Another reason why the EU Oil embargo hasn't been the product of deep thought

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-28/iran-oil-curbs-extend-to-95-of-tankers-in-eu-insurance-rules.html

Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- European Union sanctions on Iranian oil will extend to about 95 percent of tankers because they are insured under rules governed by European law.

The International Group of P&I Clubs insures all but 5 percent of the global tanker fleet and its 13 member clubs follow European rules to participate in the claim-sharing pool, said Andrew Bardot, the London-based secretary and executive officer. Carrying Iranian oil would invalidate the ships’ cover against risks including spills and collisions, he said.

“Any EU-regulated insurer will not be able to provide insurance to cover any ship engaged in the carriage of Iranian oil and petrochemicals to the EU and elsewhere,” Bardot said by phone yesterday. “We have already notified ship owners of the effect on their trading activities and our ability to cover.”

While the embargo on Iranian oil only covers the EU’s 27 member states, the extent of the region’s role in insuring ships will curb trade globally. Iran is the second-biggest member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and sends oil to China, Europe, Japan, India and South Korea. EU foreign ministers agreed to the ban on Jan. 23, seeking to increase pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, which the nation says is for civilian and medical purposes.

Vessels carrying oil from the nation will have to use “questionable” insurance, said Simon Schnorr, the London-based marine client director at Aon Risk Solutions, a unit of the world’s largest insurance broker.

Insurance Policies

The EU sanctions will still apply to shipping companies with no European link because of their insurance policies, according to Intertanko, the largest trade group representing tanker owners. Members include Hamilton, Bermuda-based Frontline Ltd. and Tokyo-based Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd.

“The EU ban on related insurance and re-insurance means that owners or operators with no EU link who seek to transport Iranian oil will be caught even if there is no EU element to the shipment itself,” Michele White, Intertanko’s general counsel, said in an e-mailed response to questions yesterday. “This is now a highly restrictive and volatile environment in which we feel our members cannot trade without risk of breaching EU or indeed the myriad of other sanctions against Iran.”

Ship owners will struggle to find insurance that doesn’t comply with EU law and whose provider has the funds needed to meet the “standard cover provision” of $1 billion for pollution liabilities, Schnorr said. Ships without valid insurance would be barred from entering most ports, he said.

Mutual Protection

China and Japan have said they will still buy Iranian oil. The Japan Ship Owners’ Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association, the Asian nation’s only organization insuring ocean-going and coastal vessels, is a member of the International Group of P&I Clubs, according to its website. The London-based group doesn’t list Chinese members.

Iran will close the Strait of Hormuz should sanctions impede the sale of its oil, the state-run Fars news agency reported Jan. 23, citing Mohammad Kowsari, the deputy head of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy commission. The strait in the Persian Gulf is a transit point for about 35 percent of all seaborne oil. The U.K. and the U.S. have warships in the region and have vowed to keep the waterway open.

Oil sales earned Iran $73 billion in 2010, accounting for about 50 percent of government revenue and 80 percent of exports, according to the U.S. Energy Department. Iran produced 3.58 million barrels of crude a day in December, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s about 4 percent of global oil consumption.

Million Barrels

OPEC members have about 2.85 million barrels a day of spare crude production capacity, the International Energy Agency said in a Jan. 18 report. West Texas Intermediate oil traded in New York gained 0.6 percent to $99.41 a barrel this year as Brent oil traded on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange advanced 3.6 percent to $111.25 a barrel.

The EU sanctions still need implementation by the European Commission, its regulatory arm, before they become binding on companies. Preexisting contracts are exempted until July 1.

“Unless they decide to do it uninsured or under questionable insurance coverage, it will be difficult for the vast majority of reputable ship owners to continue trading with Iran,” Schnorr said. “In many places, if they call with alternative cover, they probably won’t be accepted.”

Just Wondering Why Congress Passes Laws That Never Are Enforced

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-26/pandit-does-davos-0-1-gloat-madness-reigns-commentary-by-jonathan-weil.html

Pandit joined Citigroup in 2007 after selling it his Old Lane Partners LP hedge fund, which the bank shut the following year. Pandit’s take from his share of the sale was $165 million, the last $80 million of which he received in July.

In February 2008, two months into his job as CEO, Pandit certified in Citigroup’s 2007 annual report that the company’s internal controls were effective. Eight days before he did that, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had sent him a seven-page letter detailing all sorts of ways in which Citigroup’s controls were inadequate.

In November 2008, in spite of the company’s insistent refrain that it had “very strong capital,” Citigroup took a second federal-bailout package. That boosted its proceeds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to $45 billion, plus $301 billion of asset guarantees. Another rescue came in 2009, when the Treasury Department let Citigroup repay $25 billion of its bailout money in common shares rather than cash.

Then in March 2010, appearing before a congressional oversight panel, Pandit said Citigroup was a healthy institution back in November 2008 when the government saved it from going under. Short sellers (of course!) were to blame for the bank’s problems, he said.

Today Citigroup says it has returned to profitability, although investors remain skeptical. At a recent price of $30.25 a share, down 90 percent since Pandit was named CEO, Citigroup trades for about 50 percent of its common shareholder equity. In other words, the markets believe that about half of the $178 billion book value on Citigroup’s balance sheet is imaginary. The company probably wouldn’t be standing were it not for its implicit guarantee from the U.S. government.

and.....

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/01/can-the-schneiderman-infused-financial-fraud-unit-prosecute-vikram-pandit.html

There are two underlying structural problems with the new(ish) Federal task force on financial fraud.  One, it is the policy of the administration to protect the banking system’s basic architecture, which means the compensation structure and the existing personnel who run these large institutions.  Any real investigation into the financial collapse will inevitably lead to the collapse of this architecture.  Thus, any real investigation will be impeded when it begins to conflict the basic policy framework of the Obama administration.  And this framework is set by Obama.  It’s what he believes in.  He made this clear in his first State of the Union, when he said a priority of the administration was to ensure that “the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times.”

Two, Obama personally believes in the legitimacy of the existing banking institutional framework and he strongly suspects that no crimes were committed.  He has hired a raft of people – including Jack Lew, Tim Geithner, Eric Holder, Larry Summers, and so on and so forth – who agree, and has implemented policies such as Dodd-Frank that assume as much.  His administration genuinely believes that mortgage fraud has been a top priority of theirs, as I showed this morning.  These people aren’t stupid, they aren’t without principles, and they aren’t electorally driven.  They areideologues.  They really believe in a neoliberal political economy, where government throws money at the economy through private channels and private channels do with it whatever they think best.  As Jonathan Alter, who is as close as you can get to the administration’s emotional spokesperson, explains in a column titled “For Obama, Pro-business Populism is no Oxymoron”:

*     *     *     *

The Obama administration’s posture is not passive because Obama is weak, it is passive because President Obama and his administration believe passivity towards business interests is the appropriate role of government.  Schneiderman does not believe this, he wants to govern.  And that’s why he wants this Federal task force, because the Federal government has more resources and tools (including legal authority, personnel, jurisdiction, and documents) that he needs to do a reasonable job explaining to the country through the use of the Justice system what happened in the multi-trillion theft and why.  But he is coupled, as co-Chair, with several of these people who, as Matt Taibbi puts it, might “in an ideal world… be targets of their own committee’s investigation.”  This makes it very difficult to consider how they could possibly work well together, with such misaligned interests.

There is a possible a collision coming, because the two parties have contradictory objectives.  For now, the administration probably believes that this is a good political talking point, and nothing more.  Perhaps the task force will go after a few mid-level people, or not, but it isn’t really going to cause any major problems for them.  Schneiderman for his part has already said he’d walk away publicly if he is impeded in his investigation, as Dave Dayen noted in his terrific series of articles on the whole episode.

As just one example, Jonathan Weil keeps wryly pointing out that Vikram Pandit at Citigroup may be guilty of violating Sarbanes-Oxley.

In February 2008, two months into his job as CEO, Pandit certified in Citigroup’s 2007 annual report that the company’s internal controls were effective. Eight days before he did that, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had sent him a seven-page letter detailing all sorts of ways in which Citigroup’s controls were inadequate.

The statute seems pretty clear to me, though I’m not a lawyer.  The criminal statute says that CEOs must certify financial statements of their companies, and “that information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer”.  If a CEO certifies false statements it’s a million dollar fine and up to 10 years in jail.  If a CEO willfully certifies false statements it’s a five million dollar fine and up to 20 years in jail.

There are many details of the task force that are as of yet not public, so it is not clear to me that doing a case like this is possible.  But it’s quite obvious that mega-bank officials and regulators lying about the perilous state of various financial institutions to the public was a key part of the crisis, and that accountability on this front is probably critical to restoring faith in the system.  It would certainly be a big statement upfront if this is what this task force attempted to take on.  Will it?  That’s a very good question, and one I hope we get answers to, soon.

Yada , Yada , Yada.... Zoom In to Follow the jibber jabber to the decline in the GGB !

Tomorrow And Tomorrow And Tomorrow: The IIF Is Full Of Sound And Fury, Signifying Nothing

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/28/2012 11:50 -0500

Just one recursive headline to fool them all, and in the darkness run away.

Follow The Bouncing Iranian Ball - And The Effective Date Will be When ?

Iran finalizes bill to ban EU oil exports

Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:24PM GMT

Iranian lawmakers aim to ban all oil exports to European countries in response to the oil ban against Iran.

An Iranian lawmaker says the Majlis (parliament) Energy Committee has finalized a draft bill to stop the country's oil exports to EU member states in reaction to the bloc's recent decision to ban oil imports from Iran.

Nasser Soudani, deputy chairman of the committee, said on Saturday that the double-urgency bill for halting Iran oil exports to Europe had been finalized in four clauses.

“According to one of the main clauses, the Islamic Republic of Iran will halt all oil exports to European countries as long as they continue to ban oil imports from Iran,” he added.

The lawmaker said the bill may undergo further modifications as some Iranian parliamentarians believe that oil exports to EU should be stopped for five years.
“Another clause obliges the government to forbid imports of all goods from countries which have imposed sanctions on our country,” he added.

Soudani announced on January 25 that in reaction to EU sanctions against Iran's oil sector and central bank, Iranian lawmakers were drafting a new law to stop oil supply to European countries.

During their latest meeting in Brussels on January 23, EU foreign ministers reached an agreement to ban oil imports from Iran, freeze the country's central bank's assets within EU, and ban sales of diamonds, gold and other precious metals to Iran.

EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, claimed that the new sanctions aim to bring Iran back to negotiations with P5+1 -- US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany -- over the country's peaceful nuclear program.

The United States, Israel and their European allies accuse Tehran of pursuing military objectives in its nuclear program and have used this pretext to impose four rounds of international and a series of unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Iran has refuted the allegations, arguing that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Tehran has a right to use nuclear technology for peaceful use.

The Report That Will Blow Up Europe !

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2012/01/report-that-will-blow-up-eurozone.html

Ilargi: The report I refer to in the title requires a little background info:

In Holland, where I'll be for a few more days, there's a "rogue" right-wing party named PVV (Party for Freedom). It has no cabinet ministers, but the minority moderate right-wing government needs its support to stay in the saddle. The PVV, like other European right-wingers, is, among many other things, against much of what the European Union stands for. It's certainly against the Euro, and the bailouts with Dutch taxpayer money of countries like Greece and Portugal.

A few months ago, the PVV announced they had commissioned a report from British financial consultancy firm Lombard Street Research on the economic consequences of staying in the Eurozone versus returning to the guilder.

That report is about to be published "within days". It will prove to be highly explosive material. And the PVV will do all it possibly can to make sure it receives a lot of media attention. It may tear down the incumbent government, which is a heavy advocate of all things Europe, and which will have to quit once the PVV support dies, but for that party that's not the no. 1 concern.

And if and when Holland has a large scale discussion on the report and the issues it raises, Germany won't be able to ignore it and stay behind. And then, neither will France.

Max Julius of Citywire.uk did a piece on the report, without mentioning it directly, 10 days ago:

Why Germans and Dutch will exit 'suicide pact' eurozone

Germany and the Netherlands are likely to quit the eurozone rather than swallow an indefinite number of 'unrequited transfers' to the union’s crisis-stricken nations, according to Charles Dumas, chief economist at Lombard Street Research.

Speaking at an event in central London, he said that before joining the single currency, German incomes had stayed level but their purchasing power had increased as the Deutschmark appreciated. With the weaker euro, the economist said, they have seen 'tremendous' wage restraint, leading to huge growth in German firms’ market share but ‘no serious growth of the economy’ and a squeeze on disposable incomes. Meanwhile, consumption rose elsewhere in the eurozone, he said.

'So what you’re actually dealing with here... is a German population which has had a rotten deal – and that’s why they’re all so angry' noted Dumas, who is also chairman of the macroeconomic forecasting consultancy. Branding the monetary union a 'suicide pact', he continued: 'So what this exercise in uniting Europe has achieved is to divide Europe.'

Dumas [noted that] the 'Club Med' nations needed about 5% of gross domestic product in annual debt refinancing 'more or less indefinitely'.

This would amount to €150 billion a year, of which Germany would have to stump up just over €60 billion, France a little under €50 billion and €15 billion from the Netherlands, he said. And this would be on top of the shortfall in consumer spending, in addition to the fact that wages and consumption may have to be held down in the future, Dumas warned.

Ilargi: This morning, Dutch daily Algemeen Dagblad cited Dumas as saying these numbers are "cautious estimates". They are valid only if Greece and Portugal would leave the Eurozone in 2012 - which Dumas expects will happen -. If they don't, the payments will be even higher.He predicts the costs of a return to the guilder will be much less than for instance the Dutch government's Central Planning Bureau claims, which warns of huge losses if Holland were to leave the Euro. 

Dumas: "It's just like in a religion: first they promise you heaven, and if that doesn't work out, they threaten you with hell."

The economist dismissed the notion that the region would be able to turn itself around so as to make such support from its 'core' unnecessary. Citing the example of the persisting transfers from west to east Germany, he pointed out: 'The ones that need the money to flow in carry on needing the money to flow in, or just stay poor.'

Dumas also warned that austerity was only worsening Greece’s budget deficit, and that it was 'difficult to imagine' the deeply indebted state receiving the four quarterly batches of financing it is due this year. ‘It’s almost impossible to imagine people continuing to stump up the money, because they simply have not actually gone into this thing with the intention of unrequited transfers to Greece ad infinitum,’ he said as the country resumed talks with its creditors over a planned debt swap.

Calling the one-off damage of splitting up the eurozone 'seriously exaggerated', Dumas warned that as the crisis deepens, he believes 'Germany and the Netherlands will actually realise that they had better call it a day and jump out.'

Ilargi: Sure, the Dutch government, and certainly the EU and the banking system, have formidable PR machineries at their disposal. We’ll see a lot of numbers being floated that contradict Lombard's report. And we'll have to wait a few days to see exactly what numbers Dumas et al. come up with.But the people of Germany and Holland are already very nervous about the fact that they face austerity and budget cuts while billions of euros are transferred to southern Europe. Up until now, the fear of economic disaster predicted in unison by government leaders have kept them quiet. Now that a reputable economic research firm flatly contradicts these predictions, and states that, instead, it's staying within the Eurozone that will be the far more costly option, the people will grow increasingly restless.

Charles Dumas again, from Algemeen Dagblad:

"The Dutch people have lost thousands of euros in purchasing power per year since the currency was introduced."

Governments in Berlin and The Hague will have a lot of explaining to do. They have to do so against a backdrop of (near-)failing Greek debt swap talks, which will at the very least force them to admit that they have a lost tens of billions in taxpayer money to Club Med countries already.

With a second Portugal bailout waiting in the wings. And lots of negative news on Italy and Spain. And more domestic budget cuts.

They’ll realize that their governments have painted far too rosy pictures about the issues so far. And they’ll expect them to deliver more of the same. This is what we call a receding trust horizon.

It's not the report alone, it's the entire combination of factors. The report will "merely" serve as the catalyst that blows up the powder keg. It may take a few months, but it will happen. The publicity hungry rogue PVV party that commissioned it, followed by anti-Eurozone voices elsewhere, will make sure of that.

Anyone Follow the Hearing in Georgia Last Week ?

WHAT HAPPENED AT OBAMA-NO-SHOW TRIAL

Sworn testimony reveals fake Social Security number, other gaps

Published: 2 days ago

by JEROME R. CORSI Email | Archive

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command." Along with serving as WND's senior staff reporter, Corsi is a senior managing director at Gilford Securities. Gilford Securities, founded in 1979, is a full-service boutique investment firm headquartered in NYC providing financial services to institutional and retail clients, from investment banking and equity research to retirement

Georgia citizens today delivered sworn testimony to a court that Barack Obama is slam-dunk disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state, because his father never was a U.S. citizen, which prevents him from qualifying as a “natural-born citizen” as the U.S. Constitution requires for a president.

The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated. His supporters, meanwhile, argue he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.The hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled numerous cases concerning Obama’s eligibility; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Several of the attorneys introduced passages from Obama’s own writings that Barack Obama Sr. was his father. They then introduced evidence that the father never was a U.S. citizen, that he was a citizen of Kenya at the time of his son’s birth and was therefore a subject of the United Kingdom.

His father’s citizenship, they said, precludes him from serving as president, since the Founders required that officer to be a “natural-born citizen,” not just a “citizen.”

The term is not defined in the Constitution, but evidence introduced included a passage from a 1875 Supreme Court opinion that states:”The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Weldon explained in his presentation that the 14th Amendment granting citizenship did not redefine Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which includes the requirement for a president to be a “natural-born citizen.”

The attorney argued also that another later court case referenced citizenship in the dicta, not the central holding in the case, and thus was not controlling.

Many of Irion’s arguments were echoed by Hatfield, a strategy that at least one constitutional expert, Herb Titus, said was sound.

Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Prior to his academic career, he served as a trial attorney and a special assistant United States attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and Kansas City, Mo.

He told WND the fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen should be sufficient.

“That is much stronger than the question of where he was born,” he said. “That alone is evidence. … They don’t need anything additional.”

Taitz argued multiple prongs of the case: that the birth certificate released by the White House is a forgery; that he probably has had several citizenships, such as when he was listed in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen; and that he’s been known under the names Obama, Soetoro and Soebarkah.

She also had a private investigator, Susan Daniels, testify that it appears Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number.

Documents and imaging expert Doug Vogt asserted the birth documentation released by the White House was a creation of a software program and not a scan of any original document. That would mean Obama’s documentation, despite what the White House released in April, is still under wraps.

Obama and his attorney boycotted the proceedings, issuing a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp that the judge was letting attorneys “run amok.” The statement came after Malihi refused to quash a subpoena for Obama’s testimony and his records, which effectively was ignored by the White House.

The judge is expected to review the evidence and make a recommendation to the state whether there is reason to be concerned about Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.

He apparently will have no defense evidence, but Kemp had warned Obama about that.

Kemp said late last night in a response to a demand from Obama’s attorney that he simply order the hearing stopped.

“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

WND reported earlier on the stunning decision from Malihi, who refused to quash the subpoena even after Obama outlined his defense strategy for such state-level challenges, which have erupted in half a dozen or more states already.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued. “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant.”

But the judge thought otherwise.

“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order.

“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.

“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced,’” the judge said.

Jablonski also had argued that the state should mind its own business.

“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing argued.

The image released by the White House in April:

Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House Titus said, “‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning. Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.” If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is … one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said. “Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

While The Clownfest Known As The GOP Primary Lurches Forward , Obama Host The Bushs For No Apparent Reason

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/obama-hosts-george-hw-and-jeb-bush-at-white-house-112638.html

Obama hosts George H.W. and Jeb Bush at White House

• Comments (96)

By DONOVAN SLACK | 

1/27/12 7:15 PM EST

White House photo

Unbeknownst to the press, President Obama met Friday evening with former president George H.W. Bush and his son, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, in the Oval Office.

White House officials did not list the meeting on the president's schedule but released a photo on Flickr. According to the photo's time stamp, the meeting occurred shortly after 5 p.m., about the time the president returned to the White House from a fundraiser.

When asked what the men discussed and why it wasn't on the schedule, the White House released a statement saying, “The three men enjoyed a personal visit in the Oval Office – as they have done on previous occasions when President Bush is Washington.”

The Bushes are in town to attend the exclusive Alfalfa Club dinner Saturday, an annual get-together for Washington power brokers that Obama also is scheduled to attend, according to the Associated Press.

The meeting came at an interesting time politically, just one day after Obama, in an interview with ABC News, blamed predecessor George W. Bush for policies that brought on the greatest recession since the Great Depression. He also blamed him for initiating the expansion of food stamp rolls.

Jeb Bush has also played a critical role in the GOP presidential primary contest in Florida -- primarily by saying he wouldn't play a role. His endorsement would have been key in the race, currently neck and neck between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, but Jeb Bush said last week that he would remain neutral.