Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Crooks in the White House
New York Press ^ | July 2, 2002 | Alexander Cockburn

Posted on 07/02/2002 1:13:45 PM PDT by Quilla

This is exciting. Will Dick Cheney keel over from his fifth heart attack before he becomes the first veep since Spiro Agnew to resign in the face of charges of financial crookery? Or will Bush fire him to divert attention from his own scummy past? n Over the weekend President Dumbo poked his head above the rubble of the WorldCom scandal and made a stand: "No violation of the public’s trust will be tolerated... Executives who commit fraud will face financial penalties and, when they are guilty of criminal wrongdoing, they will face jail time."

Sunday morning brought more ringing pledges to protect the public weal: "If anybody violates the law, we go after them," SEC chairman Harvey Pitt told Sam Donaldson on ABC’s This Week. In an earlier incarnation Pitt was one of the guys who successfully lobbied the SEC to make it easier for Arthur Andersen and the other big accounting firms to cook the books on behalf of Enron, MCI/WorldCom and others. Bush, flush with campaign contributions from Enron and MCI/WorldCom ($100,000 last summer), duly signaled his gratitude by putting Pitt in charge of the SEC, where he put the agency in snooze mode amid a ripening cloud of scandal involving the biggest names in corporate America.

But even Pitt couldn’t choke off the investigation into Halliburton, one of the largest oil service companies in the world, headed until July 2000 by Cheney, who was the company’s CEO. The SEC is probing whether Halliburton reported more than $100 million of disputed costs on big oil contracts as revenues so that it could prop up its profits while negotiating a merger with a rival. These accounting shenanigans took place in 1998 on Cheney’s watch, and yes, the accounting firm was Arthur Andersen. Noting Bush’s promise that CEOs who have mismanaged their companies in some fraudulent way will "have to pay," Donaldson asked Pitt, "Will that be the case in Halliburton if you find wrongdoing under Mr. Cheney’s reign?" Quivering with integrity, Pitt bravely declared, "I head an independent regulatory agency. We don’t give anyone a pass."

What else could he say? Up till now the Halliburton scandal has been rumbling along, just under the radar. But now it’s nearing Critical Mass. It may not be long, too, before Dick Cheney announces that on doctor’s orders, and the better to deal with these outrageous accusations of chicanery, he’s stepping down, which is–if you believe friends of Tom Ridge in Philadelphia–what Cheney was planning to do before 9/11, making way for the former Pennsylvania governor.

Of course, anyone with a memory longer than the day before yesterday would have doubled over with laughter at the spectacle of Bush calling for jail time for corporate crooks. Remember Spectrum? Back in 1986 George W. Bush’s oil company, Spectrum, was about to go belly up, until kind friends folded it into Harken Energy. Various accounts, including the Daily Enron site (www.dailyenron.com), narrate that, from being on the threshold of the debtors’ prison, Bush suddenly had $500,000 worth of Harken stock, an $80,000-a-year salary and a stock option arrangement that allowed him to buy Harken stock at 40 percent below market value. Bush made more than a million off Harken, even though the company itself lost a ton of money.

Sound familiar? Here’s more, culled from the Daily Enron site. Bush also borrowed $180,375 from the company–a loan that was later "forgiven," in accordance with Christ’s instructions on the subject of sinners. (In 1989 and 1990 alone–according to the company’s Securities and Exchange Commission filing–Harken’s board "forgave" $341,000 in loans to its executives.)

Sure, this is old stuff, just like Whitewater. Now it’s spring 1990. Iraq is menacing Kuwait and thereby casting a shadow over Harken Energy’s only pending contract, a drilling project in Bahrain. Harken’s Smith Barney financial advisers have just issued a bleak assessment of the company’s position and future. Harken sets up a "restructuring board" and Bush is on it. In June 1990, claiming ignorance of Harken’s desperate plight and the Smith Barney report, Bush sells his 212,140 shares of Harken Energy, banking $848,560.

The sale falls under the SEC’s insider stock sale rule requiring almost immediate formal notice, but Bush does not report the sale until seven months later. At the time the SEC is headed by George H.W. Bush’s appointee, Richard Breeden. W sold his Harken stock less than 30 days after his father’s national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, sent the President a secret memo warning that hostilities between Iraq and Kuwait were likely.

As Daily Enron asks, "Did dad share this information with his son? If so, W. Bush traded on ‘non-public’ information of an extraordinary nature indeed."

Sure enough, two months after W made his killing, the shit hit the fan in the Gulf, and Harken’s shares went south, losing 25 percent of their value the day Saddam sent his troops into Kuwait. If Bush hadn’t bailed out he’d have lost nearly $250,000. And they talk about this man restoring "trust" in the White House?


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: socialistpropaganda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: Slyfox
Slyfox - I really like the way you posted the Clinton Crimes and I intend to send it to this scum in just this fashion - IF I can find an email address for him!! Thanks.
21 posted on 07/02/2002 2:44:01 PM PDT by Elkiejg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Elkiejg
DONE!! If you want to let this scum know what you think - here's his email address: mugger@nypress.com
22 posted on 07/02/2002 2:46:51 PM PDT by Elkiejg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Sure, this is old stuff, just like Whitewater. Now it’s spring 1990... The sale falls under the SEC’s insider stock sale rule requiring almost immediate formal notice, but Bush does not report the sale until seven months later.

While in office presidents don't have direct control over much of their finances. Government paid accountants and/or lawyers would be responsible for this screw up (if it's even true).

23 posted on 07/02/2002 3:01:45 PM PDT by NEPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elkiejg
Hmmm, I wonder if Old Slick would recognize any of the crimes?
24 posted on 07/02/2002 3:06:38 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
"...where he put the agency in snooze mode amid a ripening cloud of scandal involving the biggest names in corporate America."

Notice he doesn't mention how far back these accounting scandels date. And what exactly was the head of the SEC doing when Clinton was president? Probably pulling a Janet Reno-esque "won't investigate because we are either crooks ourselves or incompetent."

" Of course, anyone with a memory longer than the day before yesterday would have..."

But apparently this author's memory doesn't go back any further than January 2001.

25 posted on 07/02/2002 3:25:50 PM PDT by rudypoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utopia
Wow! I'm in awe of such impartial reporting. BTW Could someone explain to me if Bush is "Dumbo" and yet his SATs were higher than Gore's, what does that make Gore?

Elephant poop?

26 posted on 07/02/2002 3:43:54 PM PDT by john in missouri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
As I recall, the issue with Halliburton was its decision to book $100 million dollars of disputed revenues, which represented a change in their previous policy of not reporting disputed items as revenues. But I have never seen whether the hundred million represented the entire disputed amount or merely their estimate of the portion of the disputed amount that they thought they would recover. That fact is important in determining whether the booking was legitimate.
27 posted on 07/02/2002 3:52:17 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
"put the agency in snooze mode . . . but even Pitt couldn't choke off the investigation"

I wonder what facts Cockburn has to support these statements suggesting that Pitt tried to stop the investigation? My sh*t detector is flashing, because despite the alleged "snooze mode" the investigation went forward.
28 posted on 07/02/2002 3:55:22 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elkiejg; aculeus; All
If you want to let this scum know what you think - here's his email address: mugger@nypress.com

That email address is not Cockburn's. It belongs to Russ Smith (a/k/a Mugger), the editor-in-chief, who writes good columns.

Cockburn is one of many contributing writers: see masthead. Please keep that in mind if dropping Russ Smith a note.

29 posted on 07/02/2002 4:39:39 PM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dighton; Orual
Like father like son: This is from a Brit web site on Daddy Claude:

Quote

Claude Cockburn, the son of a diplomat, was born in China in 1904. After obtaining a degree from Oxford University he became a journalist with The Times. He worked as a foreign correspondent in Germany and the United States before resigning in 1933 to start up his own journal, The Week.

Using the name Frank Pitcairn, Cockburn also contributed to the Daily Worker. In 1936 Harry Pollitt, the General Secretary of the Communist Party, asked him to cover the Spanish Civil War for the newspaper. When he arrived in Spain he joined the Fifth Regiment so that he could report the war as an ordinary soldier. While in Spain he published Reporter in Spain.

Cockburn was attacked by George Orwell in his book Homage to Catalonia (1938). In the book he accused Cockburn of being under the control of the Communist Party. Orwell was particularly critical of the way Cockburn reported the May Riots in Barcelona.

Unquote.

Daddy Claude came "this close" to arrest for treason to the crown. Loyal Stalinist that he was, when Joe and Adolf suddenly became partners Claude became pro-Nazi. His neck was saved when Hitler invaded the USSR.

Claude appears in a cameo role in many of the books written about Philby and the other British traitors. He was a thoroughly obnoxious person with an equally loathesome son who was BTW the model for the drunk British journalist in Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities.
30 posted on 07/02/2002 6:12:58 PM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Elkiejg; dighton
NY Press publishes lots of readers letters. Take your time and write something you would like to read in next week's edition.

dighton is right. In fact the editor has criticized Cockburn in his own column and I wouldn't be surprised if he does the same next week.

Taki -- very conservative -- is another NYP columnist.




31 posted on 07/02/2002 6:25:57 PM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dighton; aculeus
Alexander Cockburn

One can only hope and pray.

32 posted on 07/03/2002 6:28:46 AM PDT by Orual
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Orual
I saw the play on words in this author's name at the get-go, but I couldn't come up with anything clever enough to post. You certainly did. Bravo.
33 posted on 07/03/2002 6:31:37 AM PDT by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Crooks in the White House

You're a year and a half late, Cocky.

34 posted on 07/03/2002 6:32:31 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
The writer should check out the FEC database before puking this stuff onto the computer screen. The current CEO of WorldCom gave tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to .... drumroll .... Democrats. Exclusively. The former CEO gave thousands to politicians on both sides - including the same Dem senators as the current CEO (apparently they were hoping for some kind of favorable action on the part of Sen. Leahy and former Sen. Kerrey) but not a dime to George W. Bush. Oh, says Emily Litella, never mind.
35 posted on 07/03/2002 6:40:37 AM PDT by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
>>Hmmm, I wonder if Old Slick would recognize any of the crimes?

Depends on what the definition of if is.

36 posted on 07/03/2002 6:43:11 AM PDT by Wondervixen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson