Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Bush's Enron Lies

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted May 30, 2006.


Contrary to the official story, the Bush administration did whatever it could to help Enron as the company began to go under.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Robert Parry

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Four years ago, when the taboo against calling George W. Bush a liar was even stronger than it is today, the national news media bought into the Bush administration's spin that the President did nothing to bail out his Enron benefactors, including Kenneth Lay.

Bush supposedly refused to intervene, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Enron had poured into his political coffers. That refusal purportedly showed the high ethical standards that set Bush apart from lesser politicians.

Bush's defenders will probably reprise that storyline now that former Enron Chairman Lay and former Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Skilling stand convicted of conspiracy and fraud in the plundering of the onetime energy-trading giant. But the reality is that the Bush-can't-be-bought spin was never true.

For instance, the documentary evidence is now clear that in summer 2001 -- at the same time Bush's National Security Council was ignoring warnings about an impending al-Qaeda terrorist attack -- NSC adviser Condoleezza Rice was personally overseeing a government-wide task force to pressure India to give Enron as much as $2.3 billion.

Then, even after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when India's cooperation in the "war on terror" was crucial, the Bush administration kept up its full-court press to get India to pay Enron for a white-elephant power plant that the company had built in Dabhol, India.

The pressure on India went up the chain of command to Vice President Dick Cheney, who personally pushed Enron's case, and to Bush himself, who planned to lodge a complaint with India's prime minister. Post-9/11, one senior U.S. bureaucrat warned India that failure to give in to Enron's demands would put into doubt the future functioning of American agencies in India.

The NSC-led Dabhol campaign didn't end until Nov. 8, 2001, when the Securities and Exchange Commission raided Enron's offices -- and protection of Lay's interests stopped being politically tenable. That afternoon, Bush was sent an e-mail advising him not to raise his planned Dabhol protest with India's prime minister who was visiting Washington.

Contrary to the official story, the Bush administration did almost whatever it could to help Enron as the company desperately sought cash to cover mounting losses from its off-the-books partnerships, a bookkeeping black hole that was sucking Enron toward bankruptcy and scandal.

As Enron's crisis worsened through the first nine months of Bush's presidency, Lay secured Bush's help in three key ways:


  • Bush personally joined the fight against imposing caps on the soaring price of electricity in California at a time when Enron was artificially driving up the price of electricity by manipulating supply. Bush's resistance to price caps bought Enron extra time to gouge hundreds of millions of dollars from California's consumers.

  • Bush granted Lay broad influence over the development of the administration's energy policies, including the choice of key regulators to oversee Enron's businesses. The chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was replaced in 2001 after he began to delve into Enron's complex derivative-financing schemes.

  • Bush had his NSC staff organize that administration-wide task force to pressure India to accommodate Enron's interests in selling the Dabhol generating plant for as much as $2.3 billion.

Bankruptcy

As Enron's corporate house of cards collapsed anyway in fall 2001, the toll was devastating. Investors lost tens of billions of dollars; some retirees were financially wiped out; 5,000 Enron employees were laid off. Enron's accounting tricks also discredited its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen LLP, which was soon closed by government regulators.

But Bush was fortunate that the Enron scandal broke while he was still wrapped in the glow of favorable poll ratings that followed the 9/11 attacks. The Washington news media generally acquiesced to Bush's insistence that he really wasn't that close to Enron or Lay, though Lay had earned a Bush nickname: "Kenny Boy."

The facts, however, suggest a political intimacy between Bush and Enron, especially with the now convicted swindler Ken Lay, dating back at least to Bush's first campaign for Texas governor in 1994.

By the 2000 presidential campaign, Lay was a Pioneer for Bush, raising $100,000. Enron also gave the Republicans $250,000 for the convention in Philadelphia and contributed $1.1 million in soft money to the Republican Party. Not only was Lay a top fund-raiser for the campaign, but he helped out during the recount battle in Florida in November 2000.

Lay and his wife donated $10,000 to Bush's Florida recount fund that helped pay for Republican lawyers and other expenses. Lay even let Bush operatives use Enron's corporate jet to fly in reinforcements. After Bush secured his victory, another $300,000 poured in from Enron circles - including $100,000 from Lay and $100,000 from Skilling - for the Bush-Cheney Inaugural Fund.

Yet, after the Enron scandal broke, Bush acted as if he barely knew Lay. On Jan. 11, 2002, Bush told reporters that Lay "was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994" for Texas governor, implying that he had gotten to know Lay as Gov. Richards' holdover appointee to a Texas business council.

The administration also claimed that it turned down Enron's bail-out pleas in late October 2001 when Lay sounded out senior Bush officials about overt financial help. By then, however, Enron's troubles were too advanced -- and the public spotlight too intense -- for the administration to launch a full-scale rescue mission out in the open.

Yet, before Enron went into its death spiral, the Bush administration did what it could, behind the scenes.

Gathering storm
The Houston-based energy trader's financial crisis can be traced back to 2000 when the long-running stock market boom ended. During the boom, Enron had risen through the ranks of Fortune 500 companies to a perch at No. 7.

A leader of the so-called New Economy, Enron expanded beyond its core business interests in natural gas pipelines, branching out into complex commodity trading, which included electricity, broadband capacity and other ethereal items, such as weather futures.

The bursting of the dot-com bubble in March 2000 put pressure on Enron as it did many other companies. Even though Enron's stock held strong, hitting an all-time high of $90 a share on Aug. 17, 2000, the tumbling market and some risky overseas energy projects left Enron with many poor-performing assets.

To protect its image as a darling of Wall Street -- and to prop up its stock value -- Enron began shifting more of its losing operations into off-the-books partnerships given names like Raptor and Chewco. Hedges were set up to limit Enron's potential losses from equity investments, but some hedges were themselves backed by Enron stock, creating the possibility of a spiraling decline if investors lost faith in Enron.

Still, Enron saw a silver lining in the darkening economic clouds of 2000. A prospective George W. Bush victory could speed up Enron's deregulatory plans for the energy markets. Through energy trading in California alone, Enron stood to earn tens of billions of dollars.

Meanwhile, in summer 2000, the first signs of suspicions arose that Enron was trying to manipulate the California energy market.

An employee with Southern California Edison sent the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) a memo expressing concerns that Enron and other electricity providers to California's deregulated energy market were gaming the system by cutting off supply and creating phony congestion in the electricity grid to run up energy prices. [See Energy Daily, May 16, 2002]

By December 2000, Enron was implementing plans dubbed "Fat Boy," "Death Star" and "Get Shorty" to siphon electricity away from areas that needed it most and getting paid for phantom transfers of energy supposedly to relieve transmission-line congestion. [Washington Post, May 7, 2002]

That same month, after a 35-day battle over Florida's vote count, Bush nailed down his presidential victory by getting five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop a statewide recount.

Grateful Bush

Once in the White House, a grateful Bush gave Lay a major voice in shaping energy policy and picking personnel. Starting in late February 2001, Lay and other Enron officials took part in at least a half dozen secret meetings to develop Bush's energy plan.

After one of the Enron meetings, Vice President Cheney's energy task force changed a draft energy proposal to include a provision to boost oil and natural gas production in India. The amendment was so narrow that it apparently was targeted only to help Enron's troubled Dabhol power plant in India.

Other parts of the Bush energy plan also echoed Enron's views. Seventeen of the energy plan's proposals were sought by and benefited Enron, according to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. One proposal called for repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, which hindered Enron's potential for acquisitions.

Bush also put Enron's allies inside the federal government. Two top administration officials, Lawrence Lindsey, the White House's chief economic adviser, and Robert Zoellick, the U.S. Trade Representative, both worked for Enron, Lindsey as a consultant and Zoellick as a paid member of Enron's advisory board.

At least 14 administration officials owned stock in Enron, with Undersecretary of State Charlotte Beers and chief political adviser Karl Rove each reporting up to $250,000 worth of Enron stock when they joined the administration.

Lay exerted influence, too, over government regulators already in place. Curtis Hebert Jr., a conservative Republican and ally of Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., had been appointed to the FERC during the Clinton administration. Like Bush and Lay, Hebert was a promoter of "free markets," and Bush elevated him to FERC chairman in January 2001.

But Hebert ran into trouble when he broke ranks with Lay on Enron's plan to force consolidation of state utilities into four giant regional transmission organizations, or RTOs. By quickly pushing the states into RTOs, Enron and other big energy traders would have much larger markets for their energy sales.

Hebert, who advocated state rights, told the New York Times that he got a call from Lay with a proposed deal. Lay wanted Hebert to support a faster transition to a national retailing structure for electricity. If he did, Enron would back him to keep his job.

The FERC chairman said he was "offended" by the veiled threat. Lay already had demonstrated sway over selection of administration appointees by supplying Bush aides with a list of preferred candidates and personally interviewing a possible FERC nominee.

Lay offered a different account of the phone call. He said Hebert was the one "requesting" Enron's support, though Lay acknowledged that the pair "very possibly" discussed issues involving FERC's authority over the nation's electricity grids.

Hebert also raised Enron's ire when he started an investigation in early 2001 into how Enron's complex derivative financing instruments worked. "One of our problems is that we do not have the expertise to truly unravel the complex arbitrage activities of a company like Enron," Hebert said.

At the time, those complex -- and deceptive -- derivative schemes were concealing Enron's worsening losses.

Energy crisis

The California energy crisis also was spinning out of control. Rolling blackouts crisscrossed the state, where the partially deregulated energy market, served by Enron and other traders, had seen electricity prices soar 800 percent in one year.

After taking power, Bush turned a deaf ear to appeals from public officials in California to give the state relief from the soaring costs of energy. He also reined in federal efforts to monitor market manipulations.

As California's electricity prices continued to soar, Democratic Gov. Gray Davis and Sen. Dianne Feinstein voiced suspicions that the "free market" was not at work. Rather they saw corporate price-fixing, gouging consumers and endangering California's economy.

But California's suspicions mostly were mocked in official Washington as examples of finger-pointing and conspiracy theories. The administration blamed the problem on excessive environmental regulation that discouraged the building of new power plants.

Again, Lay was influencing policy behind the scenes. An April 2001 memo from Lay to Cheney advised the administration to resist price caps.

"The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps or returning to archaic methods of determining the cost-base of wholesale power," Lay said.

Cheney and Bush echoed Lay's position in their political exchanges with Davis and other Democrats. On April 18, 2001, Cheney told the Los Angeles Times that the Bush administration opposed price caps because they would discourage investment.

In May 2001, Bush traveled to California on a trip choreographed like a President visiting a disaster area. Only this time, Bush wasn't promising federal help to a state in need. He was carrying the same message that Lay had sent to Cheney. In effect, Bush was saying: Read my lips. No price caps.

"Price caps do nothing to reduce demand, and they do nothing to increase supply," Bush said.

After weeks of standoff, as electricity prices stayed high and began spreading to other Western states, the political showdown ended on June 18, 2001. FERC approved limited price caps, a reversal prompted by Republican fears of a political backlash that could cost them seats in Congress.

Still, the administration's rear-guard defense of deregulation had bought Enron and other energy traders precious months to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in trading profits in California.

The imposition of FERC's limited price caps -- and the state's aggressive conservation efforts -- brought the energy crisis under control. That may have been good news for California, but not for Enron. By losing control over its ability to keep electricity prices artificially high, Enron faced new economic pressures.

"There are some hints of a connection [between the price caps and Enron's collapse], including the billions of dollars in cash that flowed in and out of Enron as the crisis waxed and waned," the New York Times reported later.

With the easing of the California energy crisis, Enron's stock price began to decline, slipping from around $80 early in the year to the high-$40's. That began to put pressure on the stock hedges tucked inside the off-the-books partnerships.

The Dabhol battle

In June 2001, the White House went to bat for Enron on another touchy issue, the natural gas power plant that Enron had built in Dabhol, India.

The plant had become something of a white elephant. Its cost of electricity was several times higher than what India was paying other providers, which led to an impasse over unpaid bills. Enron wanted India to pay $250 million for the electricity or buy out Enron's stake in the plant, worth about $2.3 billion.

These sorts of contract disputes between U.S. companies and foreign governments are normally handled by the Commerce Department or possibly the State Department. But Enron's Dabhol problem became a priority of Bush's National Security Council staff.

That level of interest over a contract dispute was almost unprecedented, according to former NSC officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations. The administration's intervention even involved direct appeals from top U.S. officials.

On June 27, 2001, Cheney personally discussed Enron's problem with Sonia Gandhi, the leader of India's opposition Congress Party. "Good news is that the Veep mentioned Enron in his meeting with Sonia Gandhi yesterday," said one NSC e-mail dated June 28, 2001. (I obtained this and other documents under a Freedom of Information Act request.)

Throughout summer 2001, while intelligence warnings about an expected al-Qaeda terror attack went unheeded, the NSC staff met frequently to coordinate U.S. pressure on India over Enron's plant, drawing in the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Office of U.S. Trade Representative and the Overseas Private Investment Corp., which had committed $360 million in risk insurance to the Dabhol project.

While the NSC held no follow-up meetings on the Aug. 6, 2001, intelligence warning entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S.," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice organized and led the "Dabhol Working Group."

The working group sought to broker meetings between Lay and senior Indian officials, including Brajesh Mishra, the national security adviser to Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. During a trip to India, a senior State Department official delivered a "demarche" or official warning to the Indian government, but New Delhi still resisted the U.S. pressure. Also in the summer of 2001, Enron was consolidating its influence at FERC.

Nora Mead Brownell, a controversial member of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, was named as a new FERC commissioner. In support of Brownell's appointment, Lay called White House aide Karl Rove to say that Brownell "was a strong force in getting the right outcome" in deregulating Pennsylvania's energy market, according to a July, 17, 2001, letter by Rep. Waxman to the White House counsel.

Then, in August 2001, FERC Chairman Hebert, who had gone along with the California price caps and had ordered the inquiry into Enron's arbitrage schemes, abruptly resigned only six months into his four-year term. He clearly was forced out, explaining lamely that he desired "to seek other opportunities."

Bush replaced Hebert with former Texas Public Utilities commissioner Pat Wood III. Lay had included Wood and Brownell on a list of his preferred FERC candidates. [AP, Jan. 31, 2002]

Accounting scandal

As Lay was flexing his political muscle in Washington, out of public view back in Houston, Enron's accounting house of cards was shaking. On Aug. 15, 2001, Sherron Watkins, an Enron vice president, warned Lay that accounting irregularities, including the hedges tied to Enron stock, were threatening to undo the corporation.

On Sept. 11, however, the course of George W. Bush's presidency took a sharp turn, as Islamic terrorists seized four U.S. airliners, crashing two into the World Trade towers at the heart of the U.S. financial markets. Another smashed into the Pentagon and the fourth crashed in Pennsylvania when passengers apparently battled for control.

Bush vowed to retaliate for the attacks by waging a "war on terror," finally targeting Osama bin Laden and his protectors in Afghanistan, the Taliban government. On the front lines of that new war were Pakistan and India, traditional enemies who were engaged in a brush war over the disputed territory of Kashmir.

Despite New Delhi's importance in prosecuting the "war on terror," Enron's Dabhol power plant remained at the center of U.S. relations with India.

On Sept. 28, more than two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the NSC-led Dabhol Working Group prepared "talking points" about the Enron business dispute for Cheney to deliver in a meeting with India's Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh.

On Oct. 7, the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan began with aerial assaults against Taliban targets.Two days later, on Oct. 9, the State Department was again pressing Enron's case with the Indians.

Undersecretary Alan Larson "raised the Dabhol issue with both FM Singh and NSA Mishra and got a commitment to 'try' to get the government energized on this issue prior to the PM's visit to Washington" in November, an Oct. 23 NSC e-mail said. "Pls give me one/two bullets for the President to use during his meeting with Vajpayee."

Meanwhile, Enron's financial situation was collapsing. Its credit rating was cut and its stock was falling. On Oct. 30, 2001, behind closed doors, SEC commissioners approved a formal investigation of Enron's accounting.

The NSC's Dabhol Working Group, however, continued to press for India to make concessions to Enron. On Nov. 1, the White House prepared a memo on Dabhol talking points that Bush could raise in his meeting with Prime Minister Vajpayee.

On Nov. 6, OPIC President Peter Watson sent a stern warning to Vajpayee's national security adviser Mishra. "The acute lack of progress in this matter has forced Dabhol to rise to the highest levels of the United States government," Watson said in a letter. The dispute "could have a negative effect regarding other U.S. agencies and their ability to function in India."

So, almost two months after 9/11 with the war against Afghanistan still being fought, the Bush administration was threatening India, a key regional power, with a pullout of U.S. agencies from India because it was refusing to meet Enron's demands for cash.

The Bush administration's pressure on India over Dabhol did not end until Nov. 8, the day the SEC delivered subpoenas to Enron and the company announced that it was under formal SEC investigation.

That same day, on Nov. 8 at 2:33 p.m., an internal administration e-mail warned that "President Bush can not talk about Dabhol" in his meeting with India's prime minister. As Enron slid into scandal and bankruptcy, White House officials stressed that the administration had rebuffed a couple of last-minute overtures for a bail-out from Lay, including one to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. Those rejections, administration spokesmen claimed, proved the mettle of Bush's integrity, not letting politics influence policy.

In early 2002, when OPIC officials responded to a Freedom of Information Act request by releasing documents on the Dabhol Task Force, Bush's aides dismissed the significance of the evidence. On Jan. 18, 2002, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called the Dabhol effort "not uncommon."

But the available evidence makes clear that the Dabhol operation -- like other energy-related initiatives -- represented extraordinary efforts to save Enron. Bush even put Enron's financial interests at the top of the administration's agenda with India, though it threatened to complicate relations with a key South Asian power after 9/11.

The White House also appears to have taken to task OPIC officials who released the internal e-mails in a normal response to a Freedom of Information Act request. When I sought more Enron documents under FOIA, a shaken OPIC bureaucrat told me that his agency had been perhaps too cooperative in releasing the earlier records.

All future Enron-related releases from the Bush administration amounted to boilerplate and documents that were already in the public domain.

To view the full list of citations for this article, visit the original version at Consortium News.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Robert Parry's new book is Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Oh, Kenny We Hardly Knew Ye! (Yeah, right)
Posted by: Tom Degan on May 30, 2006 12:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one, and I mean NO ONE - not Karl Rove, not Poppy, not the Supreme Court, not even the brain-dead American electorate - is more responsible for George W. Bush's ascendancy to the Presidency than "Kenny Boy" Lay. Here's something for you to munch on, kiddies: He's expecting a pardon! In fact, he's probably blackmailing the administration at this very moment.

What's to stop him from going public with the minutes from Dick Cheney's "Energy Task Force" meetings of 2001? If you'll remember, the Veep was adamant about keeping the details of that little get together secret and for a damned good reason: What they had planned for the people of this once-great country was - call it a hunch - probably not in the public interest. As a matter of fact, given the history of these hideous bastards and bitches (Hi, Condie!) it was more-than-likely criminal. You thought Bill Clinton's 11th hour pardon of Marc Rich was outrageous? Just you wait, Henry Higgins, just you wait! In the final hours of the Bush presidency which I estimate to be in about the late summer of 2007 (He'll be impeached long before 20 January 2009) Dubya's pardons will make Bubbah's look frivolous.

Ken Lay has this administration over a barrel right now. It's going to be a laugh riot in the next few months watching the machinations of the Bush White House doing everything humanly possible to keep Lay from cracking and trying to keep their distance from him at the same time - oh, a laugh riot, indeed!

SKILLING ME SOFTLY WITH HIS "SONG"

The conviction of Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling is just one more in a series of undeniable disasters for this nightmare of an administration. Watch in glee as their building starts a'crumbling! The chickens are coming home to roost - with a vengeance! This is - no ifs, ands or buts about it - the beginning of the end of the Bush Presidency. The next few months are going to be very interesting. Oh yeah, very interesting, indeed.

Pray for peace.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here is hoping you are right Posted by: HawkSpirit
The Lay tentacles still strangle
Posted by: michaeltwatson on May 30, 2006 4:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are still things about the Lay stranglehold on the Bush administration about which most people are unaware. A beautiful article in the Nov. 2005 issue of Texas Monthly details the Lay manipulation of the Texas Civil Justice system and George W., even before Georg W. became Texas governor. Lay convinced the governor and his legislators that the state could better prosper if massive tort reform measures were passed. That mission began under George W., then got brought to Washington in 2000. It was so strong that our president is still pushing for it as late as two weeks ago, when he expressed his disappointment that the Congress has not yet passed his "medical malpractice reform" package. That package, identical to Texas' package, leaves the most crippled victims of medical malpractice subject to a recovery of less than $75,000 for all of their pain, disability, disfigurement, and even the loss of a child. Lay started that ball rolling because he thought it would be good for the doctors, his investors. The same ball is still being nudged forward in Congress and the legislation will pass without anyone knowing its real meaning, unless we start seeing what is going on with the politicians that Lay helped into office in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Michael Townes Watson, author of America's Tunnel Vision, How Insurance Companies' Propaganda Is Corrupting Medicine and Law. www.AmericasTunnelVision.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on May 30, 2006 5:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cheers! You mentioned reform. In Bushspeak,reform translates to Gut It. Have you seen any "reforms" passed since 1995 that didn't gut the reformed, from Mediare to the tax code? All day yesterday Fox News kept asking if Lay and Skilling would skip the country, made me wonder if they were passing a message to Kenny Boy and Skilling in case they hadn't thought of it. They are in Texas where the size of the holes in the border patrol exceed those in Bush's head.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on May 30, 2006 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saw last week Bush has switched from a cattle ranch to a chicken ranch to provide a home for all the chickens coming home to roost

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How Many Lies? HOW MANY LIES?!
Posted by: monkeywrench on May 30, 2006 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush's Enron lies; Bush's Iraq lies; Bush's 9/11 lies, Bush's Social Security lies; Bush's "war on ter" lies; Bush's economy lies; Bush's wiretapping lies; Bush's torture lies; Bush's "Patriot-Act-makes-us-safer" lies; oh, yeah, and Bush The (codpiece-wearing) Aviation Warrior's military service lies.

Just how many lies does it take for a person to no longer be believed? How many lies told to the american people does it take for a president to be impeached? When Clinton was president, it took only one – about sex. Apparently now, in the case of our current Boob In Chief, in the minds of many oh-so-suseptable-to-advertising Americans, it takes more than can be named – or counted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How Many Lies? HOW MANY LIES?! siclofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
LET'S BOOT THE LIARS OUT!
Posted by: haddit on May 30, 2006 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Talk is now that this lying administration is asking for either a third term or a 2-year extension on this one since we "are in a war." To my way of thinking, the biggest war this country is fighting is the one against the corruption and lies in Washington. Is everybody out there signing impeachment petitions? We have to do something or we're going to lose everything!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LET'S BOOT THE LIARS OUT! sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
Don't believe anything until they are in prison.
Posted by: jreinhart1 on May 30, 2006 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until these Enron boys are in jail, I will not fall for any of it. I would like to add the Dennis Kozlowski go off on a $21 M fine from Tyco, even though his salary+benefits+perks are well beyond $1 Billion!!!! Free Yachts, homes, museum highest quality appointments ($100M in paintings alone),...

Enron created "Asset Light" accounting. This is used by the majority of corporations today. This case was so obvious that something had to be done. I don't know if many people heard Kenny boy, but he stated after the trial that this judgement would be detrimental in how business is done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liar Bush-52% of Americans are f'in stupid
Posted by: Ellie1 on May 30, 2006 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush is and always has been a liar, and the pathetic red minded voters in this g.d. country are leading us all to Hell. How many kids of these assholes are serving in this needless war? Are Bush's twin whores there? Of course not. Wake up people-Bush should not be impeached, he should be shot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our Thoughtful President and Media
Posted by: pelle_in_goal on May 30, 2006 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm trying to imagine in what context Fearless Leader said: "Price caps do nothing to reduce demand, and they do nothing to increase supply." I guess we'll never know.

When Bush made the comment the MSM had been given the day off. FEMA had inadverdently moved all its portable generators out of California and the print media's laptops had run out of battery. But -- just for fun -- let's imagine that one reporter was there. He had remembered how to build the "pineapple-and-metal-from-the-ship's-radio" battery "The Professor" made on Gilligan's Island

Reporter: "So, Mr. President you don't have anything against price caps, either, do you?"

Same Reporter -- five years later: "So, Mr. President, you're saying that Presidential pardons do nothing to increase demand, nor do they reduce supply...."

Bush: "Didn't I not aswer that question five years ago?"

And they say truth is stranger than fiction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Our Thoughtful President and Media sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
So....when do the criminal charges get filed?
Posted by: Voicedude on May 30, 2006 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, really! I want to know when the criminal charges get filed! Beleive it or not, I heard about the Enron manipulation of So Cal Edison and the manufactured 'energy crisis' in the summer of 2001 - before most people had even heard of Enron. It was in the middle of the night on a 'public service' obligated radio broadcast, and the speaker was Mike "Bogie" Boguslowski who, on radio, came off as ten times more intelligent than did as TV newscaster role as the 'guy on your side'. He went step by step through the whole process on how it was NEVER and energy crisis, but a BUDGET crisis - one created by Enron and those who allowed them to take power and manipulate events in the name of higher profit. Those guilty of coersion included our then-Governor Gray Davis, who handed control of our power grids over to these greedy charletans. It was a riveting, enlightening broadcast that made quite an impression on me as I listened on my way home. Almost immediately then, California (particularly here in Southern California) was plunged into the next phase of the 'energy crisis': brownouts. We have since learned that these brownouts were all staged in order to manipulate the price of energy sold BACK to us by Enron. (Yes, I said SOLD BACK! They got it from us to begin with, and then sold it back at a tremendous profit for themselves!) All of this is not to be dismissed as the rantings of a conspiracy theorist, btw - it's all easily verified by public documents and articles. Do some research and you'll see that all this is documented truth.

My point is this: during these staged brownouts and blackouts, PEOPLE DIED! Traffic lights went out causing vehicular accidents, the sick and the elderly succumbed to the summer heat without aid of fans or AC, power needed by some to receive medication or maintain life was unaccessable. The blackout-related deaths (again, easily verified) should have been predictable (heck, I knew they'd happen long before I read about them, as any other reasonable person could've done); and yet Davis in a power play and Enron (and others) in a greedy move for even higher profits DID IT ALL ANYWAY!

In other words, Enron, Davis, and countless others we entrusted our lives to BETRAYED US - and people died as a result! If someone removed a manhole cover, sat by and watched a little old lady fall in, and then profited from it all by selling it to a Reality TV show - well, there would be righteous indignation. We would demand justice for the wanton disregard for human life in the name of profit. These actions border on murder, and NO ONE is being called on it!

Where's the class-action lawsuit? (You KNOW there MUST be one, but is the media telling us about?) Where's the moral outrage? So I ask again: When do the criminal charges get filed?

Bush's connection to Enron was well-known BEFORE the scandal hit (it's a matter of record they helped put him in the White House!), but he tap-danced his way around the subject for a while. Just as his lies were about to catch up with him:
September 11th happened and the whole Enron issue was forgotten.

Forgotten - except to those families who suffered through what is now known as a MANUFACTURED crisis. I doubt that they have forgotten.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

KUTTNER in 2002: ENRON A _Bipartisan_ Disaster
Posted by: fairleft on May 30, 2006 2:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Understanding" Enron as a Bush II scandal avoids the lesson we must learn from it: it was a bipartisan scandal and the Democratic Leadership Council bigwigs were right in the middle of enabling it. Here's some Robert Kuttner excerpts:

New Democrats are also trying to reposition Senator [Joe] Lieberman as a champion of corporate accountability. "The Enron scandal cries out for governmental action," Lieberman writes in the DLC's magazine, Blueprint, quickly adding: "But we must acknowledge before we act that there are twin dangers of doing too little and doing too much." Ah yes, how very DLC. Before the Enron scandal broke, Lieberman was the leading Democrat working to rein in the Securities and Exchange Commission. http://www.prospect.org/
print/V13/12/kuttner-r.html

But there's second reason why Enron does not have political legs. The opposition party -- the Democrats -- were part of the problem. During the 1990s, the SEC was fighting a losing battle against new kinds of corporate scams. Politicians from both parties were opposed to a more assertive SEC.

When I was first covering economics, Republicans were the party of free enterprise and Democrats were the party of the mixed economy. Republicans believed capitalism regulated itself. Democrats knew better, remembering the Great Depression and Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal that saved capitalism from its own excesses.

As voters and citizens, we did not need to immerse ourselves in all the technical accounting details, because one party stood for the idea that capitalism needed to be regulated. In a representative democracy, our elected officials could keep track of the details.

Unfortunately, many of today's Democrats were among the leading deregulators. So even though several Enron investigations are now pending in Congress, the Democrats have largely failed to connect Enron to principled philosophical differences between the parties, because the differences are eroding.

Here is the real scandal: Both parties are letting the market system devour itself.

If investors can't trust accountants and bankers, then capitalism itself is at risk. And if politicians are corrupted by political money, there is no one to watch the watchers. http://www.prospect.org/
webfeatures/2002/04/kuttner-r-04-15.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More of the same
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 30, 2006 4:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice article!

The update in California is that Lay & friends backed Schwarzenegger in the recall election - the prize being the cancellation of an 8 billion dollar lawsuit against a wide variety of companies besides Enron who were in on the manipulation of the California energy market. That was Arnold's payback for his Texas supporters. I think the final 'settlement' was ~100 million - an 80-fold reduction.

What's amazing is how all the local and state newspapers in California just sang the party line of these Texas energy traders, and refused to cover the story - I mean, cable news was running interviews 'on the street' with people wondering "Wow - what happened to the state finances? Why couldn't they have managed it better?". Your 8 billion debt is in the hands of the energy investment banks! You think they want to give it back?

A whole lot of companies should have been sued and indicted, along with their backer banks, but that was the reason why Arnold was put in office. This was all done with barely a peep from the corporate media, too! If you had any doubts that the energy sector controls the Bush government, this should dispel them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More of the same sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
cliche life
Posted by: wleming on May 30, 2006 5:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kenny boy, and Skilling
The smartest guys now headed for jail
But it was Bush who made them
And he'll post no bail
Think the magic word: "Capitalism"
A word you never hear
Markets rule, that perfect cliche
Now repeated---
Year after year after year

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not exactly as I remember it....
Posted by: gwbushmalecheerleader on May 30, 2006 8:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And perhaps I am mistaken, but:

The last part of this article alludes to efforts by Lay and O'Neill to get Bush to assist (bail out) Enron in late October, 2001. It states Bush declined to assist, showing "integrity" or some such blather.

However, if I recall correctly, Bush DID (through his Republican minority House members) try to slip Enron some $100 million in assistance as a rider on the Airline $160 billion Bail Out. But the Dems still in charge of the House then removed it.

Is that not correct?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ECLECTICIST SEEKER, S. JIM RODRIGUEZ
Posted by: SJR505 on May 31, 2006 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE CONVERSATION IN TEXAS IS THE GENERAL CONSENSUS IS THAT KENNETH "THE THIEF" LAY WILL HAVE HIS SENTENCED PARDONED BY BUSH "SILVERFOOT" 43 AT THE END OF HIS TERM...MOST PUNDITS EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT BUSH 43'S LEGACY...THIS STATEMENT BEGS THE QUESTION : "WHAT LEGACY...???" IN MY OPINION, THE ONLY PATRIOTIC AMERICANS" , AKA - MILLIONAIRES, CEOS/CFOS, OILI/GAS MOGULS, AND "RE-PUG-NICAN NEOCOMS, CORPORATIONS, AND NATIONS LIKE CHINA, THE SAUDIS, ETC , WILL MISS BUSH 43 ARE THE "GREEDYHEADS" ....BUSH 43 HAS FULFILLED HIS CALLING OF "POSTER BOY" FOR THE ULTRA-RICH/CONSERVATIVE, AND FAT CATS THAT HAVE LITERALLY "RAPED " THE U.S. TREASURY WITH LAWS FAVORING THE HAVES, AND NOT THE HAVE-NOTS... THESE EMBILLISHMENTS BY BUSH AND HIS CRONIES REMIND ME OF AN ADAGE BY BENJAMIN DISREALI, 19TH CENTURY BRITISH PRIME MINISTER :

“THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF LIES : LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND STATISTICS.”

WHO DO YOU BELIEVE...? BUSH 43 AND HIS CAST OF 535 OR THE WORDS OF 'EL SENOR...???"

AND FINALLY THIS NOTE:

"For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? -Matthew 16:26 (Revised Standard Version)



S+JIM+RODRIGUEZ+++ECLECTICIST SEEKER+++

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement