Enron again

[80sU2isBest]

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/editorial/2730109.htm

By Bill Lickert and Christopher Morris
Special to the Star-Telegram

The media are looking for any shred of evidence linking collapsed energy giant Enron to the Bush administration's energy policy. But they're not reporting the story of how Enron built ties to environmental activist groups during the Clinton administration.
And the media are not describing how Enron pushed hard for President Clinton's global warming and climate control policies - the same policies that President Bush firmly rejects.
Enron executives worked closely with the Clinton administration to secure support for the Kyoto Protocols because the company believed that the treaty could provide it with a financial windfall. An internal Enron memo circulated immediately after the 1997 Kyoto meeting - and first reported by The Washington Post - shows that the company believed the treaty "would do more to promote Enron's business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States."
So Enron philanthropists lavished almost $1.5 million on environmental groups that support international energy controls to reduce so-called global warming. From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed nearly $1 million ($990,000) to the Nature Conservancy, whose "Climate Change" project promotes global warming theories.
President Bush refused to sign the treaty, saying last June that it "is, in many ways, unrealistic" and "not sound public policy." Despite pressure from environmental groups, the administration pulled out of last fall's meeting to discuss the treaty's implementation.
Since the start of the Kyoto negotiations, Enron has been active in the global warming debate and has made no secret about supporting the climate change pact. In fact, the company did much more than simply provide financial backing for the Clinton administration's support of Kyoto:
In January 1997, it announced formation of the Enron Renewable Energy Corp. to offer alternatives to the "$250 billion U.S. electricity market." Renewable Energy CEO Tom White supported President Clinton's $6.3 billion plan to fight global warming.
Later that year Enron CEO Kenneth Lay was named a member of Clinton's "Council on Sustainable Development," joining Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, EPA Administrator Carol Browner, and Fred Krupp, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund. The task force also included representatives from the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The National Environmental Trust, a public relations organization heavily funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to promote environmental policies, worked with Lay to place pro-Kyoto Op-Ed columns under his signature in various newspapers.
When Clinton called for a gradual reduction in greenhouse gases to lay the groundwork for U.S. backing of Kyoto, Enron executives expressed their support. In an Atlanta Constitution article, Enron Senior Vice President Terry Thorn called the announcement "a measured, appropriate action plan given what we know today about global warming. This will unleash the ingenuity of American business to find creative solutions."
Enron also built ties to Environmental Defense, formerly the Environmental Defense Fund. EDF lauded Enron's "Enron Earth Smart Power," a 39-megawatt wind farm in Southern California that was intended to offer consumers "environmental friendly" electricity.
Daniel Kirshner, an EDF senior economic analyst, commended Enron's achievement, saying: "The Environmental Defense Fund hopes that buying environmentally friendly electricity will soon be as popular as recycling is now."
Enron's environmental activities were not limited to Kyoto. It solicited support from environmental groups for its business ventures - such as the 1997 purchase of Portland General Electric. Enron urged the Natural Resources Defense Council and a coalition of Oregon environmental groups to sign a memorandum of agreement endorsing the purchase, despite objections by the state Public Utility Commission.
Portland's Willamette Week newspaper has reported that the groups subsequently received Enron grants totaling nearly $500,000. Among the green beneficiaries: Northwest Environmental Advocates ($30,000), Salmon Watch ($15,000) and American Rivers ($5,000).
Enron finances are a twisted, murky mess that probably will take years to sort through. But it has been clear since Day One that Enron and the Bush administration have not seen eye to eye on energy and environmental policy. And it's certain that the vast majority of eco-activists whom Enron cultivated with cash are no friends of Bush. Enron's campaign contributions, it should be noted, appear to have paid off only when Clinton was in the Oval Office.

Bill Lickert and Christopher Morris are research associates at the Capital Research Center. This essay was distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.

 

[melon]

Typical partisan debate.

Logic:

-- Don't investigate Bush, but investigate Clinton.

Never mind that much of Bush's administration is filled with former Enron executives, and that, potentially, Lay crafted an energy policy with Cheney that gave Enron a huge advantage. Of course, as long as Cheney refuses to hand over those documents to the GAO, we'll never know for sure.

The conservative media never mentions this. They're always talking about campaign contributions, and, sometimes, talking about Global Crossing's campaign contributions to the Democratic Party. Well, if all we had to worry about was "campaign contributions," then, perhaps, I would be apt to agree that the media is blowing this out of proportion.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[Danospano]

This once again proves my point. Democrats AND Republicans are ruining this country. They have BOTH destroyed our moral, economic, and ethical bases in support of greed.

When did greed become another word for success, huh?

When will Republicans look at how corrupt their party's leadership is and join another coservative party?

When will Democrats quit fooling themselves and get on another bandwagon?

I can't believe that someone like Ralph Nader could lose to these two dominons of greed!

 

[Lemonite]

Here are some of the latest Enron Articles:

Lay Offered Rubin Enron Board Seat
Thu Feb 21, 9:38 AM ET
By MARCY GORDON, AP Business Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - On one day in 1999, former Enron chairman Kenneth Lay sent notes signed "Ken" to Robert Rubin, who was stepping down as Treasury secretary, and to congratulate Rubin's successor, Lawrence Summers.

Lay lobbied Rubin, to whom he offered a seat on Enron's board, and Summers with the same easy cordiality on issues affecting Enron, documents obtained Wednesday show.

The notes and letters show that Lay pressed Enron's interests to Clinton administration officials. Last month, the Bush administration disclosed a series of telephone calls from Lay ? one of President Bush's biggest campaign contributors ? to members of the Bush Cabinet as the company slid toward bankruptcy last fall.

The new documents were provided by the Treasury Department under a Freedom of Information Act request by The Associated Press.

With Congress' investigation of Enron's collapse widening to Wall Street, the House Energy and Commerce Committee planned Thursday to send letters seeking information to about a dozen big investment firms.

Committee investigators are trying to determine whether Enron officials pressured the firms ? including Merrill Lynch & Co., First Union Corp., Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Credit Suisse First Boston ? to invest in the partnerships or promised them special deals if they did so or raised money from other investors.

In addition to Congress, the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating Enron and the role of its longtime auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP.

Enron's current chief executive officer said Wednesday that someone could end up in jail on charges stemming from the government's investigation of the company and the complex web of partnerships ? used to hide more than $1 billion in debt ? that eventually brought it down.

"Given the enormity of the damage that's been created, I think it's going to be difficult to not hold one or more people accountable," said Stephen Cooper, who took the helm of Enron after Lay resigned last month as chairman.

Investors nationwide lost money, and thousands of Enron employees lost their retirement savings in accounts loaded with Enron stock as the energy-trading company collapsed.

Rubin, who left the government in mid-1999, is chairman of the executive committee of Citigroup, one of the banks that lent hundreds of millions of dollars to Enron. Rubin called Treasury's undersecretary for domestic finance, Peter Fisher, last Nov. 8 to seek his intervention on Enron's behalf. At the time, rating agencies were poised to downgrade their opinions on the financial status of Houston-based Enron.

On May 14, 1999, after Rubin announced he was leaving his post, Lay wrote him: "If you are considering joining any corporate boards, I would like very much to talk to you. Given the way Enron has evolved, not only do we badly need a person with your experience and insights ... but also I think you would find serving on our board intellectually and otherwise interesting."

Rubin did not join Enron's board of directors.

Leah Johnson, Rubin's spokeswoman at Citigroup's New York headquarters, noted that he received 30 to 40 offers to join corporate boards at that time. "Rubin had no interest" in the Enron board position, Johnson said. She did not comment further.

Also on May 14, Lay wrote a note to Summers, Rubin's successor, congratulating him on becoming Treasury chief and promising to be available "if there is anything at all I or Enron could do for you or the department."

Lay's spokeswoman, Kelly Kimberly, declined to comment on the documents.

In another letter, dated Dec. 3, 1998, Lay urged Rubin to approve Houston's application to be named an "empowerment zone," a status that brings tax breaks and other incentives meant to promote economic revival.

Enron had some 20,000 employees when it filed for bankruptcy on Dec. 2. It has been one of the largest employers in Houston, which has not been designated as an empowerment zone.

Enron had lobbied throughout the government and Congress against regulation of electricity markets and the trading of financial products, known as derivatives, tied to energy commodities. In an Oct. 8, 1999, letter to Summers, Lay said Enron was "troubled" by the idea. He indicated he was prompted to write by a speech in which a Treasury assistant general counsel suggested federal regulators might be considering regulation of the huge global derivatives market that exists outside of commodities exchanges.

"Larry, hopefully the comments made by John Yetter were just a misunderstanding," Lay wrote. "I would very much appreciate receiving a call or note from you if in fact there is any reason that we should be concerned about this occurring."

Summers responded on Nov. 22, noting that Yetter and another Treasury official, Assistant Secretary Lee Sachs, had met with several Enron executives to discuss the company's concerns and that Sachs spoke on the phone with Lay about the issue.

And Another..

Clinton helped Enron finance projects abroad
By Patrice Hill
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The Clinton administration provided more than $1 billion in subsidized loans to Enron Corp. projects overseas at a time when Enron was contributing nearly $2 million to Democratic causes.


Clinton officials refused to finance only one out of 20 projects proposed by the energy company between 1993 and 2000 to build power plants, natural-gas pipelines and other big-ticket energy facilities around the world, according to the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp., the agencies that provided the subsidies.
In addition, the administration, which lauded Chairman Kenneth L. Lay as an exemplary "corporate citizen," granted about $200 million worth of insurance against political risks for nine Enron projects in such politically volatile areas as Argentina, Venezuela and the Gaza Strip, according to documents the agencies provided to the Senate Finance Committee.
"These projects obviously were a tremendous benefit to Enron's operations," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and ranking minority member of the committee. He noted that the Reagan and Bush administrations approved no loans for Enron between 1985 and 1992 and provided insurance for only one Enron power project in Guatemala in 1992.
The Clinton administration provided three loans between 1994 and 1998 to the now-defunct Dabhol power project in India. Mr. Clinton's commerce secretary, Ron Brown, trumpeted the approval of the Dabhol loans on a trade mission to India in 1995, with Mr. Lay by his side.
The trip was one of 11 Clinton trade missions provided at taxpayer expense for corporate executives from Enron and other companies. The U.S. Trade and Development Agency, which sponsored the trips, also provided $1 million in funding to study Enron energy projects in Russia, Eastern Europe and former Soviet states.
As congressional committees dig for evidence to tie Enron and Mr. Lay to the Bush administration, evidence of Mr. Lay's links to the Clinton administration are ample and well-documented.
Mr. Lay at times was Mr. Clinton's golf partner and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom. Other top Enron officials attended the White House's infamous "coffee klatches" with Mr. Clinton, according to published reports.
Mr. Lay offered a seat on Enron's board of directors to Robert E. Rubin, Mr. Clinton's Treasury secretary, in 1999 just before he left government, the Associated Press reported yesterday. Mr. Rubin tried to get Treasury to intervene on behalf of Enron last fall when the company credit rating was threatened.
In May 1996, Mr. Clinton lauded Mr. Lay as a good "corporate citizen" at a White House event because of Enron's enlightened personnel policies, including profit-sharing of Enron stock and generous health and pension benefits. Enron employees now are suing because those benefits are as worthless as the bankrupt company's stock.
During the Clinton years, Enron contributed more than $1 million to the Democratic Party, including $600,000 to the Democatic National Committee, according to Federal Election Commission records. Mr. Clinton and Vice President Al Gore received contributions of $11,000 and $13,750, respectively, for their presidential campaigns.
One $100,000 contribution to the DNC was provided before India gave final approval to Enron's Dabhol project in June 1996. The largest and most expensive capital project ever undertaken in India, Dabhol was of dubious economic value and never went on line.
The World Bank, on reviewing the project, said it was not economically viable and inordinately benefited Enron, which was a 65 percent owner. Enron still owes $203 million on an Export-Import Bank loan for the project, which the bank says is covered by guarantees provided by five Indian banks.
Congressional aides said it is not clear what the taxpayers' liability will be for that and other loans now that Enron is bankrupt. The Export-Import Bank said its loans were extended to overseas subsidiaries of Enron and not the bankrupt corporation. The overseas investment agency said its exposure is limited to paying any missed premiums on Enron's political risk insurance.
Top Clinton officials lobbied personally to obtain Indian state guarantees for the Dabhol project after it encountered early problems in 1995. Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty, the White House chief of staff, made it a top administration priority to keep the project from failing. The Bush administration has continued efforts to salvage the project.
Clinton Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary led a succession of missions to India, and Mr. Clinton's ambassador to India, Frank Wisner, was charged with keeping the project afloat. After Mr. Wisner left government in 1997, he took a seat on the board of directors of a company then controlled by Enron. Mr. McLarty also performed work for Enron after leaving the administration.


I think everyone's looking in the wrong administration for any corruption with Enron and the White house.

L.Unplugged

 

[melon]

Perfectly partisan, Lemonite. Wouldn't expect anything differently. Same old logic: Don't investigate Bush, but investigate Clinton.

Of course, politicians aside, it is quite clear on what Enron wanted: the full deregulation of utilities, so Enron could, as an energy trader, buy wholesale energy (which we currently get as regulated) and resell it for a higher profit (which California gets as unregulated). Yet, still, we had the propaganda that told us that deregulation would lead to lower prices.

Republicans can cry "Well, Clinton did it..." all they want, but there is one thing that Clinton didn't have, and that was the California energy crisis. How interesting that, under the Bush energy plan, they refused to bail out California from being gouged by...guess who...Enron. I shouldn't have expected any differently from an administration full of former Enron executives.

If anything, this should be a lesson against deregulation. There was a reason why utilities were regulated during the Progressive Era, and we're relearning the same exact reasons. Funny how, despite the fact that we're taught to learn from history, we still make the same mistakes. I guess greed is more powerful than intellect.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by melon:
Perfectly partisan, Lemonite. Wouldn't expect anything differently. Same old logic: Don't investigate Bush, but investigate Clinton.
______________________________

Stop Whining like a child and get to the point.

Hahaha.. It has a nice ring to it doesn't it.

I won't go into the California Energy Crisis, as that was havoc wreaked by price caps. And I haven't the time to indulge ya'll in that scenario.. Tests.. I'll leave that to someone else if they wish.

Anyways, I'm just keeping people informed on what is going on in this fiasco.. If there were new news about the Bush Administration et al, I would post it..

You, who proclaim as the Crusader in the pursuit of truth try and knock Articles I post.. Simply articles.. vehicles to find out information.. I'm just helping you out my friend...

L.Unplugged

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by Danospano:
This once again proves my point. Democrats AND Republicans are ruining this country.

yep, it's a worldwide phenomenon, so why restrict it to only one party?



------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[A|catura]

Originally posted by Danospano:
This once again proves my point. Democrats AND Republicans are ruining this country. They have BOTH destroyed our moral, economic, and ethical bases in support of greed.

When did greed become another word for success, huh?

When will Republicans look at how corrupt their party's leadership is and join another coservative party?

When will Democrats quit fooling themselves and get on another bandwagon?

I can't believe that someone like Ralph Nader could lose to these two dominons of greed!

We have nobody to blame but ourselves. The problem doesn't necessarily fall on Bush or Clinton, but on ourselves. We are the ones that REFUSE to change the corruption in our government. We attack and criticize, but do we ever do anything to change it?

You have to admit one thing. At the end of the day, whether it's Bush or Clinton, Republican or Democrat in the White House, we have the same corruption and scandals that gridlock the government. The main problem is that WE, yes WE, have given our politicians too much power and control.

The ONLY solution to this problem is for us to DECIDE to make a difference. We need to take back the control of the legislative, executive and judicial branches that our constitution had originally given us.

Why are we shocked by this activity? Yes, it is disappointing each time, but we are the ones that elected Bush and Clinton. We are the reason why this endless cycle continues to ruin our country. We are the ones that claim that we want a change, but on election day we run out and vote for these used car salesmen that only serve their own agendas.

I'm actually a member of the Libertarian Partywww.lp.org, so it's really frustrating to see everyone criticise their own party, but refuse to abandon it for one that they can believe in. I am extremely proud of my parties accomplishments. Yes, they have been very minimal compared to other two large parties, but it is full of people who are passionate about doing what is best for America, not themselves.

If we are unwilling to step out and actively pursue a change for our country, then we have cheated ourselves out of the very liberties and freedoms that we hold dear. We MUST shed the belief that we are too insignificant to make an impact. Our country has been held hostage by our own government for far too long. It is time for elected officials to be governed by the districts, communities and people that they serve.


----------------------------

WWW.LibertarianParty.ORG

 

[melon]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
I won't go into the California Energy Crisis, as that was havoc wreaked by price caps.

There were no price caps. That's why it was a mess. Enron ended up selling wholesale energy to California for much more than it was worth. Your semantical games are about to get another "rolleyes" if you don't watch out...

Anyways, I'm just keeping people informed on what is going on in this fiasco.. If there were new news about the Bush Administration et al, I would post it..

As always, I'm sure it will be positive to the Bush Administration...

You, who proclaim as the Crusader in the pursuit of truth try and knock Articles I post.. Simply articles.. vehicles to find out information.. I'm just helping you out my friend...

When I'm convinced you simply are out for the quest for truth, rather than just another right-wing partisan hack, we'll talk. After reading every article you've posted in here, I have no reason to believe that you are looking for truth.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[melon]

Originally posted by A|catura:
We have nobody to blame but ourselves. The problem doesn't necessarily fall on Bush or Clinton, but on ourselves. We are the ones that REFUSE to change the corruption in our government. We attack and criticize, but do we ever do anything to change it?

Ah yes...the infamous "third" option, whereas, instead of blaming Democrats or Republicans, we blame ourselves. It is certainly poetic, but I disagree.

You have to admit one thing. At the end of the day, whether it's Bush or Clinton, Republican or Democrat in the White House, we have the same corruption and scandals that gridlock the government. The main problem is that WE, yes WE, have given our politicians too much power and control.

Well, considering I'm part of that collective "WE," along with every American in here, I, at least, have a right to know what I did.

"Too much power and control." Our government is running exactly as intended by the Constitution, minus the fact that our Founding Fathers' visions gave us less power. Lest we forget, the Senate was never elected by the public and the Electoral College was given more room to vote any way they wanted, regardless of the popular vote.

However, the government we currently have would likely repulse them. The Bush Administration is crafting all this policy on their own, circumventing Congress. It isn't a surprise, considering Bush, Sr. and Reagan loved to play stunts like this. If they couldn't get Congress to agree with them wholly, they used to just ignore them.

The ONLY solution to this problem is for us to DECIDE to make a difference. We need to take back the control of the legislative, executive and judicial branches that our constitution had originally given us.

Our Founding Fathers hated the public. They thought people were stupid and wholeheartedly believed in the representative democracy, as styled in a republic. Hence, our government would have been more free to do whatever they wanted. You really don't want our government to go back to that, do you? I love how we've romanticized our own history.

What we need is a revival of the Progressive Era again. The society we have now is centered around business; the independent variable in life is "business," whereas everything should be changed to suit it, including people. Read any college-level economics text and that's the kind of tripe we're all being fed. "People" should be the independent variable in life, and business should be forced to do business in a manner that benefits people the greatest.

Why are we shocked by this activity? Yes, it is disappointing each time, but we are the ones that elected Bush and Clinton. We are the reason why this endless cycle continues to ruin our country. We are the ones that claim that we want a change, but on election day we run out and vote for these used car salesmen that only serve their own agendas.

Well, let's see what our alternatives were during Clinton. We had Bush, Sr. He was a failure, who refused to acknowledge the recession he plunged us in. We had Bob Dole. His economic plan would have expanded our deficit, as analyzed in 2000. Then we had Ross Perot. I loved him, mostly because he assured Republican defeat every time. I wish he'd come back!

I'm actually a member of the Libertarian Partywww.lp.org, so it's really frustrating to see everyone criticise their own party, but refuse to abandon it for one that they can believe in. I am extremely proud of my parties accomplishments. Yes, they have been very minimal compared to other two large parties, but it is full of people who are passionate about doing what is best for America, not themselves.

I'm quite happy that you are voting according to your conscience. With that, I believe that we have to deal with the reality that we have a two-party system. A strong third-party will simply assure victory for the opposite ideology. A strong Green Party, for instance, will assure Republican victory in future elections, and I doubt that, with a winning party, conservatives will flock to the Libertarians.

The real problem is that we've given up on our system that has really been the only one to work in 226 years of American history. All successful third parties end up evaporating.

The real problem is, quite simply, a society that does not value intellect, and a society that does not value political activism. No one, honestly, gives a shit anymore; and, within the parties, it is the same thing. In 1992, during the Republican National Convention, when Marilyn Quayle condemned working women (despite the hypocrisy that she was a corporate lawyer herself) and Pat Buchanan virtually declared war on everyone who didn't think like him, where were the moderate Republicans to speak up? During the Clinton-era, with his moderate Republican business policies, where were liberals to speak up? Silence, as always, is implicit consent.

If we are unwilling to step out and actively pursue a change for our country, then we have cheated ourselves out of the very liberties and freedoms that we hold dear. We MUST shed the belief that we are too insignificant to make an impact. Our country has been held hostage by our own government for far too long. It is time for elected officials to be governed by the districts, communities and people that they serve.

Our country is held hostage by business, which prefers an ineffective government mired in scandal. In the last twenty years, more businessmen have been entering Congress, whereas, before, it was mostly all lawyers. Unfortunately, while lawyers are interested in actual law, businessmen are more interested in finding loopholes around laws. It's just one big deceptive ad campaign.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by melon:
When I'm convinced you simply are out for the quest for truth, rather than just another left-wing partisan hack, we'll talk. After reading every article you've posted in here, I have no reason to believe that you are looking for truth.

There was no free market in California.

Hahaha.. My friend, Again, The Kettle can't call the Pot Black.. And be original at least.. It seems that I have written the exact same thing to you in the past.. but never Hack, Hahaha... I'll spare you a nice fecical retort..

Anyways, I've written this before, Maybe you chose to ignore it, but with the current NON issue of Campaign Finance Reform, If BUsh signs this Constitutional Abomination, I will be the first to rip into him for this...

Anyways.. I wasn't even posting to specifically 'talk' to you, How Arrogant?, I was just giving out some information on where a Scandal has happened, because with all the questioning and digging, nothing has come out of the current administration in relation to any wrongdoing.

L.Unplugged




[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 02-25-2002).]

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon:
However, the government we currently have would likely repulse them. The Bush Administration is crafting all this policy on their own, circumventing Congress. It isn't a surprise, considering Bush, Sr. and Reagan loved to play stunts like this. If they couldn't get Congress to agree with them wholly, they used to just ignore them.

Melon, isn't *this* also "pefectly partisan", and "the same old logic"? To criticize Reagan, criticize the elder Bush - TO IGNORE 1993-2000 - and criticize the current President?

(Again, the elder Bush is NOT "Bush, Sr." He is George H.W. Bush; the current President is George W. Bush. No "H.", thus, not "Junior.")

That said, I honestly don't think that the case can be made that conservatives DON'T want Enron investigated. Again, if something that implicates Bush IS revealed, we'll investigate that too.

Look, as of last week, we had TEN Congrssional committees investigating Enron:

* the House Energy and Commerce Committee
* the House Financial Services Committee
* the House Education and Workforce Committee
* the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
* the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
* the Senate Finance Committee
* the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee
* the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
* the Senate Judiciary Committee
* the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee

Now, Capitol Hill has a Republican-led House of Representatives and a Senate with a Republican minority of FOURTY-NINE. If the GOP didn't want this investigated, there wouldn't be ten committees doing so.

You twice say that the logic of the articles listed here are "Don't investigate Bush, but investigate Clinton." That simply isn't the case. They appear to be simply asking, "Why not investigate Clinton too?"

From the first article:

The media are looking for any shred of evidence linking collapsed energy giant Enron to the Bush administration's energy policy. But they're not reporting the story of how Enron built ties to environmental activist groups during the Clinton administration.

Enron pushed heavily for environmental legislation that Clinton supported and Bush (who's supposedly in Lay's back pocket) ACTUALLY OPPOSES.

Enron gave $2 million to the Democrats and received $1 billion in subsidized loans during the Clinton era.

Kenneth Lay was a member of Clinton's "Council on Sustainable Development" in 1997.

And Lay extended to Robert Rubin (Clinton's Treasury Secretary) the invitation to join Enron's Board of Directors.

The ties to the Clinton Administration are at *least* as great as those attached to Bush. You're calling to investigate Bush. So why SHOULDN'T we investigate Clinton too?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:

(Again, the elder Bush is NOT "Bush, Sr." He is George H.W. Bush; the current President is George W. Bush. No "H.", thus, not "Junior.")

Can I just call them Herbert and Walker then? Middle names only, please

Did anyone in the UK see that episode of Have I Got News For You, when they were talking about Iain and Duncan Smith. And then it turned out his first name is actually George or something - so *blimey, you mean there are three of them?!?*

Anyway, you may now return to your regularly scheduled debate. I'm sure this was of absolutely no interest whatsoever to anyone ;-)

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally posted by A|catura:
We have nobody to blame but ourselves. The problem doesn't necessarily fall on Bush or Clinton, but on ourselves. We are the ones that REFUSE to change the corruption in our government. We attack and criticize, but do we ever do anything to change it?

slaney for prez in 2004!!!!

 

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Melon, isn't *this* also "pefectly partisan", and "the same old logic"? To criticize Reagan, criticize the elder Bush - TO IGNORE 1993-2000 - and criticize the current President?

The criticism here is on their way of circumventing Congress. Clinton tried to work with Congress, but they were more obsessed with scandal investigations. Again, that was to the Republican Congress' advantage. "Laissez-faire" capitalism prefers a government that does nothing. However, a Congress painted as "do-nothing" is looked upon negatively, so they need "busy work." What better busy work than the "War on Drugs," flag-burning amendments, sex scandal investigations that have no chance of conviction, and now our "War on Terrorism." Basically, anything to prevent Congress from actually doing any significant domestic policy.

Reagan and the two Bush presidents did things differently. When they couldn't get Congress to cooperate, they would start doing things on their own. Look at this whole "War on Terrorism." How much of this was actually approved by Congress?

That said, I honestly don't think that the case can be made that conservatives DON'T want Enron investigated. Again, if something that implicates Bush IS revealed, we'll investigate that too.

Agreed, but a substantial part of the investigation, to me, involves looking at Cheney's energy policy papers. The current adminstration cover-up is the same flimsy argument Nixon used to try and stop Watergate investigators. If the papers clear the administration of wrongdoing, then so be it. At least, we'll know for sure. As it stands, unless these papers are revealed, there will always be a cloud of guilt over this presidency.

Look, as of last week, we had TEN Congrssional committees investigating Enron:

* the House Energy and Commerce Committee
* the House Financial Services Committee
* the House Education and Workforce Committee
* the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
* the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
* the Senate Finance Committee
* the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee
* the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
* the Senate Judiciary Committee
* the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee

Now, Capitol Hill has a Republican-led House of Representatives and a Senate with a Republican minority of FOURTY-NINE. If the GOP didn't want this investigated, there wouldn't be ten committees doing so.

Thank goodness for the Democratic Senate. I have a feeling that this would have been brushed under the rug more with a Republican-dominated Legislature and Presidency.

You twice say that the logic of the articles listed here are "Don't investigate Bush, but investigate Clinton." That simply isn't the case. They appear to be simply asking, "Why not investigate Clinton too?"

Then let's do it. I'm up for it. However, the public opinion around here seems to be that Bush is innocent and all guilt should be placed on Clinton. If people are actually sincere on investigating both thoroughly, I'm up for it. Let's look at Clinton's papers and let's look at the Bush/Cheney papers. But, that's right, Cheney doesn't want to release them... Either way, it appears that Enron was a cancer that has thankfully been vanquished by its own greed.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[zoomerang II]

Im going to give an opinion from a non american perspective. Isn't it right and proper that the Enron fiasco is big enough that it warrants a full independent enquiry? And if this full independent inquiry found that businessmen or politicians had acted improperly, then they must be prosecuted. End of story.
Or am i too naive?


------------------
In the stillness of the evening
When the sun has had its day
I heard your voice whispering...

[This message has been edited by zoomerang II (edited 02-25-2002).]

 

[Lemonite]

I'm not sure how to end up quoting a whole 'broken' passage, without typing in extra codes with the SHIFT key.. something I'd Rather not do.. so this is just to reply to the statements above me...

Don't put words in my mouth about 'Bragging'.. That's a sick thing to try and state... You don't even know if say My mother worked for Enron and lost all of her money. Hahah.. Easy and simplistic, but very effective.

The Issue around Global Crossing has nothing to do with it's current status.. It's just the ..to use your word.. Suspicion over McAuliffe's RunAway with 18 Millon on a mere investment... And the connections revolving around it.. That's all.. SUspicion.. I've heard your rant over how you burned the midnight oil analyzing that Company late Thursday and Friday Nights... But Again, There's more information out there..

Have I been spitting about Contributions as much as you say?..That was just an initial equalizer to the Mass Hysteria over Bush receiving funds from Enron.. and apparently no one else according to the newspapers.. You know that.. I'm surprised you keep just returning to that.. However, I hope those who you are apparently talking to hear you, because you weren't speaking to me..

And.. Conservatives, Democrats.. Blacks, Whites.. Asians.. People Trust Bush.. They know him to be a man of character and genuine trustworthiness.. Hence my question to you.. 'Whose Mind'.. Just to fill ya in.. Bush doesn't Revolve around Conservatism either in a symbolic manner.. He's embraced both parties, worked with Kennedy et al... He has depoliticized Politics. By following what he believes to be right (Which have included some issues that are pushed by Liberals).. And that's one of the great things about our current president.

L.Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 02-25-2002).]

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon:
The criticism here is on their way of circumventing Congress. Clinton tried to work with Congress, but they were more obsessed with scandal investigations. Again, that was to the Republican Congress' advantage. "Laissez-faire" capitalism prefers a government that does nothing. However, a Congress painted as "do-nothing" is looked upon negatively, so they need "busy work." What better busy work than the "War on Drugs," flag-burning amendments, sex scandal investigations that have no chance of conviction, and now our "War on Terrorism." Basically, anything to prevent Congress from actually doing any significant domestic policy.

Reagan and the two Bush presidents did things differently. When they couldn't get Congress to cooperate, they would start doing things on their own. Look at this whole "War on Terrorism." How much of this was actually approved by Congress?

1) Clinton's administration tried to label the Republican Congress as an organization bent on starving children and killing the elderly. Not exactly "working with Congress."

2) The Clinton-era Republican Congress wasn't a "do-nothing" organization resigned to pursuing sex scandals. By your own earlier admissions, Clinton balanced the budget. By your admission now, he did so with the help of Congress. Fact is, Congress pushed such a budget through Clinton (after two vetoes). Congress also debated every measure on the Contract with America (ALL domestic policy initiatives), approved most of them, and watched all but one fall to Clinton's veto power. Someone less partisan than you would actually recognize the GOP contributions to the debate on domestic policy.

3) It appears that your painting the "War on Terrorism" as an excuse for the Congress to ignore domestic issues. (Lovely quote-marks, by the way; I'm glad to see it doesn't qualify as a real war.) First of all, to label the GOP as being THAT cynical is galling. Beyond that, I'd say that the war IS a domestic issue - an issue whose goal is to prevent terrorists from killing more civilians at home, to prevent office buildings filled with Americans and built on American soil from becoming targets.

4) Congress has approved all of Bush's efforts, last time I checked. In fact, the esteemed Michael Moore criticized the Congress for approving the 9/14 bill to "to give Bush carte blanche powers to go to war however he saw fit." Unless you have some sort of proof to the contrary...

Thank goodness for the Democratic Senate. I have a feeling that this would have been brushed under the rug more with a Republican-dominated Legislature and Presidency.

You missed my point, and I believe intentionally so. Three of those committees are in the REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED House of Representatives. The other seven are in a Senate SO closely divided that the jumping ship of one Senator (who is SO independent that he's planning to raise funds for the DNC) changed the balance of power. This amount of investigation would be impossible if the GOP was obstructing it.

Then let's do it. I'm up for it. However, the public opinion around here seems to be that Bush is innocent and all guilt should be placed on Clinton. If people are actually sincere on investigating both thoroughly, I'm up for it. Let's look at Clinton's papers and let's look at the Bush/Cheney papers. But, that's right, Cheney doesn't want to release them... Either way, it appears that Enron was a cancer that has thankfully been vanquished by its own greed.

Fine, then. Quit labelling articles that expose evidence against Clinton as "perfectly partisan" and the "same old logic: Don't investigate Bush, but investigate Clinton."

That initial spout of unfounded accusations is why I first entered this discussion, and with that I leave it.

 

[melon]

Because I want to continue to argue with Bubba in a civil manner, I will end it there as well.

As for Lemonite, I waste my energy even responding to whatever you write. Your mind was made up long ago.

As for this thread, I wish it would be closed like the other Enron thread.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[Lemonite]

Ah.. Since this debating is complete, Allow me to bring it into the depths of complete nonsense..

A Haiku for your delight


Bags of Yams
Falling From Your Eyes
Orange Goo

L.Unplugged

 

[Danospano]

In a uptopian society the only opinions would be informed opinions based on merit and reason. So far, this forum is resembling not of the kind.

Just so you all know, the reason I do not get involved in these heated mudslinging discussion is not because I'm ignorate on the subject ( I happen to have a basic knowledge of what's going on), but because no one is focusing on the issue at hand.

If the issue is Enron, please understand that if you begin citing facts that have no actual relation to Enron itself, you're invalidating your argument.

And futhermore, if you want to find "REAL" truth, bringing partisan politics to the table is among the most narrowminded approaches to solving the problem. We are talking about the law, and if someone broke the law, why shouldn't we investigate it? Especially when thousands of people lost their life savings. I'd rather know what happened behind closed doors, than to have blind faith in our leadership. (And no, that wasn't a jab at dubya, it was a jab at everyone in elected office).

 

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by zoomerang II:
Im going to give an opinion from a non american perspective. Isn't it right and proper that the Enron fiasco is big enough that it warrants a full independent enquiry? And if this full independent inquiry found that businessmen or politicians had acted improperly, then they must be prosecuted. End of story.
Or am i too naive?

First of all.. No one was complaining when the stock was going up.. Ok.. now after my little bit of bowel waste, I'll just give an opinion..

Enron is only as big as it is because people lost money.. a lot of money.. .. Hahah.. how simple this is, But That's not all of the 'only' .. Because the added dimension is that it has Political Ties...

Note. GLOBAL CROSSING.. the Fourth Largest Bankruptcy in History .. With more APPARENT Scandal laced through it than Enron.. Is Getting No Media Play.. though it is picking up more than the one article I've seen on it...

Back to Enron and Political Ties... Enron has ties to the Bush Administration, however innocent, or corrupt is yet to be officially seen.. Though all evidence at the moment points to no illegal involvement...

Now a bit of commentary:
Coming from a Republican perspective, the OverBlownness of it in the Media.. Not in the Congressional Investigations.. (As Bubba pointed out Republicans were Involved In)
The media/Liberals feel they can trap Bush in something here..(Not so radical statement inserted here:They can get back at him (Any Republican) for the Impeachment of Clinton) and That is a large contributor to why it is such a Big Deal.. If Global Crossing was involved with Bush as it were with McAuliffe.. Then I'd be very interested to see what the Headlines would Read.

L.Unplugged

 

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by melon:
As it stands, unless these papers are revealed, there will always be a cloud of guilt over this presidency.

Melon

In Whose Mind?.. Yours?..

And again, This was in another thread a bit back.. Have you no qualms with the kind of Constitutional Precedent this would set? Sadly I don't think you do..

Just wondering your opinon on this, cuz you've never really addressed it...

L.Unplugged

80's, It's good to hear from ya again, How was that extended vacation in Peru.. I heard you were basking in the sun with Half Clad Women all begging for your attention.. Rumor also has it you're a big fan of Pina Coladas?

 

[melon]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
Enron is only as big as it is because people lost money.. a lot of money.. ..

I love how you brag about this.

Note. GLOBAL CROSSING.. the Fourth Largest Bankruptcy in History .. With more APPARENT Scandal laced through it than Enron.. Is Getting No Media Play.. though it is picking up more than the one article I've seen on it...

Global Crossing is still operating. No employees fired (but not hiring anyone new). It is positioned to reemerge out of bankruptcy. Major difference between Enron, where all the employees were fired and the executives ran off with millions. Nor does Global Crossing have thousands of fradulent foreign subsidiaries like Enron. The "more apparent scandal" is all in your head, because you, along with the EIB king, just would love to see the Democrats fall. What killed Global Crossing was simple: a Wall Street fiber optics panic. They weren't expecting their $14 stock price to evaporate to 80 cents overnight. The same exact thing burned K-Mart.

Back to Enron and Political Ties... Enron has ties to the Bush Administration, however innocent, or corrupt is yet to be officially seen.. Though all evidence at the moment points to no illegal involvement...

Correct. The investigation should continue unimpeded to see if this will remain true or not.

The media/Liberals feel they can trap Bush in something here..(Not so radical statement inserted here:They can get back at him (Any Republican) for the Impeachment of Clinton) and That is a large contributor to why it is such a Big Deal.. If Global Crossing was involved with Bush as it were with McAuliffe.. Then I'd be very interested to see what the Headlines would Read.

1) The Republicans wanted to get back at the Democrats for nailing Nixon during Clinton's impeachment, so don't pretend total innocence.

2) It isn't just about contributions. Maybe I'm repeating myself until I'm hoarse (wouldn't be the first time in this forum), but if it were just about campaign contributions, you could rightfully state that Democrats and Republicans should share blame. However, something is "suspicious" ("suspicious" does NOT automatically mean "guilty") about the way Cheney's energy policy ran during the California energy crisis and the fact that much of Bush's Administration used to work for or had close ties to Enron. Not to mention the "suspicion" that Lay himself was involved in crafting the energy policy. It bleeds conflict of interest, and, maybe, it isn't illegal. We'll see.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[melon]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
In Whose Mind?.. Yours?..

The world doesn't revolve around conservatism, mind you.

And again, This was in another thread a bit back.. Have you no qualms with the kind of Constitutional Precedent this would set? Sadly I don't think you do..

"Constitutional precedent" my ass. Congress has repeatedly asserted its right to investigate the president and private conversations, and the court system has upheld it. Remember the Watergate tapes? All private White House conversations during the Nixon era. This is absolutely no different.

However, assuming there would be a "constitutional precedent" problem, it would be for the better. We should have every right to know whom or what our President is "getting advice" from. I'm tired of all the campaign lies to get elected and then, behind closed doors, doing the opposite.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time