James Baker III’s Conflict of Interests

Though, technically Mr. Baker’s law-firm can represent whom they like, there’s a principle at stake. On principle, I believe that the man whom advices and represents the president, should not simultaneously represent a client with apparent ties to one of the worst terrorists attacks against our nation. Note that when one speaks of Saudi Arabia in any fashion, one is in fact speaking of the Saudi Royal family; because, as an institution, the royal family exerts total control over the kingdom.

At the moment, there are some reports linking Saudi Intelligence Agencies and the Al Queda cells that attacked us on 9-11. I’ve only performed a very cursory search to document and support what I’ve written here; however, for anyone that’s interested, I would urge you to do same. Moreover, like many I’m sure, I’ll be reading the 911 Commission Report, where much of this is documented.

Again, for me the problem with Mr. Baker’s law firm representing the Saudi Family and Mr. Bush at the same time, is one of an apparent conflict of interests; and, too, the fact that this situation is the very thing that General Eisenhower warned us we should be vigilant against: The confluence of, 1. BIG TIME money (Mr. Baker’s firm is defending the Saudi Family in a 1 TRILLION DOLLAR suit), 2. Politics (Mr. Baker’s firm is representing and advising our nation’s leading political office holder), and 3. The industries that gain from the nation’s war-enterprise (Mr. Baker is a sitting member of the Carlyle Group).

To me, these are sufficient reasons for Mr. Baker to, at the very least, recuse himself from advising and representing Mr. Bush.

What Would Bush Have Done? II

News items reporting that Mr. Bush would’ve challenged the electoral college, if the 2000 results had been reversed, are “scattered and hard to find;” because, one, the news items are four years old, and, two, Mr. Bush’s decision to challenge the electoral college did not receive much coverage to begin with. Again, let’s remember that when such reports would’ve bubbled up in the media’s news cycle, towards the closing days of the campaign, reporters had more pressing news items to cover. Again, let’s remember, that at the time, there were far more topical news items receiving attention before the election, (i.e., the dash to the finish line by the candidates); and, after the election, well, there were far more visible news items that overshadowed everything else (i.e., the Florida debacle).

Nonetheless, those that follow politics and elections closely remember such reports — I know I do. Here’s an off the cuff remark made by one of the panelist in PBS’s The News Hour:

The Bush folks were all prepared according to my conservative sources to challenge legally if George Bush did win the popular vote and Al Gore won the electoral vote. They had done the research; they had the attorneys; and I assume they’ll now turn that over to the Gore people just to expedite the matter. [ Transcript ]

The 2000 Bush team of attorneys referred to above were led James Baker III, a member of the Carlyle Group, whose law firm (Baker Botts) is representing the Saudi Royal Family against the 9-11 families, and, is the same James Baker III, that is currently leading Mr. Bush’s presidential debate team.

I know that the 2000 election is in the past and that we should just move on and focus on the up-coming election — which is what I’m focused on. However, I posted the original entry, “What Would Bush Have Done?”, because of indignant remarks I’ve read on some message boards regarding Mr. Gore’s Florida election challenge.