Shocking White House Scandal!!! - Page 2

Sir Taliesin · 03-07-2002, 12:52 PM

quote:
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.

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.

03-07-2002, 01:01 PM

quote:
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--.

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.

03-07-2002, 01:02 PM

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

Ê†ë®Ñï†Ý · 03-07-2002, 01:15 PM

~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...

fable · 03-07-2002, 01:44 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Taliesin:

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.

Seems to me you recall correctly, and I never denied this.

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.

03-07-2002, 06:18 PM

quote:
Originally posted by fable:

Seems to me you recall correctly, and I never denied this. 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.

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.

KHaN · 03-08-2002, 03:54 AM

quote:
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!

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.

AngelofDeath · 03-08-2002, 07:48 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Larry_OHF:
!!!
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.

Named Bubba

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: AngelofDeath ]

Ronn_Bman · 03-08-2002, 06:46 PM

quote:
Originally posted by KHaN:

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

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 ]

03-08-2002, 09:10 PM

quote:
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.

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.

03-07-2002, 12:52 PM	#11
Sir Taliesin Silver Dragon Join Date: March 4, 2001 Location: Knoxville, TN USA Age: 60 Posts: 1,641	quote: 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. 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. __________________ Sir Taliesin<br /><br />Hello... Good bye.

03-07-2002, 01:01 PM	#12
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	quote: 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--. 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.

03-07-2002, 01:15 PM	#14
Ê†ë®Ñï†Ý Zhentarim Guard Join Date: January 7, 2002 Location: Oxford Age: 40 Posts: 307	~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... __________________ ~blows kisses around~<br />♥~¤Ê†ë®Ñï†Ý¤~♥<br /><br /><b>vulnerable... yet tempted </b><br />

03-07-2002, 01:44 PM	#15
fable Quintesson Join Date: March 17, 2001 Location: Where I am. Posts: 1,089	quote: Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: 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. Seems to me you recall correctly, and I never denied this. 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.

03-07-2002, 06:18 PM	#16
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	quote: Originally posted by fable: Seems to me you recall correctly, and I never denied this. 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. 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.

03-07-2002, 01:02 PM	#13
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	uhh Guess I was just echoing what Sir T. said. [img]smile.gif[/img]

03-08-2002, 03:54 AM	#17
KHaN Drow Warrior Join Date: June 21, 2001 Location: the not to distant future, Posts: 250	quote: 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! 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. __________________

03-08-2002, 07:48 AM	#18
AngelofDeath Drizzt Do'Urden Join Date: June 11, 2001 Location: Wherever the road takes me..... Age: 53 Posts: 609	quote: Originally posted by Larry_OHF: !!! 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. Named Bubba [ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: AngelofDeath ] __________________ I am the Angel of Death You Can Not Hide

03-08-2002, 06:46 PM	#19
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	quote: Originally posted by KHaN: Where did you find this information? Funny thing is, it was Bush not Clinton...unless you can show proof. Thanks. 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 ] __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

03-08-2002, 09:10 PM	#20
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	quote: 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. 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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Level 8 White Boarding House Merchant update	Ziroc	NWN Mod: Escape from Undermountain	8	10-18-2004 11:59 AM
Nader expected to launch new bid for White House	InjaYew	General Discussion	3	02-20-2004 01:33 PM
Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts	Chewbacca	General Discussion	6	02-19-2004 09:32 AM
White House email filtered by agree or disagree	Chewbacca	General Discussion	11	07-18-2003 11:03 PM
A White House Response	DragonMage	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	7	10-29-2002 09:40 PM