The Bush Family’s Bad Latin Real Estate Investment

[unhappycamper]

The Bush Family’s Bad Latin Real Estate Investment
by Dave Lindorff | May 3, 2008 - 1:22pm

Back in late 2006, it was widely reported in the Latin American media that President Bush, or perhaps his old man, had bought a 100,000-acre farm in a remote area of Paraguay.

What struck people at the time was the choice of country. Paraguay, of course, has gained a certain Club Med status among the world's villains and criminal elements as the place to go when the law's on your tail. The country, ruled for six decades by the dictatorial and fascist Colorado Party of Gen. Alfredo Stroesser, an almost cartoon charicature of a Latin American dictator, has no extradition treaty with any nation.

~snip~

Only trouble is, Paraguay may not be such a safe haven for long.

Last month, a former Roman Catholic Bishop with leftist, populist tendencies, Fernando Lugo, surprised almost everyone in Paraguay, and no doubt President Bush, by winning the national presidential election, ousting the Colorado Party for the first time in 61 years. There is talk that among other things, Lugo is thinking of returning Paraguay to the community of nations, by signing some of those extradition agreements.

If he does that Bush may be stuck having to hide behind his rump squad of Secret Service agents down at the Crawford Ranch, hoping they can keep the process servers from Brattleboro and Marlboro, VT, with their war crimes arrest warrants, at bay.


Rest of article at: http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/14416

[flor de jasmim]

1. Thanks for the article, but could you change "Latin" to "Latin American"?

[mac2]

2. No Place to Hide

was a book about our dangerous world under Bush, Inc. If we aren't safe neither are they. Guess they planned that like the war...not.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I can see a movie or a TV series made

"Battleboro Process Servers" or something like that, where they do "Mission Impossible" type stunts to get to Bush.

[grasswire]

16. wow, you are on to something

A series on hunting members of the Bush administration to bring them to justice. Wow! Chuck Norris probably won't want the part.

[madrchsod]

4. lugo will be "driven" out of the country

i give him a year

[libodem]

5. There is a God

God is not dead. I was wrong.

[Mrs. Overall]

6. So is it now a fact that the Bush family did indeed buy this land in Paraguay?

I've mentioned this to several people who say the story is false.

[dantyrant]

7. It's not too hard to verify the story...

Bush dispatched Jenna on what was said to be a UNSCOM mission to Latin America, and she negotiated the deal while on that trip. She's a Bush alright.

[Igel]

8. That's the claim.

But it was never proven.

Let's consider this. "* bought land in Paraguay." What could prove it true? A couple of witnesses saying "X happened"--but so far we have anonymous sources and unsourced rumors, so we don't have that proof. We could have the deed or some bill of sale, but all we have is the local governor in the area saying he hasn't actually seen any documented proof of the sale. We have a claim as to why Jenna was there, but nobody witnessed the negotiations, while we also have a sufficient excuse for her presence there. In other words, if the burden of proof is on those making the assertion, then they've failed to make their case.

Now, you can prove a negative. It's a fairly standard way of showing something in mathematics, for instance. But requiring that a negative be proven is usually considered a fallacy--not because it's logically impossible, but because it's too burdensome in practice.

But what could prove this claim false? Well, we could get the complete financial records of all the Bushes for the last couple of years and show that there are no funds that could have possibly been used to buy land in Paraguay. But the response could easily be that we failed to account for all the funds, that payment was made in some non-monetary way or some third party paid for it, or even that payment is pending. So "proof" by this method is hard. The circle of accountancy-based proof would grow exponentially, with every attempt at proof being met by possibilities that are harder to counter. While these possibilities don't *prove* anything, they void the attempts at proving the negative and render them pretty much impossible, at least on this track.

So we try another approach. We could find land records for every square inch of the area in question--perhaps all of Paraguay, since the land that's claimed to have been bought isn't well defined. But the response could easily be that the official records are faked, or that the lands are being held under a fake name or by somebody who will hold it in trust for the Bushes. Again, the burden of proof can be made greater and greater. The problem is assuming something must be true that isn't necessarily true, at least until it's proven false.

Not only is there no proof that Bush bought the land, there's every likelihood that any proof that he *didn't* buy the land would be countered by unprovable claims that make proving the negative harder and harder. That's why it's considered a fallacy. If you can prove your (positive) assertion, or adduce proof, do so (and let's not have any appeals to authority--"X believes it, so it must be so" is valid only if "it" is "X believes it", but then the assertion's reduced to a tautology).

As an aside, why do negative proofs have any standing in some disciplines? Because the proofs are possible. What's at issue aren't details of what's in a land records office or banks, but the attributes of classes of abstract objects, attributes that everybody agrees upon, attributes and classes that are defined exhaustively and comprehensively. In the case of land records or Bush finances, getting universal agreement or doing anything exhaustively and comprehensively isn't reasonable.

[dantyrant]

9. Well, good luck tracking down the title deed...

It had been reported in various Latin American newspapers, so it's not unsubstantiated.

See: http://wonkette.com/politics/george-w.-bush/we-hate-to-bring-up-the-nazis-but-they-fled-to-south-america-too-208549.php for links.

Also of interest, Rev Moon has an adjacent property.

[formercia]

10. There isn't a hole deep enough in this Solar System

to avoid fair and due process once the extent of the criminality of the Bush Administration comes to light.

[bbgrunt]

11. really? How about he simply stays in

office? That has certainly provided him with a shield of safety despite his known criminality.

[formercia]

12. He might try something stupid

but he will probably fuck that up too.

[bbgrunt]

13. I sure hope so!

[mac2]

14. Maybe he and Cheney will fake their death like Kenny Lay

and retire near their money on a British off-shore island.

[mac2]

15. God Bless King George!

Or would it be Lord George under the Queen?