enron, andersen and bush

[fable]

Explain to me why Clinton PERSONALLY backed ENRON and its INDIA projects when commercial creditors wouldnt fund them, and why he always seemed to have ENRON Execs on his overseas junkets...

Because Enron was one of the Energy Big Five, so that whenever the Pres (any Pres, for quite some time) went overseas to sell American industry (which actually happens quite a lot), representatives of all five came along. That included Enron. Yes, it's perfectly legal, and it's done all the time.

The difference is that Enron's CEO Lay was/is close friends with Bush, giving him his largest single 2000 campaign donation ($6 million). Lay despised Clinton. Secondly, Bush has twelve highly ranked members of his administration, which he personally appointed, who either worked previously for Enron, or have a large quantity of Enron stock. There were no such individuals in the Clinton administration.

In any case, take solace from the fact that none of this matters. Genuine feelings of horror and need for revenge to one side, Bush has played the Terrorism card to the hilt for political advantage at home-- the demand back in October that the Taliban hand over two American missionaries who had been proselytzing against Afghani law, for exampole, couldn't hurt his reputation with the American Religious Right. As a result of all this, Bush could be caught in bed with two ladies of the night, forging $1000 bills as he snorting cocaine, and there would be an outcry of sympathy for his mistreatment.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fable:
[b]
The difference is that Enron's CEO Lay was/is close friends with Bush, giving him his largest single 2000 campaign donation ($6 million)

---

I'd like to see a link showing Lay's personal contribution of $6 million.

Nothing I've seen or read puts his contribution anywhere near that high. He did much fund raising for Bush, but I do not believe his personal contribution was that high.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by norompanlasolas:


well, if i took some moral high ground, i didnt notice it and i certainly didnt do it on purpose. i was just voicing my opinion. i do pay attention to the things happening here in spain, but i find it a little inconsistent to discuss them in this forum since nobody would understand (or care) about them.

sadly the us is pretty much grabbing all the headlines when it comes to political and ideological discussion right now. so its unavoidable that it becomes the center of discussion. personally, i think the world bank and the imf are more interesting cases of argumentation of domination of the poor nations via capitalism, but thats another story, isnt it?

oh, and i dont think im snotty, i just happen to be right about everything... ok, that was a joke magik [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

---

I did not say snotty, snotty in american english slang is a rather more offensive term than Snooty [img]smile.gif[/img] really I would not call you snotty, you arent that kind of person.

As for people not being interested in things that you have a problem with in Spain..I think you are wrong, one of the things that I value the most is information about other places. One reason I act all "high n mighty" when I do wheigh in on some of these things is I don't just accept the american press version of things..I talk to insiders when I can and I rely on my non american friends to clue me in on what THEY are being told about the same incident...eventually you can sift out what is "probably" the truth...this comes from a 10 year history of being in the intelligence gathering community so in closeing not even the FRENCH are snotty [img]smile.gif[/img] they are just snooty
Just as most americans are myopic when it comes to overseas issues.


PS. What is the current type of government in Spain anyway? Spain was never one of my spheres of responsibility while I was in the service so I never paid much attention to current events.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: MagiK ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fable:
[b]Because Enron was one of the Energy Big Five, so that whenever the Pres (any Pres, for quite some time) went overseas to sell American industry (which actually happens quite a lot), representatives of all five came along. That included Enron. Yes, it's perfectly legal, and it's done all the time.

---

Actually your wrong there...ENRON WAS one of the Energy big 5 they aren't no more [img]smile.gif[/img]

Secondly you are wrong on another account..BUSH has consistantly denied ENRON execs places on his junkets from the day he took office. So it isn't "any president" that would do it. (hardly the act of a bosom buddy but thats a different issue)

And the last thing I make it sound like Bush has done something wrong by acting as he has in this whole terrism thing..sort of hinting that he has only done things for political gain. I believe you are wrong, whats more the greatest majority of the nation seems to think he has done exactly what needed doing, the Mojority of the government also agrees with what he has done so far. Bill Clinton did what he did for his Legacy it was the reason he did everything but to just up and declare that Bush only acts when it is politicaly expedient because you have beem made cynical by previous administration or un-proven speculations about what kind of man he was 25 or 30 years ago
is ridiculous. 30 years ago I was a totaly different man, if I had to be judged by who I was then versus who I am now that would be grossly unfair. A reformed alcoholic who has stayed sober for more than 10 years should not be considered a drunk. I believe for many reasons the GWB is one of the more Honest and Upright men we have had in office in a long time. I would put him as he is now right up there with Jimmy Carter. They aren't saints but they are honest and decent men of conviction, and so far every world leader who has met him personally and talked to him has had nothing but praise for his character and honesty even if they do not like his policy.

In the end, your post leaves me to believe that unless he does exactly what YOU want him to do..he is only doing things so that he can exploit them for his own political gain....that is so sad.

[Thoran]

I realize the Dems are just itching to dig up dirt on GW, but to date there have been no skelatons dropping out of closets. Even if Lay did donate 6 million to GW's campaign, it proves absolutely nothing. Guilt by assiciation doesn't fly here. When Enron was tanking their exec's "most likely" approached Bush people looking for a bailout. They definitely met, but beyond that we don't know for sure what transpired in those conversations or who told who what. Again... it really means ZIP even if Lay told Bush that Enron was going down the tubes. The only means we have to judge GW is by his ACTIONS... and it's a matter of public record that the Executive branch did nothing to bail out Enron.

While it's obvious the Dems would dearly like some payback for the beating Clinton took, at this point they're not coming up with any ammo. NOTHING. To compare Slick Willie to GW isn't even funny, Willie and his honey have so many skelatons in closets they needed to buy a place up in NY just to store em all.

[norompanlasolas]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:
I did not say snotty, snotty in american english slang is a rather more offensive term than Snooty [img]smile.gif[/img] really I would not call you snotty, you arent that kind of person.

---

oh, ok. eeehrrrmmm... what is snooty???

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:
As for people not being interested in things that you have a problem with in Spain..I think you are wrong, one of the things that I value the most is information about other places. One reason I act all "high n mighty" when I do wheigh in on some of these things is I don't just accept the american press version of things..I talk to insiders when I can and I rely on my non american friends to clue me in on what THEY are being told about the same incident...eventually you can sift out what is "probably" the truth...this comes from a 10 year history of being in the intelligence gathering community so in closeing not even the FRENCH are snotty [img]smile.gif[/img] they are just snooty
Just as most americans are myopic when it comes to overseas issues.


PS. What is the current type of government in Spain anyway? Spain was never one of my spheres of responsibility while I was in the service so I never paid much attention to current events.

---

you were in intel??? well, you could be very helpful pointing out some of our flaws in it, then... [img]smile.gif[/img]

regarding spanish gov, well. its a democracy, with a president (aznar) with a lot of power (and no prime minister that can balance it like in other countries like italy, etc). the popular party (rightwinged) is in office now, and it looks like its going to be there for a long time. and since its spain's turn at the presidency of the european community, now a spaniard is at the helm there too.

police and army are very strong (direct result of all those years under f***face dictator franco) and repressive, and there is a strong student/worker unit trying to change things though the elderly and the middle class are quite comfortable the way things are.

lots of things more to tell, of course. but little time and i have to go revolt somewhere... well, actually, just help fix a leak at some friends house. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[*\Conan/*]

I started a Enron thread mybe a week or so ago but non the less I may have come off a little strong in my opening statement. Sorry you guys.
It is true that the Bush administration refused to help Enron ward off bankruptcy. But those who suggest this exonerates the existing campain finance system are a little off the point here. Everyone is on the take.. both parties. Enron and its officers donated $1.7 million in the 2000 election board. 70% which came from soft money. I'll bet alot of that money is heading back their way real soon. Damage control 101.
In 1998 the head of the Comodity Futures Trading Commision suggested oversite. But congress buried the proposal because industry participants did not want to be regulated.
The Enron scandal will take a long time to figure out..But the work on soft-moneys and campain finance are well under way. Congress will do something for sure now. The Senate has already passed a fairly good bill thus forcing a vote in the House.
This is where we need changes IMHO.
I wouldn't be surprised if I walked outside and saw shredded paper blowing around right now... [img]smile.gif[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by norompanlasolas:

you were in intel??? well, you could be very helpful pointing out some of our flaws in it, then... [img]smile.gif[/img]

---

Yep, 10 years in the Naval Security Group Working with/for NSA
both in the Atlantic and Pacific and on occasion the IO

quote:

---

Originally posted by *\Conan/*:
I started a Enron thread mybe a week or so ago but non the less I may have come off a little strong in my opening statement. Sorry you guys.
It is true that the Bush administration refused to help Enron ward off bankruptcy. But those who suggest this exonerates the existing campain finance system are a little off the point here. Everyone is on the take.. both parties. Enron and its officers donated $1.7 million in the 2000 election board. 70% which came from soft money. I'll bet alot of that money is heading back their way real soon. Damage control 101.
In 1998 the head of the Comodity Futures Trading Commision suggested oversite. But congress buried the proposal because industry participants did not want to be regulated.
The Enron scandal will take a long time to figure out..But the work on soft-moneys and campain finance are well under way. Congress will do something for sure now. The Senate has already passed a fairly good bill thus forcing a vote in the House.
This is where we need changes IMHO.
I wouldn't be surprised if I walked outside and saw shredded paper blowing around right now... [img]smile.gif[/img]

---

Conan..I live in the vicinity of DC and I can tell you...there isn't a day goes by where you can't see the shredded paper cloud to the south of me [img]smile.gif[/img]

Campaign Finance reform is needed I agree 100% the problem that needs to be addressed along with it is the liberal slant of holywood and the so called News agencies..when they are so heavily vested on one side of things it is easier for the politicians for that side to get their message out...they need less "soft money" because their beddies in the mass media will do it for free or an extremely discounted rate...we need to make sure that all parties have an equal venue for airing their side of the issue.

[fable]

Actually your wrong there...ENRON WAS one of the Energy big 5 they aren't no more

Secondly you are wrong on another account..BUSH has consistantly denied ENRON execs places on his junkets from the day he took office. So it isn't "any president" that would do it. (hardly the act of a bosom buddy but thats a different issue)

Magik, context. First off, how can I be wrong with my initial statement, if you're agreeing with it? I said WAS. Not IS.

Second, I was discussing Enron's appearance in Clinton's business advocating trips overseas, specifically said so, and not Bush's: so again, you didn't read what I wrote.

You shouldn't really agree with me so much and say I was wrong. Try disagreeing and saying I was right, for a change.