vision2020
Re: Enron and the Democrats by Time Magazine
John Harrell et. al.
I don't doubt for moment that Clinton and his cronies had ties to Enron. Of
course during the Clinton administration the public was mostly unaware of
the corruption either ongoing or about to happen at Enron.
My point is that if the collapse of Enron, and the public awareness of the
cooking of the books to falsely bolster Enron stock, happened during the
Clinton administration, and the ties Clinton and Gore had to Enron were the
same that Bush and Cheney had, Clinton and Gore would have been skewered in
the media like Clinton was over Whitewater, which turned out to be a lot of
noise about not much.
Again I will state: Imagine Gore was refusing to release info about secret
meetings with Enron executives which occurred the during same time period of
Enron's collapse, just like Cheney is. And that Clinton had been governor
or Texas, having a personal relationship with Ken Lay, former CEO of Texas
based Enron, who was at the helm during the corrupt deception of
stockholders which led to terrible losses for those holding Enron stock,
which is true of Bush. Do you think Clinton would have been given the pass
by the media that Bush has been given over this issue? Or do you think
this story would have been given headlines for months on end painting
Clinton in an unfavorable light? I can see the mantra being repeated in the
media: "Clinton's Connection to Corruption at Enron."
I ask one simple question, which seems to have been forgotten by the media
and the voters: Whatever happened to Ken Lay? I won't go into all the
evidence regarding the ties from Bush's Texas days between Key Lay, Enron
and Bush, but you know well and good they are there and potentially damaging
to Bush.
I guess Bush business cronies get a free pass from prosecution and are
forgotten about by the media rather easily. The same cannot be said for
some of Clinton's business partners, who were crucified.
The recent so called "energy crisis" in California was connected to illegal
manipulations of energy markets and supplies that have connections to
Cheney, Bush and Enron. California was robbed of millions of dollars over
this manufactured crisis. And the Bush administration refused to impose
energy price caps during this scandal. "Let the marketplace work,
especially when it benefits my corrupt cronies and donors in the energy
trading and delivery business" Bush might as well have said, although Bush
might actually believe nothing immoral was going on, but then he has God on
his side, we must remember.
I'm not surprised Cheney will not release the details of his meeting with
energy executives. This issue has also disappeared from media focus, though
the GAO sued to force Cheney to release the info. Whatever happened to this
critical story on Cheney's refusal to let the public know what sort of
backroom deals he might have been making with huge energy corporations?
What is the status of the GAO suit against Cheney? Again, it seems the
public has a short and selective memory. And the media is failing the
American public to really keep issues of critical importance for the health
of democracy, and honesty in government, before the public. But then the
major media players are all owned by the same huge corporations who stand to
benefit from the corporate oriented big business bias of the Bush
administration.
Liberal media? .... yeah right, CNN the Corporate News Network, and so
forth...
Ted
>From: John Harrell <johnbharrell@yahoo.com>
>To: Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>, carlwestberg846@hotmail.com,
>eevans@moscow.com, thansen@moscow.com
>CC: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Enron and the Democrats by Time Magazine
>Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 15:23:34 -0800 (PST)
>
>Enron's Democrat Pals
>
>Documents obtained by TIME show the energy giant enjoyed much closer ties
>with Clinton Administration regulators than was generally known
>
>By MICHAEL WEISSKOPF
>
>Time Online Edition
>http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,338580,00.html
>Saturday, Aug. 17, 2002
>
>Before its messy decline and fall, Enron had plenty of clout in George
>W. Bush's Washington, from the personal ties between chairman Ken
>Lay and the President to the company's alleged influence on Vice
>President Dick Cheney's energy task force. But Enron's cozy relationship
>with Washington didn't start there. Documents obtained by TIME show
>the energy giant enjoyed much closer ties with Clinton Administration
>regulators than was generally known. Long before Cheney's task force met
>with
>Enron officials and included their ideas in Bush's energy plan, Clinton's
>energy
>team was doing much the same thing. Drafting a 1995 plan to help facilitate
>cash
>flow and credit for energy producers, it asked for Enron's input—and
>listened.
>The staff was directed to "rework the proposal to take into account the
>specific
>comments and suggestions you made," Clinton Deputy Energy Secretary Bill
>White wrote an Enron official.
>
>Clinton officials also made efforts to help Enron get business overseas.
>Clinton
>Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary included Enron officials on trade missions
>to
>India, China, Pakistan and South Africa. White, returning from a 1994 trip
>to
>Mexico, wrote chairman Lay that "much opportunity" existed there for
>natural
>gas, and he sent a copy of Mexico's energy plans. To persuade an Enron
>senior
>vice president to join a mission to Pakistan, White wrote, "I have strong
>personal
>relationships with the existing government."
>
>Enron showed its gratitude. At Christmas 1995, documents show, it donated
>an
>unknown sum of cash in O'Leary's name to a charity called "I Have a Dream."
>And when Clinton ran for re-election a year later, the company made its
>largest
>single contribution ever—$100,000—to the President's party.
>
>--- Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Carl et. al.
> >
> > I must agree with Carl that absent the fallout from 9/11, and assuming
> > nothing similar happened before the election of Nov. 5 2002, it would be
> > highly probable that we would have seen significant Democratic Party
>gains
> > on Nov. 5. The Republican strategy laid out months ago by chief
>Republican
> > strategist Carl Rove was to exploit the war issue to the max regarding
>the
> > public perception that Republicans were more viewed as tough on terror
>than
> > the Democrats.
> >
> > Remember Bush's approval ratings prior to 9/11?
> >
> > The current state of the economy (one of the largest devaluations of the
> > stock market in history) coupled with the Bush administration's ties to
> > corporate corruption and their continuing secrecy regarding this
>corruption
> > (Cheney's refusal to provide info about the energy task force which
>included
> > Enron) should have led to major Democratic Party gains.
> >
> > Imagine if Bill Clinton had had the same ties to Enron that George Bush
>had
> > in Texas while governor, and that Gore as Vice President was hiding info
> > about his meetings with Enron executives. Clinton and Gore would have
>been
> > crucified in the media, whether or not they had anything to do with
>Enron's
> > corruption.
> >
> > And they say we have a "liberal" media! Then why the apparent free pass
>for
> > Bush in the media on the Enron connection?
> >
> > Ted
> >
> > >From: "Carl Westberg" <carlwestberg846@hotmail.com>
> > >To: eevans@moscow.com, thansen@moscow.com, vision2020@moscow.com
> > >Subject: Re: On losing the election
> > >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 07:49:41 -0800
> > >
> > >Do the voters really want one party rule? It may be insensitive to say
> > >this, but George Bush had an unprecedented advantage in this mid-term
> > >election that no incumbent has had before and hopefully will never have
> > >again. September 11th. To his credit, he managed to persuade the
>voters
> > >that only the Republicans really care about the events of that day, and
> > >only the Republicans have the intestinal fortitude to deal with
>terrorists,
> > >and by God, we'll start with Iraq. Not whining either, although I'm no
> > >George W. fan, just my own amateur political analysis, perhaps somewhat
> > >shaded by my darn liberal bent.
> > >
> > > Carl Westberg Jr.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>From: eevans@moscow.com
> > >>To: thansen@moscow.com, eevans@moscow.com, vision2020@moscow.com
> > >>Subject: Re: On losing the election
> > >>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:50:59 GMT
> > >>
> > >> > Yes. It is the expressed (at the polls) will of the people.
> > >>Good point. I should have qualified that it is was the will of the
>voters.
> > >>
> > >> >One neat thing
> > >> > about Democracy is that you don't have to approve of final outcomes
> > >>simply
> > >> > because it is the choice of the people.
> > >> >
> > >> > And, before you go there, I am NOT whining about the Republican
> > >>outcome. As
> > >>I
> > >> > had said in my earlier letter; total control by one party is WRONG.
> As
> > >>the
> > >> > saying goes, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
> > >>
> > >>How can you say it is wrong? America WANTS total control by a single
> > >>party. One
> > >>thing I've observed in this forum is that folks are of the opinion
>that
> > >>the
> > >>only concrete rules for right and wrong are written by the will of the
> > >>people
> > >>through the government. Do you disagree?
> > >>
> > >>Cheers,
> > >>-Ed Evans
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Never have been a lemming, never will be one,
> > >> >
> > >> > Tom Hansen
> > >> > Moscow
> > >> >
> > >> > > I'm going to play devil's (erm, or is that Republican's) advocate
> > >>here.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Did democracy suddenly fail to work in this election? Is the
>current
> > >> > > government's configuration somehow _not_ the embodiment of the
>will
> > >>of the
> > >> > > people?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Not a Republican,
> > >> > > -Ed Evans
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I have to agree with Tom Hansen on this one. It's like the
>federal
> > >> > > > government is about to copy the Idaho model. We all know how
>well
> > >>that's
> > >> > > >
> > >> > worked.
> > >> > > >
> > >>Carl
> > >> > > > Westberg Jr.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > >From: thansen@moscow.com
> > >> > > > >To: njc@moscow.com, Priscilla Salant <psalant@moscow.com>,
> > >> > > > >vision2020@moscow.com
> > >> > > > >Subject: Re: On losing the election
> > >> > > > >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:13:06 GMT
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >Greetings Visionaires -
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >This is the first time since Eisenhower that something like
>this
> > >>has
> > >> > > > >happened.
> > >> > > > >And, to tell you the truth, it scares me.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >A political party has control over all three branches of
> > >>government. The
> > >> > > > >Republicans have a slim majority in the Senate, a sizable
>majority
> > >>in the
> > >> > > > >House, and a very conservative Supreme Court. This situation
> > >>gives the
> > >> > > > >leader
> > >> > > > >of the Executive Branch (George W.) virtually absolute control
>of
> > >>the
> > >> > > > >government for the next two years.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >Being to the left of center, I would still feel this way even
>if
> > >>the
> > >> > > > >Democrats
> > >> > > > >had such control. I feel that it is simply wrong.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >Hoping for a brighter tomorrow,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >Tom Hansen
> > >> > > > >Moscow
> > >> > > > >
> > >><snip>
> > >>
> > >>---------------------------------------------
> > >>This message was sent by First Step Internet.
> > >> http://www.fsr.net/
> > >
> > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> >
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
>http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Back to TOC