Posted on 01/11/2002 7:00:05 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
The realm of politics always guarantees endless hours of riveting entertainment and there is nothing more fascinating than the manner in which credit and blame are distributed within it. In this subculture where perception is better than reality and truth is often inconvenient it can be quite an ordeal to stay grounded in little things like facts.
Thirteen years after leaving office, Ronald Reagan is still habitually accused of creating the budget deficits of the 1980´s. This is in spite of forcing tax cuts past an adversarial congress and thereby doubling the cash flow into the US Treasury by spurring economic growth. A Democrat controlled legislative body then went on a wild spending spree, consuming that revenue and then some, yet they have escaped responsibility entirely.
Although Bill Clinton meandered into office with an economic recovery that was years old and at the start of a technology boom that he had absolutely nothing to do with, he is largely credited for creating the prosperity of the 1990´s. As he sauntered out of Washington with pardon pen ablaze, the economy had been slowing for a full year, and the domestic energy situation was in shambles, but he has received little if any condemnation. Conversely, George Bush had scarcely set foot in the White House before being accused of creating these predicaments. But such things appear minor when compared to who is tarnished and who is not in matters of alleged or proven wrongdoing. And in the case of the Enron collapse, George Bush is guilty simply by association.
The unraveling of the recent corporate powerhouse has left investors stunned, congressmen posturing and analysts clamoring to explain what went wrong. Just how a company that listed revenue of $100 billion in 2000 could end up filing for bankruptcy by the end of 2001 isn´t altogether clear. The reasons are as varied as the corporation itself. While the growth of Enron was fueled primarily through the trading of energy commodities, as it began to disintegrate, the company was involved in everything from paper, to broadband to wastewater disposal and had roughly 2800 subsidiaries. In fact, this wandering from its core business contributed significantly to the ultimate meltdown. The crash of the technology sector, bad investments, questionable partnerships, the California energy debacle and the general downturn in the economy have combined to leave the former giant struggling to survive. It has also left the Democrats and a highly likeminded media making any and every possible leap in order to implicate George W. Bush.
It isn´t arguable to say that the Bush administration, and the Bush family, have had a close relationship with Enron and CEO Kenneth Lay. The Houston-based company and its executives have been major political contributors to the current administration and to Republican causes. Roughly three quarters of the considerable funds donated by Enron and its employees have gone to Republicans. Several administration officials have held stock in the company and others, including Army secretary Thomas White Jr., are former Enron executives. Furthermore, company reps have been among those consulted in the creation of the Bush energy strategy.
The corporation´s collapse amid accusations of profit inflation, debt concealment and improperly locking up, and subsequently decimating, employee retirement accounts, has prompted numerous investigations. The Securities and Exchange Commission, The Federal Trade Commission, The Department of Labor, The Justice Department and scores of congressional committees have launched inquiries and many are using the opportunity to target the current administration. Still others are openly wondering why President Bush isn´t already in handcuffs, and are comparing this situation to every political scandal from Whitewater to Teapot Dome.
The use of the Enron fiasco by the president´s critics is not particularly surprising. For many, the mere fact that both George Bush and Dick Cheney had worked in the oil industry was enough to indict them for crimes against humanity. During the 2000 presidential campaign Bush was portrayed as a mass murderer for "presiding over" executions as governor of Texas. That the death penalty was state law and that Bush was sworn to uphold it seemed of little consequence. Democrat campaign ads all but accused Bush of being an accessory to murder in the dragging death of James Byrd for opposing "hate crimes" legislation. Given these propensities, Enron´s fate must seem like a gift from G-d.
The spectacle of so many greedily feeding on Enron´s carcass and attempting to encircle George W. Bush is interesting in that they are largely those who systematically excused every Clinton transgression. The same members of congress who are falling all over themselves to investigate Enron are those who claimed that the felony of perjury was not an impeachable offense. The same media that convinced the American people that the endless Clinton scandals were inconsequential, old news, or only about sex are now attempting to make the failure of a major corporation the personal responsibility of our current president. No matter, unlike Clinton´s supporters, whose loyalty knew no depths, my support for any public official is conditional upon their honesty and ethicality. I am, therefore, opposed to no investigation, if there is cause.
With the collapse of Enron, there is considerable preliminary evidence of mismanagement, incompetence and illegalities, but this is a far cry from proof. And this is light-years from making Bush somehow responsible. Multiple news stories and political commentaries have claimed that this situation "dwarfs" the Whitewater scandal. In terms of the dollars involved, this is certain. But inherent to this statement is a comparison of Bush´s relationship to Enron with the Clinton´s involvement in the Whitewater land development venture.
The Whitewater Development Corp. consisted of a half-dozen people with the Clintons among them. The company victimized low-income workers and retirees and fraudulently procured government loans. Several within this tiny group were convicted and served prison time, yet few were willing to believe that the Clintons knew anything about these crimes. Enron is a multinational corporation that, before its current troubles, employed over 21,000 people. Neither Bush nor vice-president Cheney have ever worked for it or owned any part of it. But those who have granted sweeping deference to the Clinton´s would have us believe that they must have known the intricacies of the company´s accounting and management decision-making.
Rep. Henry Waxman of California has been one of the more vocal of the congressional accusers. He recently commented, "There is a very intimate connection between Enron and the Bush administration. How could they not have known what was happening…" Known what? In 2000 Fortune named Enron "The Most Innovative Company in America" for the fifth consecutive year, and it was ranked No. 24 among the "100 Best Companies to Work for in America." Though the company may have shown troubling signs, they were hardly of any more concern than those demonstrated by corporations throughout the American economy. Had the White House indeed suspected problems, public statements would have only exacerbated what were then unclear difficulties. And it´s hard to conceive of company executives confiding potential improprieties to the White House, but I suppose anything is possible.
For some, the guilt of the Bush administration was solidified long before Enron began to crumble. The relationship with an energy company, however well regarded, was in itself seen as criminal. They had little difficulty accepting that the same company was a major contributor to Bill Clinton, or that its executives were openly courted in the infamous Ron Brown junkets to Russia, Indonesia, China and elsewhere. But this is axiomatic. A close working involvement with the energy industry while governor of Texas is cited as evidence of a corrupt relationship with Bush. But the promotion of a Texas based energy company by the state´s governor should be no more suspicious than Michigan´s governor promoting the auto industry, or Ohio´s governor encouraging the health of Proctor & Gamble.
A Dec. 10, ABC News piece by Josh Gerstein made a particular point of mentioning "In April 2000, when Enron opened a new baseball stadium named for the firm, then-candidate Bush sat right in front of Lay in the Enron box." This little tidbit was injected while Gerstein was raising suspicions over the president´s relationship to the stricken giant. With the forthcoming opening of the Detroit Lions´ new home, Ford Field, Michigan Governor John Engler should be wary of the seating arrangements as the Ford Explorer/Firestone Tire crisis continues to simmer.
The longstanding support by President Bush and the Republicans for energy deregulation is seen as nothing more than a method of extorting money from average citizens to further enrich corporate executives. More specifically, the Bush administration´s refusal to institute national price controls to help save California from its self-created energy catastrophe was seen as a way to funnel money directly to Enron. Such beliefs demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of deregulation, the capitalist system and the nature of California´s troubles. Syndicated columnist Robert Scheer, who has apparently made it his life´s work to saddle Bush with the Enron anchor, has abundantly demonstrated such ignorance. His vitriolic, anti-capitalist sentiments make more sense, however, when his past work as the editor of the Diaries of Che Guevara (1968), is factored in.
California´s retail price caps on energy, along with its radical environmental policies largely created the state´s problems, but this matters little to some. Public statements from the state´s officials about Enron´s "price gouging" and Attorney General Bill Lockyer´s stated desire to "personally escort" CEO Kenneth Lay to an "8 by 10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says, 'Hi, my name is Spike, honey" certainly helped damage the company´s image to investors. California´s failure to pay over $500 million owed to Enron has also added to the company´s troubles.
Overall, the salivating of Bush opponents as they attempt to make him accountable for the Enron disaster appears bizarre when considering their non-reaction to Clinton fundraising methods while in office. His renting out of public property, accepting money from convicted drug smugglers and illegal arms traffickers concerned them very little. Nor did his shaking down of Buddhism temples, and accepting hundreds of sequentially numbered money orders from representatives of the Communist Chinese, while US nuclear secrets were flowing to that adversarial government. His locking up of vast clean-burning coal resources in Utah, and subsequently putting billions into the hands of the Indonesian financial backers, was a nothing issue as well.
Having said all this, the scope of the damage caused by Enron´s downfall definitely merits closer examination. Should the Bush inner circle, or Bush personally, prove to be responsible then so be it. What is certain is that simply passing him off as a "lovable rouge" will hardly suffice. My expectations from this president, or any other, demand more than that. But at this point it seems a hopeless and wishful stretch. If this is merely the collapse of a corporate supporter, and he is to be held accountable on that basis alone, then I submit that McCain-style campaign finance reform is unnecessary. The perceived problem will have been solved. So let the investigations begin, and let the chips fall where they may.
AND
-Lloyd Bensten, Clintons first treasury secretary was a recipient of Enrons largesse. At the time of his campaign for Senate, he received the second largest donation from Enron according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
-Robert Rubin, Benstens successor, was involved with Enron while he worked as an investment banker Goldman & Sachs. Clinton first hired Rubin to head his National Economic Council. Soon afterwards, Rubin wrote on Goldman Sachs stationery to former clients, including Enron, in which he ''looked forward to continuing to work with you in my new capacity.''
-In Aug. 1993, McLarty arranged an invitation for Lay to play golf with Clinton in Vail, Colorado. This date irritated Oscar White, chief executive of Coastal, another natural gas company that had helped the Clinton election campaign raise funding. These connections to the Democratic administration have helped Enron considerably -Ken Silverstein Counterpunch
-Clinton officials publicly helped Enron win the contract in India as well as in Indonesia. Enron had received U.S. government funds to build power plants in China, the Philippines and Turkey. Enron also won contracts in Pakistan and Russia while accompanying senior U.S. government officials on state trips. In June 1996, four days before India granted final approval to Enron's project, Lay's company gave $100,000 to the DNC.
-According to the Houston Chronicle, Enron got permission to build a pipeline from Mozambique to South Africa after National Security Adviser Anthony Lake threatened to withhold aid to Mozambique if it didnt approve the project.
-The bulk of Enron's alleged chicanery had to have happened during the Clinton administration.
- Lee. P Brown (D) of Houston received $250,000 just before Enron filed Chapter 11. Enron campaigned against the conservative candidate for mayor.
-Kenneth Lay hired the firm of Clinton's former chief of staff Mack McLarty.
-The Center for Responsive Politics lists Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, John Breaux of Louisiana, and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico--chair of the Senate Energy Committee--among the top beneficiaries of Enron's political donations
-Kenneth Lay retained as his top D.C. lobbyist Linda Robertson, a Democrat who worked for the Clinton Treasury Department.
-Dynegy greased Henry Waxman's palms with thousands of dollars.
-Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee received three checks from the Houston-based energy and trading giant totaling $100,000. Karen Denne, an Enron spokeswoman, said the company had a record of two checks written to the committee -- dated Sept. 24 and Nov. 2
- No. 20 on the Enron money list since 1989 is the Senate's leading Democrat, Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
-Enron was apparently a big backer of the Kyoto Treaty .
What exactly is this? Is it a word? If not, what does it mean? If so, when did the English language incorporate "-" as a letter and vowell? If it's not English, why is it among other writing that is?
I think Jewish people use this. They leave the o out. God's name to them is to great to even spell it. I have seen it on confirmation of receipt of contributions from some Jewish charities. Hope that helps. I am not Jewish by the way so this is a shot in the dark.
Hey you reckon this will spell the demise of the NWO... Heck if they can't surround a failing company and keep it afloat then the NWO is doomed to failure. Need to move on and get another theory to work with... Now those that are building burgers, or using tri ladders, we may have to watch out far...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.