Dear Mr. Howard Kurtz,

I just finished reading the transcript
(http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0207/06/rs.00.html) of your spot on CNN's Reliable Sources.
Based on what I read perhaps CNN ought to change the name of the show to Not So Reliable Sources.

You stated, and I quote, "This was Paul Krugman in "The New York Times", also "Salon" magazine
ressurrecting a 1989 incident in which the SEC looked at George Bush's sale in stock in Harken energy
while he was a director of that company.  He was ultimately "cleared" by the SEC."

WRONG Mr. Kurtz!
Why are you covering up for George Bush's crimes??  Are you on Karl Rove's payroll??

The truth of the matter, Mr. Kurtz, is that the SEC, then headed by Daddy Bush's hand-picked toadie
simply neglected to pursue the investigation (gee, I wonder why in the world not??).  Your own paper
has reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15500-2002Jul2.html) that the
Dallas Morning News has quoted a 1993 letter from the SEC to Bush's lawyer, Robert Jordan, who is
now the ambassador to Saudi Arabia (gee I wonder what in the world qualified Mr. Jordan for that job??),
emphasizing that it's decision "must be in no way construed as indicating that (Bush) has been exonerated."

If I'm not mistaken Mr. Kurtz, that seems to indicate that the investigation is incomplete in some way, shape or form.
Why are you against completing the investigation Mr. Kurtz?  Let's get to the bottom of this story.  Isn't that what
reporters and journalists are supposed to do?  Mr. Bush's own public statement is at odds with what the SEC has
stated, as well contradictory to what his own press secretary, Ari Fleischer, has stated.

I seem to recall a recent investigation into a decades old, little Arkansas land deal called Whitewater, wherein,
the Republican party spent $70 million taxpayer dollars over several years investigating the involvement of
America's last legally elected President and his wife, Bill and Hillary Clinton.  That fraudulent little episode
was mercifully brought to conclusion this past year as you may recall.  The Clintons were exonerated.

If tax money from my paycheck was good enough to spend on investigating the Clintons, it sure as hell is
good enough to give the accusations against George W. Bush a thorough and independent airing as well.

I respectfully request that you correct your statement (preferably on air) about the SEC "clearing" George W. Bush
on the Harken deal.  Subsequently, you could go a long way towards restoring what remnants remain of your
journalistic credibility by supporting demands for an thorough and independent counsel investigation of Mr. Bush's
miracle deal at Harken.

Regards,

Hoppe