Oh so the war in Afganistan was due to the fact that Bush wanted a oil pipeline?
[quote] I has been proven by many people that the US gov't allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to happen so the the US cuold enter the war.<hr></blockquote> BS, pure BS, just like the "CIA hit" on JFK.
This Enron stuff is BAD NEWS. Even while the workers had their assets frozen (unable to sell the stock), the management was dumping 1.1 Billion in their own stock. You've got insider trading all over the place and people from Enron telling high ranking officials in the Republican party that the company is doing poorly, all while donating to their campaigns. Meanwhile, their own employees are watching their money go down the drain since it's tied to the Enron stock.
Here are some articles from today's New York Times. Make your own judgments from them.
Here's an interesting quote from this next article:
[quote]Although no one has suggested that Mr. Bush has done anything wrong, the connections between his presidency and Enron are uncomfortably close. The company's chairman, Kenneth L. Lay, has been a close friend of Mr. Bush for many years, and Mr. Lay and other Enron executives have contributed more money to Mr. Bush over his political career than anyone else, an amount exceeding $550,000. Mr. Lay contributed an additional $100,000 for the Bush inaugural committee.<hr></blockquote>
These Enron crooks should get what they have coming. At the very least their profit on the stock should be taken and used to help make the empoyee stock owners whole. I don't know how the insider stock trading laws work if the person works there. I think it's a given that the CEO would be an "insider" and own stock.
As far as I can tell there's no there there wrt to Bush and others. What does anyone think Bush did or didn't do. He says he never talked #s with the Enron people. Even if he did what's he supposed to do about it. Get on TeeVee and say "don't buy Enron".
Arthur Anderson got the wool pulled over their eyes. As far as we know no one outside of Enron that they was cooking the books until it was too late.
<strong>For those who think that the NY Times is just out to get Bush </strong><hr></blockquote>
Out to "get" him? I don't know. The Times certainly won't ever give Bush the benefit of any doubt. But that doesn't really matter anyway. There's no denying that something went terribly wrong at Enron and that Enron was a big player in Republican circles. Although it's also true that plenty of Democrats were "wired up" with Enron stock too. Former Clinton chief of staff Mack McLarty, for example, was also an Enron hire. Former Clinton Treasury Secretaries Lloyd Bentsen and Robert Rubin also had ties with Enron. Clinton officials helped Enron win contracts in India and in Indonesia.
For Bush so far there is nothing more than guilt by association. And it appears that when Enron CEO Ken Lay asked Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans for help <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28350-2002Jan10.html"; target="_blank">none was forthcoming</a>. That said, there's no way Bush comes away from this without political damage and that is a subordinate concern to the thousands of workers whose retirements were destroyed in this debacle.
[quote]For Bush so far this is nothing more than guilt by association.<hr></blockquote>
That's basically what the quote I posted says. The question Bush will ultimately face is "How much did the President know, and when did he know it?"
I do hope that these Enron executives get what's coming to them. Unfortunately, there are so many people associated with them, that it's hard to find someone to take up the case against them due to the conflicts of interest. It will be interesting how to see this plays out.
The question Bush will ultimately face is "How much did the President know, and when did he know it?"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that's a more inflamatory way of approaching the matter. The question deliberately echoes Senator Howard Baker's question during Watergate - not very impressive scandal-mongering.
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.
jhtrih, in referance to the Pearl Harbor stuff. This is not BS. In fact it is well document and considered 'proven' by people who study the subject. I know several teachers at the DIA (Defence Intelligence Agency) here in DC. Pearl Harbor has been one of their major studies.
They have told me of several things that virtually prove the administration knew. Japanese codes were broken, radar contacts were ignored, etc. Sorry I cant give all the details (I dont study the subject. If your really interested, I could find the details.
This author is a buffoon and we will see how accurate his sources are when the book is released and we will see how it stands up to scrutiny. Sounds quite damning, of course, but that is how to sell copies.
I would like to echo Roger's assertion that the quote is just a little too "evil-doer" for belief.
Off subect:
Re: Enron.
Fran, you outdo yourself once again in a display that all you seemingly know comes straight from Tom Daschle the Weasel and his fellow slimeballs.
Whitewater was a waste of time, but this is even more a waste of time. There is no smoke and the pissy Democrats are screaming "FIRE!" At least there was a wisp of smoke when the pissy Republicans screamed "FIRE!" a few years back.
I'd just like to say this once and be on record:
NOTHING WILL COME AGAINST PREZ DUBYA IN THE ENRON "CASE".
[quote]Fran, you outdo yourself once again in a display that all you seemingly know comes straight from Tom Daschle the Weasel and his fellow slimeballs.
Whitewater was a waste of time, but this is even more a waste of time. There is no smoke and the pissy Democrats are screaming "FIRE!" At least there was a wisp of smoke when the pissy Republicans screamed "FIRE!" a few years back.
I'd just like to say this once and be on record:
NOTHING WILL COME AGAINST PREZ DUBYA IN THE ENRON "CASE".
<hr></blockquote>
Where did I say anything about Bush facing any kind of action? I said that the media will try and find out if there was any connection to Bush and Enron- ie, How much did he know and when? If you actually bothered to read my posts occasionaly, you'd see that I never said that there would be any kind of action taken against Bush like the Republicans took against Clinton.
What I HAVE said, however, is that I hope the ENRON EXECUTIVES get what's coming to them. After what they did to their poor employees, they deserve all that's going to come too.
[quote]NOTHING WILL COME AGAINST PREZ DUBYA IN THE ENRON "CASE".<hr></blockquote>
That is quite probably true. And quite probably because many (maybe incriminating?) records have been destroyed (by (Arthur) Andersen) in the months prior to the company's collapse. Why would so many records be destroyed if there was nothing to hide, and who instructed Andersen to take this very non-standard accounting procedure?
It isn't hard to imagine, given a $60 million investigation budget and a keen-nosed special prosecutor that all kinds of stuff can be dredged up; the 'freely admitted' White House connections are suspicious enough as they stand.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>That is quite probably true. And quite probably because many (maybe incriminating?) records have been destroyed (by (Arthur) Andersen) in the months prior to the company's collapse. Why would so many records be destroyed if there was nothing to hide, and who instructed Andersen to take this very non-standard accounting procedure?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd say it's probable that someone was trying to hide something but that doesn't mean it had anything to do with the Bush administration.
[quote]<strong>It isn't hard to imagine, given a $60 million investigation budget and a keen-nosed special prosecutor that all kinds of stuff can be dredged up...</strong><hr></blockquote>
By "stuff" I suppose you mean something that will find Bush in some way culpable. Actually it is hard to imagine. The adminstration let Enron fail. How are you going to talk your way around that rather large inconvenient fact? Compare this to what happened when Long Term Capital went bust during the Clinton administration. The Fed bailed out the money interests.
<strong>I'd say it's probable that someone was trying to hide something but that doesn't mean it had anything to do with the Bush administration. </strong><hr></blockquote>Your Bush worship is getting tired.
Comments
Here's an idea. Instead of "Enrongate" call it "WhiteEnron" or maybe "Enronwater".
[quote] I has been proven by many people that the US gov't allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to happen so the the US cuold enter the war.<hr></blockquote> BS, pure BS, just like the "CIA hit" on JFK.
Here are some articles from today's New York Times. Make your own judgments from them.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/11/business/11ENRO.html"; target="_blank">Enron Contacted 2 Cabinet Officers Before Collapsing</a>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/11/business/11AUDI.html"; target="_blank">Enron Auditor Admits It Destroyed Documents</a>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/11/business/11PENS.html"; target="_blank">Bush to Look at Employee Risks, but Experts Say Solutions Won't Be Easy</a>
Here's an interesting quote from this next article:
[quote]Although no one has suggested that Mr. Bush has done anything wrong, the connections between his presidency and Enron are uncomfortably close. The company's chairman, Kenneth L. Lay, has been a close friend of Mr. Bush for many years, and Mr. Lay and other Enron executives have contributed more money to Mr. Bush over his political career than anyone else, an amount exceeding $550,000. Mr. Lay contributed an additional $100,000 for the Bush inaugural committee.<hr></blockquote>
The article is<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/11/business/11ASSE.html"; target="_blank">here</a>.
For those who think that the NY Times is just out to get Bush
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42632,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42632,00.html</a>;
As far as I can tell there's no there there wrt to Bush and others. What does anyone think Bush did or didn't do. He says he never talked #s with the Enron people. Even if he did what's he supposed to do about it. Get on TeeVee and say "don't buy Enron".
Arthur Anderson got the wool pulled over their eyes. As far as we know no one outside of Enron that they was cooking the books until it was too late.
So what did Bush do that was wrong?
<strong>For those who think that the NY Times is just out to get Bush </strong><hr></blockquote>
Out to "get" him? I don't know. The Times certainly won't ever give Bush the benefit of any doubt. But that doesn't really matter anyway. There's no denying that something went terribly wrong at Enron and that Enron was a big player in Republican circles. Although it's also true that plenty of Democrats were "wired up" with Enron stock too. Former Clinton chief of staff Mack McLarty, for example, was also an Enron hire. Former Clinton Treasury Secretaries Lloyd Bentsen and Robert Rubin also had ties with Enron. Clinton officials helped Enron win contracts in India and in Indonesia.
For Bush so far there is nothing more than guilt by association. And it appears that when Enron CEO Ken Lay asked Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans for help <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28350-2002Jan10.html"; target="_blank">none was forthcoming</a>. That said, there's no way Bush comes away from this without political damage and that is a subordinate concern to the thousands of workers whose retirements were destroyed in this debacle.
[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>So what did Bush do that was wrong?</strong><hr></blockquote>Exactly what we need to find out. Let's appoint Al Gore as special prosecutor.
<strong>Exactly what we need to find out. Let's appoint Al Gore as special prosecutor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's basically what the quote I posted says. The question Bush will ultimately face is "How much did the President know, and when did he know it?"
I do hope that these Enron executives get what's coming to them. Unfortunately, there are so many people associated with them, that it's hard to find someone to take up the case against them due to the conflicts of interest. It will be interesting how to see this plays out.
<strong>
The question Bush will ultimately face is "How much did the President know, and when did he know it?"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that's a more inflamatory way of approaching the matter. The question deliberately echoes Senator Howard Baker's question during Watergate - not very impressive scandal-mongering.
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.
All politicians are dirty.
They have told me of several things that virtually prove the administration knew. Japanese codes were broken, radar contacts were ignored, etc. Sorry I cant give all the details (I dont study the subject. If your really interested, I could find the details.
<strong>quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BRussell:
Exactly what we need to find out. Let's appoint Al Gore as special prosecutor.
---------------------------------------------------------------
<strong>
Scott, are you being sarcastic, or what?
On subject:
This author is a buffoon and we will see how accurate his sources are when the book is released and we will see how it stands up to scrutiny. Sounds quite damning, of course, but that is how to sell copies.
I would like to echo Roger's assertion that the quote is just a little too "evil-doer" for belief.
Off subect:
Re: Enron.
Fran, you outdo yourself once again in a display that all you seemingly know comes straight from Tom Daschle the Weasel and his fellow slimeballs.
Whitewater was a waste of time, but this is even more a waste of time. There is no smoke and the pissy Democrats are screaming "FIRE!" At least there was a wisp of smoke when the pissy Republicans screamed "FIRE!" a few years back.
I'd just like to say this once and be on record:
NOTHING WILL COME AGAINST PREZ DUBYA IN THE ENRON "CASE".
Thank you, and goodnight.
Whitewater was a waste of time, but this is even more a waste of time. There is no smoke and the pissy Democrats are screaming "FIRE!" At least there was a wisp of smoke when the pissy Republicans screamed "FIRE!" a few years back.
I'd just like to say this once and be on record:
NOTHING WILL COME AGAINST PREZ DUBYA IN THE ENRON "CASE".
<hr></blockquote>
Where did I say anything about Bush facing any kind of action? I said that the media will try and find out if there was any connection to Bush and Enron- ie, How much did he know and when? If you actually bothered to read my posts occasionaly, you'd see that I never said that there would be any kind of action taken against Bush like the Republicans took against Clinton.
What I HAVE said, however, is that I hope the ENRON EXECUTIVES get what's coming to them. After what they did to their poor employees, they deserve all that's going to come too.
That is quite probably true. And quite probably because many (maybe incriminating?) records have been destroyed (by (Arthur) Andersen) in the months prior to the company's collapse. Why would so many records be destroyed if there was nothing to hide, and who instructed Andersen to take this very non-standard accounting procedure?
It isn't hard to imagine, given a $60 million investigation budget and a keen-nosed special prosecutor that all kinds of stuff can be dredged up; the 'freely admitted' White House connections are suspicious enough as they stand.
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-011102enron.story"; target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/business/la-011102enron.story</a>;
interesting read.
<strong>That is quite probably true. And quite probably because many (maybe incriminating?) records have been destroyed (by (Arthur) Andersen) in the months prior to the company's collapse. Why would so many records be destroyed if there was nothing to hide, and who instructed Andersen to take this very non-standard accounting procedure?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd say it's probable that someone was trying to hide something but that doesn't mean it had anything to do with the Bush administration.
[quote]<strong>It isn't hard to imagine, given a $60 million investigation budget and a keen-nosed special prosecutor that all kinds of stuff can be dredged up...</strong><hr></blockquote>
By "stuff" I suppose you mean something that will find Bush in some way culpable. Actually it is hard to imagine. The adminstration let Enron fail. How are you going to talk your way around that rather large inconvenient fact? Compare this to what happened when Long Term Capital went bust during the Clinton administration. The Fed bailed out the money interests.
<strong>I'd say it's probable that someone was trying to hide something but that doesn't mean it had anything to do with the Bush administration. </strong><hr></blockquote>Your Bush worship is getting tired.