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.