 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
|
|
|
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 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
I was walking in the valley; echoes sounded from far and near
|
|
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.
|