BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo

Subject: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: tremodt
Date: 10 Jan 02 - 11:49 PM

I wonder who got the most out of enron

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: harpgirl
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 12:00 AM

...It will be like Silverado. Anyone remember????

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Peg
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 12:43 AM

Good God, let's hope so.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 12:46 AM

Then again, it could be like Teapot Dome...

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bert
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 01:04 AM

Right on there Harpgirl. They tore the new Silverado building in Colorado Springs down. There's a Walgreen's there now.

The cost to the taxpayers was 1.3 billion.

Search the web for Neil AND Siverado for all the details.

Family values!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 01:19 AM

I doubt it, bit I hope to hell they investigate it with all the malice and vituperation they did the Clinton/Whitewater non-scandal. Let's see if they come up with a monomaniacal Ken Starr equivalent to blow 30 million on this little beauty.

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 01:20 AM

I hope it is his AND Cheney's downfall! Of course, because of actions like THESE, we may never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 02:14 AM

Given the choice, I think I'd be more comfortable having a President who was in bed with an intern than one who was in bed with a major corporation. But dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a political commentator!

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: pavane
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 02:41 AM

I wonder who ordered Athur Andersen to destroy all those documents? Who did they incriminate?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 03:38 AM

Behind every Bush there's a Shrub and behind every shrub there's somebody taking the piss!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST,frankie
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 03:44 AM

I just hope congressional democrats reclaim their cojones and conduct a thorough investigation. Thanks for the link, kat. f

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 04:06 AM

You're welcome, frankie. I don't know about them finding their balls, we might have to get them some fake ones like they do for dogs so they don't feel badly without a *package,* BUT there are some people trying to help them find their spines, though from the looks of it, they're not doing a very good job!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST,frankie
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 04:40 AM

LOL kat, let's just hope neuticles are made available for humans before it's too late. It's also nice to see that remote outpost of backboned dems. Here's a brief audio overview of the Enron thing that ran on ATC yesterday. click here

f

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 08:46 AM

I agree a bizzillion % about Cheney and his corporado band of marauders. Like the Bechtel boys of the 80s dark days of Republican rule (remember that ETSI coal slurry pipeline they wanted to build out of the Wyoming fields?), this is Baby Bush's bandito days. The corporations are just pulling the trucks up to the Treasury's doorstep, just like they did under Reagan/Bush.

And the Democrats helping them sneak everything else out the back door.

As I recall, the Special Prosecutor law was allowed to expire in the final days of the Clinton. Which means there is only the Bush Justice Department to investigate. Unless you count the Congressional investigation--but that would be a total waste of time and taxpayer dollars. Congress won't stand up to Bush because all the financial contributors would be pissed as hell if they did. Nope, this is one where I expect Bush will remain above the fray and will get off scot-free, just like his daddy before him did with the S & L scandal. Which should have been of Teapot Dome proportions, but barely made front page news, due to that wonderful Gulf War. Republicans just love to use their dirty little wars as subterfuge and camoflage.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 02:27 PM

They knew he was a crook when they voted for him. What's he supposed to have done now that he hasn't done just as blatantly before, and been rewarded for it?

Mind, there were people who claimed to be surprised when Nixon was caught lying and Clinton turned out to be lecherous bastard.

It's a bit as if people had got indignant at Abraham Lincoln because a few years down the line from electing him they suddenly noticed he had a beard.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 02:31 PM

I couldn't get frankie's link to work, but would appreciate a link to an overview of the entire Enron situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 02:40 PM

It's a link to npr, LeeJ, and I've fixed it, so it works now. Gotta go, but I'll see if I can hunt up some more when I get back.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 03:10 PM

O katmaking melaughuproriously, what a great site! And what burns me is all the talk Bush is making about the shareholders... what about the EMPLOYEES???

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 03:29 PM

Found this, but it predates the bankruptcy, and some may find it slanted since its from The Progressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 03:36 PM

Mrzzy: probably most of the Enron employees WERE shareholders through their 401k plans.

LEJ: The Progressive biased? Perish the thought. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST,Mark Clark (via public proxy)
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 03:38 PM

You know, it makes me sorry we ever elected him. Oh, wait... we didn't.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 03:39 PM

Now there's nothing this ol' hillbilly would rather see than the unelected adminstration skirm but ol' bobert smells something stinky here other than a bunch of rich folks robbing their dedicated employees. I'd rather not replay something similar to the hate-driven investigations of the 90's. They became a sideshow and prevented the government from doing what we pay them to do. I'd rather see the Dems focus on the trickel down voodoo economics that the other side is hell bent on repeating and take the moral high ground on Enron and let Junior's Justice Department hang itself, which it will...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 04:02 PM

I have to say that I probably agree with you on that one, Bobert. Although I need to do a lot of catching up on this issue before I can claim to have an informed opinion about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 04:55 PM

No point in getting into a "yes he was" "no he wasn't" elected Mark, and I'm sure you are aware of that. He was elected, though that news may not have reached the Islands yet. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 05:09 PM

Doug, some folks are just mad that overseas military personnel were allowed to vote and cancelled out the homeless cigarette-bribed vote, as well as the prison vote. It's best to let them vent their anger all at once, or else they may do it at the polls when they "throw a tantrum", like Peter Jennings said the entire nation did in the 1994 congressional elections...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 05:22 PM

What follows is a summary of Enron and related news stories regarding Bush and oil interests that are floating around. I do not know the author and cannot vouch for his sources, but it well summarizes what I have been seeing in several places around the net.

If this stuff is true, 2002 should be a very interesting year.

******

Please distribute this to everyone you know. It was written by William Pitt, a teacher in Boston (www.willpitt.com) and it describes two scandals which have the potential to uproot a certain noxious Bush now occupying the Oval Office.

HELL TO PAY

"Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." - Samuel Johnson

Some time just before January 7th, 2002, an asteroid capable of pulverizing a good-sized nation flashed through the void, passing perilously close to Earth. Had it struck our planet, the impact would have had global consequences. The energy of the strike would have been equivalent to the explosion of a number of large atomic weapons. From the media perspective, it would have been the biggest story since the extinction of the dinosaurs.

At some point in the next six months, a small, darkened corner of George W. Bush's consciousness will wish the thing had hit us. The apocalypse he and his fundamentalist buddies have been waiting for would have been at hand, and a number of potentially calamitous questions about to be put to his administration would have been avoided.

Sadly for him, the planet spins on. Beneath the unpierced stratosphere, the electronic beams of news agencies like CNN and the Associated Press have begun to spread like a widow's web from city to city and house to house. Carried on this invisible wind are rumors of doom, negligence and greed. Each and every one of these rumors lead inexorably back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, which will soon be issuing significant numbers of visitor passes to lawyers if the pattern holds much longer.

Whichever part of the nation that never heard of the energy giant Enron Corporation has recently been introduced to the company in odious context. The story thus far is nothing less than astounding: Enron, a company valued in the billions on Wall Street, suddenly filed for the largest bankruptcy claim in the history of the known universe. 4,000 employees were abruptly shown the door after having been barred from dumping the company stock, meant to fund their retirement, while it was worth something. Meanwhile, Enron executives in the know were able to dump the stock, back when it was the gold standard on the Street, for a cool $1 billion.

Apparently, Enron was ailing for quite a long time. The aforementioned executives were able to maintain the mirage of financial viability by stuffing the debt into what are called 'off-balance-sheet partnerships.' In essence, each of the executives built personal banking bunkers and hid what has been revealed to be staggering Enron debts within them, keeping fact that the company was hemorrhaging money off the publicly displayed balance sheets. This maintained the company's credit rating, and allowed it to continue doing business.

This went on for four years, which means several things. It means most of the Enron executives were aware of and/or actively participating in this highly criminal and irresponsible activity. It means the stockholders, including 4,000 loyal Enron employees, were lied to. It probably means that the executives knew the stock value was doomed when they bailed out and cashed in several months ago. It means they let their employees lose the retirement funds they believed were growing within their Enron stock portfolios. It means a lot of people got screwed by a pack of sharp operators who didn't give a damn about anyone but themselves.

All this could simply be chalked up as yet another story of corporate greed run amok, until the umbilical political and financial connections between Bush and Enron are illuminated. Enron's capo, Kenneth Lay, was perhaps the best financial friend George W. Bush has ever known. Lay and a number of Enron employees essentially bankrolled Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign, going so far as to lend Bush an Enron corporate jet for trips between whistle stops. Before Bush got White House stars in his eyes, he worked very closely with Enron on energy policy in Texas.

This close connection led to the Bush administration's hiring of a number of influential individuals within Enron's orbit for important government positions:

- Thomas E. White, Bush's Secretary of the Army, was once Vice-Chairman of Enron Energy Service, and held millions in Enron stock;

- Presidential Advisor Karl Rove owned as much as $250,000 in Enron stock;

- Economic adviser Larry Lindsay leapt straight from Enron to his current White House job;

- Federal Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick did the same;

- SEC Chairman Harvey Pitts was hand-picked by Kenneth Lay for the position, due to his notorious aversion to governmental regulation of any kind.

There are some thirty one Bush administration officials who had a line item for Enron in their stock portfolio, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It is fair to say that the woebegone corporation held, and continues to hold, enormous influence over the day-to-day machinations of Federal government policy. One wonders if Bush's recent gutting of the Clean Air Act, a decision designed to improve the fortunes of companies like Enron, was the brainchild of people with deep connections to the energy industry.

The trail of influence left by Enron leads also to the scabrous heart ventricles of Vice President Dick Cheney, who admitted recently to six separate meetings with Enron executives while formulating the Bush administration's energy policy. Cheney, a former executive of the Halliburton Petroleum interest, was in charge of creating this policy. For reasons soon to be exposed by subpoena, Cheney refused to detail the specifics of the creation of this policy, which included the multiple Enron meetings. The General Accounting Office was preparing to sue Cheney to reveal this information when the September 11th attacks took place. Those subpoenas may be dusted off and mailed within a month. In the meantime, the Justice Department is preparing a serious criminal investigation into the collapse of Enron. The democratically-controlled Senate is planning hearings on the matter as well. Columnist Robert Scheer has referred to the Bush administration's involvement in the Enron debacle as "Whitewater in spades." One wonders if "Watergate" would be a more appropriate comparison.

Bush's own dealings within the energy industry carry a disturbingly familiar echo to the Enron situation: once upon a time, he was a high-ranking officer of a petroleum interest called Harken Oil. On June 22, 1990, Bush sold his Harken stock and made $848,560, earning him a 200% profit. One week later, Harken announced a $23.2 million loss in quarterly earnings and its stock dropped sharply, losing 60 percent of its value over the next six months. Bush made a bundle while the other investors lost millions. Harken was Enron in miniature, and might have served as a warning to the American people if the press had chosen to pay any attention to it during the 2000 Presidential campaign.

There is a school of thought, espoused primarily by Republicans, that any investigation into potentially dishonorable or illegal actions by the Bush administration is tantamount to treason. We are at war, undeclared though it may be, and Bush must be free to prosecute this war vigorously, so as to defend our freedom and bring the murderers of American civilians to justice. If reports recently aired on CNN have any credence, however, Bush and his people may well have to answer for actions that make the Enron catastrophe look like a jaywalking offense, actions that led directly to the incredible carnage in New York and Washington, D.C.

In 1998, during the Clinton administration, the U.S.-based energy concern Unocal canceled plans to exploit massive natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan. They had planned to run a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, where the natural gas could have been processed for Asian and Western energy markets. The idea was scuttled after Clinton ordered the cruise missile bombing of Afghanistan in response to a terrorist attack upon U.S. embassies in Africa which were planned and executed by Osama bin Laden.

The pipeline would have had to pass through Afghanistan, and Unocal was given the message in Technicolor by Clinton's people that Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was not to be given any sort of financial boon.

Apparently, the Bush administration found no moral dilemma in dealing with the Taliban to get to the gas. Immediately upon their arrival in Washington, a vigorous courtship of the Taliban was undertaken by Bush's people. In fact, if former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler is to be believed, the Bush administration had a vested interest in strengthening and stabilizing the Taliban regime, because a stable regime would compel investors to revive the Turkmenistan natural gas pipeline deal. The Taliban, demon of the moment, was the Bush administration's idea of a 'stable' government. Stable enough, anyway, to see the pipeline through.

The connections between Bush and the Taliban became so close that the Taliban went so far as to hire an expert on U.S. public relations named Laila Helms, so as to smooth the way between the two regimes. Meetings between the two nations continued at a high level, the last of which occurred in August, scant weeks before the September 11th attacks. All of these actions were taken to exploit the vast energy reserves in Turkmenistan for the benefit of American energy corporations.

The cozy relationship between Bush and the Taliban frustrated the investigative efforts of former Deputy Director of the FBI John O'Neill. O'Neill was the FBI's chief bin Laden hunter, in charge of the investigations into the bin Laden-connected bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, the destruction of an American troop barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the African embassy bombings in 1998, and the attack upon the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.

O'Neill quit the FBI in protest two weeks before the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. He did so because his investigation was hindered by the Bush administration's connections to the Taliban, and by the interests of American petroleum companies. O'Neill was quoted as stating, "The main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it." After leaving the FBI, O'Neill took a position as head of security for the World Trade Center. He died on September 11th, 2001, trying to save people trapped by the attack, when the towers came down on top of him. The irony in this, simply, is horrifying. In essence, the Federal agent who knew more about bin laden than any living American was kept from investigating terrorist threats against this country. He was hindered because the Bush administration was desperate to cultivate the favor of the Taliban, who held terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden in great esteem, so as to gain access to lucrative natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan. If these allegations prove true, Bush and his friends allowed this affinity to hamstring investigations that could have thwarted bin Laden's September plans. If these allegations prove true, everything since September 11th has been a massive cover-up operation in which American soldiers and thousands of Afghan civilians have died. If these allegations prove true, the Bush administration has the blood of thousands of American civilians on its hands. If these allegations carry even the faintest whiff of credibility, George W. Bush and members of his administration stand in taint of high treason and murder.

On November 7th, 2000, a clear majority of Americans came to the conclusion that George W. Bush was unfit to govern this nation. For a variety of dark and controversial reasons, that conclusion was thrown over. Sometime soon, if the media's electronic web continues to carry these sordid stories of corruption, greed and death, the American people will come to fully understand the consequences of that failed election.

It is one thing to coddle and court a corrupt energy company for political and financial gain. It is quite another to coddle and court a murderous terrorist-supporting regime, hindering anti-terrorism investigations in the process, for the purpose of exploiting valuable natural resources. The former cost a number of people their retirement funds. The latter has cost thousands of people their lives. One is criminal. The other is abominable. George W. Bush is deeply implicated in both. There will be hell to pay.

extra "<" deleted and
paragraph breaks added by
- el joeclone -

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 05:51 PM

"Do not know the author, and can't vouch for his sources." Nuff said.

If GWB is proved to be guilty of some impropriety in regard to Enron, as Clinton was with all he was charged with, I will be the first in line to say, impeach him.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 05:51 PM

Wrong Mark, DougR! But thanks for thinking of me!

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 05:59 PM

Kinda takes your breath away, don't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 06:09 PM

A few observations on the story: Or should >I say, >"A few >observations on >the story":

Did this "Teacher from Boston" somehow fail to discover that Clinton chose not to take up other nations on the offer to turn over Bin Laden to the U.S. on THREE seperate occasions?

Al Gore's family trust contained half a million in shares of Occidental oil that tripled as a result of Clinton's manufactured oil shortages. I didn't see Brokaw or Jennings leading off the news with that story either, so there's no need to complain about their ignoring Bush's oil profits.

I'm surprised that there weren't more than 31 people with Enron in their portfoilio. It was a huge company, and I'm guessing more people than not had Enron in their portfolios at some point in time. What's next? Should we do a search to see how many people in Bush's cabinet had shares of Amtrack, then suggest that they hired the terrorists to hijack the United and American flights so their Amtrack stock would surge with the nationwide increased fear of flying?

In short, the above story makes for great fiction, but in the end, all it does is make me glad that I don't have kids going to school in Boston.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 06:14 PM

I keep wondering why nobody is saying "Let the President get on with the business of the nation, instead of constantly pestering him with these phony scandals that are really all just a big Left-wing conspiracy". Change a few words and it sounds about eight years worth of familiar, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 06:24 PM

Loopy, if any of that story is true, we need to know about it. If any of it is true, are you saying that the information should be supressed?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 06:46 PM

DougR; Wrong. Selected, not elected...see or, bettre yet, read "Supreme Injustice" by Alan Dershowitz

DougR #2: Wrong, Clinton was not found guilty of everything he was charged with. Though no indictments came down he was "publicly" charged from day 1 until his last day some 8 years later by folks who I guess are your heros. And they are still making charges. Why? Because they are the super rich who really don't work so that gives them plenty of time to sit around, grumble about Slick Willie and remenisce about the good old days when ol' Joe would keep them upitty commies in their place. Fact is, that after the 8 year chase, all your buddies had was the old boy doing what a lot of men who have been caught fooloing around... deny it.

Now lastly, Doug, I'm with Tweed. If you're ever in my neck of the woods, lets get together for a old one, but please don't try to convince me that should the Dems follow your guys blueprint for harassing a sitting President that they are terrorists and traitors cause that dog don't hunt....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 06:49 PM

DougR, here's something I find myself wondering. This is just a hypothetical question, but let's say, hypothetically, that the stuff in that article is true. In such a case, would you want to see the truth come out, or would you rather see Bush get away with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Tweed
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 07:45 PM

That's a pretty wild tale up there, but I think some of us have been thinking along those lines already. It doesn't feel real good to think along those lines but it's been in mine for a while now. Things just seem a little to orchestrated, like a Robert Ludlum novel or something. Maybe Hollywood is writing our future now.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: kendall
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 08:01 PM

The cigarette bribed homeless Loopy? Funny you should mention the overseas vote. How many millions did the republicans spend to influence our servicemen and women overseas? Somewhere around 200 million bucks aS I recall. Sure, all they did was promise them a pay raise, then, they allowed the absentee ballots which came in unstamped and too late (legallY) to be counted. Folks, they are ALL self serving scoundrels. It's just a matter of which gang does the least damage, and Clintons sex problem didn't harm me one bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: toadfrog
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 08:32 PM

Yeah.

It appears Clinton was involved with a woman, and was asked irrelevant questions about it in a frivolous lawsuit, and lied. I didn't like Clinton all that much until the impeachment proceedings. On listening to 5-6 hours of impeachment proceedings and hearing what his enemies had to say, I concluded he must be the greatest president since George Washington. With enemies like that, who needs a friend?

I don't know whether Bush was involved in criminal activities in the Enron matter or not. But I'm quite sure that if he was, he won't be made to suffer for it. Too many highly influential people were into that. Any investigation is bound to get squashed. Tends to make one cynical.

Query: Am I just turning into a geezer, or has the tone of politics gotten a whole lot worse in the last 20 years or so? Makes you wish we had the Commies back. Bin Laden is too small-time a villain to give us a sense of national purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 08:58 PM

Based on what I saw on some news programs tonight, I can see one possible scenario in which Bush and his cohorts might not be protected in this case. A lot of investors (the numbers I heard tonight were millions of people who lost billions of dollars) lost a lot of money. There is some concern by the top corporations that the stock market will suffer because of this Enron situation. The perception being that the market isn't safe for investors.

I also heard that the securities market was considered to be one of the safest because of the accuracy of the auditing and reporting of the financial wellbeing of the companies in question. And this situation is causing a lot of concern that people will lose confidence in the securities market for this reason. The big coporate interests find themselves in a very vulnerable position right now, and I'm guessing they aren't very happy about it. In fact I heard that they are extremely uneasy about this situation

If Bush and his compatriots did in fact have anything to do with any of this, I can see the possibility that the other big players who stand to be really hurt by this situation might want Bush out of the way in order to protect their own interests. They may be seeing him as a liability right now. Just a theory, but something I won't be surprised about if it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 09:42 PM

Yo, Toadfrog, you're right. And I have a theory on it. We now have a bunch of crybaby conservatives trying to turn back the clock and get us all back in the cotton fields. In the 60's it was a bunch of folks looking thru the windshield rather than a bunch of oldsters and oldster wannabes looking in the rear view mirror. And CarolC, Junior has been way out of order since his "selection" by his daddy's Supreme Court. First thing he did was "act" as he had been elected. Ha! Then he set out an agenda that, without his little war, would have had had him in the empeachment chair two years into his presidency. Now his challenge, and those of the ruling class, is how to keep their little war interesting long enough to maybe, just maybe, get them a second term. I persoanally don't think they can do thise without one of their own doing some serious anthrax stuff, just like the what we have just seen, but when you are dealing with the ruling class, and any thing is possible since they own the anthrax and just about every thing else on this earth as well...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 09:49 PM

The difference right now, at least the way it looks to me, is that the big guys are now seeing themselves in a situation where sticking together might not work for them any more. They might decide that they want to look after their own interests in this case, which might mean turning their backs on Bush. As I said, just a theory, but it won't surprise me if it happens.

btw: I think I might have seen your cousin in his Bushmobile on Rt. 230 last week ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Tweed
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 09:56 PM

Calm yerself Boberdz, yer gettin' yoreself all worked up again. They's too many of 'em over here and from what I've seen they got rooms full of duck tape. Yoo'll get yoreself duck taped to a damn banjo or somethin if you don't settle down somewhat....He's fine folks I've seen him get this way before whenever Li'l Buck's name comes up.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 10:11 PM

They got duct tape here, Tweed?

Hi, everyone, Iz... ahhh.. Bobert (smiles and tries to look harmless) Ahh, nice belt buckle there, Doug. Iz sorry if Iz...ahh... got carried away. My wife, the P-Vine, has been trying to get me off my medication and well... ahh, like Tweed said... Iz okay.... really.

So whad I say, Tweed? Weren't as bad as back in Tweedsburg, was it? Ouch! That hurts, Tweed. Ain't you got no respect for your elders? Ouch. Okay, okay. I'll behave.

$#%$#&(&(%$##%$#@&%)&*()&^..................

Danged......

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 10:25 PM

CarolC: Now ol bobert can't get his recolector to pull up Rt. 230 but the way I figure I've got 17 first cousins, 97 second cousins and 413 thirds. Thats a lot of Christmas cards, I'm here to say. But the Bushmobile is a good hint. Didn't happen to have the rear bumper pushed up like someone tried to push over a stump in reverse, did it? Well, if it had a "Goffers Need Love" bumper sticker on it then it was my cousin, Theordore Timpkins, from 17 miles south west of Romney, WV. Did he have his Davey Crockett coonskin hat on when you saw him?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 10:28 PM

The thing that is sick about these scandals is the same thing that was sick about that argument about counting votes last year. It's that people line up on according to what side they want to win, instead of focussing on the evidence and the facts.

Any true democrats (and I mean that with a small d) owe it to themselves and their country to set aside partisan preferances, and to demand that justice should be done. With the election that meant fighting to malke sure that all the voters were counted, regardless of the outcome; with other scandals it means wanting the whole truth to come out and be weighed dispassionately.

Any time you find that people are lining up along partisan lines on issues like this it's a sign of a faltering democracy. You expect it of politicians maybe, but not of honest citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 10:32 PM

Rt. 230's the one that runs up from 340 to Shepherdstown. That car had the Bush/Chaney racing stripe down the middle ;-)

I used to live in Romney. Didn't see anyone with a Davey Crocket coonskin hat there, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 10:34 PM

McGrath, I think you might have meant to say republicans with a small r in your second paragraph.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 10:38 PM

You seem to be forgetting one small detail there McGrath--it was the honest citizen who lost the vote in 2000.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 10:41 PM

No - you get (small d) democrats in countries that aren't Republics. And you get plenty of (small r) republicans who aren't (small d) democrats too, in all sorts of countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 10:52 PM

I think I understand the distinction you're trying to make there McGrath, but I think you might find that using the term democrat (whether or not you use the small d) is going to confuse a lot of people in the US, and make it very difficult for you to get your point across here.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 10:52 PM

CarolC: That was my...ahhh... 1st or 2nd cousin Teodore for sure. He'd probably been up at Rufus's that very day getting his Bush/Chaney racing srtipe on the Bushmobile over at Ott's trailer court. They all got 'em up here in this holler.

And don't worry about McGrath, girl, he's Doug's cousin.

Small world.....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 11:07 PM

GWB won the election. That has been proven by many news services that did investigations of the election hoping to prove otherwise. Most of you don't accept the findings, and that's okay. I'm sure had they proven you right, you would be writing messages, as I am, pointing out that you are wrong.

This particular thread is not about who won the election. Those of you who wish to beat a dead horse, so be it.

This thread is about the failure of Enron, which adversely affected millions of people.

I repeat what I said earlier: if it is proven that George W. Bush did anything that contributed to the failure of the company, or contributed to the folks who invested in the company losing their retirement accounts, I will be the first in line to demand that he be impeached, or imprisoned.

I think it is a bit early to be hanging him though, and I think any reasonable thinking person would not disagree. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Special prosecutor? Why not? Let the chips fall where they may.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 11:17 PM

You keep saying "proven" DougR. But my question was whether or not you would want the truth to come out or, if it was possible for Bush to get away with the things alleged in that article, would you prefer it if he could get away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 11:20 PM

Let me rephrase: A lot of things that actually happen never get "proven". If Bush could somehow slide through this one, even if he did what has been alleged, would you prefer that, or would you like to see what actually happened be proven (if it did happen as alleged in the article).

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 11:23 PM

After writing the post above, I got to thinking. Did any of my Libral friends, and I think I have many on the Mudcat, ever make a similar statement in regard to the multiple investigations of their idol, William Jefferson Clinton? Rather, as I recall, they attacked the fact that he was being investigated at all.

Just a thought.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 11:28 PM

The things Clinton was being investigated for really do pale immensely in comparison to the things being alleged in the article posted above, don't you think DougR?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 11:55 PM

No more than Monica was Mrs. or Mr. Clinton's.

why did you post this shit?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 02 - 11:56 PM

Have to agree with Gargoyle

If you want a debate, post this to the "Drudge Report."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 12:12 AM

Carol C: I'm sure you know that anyone can allege anything, and it's always tempting to side with the person making the allegations, if the charges made coincide with what we hope to be the truth. Why not wait for the evidence before convicting?

Garg: I'm glad to see you are still aboard. I always have enjoyed your postings.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Peg
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 02:57 AM

I must agree with carolC; comparing the allegations against Bush and his cronies in the Enron situation, not to mention the larger implied scandal detailed by Mr. Pitt, to the allegations against Mr. Clinton involving Whitewater or anything else, is like comparing apples and grapes. Not the same.

Doesn't the phrase "natonal security" mean anything? This Enron situation stinks. That's why so many documents ended up in the shredder so quickly. Think: when's the last time that happened???

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 03:27 AM

Well, Peg, there were Hillary's subpenoed time sheets regarding the Whitewater investigation that supposedly were lost, but later turned up in White House living quarters. They weren't shredded, but they sure weren't available when they were supposed to be, right?

But I'm not going to defend Enron, or Arthur Anderson. If important records were shredded, blame those who shredded them.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST,frankie
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 04:05 AM

My hope is that the democrats,or the opposition party if you will, will act like the opposition party and pursue this matter with something like the zeal that Republicans, in their mean-spirited and politically motivated way pursued Clinton for so long. This episode,unlike Whitewater and the intern affair, seems to have some real weight. Early indications are that many of the higher ups in the administration as well as influential legislators were involved with this corrupt outfit so as mentioned earlier we can expect a well financed, major stonewalling effort. To counter this Democrats need to take off the gloves, use their Senate majority and any other weapons at their disposal to ferret out the truth. It's their duty. frankie

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 04:23 AM

To add a musical note, see this related thread. Doug, I feel bad watching you try to hold up the standard of conservative Republicanism all by your lonesome in the middle of this pack of liberals and Know-Nothings. (That last is meant to be a historical reference, not a pejorative comment.) And although Carol is likely to ask that question a few more times until she realizes you're not going to answer it (!), I for one was glad to see you say at least that you won't stand for any lawlessness on the part of Bush and his buddies. That's what I was talking about on the other thread when I said that anybody who supports the party of Lincoln and T. Roosevelt should be angry at hell at what seems to have been going on here.

The problem is that the days of Watergate are long past. No doubt a number of the people responsible for doing the investigating were also in flagrante delicto with Enron, if you'll pardon my French. And the fact that the redoubtable Arthur Andersen Co. may have feet of clay (not to mention shredders of steel) makes me wonder if the truth will ever come out.

I hope all us liberals won't have to be in the position of saying "I told you so" if it turns out that even some of what's in that article is true. But I'd prefer that to never knowing the truth. It's all very sad. <

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 08:18 AM

DougR, I haven't convicted. I have purposely used the word "alleged" in this context.

My question was a hypothetical one. And the impression I'm getting from you is that if the things alleged in that article did happen to be true, you would rather see them covered up and not brought to light.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 08:23 AM

Mark;

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: kendall
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 08:30 AM

Doug, my friend, listen, no matter what kind of spin you put on it, MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GORE THAN FOR BUSH. McGrath, I understand your point, but, I for one, am not focusing on whom I want to win. I want the truth! And, I firmly believe that the conservatives control the money, the courts and the power in this country. The Republican party of today is a far cry from the party of Lincoln and T.Roosevelt.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 11:28 AM

Bush lost the popular vote by a small margin of the votes which actually got counted, both in and outside Florida. That is what sticks in the craw of most folks, IMO. The fact that the sitting president was installed by a Supreme Court decision which tilted the Electoral College numbers his way, after losing the popular vote.

The day after the election, we already knew that Gore had won the popular vote. It was only ever the Electoral College vote in Florida that put the results of the election in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Peg
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 12:56 PM

Doug; if you read my post you will see I stated that the Whitewater crap did not amount to a hill of beans compared to this Enron situation. Yet you had to mention Hillary's shredding timesheets? Sounds kind of desperate to me...these situations are in no way similar...and the Enron scandal is far far worse on moral, financial and political levels...besides Whitewater turned out to be a big embarrassing joke for those investigating it, didn't it? That certainly seems to be why the former president's sex life was held up for scrutiny like it had anything whatsoever to do with his ability to run the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 01:35 PM

Peg, you may well be right. Except. The Whitewater investigation centered around allegations that the Clintons may (note I said "may") have committed acts that were not legal.

George W. Bush, nor anyone in his administration has, as yet, been alleged to have done anything wrong!

Anyone can make allegations. You, I, a columnist for a newspaper or magazine, whatever. But until there is some tangible reason to tie the administration to the Enron scandal, I feel, as tragic as it is, that it is at this point, the SEC and Wallstreet's problem. Not the federal government.

Had the federal government stepped in and attempted to SAVE Enron, there would at least be something to investigate. When government officials were contacted by Enron officials who ask for Fed help, they were turned down! At least that is what is being reported in the press. Not columns, but hard news and that includes the New York Times, Washington Post and every other left-leaning publication that I know about anyway.

So save your daggers, your plowshires, your ropes, whatever, until something occurs that might justify your (speaking collectively here)anger and your willingness to make Bush walk the plank.

If Bush/Cheney did something wrong, they should pay for it. How? If they did something criminal, they should be tried. If the did something unethical, they should be driven from office.

And no, Carol, I don't think anything should be covered up. There should be a complete, total investigation of the Enron failure, and if appointment of a Special Counsel is called for, it should be done.

Those are my thoughts anyway.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 02:03 PM

Ol' Bobert has allready had enough of Enron, and frankly, DougR's absolute loyalty. He says that Bush was elected because the news media says so. Ahh, wonder who owns them? I'm beginning to wonder if this Enron isn't just a side show to keep the peanut gallery from seriously pondering a much bigger question that affects us all: a return to trickle down voodoo economics that seems to be a common thread that binds most conservatives. Yeah, ol' Bobert a lot more concerned about Junior's (al la Reagan's, Gov. Jim Gilmore's) "spend, then don't pay your bills" philosophy. Tough cleaning up after these parties...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 02:28 PM

The important point about that election - and the point that is consistently ignored - wasn't who won and who didn't win. It was about people who tried to interfere with the process of counting the votes. It doesn't matter which side they were on. They were traitors to the democratic process.

And for people to have taken sides on what were essentially technical issues of getting it right, and to have done so according to which side they wanted to win was shameful.

The same goes with issues of alleged crimninality involving politicians - it shouldn't matter which side you are on, bent politicians are your enemy. In fact any real democrat (small d) would be even more concerned to root out people who are bringing discredit upon their own party.

And I don't know any word that means a believer in democracy other than democrat. That word's got a much longer history than any American political party.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: kendall
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 02:47 PM

Doug says they should be run out of office etc. that's good enough for me. I think we all want the truth, it's just that past experience makes each of us look to different parties for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 02:57 PM

Anyone looking to any party and expecting truth is a remarkable optimist. In any country. (There are some honest people in most parties, but there are crooks and charlatans as well. And too often the latter seem to make the runnings - because the honest ones feel they have to back them up, out of distorted party loyalty.)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Troll
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 03:53 PM

This from Neil Boortz. I kinda agree with him on this.ENRON – WHAT'S GOING ON?

Do you want an 60-second rendition of just what all this Enron stuff is all about?

OK .. here you go.

Enron was the nation's seventh largest corporation in terms of revenue. Enron would buy natural gas and electrical energy from producers and re-sell those commodities to distributors and consumers. Enron was apparently cooking the book. Enron was heavily in debt, but the debt was hidden in various partnerships. Eventually the house of cards caved in and Enron tanked. Many Enron employees and investors literally lost most of their life savings.

Enron's connection to President Bush? The corporation and it's top official contributed heavily to Bush's various political campaigns. Also – when the financial cave in began at Enron some Enron officials had meetings with Bush Administration officials seeking help.

That's just about it. This is the synopsis for the "scandal" that many in our wonderful news media say could be "as big as Whitewater."

So, you want to compare Bush/Enron with Clinton/Madison Guaranty and the Whitewater scandal? Fine! Let's go for it. For starters:

Can you show me any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that George W. Bush or anyone working for George W. Bush did anything to help Enron hide its financial misdeeds?

Can you name one Bush family member who received money from Enron for professional services – as an attorney, for instance? Can you show any loans to George W. Bush or any of his family members from Enron or from any of Enron's principals? Can you show that George W. Bush invested in Enron and that that investment was subsequently protected by Enron officials when the financial picture started to fall apart. Can you provide me with any evidence that any administration official, from Bush's years as Governor of Texas or since he became president, has taken any action whatsoever to prevent, stall or impede an investigation by any government regulatory agency, either state or federal, into the financial affairs of Enron? Can you provide any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, of any sexual relations between George W. Bush and any officer or the wife of any officer of Enron? Can you produce evidence that either Enron or any Enron official ever made payments on any promissory obligation of George W. Bush or any member of his family? Can you introduce any evidence that George W. Bush, or any member of his immediate family, ever participated in the preparation of any legal documents drawn for the sole purpose of defrauding the federal government? Can you show that either George W. Bush or any member of his administration or his immediate family has lied, whether under oath or not, about any aspect of his relationship with Enron or any Enron officials? Can you provide me the name of any Enron official who is presently serving time in jail for contempt of court for his or her refusal to answer questions under oath about the role of George W. Bush or any member of his family or administration in dealings with Enron? Can you show me that any pertinent documents relating to Enron, which documents were once in the possession of George W. Bush, any member of his immediately family or any administration official has been destroyed, lost, shredded or otherwise disposed of? Explain just why there is so much criticism of George W. Bush over the Enron debacle while Enron is being represented in Washington by Bill Clinton's former attorney.

But, you say, Enron talked to Bush officials when they knew they were in trouble? So? Didn't airline representatives talk to both Republican and Democratic officials in Washington when they found themselves in trouble? Didn't Chrysler make a trip to Washington decades ago when it hit some rough roads? It's pretty much standard practice for huge corporation to go to Washington when the going gets rough. Sometimes you see a bail-out as you did with the airlines and Chrysler. Sometimes the corporate officials learn that they are going to have to go it on their own.

Democrats and Clinton-lovers are just salivating on this one. They are trying to convince the myrmidons that Enron is Bush's Whitewater. As you can see from the list above, this is a tough play to run. It doesn't matter, though, because the vast majority of people in this country – including most Democratic voters – don't have the intellectual curiosity to delve into the situation. They'll believe what their favorite politician says – or what they hear from their favorite news anchors – and that will pretty much be it.

If there's any fraud, criminal conduct or ethical violations here … show me the proof. I'll be right there with you demanding appropriate action.

This last paragraph fits my opinion perfectly.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: harpgirl
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 04:39 PM

I was wondering when you would weigh in on this matter, troll.

One issue that offends me deeply is the fact that Dick Cheney met with Enron officials six times in 2001 in the course of developing Bush's "energy policy". He refuses to turn over his documents, notes, etc., citing "executive privilege". Now Congress has to file a lawsuit to get him to cough up what should be public information. This sure makes him look suspect.

How would you rationalize this arrogance?

I predict that one of the individual's who goes down in this scandal will be Dick Cheney. But I fear he will have a heart attack before we find out what he knows, frankly.

harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 08:27 PM

I realize you posed this question to troll, harpgirl, and I've already made my position on this as clear as I believe I can, but I do have one comment.

I think it is perfectly logical that the VP, who was charged with the responsibility (along with others) to develop an Energy Policy would seek counsel from people in the energy business. I agree with you and I am uncomfortable with the fact that the VP is resisiting releasing information Congressional committees want. I have a feeling that will change with this Enron mess, and that the information will be made available. If it isn't the charges of "cover up" will just continue.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: kendall
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 09:38 PM

Troll, it's too soon to offer proof. The republicans had 8 years to smear Clinton. I for one, did not and do not condone Clintons actions, and, if GB is guilty of wrong doing, I wont condone him either. What would you conservatives do without Clinton? Everytime something like this comes up, all you can do is deflect with Clinton this and Clinton that.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 10:03 PM

Most of you are also conduits for Condit, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 10:04 PM

Nope that's Left

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: toadfrog
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 10:40 PM

Very premature debate, this. Nobody has alleged anything clear and persuasive about a Bush role in that mess yet. The above posting to the effect he supported the Taliban in Enron's interest looks like BS to me. Maybe he did, but I'll wait till I hear it from a reliable source.

I think what bothers most of us is not the suspicion that the President did something personally to cause the Enron debacle, but the fact he supports policies which made the debacle possible, and specifically:

1. A policy which opposes restraints on political donations, so that Enron clearly owned a scary number or politicians.

2. Enron was for all practical purposes not subject to normal SEC regulation. And apparently it was immune from Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. That did not come about during the Bush administration, but it is the kind of policy his Party, and specifically his wing of that party, stands for.

3. Aside from being looted by its own officers and going bankrupt, Enron has been involved in some pretty rotten stuff. Such as its ruinous deal with the State of Maharashtra, obtained by bribery and supported by our government, and its use of influence in the recent energy crisis. And none of these things were done, I'm sure, without the complicity of some democratic politicians.

4. But this is an administration whose basic principle, its sole ideal, its reason for being, purpose in life, is to make sure large oil companie always get everything they ask for. All of its best friends are oil company executives, and when something goes wrong in that sector, many of us feel somehow Bush had his hand in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 02 - 11:47 PM

Where's Columbo when we need him, Toadfrog. He'd have ol Junior hollerin' "Uncle" in no time. DougR and his cohorts, whose shrills were the most irritating for the 8 years they chased Bill Clinton around with one imagined scandle after another, now expect a different level of civility when it's their boy getting a whoppin' for something that he probably didn't do. But at least they now have some perspective of just how pissed off we were while their rich buddies wasted a decade, interupting the function of governemnt, costing us all millions of taxpayers dollars harassing a sitting president. Well, DougR, your guys wrote the book, so don't act so surprised that when it's GEORGE WWWWWWW BUSH who is getting a taste of your parties medicine. What did you expect? The entire thing kindof turns me off. Just as it did when it was your guys. There are real issues on the table that effect real people. I'm more concerned about the trickle down/ voodoo econmics that your guys are pushing that the next generation will have to clean up, just like we had to do after Ronnie Ray-gun held out the credit card for 8 years and just said, "Charge it".

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Troll
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 12:12 AM

Every dog has his day. The Clintonistas spent eight years blaming everything on Reagan and Bush, Sr. Now the shoe is on the other foot and hear them howl. Turnabout is fair play.
I am disturbed that Cheney is stonewalling over the energy policy records, but he would not have been doing his job in developing an energy policy had he not consulted with one of the largest energy brokers in the world.
As for as Enron running to Washington for a bailout, so did the airlines. Enron was turned down. I hardly think that this was the action of an Administration "owned" by Enron.
And yes, Enron gave a lot of money to the Bush campaign. They also gave Clinton $100,000 in 1994. The Democrats will make as much of this as they can. It's an election year, after all, and they need all the help they can get. It will be interesting to see what the Republicans do.
Me? I voted for Bugs Bunny.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Troll
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 12:16 AM

Heres the article. Sorry. It was 1995, not 1994.

FLASHBACK: CLINTON OFFICIAL MET WITH ENRON CHAIRMAN; $100,000 CASH DONATION TO DEMOCRATS TIMED TO PLANT APPROVAL TIME MAGAZINE SEPTEMBER 1, 1997

On Nov. 22, 1995 President Clinton scrawled an FYI note to chief of staff Mack McLarty, enclosing a newspaper article on Enron Corp. and the vicissitudes of its $3 billion power-plant project in India.

McLarty then reached out to Enron's chairman, Ken Lay, and over the next nine months closely monitored the project with the U.S. ambassador to New Delhi, keeping Lay informed of the Administration's efforts, according to White House documents reviewed by TIME magazine.

In June 1996, four days before India granted final approval to Enron's controversial $3 billion power-plant project, Enron's gave $100,000 to President Clinton's party.

Enron denies that its gift was repayment for Clinton's attention, and White House special counsel Lanny Davis says McLarty acted out of concern for a major U.S. investment overseas, TIME's Michael Weisskopf reported.

****

NOTE: McLarty was later hired by Enron. Lay also played golf with President Bill Clinton and slept in the Clinton White House. A master of political manipulation of both parties, Lay served as an adviser to the Clinton White House on energy issues. The Clinton administration, in turn, helped Enron get a contract for a gas pipeline in Mozambique and other projects, according to reports.

END

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 02:12 AM

Enron's connection to President Bush? The corporation and it's top official contributed heavily to Bush's various political campaigns. Also – when the financial cave in began at Enron some Enron officials had meetings with Bush Administration officials seeking help.

This looks like a quick gloss-over of the actual relationship. Wasn't Enron in fact the single biggest contributor to the Bush campaign? Didn't Bush use the Enron Company jet many times in his pursuit of the presidency? And didn't Bush, while Governor of Texas, grant Houston-Based Enron special dispensation in the form of grossly relaxed pollution compliance standards, to allow its two principle factories to operate despite violations?

Just curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST,frankie
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 07:41 AM

If there are any doubts left as to who really controls our government this affair should dispel them. Both Democrats and Republicans have soiled themselves with Enron money. As Christopher Hitchens has observed, we are now a one party system (Conservative) with two wings (Reps. and Dems.). It should be painfully obvious that it's time for real campaign finance reform.

frankie

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST,frankie
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 07:49 AM

forgot to add that I'm off to write my legislators regarding this yet again. I still believe we can make this system work. f

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 07:49 AM

And for other parties to gain power. But the only way either will ever happen is if we ourselves demand they happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST,frankie
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 08:29 AM

Here's a site where you can obtain the website of your congressional representatives: www.house.gov. Sorry no clicky, my skills in that area are still suspect. I also stumbled onto and interesting site that has information about your Reps. and Senators campaign money. It's www.opensecrets.org/index.asp. f

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 08:39 AM

Published on Thursday, August 10, 2000 in the Chicago Tribune Cheney's Black Gold: Oil Interests May Drive US Foreign Policy by Marjorie Cohn What do the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and the Balkans have in common? U.S. domination in these areas serves the interests of corporate multimillionaires such as Dick Cheney. As George Bush's secretary of defense, Cheney was chief prosecutor of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Humanitarian rhetoric notwithstanding, the bombing of Iraq--which continues to this day--was primarily aimed at keeping the Persian Gulf safe for U.S. oil interests. Shortly after Desert Storm, the Associated Press reported Cheney's desire to broaden the United States' military role in the region to hedge future threats to gulf oil resources. Cheney is CEO of Dallas-based Halliburton Co., the biggest oil-services company in the world. Because of the instability in the Persian Gulf, Cheney and his fellow oilmen have zeroed in on the world's other major source of oil--the Caspian Sea. Its rich oil and gas resources are estimated at $4 trillion by U.S. News and World Report. The Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, voice of the major U.S. oil companies, called the Caspian region, "the area of greatest resource potential outside of the Middle East." Cheney told a gaggle of oil industry executives in 1998, "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."

But Caspian oil presents formidable obstacles. Landlocked between Russia, Iran and a group of former Soviet republics, the Caspian's "black gold" raises a transportation dilemma. Russia wants Caspian oil to run through its territory to the Black Sea. The United States, however, favors pipelines through its ally, Turkey.

Although the cheapest route would traverse Iran to the Persian Gulf, U.S. sanctions against Iran block this alternative. Cheney has lobbied long and hard, as recently as June, for the lifting of those sanctions, to lubricate the Iran-Caspian connection. This is consistent with his position, described in a 1997 article in The Oil and Gas Journal, that oil and gas companies must do business in countries with policies unpalatable to the U.S.

Cheney also favors the repeal of section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act, which severely restricts U.S. aid to Azerbaijan because of its ethnic cleansing of the Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh, a mountainous enclave in Azerbaijan. Why would Cheney choose to ignore Azerbaijan's human-rights violations? Because Azerbaijan, key to the richest Caspian oil deposits, is, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "in fact, the focal point of the next round in the Great Game of Nations, a dangerous, hot-headed place with a Klondike of wealth beneath it. It is Bosnia with oil."

Cheney's oily fingerprints are all over the Balkans as well. Last year, Halliburton's Brown & Root Division was awarded a $180 million a year contract to supply U.S. forces in the Balkans. Cheney also sits on the board of directors of Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor. Replacing munitions used in the Balkans could result in $1 billion in new contracts.

War is big business and Dick Cheney is right in the middle of it.

Meanwhile, our energy and gasoline prices continue to soar in many parts of the United States. OPEC controls the oil production in the Persian Gulf. Cheney, worried about a falloff in investment, spoke in favor of OPEC cutting oil production so oil and gasoline prices could rise.

Cheney is ineluctably invested in keeping the world safe for his investments.

Although he stepped down as CEO of Halliburton, he still owns shares of stock in the conglomerate and his financial interests in the Persian Gulf, the Caspian region and the Balkans will invariably continue. Chosen by George W. Bush to bring foreign-policy expertise to the GOP presidential ticket, we can expect a Republic administration to increase U.S. intervention in regions when it suits Dick Cheney's oil and other corporate concerns.

Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego. She is editor of Guild Practitioner and sits on the National Executive Committee of the National Lawyers Guild. She is also on the Roster of Experts of the Institute for Public Accuracy, a nationwide consortium of policy researchers.

Copyright 2000 Chicago Tribune

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 08:43 AM

Published on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Media Services The Bush Payback: It's Never Been Easier to "Follow the Money" by Mark Weisbrot The Bush Administration's energy proposal is the latest in a series of initiatives that give "transparency" in government a whole new meaning. Campaign contributors are cashing in on their investments, and every week is "payback" week. It's taken quite a stretch to use electricity shortages as an excuse for drilling the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, but George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are making a heroic effort. So what if only 3 percent or our electricity comes from oil? The more relevant number here is 78 percent: that's how much of the oil and gas industry's record $32.6 million contribution went to Republicans in the last election cycle.

The Administration's arguments about energy security don't hold up much better. Drilling the Wildlife Refuge full of oil wells would not have much impact on oil or gasoline prices, since oil prices are determined in a world market.

The supply impact would be minimal and no different from oil obtained anywhere else in the world; and OPEC could always cut back production to compensate for it. Of course, if we were really concerned about long-term energy security, the best strategy would be to leave the oil in the ground, in case imports are not so readily available some day.

But this is not energy planning -- if it were, we'd see more than the token one-tenth of one percent of our energy dollars allocated to developing renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Or conservation: five of the nation's top laboratories have estimated that we can reduce the growth in electricity demand by 20 to 47 percent by increasing energy efficiency.

These scientists didn't get any face time with Dick Cheney when the secretive Energy Development Task Force -- dubbed the "Alaska jihad" by its leaders -- put together the Administration's proposal. But Kenneth Lay, chairman of Enron Corp. got a half hour with the Vice President to lobby for what he wanted.

The proposal sees deregulation -- the cause of California's soaring electricity prices -- as the way of the future. And why not? Consumers got fleeced for billions of dollars, and a good chunk of it went to Enron -- an excellent return on their $1.7 million contribution to Republicans in the last election, as well as their long-term investments in Mr. Bush's political career.

There will be no price caps to protect consumers from the effects of deregulation, even though the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the power to do that, and even to force a refunding of money already ripped off.

There will be no closing of the loophole that allows SUV's and pick-up trucks to be exempt from Federal mileage standards -- just ask White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, former chief lobbyist for the auto industry.

The Administration's energy policy seems to be based on the same strategy as its economic policy. Faced with a real short-term problem, do nothing to resolve it, but use it to sell long-term changes that reward your friends. The Bush tax cut will do little or nothing to counter the current economic slowdown, instead rewriting the tax code to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the richest people in America over the next decade.

Then there was the bankruptcy bill: a timely gift to credit card companies at the expense of millions of people (median income: $22,000) who are unable to make ends meet -- mostly due to loss of a job, poor health, or divorce. Kick 'em while they're down. The credit card giant MBNA was the largest corporate contributor to the Bush campaign.

Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical companies have been using their clout to block a universal Medicare prescription drug benefit. And the Wall Street firms that would rake in billions from privatizing Social Security got one of the most stacked presidential commissions in history -- unanimously pro-privatization -- to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.

That's how our free market election system works: you vote with your dollars. President Bush has made it easier than ever to "follow the money," but the media has been mostly kind to him. Alternating between the confused look of a student who knows he is faking it, and that impish gleam, he has charmed the press and rides high in the polls.

And he does deliver some good jokes. "You can fool some of the people all of the time -- Mr. Bush quipped at a Washington dinner -- "and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."

Too bad he wasn't kidding.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (www.cepr.net) in Washington, DC.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: kendall
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 09:50 AM

Politicians are like diapers. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason. The only answer to this corruption is term limits.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST,frankie
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 10:24 AM

I'm all for experimenting with term limits but one drawback to them is that it might encourage legislators to make connections with the private sector for their post-congressional careers at a more accelerated pace given their shorter time in office. Sounds cynical but look at the track record. f

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 10:29 AM

Thanks for research, GUEST. I find it also interesting that Cheney got a nice little $17M send off check from the oil industry when he left it (haha, as if he did..) in pursuit of the vice presidency.

You know, the funny thing...ahhh, no, make that the sad thing is that all forward thinking people know that there will be a time when the world will have to harness wind and solar energy, and we have the technology now but not the will. Historians will look back on our "watch" as a time when greedy people put their interests above the intersts of the planet and 98% of its inhabitants that comprise its working/peasant class.

I have nothing agaist companies making a profit so for those who would argue that a lot of us are saying that profit is bad word are mistaken. We just need to rethink out energy policy, to retool our industries toward renewable energy sources and not strap our kids and grandkids with not only the reposibility for having the courage to do what we didn't but also clean up our mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 12:19 PM

It will be our children and grandchildren who will fight the worst wars for oil, gas, and nuclear resources, not us. Health wars from the devastating environmental effects, and global wars to get and keep our share of the resources.

And as always, it will be the marauders who win.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 02:11 PM

Troll and DougR, the issue is not whether Clinton was dirty, too, or whether Bush himself actually did something that was against the law. "Pin the dirt on the President" is just as simplistic and pointless as "Bin Ladin dead or alive." The real issue is that big corporations own the government, make the rules, buy and sell legislators, and have turned "democracy" into a joke. When legislators' primary agenda from day one in office is getting re-elected, when re-election depends on money, and when most of the money comes from huge corporations, what do you expect? And how many of those legislators do you think are going to support campaign reform, and thus put themselves out of office? The whole thing stinks. And no, I don't have any great ideas for fixing it. It just stinks.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 03:17 PM

Mark: I agree that money has too much influence on politics, whether from the private sector or corporations. I seriously doubt that either party is going to be willing to take the steps that would be necessary to correct it though. I'm not convinced that the legislation introduced by Senators McCain and Feingold will do it either. I'll be very surprised if even that bill ever becomes law.

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 03:55 PM

Somehow this seems a good moment to post an anthem a friend of mine wrote.

Forge a Link
Lorraine (Rainee) Godwin, Juneau Alaska

I was walking in the valley; echoes sounded from far and near
Trees and rivers, creatures calling, asking me now that I'm here:
Did you do what you came to do, say what you want to say
Help to make this world a better place to live and work and play
Did you know my love and joy and pain and help me on my way
Did you forge a link in the holy chain to build a brighter day

Hear the cries of all our children reaching back to you and me
In disbelief at how we've taken and destroyed their legacy
Unless we do what we came to do, say what we want to say
Help to make this world a better place to live and work and play
If we share our love and joy and pain and seek and find a way
To forge a link in the holy chain to build a brighter day

Then I heard the sacred memories of the spirits speak as one
Telling me that salvation of this earth can still be won
When we do what we came to do, say what we want to say
Help to make this world a better place to live and work and play
We'll share our love and joy and pain to seek and find a way
We'll forge a link in the holy chain to build a brighter day

Did I do what I came to do, say what I want to say?
Help to make this world a better place to live and work and play?
Did I know your love and joy and pain and help you on your way?
Did I forge a link in the holy chain to build a brighter day?
Did I forge a link in the holy chain to build a brighter day?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 06:32 PM

Thanks, Doug, I'm glad we have common ground there. (But don't tell CarolC we agreed on something, OK?) ;-)

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 06:34 PM

And thanks, Ebbie...that's a good reminder.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 13 Jan 02 - 10:58 PM

I'll never tell, Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:16 AM

DougR wrote: George W. Bush, nor anyone in his administration has, as yet, been alleged to have done anything wrong!

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. . .

It is early days yet, and I didn't have time to read all of these really long posts in detail. Whitewater was largely the result of the personal vendetta spawned by one very rich fellow from Arkansas who hates Bill Clinton's guts. Can't remember the guy's name, but he, for example, is the one who found Paula Jones and at the 11th hour (literally--the day before the statute of limitations expired) filed a grievance against Clinton. And dug up Lewinski.

Most of these big corporations traditionally support everyone across the board. That way they're guaranteed to have put cash in the pocket of the winner in many races. They're apolitical, simply wanting power and access, and buying influence along the way by whatever means in campaigns.

And a note, if it hasn't come up above, the news organizations that did a recount in Florida did find that Gore won. The story just never came out big because of Sept. 11.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:07 PM

Pardon, Sage, but Methinks you may be confused. The investigation showed that Bush won.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:10 PM

No, it didn't. It took into account the various messed up ballots, though, so I'm sure those who want to spin the story according to Bush's winning only have to drop those ballots. It's all a matter of interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:15 PM

There were numerous investigations into the vote count in Florida, some showed Bush won, some showed Gore won. But the fact is, the Florida vote was only ever about the Electoral College.

Gore won the nationwide popular vote--and the popular vote count has never been in question.

I don't know how many other presidents, if any, have ever won the Electoral College vote, and lost the national popular vote before. But I'm sure it would be easy enough to find out.

I'm fairly certain there have been other instances where the Supreme Court has been involved in the presidential vote, but offhand, I don't know what they are. Nonetheless, the *stopping* of the vote count by the Supreme Court is, if I recall correctly, unprecedented.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:18 PM

The New Yorker recently had an excellent discussion of this recount by the news agencies. I'll look for the citation and send it along when I get home.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:33 PM

Here is the answer to one of my own questions:

Three times in American history the Electoral College has elected a president who did not win the popular vote.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams, son of President John Adams, became president despite receiving fewer popular and electoral votes than Andrew Jackson, who finished first but failed to win a majority of either vote. Adams, after striking a deal with the third-place candidate, was elected president by Congress as required by the Constitution when no candidate wins an electoral vote majority. In 1828, Jackson defeated Adams handily.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden by 247,000 votes, but won the Electoral College by one vote, 185 to 184. Hayes, who served one term, was derided by critics as "His Fraudulency" and "Rutherfraud."

In 1888, President Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by 90,000 votes but lost the Electoral College vote 233-168 to Benjamin Harrison. Four years later, Cleveland ousted Harrison from office, winning both the popular and electoral votes by a wide margin.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:38 PM

It is true that there have not yet been any clear allegations of criminal wrongdoing by the President or any of his men in direct connection with Enron.

That is precisely the problem, because it is clear that Enron has been extremely influential in all matters of energy policy, including especially deregulation of trading of energy, and tax policy. Bush, Cheney, and many others, including most of the Democrats, are clearly prepared to do the bidding of the Enrons of the world, and they have received the massive political donations to prove that they were bought fair and square.

None of this is criminal, or even unethical in the Congressional sense of the term, because the laws have been written and interpreted by Congress and the Rehnquist Court to only outlaw money that flows as an express and provable quid pro quo for a specific action by a governmental official. Thus, Senator Torricelli (Dem., N.J.) was recently found to have broken no law by the U.S. Attorney, although he certainly put on a seamy display.

The system is rigged for corporate power. Mark Twain's book, The Gilded Age, describes it well. Only the industries have changed.

If there turns out to be any criminal conduct, I suggest following the money, especially stock trades made by those close to various politicians while Enron was on the way down. It is true that the Cabinet officials do not seem to have leapt to Enron's aid. It is also true that they kept quiet about what they heard. This may well violate the insider trading laws.

The folks who were called by Enron had information that was important to the investing public: 1) they knew that Enron's management was starting to get desperate and was seeking government assistance; 2) they knew the government had turned Enron down. Investors would have liked to have known both of these facts at the time. Although the stock's value was already depressed by bad news that had already come out, bankruptcy was still not widely predicted. Indeed, the stock was worth something like fifteen times as much then as it is worth today.

It will be interesting to learn if anyone with access to that information, or close to the Bush Administration, made any trades in Enron stock or derivatives following the phone calls to the Cabibnet officials who did nothing.

Enron is an important scandal because it reveals the true workings of our system and the power of corporations to control our so-called leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:38 PM

And here is an interesting website on the court intervening in a presidential election:

http://www.humanevents.org/articles/12-22-00/jeffrey.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:43 PM

It is also true that Enron's board got *their* money out of the corp. when the downhill slide began, at the same time they lied to the employees and shareholders. Now, if any Cabinet members were aware that was going on and did nothing, I think there may well be some criminal wrongdoing involved. But i gotta get back to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 01:20 PM

Geez, these Bush's and money scandals....Daddy George had a similar fiasco with the S&L's some ten years ago. It must run in the family.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 01:33 PM

So, I assume it is the postion of the majority of posters that the Bush administration SHOULD have bailed out Enron. Is that what you think?

They are being damned because they did nothing, so I assume it is logical that you believe they should have done something.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 02:17 PM

Perhaps they should have bailed out Enron, but only in exchange for re-regulation of the electric power industry, which should never have been de-regulated. That entire question, however, is basically irrelevant to my posting.

My point was not that Enron should have been bailed out. My point was that both the request of the bail out and the denial thereof constituted material information that should have been disclosed to the public, especially the stock-trading public. Once the information was in the possession of cabinet officials it could no longer properly be kept secret. About the only laws that are regularly enforced regarding the stock markets are the laws regarding proper disclosure of material information to the public and prohibiting insider trading.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 02:30 PM

For those interested in the question of Bush dealings with Taliban before September 11 and the question of whether the administration was reigning in efforts to capture Bin Laden, the following is the most reputable news coverage I have come across. I understand this to be a transcript of a CNN Broadcast, although I am accepting that on faith from a representation made on another site:

An Interesting Interview on CNN

Aired January 8, 2002 - 07:34 ET

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Time to check in with ambassador-in- residence, Richard Butler, this morning. An explosive new book published in France alleges that the United States was in negotiations to do a deal with the Taliban for an oil pipeline in Afghanistan. Joining us right now is Richard Butler to shed some light on this new book. He is the former chief U.N. weapons inspector. He is now on the Council on Foreign Relations and our own ambassador-in- residence -- good morning.

RICHARD BUTLER, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good morning, Paula.

ZAHN: Boy, if any of these charges are true...

BUTLER: If...

ZAHN: ... this...

BUTLER: Yes.

ZAHN: ... is really big news.

BUTLER: I agree.

ZAHN: Start off with what your understanding is of what is in this book -- the most explosive charge.

BUTLER: The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the Bush administration -- the present one, just shortly after assuming office slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across Afghanistan.

ZAHN: And this book points out that the FBI's deputy director, John O'Neill, actually resigned because he felt the U.S. administration was obstructing...

BUTLER: A proper...

ZAHN: ... the prosecution of terrorism.

BUTLER: Yes, yes, a proper intelligence investigation of terrorism. Now, you said if, and I affirmed that in responding to you. We have to be careful here. These are allegations. They're worth airing and talking about, because of their gravity. We don't know if they are correct. But I believe they should be investigated, because Central Asian oil, as we were discussing yesterday, is potentially so important. And all prior attempts to have a pipeline had to be done through Russia. It had to be negotiated with Russia. Now, if there is to be a pipeline through Afghanistan, obviating the need to deal with Russia, it would also cost less than half of what a pipeline through Russia would cost. So financially and politically, there's a big prize to be had. A pipeline through Afghanistan down to the Pakistan coast would bring out that Central Asian oil easier and more cheaply.

ZAHN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) as you spoke about this yesterday, we almost immediately got a call from "The New York Times."

BUTLER: Right.

ZAHN: They want you to write an op-ed piece on this over the weekend.

BUTLER: Right, and which I will do.

ZAHN: But let's come back to this whole issue of what John O'Neill, this FBI agent...

BUTLER: Right.

ZAHN: ... apparently told the authors of this book. He is alleging that -- what -- the U.S. government was trying to protect U.S. oil interests? And at the same time, shut off the investigation of terrorism to allow for that to happen?

BUTLER: That's the allegation that instead of prosecuting properly an investigation of terrorism, which has its home in Afghanistan as we now know, or one of its main homes, that was shut down or slowed down in order to pursue oil interests with the Taliban. The people who we have now bombed out of existence, and this not many months ago. The book says that the negotiators said to the Taliban, you have a choice. You have a carpet of gold, meaning an oil deal, or a carpet of bombs. That's what the book alleges.

ZAHN: Well, I know you're going to be doing your own independent homework on this...

BUTLER: Yes.

ZAHN: ... to see if you can confirm any of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 02:37 PM

Here is the official CNN transcript, which is longer than what I have posted above:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 02:59 PM

This isn't about a bail out, DougR. It's about a government that has at least some responsibility of protecting its citizens from criminals and bad guys. The executives at Enron were in the midst of a heist and if the Bush Administration knew of it and did nothing, well then they should be held accountable, just a a bad cop who turns his back on criminal wrong doing. As others have pointed out, and I am in agreement with them, that if we find that the Bush Administration did in fact knowingly let the executives of Enron bail out with over a billion dollars at the expense of its employees, then this will be the demise of Bush's presidency. His ratings, once they start falling will sink quickly, especially as the American people grow bored or impatient with the war, which will happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 03:19 PM

There is no evidence to date that the Bush administration had anymore information about Enron's downward spiral than anyone else did, including the stock-holders! Anyone who can read the financial pages could see that the spiral began months ago. It is the responsibility of investors to police their own investments, not the federal government. If, Bennett, you had stock in Enron and didn't dump it in time to at least recover your investment, that is your fault not the feds!

On the Butler interview: IF Butler's charges are true, Daschle and crew would be on the Bush administration like flies on "you-know-what." Why haven't they been? Dont' you find that interesting, Bennett? If they could hang something like this on Bush, don't you think they would? You don't suppose Butler was trying to sell a book, do you?

Butler admits, himself, they are only allegations and not proven facts. Yet you post this message expecting that everybody is going to go ape over some alleged action of the Bush administration. Big deal. No one needs to manufacture or emphasize allegations about the Bush administration in order to garner criticism on the Mudcat. Just the fact that the Bush administration is running the country is enough for the majority.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 04:14 PM

DougR-

I believe that you were the one that criticized my earlier posting on Bush and the Taliban, perhaps properly so, for coming from a source that was unknown to me. I therefore posted the account from the more "reputable" CNN. This is obviously a developing story and the principal source of information, John P. O'Neill, the former assistant director of the FBI who the book author claims to have interviewed, was unfortunately among those killed at the World Trade Center on September 11.

Nevertheless, whatever contacts took place between the Bush Administration and the Taliban before September 11 were undoubtedly documented by the State Department and/or the White House. Similarly, the FBI certainly documented its efforts and Mr. O'Neill may have documented his resignation. All of this should be available to appropriate Congressional Committees.

You ask why Daschle and the rest of the Democratic establishment have not seized upon this. I propose the answer is that they too do the bidding of the large corporations and are not especially inclined to focus on the injury the corporate to public policy causes to the rest of us. Senator Daschle, for example, has a terrible record of protecting Western Mining Interests (First Cousins of Big Oil) from such matters as environmental protection regulations and paying appropriate royalties for mineral rights below public lands. Moreover, it is difficult to attack the President's policy towards the Taliban before September 11 and to simultaneously back him 100% in his role as Commander-In-Chief against the Taliban after September 11. Daschle and the rest of the Democrats have consciously worked to avoid all foreign policy criticism and have, since September 11, limited their critiques of Bush to domestic issues.

I do not know the truth of the matter, but I certainly think it is a question worth pursuing. Its common thread with Enron is the elevation of corporate interests, particularly oil interests, above all else.

The deal described in the posting most likely seemed sensible from a business point of view. Why not build a shorter pipeline to bring Caspian Sea oil to market? The problem is that the politicians place these business interests above all else.

It is no coincidence that most of our worst enemies turn out to be people that we used to back. If we focused more on human rights and feeding the hungry in our foreign policy, rather than upon promoting the interests of business, we would not be having most of these problems. This is not a question of Democrat or Republican, its a question of establishment politics against the true interests of ordinary citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 07:23 PM

I find little to disagree with in your 4/14" post, Bennett. No question but that anything alleged of this sort should be completely investigated, and let the chips fall where they may.

My point regarding Sen. Daschle, was that the Democrats are valiantly seeking something negative to pin on Bush and his administration hoping to gain house seats in the next election. If there is substance to Butler (O'Neil's) charges, I can't imagine the Democrats holding back on that one. Perhaps the charges are too new to have attracted attention form the majority of the press though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: kendall
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 08:39 PM

All in due time my pretty.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 08:55 PM

Kendall! Are you flirting with me??????? I'm shocked! First, the Llamas, mutter, mutter, ...:>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: toadfrog
Date: 15 Jan 02 - 01:42 AM

Doug: With all respect to your position generally, it is just plain wrong to say " It is the responsibility of investors to police their own investments, not the federal government." Everybody knew that was wrong by 1929, at the very latest. Investors can't fend for themselves without reliable information. They did not have reliable information about Enron. They did not know about Andy Fastow and his partnerships. They couldn't know, because it was Arthur Andersen's job to blow the whistle, and it didn't do its job. Investors can't have reliable information without government help. The SEC and the auditors are supposed to see that they get reliable information. And it is getting clearer every day that somebody is going to have to police the auditors. That means, police the Auditing Standards Board, and prohibit auditing firms from doing "consulting" work for their audit clients, as Arthur Andersen did. The 1994 Congress cut way back on funds for the SEC, and this Administration is not going to permit anybody to police large campaign contributors.

So, although I have no particular reason to believe W did anything to violate Title 18, he is still responsible, and I think a lot of people may come to feel that as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 02 - 08:53 AM

If Cabinet level members of the Bush administration knew of the deceptions used to rob the Enron shareholders and employees of their money, and did nothing, at the very least they are criminally liable for obstruction of justice. It is too early to see what will play out with all this.

Democrats are just as culpable as Republicans when it comes to government corruption, and our system of federal government is extremely corrupt. Nobody cares about investigating sex scandals with little girl interns. But start following the money trails, and everybody inside the beltway becomes VERY quiet.

And as many people are already saying, it won't matter what the Democrats will or won't investigate or try and use to their own petty advantage in the upcoming election. People may just be furious enough to throw out members of Congress they perceive as being too cozy with the Bush/Cheney family of crooks. The perception of crookedness and greed is what will hurt the Republicans more than anything the Democrats do.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Jan 02 - 10:09 AM

Bennet, Toadfrog:

Good posts. The Democrats and Rupublicans have become no more that two social groups, much like rival fraternities on a college campus. No matter what one does the other will try to find fault. They both bunk with corporations because they need the money for re-election. I would like to see real campaine finace reform and since the corporations have established themselves as major players in financing campaines that what ever level of financing they provided prioe to the reform would be expected and go into a pool to be divided up equally among candidates of the three largest parties.

When we have real reform in the area of financing then the government will work more the way the founding fathers intended it to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jan 02 - 12:47 PM

I respectfully disagree, Toad. I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to police the investments of private citizens. I agree that it appears that Arthur Anderson failed to do it's job but as to the SEC, I assume they saw the same figures, the same reports that the investors saw.

If the Bush administration HAD have done something to help Enron, you folks would be screaming to high heaven because Bush helped his friend, Ken Lay, out.

Bush can't win with you folks anyway, so what's the point?

I suppose it provides some therapy, though, to be able to kick him around even though their appears to be no wrong-doing.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 02 - 08:02 PM

The point DougR, isn't that we thought the board of directors of Enron needed help from the White House. We think Enron's shareholders and employees needed to be legally protected from the fraud and deception alleged to have been committed by both the Enron BoD & Arthur Anderson.

As I said earlier, if even one Cabinet level member of the Bush White House--or higher, for that matter, had any knowledge of the wrongdoing, they may be criminally negligent, or guilty of obstruction of justice for not requesting the Dept of Justice intervene. I don't expect public servants to work for corporados and their legal bullies, I expect them to work for the common good, which in this case was clearly NOT the Enron BoD or Arthur Anderson.

I also can't believe you'd even make a statement claiming "there appears to be no wrong-doing"!

WHHHHAAAAA????

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jan 02 - 11:02 PM

Well then, Guest, what did they do wrong?

Point your finger at Enron and Arthur Anderson. They are the wrong-doers.

There is no evidence (as yet) that points to a Cabinet member having any inside information that Enron had printed false information in quarterly or annual reports! If you have information that refutes that statement, share it with us (and the press because they haven't indicated anyone did either). I think you are operating on hope.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jan 02 - 08:31 AM

Here's one for you DougR:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: kendall
Date: 16 Jan 02 - 08:45 AM

The federal government has only one duty. To do what must be done that we can not do for ourselves. I say again TERM LIMITS.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 16 Jan 02 - 01:07 PM

Whoa, Kendall. That sounds very much like a conservative's statement. You don't want to be identified as one of them now, do you? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 16 Jan 02 - 02:29 PM

The original post asked the question: "I wonder who got the most from Enron?" It may have been posed because the poster was really curious. On the other hand, perhaps the question was a loaded one.

Latest news reports I have heard, however, indicate that Enron, Citicorp and Arthur Anderson may have provided funds to the Democrats than they did Republicans. The next few weeks should be interesting, I think.

I think it's already intresting that the Attorney General recused himself from the investigation because he received something like $50,000 from Enron for his senate campaigns. Senator Lieberman, on the other hand received something like $250,000 from Enron but has not recused himself from the investigation his Congressional committee is conducting. Does that seem reasonable?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: kendall
Date: 17 Jan 02 - 08:51 AM

Can you tell us the source of your info? Another source said dubbya got 250 thousand bucks just for his campaign. They are ALL dirty!! TERM LIMITS!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: harpgirl
Date: 17 Jan 02 - 02:53 PM

Doug, you need your prescription on your glasses checked! Lieberman got $2,000!!!! Contributions to Republicans topped those to Democrats, three to one!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jan 02 - 12:06 AM

Hmmm. Harpgirl, I heard it on TV. Maybe my hearing is impaired though. Where did you find the $2,000 figure?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Troll
Date: 18 Jan 02 - 02:37 AM

Those of us who voted the present administration into office should be leading the pack in demanding full accountability. We all need to know who knew what and when. If any of the the Bush cabinet members withheld information about Enrons financial troubles prior to its public disclosure, they should be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent.
Again, the Bush supporters should be leading the charge for it will have been OURtrust that has been betrayed.
Until such time as proofs are presented, all any of us have are wishes and speculations.
On a different subject, I keep reading about the USsanctions on Iraq. Surely that should be the UN sanctions As I recall, the sanctions were imposed by the UN as punishment if Sadam refused to comply with the agreement he signed to allow UN inspectors to verify the destruction of his weapons facilities.
A minor point but troubling.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jan 02 - 08:31 AM

Your hearing isn't impaired DougR, the problem is your so-called "news" sources. Fox News isn't exactly known for journalistic integrity when it comes to the facts of the matter, much less attempts to get at the truth of a matter.

And I can tell you one thing the Bush cabinet is guilty of, and the is the appearance of impropriety, if not worse. And in politics DougR, that can be just as bad, or worse, than actually having done the deed.

Just ask Gary Condit.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jan 02 - 01:42 PM

Guest: you still haven't pointed out anything that the Bush cabinet did wrong. As a good liberal, I'm confident you would never advocate guilt by association, would you?

If you adhere to that premise, there is enough guilt to go around including both Republicans and Democrats.

The Bush Cabinet is guilty of "the appearance of impropriety?" I wasn't aware that that was a crime. Awfully close to guilt by association, methinks.

So far, it seems to me that the Bush administration is a model of how things SHOULD work in Washington. Despite huge political contributions to Republicans and Democrats, the administration did exactly what it should have done under the circumstances: nothing!

As to your statement regarding Fox News Network, I would welcome your proof that it is not a news source "known for it's journalistic integrity."

Known by whom? You? I don't think that is a very compelling argument.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 10:16 AM

The most recent issue of The Nation is about "Big Media" control of your news, DougR. Or is reading information and analysis by "liberals" more than your wee mind can comprehend?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 10:42 AM

Source of this information is The Nation website:

White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey and fast-track trade proselytizer Robert Zoellick each earned $50,000 a year as Enron advisers. Secretary of the Army Thomas White Jr., a former Enron executive, had to sell $25 million of Enron stock upon assuming his post. Enron's Lay--as candidate George Bush's most-deep-pocketed patron--has a good relationship with Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, whose previous job was as the Bush/Cheney campaign tapper of deep pockets. Attorney General John Ashcroft is another who has received Enron cash for past political campaigns, $57,499 to be exact, which is why he has recused himself from investigating.

Two reports just released by the Center for Public Integrity--both based on the nonprofit, nonpartisan center's studies of the finances and affiliations of the top 100 officials in the Bush Administration--offer added context. Looking just at Enron, the center's study turned up fourteen executive-branch officials who owned stock in Enron, collectively valued when disclosed at from $284,000 to $886,000 (the spread is so broad because officials report income in approximate ranges). One of the largest Enron stock holdings--ranging from $100,001 to $250,000 in value at the time of filing--was in the hands of Karl Rove, a prominent adviser who has been close to Bush since his Texas days. More broadly, the center's study found this to be one of the richest and most corporate presidential administrations in history. The average net worth of the President, Vice President and the Cabinet falls between $9.9 million and $28.9 million--more than ten times the average net worth of the Clinton Administration lineup. And not for nothing do they call it Grand Ole Petroleum: The top 100 Administration officials have the vast majority of their financial holdings invested in the energy sector, some 221 separate investments worth up to $144.6 million. Meanwhile, corporate energy gave 75 percent of its $48.3 million in 1999-2000 campaign contributions to Republicans. Oil and gas gave $13 to candidate Bush for every $1 it gave to candidate Gore.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 10:50 AM

More models for how DougR thinks things should work in Washington, this time regarding the Bush/Enron energy legacy (also from The Nation website) This also speaks volumes regarding GWB's refusal to intervene in the West Coast energy crisis of 2001:

Bush had considerable contact with Lay two years earlier (GUEST's note: two years before GWB ran for governor of Texas) when the Enron leader served as the chair of the host committee for the 1992 Republican convention in Houston, where Bush the senior was nominated for his second term as president.

At that time, Investor's Daily reported that "recently, Lay has turned Enron into a corporate bastion for the GOP." After the elder Bush's defeat, the Bush family switched its political ambitions to George W.'s prospects for governor, and Lay came up with the first of many contributions to that effort.

Lay's loyal support of the Bushes may have been gratitude for the decisive role that the first Bush Administration played in Enron's meteoric rise. Building on the Republican-engineered deregulation of the electricity industry that began in the 1980s, Enron got a huge boost during the first Bush Administration with passage of the 1992 Energy Act, which forced utility companies to carry Enron's electricity on their wires.

In fact, Lay publicly thanked Bush with a column in the Dallas Morning News a week before the 1992 election. Calling Bush "the energy president," Lay wrote that "just six months after George Bush became president, he directed Energy Secretary James Watkins to lead the development of a new energy strategy." That resulted in the legislation making Enron's exponential growth possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 10:55 AM

It is highly unlikely that any of the above would be illegal, but it certainly makes clear in whose interest the Bush administration is working--and it ain't the public interest.

As to the appearance of impropriety DougR, why do you think this story is all over the news?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 11:08 AM

Not that any of this suggests impropriety either (from this morning's Washington Post):

By Paul Duggan Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, January 19, 2002; Page A06

AUSTIN -- After he was sworn in Dec. 13 as U.S. attorney for southern Texas, Michael T. Shelby, a career prosecutor who has specialized in white-collar corruption cases, wasted no time diving into what he thought would be the most intriguing criminal investigation of his life.

Eleven days earlier, in the largest corporate collapse in the nation's history, Houston-based Enron Corp. had filed for bankruptcy protection, raising numerous questions about the company's practices and top executives.

On the day he took office in Houston, Shelby said in an interview this week, he ordered the chief of his fraud division to issue subpoenas for Enron records and told prosecutors to arrange a meeting with Securities and Exchange Commission officials in Washington. "We wanted to peruse the SEC's files and basically get our investigation moving forward as quickly as possible," Shelby recalled.

But today, a month after gearing up to spearhead the Justice Department's criminal probe of the Enron debacle, Shelby, 43, and his 89-lawyer staff are out of the loop. In a move that legal experts called highly unusual, the entire U.S. Attorney's Office in Houston has been recused from the case because too many of its lawyers, including Shelby, have personal ties to current or former employees of the once-giant energy trading company.

The Justice Department's decision to assign the investigation to a task force of prosecutors from other jurisdictions illustrates the difficulties that law enforcement officials, members of Congress and others face in conducting clearly impartial inquiries into Enron. Before the company's demise, which wiped out many of its employees' retirement funds, Enron had long been a big financial contributor to politicians of both major parties, notably President Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 11:17 AM

And DougR, why do you think yer man keeps lying and manipulating the truth about his ties to Enron, hmmmmm?

This also from this morning's Washington Post:

Bush last week played down his ties to Lay. He said he "first got to know Ken" in 1994, when "he was a supporter of Ann Richards," the Democratic Texas governor whom Bush ousted. In fact, Bush knew Lay from their work on the 1992 Republican National Convention and the Bush presidential library. The current president received $47,500 from Lay and his wife in 1994 -- many times what Richards received. Lay has said he supported Bush, not Richards, in 1994.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 11:20 AM

And then, DougR, there is this Bush fox, left guarding the hen house when the family left the Texas governor's mansion for the White House, also from this morning's Washington Post:

Associated Press Saturday, January 19, 2002; Page A04

The legal and political fallout from the biggest corporate collapse in U.S. history continued yesterday as a former executive of bankrupt Enron Corp. resigned as Texas's top public utility regulator and officials in several other states pursued lawsuits and investigations of the once mighty energy trading company.

In Austin, Max Yzaguirre, former president of Enron de Mexico, quit as head of Texas's Public Utility Commission, seven months after being appointed by Gov. Rick Perry (R). Democrats and public interest groups recently raised questions about the appointment, which came a day before Enron's chairman, Kenneth L. Lay, made a $25,000 contribution to Perry's political campaign.

Perry, a former lieutenant governor, is running for a full term as the state's top executive after inheriting the governorship when George W. Bush resigned to become president. Perry called the timing of Lay's donation "totally coincidental" and said Yzaguirre is "a qualified individual . . . to serve in the PUC."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 11:22 AM

As for crooked presidents: Nixon had all the finness of a loan shark's enforcer. GWB isn't smarter but his support network is. From the "stolen election" to the Enron rip-off we are being screwed yet again.

Brother Bill's activities didn't steal money from the working man's pockets, now did they? During the height of the "Lets Get Clinton" fiasco a middle aged woman I know had this to say:

"Clinton dropped unemployment, dropped the welfare rolls and dropped the debt, I don't give a damn if he did the same with his pants!"

(the last I heard Enron employees lost over a billion dollars from their 401Ks! I know what I would do in that case and it ain't for publication in a public forum)

It seems that it is a case of: "Them that has don't like the idea of anyone else having too".

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 11:24 AM

Yessirrreee DougR, these stories of political graft, bribery, and corruption is what makes this country great, and is the way Washington SHOULD run!

I know you believe that bimbo intern blowjobs and two bit land deals are the real threat to democracy as we know it, DougR. And based upon the "legal" actions of those in power and bed with another in Washington today, I just know that the Bush administration is going to succeed mightily with restoring integrity to the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 02:10 PM

Yep, Guest, I certianly agree with your last sentence!

The rest of all that stuff I had already heard on the Fox News Network.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 06:02 PM

Ah, sure--we know yerself heard it all on Fox News first.

But that's because small people like yerself live in small worlds, with news brought to them by Fox News. We at Mudcat know that complex news for simple minds is easier for you to digest, DougR. We know that well.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 09:35 PM

Something I have not heard posited is the money trail. Presumably most people who knew of Enron's imminent demise sold a great deal of their stock.

So:

It is logical to think that Bush, et al, in appreciation of financial campaign support over the years, bought stock in Enron. (Isn't that what we would do?) OK- does Bush still hold Enron stock? Or did he sell his stock during this last year? Even if his assets have been put in a trust for the duration of his presidential years, it should be possible to ascertain the dealings.

The same thing holds true for other officials. People who sold off a lot of Enron stock last year could have some questions to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 10:20 AM

Conveniently Ebbie, conflict of interest laws required many Bush administration officials to divest before or shortly after taking office. So no, none of them were hurt as shareholders by this debacle.

The idea they want us to believe is that doing nothing, rather than intervening to stop the illegal activities of Enron's Board of Directors (ie preventing shareholders and employees from selling stock, until they were able to sell their own before the big crash) was the right thing to do.

It certainly appears that Bush administration officials at the highest levels now knew full well the extent of the wrongdoing in the weeks before the company collapsed, and did nothing. And so will likely stick to that story, and argue that they weren't required by law to do anything. Therefore, doing nothing was the morally right thing to do.

Pretzel logic, but it likely will continue to be their defense throughout the hearings process.

If they can find anyone without ties to Enron to investigate them, that is.

Imagine if the public decided that whomever did the investigating couldn't have any ties to the energy industries at all? Hmmmmm....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 11:22 AM

My guest, we do get testy when someone disagrees with us, don't we?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 11:38 AM

DougR, Ebbie and I don't seem to be in disagreement. It just seems to be you and the rest of the diehard conservative GOP types who disagree with the general consensus shown in the latest polling data cited above.

And all the major political cartoonists have been having an absolute field day with the Enron debacle. Oh--that's right, you don't get your news from newspapers, do you?

Judging by the Fox News standards, everything is JUST FINE! No problemo with that Enron thing for the Dubya king! Now, lets let DougR get back to talking about that Monica Lewinsky scandal...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 02:15 PM

Gee Guest, you don't read the things you post yourself! Where I get my news is contained in the message you posted, I believe, in this thread. I don't believe I stated all my news comes from Fox News Network, did I?

For all your ranting and raving, you still haven't pointed out anything the Bush administration did wrong relative to Enron. There should be, and I've no doubt there will be, a complete investigation. If the results show they did something wrong, I will be the first to condem them for it. And I will need no prompting from guests.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 05:53 PM

But apparently everyone doesn't agree that doing nothing was the right thing to do, especially when you have a look-see over here, DougR:

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/EnronExtravaganza/1.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 07:00 PM

NEWS FLASH Less than 24 hours after Secret Service agents wrestled a deranged pretzel to the ground, friends of the accused snack expressed shock at its alleged role in Sunday's attack on the President. Ann Wilkes of the Virginia based Snack Food Association told reporters: "Nobody detected any hints of violence from the 1400 year old snack. Its just a mixture of wheat four, yeast and salt, bathed in sodium hydroxide. I can't believe it would go postal. Sure, it was a bit of a loner, but never this twisted.
BR>

Home Security Chief, Tom Ridge will be issuing an all-points bulletin for Mr. Salty and called for a heightened state of alert. The nation is now 220% alert and has informed on all suspicious snacks and in-laws.

Evidence is mounting that Sunday's incident isn't the first time a pretzel has stalked the president. On May 22, a fifth grader who was touring the White House found a pretzel inside the residence and pocketed it. Colin Hansen still has the snack in a plastic bag in his refrigerator but so far the FBI hasn't sought his pretzel for questioning. Democrats are lamenting the fact that Dick Cheney is now just a pretzel away from the presidency.

But seriously...
, a href="http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/enron.html">the TRUTH,

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 07:03 PM

the TRUTH

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 07:24 PM

Danged, DougR, you're looking a tad worn out. How long you been keeping vigil for Junior here in Catsburg? Have you even slept? Man, I've heard of "true Believers" but I think you deserve a cabinet post, or something fitting one who is so loyal to Mr. Bush. Old Slick Willie could have used a few loyal pit bulls in his corner and he really didn't do anything other than fool around with a chubby intern. You are probably correct that nothing is going to be pinned on Junior but this entire greed thing by his buddies is eventually going to piss off the working class southern voters who have been very important in all national GOP victories. This does not bode well for Junior, especially since he was not elected, but selected by folks his daddy put in the Supreme Court. But you just keep firing, DougR, because I just have this feeling that you were one of those frothing at the mouth Clinton haters so I understand that you have the staying power. Yep, you'll sit at your computer day and night like a dilegent foot soldier just waiting for someone to say anything mean about Junior. Man, take a powder...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 09:45 PM

Well, Bopert, my friend, if you grow tired of reading posts that disagree with your own point of view, I can understand that you become frustrated. Would't it be a bit boring if the only thing you read were posts that agree with you? Maybe not though, I guess.

Guest: I'm sure there are those who believe that the government should have done whatever it could to save Enron. T'would be an impossibility to find 100% agreement on anything, I suppose. I do think the majority of the American voters believe (based on what we know now) that the Bush administration did the right thing by doing nothing. If pointing this out to you upsets you ...well learn to live with it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 02 - 10:02 AM

DougR,

Have you got access to secret polling data on American attitudes towards the Enron debacle? Please, share your data. Otherwise, your continued posting just proves how full of the brown sticky substance you truly are when making wholly unsubstantiated claims like the above.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jan 02 - 12:30 PM

Nope, Guest. No secret data. I just listen to the Fox News Network and attend seances where I receive ghostly messages and advice from Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Robert Taft. I gain a lot of insight that way.

If there's anything in particular you wish me to ask about at the next session, I'd be pleased to pose your question!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:04 PM

I've dropped out of this discussion to focus on the music for a few days, but here's a few observations:

1. Though it's not on subject, I must take issue with those who use the "Bush didn't win the popular vote" line as some mandate as though half a percentage point means that he's some sort of pretender-in-chief. Guess what? He got a higher percentage than Clinton did in either of his elections! Clinton was elected with 43% and 47%, and when you consider who the conservative nature of the third party candidate was in those elections, it's obvious that a majority of American voters were against Clinton in both elections. But that's all beside the point. The popular vote is meaningless. I've explained why a thousand times before in here, but I'll gladly do it again if someone needs it repeated yet again.

2. Liberals are very quick to use the "Clinton's scandals were about sex, which didn't effect me, so I didn't care about them" argument to justify their collective hissy-fit over the Enron collapse, but they aren't as quick to mention the 900 Republicans' FBI files that somehow ended up in the Clintons' hands, or the fact that Monicagate was more about quid pro quo sexual harassment than anything else (The other interns not providing hummers weren't given $80K/year jobs at Revlon). (I suppose that didn't effect them either, since they aren't Republicans or interns...) Liberals also aren't too quick to mention any facts about how Bush did anything to help out Enron. That doesn't stop them from trying, though--Take for example this observation from Neal Boortz's site, www.boortz.com:
THE LEFT-WING RAG "THE NATION" ACCIDENTLY SHOWS ITS TRUE COLORS

A bedwetter named Matt Bivens wrote a story last Friday for The Nation's website. He was desperate to achieve the leftist dream of directly tying George W. Bush to the Enron scandal (oh how the Dems keep trying). Initially, he wrote the following:
"When George W. Bush co-owned the Houston Astros and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the park after Enron."
Houston, we have a problem. Bush was co-owner of the Texas Rangers, not the Astros. Oops. When the Wall Street Journal pointed that fact out on their Opinion Journal site, The Nation changed their story. This was the revision.
"When George W. Bush co-owned the Texas Rangers and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the park after Enron."
Houston, we still have a problem. The Texas Rangers have nothing to do with Houston or with Enron Field. That's where the Houston Astros play, not the Rangers. The Texas Rangers' stadium has no corporate sponsor. It's just called "The Ballpark at Arlington." Oh, and another thing...Bush sold his share of the team a year before Enron made the deal with the Astros. The Bivens unsuccessful hack-job is now nowhere to be found on the site. As John Adams said, facts are stubborn things.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:19 PM

Hey Loopy--

To attempt to argue that Bush was legitimately selected to serve as president because he got a larger percentage of the vote than Clinton or any other president is wholly irrational.

His legitmacy as president will always be a large grey area because of the circumstances of this specific election in particular.

As has been noted, this is not the only time a president was installed in office even when he lost the popular vote. Which, as has also been mentioned, lends a lot of credence to arguments to end the electoral college system.

You are also missing totally the fact that none of us are defending Democrats by discussing the Enron scandal. In fact, we have gone to great lengths to show it is both parties. Its just your fox guarding the hen house for now.

There seems to be one consensus only in this thread, and that is both parties are to blame for the current sad state of governance in this country. Only you and DougR are defending a single party--yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:23 PM

Loopy: will you never learn? You insist on continuing to confuse these folks with facts! It's much more creative to make up your own facts don't you think? It's kind of like songwriting, I suppose. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:31 PM

And where did you say your facts were DougR?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:38 PM

Look up a three or four posts, Guest. I admit I have a "special" source. But seriously, just read your daily newspaper. The facts are there. The facts are: the Bush administration has not been linked with any wrong-doing in relation to Enron. Them's the facts, Guest. Sorry you can't see them.

If investigations prove that the Republican Party, GWB, or anyone else in the administration did something wrong, they should be punished. No one contributing to this thread has suggested otherwise.

If you're going to hang someone for stealing sheep, just make sure they stole them first.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 24 Jan 02 - 02:56 PM

Liberal definition of a 'bipartisan discussion'--98 Democrats attacking a Republican administration, then accusing the two conservatives in the room of "guarding the henhouse" when they dare point out the facts, or the folly of the media's relentless attacks despite the lack of them.

On a tangential topic, you know That Daschle can't wait to turn the Enron debacle into the final nail in the coffin of Social Security Privatization, don't you, DougR? Anytime the news media are portraying 401k-investing yuppies as "Victims", there has to be an ulterior motive...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 24 Jan 02 - 06:54 PM

Yep, Loopy, you're right about Dashle, and it appears McCain and Feingold are going to get their Campaign Finance Law too, as a result of the Enron mess.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: toadfrog
Date: 24 Jan 02 - 09:46 PM

My! It looked like this was going to be a discussion of Enron, It seems to have degenerated into the usual debate about whether Liberals or Conservatives are Better.

Doug, the SEC has a statutory mandate to regulate audiging firms like Arthur Andersen. So failures by auditing firms occur because of inadequate regulation by the SEC. And the President's recent appointee, Mr. Pitt, is grimly determined that inadequate regulation is here to stay.

Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page agrees with me on that one. And it is a British understatement to say the WSJ is "conservative" - it is so ultra-right wing that on the few times in the past it seemed to agree with me, I was impelled seriously to reconsider my ideas.

It appears that Enron and Arthur Andersen were like joined at the hip. Arthur Andersen provided not only auditing, but also tax-accounting and "consultant" services to Enron, so that it was Enron's largest supplier. Auditors occupied offices at Enron, dressed like Enron employees and were believed to be Enron employees. Enron hired officers from among the Arthur Andersen auditors, and Arthur Anderson, in turn, recruited senior people from Enron.

Any fool can plainly see that that kind of wet-dog situation inevitably creates fraud. And the former head of the SEC tried to prohibit conflicts of interest, and senior congresspeople overwhelmed him with threats of legislation to clip the SEC's wings. Thirty Sentators forcefully objected to any attempt to clean up the auditing profession, which is not two surprising, because at least three of the Big Five accounting firms regularly outdid Enron in their campaign contributions.

Most of the money goes to Republicans, and it appears that they did most of the intervening. Nonetheless, it was truly a "bipartisan" effort. Aside from Phil Gramm of Texas, whose wife at Enron is now up to her ears in the scandal, the biggest miscreant seems to have been Senator Joe Lieberman of Conntecticut. I was never sure about Lieberman, who seemed a bit sanctimonious. Now I'm sure. He is the sanctimonious sleaze-bag of the year.

Finally, the next time I hear about privatizing Social Security, so everyone has to go on the stock market and be victimized by those crooks . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 02 - 10:26 PM

Yo, Toad,

Great post. You've got poor ol' Dougie and the 9 RNC employees who man this thread 24/7 scrambling. They're going, "Hmmmmm? What's the Toadster up to now? Here I was just getting ready to blast one of his own and he goes an' blasts him? Hmmmmmm?"

Psssttttt... Yo Doug. BIG HINT HERE: It ain't all about Democrats and Republicans. I know that's real tough to take because of a life time of hating the other fraternity on campus but to a lot of folks your guys ain't that much worse than the other guys. It's time to go beyond the the sibling rivalry of your party and current Democratic Party. Time to step out of the box. To think solutions. To move the only way that mankind has historically moved... forward. Defending crooks will make you old long before your time...

(Danged, ol' hillbilly got him in a late January rant... Sorry. I'll go play music fir a while...)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jan 02 - 12:51 AM

Hi Toad! You won't find me defending Enron or Arthur Anderson, Toad. They are the ones the attackers should be attacking, not either of the political parties.

I'm about puzzeled by the first sentence in your sixth paragraph. Who intervened? What did "they" do to help Enron?

As to social security and the stock market, anyone with any bright at all who knows the history of the stock market knows that it has its ups and its downs. Any young person today who has the opportunity to invest some of his/her funds in the stock market, that would normally go into SS and doesn't, needs to have his/her head examined in my opinion. Take any ten year period and invest $100 per month in a good mutual fund. Take the same amount and give it to Uncle Sam in SS taxes or even in a savings account. I think you would find the person that invested in the market would come out well ahead. You folks rant and rave about the failures of the stock market when it is down. Funny, but we never hear from you when the market is at it's peak, as it was last year.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Hrothgar
Date: 25 Jan 02 - 03:38 AM

I am a little bit curious about the demand for evidence against the Bush administration.

Didn't the Taliban (effectively the government of a sovereign nation, and let's skip the bit about the Northern Alliance people holding the seat in the UN) ask for evidence against Osama bin Laden before handing him over?

They had the living daylights bombed out of them for their temerity.

On the face of it, George W looks to be about as guilty as Osama - but rememer that neither has had a trial yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 02 - 08:18 AM

The problems with Wall Street investment bankers and stock analysts who floated the Internet boom to make billions for their best clients is just as much of the problem as the accounting firms being in bed with the corporations.

NBC did a piece on the Bush administration the other night called "The Real West Wing" which showed White House Press Secretary Ari Fleishcher (sp) saying they had again won the spin war by keeping the media focusing the Enron story on business issues, and not on the political issues tying the Bush administration to the company.

Also on that program, Cheney said that it was imperative to have secrecy in the "advisory" conversations he held with Enron. Oddly, the day after that story aired (the White House's overnight polling data perhaps?) White House leaks began suggesting that the White House may turn over the records to the "energy policy" meetings held with Enron by Cheney, which the GAO is set to bring a lawsuit against Bush/Cheney to get released.

Seems that the political side hasn't even begun to play out. Wonder what all those shredded Enron and Anderson documents had to say about the Bush cabinet, hmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jan 02 - 09:57 AM

Yo, Doug, et al, I don't want folks taking money out of the social security sytem irregarless of their rationale. And especially by those those who are so well off that they don't have to worry about living in poverty in their old age. These folks represent management and owners and not the poor shelph who works on their assembly lines making the widgits that keep the managers and owners living high on the hog. No, I don't want to see a social security system that has been raided by rich folks leaving it too crippled to help the working class when their assembly line days are over. Call it a redistribution of wealth if you wish but keep in mind also the fact that if all of a sudden labor just up and quit, the ruling class would be up the creek with no paddle... or canoe for that matter. And don't play that old ruling class fight song about them needing this big tax cut so they can invest in more widget factories to provide more jobs. They have been closing factories and cutting jobs, so that dog won't hunt and it is one big lie that the big boys tell. Some have told it so long, they actually belive it... Go figure.

Well, bobert. That polishes off your rany quota for January and February. What are you going to do now. Ahhh, just take a page out of the Rupublican Economics hand book, get out your rant credit card and just say "Charge It". Heck, you can always pay later...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jan 02 - 12:42 PM

Hrothger: I'm still trying to grasp the point of your post. To you, GW looks guilty so we should hang him, I suppose.

I didn't see the NBC show you refer to Guest. I note, however, there has been considerable criticism from the mainstream liberal press that Brockow didn't ask "the hard questions" when he had the opportunity.

Bobert: It puzzels me why liberals point the finger at conservatives accusing them of "only wanting to keep things the way they are," and how the liberals pride themselves upon being "progressive" thinkers ...yet THEY are the ones that want to keep the SS program plodding along the way it always has. I know of no credible source that predicts anything other than disaster for the program if it continues along the same path that it always has. Too many retirees in future years drawing on the fund, and too little money to cover the cost. 'Tis a mind boggler to me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: toadfrog
Date: 25 Jan 02 - 07:30 PM

O.k. Doug, as to who intervened, if you really want to know, I'll quote my source directly:

"Consider Richard Baker, the Louisiana Republican who chairs a House subcommittee on capital markets, securities and government-sponsored enterprises. [Who has recently bemoaned the scandal.] ...

"Yet Mr. Baker was a strong opponent of a standards board proposal, that recently was approved, that requires companies to better disclose their use of derivatives . . . .

"When the standards board pressed ahead, Mr. Baker introduced a bill to allow public companies to object to proposed accounting principles in federal court. He described his proposal 'as a legislative remedy to a flaw in the private sector process for developing financial accounting standards.'. . .

"The SEC, which oversees the standards board, also has frequently been caught in a cross-fire from Congress, which it has complained makes it harder to impose needed regulations. . . .

"Senator Joseph Lieberman . . . opens a hearing today into Enron's collapse. Among the questions he says he is probing: 'Why did Enron's auditors allow the compahy to overstate its profits for four years by over a half a billion dollars, using what now appear to be very questionable accounting practices>'

But Mr. Lieberman . . . is a longtime critic of the accounting board, and he has rallied opposition to its proposed rules more than once. Recently, he challenged one to overhaul the accounting for corporate mergers and acquisitions, an issue of importance to the high-tech industry. In the fall of 2000, amid the tight presidential race, Mr. Lieberman joined with a bipartisan group of 13 senators in a letter urging the standards board to postpone consideration of the changes until Congress reconvened in 2001.

The letter, among other things, claimed the accounting changes 'will make mergers and acquisitions very difficult for high-technology companies.' In the House, California Reps. Christopher Cox, a Republican, and Calvin Dooley, a Democrat, introduced a bill for a one-year moratorium on the standards-board proposal.

The proposal called for new disclosures on mergers and acquisitions. Companies cried foul, complaining the change would reduce their earnings. Under pressure from Congress, the standards board backed off, but still required new accounting that gives investors more information about the true initial costs of acquisitions and how to track the investment over time." [Emphasis added.]

Wall Street Journal (1/24/02) at page A20. If you want to know more, read the article. Or read the 20 or so articles that have appeared in the WSJ and the New York Times (and I assume the L.A. Times as well) over the past two weeks

Doug, you really, really should read a grown-up newspaper from time to time. One pays for the privilege of having an opinion by making the necessary effort to keep informed. Watching television may be useful in knowing what impression a politician makes in a speech, which seems to be the basis of many people's voting decisions. It won't tell you much about what is happening in the real world. Nor will the Drudge Report.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Hrothgar
Date: 26 Jan 02 - 05:42 AM

Doug

My point is that George was perfectly happy to start a war without producing any hard evidence (the reason being, as I recall, that the nature of the evidence might compromise those who provided it). He had only a lot of circumstantial evidence.

George does not come up very well in the face of the circunstantial evidence against him, does he? He's up to his neck in protecting and assisting people who, at best, used inside knowledge to trade on that much vaunted free market, the Stock Exchange.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jan 02 - 07:01 PM

Toad: Thank you for the lecture. I'll bet you really are a nice person when you are not seated at your computer.

IF there had been intervention on behalf of Enron, one would not have to SEARCH for stories in any newspaper. It would be in all of them. It would be broadcast on every TV and radio station in the land.

And I would bet, were I betting man, that I am every bit as well read as you are.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 02 - 07:16 PM

For Waterloo, the sequel, click here.