Posted on 07/17/2002 12:47:25 PM PDT by dirtboy
The White House is reeling from allegations that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney engaged in business practices that are disturbingly similar to those of executives at Enron and WorldCom. Like administrations before it, this White House now must choose between serving the greater interests of the office of the presidency or the narrower goals of the current officeholder. If last week was any indication, Bush officials have chosen a dangerous path of personal devotion over public duty, a path that has led previous administrations to disaster.
The recent allegations - which may prove overblown under closer scrutiny - center on transactions by Bush and Cheney when they were executives at Harken Energy Corp. and Halliburton Co., respectively. Among the unproven allegations are insider trading, questionable personal loans and fraudulent dealings. The White House staff has put on a full-court press to refute these allegations of private misconduct. In doing so, the administration is drifting into the troubled waters in which the Clinton administration found itself...
Click here for the rest of the article, as this was originally published in the LA Slimes...
THE ACCUSATIONS ARE BOGUS!!!!
If Ann Richards with the full weight and dirty tricks of the DNC behind her couldn't defeat Bush with Harken...THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
Clinton not only did what he was accused of...HE DID MUCH MORE!!!
Please try to insist what a Bush supporter you are. Obviously the kind of Bush supporter to takes as gospel, the writing of a self-described liberal Democrat attorney, who worked as counsel for the Senate Democrats and only condemned Clinton's "personal failings". But, to his credit, as a Constitutional expert had to admit the times Clinton was legally wacked.
You're probably a big fan David Brock too.
Howlin, I protested long and hard, both on FR, in letters to papers, and in front of the White House, about abuses of power by the Clintonistas. So drop your last, futile, absurd attempt to save face.
Uh, Howlin, once again, when you put something into quotes, it implies a direct quotation. If you cannot admit your error, there is no point in any further discussion with you.
You and Turly would be here, talking about the "scandal" (and if Turley doesn't think it's a SCANDAL, why did he use the word???), raising holy hell because "the administration is stone walling."
There is no need to admit an error I did not make.
That was NOT my question; I asked you if, at that time, you advised that the Clinton Administration NOT answer questions put to it by the press.
Howlin, read up on the use of quotation marks and get back to me. Until then, I'm outta here.
Let's put up your whole quote in reply #39 again,
I agree entirely about Harken, as far as Halliburton goes, it's too early to tell, so I'm withholding judgement, but I haven't seen enough yet to call it a scandal.
With that reply you are implying with the words "too early to tell", that there may be a whiff of scandal.
Actually the absurdity, IMHO, is you going along with the DNC/liberal media spin, that Cheney is guilty as charged, when there are a myriad of FR threads and replies exposing the DNC/liberal media spin as politicians looking for an issue.
I still like him very much. He's not an attack dog like Julian Epstein (he's just wrong), and the other night when he was again on FOX, he made no mention of the opinions he wrote here. This article had run that day in the LA Times, but he was very positive about the prez. It was confusing.
Dane, the absurdity is yours. I never realized that withholding judgement until the completion of an SEC investigation is somehow claiming that Cheney is guilty as charged. I've seen some abuses of the English language in my time, but yours is one of the best.
Dang, I guess we did learn something from the Clinton years!
BTW, what's up with your fascination with the Vagina Monolougues?
Why should Fleischer refuse to state "the White house reaction?"
Most of us aren't claiming that Dick Cheney is outright guilty of the crimes alleged by Judicial Watch. Personally, I would like to hear Klayman state his client's case in court and then hear Cheney's response to these charges. Besides, it is really up to the presiding judge to decide whether or not Klayman's case has merit.
It seems that you are willing to declare Cheney "not guilty" before the trial has even begun.
I also find it disturbing that many people on this forum are declaring Cheney innocent even when SEC has not finished their formal investigation of Halliburton.
Do you happen to have access to Halliburton's accounting books? If not, perhaps you should be fair enough to acknowledge that even you do not absolutely know for sure if Cheney is guilty of the crimes alleged or not.
Hmm, leaving out "too early to tell" says a lot, IMHO. With those words you have a suspicion of guilt, which is fine, that's your opinion.
Maybe you should read up on the myriad of threads on FR that do not tow the DNC/liberal media line.(although there are a lot that tow the DNC/liberal media line, usually started by malcontented third partiers).
And it has all "been investigated ad nauseum", and it "is x years old".
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.