Replies

Oh, there's no question that Clinton went to bat for Enron. It would be absurd to claim otherwise. The facts are irrefutable.

But I'm a little bit of a contrarian on these threads. While I certainly recognize the hypocrisy of the Democrats trying to find a Republican connection in helping out Enron, I don't think that most of the things the Clinton Administration did on behalf of Enron were wrong.

Promoting American business and getting them footholds in foreign markets is a good thing. Sometimes it takes government pressure to make that happen, but if the final result is that an American business has beat out a French business, that is something to be happy about.

Now, some of the things that the Clinton Administration did for Enron look a little too cozy and may not have been in America's long-term interests. And there is no excuse for that, although it fits in with a lot of what Clinton did for fatcat contributors. He sold out American security on the Loral deal with China, for example.

But, the Administration ought to do some things for American businesses, whether or not they were political contributors. It's good for America.

Believe it or not.............I agree with you completely. My point is this: The media are going way out of their way to paint a picture of Enron - Bush coziness because they supported him. Period. No evidence of quid pro quo. Zip. Nada. Here, we have direct evidence that the Clinton administration put tremendous pressure on Indian officials (if you follow the link that MJY1288 put up in reply #7, you'll see that this was ONLY after they had contributed a HUGE chunk of cash) to allow this project. Many may argue that "that's just the way things get done"; that may be. BUT.............isn't it convenient that the press ignores this, something this big, smack in front of their faces, while trying to pin something on Bush that they're fabricating out of whole cloth?

P.S. I'm not surprised, by the way..........