Bush Served on Harken Board During Enron Trades

Yahoo ^ | 10/22/02

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - While President Bush (news - web sites) served on Harken Energy Corp.'s board more than 10 years ago, it engaged in complex trades with Enron Corp., a watchdog group said on Tuesday.

Enron's relationship with Bush has become a political issue since its collapse in December amid a widening financial scandal. The company was one of Bush's biggest campaign contributors.

Administration officials say Bush did nothing improper.

The documents, released by the Center for Public Integrity, showed that one of Harken's partners in commodities trading was Enron. A June 1990 memo from Harken Marketing, a Harken subsidiary, listed a $363,000 letter of credit with the now bankrupt energy trader.

White House officials had no comment on the transaction. Harken officials were not immediately available to comment.

The nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity said other documents showed that Bush was paid $80,000 in 1987-88 to consult for Harken even though he was working full time for his father's presidential campaign.

Bush flew to Texas and to New York to attend Harken board meetings. These trips were paid for by his father's campaign, and reimbursed by Harken, the Center said, citing Bush campaign receipts and Harken documents.

White House officials said there was nothing improper about Bush simultaneously working for Harken and his father's campaign.

Bush served on Harken's board from 1986 until 1993.

Former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay was a longtime Bush ally and a generous donor to his political campaigns. He was part of an elite group known as the "Bush Pioneers" who gathered at least $100,000 in donations for Bush's 2000 run for the presidency.

High-level members of the Bush administration said Lay called asking for help while he fought to keep Enron out of bankruptcy, but they said they did nothing and that the president knew nothing about it.

[stalin]

You forgot Clinton

[oldtimer]

stalin. You have a great screen name. Fortunately you do not have the power that Stalin had, and obviously, your lack of logic points to the fact that you are not a brain surgeon.

[stalin]

Was this site around durring Iran-Contra ? I don't think so considering it happened durring the Reagan admin and the internet as it is now was still classified military technology.

[stalin]

Stalin shot his officers way before Hitler invaded. Yes he was a very paranoid magalomaniac. I don't belive in most conspriacies myself. They can't last. Somone always blows the whistle.

[Missouri]

[To: stalin

I didn't think anyone was actually this stupid....]


He gets this stuff from Bartcop.com I bet.

[deport]

Just curious... You don't fly a state flag on your profile page. Are you a U.S. citizen or a citizen of another country? Nothing personal but curious as your spelling indicates maybe someone from outside the U.S. (now watch my spelling be screwed up.. lol

Yep the loyal opposition is part of the structure of government under which this country operates.

[stalin]

One of the good things about being Stalin is all the nice pictures people post for you.

When a conservative accepts soft money, it's a bribe. When a liberal accepts soft money, it's constituent service

I disagree. When a dem whether , liberal or not , accepts a bribe it's a bribe. When a Rep , liberal or not , accepts a bribe it's a bribe. Until Bush , Clinton set the record for accepting bribes. He was scum. I'm still waiting to see what Bush will do for all of these bribes.

I bet I'm more conservative than you and a republican. I doubt that you know what conservative means. That doesn't mean that I'm blind to hypocracy.

[stalin]

I only trash Bush when he deserves it. I also trash Clinton and anyone that deserves it.

I voted for his father and Reagan twice. Reagan was a great president but Bush Sr turned out to be a poor president so I was skeptical of his son. I was hoping that he had learned form his fathers mistakes. He hasn't yet demonstrated that he has.

If he takes Iraq properly and occupies it like we should I will suport him in the future. For now he still hasn't proved himself. The way we pussed out is Afganistan was very sad. It will come back to haunt us just like leaving Sadam in power has come back to haunt us.

[stalin]

read post 47

[section9]

I bet I'm more conservative than you and a republican. I doubt that you know what conservative means. That doesn't mean that I'm blind to hypocracy.

Bullshit. You are about as conservative as Terry McAuliffe.

It does not follow from the fact that when a candidate is taking a soft-money contribution, he is taking a bribe.

Only liberal Democrats think that way, and you sir, are a liberal Democrat. You are NO conservative. Conservatives believe in freedom of speech. Campaign contributions are a form of freedom of speech, no matter what John McCain says. Call it a "bribe" till the cows come home, but saying so does not make it so.

Your line of thinking tells me all I need to know about you. Now run along. You're fooling no one here.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[stalin]

the fac that you can't argue your position intelectually would suggest that your position , whatever it is , is wrong and you have to resort to name calling. If you are less then 12 ; I understand. It will be alright when you grow up. You'll see.

[stalin]

You thnk that it is a bribe when a democrate takes on reguardless of whether or not he is a conservative. When Clinton took soft money it was a bribe. The people giving the money expet somthing in return. The same is true when Republicans take it. That is why ( as you pointed out ) most of the bribers bribe both parties.

I can see that you are frustrated. I am not a democrat. You just want me to be one because you can't argue with me logically. I am a conservative Republican that would prefer that presidents be free to conduct the business of the nation without bribery. If other democracies soft money bribes don't exist because they see them for what they are .... bribes.

The Republicans take in more hard money than dems. They would be better off without soft money. The pres spend inordinent amounts of time soliciting contributions because he has too. That is bad for our country.

[stalin]

I am from the USA ; born in Florida , English and Dutch ancestors that have been here for over 150 years ; Military brat so I've lived all over.

When I signed up I did it very fast. Somtimes the name I chose is good and somtimes it can cause trouble but it does help weed out some of the less desirable people to speak with , so I'll keep it for now.

I don't even try to spell. never have ; never will. Actually spelling isn't a good way to determin such things but sentance structure and particularly verb conjegation are more usfull but comps even do that now if you want them too. I don't care.

Believe it or not , I used to teach English.

[CyberAnt]

The dems must really be desperate if they are drudging up this OLD story. Get over it dems, you will never be able to find a connection to Enron demise and GW.

However, while you are probing, how about we look at Enron, Global Crossing, and WorldCom's connections to x42; HUH, HUH!!

[section9]

I can see that you are frustrated. I am not a democrat. You just want me to be one because you can't argue with me logically.

Actually, the news that you claim to be a "conservative" Republican is as disturbing as it is disappointing.

You have made no argument. You have made a series of assertions with no supporting argument to back them up. You simply assert that soft money contributions are bribes. You provide neither argument nor proof that they are so, as if saying so makes it so.

As I said earlier, if you want to run with the Big Dogs, you have to get off the porch.

I am a conservative Republican that would prefer that presidents be free to conduct the business of the nation without bribery. If other democracies soft money bribes don't exist because they see them for what they are .... bribes.

How do you know this? Can you detail to me the campaign finance laws, if any, of Germany, France, Italy, or Japan?

Money plays just as much of a part in the politics of those countries as it does here. The scale is smaller, that's all.

See, I think I finally have you figured out. You're one of those "good government" Republicans who believes that money is, of needs be, a corrupting influence in politics. As such, you live in a world divorced from reality. Money is, as the wag said, "the mother's milk of politics". Attempting to seperate money from politics is a fool's errand. And it is an absolute crock of sh#t.

The Republicans take in more hard money than dems. They would be better off without soft money. The pres spend inordinent amounts of time soliciting contributions because he has too. That is bad for our country.

Wait a minute!

How do you know that the Republicans would be better off?

And how do you know that the President (who has his WH staff actually solicit monthly monies through the RNC and through big fundraisers) spends an inordinate time raising money?

He's raised more money than Clinton ever did, but hasn't spent more real time than Clinton did. That's because our hard money network is more effective than the DNC's, and we can raise more money more quickly. The Bush people use their time effectively, and wisely.

At bottom, our disagreement is simple. I believe that soft money contributions are protected speech. You believe that they are bribes. I strongly believe that George Will was correct when he asserted that we need more money in politics, not less.

I believe that the SCOTUS will see things my way as I suspect that a majority of this court will see this for what it is, a First Amendment issue.

Remember, if they can regulate your speech one way, it opens the door to regulate your speech in so many other ways.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[TC Rider]

You don't know me.

I gave you a clear case of Clinton quid pro quid.

Where's your Bush case?

?

[clamper1797]

Believe it or not , I used to teach English

Given the examples of your speling prowess on your posts ... I have no doubt that you teach or taught at one of America's fine public skools.

Oh and IMO your about as conservative as your namesake ... troll

[Windshark]

I have no desire to reason with someone who is not capable of it.

Nor the time.

Flame all you want...I won't even read it because my time means something to me.

Sorry about that.....

[1rudeboy]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that if Sept. 11 happened on Clinton's watch, and he claimed linkage between Al Q. and Iraq, and he proceeded to rally public opinion for military action against Iraq, that many Republicans would've opposed him.

Your comparison fails because, while you have convinced yourself that the comparison is accurate, in reality it is a figment of your imagination . . . more like an article of faith as opposed to objective thought.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I don't belive in most conspriacies myself. They can't last. Somone always blows the whistle.

Once the deed is done, it doesn't need to last. The more powerful a certain branch of government becomes, the more conspiracies there are. Look at the New Jersey Soprano Court. Their reading of '51 days' was an open conspiracy. Before that, they shut down the schools, forcing the students to essentially go on strike, to coerce the legislature to pump more money to the teachers' unions.