SCANDAL IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Certainly there is a political dimension here. Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in the Oval Office.

Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years. It
donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities.

The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.

The corporation had access to the administration at its highest levels and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.

The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction.

BUT...the president under whom all this happened wasn't George W. Bush.

It was Bill Clinton.

I know you are as shocked as I was to learn this!


:D

No, I'm not shocked. It's been common knowledge that Enron gave to both major parties over the years, and did major lobbying efforts with whomever was in power. Standard Operational Procedure.

I think you're misinterpreting the major dimension of the Enron Scandal. It's not about whether Enron bought the services of a government; it's about whether Enron's access caused high government officials (specifically the Dubyah and his VP) to take actions that would compromise the integrity of public office.

[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: fable ]</p>

<font color=skyblue>!!!
Hmmm....

Well, what are they going to do with him?

Hopefully his former office holding will not prevent him from a good bitch-slap.

He needs a cell-mate. A BIG cell mate.</font>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fable:
No, I think you're misinterpreting the major dimension of the Enron Scandal. It's not about whether Enron bought the services of a government; it's about whether Enron's access caused high government officials (specifically the Dubyah and his VP) to take actions that would compromise the integrity of public office.

[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: fable ]<hr></blockquote>

Actually Im not [img]smile.gif[/img] I thought the post was funny and not really a serious commentary, but I WILL publicly eat my hat on the forum here if any impropiety by Bush OR Chaney is found. So far to date, there are innuendo and speculation, there has been NO evidence of any kind that Dick Chaney or George W. Bush has done anything illegal, immoral or impropriotous with concerns to ENRON.


[img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:


Actually Im not [img]smile.gif[/img] I thought the post was funny and not really a serious commentary, but I WILL publicly eat my hat on the forum here if any impropiety by Bush OR Chaney is found. So far to date, there are innuendo and speculation, there has been NO evidence of any kind that Dick Chaney or George W. Bush has done anything illegal, immoral or impropriotous with concerns to ENRON. [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

I'd feel a lot better about that if Cheney's copies of the minutes of those White House meetings weren't being refused to the Congressional Investigating Committee, under orders by Bush. After all, if he hasn't got anything to hide, why doesn't he want to show the papers? It's not like they were transcripts of private conversations between two pals--these were scheduled meetings between highly placed Enron corporate executives, and the VP of the United States.

[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: fable ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fable:


I'd feel a lot better about that if Cheney's copies of the minutes of those White House meetings weren't being refused to the Congressional Investigating Committee, under orders by Bush. After all, if he hasn't got anything to hide, why doesn't he want to show the papers? It's not like they were transcripts of private conversations between two pals--these were scheduled meetings between highly placed Enron corporate executives, and the VP of the United States.

[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: fable ]<hr></blockquote>
Well if we are going to do this there a alot of people in congress who need to release their dealing with Enron. It seems to me that the Pres. and VP are being singled out when there are alot of people in bed with Enron.

[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: nick1979 ]</p>

the reason congress wants those papers is because the dems are pushing for them,hopeing to find something....or they were.they've been losing interest in enron lately.and ya know why?because the deeper they dug the more THEY were implicated in wrong doing.

and did ya see the latest on the clinton investigations?it turns out they did have proof of criminal acts perpetrated by that administration.well better late than never i guess.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by khazadman:
the reason congress wants those papers is because the dems are pushing for them,hopeing to find something....or they were.they've been losing interest in enron lately.and ya know why?because the deeper they dug the more THEY were implicated in wrong doing.
<hr></blockquote>

Actually, the Congressional committee that's requesting this information is, like all committees, split down the middle with an extra vote and the chairmanship going to the Democrats; but in this case, every single committee member has repeatedly voted to demand those papers. And some of the strongest calls for Presidentially sequested information have come from the Conservative Republican ranks: Phil Graham of Texas, for example.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fable:


I'd feel a lot better about that if Cheney's copies of the minutes of those White House meetings weren't being refused to the Congressional Investigating Committee, under orders by Bush. After all, if he hasn't got anything to hide, why doesn't he want to show the papers? It's not like they were transcripts of private conversations between two pals--these were scheduled meetings between highly placed Enron corporate executives, and the VP of the United States.

[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: fable ]<hr></blockquote>


Historicly every administration has been allowed to have private discussions with industry heads, the idea and ideal was to foster an environment of candid discourse without fear of having your words twisted and thrown back at you by the press. Every administration needs to have the trust of the nations industrial leaders so as to form valid and viable economic strategies. Cheny is doing what he believes is best, when the Supreme Court finaly rules, Im pretty sure they will side with him. And if they don't Im sure he will comply with the Law.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:



Historicly every administration has been allowed to have private discussions with industry heads, the idea and ideal was to foster an environment of candid discourse without fear of having your words twisted and thrown back at you by the press. Every administration needs to have the trust of the nations industrial leaders so as to form valid and viable economic strategies. Cheny is doing what he believes is best, when the Supreme Court finaly rules, Im pretty sure they will side with him. And if they don't Im sure he will comply with the Law.<hr></blockquote>

Cheney's actually following the new Presidental Order which came down last summer, reversing a policy put into place by the Carter administration and followed ever since--providing complete access to any requested document held by the executive branch of the government, including the Cabinet. Congress requested info from Dubyah's dad and Clinton, and got it; and to their credit, they were carefully judged requests. (More probably because the senators and congresspeople feared a backlash from voters if they were perceived as bullying the president than anything else, admittedly.) The policy was set into place to reestablish an atmosphere of trust and "oil the hinges" of government, which had grown full of suspicion and very rusty after Watergate.

The problem here is that Enron isn't just a matter of access purchased by large election donations, which is perfectly legal at this time: it's a matter of potential conflict of interest. Major decisions were made in favor specifically of Enron (rather than its competitors) by Dubyah, and a number of highranking Enron executives have major posts in the Cabinet. This *could* possibly go beyond simple access into the executive branch working on behalf of Enron. Analyzing Cheney's documents would go a long way to either quieting those concerns, or confirming them.

So there are two issues: 1) Reversing a longheld administration policy which made life easier between the traditionally adversarial branches of the US government; and 2) clearing up issues of access vs advocacy in the executive branch. I suspect that's why extremely conservative Republicans in Congress want those documents, and here (and sometimes elsewhere) I'm with 'em.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fable:


Cheney's actually following the new Presidental Order which came down last summer, reversing a policy put into place by the Carter administration and followed ever since--providing complete access to any requested document held by the executive branch of the government, including the Cabinet. Congress requested info from Dubyah's dad and Clinton, and got it; and to their credit, they were carefully judged requests. (More probably because the senators and congresspeople feared a backlash from voters if they were perceived as bullying the president than anything else, admittedly.) The policy was set into place to reestablish an atmosphere of trust and "oil the hinges" of government, which had grown full of suspicion and very rusty after Watergate.

The problem here is that Enron isn't just a matter of access purchased by large election donations, which is perfectly legal at this time: it's a matter of potential conflict of interest. Major decisions were made in favor specifically of Enron (rather than its competitors) by Dubyah, and a number of highranking Enron executives have major posts in the Cabinet. This *could* possibly go beyond simple access into the executive branch working on behalf of Enron. Analyzing Cheney's documents would go a long way to either quieting those concerns, or confirming them.

So there are two issues: 1) Reversing a longheld administration policy which made life easier between the traditionally adversarial branches of the US government; and 2) clearing up issues of access vs advocacy in the executive branch. I suspect that's why extremely conservative Republicans in Congress want those documents, and here (and sometimes elsewhere) I'm with 'em.<hr></blockquote>

<font color=orange>Seems to me that Reagon and Clinton both drug their feet whenever turning over to congress and such documents. Seem to recall the the Clintons happened to stumble on some papers about 3 or 4 years after they where requested. I believe that the papers concerned the proposed universal insurance mandates that the Clinton's wanted to force down everyones throats. Reagon's little tiff with congress was over the Iran/Contra Scandel. Same story everytime, just a different president.</font>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fable:


Cheney's actually following the new Presidental Order which came down last summer, reversing a policy put into place by the Carter administration and followed ever since--.<hr></blockquote>

Untrue, the Clinton administration was well known to obstruct access to documents. Denying even having them then having them "found" on the coffee table...no way you can claim that administrations since carter have been open books, Even my favorite President RR didn't give over any documents unless forced to.

uhh Guess I was just echoing what Sir T. said. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color=lightblue> ~sigh~ why do pepole always become corrupt and even more power hungry/ greedy once they're in power? Or were they already like this. I mean maybe only the corrupt and greedy/power hungry have the drive to actually run for the position "leader of their country".

Why can't someone who actually cares for the well being of the whole country and not just the benefits to them and their pals run for the position?

I suppose it's better than a dictatorship... but not if the dictator is setting out for the good of the country as a whole...

</font>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sir Taliesin:


<font color=orange>Seems to me that Reagon and Clinton both drug their feet whenever turning over to congress and such documents. Seem to recall the the Clintons happened to stumble on some papers about 3 or 4 years after they where requested. I believe that the papers concerned the proposed universal insurance mandates that the Clinton's wanted to force down everyones throats. Reagon's little tiff with congress was over the Iran/Contra Scandel. Same story everytime, just a different president.</font><hr></blockquote>

Seems to me you recall correctly, and I never denied this. :D The issue isn't the trickiness of Bush Sr or Clinton, or the squall Reagan had, but that these preceding administrations had left Carter's Presidential Order in place. It was policy. It was a goal, a statement of purpose. Now, the administration has publically reversed policy. As I see it, it's like the difference between a somewhat rocky but workable marriage, and a declaration by one partner that they're going to separate and file for divorce.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fable:


Seems to me you recall correctly, and I never denied this. :D The issue isn't the trickiness of Bush Sr or Clinton, or the squall Reagan had, but that these preceding administrations had left Carter's Presidential Order in place. It was policy. It was a goal, a statement of purpose. Now, the administration has publically reversed policy. As I see it, it's like the difference between a somewhat rocky but workable marriage, and a declaration by one partner that they're going to separate and file for divorce.<hr></blockquote>


Just a comment about the Carter Administration...While I truely believe that Jimmy Carter was probably the most honest and moral president we are ever going to have in this country...it is also true that his honesty and morals prevented him from accomplishing anything in his term in office, and can be argued to have caused the current instability in the middle east by his rescinding this countrys support for the Shaw of Iran. With Iran reverting back to the hard core Ayahtola religious leadership kicking off an all out war with Iraq forcing the USA and other nations to throw support to Iraq to help stabilize the supplies of oil....it was ugly and the fall out is still being felt.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:
SCANDAL IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Certainly there is a political dimension here. Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in the Oval Office.

Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years. It
donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities.

The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.

The corporation had access to the administration at its highest levels and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.

The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction.

BUT...the president under whom all this happened wasn't George W. Bush.

It was Bill Clinton.

I know you are as shocked as I was to learn this!


:D <hr></blockquote>

Magik how bout a source? Where did you find this information? Funny thing is, it was Bush not Clinton...unless you can show proof. Thanks.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Larry_OHF:
<font color=skyblue>!!!
Hmmm....

Well, what are they going to do with him?

Hopefully his former office holding will not prevent him from a good bitch-slap.

He needs a cell-mate. A BIG cell mate.</font><hr></blockquote>

Named Bubba :D

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: AngelofDeath ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by KHaN:


Where did you find this information? Funny thing is, it was Bush not Clinton...unless you can show proof. Thanks.<hr></blockquote>


It been made clear that Enron donates to both major political parties. Also look at the fact that Enron grew into the giant that filed bankruptcy this year, not during Bush Jr's year in office, but instead, during the 90's.

This shows just a few of the items listed to start this thread.

Here's another that eludes more to Enron officials Clinton White House visits.

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by KHaN:


Magik how bout a source? Where did you find this information? Funny thing is, it was Bush not Clinton...unless you can show proof. Thanks.<hr></blockquote>

Actually Khan it was Clinton, it was reported in the Washington Post. You see Billy boy used to have the Head of Enron Lay I think his name is on Airforce one every time he went over seas, Clinton also personally brokered some deals concerning ENRON's biggest failures in India, some major Hydro power plant that the INDIANS had ENRON Buid (with Funds secured for ENRON by the USA and With Clintons influence) and then decided to nationalize the dam and not pay for it. Its been well documented in the papers and in magazines. I usualy get my info from the post, thought I generally hate it for its primarily liberal slant. Sorry to dissapoint I didnt lie and if you would take 10 mintutes yourself to look it up, Im sure you could find the info. There IS a reason why the Dems are backing off the ENRON story now...and it is precisely because it is making them look worse than the Republicans.


While I will say that Clinton used his influence to secure funding for ENRON for that Multi Billion dollar disaster in India against all the normal creditors better judgement, I don't think that really indicated anything illegal, those kinds of deals are done by politicians all the time.

Well don't get me wrong here, im not Anti-Clinton exactly but that mans done so much screwed up stuff in his office i'm not suprised atall by this! Infact if he had every one of hue hefner's playmates spend the night with him for a week while he sat around in his oval-office pajamas i would NOT be suprised!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by /)eathKiller:
Well don't get me wrong here, im not Anti-Clinton exactly but that mans done so much screwed up stuff in his office i'm not suprised atall by this! Infact if he had every one of hue hefner's playmates spend the night with him for a week while he sat around in his oval-office pajamas i would NOT be suprised!<hr></blockquote>

I don't think I'm getting you wrong at all when I surmise that if Clinton said, "Good morning," you'd claim he'd just tried to assassinate you after sleeping with ten ladies-of-the-night, and that it was the middle of the afternoon, so he was lying. :D You're not anti-Clinton exactly, just as you said; but in that case, can you name several things that the man did in office that you really think were great?

There have always been people (not you) who resented the fact that Clinton proved a better overall fiscal manager of the presidency than anyone in recent memory--he stole the Conservative wing of the Republican Party's thunder on this, and they never forgave him.

And for the record, I do think he deserved impeachment, so don't typecast me as a "Clinton supporter." I just think that he pursued a remarkably efficient and effective career promoting the American economy in every way, often to the detriment of equally important matters. His personal restraint was abominable, his sense of the dignity of office was sporadic, his speechmaking was dull and repetitive (but he did use his own, at least). I fault him for hiring far too many people who hated him, and for following through on the foreign policies of previous administrations without attempting to rethink their approaches and discover his own. He was an astonishly quick learner, but superficial. But as a fiscal administrator, I think he was without equal in the Oval Office--Enron was a mistake, but Lay was one of literally hundreds of executives who regularly accompanied Clinton on his so-called "ecomonic junkets" to sell American trade and goods overseas. He was a firstclass merchant administrator, IMO. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: fable ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fable:


I don't think I'm getting you wrong at all when I surmise that if Clinton said, "Good morning," you'd claim he'd just tried to assassinate you after sleeping with ten ladies-of-the-night, and that it was the middle of the afternoon, so he was lying. :D You're not anti-Clinton exactly, just as you said; but in that case, can you name several things that the man did in office that you really think were great?

There have always been people (not you) who resented the fact that Clinton proved a better overall fiscal manager of the presidency than anyone in recent memory--he stole the Conservative wing of the Republican Party's thunder on this, and they never forgave him.

And for the record, I do think he deserved impeachment, so don't typecast me as a "Clinton supporter." I just think that he pursued a remarkably efficient and effective career promoting the American economy in every way, often to the detriment of equally important matters. His personal restraint was abominable, his sense of the dignity of office was sporadic, his speechmaking was dull and repetitive (but he did use his own, at least). I fault him for hiring far too many people who hated him, and for following through on the foreign policies of previous administrations without attempting to rethink their approaches and discover his own. He was an astonishly quick learner, but superficial. But as a fiscal administrator, I think he was without equal in the Oval Office--Enron was a mistake, but Lay was one of literally hundreds of executives who regularly accompanied Clinton on his so-called "ecomonic junkets" to sell American trade and goods overseas. He was a firstclass merchant administrator, IMO. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: fable ]<hr></blockquote>


Well he did find the only respectable use for tobacco products that I can think of [img]smile.gif[/img] ok ok that was sick...but Im stuck trying to find something he did that I actually agreed with...........Im sur ethere was something, I just can't think of it at this moment...OH WAIT!!!...I like the way he protected Chelsy (sorry if I spelled that wrong) from the media..I think the press should leave the kids alone and deal with the man...and maybe his wife if she wants to be a public figure....but HANDS OFF THE KIDS!