More Recent History

Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't help but think the following recently:

If Saddam Hussein is to be judged by his actions in 1988 and 1991, why shouldn't the Resident of the United States be subject to the same?

Let's see: in 1988, Bush the Younger was asked what he and his father discussed when they weren't talking about politics. His answer is here.

Also in 1988: A clearly intoxicated Dubya had some choice words to say to Al Hunt, reporter for the Wall Street Journal, his wife Judy Woodruff, and their four-year old son.

In the late 80's/early 90's Bush sat on the board at Harken Energy. But his unethical and illegal actions are "old news."

When the Harken stock sale was parleyed into a share of the Texas Rangers Baseball Team, he showed more of the same--besides some disasterous trades, like getting rid of Sammy Sosa (hell, that alone should disqualify him for ANY promotion), he showed his true colors when he scammed the public in order to build a new stadium, thereby raising the value of his investment at the taxpayer expense (scroll down a ways to get the details, although note at the top of the article just who was bankrolling his presidential candidacy. Hint: it was Enron).

And, take a look at this piece (again, scroll down just a bit) to see who was partnered with Mr. Bush during his failed oilman days: why, it was the bin Laden family, who through BCCI and the Carlyle Group continue to have unusually cozy relations with the man in the White House--and his dad. Now, there's no reason to believe that the Bush's connection is an indication of any prior knowlege of September 11th, 2001, or the other acts of terrorism linked to "the black sheep" of the bin Laden family, namely, Osama. However, would ANY other political family be allowed such a free ride? For instance, suppose it was discovered that Bill Clinton had done business with members of the Escobar family--not Pablo, but an Escobar engaged in "legitimate" business. Do you think the press would have ignored that?

Unfortunately, I forget where I saw this, but Kevin Philips, author of American Dynasty (which attacks the Bushes from a conservative perspective), recently noted aloud that, during the Nixon presidency (for whom he worked), the press was eager to actually do their job in routing out corruption and scandal. Today, they've basically abrogated this responsibility.

This might be a reason why the public is turning more and more to the internet, as opposed to the newspaper or television, for their news. If the press no longer does its job, perhaps it will become irrevelant. Hell, it didn't take me that long to scrounge up the links above--which give us a genuine perspective on the dunce from Crawford (by way of Kennebunkport, Andover, Yale, and Harvard). But it would be nice if the press let us know that they too have decided to fall asleep at the wheel.

Update
CrawlingWestward had something to say about this, and the point is well-taken. To be certain that no one misses the point--I'm not comparing the crime(s), I'm comparing the times. Fifteen years ago for Dubya is supposedly old news, but fifteen years ago for Hussein is relevant. My attitude is that fifteen years ago is relevant for both--Saddam Hussein was clearly a thug, and Dubya was clearly a drunk, lying, sadsack of shit. As far as the drunk part--well, he has my sympathy. I enjoy a drink or seven myself. But I'm not trying to set up a run for the White House fifteen years from now.
Oh--and as far as Hussein? Fifteen years ago, WHEN he was gassing Iranians and Iraqi Kurdish people--well, that didn't stop Bush the elder from seeking good relations...