Dont forget: Enron and the White House Connection

Search
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Enron is a scandal so enormous that it's hard to wrap your mind around it. Not just a single financial disaster, it's actually a jigsaw of interlocking scandals, each outrageous in its own right.

There's Enron the Wall St. con game, where company bookkeepers used sleight of hand to turn four years of steady losses into stunning profits. There's Enron the reverse Robin Hood, which stole from its own employees even as its executives were hauling millions of dollars out the backdoor. There's Enron's Ken Lay the Kingmaker, who used the corporation's fraudulent wealth to broker elections and skew public policy to his liking. And then there are the Enron coverups, as documents are shredded and the White House seeks to conceal details about meetings between Enron and Vice President Cheney.

The coverups are still very much a mystery. What were the documents that were fed into the shredder -- even after the corporation declared bankruptcy? What is the White House fighting to keep secret, even going to the length of redefining executive privilege and inviting the first Congressional lawsuit ever filed against a president? Were the consequences of releasing these documents more damaging than the consequences of destroying them?

<TABLE width=255 align=right hspace="3"><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD align=left>[font=arial, helvetica]



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



Could the Big Secret be that the highest levels of the Bush Administration knew during the summer of 2001 that the largest bankruptcy in history was imminent? Or was it that Enron and the White House were working closely with the Taliban -- including Osama bin Laden -- up to weeks before the Sept. 11 attack? Was a deal in Afghanistan part of a desperate last-ditch "end run" to bail out Enron? Here's a tip for Congressional investigators and federal prosecutors: Start by looking at the India deal. Closely.

Enron had a $3 billion investment in the Dabhol power plant, near Bombay on India's west coast. The project began in 1992, and the liquefied natural gas- powered plant was supposed to supply energy- hungry India with about one-fifth of its energy needs by 1997. It was one of Enron's largest development projects ever (and the single largest direct foreign investment in India's history). The company owned 65 percent of Dabhol; the other partners were Bechtel, General Electric and State Electricity Board.

The fly in the ointment, however was that the Indian consumers could not afford the cost of the electricity that was to be produced. The World Bank had warned at the beginning that the energy produced by the plant would be too costly, and Enron proved them right. Power from the plant was 700 percent higher than electricity from other sources.

Enron had promised India that the Dabhol power would be affordable once the next phase of the project was completed. But to cut expenses, Enron had to find cheap gas to fuel it. They started burning naphtha, with plans that they would retrofit the plant to gas once it was available.

Originally, Enron was planning to get the liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Qatar, where Enron had a joint venture with the state-owned Qatar Gas and Pipeline Company. In fact, the Qatar project was one of the reasons why Enron selected India to set up Dabhol: it had to ensure that its Qatar gas did not remain unsold. In April 1999, however, the project was cancelled because of the global oil and gas glut. With Qatar gone, Enron was back to square one in trying to locate an inexpensive LNG supply source.

Enter the Afghanistan connection.

Where the "Great Game" in Afghanistan was once about czars and commissars seeking access to the warm water ports of the Persian Gulf, today it is about laying oil and gas pipelines via the untapped petroleum reserves of Central Asia, a region previously dominated by the former Soviet Union, with strong influence from Iran and Pakistan. Studies have placed the total worth of oil and gas reserves in the Central Asian republics at between $3 and $6 trillion.

Who has access to that vast sea of oil? Right now the only existing export routes from the Caspian Basin lead through Russia. U.S. oil companies have longed dreamed of their own pipeline routes that will give them control of the oil and gas resources of the Caspian Sea. Likewise, the U.S. government also wants to dominate Central Asian oil in order to reduce dependency on resources from the Persian/Arabian Gulf, which it cannot control. Thus the U.S. is poised to challenge Russian hegemony in a new version of the "Great Game."

Construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan was under serious consideration during the Clinton years. In 1996, Unocal -- one of the world's leading energy resource and project development companies -- won a contract to build a 1,005-mile oil pipeline in order to exploit the vast Turkmenistan natural gas fields in Duletabad. The pipeline would extend through Afghanistan and Pakistan, terminating in Multan, near the India border.

Multan was also the end point for another proposed pipeline, this one from Iran. This project never left the drawing boards, however; the pipeline would be much longer (over 1,600 miles) and more expensive. Still, this route was being seriously considered as of early 2001, and it increased the odds that gas would be flowing into Multan from somewhere.

Unocal wasn't the only energy company laying pipe. In 1997, Enron announced that it was going to spend over $1 billion building and improving the lines between the Dabhol plant and India's network of gas pipelines.

Follow the map: Once a proposed 400-mile extension from Multan, Pakistan to New Delhi, India was built, Caspian Sea gas could flow into India's network to New Delhi, follow the route to Bombay -- and bingo! A plentiful source of ultra-cheap LNG that could supply Enron's plant in India for three decades or more.

Besides the route to Multan, another proposed spur of the pipeline would have ended on the Pakistan coast, where an estimated one million barrels of LNG per day could be shipped to Japan and Korea, the largest consumers of LNG in the world. For Enron, there was an upside here as well. Entering the South Eastern Asian markets, which offered vast growth potential, could position Enron well in the global marketplace and offset some of their losses in other markets.

There was one gotcha: It looked like the trans-Afghan section of the pipeline might never be built. Afghanistan was controlled by religious extremists who didn't want to cooperate.

Enter the Taliban.

From 1997 to as late as August 2001, the U.S. government continued to negotiate with the Taliban, trying to find a stabilizing factor that would allow American oil ventures to proceed with this project without interference. To this end, in December 1997, Unocal invited the Taliban contingency to Texas to negotiate protection while the pipeline was under construction.But in August, 1998, terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden bombed two U.S. embassies in East Africa. After a few cruise missiles were fired into Afghanistan and the Pentagon boasted that we had disabled bin Laden's "terrorist network," Unocal said they were abandoning plans for a route through the country. But was such a potentially lucrative deal really dead?

Not hardly. Although Unocal had the largest share, the "Central Asian Gas Pipeline" (CentGas) consortium had six other partners, including companies in Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil Company -- the next largest shareholder with 15 percent -- and groups in Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan. They vowed to continue the project, and had strong national interests in seeing the Afghanistan pipeline built.

The U.S. looked for other options, and the Trade and Development Agency commissioned a feasibility study for an improbable east- to- west route that would cross the Caspian Mountains and end at a Mediterranean seaport in Turkey. The company hired for that study was Enron. If that pipeline were to be constructed, Turkmenistan signed an agreement that it would be built by Bechtel and GE Capital Services -- the same American companies that were Enron's business partners in the Dabhol power plant.

No matter which direction the Central Asia natural gas would eventually flow, Enron would profit. Should it go south towards ships waiting on the Pakistan coast, it would be still only a few hundred miles at sea to Dabhol. The trip from the Mediterranean would be farther (and thus more expensive for Enron to buy gas), but it was also the least likely route to be constructed. Estimated costs were almost $1 billion more than the route through Afghanistan, and engineering plans had not even started. No, the only practical route for the Caspian Sea gas was through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the border of India. All that was lacking was the political will to make it happen.

<TABLE width=150 align=left><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=140 align=center border=0>

<TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#330000 colSpan=5>

internal-roxen-unit


</TD></TR>

<TR bgColor=#ffffcc><TD bgColor=#330000>
internal-roxen-unit
</TD>

<TD colSpan=3>

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

[font=arial,

helvetica]How Deeply Were Bush and Cheney Involved?

Was the Bush White House negotiating with the Taliban to help Kenneth Lay and Enron? Were Cabinet members and the National Security Council running a "war room" to save the company that was the closest friend of the president and vice president?

As of this writing in February 2002, little is really known. But if the White House, Enron, and Dabhol timelines are combined, curious details appear. Read the timeline here.
[/font]

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



</TD><TD bgColor=#330000>
internal-roxen-unit
</TD>

</TR>

<TR><TD bgColor=#330000 colSpan=5>

internal-roxen-unit


</TD></TR>









</TABLE>



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Enter George W. Bush.

Bush's long and personal relationship with Enron's former CEO Kenneth Lay is now well known, as is his generous contribution of over $600,000 to advance the political career of the man who now holds the White House. Not so well known is how Bush has helped Enron.

In 1988, Bush allegedly called Argentina's Minister of Public Works to pressure him into awarding Enron a $300 million contract shortly after his father won the presidency. Rodolfo Terragno recalled that the younger George Bush said that giving Enron the project "would be very favorable for Argentina and its relations with the United States." Terragno didn't know whether this message was from the White House or whether Bush was working a business deal on his own.

(Although unlikely, it is possible that Terragno was called by brother Neil Bush, who would later seek an oil drilling deal in Argentina. The Bush Sr. campaign denied that George W. made the call. This was, however, the time period when Lay began to cultivate his friendship with George W. and there is no known association between Neil Bush and Lay. That two Bush brothers are suspects, however, speaks to the levels of power that this family wields.)

By the time George W. became president, the India project was in serious trouble. Enron's reputation as a bully in India was legion. The Human Rights Watch released a report that indicated human rights violations had occurred as a result of opposition to the Dabhol Power project. Beginning in late 1996 and continuing throughout 1997, leading Indian environmental activists and employee organizations organized to oppose the project and, as a direct result of their opposition were not paid and subjected to repeated short-term detention. One ghastly report actually states that police stormed the homes of several women in western India who had led a massive protest against Enron's new natural-gas plant near their fishing village. According to Amnesty International, the women were dragged from their homes and beaten by officers paid by Enron.

The crisis came just a few months after the Bush inauguration. Contractors walked off the job, saying they hadn't been paid for over a month. The [India state of] Maharashtra Electricity Board stopped paying for Dabhol's power in May 2001, saying it was too expensive. Enron counter-charged that the Board owed them $64 million. The plant was closed, although it is said to be 97 percent complete. All that was missing was a source for cheap, cheap, natural gas.

Enter Dick Cheney.

Scarcely a month after Bush moves into the White House, Vice President Cheney has his first secret meeting with Ken Lay and other Enron executives on February 22, 2001. Other meetings follow on March 7 and April 17. It is the details of these meetings that the Bush Administration is seeking to keep private.

It's clear the Cheney had his own conflicts of interest with Enron. A chief benefactor in the trans-Caspian pipeline deal would have been Halliburton, the huge oil pipeline construction firm which was previously headed by Cheney. After Cheney's selection as Bush's Vice Presidential candidate, Halliburton also contributed a huge amount of cash into the Bush-Cheney campaign coffers.

So the obvious question: Did Enron lobby Cheney for help in India? It has already been documented that the Vice President's energy task force changed a draft energy proposal to include a provision to boost oil and natural gas production in India in February of last year. The amendment was so narrow that it apparently was targeted only to help Enron's Dabhol plant in India. Later, Cheney stepped in to try to help Enron collect its $64 million debt during a June 27 meeting with India's opposition leader Sonia Gandhi. But behind the scenes, much more was cooking.

A series of e-mail memos obtained by the Washington Post and NY Daily News in January revealed that the National Security Council led a "Dabhol Working Group" composed of officials from various Cabinet departments during the summer of 2001. The memos suggest that the Bush Administration was running exactly the sort of "war room" that was a favorite subject of ridicule by Republicans during the Clinton years.

The Working Group prepared "talking points" for both Cheney and Bush and recommended that the need to "broaden the advocacy" of settling the Enron debt. Every development was closely monitored: "Good news" a NSC staff member wrote in a e-mail memo: "The Veep mentioned Enron in his meeting with Sonia Gandhi." The Post commented that the NSC went so far that it "acted as a sort of concierge service for Enron Chairman Kenneth L. Lay and India's national security adviser, Brajesh Mishra" in trying to arrange a dinner meeting between the Indian official and Lay.

While lobbying India, it appears that the Bush Administration was also raising the heat on the Taliban to allow the pipeline.

The book "Bin Laden: the Forbidden Truth" by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasique claims that the U.S. tried to negotiate the pipeline deal with the Taliban as late as August, 2001. According to the authors, the Bush Administration attempted to get the Taliban on board and believed they could depend upon the regime to stabilize the country while the pipeline construction was underway. Bush had already indirectly given the Taliban $43 million for their supposed efforts to stamp out opium-poppy cultivation. Was this an award -- or a bribe? The circumstances make this a valid question.

Enron was unraveling at the seams, yet in early August, Kenneth Lay seemed optimistic, even exuberant. Was he whistling past the graveyard, or did he have secret information? The last meeting between U.S. and Taliban representatives took place five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington; on that occasion, Christina Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for the U.S. government, met the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in Islamabad on August 2, 2001. Rocca said the Taliban representative, Mr. Zaeef, was aware of the strong U.S. commitment to help the Afghan people and the fact that the United States had provided $132 million in relief assistance so far that year.

Lay's last documented e-mail was sent on August 27th, about the same time the Taliban allowed the International Red Cross to visit jailed foreign aid workers in Afghanistan. In it, Lay waxes optimistic about the strength and stability of his company, and exhorts his employees to buy into the company's stock program. Was Kenneth Lay anticipating a new pipeline deal, and an Enron contract, courtesy of George W. Bush? If a deal was at hand, he had every reason to be optimistic about the future.

Even though the trans-Caspian pipeline and the extension into India would be years from completion, Enron's conceit of working above the law was ultimately the guiding beacon in all of its transactions. They had played the game of subterfuge for so long, they were near experts at covering their tracks. Even if Lay knew at this point that bankruptcy was imminent, Enron had always survived major hurdles in the past, right? The possibility of a total meltdown was most likely not even a consideration -- there could always be an 11th hour federal bailout.

However, from all records, relationships became strained. The Taliban had demanded that the U.S. should also reconstruct Afghanistan's infrastructure and that the pipeline be open for local consumption. Instead, the U.S. wanted a closed pipeline pumping gas for export only and was not interested in helping to rebuild the country. In turn, the U.S. threatened the Taliban during the negotiations. The directive of "we'll either carpet you in gold or carpet you in bombs" was bantered about in the press to underscore the emerging willfulness of the U.S.

But sometime in late August, apparently the whole deal went sour. Enron had one last card to play, and that was selling the Dabhol plant for quick cash -- if it could. If Enron could get its asking price of $2.3 billion, then maybe the company could pull out of its bankruptcy nose dive.

In late August, Lay appeared to threaten India in an article in the London Financial Times. We expect full price for the plant, he warned; if they received anything less, there could be backlash: "There are laws that could prevent the U.S. government from providing any aid or assistance to India going forward if, in fact, they expropriate property of U.S. companies," he said. When Indian officials called these statements "strong arm tactics," an Enron statement claimed Lay "was merely referring to U.S. laws." Again Lay appeared to threaten India in a Sept. 14 letter to the Prime Minister, insisting that the $2.3 billion price was reasonable because they had a "legal claim" of up to $5 billion.

But the house of cards collapsed dramatically on November 8, when Enron disclosed that it had overstated earnings dating back to 1997 by almost $600 million. That same day, an e-mail ("Importance: High"), whose sender and recipient are blacked out, warned, "President Bush cannot talk about Dabhol as was already mentioned." The memo also said that Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey could not discuss Enron either. Lindsey had been an Enron consultant.

The end came in December 2001, as Enron fired the 300 remaining workers at the plant. Enron also filed a $200 million claim with the U.S. government's Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a U.S. taxpayer- funded insurance fund for American companies abroad, in an attempt to recoup losses from the Dabhol Power Corporation.

On the last day of the year, President Bush appointed Zalmay Khalilzad as his special envoy to Afghanistan. Khalilzad is a former Unocal consultant, whose positions on Afghanistan changed in sync with Unocal's own. When it looked like the pipeline would be built in 1996, Khalilzad advocated that the U.S. should work with moderate elements in the Taliban. By 2000 Unocal was out of the project, and Khalilzad was writing that the U.S. must undermine the Taliban.

It's clear that once again the Great Game is afoot, now that the Taliban are gone. Today, Khalilzad is the Special Assistant to the President and National Security Council member responsible for setting up the post-Taliban "Pro-Unocal" regime in Afghanistan. International oil men euphemistically call the project the new "Silk Road." On Feb. 8, Afghanistan's interim leader Hamid Karzai and Pakistan's president agreed to revive plans for a trans-Afghanistan route for Iranian gas. The next day, Turkmenistan chimed in that they hoped their trans- Afghanistan route would be soon built. It's all but certain that gas from somewhere will reach Multan -- and the Dabhol plant beyond.

For investors, Dabhol should be a bitter lesson. Enron was a company known for its hubris that tried to accomplish too much, too quickly, playing too fast and loose with financial realities. In the end, Enron found that its far-reaching global clout could no longer circumvent the rules of basic economics -- nor could it count on the players they helped bring into power.

Until there is a full investigation, questions will remain about how far the Bush team went to try to save their buddies at Enron. Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to release details about his private April meeting with Lay is suspicious. It is already known that Cheney accepted seven out of eight national energy policy recommendations made by Lay; so what are they so damned determined to keep secret? What could be more incriminating than that?

On Feb. 22, the GAO sued Cheney, who has stated that the White House will go to court to fight the release of the documents. (However, John W. Dean, former Nixon staffer and Watergate witness, is quick to point out that executive privilege is unique to the president, not the vice president.) With recent discovery that a highest-level "Dabhol Working Group" was set up in the Bush Administration, it appears that there is much more to be uncovered.

Is the White House covering up that it was molding foreign policy as well as energy policy to suit Enron? Did the Bush Administration know that Enron's collapse was coming as early as August? If any of these is true, the largest bankruptcy in American history may well connect with the greatest political scandal in American history.

Ron Callari is a freelancer writer. This article originally appeared in the Albion Monitor.

<!-- signup -->
[/font]
 

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
240
Tokens
Just a quick thought before I read your entire post

I happen to a CPA. The sleight of hand was something called special purpose entities, SPE's. They used these to keep certain derivatives from consolidating into their financials. A particular portion of some of these derivatives had Enron assume billions of debt if their stock price dropped below a certain level. The scandal broke in 2001 and their stock price dropped below that threshold. Another problem was that FAS 133 had not taken effect as of fiscal years ending 12/31/2000 which requires the valuation and recording of such derivatives on the P&L and Balance sheet as opposed to simple disclosure.

All of the years that Enron had to restate were before Bush took office. So the dubious accounting occurred under Clinton's watch. Now, unlike you I will not begin to weave a conspiracy theory blaming Clinton. However, if you look back, Ken Lay gave more money to Clinton and Democrats than to Bush.
 
Last edited:

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
240
Tokens
Afghan pipeline

Sorry doc, but the Afghan pipeline plans were scrapped in 1999. There is no pipeline being built or planned at this time.

Hint: Michael Moore is not a reliable source.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
240
Tokens
Albion Monitor

I checked out this website and as expected it is nothing more than a leftist conspiracy rumormill. Your article coasts right through the 1990's without mentioning Enron's dealings with the Clinton administration as expected. Clinton's administration was intimately involved in the India scenario but that's of little relevance when you wearing the filter of the left.
Also, this website lays blame of not acting in Darfur at the feet as its beloved UN makes sex tapes. It also links to books written by one of Blame America First's favorite icons, Howard Zinn. Zinn may be second only to Chomsky. There are other ridiculous conspiracy theories offered on this website but it is late.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Just for the hell of it I'll throw in that Enron's Indian project was the brainchild and professional passion of Rebecca Mark, not Ken Lay.

Also, Lay and Clinton were golfing partners. Bet they never, ever, ever talked energy policy while out on the links. Ever.


Phaedrus
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Bullcrap ...

Michael Moore has nothing to do with this scandal ..

Wake the F ______ up!

Cheney had meetings in the White House with Enron days before the Collapse and has stonewalled all investigations ....

The plan to invade Afgahanistan was in place long before 9-11 ...

Typical Bushie response to cover the "Image" of the Great Man ... same guys who believed WhiteWater because "Rush said it happened"

Remember how Bush denied knowing "Kenny Boy" Lay? Hmm, Lay spent over 60 days at the Crawford ranch between 1996 - 1998 ...

Be in denial, Bushies, as this perhaps the most corrupt administration in the history of this country ...
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Enron's capo, Kenneth Lay, was perhaps the best financial friend George W. Bush has ever known. He and a number of Enron employees essentially bankrolled Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign, even lending Bush an Enron corporate jet for trips between whistle stops. And long before Bush got White House stars in his eyes, he worked very closely with Enron on energy policy in Texas.

DICK CHENEY, Vice President, admitted to six separate meetings with Enron executives while formulating the Bush administration's energy policy. Cheney, a former executive of the Halliburton Petroleum interest, was in charge of creating this policy. Cheney refused to detail the specifics of the creation of this policy, which included the multiple Enron meetings.

Columnist Robert Scheer has referred to the Bush administration's involvement in the Enron debacle as “Whitewater in spades.” One wonders if “Watergate” would be a more appropriate comparison

Bush's own dealings within the energy industry carry a disturbingly familiar echo to the Enron situation: Once upon a time, he was a high-ranking officer of a petroleum interest called Harken Oil. On June 22, 1990, a week before Harken announced a $23.2 million loss in quarterly earnings, making its stock lose 60 percent of its value over the next six months, Bush made $848,560 by selling his Harken stock, earning him a 200% profit. Bush made a bundle while the other investors lost millions. Harken was Enron in miniature

if reports recently aired on CNN have any credence, Bush and his cronies may well have to answer for actions that make the Enron catastrophe look like a jaywalking offense, actions that led directly to the incredible carnage in New York and Washington, D.C!


In 1998, during the Clinton administration, the U.S.-based energy concern Unocal canceled plans to exploit massive natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan by running a pipeline from there to Pakistan, where the natural gas could have been processed for Asian and Western energy markets. The idea was scuttled after Clinton ordered the cruise missile bombing of Afghanistan in response to a terrorist attack upon U.S. embassies in Africa which were planned and executed by Osama bin Laden.

The pipeline would have had to pass through Afghanistan, and Unocal was given the message in Technicolor by Clinton's people that Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was not to be given any sort of financial boon.

The Bush administration found no moral dilemma in dealing with the Taliban to get to the gas. Immediately upon their arrival in Washington, a vigorous courtship of the Taliban was undertaken. In fact, if former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler is to be believed, the Bush administration had a vested interest in strengthening and stabilizing the Taliban regime, because a stable regime would enable investors to revive the Turkmenistan natural gas pipeline deal. The Taliban, demon of the moment, was the Bush administration's idea of a “stable” government. Stable enough, anyway, to see the pipeline through.

<DIR> The connections between Bush and the Taliban became so close that the Taliban went so far as to hire an expert on U.S. public relations to smooth the way between the two regimes.
</DIR>

The connections between Bush and the Taliban became so close that the Taliban went so far as to hire an expert on U.S. public relations named Laila Helms, so as to smooth the way between the two regimes. Meetings between the two nations continued at a high level, the last of which occurred in August, scant weeks before the September 11th attacks. All of these actions were taken to exploit the vast energy reserves in Turkmenistan for the benefit of American energy corporations.

<DIR> Former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill stated, “The main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.”</FONT>
</DIR>

The cozy relationship between Bush and the Taliban frustrated the investigative efforts of former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill. He was the FBI's chief bin Laden hunter, in charge of the investigations into the bin Laden-connected bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, the destruction of an American troop barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the African embassy bombings in 1998, and the attack upon the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.

<DIR> If these allegations carry even the faintest whiff of credibility George W. Bush and members of his administration stand in taint of high treason and murder.
</DIR>

O'Neill quit the FBI in protest two weeks before the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. He did so because his investigation was hindered by the Bush administration's connections to the Taliban, and by the interests of American petroleum companies. O'Neill was quoted as stating, “The main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” After leaving the FBI, O'Neill took a position as head of security for the World Trade Center. He died on September 11th, 2001, trying to save people trapped by the attack. The irony in this, simply, is horrifying.

<DIR> In essence, the Federal agent who knew more about bin Laden than any living American was kept from investigating terrorist threats against America because the Bush administration was desperate to cultivate the favor of the Taliban, so as to gain access to lucrative natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan.
</DIR>

In essence, the Federal agent who knew more about bin Laden than any living American was kept from investigating terrorist threats against America because the Bush administration was desperate to cultivate the favor of the Taliban, who held terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden in great esteem, so as to gain access to lucrative natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan.

If these allegations prove true, Bush and his friends allowed this affinity to hamstring investigations that could have thwarted bin Laden's September plans. If these allegations prove true, everything since September 11th has been a massive cover-up operation in which American soldiers and thousands of Afghan civilians have died. If these allegations prove true, the Bush administration has the blood of thousands of American civilians on its hands.

If these allegations carry even the faintest whiff of credibility, George W. Bush and members of his administration stand in taint of high treason and murder.

On November 7th, 2000, a clear majority of Americans came to the conclusion that George W. Bush was unfit to govern this nation. For a variety of dark and controversial reasons, that conclusion was thrown over. Sometime soon, if the media's electronic web continues to carry these sordid stories of corruption, greed and death, the American people will come to fully understand the consequences of that failed election.

<DIR> It is one thing to coddle and court a corrupt energy company for political and financial gain. But it's quite another to coddle and court a murderous terrorist-supporting regime, hindering anti-terrorism investigations in the process, for the purpose of exploiting valuable natural resources.
</DIR> It is one thing to coddle and court a corrupt energy company for political and financial gain. But it's quite another to coddle and court a murderous terrorist-supporting regime, hindering anti-terrorism investigations in the process, for the purpose of exploiting valuable natural resources. The former cost a number of people their retirement funds. The latter has cost thousands of people their lives. One is criminal. The other is abominable. George W. Bush is deeply implicated in both.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
"Oh, Kenny Boy, can I borrow the jet again?"

In 2000, The Bush campaign borrowed Enron's corporate jets eight times to fly aides around the country, more times than any of the thirty-four other companies that made their company aircraft available to the Presidential hopeful.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Interview with Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay for Frontline's 2001 documentary, "Blackout: What Caused the Power Crisis in California? And Who's Profiting?"

"In distancing himself from Enron, President Bush said that CEO Kenneth Lay 'was a supporter' of Democrat Ann Richards in his first race for Texas governor in 1994.

"But records and interviews with people involved in the Richards campaign show that he was a far bigger Bush supporter.

"Mr. Lay and his wife gave Mr. Bush three times more money than Ms. Richards in their gubernatorial contest, according to a computer-assisted review of campaign finance reports by The Dallas Morning News. … "
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Enron was so close to the bosom of the administration that Lay and other executives were called to the White House for six meetings with Cheney and his staff - the last one only a week before the company made the staggering announcement that it was slashing shareholder equity by $1.2bn.

*February: Enron CEO Ken Lay meets with Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney's energy task force modifies proposal to include mention of need to boost India's oil and gas production.
  • March: Lay meets with Cheney again.
  • April: Lay gives Cheney a memo outlining his suggestions for how to address the nation's energy needs. Among other things, Lay asks Cheney to hold off on price caps in California. Within weeks of meeting with Lay, Cheney issues a statement opposing price caps.

    b.. Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years.From 1993-2001, Enron executives gave nearly $2 million to George W. Bush personally.

    In the 2000 election cycle, Enron gave $2,501,058 to political causes -- 11% polical action committees, 67% soft money, 22% individuals. Three quarters of the money went to Republican candidates: almost $2 million. In one year. This is more than double its 1998 contributions and almost twice as much as the number two contributing energy company.

    In the 2000 campaign cycle, Ken Lay and his wife gave $420,010 to political causes: 96% went to Republicans.

    From the Seattle PI (2001):
    • The company (Enron) and its employees have given more than anyone else to Bush's two campaigns for governor, his unsuccessful House campaign in 1978 and last year's race for the White House, according to the watchdog Center for Public Integrity.

      Enron and its employees gave $113,800 to Bush's presidential campaign, his 10th most generous contributor; $250,000 to the Republican National Convention host committee; and $300,000 to the Presidential Inauguration Committee.
    • c.. It donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities.
      • Enron and employees donated $300,000 to the Bush inauguration. In addition, Ken Lay was an energy "transition advisor" to the Bush White House.
      d.. The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.
      • Ken Lay's name does not show on the Clinton "sleep over" list, according to this Salon piece from 2002 (which links to lists). Clinton did play golf with him oncee. The corporation had access to the administration at its highest levels and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.

        Enron had access to the Bush White House at the highest levels: President Bush (then Governor of Texas) put in a word for Enron with Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge (now head of Homeland Security).

        Secretary of State Colin Powell applied pressure for Enron (see Export-Import Bank discussion). Several White House officials held stock in Enron - under Bush. Enron was well-connected with government -- see the connection to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
        • From the London Guardian (2002):
          • Texas's 1992 Energy Policy Act opened a regulatory black hole into which Enron moved and thrived, forcing established utility companies to buy energy from it. Meanwhile, in Washington, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, under the presidency of Bush's father, allowed for an exemption in trading energy subsidiaries. The practice would be Enron's downfall.

            The 1992 trading commission was chaired by Wendy Gramm, wife of Texas Senator Phil Gramm, close friend of the Bush family and recipient of $97,350 in political donations from Enron.

            Once the exemption was accomplished, Mrs Gramm resigned to join the Enron board. As a member of its current audit committee, she is expected to play a key role in the forthcoming lawsuits and criminal investigation into bankruptcy and document destruction.

            In 1997, Enron was anxious to break into Pennsylvania, one of America's biggest energy markets, with its huge consumers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The company was having difficulty, and Lay asked Bush (who liked to call him 'Kenny boy') to help.

            Bush duly called the then state governor, Tom Ridge, to pitch for Enron, whose bid duly succeeded. 'I called George W to kind of tell him what was going on,' said Lay at the time, 'and I said it would be very helpful to Enron if he could just call the governor and tell him Enron is a serious company'. Ridge was made Secretary of Homeland Security - Bush's new White House office - after 11 September.

            Lay discussed the upcoming bankruptcy twice with Commerce Secretary Don Evans - one of the Texan 'Iron Triangle' that propelled Bush to power. Later, he also twice pleaded Enron's case to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.

            And among Enron's top point men in Washington during the bankruptcy saga was Clinton's former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who was revealed by the Washington Post yesterday as having made a representation last November to the current Treasury on behalf of the company. Rubin is now chairman of the executive committee of the Citigroup bank, one of Enron's principal backers, trying, with the JP Morgan bank, to raise $1.5bn in an effort to see the company through the bankruptcy crisis.
          Snopes (2002) quotes USA Today:
          • Enron spent nearly three times as much money lobbying the Bush administration in the first half of 2001 as it initially reported.

            The collapsed energy-trading company spent at least $2.46 million on efforts to influence energy and budget decisions and support its international ventures, according to an amended lobbying report Enron filed with the House and Senate on March 1.

          From the London Guardian on Enron stock holdings and the White House:
          • The biggest holding is that of Army Secretary Thomas White, who as a former Enron executive holds stock and options totalling $50m to $100m. Rove himself holds as much as $250,000 in stock, and other holders include Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his assistant William Winkenwerder, Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Weinberger, Economic Undersecretary Kathleen Cooper, Education Undersecretary Eugene Hickock, the ambassadors to Russia, Ireland, the Emirates and officials in the energy department, including its chief financial officer Bruce Carnes.
 

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
Herr Oberfuhrer Doc Mullah - why can't you recognize the facts when you see them - The FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) made the necessary changes to correct this situation, most of which happened under the Clinton watch!

Part of the problem is that lobbyists and the larger accounting firms are forever doing everything in their power to halt or hinder the FASB from applying standards that might have a negative impact on the reporting structure.

Even after the FASB makes any changes, the SEC and Congress, might not enforce them, leaving a door open to shenanigans.

In this post Enron era that's overseen the death of Arthur Andersen, a lot of people are running scared, but lobbyists and the big accounting firms continue to rale against many changes that are good for the public, but bad for business - and the Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans of supporting these groups and taking their money.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
If you want to know what this story is about, pretend Bill Clinton is still president. Pretend Clinton's long-time, all-time biggest campaign contributor, a guy for whom Clinton has carried water for over the years, a guy with unparalleled ``access,'' a shaper of policy -- imagine that this guy's worldwide empire has tumbled into bankruptcy in just three months amid cascading reports of lies, monumental accounting errors, evasions, iffy financial statements, insider deals, a board of directors rife with conflicts of interest, top executives bailing out with millions while regular employees see their life savings shrink to nothing -- imagine all this back in the day of Bill Clinton.

We'd have four congressional investigations, three special prosecutors, two impeachment inquiries and a partridge in a pear tree by now. Republicans would be drumming their heels on the floor in full tantrum.

But this is not President Clinton, it is President Bush -- so of course different standards must apply. The fact that Ken Lay, Enron's chairman, has been Bush's chief money man since he first went into politics is mentioned only in passing. The media don't want to be impolite.

The main problem with Enron is that it has never produced much of anything in the way of either goods or services; it has not added a single widget to the world widget supply. Enron is in the business of ``financializing,'' making markets, trading in wholesale electricity, water, data storage, fiber-optics, just about anything.

Enron started as a gas pipeline company that went into trading natural gas, and even then the company's critics claimed Enron was making profits by stoking volatility in gas prices. The same charge showed up again in spades with the newly deregulated electricity markets. Enron had lobbied for utility deregulation relentlessly, formidably and very expensively at both the state and national levels. The company seemed to spend more time influencing government than doing business.

Just a few spiffy eye-openers on Enron's connections:

<LI type=SQUARE> Lay and Enron together donated $2 million to George W. Bush. In 2000, a company memo that was an open strong-arm recommended employees give campaign checks for Bush to the political action committee: low-level managers were urged to contribute $500 and senior executives at least $5,000. It gave more money last cycle than any other energy company.

<LI type=SQUARE> Lawrence B. Lindsay, Bush's top economic adviser, got $50,000 from Enron in 2000 for consulting, presumably giving the company the same excellent advice now proving so healthy for the nation's economy.

<LI type=SQUARE> Karl Rove, Bush's top political strategist, sold between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of Enron stock earlier this year, after being criticized for conflict of interest.

<LI type=SQUARE> The California Legislature passed a contempt motion against Enron for failure to respond to a June 11 subpoena. The legislature is investigating whether power generating companies willfully manipulated electricity supply in order to drive up prices.

<LI type=SQUARE> Lay was the only energy executive to meet alone with Vice President Dick Cheney while Cheney was drawing up a new national energy policy in secret.

<LI type=SQUARE> Enron influenced public policy time and again while Bush was governor in Texas. Enron was a major player during the utilities deregulation debate, for which Bush lobbied actively, and in ``tort reform,'' making it harder to sue corporations for the damage they do.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
bblight Coulter:

Dont blame Clinton for any of this Corporate Accouting scandals ... Newt Gingrich and company take the blame, pal:



In 1995 Newt Gingrich and the newly elected Republican Congress--having vowed to restrict lawsuits in the Contract with America--pushed through a bill making it much harder to sue companies for misleading their investors. And that same year the House and Senate froze the budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), even though the agency (as the General Accounting Office would later find) already lacked the staff to adequately monitor corporate balance sheets. As David Ruder, a former Republican head of the SEC, told The New York Times in 1995, "The Republican Congress is dealing with the SEC as though it is the enemy, instead of the policeman on the beat." And, as conservatives often remind liberals, when you undermine the policeman on the beat, crime goes up.

The original versions of the PSLRA were introduced in the Senate by Senator Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) on January 18, 1995 (S. 240) and in the House by Representative Thomas J. Bliley (R-VA) on February 27, 1995 (H.R.1058).

On December 19, 1995, President Clinton vetoed the PSLRA. On December 20, 1995, the House voted overwhelmingly (319 to 100) to override the President's veto. The Senate voted to override on December 22, 1995 by a vote of 68 to 30 and the PSLRA became law (P.L. 104-67) over the objections of the President.

You'll notice that Clinton vetoed the 1995 bill that shielded corporate executives from shareholder lawsuits, and his SEC chief, Arthur Levitt, proposed barring accounting firms from consulting for firms they were simultaneously auditing. Unfortunately, Clinton's veto was overridden-virtually every congressional Republican voted to override. Levitt's proposal was torpedoed as well... 33 of the 37 members of Congress who signed public letters protesting his reform were Republicans. And the lobbyist who spearheaded the accounting industry's campaign against the Levitt proposal was none other than Harvey Pitt, President Bush's pick to head the SEC. In other words, the '90s moral tone that made Enron and WorldCom possible wasn't Clintonism; it was Gingrichism. And that's one moral tone George W. Bush hasn't changed at all.


 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,120,416
Messages
13,581,483
Members
100,981
Latest member
eaniston39
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com