Howard Dean

Tools    





Django's Avatar
BANNED
Originally Posted by Sir Toose
Why is it a big surprise that big business gives more to the republican party than they do to the dems? The republican agenda closely supports big business.

What should be surprising is that any money was given to the dems at all.... especially by individual contributors.
That says something, doesn't it? Enron... a Houston based energy company... one of the Bush campaign's biggest donors... Enron, with it's history of corrupt business deals and faulty financial statements... Enron, which robbed its own employees of their very life-savings... says a lot to me! To say nothing of the fact that, apparently, Enron CEO and Chairman Kenneth Lay happens to be a close personal friend of George W. Bush, and one of the top contributors to his presidential campaign and two gubernatorial campaigns in Texas.



Originally Posted by Django
That says something, doesn't it? Enron... a Houston based energy company... one of the Bush campaign's biggest donors... Enron, with it's history of corrupt business deals and faulty financial statements... Enron, which robbed its own employees of their very life-savings... says a lot to me! To say nothing of the fact that, apparently, Enron CEO and Chairman Kenneth Lay happens to be a close personal friend of George W. Bush, and one of the top contributors to his presidential campaign and to two gubernatorial campaigns in Texas.
And yet, as I pointed out earlier (without response) Bush and the Republican party have steadfastly opposed the sorts of restrictions which assisted Enron in doing that. Doesn't seem consistent with the corruption you're implying.

Neither does the fact that the earning misstatements took place under Clinton's tenure. They were only discovered under Bush. In other words, he didn't commit the murder, but he found the body. These crimes happened under Clinton's watch, and Enron got away with them until Bush took office, which would seem to imply the exact opposite of what you're insinuating.

And no, it doesn't really say much, for the reasons Toose already gave, which you haven't addressed in any way, shape, or form. All you did in response to his post, it seems, was repeat your gripes. His point (and it's a good one) is that Republicans are almost universally easier on business in general. It's not unlike Freedom of Speech in that sense; it'll produce plenty of vulgarity and idiocy, but the good dramatically outweighs the bad.



Django's Avatar
BANNED
I'll discuss this in greater depth later, but here are some quick comments:

Originally Posted by Yoda
And yet, as I pointed out earlier (without response) Bush and the Republican party have steadfastly opposed the sorts of restrictions which assisted Enron in doing that. Doesn't seem consistent with the corruption you're implying.
That sounds a lot like what Bush said about the Halliburton overcharging scam... something to the effect of "We opposed this sort of thing"... I don't know about you, but it rings hollow.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Neither does the fact that the earning misstatements took place under Clinton's tenure. They were only discovered under Bush. In other words, he didn't commit the murder, but he found the body. These crimes happened under Clinton's watch, and Enron got away with them until Bush took office, which would seem to imply the exact opposite of what you're insinuating.
The difference, of course, is that regardless of the timing of when this happened, Clinton's job was President of the United States, not President of Enron. On the other hand, Chairman and CEO of Enron, Kenneth Lay, remains a long-time ally and personal friend of Bush. Also, your remark seems to imply that the Bush administration had a personal hand in exposing Enron. My understanding, and I have yet to investigate this so please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, is that Enron's dirty dealings were exposed only when the company got into financial trouble. More on this later.

Originally Posted by Yoda
And no, it doesn't really say much, for the reasons Toose already gave, which you haven't addressed in any way, shape, or form. All you did in response to his post, it seems, was repeat your gripes. His point (and it's a good one) is that Republicans are almost universally easier on business in general. It's not unlike Freedom of Speech in that sense; it'll produce plenty of vulgarity and idiocy, but the good dramatically outweighs the bad.
I'll address this later.



Django's Avatar
BANNED
Originally Posted by Yoda
I'm glad you brought this up, though, because the Enron debacle was caused in part because employees did not have enough control over their 401(k) plans. By my memory, Republicans have been trying to change that for quite awhile by giving employees the option to invest such money where they see fit. They've been repeatedly shot down by the Democratic opposition.
Okay, Here's a news article that makes it plain that the reforms you have described above were only undertaken after the Enron scandal, as a reactionary move designed to distance the White House from Enron. Keep in mind that Enron CEO Kenneth Lay is a Bush family friend and was the biggest contributor to the Bush Jr. Presidential campaign fund:

Enron scandal gets worse
The White House must be forthcoming and cooperative with investigators, wherever the questions lead.
January 13, 2002

The Bush administration last week launched several pre-emptive strikes in the swiftly mushrooming Enron scandal, but they were overshadowed by the bombshell revelation by the company's auditor that thousands of Enron documents sought by a congressional committee investigating the firm had been destroyed.

As red flags go, this one is a doozy.

A former member of the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon hearing of the destroyed documents, called the act "unconscionable." A lot of people went further, saying it could be criminal.

Indeed, everything about this affair suggests the unconscionable and the criminal. Small wonder President Bush has sought to distance himself from the shocking disintegration of what was the world's largest energy company and just happened to be run by a longtime friend of the Bush family who was also the biggest contributor to the younger Bush's presidential camapaign.

In his first direct comment on the controversy, the president last week said he had "never discussed" the financial problems of Enron with Kenneth Lay, company CEO and Bush supporter. Bush also pledged that his administration would "fully investigate issues such as the Enron bankruptcy to make sure we learn from the past."

That's fine, but it's hardly enough.

From what has been reported, Enron's top executives appear to have:
  • Lied to stockholders and federal regulators about the company's true financial situation.
  • Used shady accounting techniques to shift Enron funds to accounts held by Enron partners.
  • Sold off $1 billion in Enron stocks before the collapse began, while at the same time prohibiting Enron employees from selling their Enron shares. Those shares made up some 70 percent of Enron workers' investments in 401(k) retirement plans. When the company finally revealed its true financial situation, the price of Enron shares plummeted to 65 cents, leaving employees' retirement plans almost worthless. Millions were lost. This is the most unconscionable and potentially criminal act of all.
  • Called Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Commerce Secretary Don Evans last fall looking for help because a bond rating company was set to lower Enron's credit rating. That would make nearly $4 billion in Enron debt come due. The White House revealed these phone calls and several others last week as part of the pre-emptive campaign, adding that the administration did nothing to help Enron.

The most significant White House step taken last week was the formation of a Justice Department task force to conduct a criminal investigation of Enron. That unusual approach was taken because of the company's far-reaching ties in government. Attorney General John Ashcroft has recused himself from the probe because he received more than $57,000 in campaign contributions from Enron executives for his failed 2002 U.S. Senate campaign in Missouri.

In another act that demonstrates Enron's wide reach, the entire staff of the U.S. attorney's office in Houston, where Enron is based, also recused itself from the Justice probe.

Finally, President Bush also ordered a review of rules for retirement funds to protect others from the fate of Enron's employees. This may be what Bush meant when he talked about learning from the past, which is certainly something that needs to happen. Retirement plans should not be stock reinvestment plans. Company employees should not lose their life savings because company executives steer the firm into bankuptcy, especially when they hide the truth from everyone. (emphasis mine: this is the point you mentioned, Yoda--looks like a reactionary move to the scandal)

Last week's developments have propelled the Enron story from a controversy the White House hoped to remain at arm's length from into a full-scale scandal with several congressional investigations, the Justice Department criminal probe and reviews by the Treasury Departmnt, the SEC, the Federal Reserve and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

With all this activity, can a special prosecutor be far behind?

After all, the revelation that Lay called Cabinet officials last fall means the White House knew that Enron was on the verge of collapse, but seems to have done nothing to protect Enron employees and shareholders.

Furthermore, Vice President Dick Cheney, head of the president's energy task force, has refused to reveal the details of six closed-door meetings he had with Lay last year. This stonewalling by Cheney is reminiscent of previous administrations involved in scandals.

Add to this the destruction of paper and electronic files by Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm that was Enron's supposedly independent auditor, and it is clear there are a lot of people who have not learned from history, as the president suggested should happen.

The president has enjoyed unprecedentedly high approval ratings because of his conduct of the war on terrorism, and deservedly so. But he has remained suspect on the homefront, especially because of his well-known ties to business, notably in the energy industry. Enron's sudden collapse and its fallout have revived those concerns.

If the White House hopes to maintain its credibility and wide support among the American people, it must make sure the Justice Department probe is conducted vigorously and without interference from anyone connected to the administration. It must make sure all questions are answered and materials requested provided.

Given the powerful people and vast sums of money involved, there can be no other way for the White House to deal with this scandal, regardless of how embarrassing some of the questions may be.

If anything, history teaches us that.



Django's Avatar
BANNED
Here's another fascinating article... (more to come later)

The Enron-Cheney-Taliban Connection?
By Ron Callari, Albion Monitor
February 28, 2002


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?

1: Starting in the mid-1990s, Unocal and its partners planned to build a 1,000 mile gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Multan, Pakistan. Cost: about $2 billion (all pipeline routes shown are very approximate). Also considered was a more difficult route from Iran to Multan, which is not shown here.

2: A proposed 400-mile extension from Multan to New Delhi would bring some of the ultra-cheap gas into India's network of gas pipelines. Cost: $600 million.

3: The HBJ pipeline carries most of India's liquid natural gas.

4: Hazira, north of Bombay, is the end of the HBJ pipeline. But in 1997, Enron announced plans to link Dabhol to the Hazira terminal. Enron also said they were going to add to about 1500 miles to the HBJ pipeline. Costs: $300 million and $900 million, respectively.

5: Any gas pipeline across Pakistan could have a spur to the seaport of Gwadar, where tankers could take gas to Korea and Japan, largest consumers of liquid gas in the world. A sea route from Gwadar to Dabhol would be even easier.

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. At the end of their stay, the Afghan visitors were invited to Washington to meet with the government officials of the Clinton Administration.

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.

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.

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.
Another article:

How Much Were Bush and Cheney Involved?

June 5, 1992: Enron sent a group of officials to New Delhi to make arrangements to survey the land around Dabhol for the purpose of building a large power plant.

June 20, 1992: Enron and the government of the state of Maharashtra signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding to build the plant. This led to formation of the Dabhol Power Company (DPC), a joint venture of Enron and two other American corporations, General Electric and Bechtel.

February, 1993: A formal agreement was signed for a plant that could generate about 2450 megawatts at an approximate cost of $3 billion.

April, 1993: Heinz Vergin, World Bank manager for India, rejects Enron's loan application, saying that the Dabhol plant is "not economically viable."

November, 1993: The Central Electricity Authority in New Delhi gave provisional clearance to the project. It was the largest single foreign investment in India.

1994: The Washington-based Export-Import Bank approved a $302 million loan toward a $3 billion Enron-controlled power plant in India. President Clinton took an interest in the deal, asking the U.S. ambassador to that country and his former chief of staff, Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty, then a presidential adviser, to monitor the proposal.

August, 1995: Clinton administration's cabinet members, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, personally urged India to accept Enron's proposed project.

October, 1995: Indian Prime Minister Rao and Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati discussed a routing alternatives for a natural gas pipeline, including one which would run through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

1996: "Mack" McLarty, who later became a paid Enron director, spoke with Ken Lay on several occasions about the plant. Four days before India granted approval for Enron's project, the Houston-based firm contributed $100,000 to the Democratic Party.

1996: Enron signed a contract giving it rights to explore 11 gas fields in Uzbekistan, a project costing $1.3 billion. The goal was to sell gas to the Russian markets, and link to Unocal's southern export pipeline crossing Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan.

January 8, 1996: Enron and the state government of Maharashtra reached a new agreement that would shift some of the construction costs and lower the electricity tariffs.

June,1997: As an advisor for Unocal, Zalmay Khalilzad drew up a risk analysis of a proposed gas pipeline from the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. He participated in talks and social meetings between Unocal and Taliban officials in 1997.

June 3, 1997: 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.

November 14, 1997: Enron International's CEO Rebecca Mark unveiled an energy plan that included a $300 million project to build a pipeline from Dabhol to Hazira and to the North to add 1200 km of complimentary pipeline system to the existing HBJ pipeline at a cost of $900 million.

December 7, 1997: Unocal invited a Taliban contingency to visit them in Houston, Texas, housed them in five-star hotels, dined them at the home of Unocal VP and medically treated the former foreign minister, Mullah Mohammed Ghaus before he returned home.

February 12, 1998: Testimony of John J Maresca, vice-president, international relations, Unocal Corporation was heard by the House Committee on International Relations and the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific regarding "a proposed extension (of the proposed trans-Caspian pipeline) would link with the SUI pipeline system, moving gas to near New Delhi, where it would connect with the existing HBJ pipeline..."

June 23, 1998: In a speech to the "Collateral Damage Conference" of the Cato Institute, Cheney said, "the good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is."

July 29 ,1998: The Department of State is pleased that Turkmen Minister of Oil and Gas Arazov announced Turkmenistan's selection of the U.S. company Enron to carry out a feasibility study funded by the Trade and Development Agency for a trans-Caspian gas pipeline.

August 20, 1998: U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles target Kandahar Afghanistan and sites believed to be Osama bin Laden's training camps. Shortly after, the UN imposes sanctions on Afghanistan that isolate the nation.

January 25, 1999: Human Rights Watch released a report that indicated human right 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 representatives of villagers' organizations in the affected area organized to oppose the project and, as a direct result of their opposition, were subjected to beatings, repeated short-term detention and were not paid.

February, 1999: Joint agreement signed by Turkmenistan and two American companies, Bechtel and GE Capital Services to build a $2.5 billion trans-Caspian pipeline, after Enron conducted a feasibility study.

November, 1999: Enron purchased 5.1 percent of the company that operates the country's sole long-distance gas pipeline, which runs from the offshore gas fields in the Bombay High area to the country's capital, New Delhi.

June-Oct 2000: Maharashtra government allies demand scrapping the project because of the cost of the power it produces.

Early 2001: Vice President Cheney held several secret meetings with top Enron officials, including its Chairman Kenneth Lay. These meetings were presumably part of Cheney's non-public Energy Task Force sessions. A number of Enron stockholders, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, became officials in the Bush administration. In addition, Thomas White, a former Vice Chairman of Enron and a multimillionaire in Enron stock, currently serves as the Secretary of the Army.

February, 2001: 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 Enron's power plant in India.

March, 2001: Laila Helms, the part- Afghan niece of the former CIA director and former U.S. ambassador to Tehran Richard Helms is described as unofficial Taliban representative in Washington. Ms Helms brought Sayed Rahmatullah Hashimi, an adviser to Mullah Omar, to Washington.after the Taliban had destroyed the ancient Buddhas of Bamiyan. Hashimi met the directorate of Central Intelligence at the CIA and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department.

April, 2001: An Enron memo, which Lay gave Cheney during their one-on-one meeting, makes eight energy-policy recommendations. Seven out of eight recommendations were adopted in the administration's final energy plan.

May, 2001: A conference held at the Brookings Institution provides evidence that the exploitation of Caspian Basin and Asian energy markets was an urgent priority for the Bush administration, and the centerpiece of its energy policy

May, 17, 2001: The U.S. indirectly gives $43 million to Afghanistan's Taliban government as a reward for its efforts to stamp out opium-poppy cultivation. The same day, White House's energy policy recommended, "the president direct the Secretaries of State and Energy to work with India's Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to help India maximize its domestic oil and gas production."

June, 2001: Construction halted on the Dabhol plant.

June, 27, 2001: Cheney stepped in to try to help Enron collect a $64 million debt from Dabhol. Conducted at a Washington meeting between Cheney and the leader of India's opposition, Sonia Gandhi.

June 28, 2001: "Good news" a NSC staff member wrote in a e-mail memo: "The Veep mentioned Enron in his meeting with Sonia Gandhi." An unnamed government staff member wrote that (s)he would "ask the Indians" if Kenneth Lay "is invited to the dinner" with India's national security adviser, Brajesh Mishra. The memo is part of a series uncovered by the Washington Post that revealed that the National Security Council led a "Dabhol Working Group."

June 30, 2001: Another Dabhol Working Group memo states the need to "broaden the advocacy" and recommends diplomatic action by the U.S. Embassy and the Ambassador. The memo also notes that Christina Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for the U.S. government, met with a top aide to the Indian prime minister. The memo is marked as a "Confidential Business Communication."

August 2, 2001: The last meeting between U.S. and Taliban representatives took place five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington, the analysts maintain. On that occasion, Christina Rocca met the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in Islamabad.

August 27, 2001: Kenneth Lay wrote another email to his employee/stockholders extolling the value of an employee stock option program, describing a "significantly higher price" the stock would bring in the near future.

September 5, 2001: Lay announces that the company will divest itself of $4-$5 billion in assets in the next two years.

September 10, 2001: "Those who control the oil routes out of Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of flow and the distribution of revenues from new production," wrote energy expert James Dorian in Oil & Gas Journal, published the day before the terrorist attacks.

September 14, 2001: Unocal issued the following statement: "The company is not supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan in any way whatsoever. Nor do we have any project or involvement in Afghanistan." Lay also writes to the Prime Minister of India, insisting that his $2.3 billion asking price is reasonable "compared to the size of our legal claim," which Enron placed at $5 billion. September 19, 2001: Enron invokes a clause in its Dabhol power plant contract, claiming that because the Maharashtra State Electricity Board has violated its power purchase agreement, the Maharashtra state government and the government of India are liable for $5 billion.

October 3, 2001: Cheney meets with India External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh. The NSC sends "Dabhol talking points" to Cheney's staff.

November 1, 2001: Bush signed Executive Order 13233 which limits public access to papers of all presidents since 1980 – including George W. Bush. Another memo written this day states that talking points for Bush were prepared for his meeting with the India Prime Minister. Bush did not discuss Enron during the meeting.

November 6, 2001: OPIC President Peter Watson contacts a top aide of the Indian Prime Minister: "The acute lack of progress in this matter has forced Dabhol to rise to the highest levels of the United States government."

November 8, 2001: Enron president Lawrence "Greg" Whalley called Treasury Undersecretary Peter Fisher in late October and 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."

November 9, 2001: An e-mail noted that Lawrence Lindsey, chairman of Bush's National Economic Council, had met India's National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra on Nov. 7, but it said Lindsey was "advised that he could not discuss Dabhol." Lindsey is a former Enron consultant and had served on its board of advisers.

Late November, 2001: Lay called Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Commerce Secretary Don Evans seeking a last-minute federal bailout and was turned down.

December 2, 2001: Enron files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

December 27, 2001: Bush Administration repealed a Clinton-era rule that prevents the government from awarding federal contracts to businesses that have broken environmental, labor, tax, civil rights or other laws.

December 31, 2001: President Bush appointed a former aide to Unocal, Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad, as special envoy to Afghanistan. The nomination was announced nine days after the US-backed interim government of Hamid Karzai took office in Kabul.

January 17, 2002: Enron reportedly filed an approximately $200 million claim with the U.S. government's Overseas Private Investment Corporation in an attempt to recoup losses from the Dabhol Power Corporation.

January 18, 2002: According to documents released on this date, it was noted the Bush administration intervened with top Indian officials last year in a bid to salvage the Enron project in India. The White House said the effort, involving Vice President Dick Cheney and other senior officials, was justified because the $2.9 billion Dabhol power project was financed in part through the U.S. government's Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a taxpayer-backed agency that provides "political risk" insurance and loans to help U.S. companies invest in developing nations. The White House denied the push was influenced by Enron's political contributions.

January 28, 2002: U.S. Ambassador Robert Blackwell addresses an Indian energy industry meeting and demands India honor the "sanctity of contract" and make good on the Enron debt, warning that India's hopes for "big-time international investment" could be harmed otherwise.

February 8, 2002: Afghanistan's interim leader Hamid Karzai said he and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had agreed to revive a plan for a trans-Caspian gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan.

February 9, 2002: Turkmenistan hopes the fragile peace in neighboring Afghanistan will allow work to resume on the natural gas pipeline connecting to Pakistan.

February 20, 2002: OPIC reveals that it gave Enron $554 million in loans and $204 million in insurance. Congress also learns the the Export-Import Bank loaned $675 million to Enron and associated companies.

February 22, 2002: The GAO sues Cheney for refusing to reveal details of his meetings with Enron officials. It is the first time that the agency has sued a member of the executive branch of government.



Django's Avatar
BANNED
Another fascinating article:

BUSH ENERGY PLAN - POLICY OR PAYBACK?(BBC TRANSCRIPT)
BBC Newsnight
Thursday, May 17, 2001


[JIMI HENDRIX PLAYS, 'STAR-SPANGLED BANNER.']

VOICE OF JIM HIGHTOWER, FORMER TEXAS STATE AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER
"Any fantasy that a CEO has can come true if you put enough money into Bush's political ambitions."

LIST OF BIGGEST ENERGY INDUSTRY DONORS TO REPUBLICAN PARTY DURING BUSH CAMPAIGN:

ENRON $1,800,000
EXXON $1,200,000
KOCH INDUSTRIES $970,000
SOUTHERN $900,000
BP AMOCO $800,000
LEHMAN BROTHERS $808,000
EL PASO ENERGY $787,000
CHEVRON OIL CORP 780,000
RELIANT ENERGY $642,000
TEXAS UTILITIES TXU $635,000

VOICE OF LaNell ANDERSON, TEXAN BUCKET BRIGADE
"Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the that the lobbyists' money has found its mark"

[Bush energy policy line at top...]
From the moment GB announced he was running for President 50 MILLION dollars came in from Texas-based energy companies but they got a payback of 5 billion dollars - half delivered since GB was President and half while he was still Governor of Texas which is where it all begins.


[GREG PALAST IN AN AIRPLANE OVER HOUSTON, TEXAS]
Welcome to Toxic Texas - a 15 mile wide forest of smoke stacks on the edge of Houston. A place famous for pumping out pollution, profits and the political donations which put George Bush into the White House. Let's go down and take a look.

PALAST:
When it comes to pollution, Texas is champ the No 1 state in emissions of greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals

[FLARING SMOKE stack -]
We watched this mile long cloud of black smoke - and flames 200 ft high -- erupting out of a Houston cracking plant -- they are burning off a ruined batch of ethylene and other toxic chemicals after a hydrogen line snapped.

This sort of accident is common this side of Houston where poisonous smoke rains on local neighbourhoods. And its not just VISIBLE emissions locals have to worry about.

LaNell Anderson lived in the shadow of the Houston smoke stacks - her mother and father died too young - bone cancer and lung disease - and LaNell became suspicious.

She started taking air samples after an ethylene leak caused the local high school running team to collapse on the track.

Lab analysis of her bucket samples has found carcinogens in the air way above legal limits.

LaNell, PULLING AIR SAMPLE BAG FROM BUCKET: 'THIS IS AN Excellent sample' ....

She has since found that local cancer cases are twice the normal rate. She took us on a toxic tour.

[LANELL INTERVIEW]
GP "What are you doing?"
LA "I'm smelling something - do you smell it"
GP Its disgusting but what is it we're smelling?
LA Its Hydrogen Sulphide because its that bad eggs smell
GP Are they supposed to be releasing Hydrogen Sulphide
LA No they're not supposed to be releasing anything these are outside chemical impacts that's not supposed to happen its supposed to stop at that fenceline.

So how do the polluters get away with it?

LANELL Vending machine governance is where the lobbyists put the money in and out comes lax regulation.

LA Its just an ongoing war with the ..they do not care what their neighbours think they do not care if their neighbours die.

This is the home of America's petrochemical industry - the nation's biggest refinery, Exxon's plant in Baytown.

LANELL
Exxon are on my radar - they're the largest emitter in Harris county and they have the worst attitude of any corporation I've ever witnessed...

PALAST:
Exxon wouldn't accept that and neither would George Bush - as Texas Governor Bush QUIETLY set up a committee led by Exxon, with other big oil and chemical companies to advise him what to do about the state's deadly air pollution.

SHOT OF ACTUAL LETTER FROM EXXON TO GOVERNOR GEORGE W BUSH

Regulators wanted compulsory cuts in emissions of up to 50%. This "secret" committee instead proposed making the cuts ... voluntary. Bush steered the polluters plan through the State legislature.

Texas anti-corruption law makes it illegal to donate money to Bush as Governor while such legislation is under consideration. But that month, Bush declared for President - making the150,000 dollars donated by committee
members and their representatives completely legal.

The bill passed and pollution did go down - by 3% ... Saving the companies hundreds of millions of dollars compared to the COMPULSORY cut.

And there's been a bonus for chemical industry donors since Bush became President. Newsnight learned he's quietly RESTRICTING public access to
estimates of the number of people who will burn or die in case of a catastrophic explosion
near these plants.

Car Radio OVER SCENES OF SMOGGY HOUSTON:
"This is Randy Lemon's gardening spot..."

PALAST: On a clear day you can see Downtown Houston

RADIO:
"A car went in through the front doors and out through the back doors"

STILLS OF BASEBALL GAME - HOUSTON ASTROS AT ENRON FIELD.

PALAST IN FRONT OF BALL PARK IN HOUSTON:
This is Enron field - new home to the Houston Astros - $265 million including the sliding roof. You've never heard of Enron Corporation? They're
America's Number One power trading team and they know you can't win the power game unless you play the political game and they're the champs. No one's given more money to the political campaigns of George Bush than Enron - let's go see if we can find their HQ.

The biggest power traders are on this corner.

[PALAST WALKING THROUGH DOWNTOWN HOUSTON ...]
Is this it? No! El Paso - EL PASO's in a little trouble, under investigation for manipulating the California power market - luckily they gave 3/4 of a million to the Republican campaign. This it? -No that's Reliant -- $600,000 to the Republicans - Oh [POINTING TO BUILDING ACROSS STREET] Mr Farish's building ... He gave 140 thousand dollars and Bush made him ambassador to Great Britain - the guy who got France put up $400,000 ... lets see oh [POINTS TO FOURTH BUILDING] Dynegy! only 300 grand ... [LOOKS DOWN STREET] there's a new building maybe that's our boys.

PALAST: Investigations are proceeding into profiteering by power traders during the California energy crisis and black-outs. The State of California has accused El Paso corporation and Dynegy of deliberately restricting the flow of natural gas through the pipeline from Texas CREATING an artificial
shortage which caused prices to go up ten fold.

[GRAPHIC - CALIFORNIA GAS PRICE SPIKE.]

[graphic - Clinton notice DOE

So - on December 14 President Clinton ordered an end to speculation in energy prices in California - which bit into the profits of El Paso and Dynegy ... and Enron and Reliant too. But they were betting on another horse. Between them they gave $3.5 million to Bush and the Republicans.

Reliant told us "Frankly, we feel some andidate's philosophies will benefit the company, its stockholders, and its customers more than will others"

Three days after his inauguation Bush swept away Clinton's anti-speculation orders.

[PHOTO OF BUSH ANNOUNCEMENT ENDING CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CONTROLS]

Profits for these four power traders are up 220 million in the first quarter.

PALAST IN FRONT OF ENRON:
After Bush lifted controls Enron's profits jumped up by 87 million not a bad return on political contributions of 1.8 million dollars.

PALAST IN AIRPLANE TAKING OFF FROM RURAL AIRSTRIP ...

We've skedaddled out of the big city following the Bush money trail 200 miles West into the Mesquite ranches and cowboy country - but there's a big hole on the range where the deer and antelopes should be playing.

FILM FROM PALAST'S PLANE OF HUGE STRIP MINE, BLACK MILE-LONG PIT ...

PALAST IN AIRPLANE: See that lovely scar down there? that's a lignite strip mine - about the filthiest fuel you can burn feeds the Alcoa aluminum plant I wonder what its like to live next door to that thing?

Alcoa was facing a demand to cut emissions by 50%, that would have meant replacing the cheap and dirty lignite with clean but expensive natural gas.

But Within a month of passage of Bush's 'voluntary' pollution law,attorneys with the law firm pleading Alcoa's case to the regulators gave $170,000 to the Republican campaign. Coincidence? Alcoa deny any link they
told us they "exert no control over the legal and lobbying firms" they retain.

According to Alcoa's own figures not switching to gas saved them $100 million.


PALAST - DRIVING THROUGH SMALL TEXAS TOWN ...
In sleepy Rockdale, rancher Wayne Brinkley faces the fallout.

PALAST - POINTING AT DIRTY FARM TRAILER - WHY DON'T YOU CLEAN THAT THING,BUDDY?
WAYNE: YA' CAN'T. I TRIED EVERYTHING. THAT'S POTASH FROM THE PLANT. SEE THAT RUST ON THAT SHED? THAT'S FROM THE PLANT TOO. BUT IF THEIR
POISONS KILL THAT TREE (POINTS TO OAK), I'LL BE REALLY MAD!

PALAST - LOOKING AT DEAD MESQUITE: Too late for that one

WAYNE: POINTING TO ALCOA ALUMINUM PLANT IN DISTANCE, BROWN SMOKE POURING FROM STACKS ...

It's like Sulphur burning your skin ... there's just lot of pollution comes out of that plant they just don't seem like they want to do anything about it.

PALAST: And there will be no point going to the Environmental Protection Agency. Newsnight has discovered, deep in Bush's new budget, the million-dollar fund for civil enforcement to deter pollution will be axed. Law enforcement will be left to locals - and in Texas, the weak State watchdog is letting Alcoa open a new lignite pit 20 miles away.

Other Texas ranchers are stopping by Wayne's to get a look at their future...

Rancher Billie Woods drives in - Hi wayne how's it going - Billie's ranch is now threatened

PALAST TO BILLIE: Its only a little hole - hey, America needs aluminum.

B: Its not a little hole! its 250 feet deep! - they pump out all the water my well will go dry. they run their operations 365 days a year 24 hours a day. I will no longer be able to see stars at night.


Palast voice: Alcoa's former chief Paul O'Neill is making new friends - Bush named him Secretary of the US Treasury ... so O'Neill has to sell off
his Alcoa shares - he'll get about $100 million. Alcoa made a $100,000 contribution to the Bush Cheney inaugural. They told us this was in honor of Paul O'Neill.

He's also on Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Group.

Apart from Paul O'Neill, the committee includes Bush's Commerce Secretary Don Evans - he was CEO of Tom Brown Inc a billion dollar oil and gas
company, and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, a motor industry favorite - they gave him $700,000 last year... and of course Dick Cheney, the Vice President,former boss of Halliburton which builds nuclear power plants and is the world's largest oil services company. And what a coincidence. Today, the Cheney group recommended building
more nukes, drilling more oil and burning more coal.

MUSIC RADIO DRIVE IN TO AUSTIN
Our hunt for the secret behind Bush's astonishing fundraising prowess eventually led us to the Texas state capital.

Executives of the big banking firm MBNA invested 3 million dollars in George Bush's political career. Their boss, Charles M Cawley, contributed $70,000 himself.

IN FRONT OF CAPITOL, WASHINGTON DC: Craig
McDonald - [Director, Texans for Public Justice.]

- what did they get - one of the first major pieces of legislation to go through Congress under President Bush is a bankruptcy bill that protects mbna the largest manufacturer and seller of credit cards, citizens in this country can no longer write off credit card debt when they file for bankruptcy it was a key priority of Mr Cawley and his bank and he bet early and he bet often on our Governor would some day be in the White House and would some day be able to deliver on this favour

PALAST: Wall Street analysts put MBNA's gain at 75 million dollars

GRAPHIC: PAYBACK $75 MILLION

Cawley is a 'Pioneer' - not the kind that lives in a little house on the prairie -- but a member of a special club set up by George Bush.

MCDONALD:
"He put together this network of what they call the pioneers, a group of 400 people most of them corporate executives who pledged to raise a minimum of $100,000. That network alone raised over 40 million dollars

PALAST: But what did they get in return? We went into the capital to ask a real Pioneer the tough questions ...

[Palast in the Office of Texas State Senator Teel Bivins]
PALAST: Tell us about your chaps
BIVINS: No they're not chaps! they're shaps! these are called shaps they're spelt c.h.a.p.s but I'm in the ranching business that's what a real Texan does...

Palast Senator Teel Bivins is a power in the Texas Legislature ... one of the founding pioneers, along with Ken Lay, CEO of Enron Corporation. George W gave the Senator his nick-name.

BIVINS: I'm Biv - he met me and i said Teel Bivins and he said Biv and that was it I've been Biv ever since...

So if Americans want to be on first-name terms with their President, do they have to pay for it?

BIVINS:
The reality is individuals in a country of 300 million people have very little opportunity to speak to the President of the United States

Palast to Bivins: Well, Ken Lay who was a Pioneer had direct access to the President as a member of the transition team advising the Governor on energy matters including those issues in California which made Enron a very profitable corporation this year so he's had direct access as a Pioneer?

BIVINS: And so you wouldn't have direct access if you had spent 2 years of your life working hard to get this guy elected President raising hundreds of thousands of dollars... "you dance with them what brung ya"

[Palast flying over Houston chemical plants, traffic and smog, playing Hendrix ...]
This is the model for Bush's America - for Bush's planet - It's all in Cheney's energy announcement - another Pioneer payday.

END OF TRANSCRIPT

Award-winning reporter Palast writes Inside Corporate America for the London Observer. To read other Palast reports, to contact the author or to subscribe to his column, go to GregPalast.Com



Django's Avatar
BANNED
Another interesting article, from the Guardian:

'It would help Enron if you made that call' Bush was told

Price of power

He has won the Afghan war, but President Bush's peace is threatened by the Enron scandal. Ed Vulliamy reveals how far the White House is entwined in the biggest bankruptcy in US history

Sunday January 13, 2002
The Observer


As he approaches the first anniversary of his inauguration, George W Bush is under siege. He has won the war in Afghanistan, but finds himself engaged in a new battle against a scandal that is threatening to dog his administration and tarnish his reputation .
Bush and his administration have been revealed as entwined in a story of corporate greed and political manipulation by an energy firm called Enron, now under double criminal investigation.

The scandal - in which the life savings and retirement funds of tens of thousands of employees vanished while a number of executive directors lined their pockets - reaches so high that John Ashcroft, the Attorney-General, has had to withdraw from the investigation because he received Enron money, and lawsuits are the pipeline to force Vice-President Dick Cheney for details of his contacts with the company.

The day Bush took office - a year ago next Saturday - was as cold and comfortless as his victory; his motorcade braved driving rain and a gauntlet of demonstrations marking the most contested and ugliest election result in US history. After 11 September, the world changed and so did America's view of Bush. He became the only President since Franklin Roosevelt to maintain the support of over 80 per cent of Americans for weeks on end.

But now the White House is laid bare by what rivals call 'Enronomics' - the political fable of the Enron corporation.

It has long been reported how the Bush administration and family is beholden to the energy industry. Before the Afghan war, an 'Energy Task Force' favourable to the industry was the main concern for Cheney, who himself came to office from the biggest oil equipment firm in the world.

Enron was just the kind of scandal a war would hide. The company plunged from a stock rating worth $60 billion - seventh on the Fortune list of US companies - into the biggest bankruptcy filing in US history, registered on 2 December.

The ethical - maybe criminal - core of the scandal is that Enron trapped its employees into a 'stock-lock', whereby they were not allowed to sell share options bought by way of savings. When the company collapsed, they lost everything. Meanwhile, Enron's executives - blessed by inside information and foresight - made a killing by scrambling to sell shares before the price collapsed.

The victims of Enron's rise and fall were regular employees who opted to join a savings plan by investing in their employer - and why not? With soaring energy prices and giddy profits, the share value quadrupled between 1997 and January last year. The catch was they were not allowed to sell.

They were people like Pat Betteridge, of the subsidiary Portland General Electric company in Oregon, who remembers grand claims by Enron chief executive Kenneth Lay on a visit north: 'We like to think of ourselves,' he bragged, 'as the Microsoft of the energy world.'

Betteridge used his $300,000 retirement savings to buy 3,500 shares - now worth not a cent. 'If I was hired to do electrical work and I botched it as bad as them,' he says, 'I'd either be doing time or get my licence yanked.'

The beneficiaries of the company's surge to power were those who boarded the wheel of perpetual motion that binds the Bush administration to the energy industry. Then the company's brass even tried to make their fortune out of its fall as well.

The Observer has dug into Enron's past to find that intimate connections with Bush and his Texan Republicans started long before the campaigns that brought them to Washington

Enron is a Houston-based utility trading company that sells energy to consumers, industrial and domestic. It is one of the biggest of its kind in the world - a standing it owes in no small part to Bush's governorship in Texas.

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 and Enron have been bountiful contributors to George Bush Jnr. Since 1993, company executives have donated nearly $2 million to him personally. Lay also donated $326,000 in soft money to the Republican Party over the three years prior to Bush's presidential bid and his wife added $100,000 for the inauguration festivities.

The administration is splattered with senior officials owning stock in Enron. Economic adviser Larry Lindsay and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick went straight from Enron's payroll into office.

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. It is not known which - if any - of these privileged stockholders sold their shares along with the Enron bosses, or suffered the same loss as everyone else. Such details will appear when they make this year's filings - leaving any that did so open to ethical, if not criminal, inquiry.

Bush has pursued the aggressive deregulation policies preferred by Enron and its kind, including legislation that exempts key elements of Enron's energy business from oversight by the federal government - pushed by none other than Senator Phil Gramm.

Lay's hand can meanwhile be found behind such episodes as the sudden replacement of Curtis Hebert as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Texan Pat Wood, a friend of Lay. According to one source, the sacking after only weeks in the job came after 'an unsettling telephone conversation with Kenneth Lay' in which he was 'prodded to back a faster pace in opening up access to the electricity transmission grid'.

For all its troubles, Enron continued to benefit from Bush policies - markedly a refusal to step in and help California during the energy crisis last year, leaving consumers to pay the price... to Enron.

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.

For Enron was playing a double game. In the run-up to the announcement, its president, Greg Whalley, was frantically lobbying another wing of the administration for help in arranging loans. His point man was Undersecretary Peter Fisher.

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.

But the Republicans were not the only political heavyweights to benefit from Enron's greed. The company has made donations to many Democrats too - some 27 per cent of its political contributions, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics in Washington.

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.

These are matters for the six Congressional committees preparing to investigate Enron. But they will have to wait for the two criminal investigations launched this week: one into Enron's bankruptcy, the other into the admission by the company's auditor, Arthur Andersen, that it destroyed thousands of documents about the bankruptcy.

Andersen had good reason to destroy the papers. The reasons for Enron's destruction when all the winds seemed to blow behind the company's fortunes are associated with the labyrinth of subsidiaries built up by Chief Finance Officer Andrew Fastow, fired on 24 October, and other executives.

Fastow created partnerships with what were described as outside, independently-run companies with names such as 'Chewco' or 'Jedi' - after characters in Star Wars - that were owned by him or others with Enron backing.

As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars were slushing overseas to tax havens as Fastow and other executives - so they said - sought to shore up the company against a possible fall in energy prices. What they were allegedly doing was amassing personal fortunes.

The ensuing gaps in the balance sheet became a gaping abyss which could not be hidden and down which the company finally fell. Enron admitted that it had overstated profits by $400m in reports issued since. However, Chewco alone enabled Enron to be able to keep some $600m of debt off its books.

The crucial criminal issue is whether executives misled investors by inflating revenues and minimising debts. The political issue is how closely entwined is the Washington elite - and the immediate circle around Bush.

Seven months of Bush's oil-friendly presidency was driven out of the spotlight by 11 September. It had pleased the industry for its isolationism and determination to withdraw from world affairs - the Kyoto Accords on global warming or arms reduction with Russia.

Domestically, Bush's cause was an articulate one: a tax cut worth $1.3 trillion, of which nine-tenths went to the 1 per cent of wealthiest Americans, and ambitions to drill for oil across the Alaskan wilderness and deregulate controls over the oil and energy industries.

By the afternoon of 11 September, Bush had become the vanishing president during his people's hour of need, cowering underground beneath an Air Force base in remote Nebraska. But by the end of that week, Americans saw in Bush not a spoiled brat, but the man they wanted to lead the nation to war.

Now the Enron scandal brings the presidency home, with Bush as Winston Churchill preparing for the 1945 election in Britain. The would-be Clement Attlee is Tom Daschle, leader of the Senate Democrats, who last week left the unity of war behind to unleash his congressional campaign for November 2002 with an offensive over welfare, tax policy, health care, energy and the environment.

The elections are critical to Bush and the Republicans: no US president apart from Nixon and Reagan has not lost ground at the mid-term polls, and the Democrats, even without making substantial gains, can keep control of the Senate while taking over the House and state governorships.

For the State of the Union address Bush will give on the twenty-ninth of this month, White House staff are scrambling to entwine the war in Afghanistan with the continuing domestic agenda. But the minefield they must cross is named Enron.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Django, for heaven's sake. The hyperlink. USE THE HYPERLINK!!!
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but
now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.



Django's Avatar
BANNED
I have used the hyperlink, and also reposted the articles in here because they are so damn fascinating...

The corruption, the sleaze... it reads like a bad novel... but it's all true!



Originally Posted by Django
That says something, doesn't it? Enron... a Houston based energy company... one of the Bush campaign's biggest donors... Enron, with it's history of corrupt business deals and faulty financial statements... Enron, which robbed its own employees of their very life-savings... says a lot to me! To say nothing of the fact that, apparently, Enron CEO and Chairman Kenneth Lay happens to be a close personal friend of George W. Bush, and one of the top contributors to his presidential campaign and two gubernatorial campaigns in Texas.

So, by that logic, since I am also Houston based I am corrupt? What does Houston have to do with it?

You're on a slippery slope here. You're insinuating that because someone is close friends with someone else (if it's even true) then they are complicit in wrongdoings simply because of said friendship. If this were true, then every close personal friend of Clinton's is guilty of a presidential BJ?

I could go on and on with this one... is it necessary?



Django's Avatar
BANNED
Originally Posted by Sir Toose
So, by that logic, since I am also Houston based I am corrupt? What does Houston have to do with it?

You're on a slippery slope here. You're insinuating that because someone is close friends with someone else (if it's even true) then they are complicit in wrongdoings simply because of said friendship. If this were true, then every close personal friend of Clinton's is guilty of a presidential BJ?

I could go on and on with this one... is it necessary?
lol! That's a funny analogy, but a lame defense, I'm afraid.

The facts are on the table. The ties between Bush and Enron are far more than circumstantial.



Originally Posted by Django
Okay, Here's a news article that makes it plain that the reforms you have described above were only undertaken after the Enron scandal, as a reactionary move designed to distance the White House from Enron. Keep in mind that Enron CEO Kenneth Lay is a Bush family friend and was the biggest contributor to the Bush Jr. Presidential campaign fund:
I'm not referring to those reforms. Republicans in general have been fighting for things like the option to privatize one's own 401(k) plan since before the exposure of Enron. Increased flexibility can help prevent these kinds of debacles.

As for the rest: I don't see any response to any of the arguments I put forth.

Running a web search and throwing whatever speculative articles it turns up is not research, and it certainly doesn't constitute a retort. The simple facts of the matter show us that, whether they were friends or not, Bush was not in office at the time of their misdeeds, and that they were found out after he took over. This single fact is, all by itself, enough to contradict your insinuations of corruption.



Django's Avatar
BANNED
Originally Posted by Yoda
I'm not referring to those reforms. Republicans in general have been fighting for things like the option to privatize one's own 401(k) plan since before the exposure of Enron. Increased flexibility can help prevent these kinds of debacles.
Can you give me some examples?

Originally Posted by Yoda
As for the rest: I don't see any response to any of the arguments I put forth.

Running a web search and throwing whatever speculative articles it turns up is not research, and it certainly doesn't constitute a retort. The simple facts of the matter show us that, whether they were friends or not, Bush was not in office at the time of their misdeeds, and that they were found out after he took over. This single fact is, all by itself, enough to contradict your insinuations of corruption.
Hardly. The fact of the matter is that Bush being in office had nothing to do with the exposure of Enron. And Clinton being in office had nothing to do with the fraudulent accounting practices of Enron. The facts, rather, seem to suggest close ties between Bush's political agenda and the special interests of contributors like Enron. There are too many "coincidences" and suspicious circumstances in all of this to ignore. How deeply was Bush involved with "Kenny boy" (Bush's nickname for Enron CEO, Ken Lay)? Remains to be seen. One of the articles does cite the possibility that Bush was lobbying for Ken Lay years before. That sounds like a pretty familiar connection--definitely hinging on common interests. My articles are not speculative--they state FACTS. True, there is some speculative material in them--but they are valid speculations based on the facts, not simply arbitrary claims. The articles raise some very important questions concerning the connection between Bush and Enron CEO Ken Lay. They were carefully selected to address many of the issues I have been raising in the past.



Originally Posted by Django
That sounds a lot like what Bush said about the Halliburton overcharging scam... something to the effect of "We opposed this sort of thing"... I don't know about you, but it rings hollow.
As stated before, I'm not talking about comments made after Enron was exposed.


Originally Posted by Django
The difference, of course, is that regardless of the timing of when this happened, Clinton's job was President of the United States, not President of Enron. On the other hand, Chairman and CEO of Enron, Kenneth Lay, remains a long-time ally and personal friend of Bush. Also, your remark seems to imply that the Bush administration had a personal hand in exposing Enron. My understanding, and I have yet to investigate this so please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, is that Enron's dirty dealings were exposed only when the company got into financial trouble. More on this later.
No, I don't really think Bush had a hand in exposing them, but I don't think he was helping them to cover up, either. I don't think either President is to blame; only the company itself. Any attempt to pin this on a particular administration or elected official is little more political opportunism.


Originally Posted by Django
I'll address this later.
Yes, I'm sure you will; probably about the same time you substantiate your "restocking of inventories" theory.



Originally Posted by Django
Can you give me some examples?
I did. The Republican party made clear its desire to allow employees increased flexibility with their 401(k) plans; specifically, the ability to invest it privately. The employees of Enron, if memory serves, had virtually no options in how to handle their retirement plans, and were essentially stuck with Enron. Had they had more flexibility, their money could have been potentially saved.


Originally Posted by Django
Hardly. The fact of the matter is that Bush being in office had nothing to do with the exposure of Enron. And Clinton being in office had nothing to do with the fraudulent accounting practices of Enron.
I agree. But it's also true that Bush being in office had nothing to do with the fradulent accounting practices, either.


Originally Posted by Django
The facts, rather, seem to suggest close ties between Bush's political agenda and the special interests of contributors like Enron. There are too many "coincidences" and suspicious circumstances in all of this to ignore. How deeply was Bush involved with "Kenny boy" (Bush's nickname for Enron CEO, Ken Lay)? Remains to be seen. One of the articles does cite the possibility that Bush was lobbying for Ken Lay years before. That sounds like a pretty familiar connection--definitely hinging on common interests. My articles are not speculative--they state FACTS. True, there is some speculative material in them--but they are valid speculations based on the facts, not simply arbitrary claims. The articles raise some very important questions concerning the connection between Bush and Enron CEO Ken Lay. They were carefully selected to address many of the issues I have been raising in the past.
You're still not addressing what I said: I'm not denying a connection between the two. I suspect the connection is overblown, but it doesn't matter. Whether or not they are friends is rendered irrelevant when you look at the timeline of actual events, which suggest the exact opposite of collusion.

In other words, if Bush was trying to help Enron, then it is a remarkable coincidence that they were nabbed very shortly after their supposed benefactor came into power.



Django's Avatar
BANNED
Originally Posted by Yoda
I did. The Republican party made clear its desire to allow employees increased flexibility with their 401(k) plans; specifically, the ability to invest it privately. The employees of Enron, if memory serves, had virtually no options in how to handle their retirement plans, and were essentially stuck with Enron. Had they had more flexibility, their money could have been potentially saved.
I think the employees had a choice--to invest in Enron or outside. But because Enron was a huge power company that was doing so well, so they thought, many employees chose to invest in Enron. The catch was that they could never sell their stock. So, just before the Enron stock prices plummetted, the management dumped their stock, making millions, while the employees who were stuck with their stock lost all their life savings. In any case, the Bush strategy of diversifying employee investment options seems to have come about only after the Enron debacle, as a reactionary move on the part of the administration to distance itself from a potentially huge political scandal.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I agree. But it's also true that Bush being in office had nothing to do with the fradulent accounting practices, either.
You're still not addressing what I said: I'm not denying a connection between the two. I suspect the connection is overblown, but it doesn't matter. Whether or not they are friends is rendered irrelevant when you look at the timeline of actual events, which suggest the exact opposite of collusion.

In other words, if Bush was trying to help Enron, then it is a remarkable coincidence that they were nabbed very shortly after their supposed benefactor came into power.

You're still not addressing what I said: I'm not denying a connection between the two. I suspect the connection is overblown, but it doesn't matter. Whether or not they are friends is rendered irrelevant when you look at the timeline of actual events, which suggest the exact opposite of collusion.

In other words, if Bush was trying to help Enron, then it is a remarkable coincidence that they were nabbed very shortly after their supposed benefactor came into power.
That is a very simplistic argument. The facts are that:
The Observer has dug into Enron's past to find that intimate connections with Bush and his Texan Republicans started long before the campaigns that brought them to Washington

Enron is a Houston-based utility trading company that sells energy to consumers, industrial and domestic. It is one of the biggest of its kind in the world - a standing it owes in no small part to Bush's governorship in Texas.

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 and Enron have been bountiful contributors to George Bush Jnr. Since 1993, company executives have donated nearly $2 million to him personally. Lay also donated $326,000 in soft money to the Republican Party over the three years prior to Bush's presidential bid and his wife added $100,000 for the inauguration festivities.

The administration is splattered with senior officials owning stock in Enron. Economic adviser Larry Lindsay and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick went straight from Enron's payroll into office.

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. It is not known which - if any - of these privileged stockholders sold their shares along with the Enron bosses, or suffered the same loss as everyone else. Such details will appear when they make this year's filings - leaving any that did so open to ethical, if not criminal, inquiry.

Bush has pursued the aggressive deregulation policies preferred by Enron and its kind, including legislation that exempts key elements of Enron's energy business from oversight by the federal government - pushed by none other than Senator Phil Gramm.

Lay's hand can meanwhile be found behind such episodes as the sudden replacement of Curtis Hebert as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Texan Pat Wood, a friend of Lay. According to one source, the sacking after only weeks in the job came after 'an unsettling telephone conversation with Kenneth Lay' in which he was 'prodded to back a faster pace in opening up access to the electricity transmission grid'.

For all its troubles, Enron continued to benefit from Bush policies - markedly a refusal to step in and help California during the energy crisis last year, leaving consumers to pay the price... to Enron.

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.

(Quoted from the Observer article above.)
The lead-up to the Enron debacle:

These are matters for the six Congressional committees preparing to investigate Enron. But they will have to wait for the two criminal investigations launched this week: one into Enron's bankruptcy, the other into the admission by the company's auditor, Arthur Andersen, that it destroyed thousands of documents about the bankruptcy.

Andersen had good reason to destroy the papers. The reasons for Enron's destruction when all the winds seemed to blow behind the company's fortunes are associated with the labyrinth of subsidiaries built up by Chief Finance Officer Andrew Fastow, fired on 24 October, and other executives.

Fastow created partnerships with what were described as outside, independently-run companies with names such as 'Chewco' or 'Jedi' - after characters in Star Wars - that were owned by him or others with Enron backing.

As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars were slushing overseas to tax havens as Fastow and other executives - so they said - sought to shore up the company against a possible fall in energy prices. What they were allegedly doing was amassing personal fortunes.

The ensuing gaps in the balance sheet became a gaping abyss which could not be hidden and down which the company finally fell. Enron admitted that it had overstated profits by $400m in reports issued since. However, Chewco alone enabled Enron to be able to keep some $600m of debt off its books.

The crucial criminal issue is whether executives misled investors by inflating revenues and minimising debts. The political issue is how closely entwined is the Washington elite - and the immediate circle around Bush.

Seven months of Bush's oil-friendly presidency was driven out of the spotlight by 11 September. It had pleased the industry for its isolationism and determination to withdraw from world affairs - the Kyoto Accords on global warming or arms reduction with Russia.

Domestically, Bush's cause was an articulate one: a tax cut worth $1.3 trillion, of which nine-tenths went to the 1 per cent of wealthiest Americans, and ambitions to drill for oil across the Alaskan wilderness and deregulate controls over the oil and energy industries.

(Quoted from the Observer article above.)



Originally Posted by Django
Well, it's related... George Soros is a major Dean contributor and lends credibility to his camp.

I would have thought Soros was too busy pushing for the legalization of drugs and the euthanasia of people to have time to take on Bush…
__________________
You never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough.
~William Blake ~

AiSv Nv wa do hi ya do...
(Walk in Peace)




Django's Avatar
BANNED
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
I would have thought Soros was too busy pushing for the legalization of drugs and the euthanasia of people to have time to take on Bush…
What's your point?



Django's Avatar
BANNED
To be fair, here's a link to a discussion of Soros' social agenda, which has it's eccentricities, which I cannot deny: George Soros' Social Agenda. I don't agree with his funding of marijuana legalization--and, in any case, it doesn't affect me personally, one way or the other, as I don't smoke or take drugs. Unlike George W. Bush, incidentally, who happens to have a history of drug use and alcoholism. Anyway, here's an interesting book review of a Soros biography:

Messianic Billionaire
Soros funded freedom where it was lacking

By Adrian Karatnycky

Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire
by Michael T. Kaufman
Alfred A. Knopf
344 pp., $27.50


For the past 15 years, George Soros has been one of the world's most influential philanthropists. Through charitable work that promoted democratic reform around the world, Soros helped sustain and inspire civic groups and mass movements that ushered in non-violent democratic revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe in the 1980s and '90s.

Michael T. Kaufman's Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire offers a detailed portrait of Soros the man, the investor, the activist, the political analyst, and the philanthropist; it does justice to a figure of significant intellectual complexity and major impact.

Kaufman is well equipped for the task. A former East European correspondent at the New York Times, with an intimate knowledge of the region's politics, he knows much of the terrain in which Soros has played an influential role. Himself the son of an eminent leader of the Jewish community in prewar Poland, Kaufman has a strong understanding of the maelstrom into which European Jewry fell in the 1930s and '40s, the period of Soros's childhood and adolescence.

From this informed perspective, Kaufman is able to provide an engaging and sympathetic narrative of Soros's early turbulent years, when Nazism, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia cast a dark shadow over his Jewish family and disrupted his upper-middle-class life. Kaufman traces Soros's life trajectory from war-ravaged Hungary to an encounter with the philosopher Karl Popper's ideas on "open society" at the London School of Economics, to a remarkable career in New York in hedge funds and international finance, and on to philanthropy and efforts to promote democratic change in closed societies.

Soros has made a mark as one of a handful of wealthy moneymakers and hedge fund managers. But what has truly distinguished him has been his unique form of cause-oriented philanthropy, for which he has provided huge resources, averaging in the last decade roughly $500 million in grants per year.

Not only the scale of Soros's philanthropy has made it so effective, but its precise focus and approach. Soros has been most influential when addressing the transcendent issue of helping to topple tyrannies and replace them with societies rooted in the rule of law and democratic accountability.

His early ventures into philanthropy were conventional and unremarkable: support for the arts, for scholarship on his former homeland Hungary, and for the restoration of New York's Central Park. But by the mid-1980s, as his fortune grew, he began to direct his attention to the cause of promoting openness in countries governed by closed, authoritarian systems. His growing wealth, and the growing political ferment in the Communist world, allowed him to focus his energies on giving practical expression to the views of his intellectual mentor, Sir Karl Popper, and his influential work The Open Society and Its Enemies.

Soros's funding was effective because it assumed a centrist orientation. It was linked to a noble cause, supporting broad coalitions that worked peacefully for revolutionary democratic change. Soros's philanthropy assisted and helped bring together social democrats, liberals, conservatives, and libertarians in some of the world's most oppressive regimes.

Clearly, such coalitions cannot persist in perpetuity. Once a tyranny unravels, and democracy and open society take root, normal democratic interest-group politics intrudes and policy differences rend the once-unified fabric of democratic movements. Soros was influential because he focused primarily on deploying his resources at these transcendent moments, and then assisting democratic forces in the early years when the institutional, civic, and cultural architecture of a liberal democracy needs to be shaped. His philanthropy was truly non-partisan, and it deepened support for and understanding of his aim of open societies. To be sure, Soros's network of foundations was not the only Western institution offering assistance to democratic forces trying to topple dictatorships peacefully. In the early 1980s, other U.S. organizations like the congressionally funded National Endowment for Democracy and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, as well as the Catholic Church, the West German government, and the AFL-CIO, played crucial roles in assisting democratic forces in the Communist bloc and around the world. Nevertheless, Soros was preeminent among private philanthropists seeking to bring freedom to Central and Eastern Europe. Some of his earliest grantees are now influential figures in their countries' independent civic life. Many have also served in key positions in government as ministers and sub-ministers throughout Central and Eastern Europe.

After martial law was declared in Poland in 1981 and the Solidarity movement was driven underground, Soros provided modest assistance to a network of underground newspapers and journals that eventually became the bedrock of democratic Poland's free media. Soros also assisted democratic voices in Poland through the Stefan Batory Foundation, which became a crucial source of support for reformists such as Bronislaw Geremek (later a foreign minister) and Tadeusz Mazowiecki (who served as Prime Minister). Soros was an early financial supporter of a circle of Czech dissidents that included Václav Havel, the country's current President. In Hungary, a Soros foundation established in 1983 became a crucial funnel of aid and assistance to political leaders and independent publishers, who helped usher in the fall of Communism in 1989.

Soros had not only a clear vision for his philanthropy, he also understood that at key junctures of history carefully focused resources play a decisive role. He adopted a similar approach in promoting democratic voices in Kosovo in the period before Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansing, in Bosnia, and in Serbia. In the latter case, it was these civic forces and independent media-with assistance from Soros and significant support from the U.S. government-that helped ensure the political defeat of Milosevic.

Soros was an early investor in efforts to assist reformers in post-Soviet Ukraine and Russia, where he focused on issues like education, curriculum development, and support for civil society. Over the last decade, he has rapidly expanded his network of foundations beyond the former Soviet bloc to focus on promoting democracy in Africa and Asia. For example, he has assisted democratic intellectuals and human rights activists from China and Burma.

Kaufman portrays Soros as a hands-on philanthropist who moves rapidly and responds to intellectual and political passions. At times, this has resulted in a jumble of inchoate, sometimes duplicative and competing initiatives, a problem Soros has attempted to resolve by building a more coherent network of coordinated foundations. Still, Soros has recognized that sometimes the best way to approach a problem is to attempt a series of avenues of solution, and then to invest significant resources in the projects that appear to gather momentum.

Soros remains a man of enthusiasms, able to launch new initiatives and redirect resources at lightning speed. In some sense, he has operated as the de facto chief program officer in his vast network of foundations. This personal engagement means that Soros, who travels the world constantly and regularly meets with civic, political, and intellectual leaders, is able to respond quickly to emerging needs and, more importantly, to emerging opportunities. I witnessed this in Warsaw in the summer of 2000. Soros had helped support the World Forum on Democracy, a meeting of civic leaders, democratic activists, and intellectuals. One of the democratic opposition leaders was Alejandro Toledo, who was the chief political opponent to Peru's authoritarian ruler Alberto Fujimori. Toledo represented a mass movement that was pressing for free elections and an end to state domination of the media. Within weeks of their discussion, Soros had quietly provided a grant of $1 million to support Toledo's campaign of mass protest marches and to sustain a network of opposition to the increasingly repressive Peruvian government. When a videotape scandal broke that proved the government's complicity in bribing legislators and the media, Toledo's movement was ready to press for change. Today, Alejandro Toledo is the democratically elected President of his country, and Fujimori is living in exile in Japan as Peruvian authorities press for his return to face criminal charges. Former State Department official Morton Abramowitz puts it well: Soros is "the only man in the United States who has his own foreign policy and can implement it."

Soros not only has been integral to many of the most important political changes of the last half-century; he also has been a key force for popularizing the objective of achieving a world of liberty. He has achieved his greatest influence in advancing the ideas of open society because his work has been largely free of partisanship, that is, he has sought to promote open systems and not to focus on specific policies.

In 1996, Kaufman tells us, "Soros had come to the conclusion that 'if an open society is to serve as an ideal worth striving for, it can no longer be defined in terms of the Communist menace; it must be given more positive content.'" As a result, these days Soros is out to avert the threat to open society that he sees arising in America. He now devotes approximately $100 million per year to domestic U.S. issues.

This means Soros's global efforts to promote the broad aim of open society are now accompanied by philanthropic activism that is necessarily adopting a more prescriptive cast. In these new domestic efforts, Soros is supporting campaigns aimed at the decriminalization of drug use and the reduction of and alternatives to prison sentences. More recently, Soros has vigorously criticized the anti-terrorism efforts of the Bush administration, which he believes pose threats to civil liberties.

Soros clearly has the right to address what he sees as vexing issues of American political life. Some may even argue that by engaging what he believes are the defects of our own democracy, he is enhancing the credibility of his efforts abroad. But by staking out clear prescriptive positions, his philanthropy is losing its distinctiveness; Soros's efforts now increasingly resemble those of the rest of the crowd. Indeed, his more recent U.S. initiatives on alternatives to incarceration, on the abolition of the death penalty, on drug policy, and on immigrant rights have little to distinguish them from the conventional projects funded by numerous major establishment foundations.

By supporting specific policy remedies, rather than funding a broad array of creative and at times competing approaches on these issues, Soros is departing from the open society approach that has been his hallmark. At the same time, by allowing his U.S. foundation to adopt language that resembles that of the far left ("mass incarceration of poor people," "massive destabilization of communities [that has resulted from] punitive criminal justice policies"), even as he seeks to be a highly visible nonpartisan advocate of open society and democracy, Soros likely is diminishing his ability to influence change around the world.

As the events of September 11 made clear, the great global task that Soros undertook in the 1980s-the defeat of tyrannies and the construction of open societies-remains far from complete. The Arab world and the Islamic world are dominated by tyrannies, out-of-touch monarchies, and obscurantist ideas. In many poorer countries, fragile new and restored democracies are under great strain. In many other places where Soros contributed to bringing down tyranny, democracy did not take root. The democrats Soros helped empower are losing out to the old ex-Communist nomenklatura, who have ushered in regimes built on cronyism and corruption in places like Ukraine, Russia, and Moldova.

To address these vexing challenges will require greater philanthropic commitment to broad-based efforts that eschew partisanship and help unite the world's democratic forces. Whether, in the light of his growing domestic advocacy in America, George Soros will be able to continue to play the role of a central advocate of such a movement will determine whether he will be as influential a philanthropist in the next century as he was in the last.

Adrian Karatnycky is president of Freedom House.



jamesglewisf's Avatar
Didn't see it.
Holy cow. Your posts are so stinking long I don't even read them, and I don't have ADD!!! Provide a link and post some excerpts, not the whole freaking thing. It's probably a copyright violation.

Howard Dean is the best thing that could happen to George Bush. All he has to do is keep talking. He thinks Osama ain't guilty until proven so in court. He thinks we're no safer with Saddam locked up. Now he's trying to make us believe he's a Christian. Ha. He obviously never read 2 Corinthians 6:14.
__________________
Jim Lewis
To BE or Not to BE, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Barium Enema
Crouching Tiger, Paint Your Wagon - Forums