Bush rides the Whitewater

The editorial page of the New York Times, meanwhile, recently boasted that during Whitewater it had "urged the Clintons to cooperate so often that it became the editorial version of shouting oneself hoarse." To date, all the editorial page has done is limply urge Bush "to speak much more frankly" about the Harken matter.

Yet are Whitewater and Harken really that different? Looking back on Whitewater, a 2002 Times editorial insisted: "Missing files, destroyed documents and unanswered queries still float around the history of the former president and first lady." While there's no indication thus far of destroyed Harken documents, the case is rich with unanswered queries and files that are missing from the public debate.

True, the SEC found no reason to prosecute Bush, and clearly both the White House and conservative pundits are using that as their ace in the hole in explaining why the Harken story is old news. But in 1995, during the Whitewater frenzy, the government's Resolution Trust Corp. commissioned the top-drawer law firm of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro to conduct an investigation. The probe cost $3.8 million, and it exonerated the Clintons. "The evidence is unequivocal that, concerning almost all of the fraudulent transactions, the Clintons were unaware of McDougal's criminal conduct," it found. "The Clintons' investment in Whitewater was financially unsuccessful. They invested a substantial amount of personal funds and realized no profit from the venture."

Yet for years the press continued to demand to know how much the Clintons knew about McDougal's criminal activities, and whether or not they made money on their Whitewater investment. If the Pillsbury report was simply tossed aside, why would the SEC probe be taken as the final word on the Harken subject? Especially when the SEC investigation appears to have been overseen by a cadre of Bush supporters? And especially when Bush and Harken refuse to turn over all the documents?

Just look at three key attorneys who were at the center of the SEC investigation and who, in theory, were on different sides of the issue. They included SEC Chairman Richard Breeden, SEC general counsel James Doty, and Dallas attorney Robert Jordan, who represented both Harken and Bush during the "voluntary" inquiry. To suggest the three lawyers enjoyed a close working relationship with one another, as well as with Bush, would be an understatement.

Breeden has known the senior George Bush for 20 years, and worked with him for nearly 10 before then-president Bush appointed him as SEC chairman. That choice in 1989 surprised many Wall Street experts since Breeden, just 39 at the time, had virtually no firsthand knowledge of the financial markets. "What do we know about Richard Breeden?" Hardwick Simmons, vice-chairman of Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., asked Business Week at the time. "Not much," answered the magazine.

A key quality Breeden did possess, however, was Bush loyalty. Breeden was "a devoted admirer of President Bush," according to a New York Law Journal profile at the time of Breeden's nomination. (The Journal noted one of Breeden's three sons shared a Bush family name, Prescott.) One friend told the magazine Breeden's admiration for Bush was "something of a passion for him," adding, "He would have done just about anything for the vice president's chances of becoming president."

At the time of his nomination, one White House official echoed that sentiment to the New York Times, saying Breeden was considered "family" by the Bush administration. Business Week described Breeden as a Bush loyalist.

In subsequent years, Breeden has assured reporters that the SEC's investigation into Bush's Harken stock sale was done by the book. And there's certainly no evidence an inquiry was obstructed. But is it really possible that the SEC chairman, so closely aligned with Bush, did not once pick up the phone and give the president, or anybody else inside the White House, an update about the politically sensitive investigation? During Whitewater, the press deemed those types of communications as sinister meddling.

Before becoming SEC chairman, Breeden spent time working in the Washington office of the influential Texas law firm, Baker Botts, home of James Baker, who served as secretary of state for Bush senior. A founding partner in the firm's Dallas office was Robert Jordan, who represented Bush during the SEC investigation. Did Jordan and Breeden ever discuss the investigation?

Because it appears that during one crucial juncture of the SEC's inquiry, Jordan was able to receive special treatment from the agency. That came in October 1993, when the SEC, in an unusual move, wrote Jordan a letter confirming that the commission had looked into the matter and decided not to prosecute. Three weeks later Bush announced he was running for governor of Texas.

One year later, when the letter became public, Jordan told the Dallas Morning News, "George was getting ready to run for governor and wanted to be sure there was nothing out there that could be of concern." But the paper described the SEC's move to essentially provide cover for Bush with a written letter as "a rare action by the agency." Did Jordan ever discuss the need for such a letter with Breeden?

Did Jordan ever discuss the need for such a letter with Doty? He's yet another prominent Baker Botts attorney featured in the Bush/Harken drama. At the time of the SEC's inquiry, Doty was the commission's general counsel. But in private practice two years earlier, Doty was Bush's personal attorney when he negotiated the purchase of the Texas Rangers. (Doty says he recused himself from the SEC investigation into Bush, but today is out in public defending both the SEC probe as well as Bush's actions, reflecting his dual allegiances.)

Doty and Bush remain close to this day. According to 2000 press accounts, Doty was among the leading candidates to become chairman of the SEC if Bush were to win the election. Bush eventually chose a former accounting industry lobbyist, Harvey Pitt, for the position.

Jordan and Bush are also close. A corporate defense attorney by trade, Jordan last year was named ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He arrived for duty just weeks after Sept. 11 and at an absolutely critical juncture in U.S.-Saudi relations, without having ever set foot in the country before.

It seems there are still plenty of Harken questions for the press to explore in the days and weeks ahead.

• View blog reactions