." And the deal turned out to be a loser, abandoned after two expensive dry holes. In 1990 Bush unloaded most of his Harken shares for $835,000 about two months before Harken announced a big loss. That triggered an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into possible insider trading by Bush, but the SEC took no action. A look at Harken's stock price may show why: Bush sold for $4 a share. Harken stock did dip to $2.38 the day after the bad earnings were released, but four days later bounced right back to $4 a share, exactly what Bush had been paid. And the stock kept rising: Bush attorney Robert Jordan said, "A year later, in fact, the value had doubled to $8 a share." So Bush could have done much better if he had waited. Bush did not make his fortune in the oil fields. He made it at a major-league ball park heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Bush takes credit for conceiving The Ballpark at Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which he bought in 1989 with a wealthy group of investors. Among them: billionaire Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth. Bush invested just over $600,000, but Arlington taxpayers invested a lot more. "It was $135 million worth of sales tax money," said attorney Glenn Sodd. "The city donated a good bit of land to the project. They got a sales tax exemption on all the items that were purchased for the stadium. We have a property tax in Texas and they were given as part of the deal a property tax exemption." A total of at least $200 million, according to Sodd. And there's more: Sodd sued the Rangers on behalf of two families whose property was seized for stadium parking. A jury found they were paid about one-seventh of what the land was worth. But the Rangers defend the deal. "Basically, what we think we did was to create a model public-private partnership in which both sides came out ahead," said Bush partner and Rangers President Tom Schieffer. Bush declined to be interviewed, but Schieffer says taxpayers got their money's worth. "That's what we have always said in this process: 'If this wasn't good for Arlington, don't do it.' And that's the way we took it to the voters," Schieffer said. "We said, 'This is going to be good for the Rangers, no question about it. This is going to be good for us. But if it's not going to be good for you, don't do it.'" The team threatened to move, and Arlington taxpayers voted in a half- cent increase in the sales tax. The vote was 2-to-1. The new, subsidized stadium turned out to be a great deal for Bush. He was the most visible partner, and the publicity helped launch him into the governorship in 1994. And when the team was sold last year Bush's share came to at least $14.9 million with perhaps another $1 million or $2 million still to come. Jim Runzheimer is one Arlington resident who opposed the deal. "He put $600,000 into this project and he did a little bit better than Hillary Clinton," Runzheimer said. "She only made ... $100,000 or $200,000, from her dealing in commodities. Gov. Bush has made $15 million." Fans love the stadium. And the team has flourished financially. "Looking at it from the perspective of a businessman, this was an awfully sweet deal for the business," said Sodd. "Looking at it as a public official, we think it's lousy policy to use government money to subsidize billionaires in the pursuit of their business interests." So Bush the businessman did prosper. But not by his bootstraps -- with help from wealthy friends and taxpayer subsidies.

Bush as businessman How the Texas governor made his millions Brooks Jackson/CNN May 13, 1999 Web posted at: 6:00 p.m. EDT (2200 GMT) ARLINGTON, Texas (May 13) -- In Austin, Texas, not everyone admires Gov. George W. Bush. Radio host Jim Hightower is one such Bush critic. "He says he's a compassionate conservative," Hightower said. "I say he's a crony capitalist." "Crony capitalist?" Maybe. Multi-millionaire? Certainly. Bush started in the Texas oil business, after Yale University and Harvard Business School. Wealthy family friends and others invested millions with him, but with poor results. A 1985 disclosure shows Bush's track record: Investors got back only 45 cents on the dollar, but few complained. Investors also got tax deductions averaging more than 80 cents on every dollar invested. Those early Bush ventures were mainly tax shelters. When his father was president, there were suspicions that the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain tried to enrich the younger Bush. Bahrain granted an exclusive drilling contract to Harken Energy Corporation, in which the younger Bush held stock. But he says he opposed the deal. Bush spokesperson Karen Hughes says, "He felt the company just was not large enough, that it was outside the scope of their experience." And the deal turned out to be a loser, abandoned after two expensive dry holes. In 1990 Bush unloaded most of his Harken shares for $835,000 about two months before Harken announced a big loss. That triggered an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into possible insider trading by Bush, but the SEC took no action. A look at Harken's stock price may show why: Bush sold for $4 a share. Harken stock did dip to $2.38 the day after the bad earnings were released, but four days later bounced right back to $4 a share, exactly what Bush had been paid. And the stock kept rising: Bush attorney Robert Jordan said, "A year later, in fact, the value had doubled to $8 a share." So Bush could have done much better if he had waited. Bush did not make his fortune in the oil fields. He made it at a major-league ball park heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Bush takes credit for conceiving The Ballpark at Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which he bought in 1989 with a wealthy group of investors. Among them: billionaire Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth. Bush invested just over $600,000, but Arlington taxpayers invested a lot more. "It was $135 million worth of sales tax money," said attorney Glenn Sodd. "The city donated a good bit of land to the project. They got a sales tax exemption on all the items that were purchased for the stadium. We have a property tax in Texas and they were given as part of the deal a property tax exemption." A total of at least $200 million, according to Sodd. And there's more: Sodd sued the Rangers on behalf of two families whose property was seized for stadium parking. A jury found they were paid about one-seventh of what the land was worth. But the Rangers defend the deal. "Basically, what we think we did was to create a model public-private partnership in which both sides came out ahead," said Bush partner and Rangers President Tom Schieffer. Bush declined to be interviewed, but Schieffer says taxpayers got their money's worth. "That's what we have always said in this process: 'If this wasn't good for Arlington, don't do it.' And that's the way we took it to the voters," Schieffer said. "We said, 'This is going to be good for the Rangers, no question about it. This is going to be good for us. But if it's not going to be good for you, don't do it.'" The team threatened to move, and Arlington taxpayers voted in a half- cent increase in the sales tax. The vote was 2-to-1. The new, subsidized stadium turned out to be a great deal for Bush. He was the most visible partner, and the publicity helped launch him into the governorship in 1994. And when the team was sold last year Bush's share came to at least $14.9 million with perhaps another $1 million or $2 million still to come. Jim Runzheimer is one Arlington resident who opposed the deal. "He put $600,000 into this project and he did a little bit better than Hillary Clinton," Runzheimer said. "She only made ... $100,000 or $200,000, from her dealing in commodities. Gov. Bush has made $15 million." Fans love the stadium. And the team has flourished financially. "Looking at it from the perspective of a businessman, this was an awfully sweet deal for the business," said Sodd. "Looking at it as a public official, we think it's lousy policy to use government money to subsidize billionaires in the pursuit of their business interests." So Bush the businessman did prosper. But not by his bootstraps -- with help from wealthy friends and taxpayer subsidies.

Bush as businessman How the Texas governor made his millions Brooks Jackson/CNN May 13, 1999 Web posted at: 6:00 p.m. EDT (2200 GMT) ARLINGTON, Texas (May 13) -- In Austin, Texas, not everyone admires Gov. George W. Bush. Radio host Jim Hightower is one such Bush critic. "He says he's a compassionate conservative," Hightower said. "I say he's a crony capitalist." "Crony capitalist?" Maybe. Multi-millionaire? Certainly. Bush started in the Texas oil business, after Yale University and Harvard Business School. Wealthy family friends and others invested millions with him, but with poor results. A 1985 disclosure shows Bush's track record: Investors got back only 45 cents on the dollar, but few complained. Investors also got tax deductions averaging more than 80 cents on every dollar invested. Those early Bush ventures were mainly tax shelters. When his father was president, there were suspicions that the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain tried to enrich the younger Bush. Bahrain granted an exclusive drilling contract to Harken Energy Corporation, in which the younger Bush held stock. But he says he opposed the deal. Bush spokesperson Karen Hughes says, "He felt the company just was not large enough, that it was outside the scope of their experience." And the deal turned out to be a loser, abandoned after two expensive dry holes. In 1990 Bush unloaded most of his Harken shares for $835,000 about two months before Harken announced a big loss. That triggered an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into possible insider trading by Bush, but the SEC took no action. A look at Harken's stock price may show why: Bush sold for $4 a share. Harken stock did dip to $2.38 the day after the bad earnings were released, but four days later bounced right back to $4 a share, exactly what Bush had been paid. And the stock kept rising: Bush attorney Robert Jordan said, "A year later, in fact, the value had doubled to $8 a share." So Bush could have done much better if he had waited. Bush did not make his fortune in the oil fields. He made it at a major-league ball park heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Bush takes credit for conceiving The Ballpark at Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which he bought in 1989 with a wealthy group of investors. Among them: billionaire Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth. Bush invested just over $600,000, but Arlington taxpayers invested a lot more. "It was $135 million worth of sales tax money," said attorney Glenn Sodd. "The city donated a good bit of land to the project. They got a sales tax exemption on all the items that were purchased for the stadium. We have a property tax in Texas and they were given as part of the deal a property tax exemption." A total of at least $200 million, according to Sodd. And there's more: Sodd sued the Rangers on behalf of two families whose property was seized for stadium parking. A jury found they were paid about one-seventh of what the land was worth. But the Rangers defend the deal. "Basically, what we think we did was to create a model public-private partnership in which both sides came out ahead," said Bush partner and Rangers President Tom Schieffer. Bush declined to be interviewed, but Schieffer says taxpayers got their money's worth. "That's what we have always said in this process: 'If this wasn't good for Arlington, don't do it.' And that's the way we took it to the voters," Schieffer said. "We said, 'This is going to be good for the Rangers, no question about it. This is going to be good for us. But if it's not going to be good for you, don't do it.'" The team threatened to move, and Arlington taxpayers voted in a half- cent increase in the sales tax. The vote was 2-to-1. The new, subsidized stadium turned out to be a great deal for Bush. He was the most visible partner, and the publicity helped launch him into the governorship in 1994. And when the team was sold last year Bush's share came to at least $14.9 million with perhaps another $1 million or $2 million still to come. Jim Runzheimer is one Arlington resident who opposed the deal. "He put $600,000 into this project and he did a little bit better than Hillary Clinton," Runzheimer said. "She only made ... $100,000 or $200,000, from her dealing in commodities. Gov. Bush has made $15 million." Fans love the stadium. And the team has flourished financially. "Looking at it from the perspective of a businessman, this was an awfully sweet deal for the business," said Sodd. "Looking at it as a public official, we think it's lousy policy to use government money to subsidize billionaires in the pursuit of their business interests." So Bush the businessman did prosper. But not by his bootstraps -- with help from wealthy friends and taxpayer subsidies. Bush as businessman How the Texas governor made his millions Brooks Jackson/CNN May 13, 1999 Web posted at: 6:00 p.m. EDT (2200 GMT) ARLINGTON, Texas (May 13) -- In Austin, Texas, not everyone admires Gov. George W. Bush. Radio host Jim Hightower is one such Bush critic. "He says he's a compassionate conservative," Hightower said. "I say he's a crony capitalist." "Crony capitalist?" Maybe. Multi-millionaire? Certainly. Bush started in the Texas oil business, after Yale University and Harvard Business School. Wealthy family friends and others invested millions with him, but with poor results. A 1985 disclosure shows Bush's track record: Investors got back only 45 cents on the dollar, but few complained. Investors also got tax deductions averaging more than 80 cents on every dollar invested. Those early Bush ventures were mainly tax shelters. When his father was president, there were suspicions that the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain tried to enrich the younger Bush. Bahrain granted an exclusive drilling contract to Harken Energy Corporation, in which the younger Bush held stock. But he says he opposed the deal. Bush spokesperson Karen Hughes says, "He felt the company just was not large enough, that it was outside the scope of their experience." And the deal turned out to be a loser, abandoned after two expensive dry holes. In 1990 Bush unloaded most of his Harken shares for $835,000 about two months before Harken announced a big loss. That triggered an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into possible insider trading by Bush, but the SEC took no action. A look at Harken's stock price may show why: Bush sold for $4 a share. Harken stock did dip to $2.38 the day after the bad earnings were released, but four days later bounced right back to $4 a share, exactly what Bush had been paid. And the stock kept rising: Bush attorney Robert Jordan said, "A year later, in fact, the value had doubled to $8 a share." So Bush could have done much better if he had waited. Bush did not make his fortune in the oil fields. He made it at a major-league ball park heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Bush takes credit for conceiving The Ballpark at Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which he bought in 1989 with a wealthy group of investors. Among them: billionaire Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth. Bush invested just over $600,000, but Arlington taxpayers invested a lot more. "It was $135 million worth of sales tax money," said attorney Glenn Sodd. "The city donated a good bit of land to the project. They got a sales tax exemption on all the items that were purchased for the stadium. We have a property tax in Texas and they were given as part of the deal a property tax exemption." A total of at least $200 million, according to Sodd. And there's more: Sodd sued the Rangers on behalf of two families whose property was seized for stadium parking. A jury found they were paid about one-seventh of what the land was worth. But the Rangers defend the deal. "Basically, what we think we did was to create a model public-private partnership in which both sides came out ahead," said Bush partner and Rangers President Tom Schieffer. Bush declined to be interviewed, but Schieffer says taxpayers got their money's worth. "That's what we have always said in this process: 'If this wasn't good for Arlington, don't do it.' And that's the way we took it to the voters," Schieffer said. "We said, 'This is going to be good for the Rangers, no question about it. This is going to be good for us. But if it's not going to be good for you, don't do it.'" The team threatened to move, and Arlington taxpayers voted in a half- cent increase in the sales tax. The vote was 2-to-1. The new, subsidized stadium turned out to be a great deal for Bush. He was the most visible partner, and the publicity helped launch him into the governorship in 1994. And when the team was sold last year Bush's share came to at least $14.9 million with perhaps another $1 million or $2 million still to come. Jim Runzheimer is one Arlington resident who opposed the deal. "He put $600,000 into this project and he did a little bit better than Hillary Clinton," Runzheimer said. "She only made ... $100,000 or $200,000, from her dealing in commodities. Gov. Bush has made $15 million." Fans love the stadium. And the team has flourished financially. "Looking at it from the perspective of a businessman, this was an awfully sweet deal for the business," said Sodd. "Looking at it as a public official, we think it's lousy policy to use government money to subsidize billionaires in the pursuit of their business interests." So Bush the businessman did prosper. But not by his bootstraps -- with help from wealthy friends and taxpayer subsidies.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2004

I apologize for the above. The article was copied in triplicate in error.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2004