George W.Bush and "Kenny boy"

[jokerswild]

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/020602.html

[Rooster71]

This is a very good article. Regarding another thread, it was mentioned that Bush said he didn't even know who Lay was (after the scandal broke). There is so much evidence that they were very close, but I find the following particularly amusing:

The Bush story:
[ QUOTE ]
With Enron’s ignominious collapse over deceptive accounting, Bush began to act as if he barely knew Lay. On Jan. 11, Bush told reporters that Lay "was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994." Bush implied that he had gotten to know Lay as a Richards holdover appointee to a Texas business council. The impression Bush sought to create was untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

The truth:
[ QUOTE ]
Bush turned to his father’s old political benefactor, Ken Lay. Enron and Lay contributed $146,500 to the Bush campaign, seven and a half times more than they contributed to the Richards campaign. Lay also publicly endorsed Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

[cardcounter0]

They also served as Co-Chairs on a State Board of Energy or something, a year before George admitted having heard of Key Lay.

I guess it all depends on what your definition of 'know' is, ya know?
/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[adios]

http://www.consortiumnews.com

An unbiased, middle of the road news source? Not. Try left wing propaganda. Hate to confuse you with facts but the Enron fraud was perpetrated on Clinton's watch in a very lax environment for scrutiny of corporate endeavors. Arthur Leavitt, former Clinton SEC chairman blames it on the Republicans in Congress, the Republicans blame it on the Clinton administration. Truth is that during a big stock market runnup everyone was looking the other way. There isn't an iota of evidence that Bush had any knowledge of the fraud engineered by Fastow, the Enron CFO. The indictments against Lay and Skilling are based on the accusation that Lay and Skilling knew what Fastow was doing. In order for Fastow to pull off his fraudulant activities he needed the support of J.P. Morgan and Citigroup in setting up the offshore SPE's as well as aid in the facillitation of the the round trip trading. Robert Rubin, Clinton's first Treasury Secratary, was hired as a top level executive at Citigroup and was working there when Fastow engineered his frauds. Citigroup and J.P. Morgan settled private lawsuits and made a criminal settlement for their complicity in the Enron perpetrated fraud:

Citi, J.P. Morgan Cut Enron Deal With DA (http://www.forbes.com/2003/07/28/cx_da_0728enron.html)

A synopsys of Robert Rubin's role in the Enron fraud:

Robert Rubin - Enron Involvement Synopsys (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/business/2002/enron/22.stm)

Name: Robert Rubin
Current job: Chairman of the executive committee of the board of directors of Citigroup

Link to Enron: Mr Rubin, the Treasury Secretary under former President Bill Clinton, is said to have called his old department on behalf of Enron as its financial problems became a crisis.

The Treasury Department says Mr Rubin contacted the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, Peter Fisher, on 8 November – a month before Enron’s collapse.

Citigroup is one of Enron’s main creditors, and Mr Rubin is reported to have asked Mr Fisher about the possibility of pressing bond-rating agencies not to downgrade their estimate of Enron bonds to avoid a crisis of confidence in the energy group.

The Treasury Department says Mr Fisher opposed the idea.

It might even be obvious to you whack jobs (I'm starting to like that one) that holding off on downgrading Enron's bonds is very damaging to investors.

Rubin and Citigroups complicity was not lost on others. For example:

Full Investigation of Enron Must Include Citigroup Chairman Robert Rubin (http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=1064)

Full Investigation of Enron Must Include Citigroup Chairman Robert Rubin
CSE letter to Senator Lieberman demanding a subpoena of former Treasury Secretary Rubin.

August 1, 2002

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman
Chairman, Senate Government Oversight Committee

Washington, DC 20002

Dear Senator Liberman,

I write on behalf of nearly 300,000 members of Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation (CSE Foundation) to encourage you to subpoena Citigroup Executive Committee Chairman Robert Rubin to appear before your committee for questioning about his role in the Enron affair. It is clear from preliminary evidence that certain transactions between Citigroup and Enron Corp. were used to hide the full extent of Enron’s leverage from the public. While it may be appropriate to allow Chairman and CEO Sanford Weill to explain these transactions as well as the complicated relationship between Travelers Insurance, JP Morgan, and Enron, Secretary Rubin must be questioned about his role in the affair given published reports (The Washington Post, August 1, 2002) about his contact with credit rating agencies and officials at the U.S. Treasury.

It is difficult to understand why credit rating agencies Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s failed to downgrade Enron’s debt rating to junk status until December of 2001. While the equity-backed special purpose entities (SPEs) Enron used to keep leverage off balance sheet were not widely known to the public until October 16, 2001, credit rating agencies knew of them since their inception, as they were responsible for issuing a rating on most, if not all of them.

Later it was discovered that many of Enron’s financial dealings contained repayment clauses to be exercised when Enron’s credit rating fell below a specified grade. Clearly, maintaining an investment grade credit rating was critical for Enron and investment banks, like Citigroup, with large exposure to Enron. With such huge sums at stake, both Enron and its creditors could be expected to use what ever means available to avert financial disaster.

Evidence suggests that Citigroup disguised loans to Enron as forward swap contracts to allow Enron to book the transaction as cash flow instead of debt. At the same time, Citigroup is suspected of having sold credit-linked securities to investors to raise capital to be transferred into the same SPEs that stood to receive delivery on the swap. This, in and of it self, could be an act of fraud if Citigroup did not expect delivery of the oil or gas and considered it a loan.

But more importantly, when did Citigroup executives know that Enron depended on an investment grade credit rating and what steps did it take – both through financial dealings and influence – to help maintain it? If Citigroup used the swap contracts to improve Enron’s appearance to bond raters with the knowledge that a downgrade would not only make Enron less able to attract new bondholders, but also trigger repayment options Enron could not cover, this could be a case of securities fraud.

To make matters worse, a Washington Post article indicates that Secretary Rubin asked Peter R. Fisher at the U.S. Treasury Department to advise bond-rating agencies to “work with,” rather than downgrade Enron. If Secretary Rubin knew of the Citigroup transactions used to hide Enron’s debt when he took steps to influence Enron’s credit rating, his actions could have been conspiratorial. If the Citigroup loans to Enron were properly accounted for, no man as well versed in financial matters as Secretary Rubin would have suggested that Enron deserved an investment grade rating.

Reaction to the possible subpoena of a former Treasury Secretary has been politically charged. Democrats accuse Republicans of forcing Secretary Rubin to testify to score political points and undermine the Democrats’ credibility. Republicans accuse Democrats of conspiring to keep Rubin off the witness list for purely political reasons. While political maneuvering on a sensitive issue is to be expected, it is clear that certain questions – particularly those concerning Secretary Rubin’s own culpability – can only be answered by the former Treasury Secretary himself.

To bring a well-respected and eminently likeable former Treasury Secretary before your committee could also lead to more dispassionate analysis and allow the issue to be fully vetted. Past hearings have been used for political grandstanding, public shaming, and irresponsible charges. This contributed to a rabid political environment where lawmakers felt pressure to support egregious new accounting and corporate reforms instead of allowing the civil and criminal justice systems to address potential illegality.

Secretary Rubin is a Democrat, but he also commands respect outside of his party for his hawkish deficit posture and general cordiality. He is uniquely positioned to explain what happened, why it happened, and what policies could best ensure more transparency. If he played a role in a high level conspiracy to defraud investors, he should be brought to justice. But even if he did not commit any criminal or unethical acts, his testimony could shed light on the complex world of corporate finance and explain the ways corporations diversify risk and raise capital through complex transactions.

Any hearing that deals with the role of underwriters in the Enron scandal that does not call Secretary Rubin as a witness will be inadequate. Investors depend on the unbiased analysis provided by independent credit rating agencies. If creditors can influence these ratings when they fear an unbiased rating would cause a debtor to default, investors should be made aware.

If your committee is to understand fully the scope of Wall Street underwriters’ involvement in the Enron scandal, you must subpoena Secretary Rubin.

Sincerely,
Paul Beckner

Basically what the posters in this thread have done is employed the traditional facist tactic of "guilt by association" regarding Bush and Lay. I expect the usual responses of disinformation from you whack jobs, but it's clear that Bush had no role in the fraud perpetrated by Fastow which the Skilling and Lay indictments resulted from.

[nothumb]

I like the old saying, "Never believe anything until it has been officially denied."

If Bush is so innocent, why would he go out of his way to lie about how well he knew Lay? I believe both administrations were incredibly business friendly (as have been all of them since Reagan, really). I'm sure some of the seeds of deregulation were sewn on Clinton's watch, and the SEC has been a bit of a joke for years. However, there were several former Enron executives in Bush's administration, and with Lay staying at the White House and almost certainly serving on Cheney's energy task force, I think it's a bit silly to pretend there was no connection. This doesn't even go back to any policies Bush made as Governor of Texas.

Call me a whackjob if you like, I don't mind.

NT

[cardcounter0]

You are confused. It doesn't matter what Bush knew or didn't know. It doesn't matter what Bush did or didn't do.

Just like Oral Sex, it doesn't matter what actually happened. (Last time I checked BJs weren't illegal).

WHAT MATTERS: Bush Lied About Knowing Ken Lay. He lied. He stood in front of the American People and told Lies. He said he did not know Kenneth Lay. Never heard of him. That was a lie. LIES! Presidents get impeached over lies.

[J.R.]

Off-topic and irrelevant.

Lets start a new thread to dicuss Rubin and Citicorp instead of trying to divert the focus of this thread.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
If Bush is so innocent, why would he go out of his way to lie about how well he knew Lay?

[/ QUOTE ]

So this proves he's guilty of something? If Kerry's elected do you think he'll ever lie? Has Kerry lied already? Have you ever lied about anything? Do you think you'll lie about anything again? The liar, liar pants on fire condemnation is hilarious.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe both administrations were incredibly business friendly (as have been all of them since Reagan, really).

[/ QUOTE ]

Economic growth has been phenomonal. Why is this necessarily bad or is it?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure some of the seeds of deregulation were sewn on Clinton's watch, and the SEC has been a bit of a joke for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Compare the SEC under Bush with the SEC under Clinton. IMO the record shows that the Bush SEC has been far more vigilant. The problem with the SEC, at least what the SEC claims is, that they're underfunded. I think that's believable. Congress appropriates the money.

[ QUOTE ]
However, there were several former Enron executives in Bush's administration,

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are you specifically referring to. What role did they play in Enron's day to day operations and what was their role in the fraud perpetrated by Fastow?

[ QUOTE ]
and with Lay staying at the White House and almost certainly serving on Cheney's energy task force, I think it's a bit silly to pretend there was no connection.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Bush has an involvment in the fraud perpetrated by Fastow? This is the "guilt by association" arguement I referred to. Do you actually know anything about the fraud that was perpetrated by Fastow? The scheme involved very complicated transactions. If a lot of market participants were deceived then why is it reasonable to assume that Bush knew of the fraud?

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't even go back to any policies Bush made as Governor of Texas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were these policies related in anyway to the Lay indictment? Nope.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets start a new thread to dicuss Rubin and Citicorp instead of trying to divert the focus of this thread

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I feel it's relevant is that the implication of the original poster in my mind is that Bush administration created the environment that led to the Enron debacle. I refuted that claim by showing how it actually was brought about in the Clinton administration. Rubin was part of the Clinton administration and used his influence to hurt investors. Rubin was hired away from his job as the head of the Treasury department by one of the entities that helped Enron pull off it's fraud. To me it's proof that the Bush administration did not foster the environment that led to the Enron debacle. Also the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act (spelling) was championed by Rubin himself if memory serves. Arguably Citigroup and J.P. Morgan never help pull off the Enron scam without repeal of this act.

[J.R.]

I agree with most of what you write and think that J.P. and CitiGroup/CitiCorp (along with many others) are rip-off artists, as recent settlements on Wall Street partially attest. But I disagree with this:

Rubin was hired away from his job as the head of the Treasury department by one of the entities that helped Enron pull off it's fraud. To me it's proof that the Bush administration did not foster the environment that led to the Enron debacle

This is not a one or the other type of situation- democrats and republicans alike are beholden to corporate interests, and in situations like the Enron debacle, its folly to argue that the culpability of one party excuses the other. Both parties can and likely do have dirty laundry.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a one or the other type of situation- democrats and republicans alike are beholden to corporate interests, and in situations like the Enron debacle, its folly to argue that the culpability of one party excuses the other. Both parties can and likely do have dirty laundry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. If it would have been a Republican administration I would have said the same thing /images/graemlins/smile.gif. The Bush administration wasn't responsible because they weren't in office when Fastow engineered his fraud. I didn't say Republicans were blameless. I tried to offer the right historical perspective. I did point out that there was a lot of finger pointing from both sides. Also to reiterate, Arthur Leavitt, an SEC chairman during the Clinton years, has pointed out that he tried to get a Republican controlled Congress to enact tougher legislation regarding corporate malfeasance and they blocked his efforts. To reiterate what I posted earlier, I believe the truth is that Republicans and Democrats didn't concern themselves all that much due to the fact that there was a runaway bull market, everyone was happy. Also I'd like to reiterate something else I posted previously which is that the SEC complaint is that they're underfunded and I find a tht to be a believable complaint on their part.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
So this proves he's guilty of something? If Kerry's elected do you think he'll ever lie? Has Kerry lied already? Have you ever lied about anything? Do you think you'll lie about anything again? The liar, liar pants on fire condemnation is hilarious.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this proves he was guilty of lying. I'm not some twinkly-eyed idealist who thinks politicians never lie, but for a liar Bush places an awful lot of emphasis on his character. He said he would 'change the tone' in Washington. He now accuses his opponent of lying, flip-flopping, and being otherwise unscrupulous. The 'liar, liar, pants on fire' accusation is one Bush and his team love to make themselves.

Again, I don't claim to understand all the accounting tricks Enron used. I don't claim that Bush did either. The main point of this thread was that Bush had lied about his involvement with Lay, presumably to place distance between himself and the scandal. He could reasonably have done this even if he really was clueless, or he could have done it because he had some idea of what was happening, or he could have done it because he endorsed the whole thing.

However, Bush is no stranger to SEC investigation and shady accounting, as I'm sure you are aware. His oil ventures (Harken and its subsequent buyers) were found to have engaged in similar bait-and-switch loan techniques to prop up floundering companies. Bush's sale of $800,000 dollars worth of stock (which was about to become worthless) was highly suspicious and, though the SEC was never able to indict him, they also made a point of NOT exonerating him.

Again, I never said that Bush knew exactly what happened at Enron. I don't know that. But I do know that he was very close to Enron's chief executive, that he himself was involved in failing energy companies that violated SEC rules, and that he then tried to distance himself from the whole affair by lying about it. While that is not an indication of guilt, it is certainly suspicious and merits investigation. The fact that he worked very hard (including by lying) to escape this scenario is the polar opposite of transparency and honesty in government, widely recognized to be a foundation of representative democracy.

This is not a partisan attack. I find Democrats are beholden to a variety of corporate interests as well (although usually different ones then Republicans). I would not vote for Bush or Kerry, so I don't know why you are trying to turn the topic to Kerry. Nobody said anything about him. I find it interesting that you are so intent on changing the topic to the people you presume I support (the DNC et al).

NT

[ThaSaltCracka]

Adios, what is your point precisely? Are you implying the Clinton admin is at fault for the Enron debacle, or is it simply just Rubin(in Clintons Admin) who is culpable? Because it seems to me that Rubin had much more at stake financially than anything else.

Lets be honest, there is a connection between Lay and Bush, some of it financial/business and some through friendship. So it just looks bad for Bush, even IF it isn't bad for him. IMO, the main culprits in the Enron scandal and all the other corporate scandals are greedy rich old white men, bottom line. You could argue that certain politicians or parties may have helped them, indirectly, in their pursuit of greed, but still ultimately its these greedy bastards who caused it all, they looked for every loophole they could find, used every connection they could find simply for their own personal gain.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.consortiumnews.com

An unbiased, middle of the road news source? Not. Try left wing propaganda. Hate to confuse you with facts but the Enron fraud was perpetrated on Clinton's watch in a very lax environment for scrutiny of corporate endeavors.

[/ QUOTE ]
Typical response from a modern day conservative. Anything that makes Bush (or any Republicans) look bad is simply "left wing propaganda." Any issue of economic policy, government regulation, etc. that may shine a bad light on Bush was "perpetrated on Clinton's watch."

[ QUOTE ]
Basically what the posters in this thread have done is employed the traditional facist tactic of "guilt by association" regarding Bush and Lay. I expect the usual responses of disinformation from you whack jobs, but it's clear that Bush had no role in the fraud perpetrated by Fastow which the Skilling and Lay indictments resulted from.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't recall anyone saying that Bush had a "role" in Enron fraud or that his administration created the lax environment. If blame must be placed, the Reagan administration is responsible for creating the lax regulation of corporate America that has been standard in this country.

Bush and Lay were good friends and Lay was Bush's largest campaign contributor. Lay is a crooked SOB, plain and simple. There's really not much that needs to be proven here in order to cast a bad light on Bush.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Typical response from a modern day conservative. Anything that makes Bush (or any Republicans) look bad is simply "left wing propaganda."

[/ QUOTE ]

Pure rhetoric and hyperbole. Just go to the sight and tell me there not a left wing leaning site.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall anyone saying that Bush had a "role" in Enron fraud or that his administration created the lax environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the facist tactic of guilt by association, Bush must be as bad as Lay (if indeed Lay really is a criminal more at the end) since he had dealings with him in the past.

[ QUOTE ]
If blame must be placed, the Reagan administration is responsible for creating the lax regulation of corporate America that has been standard in this country.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fairly certain that the SEC prosecuted more cases in the Reagan administration than the Clinton administration. The corporate fraud of recent headlines occurred basically about 10 years after Reagan was out of office. Glass-Steagall was terminated during the Clinton years. As stated earlier plenty of blame to go around for both parties. I'll bet J.R. doesn't reply to your post stating that you should stay on the topic of the post and start a separate thread about Reagan and his supposed lax regulation either.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush and Lay were good friends

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a red herring. My understanding is that this is actually not true and that Lay was good friends with his father. Dubya had a falling out with Lay over Lay's contributions to Richards campaign.

[ QUOTE ]
Lay was Bush's largest campaign contributor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is true. Is Kerry getting any campaign contributions from big business?

[ QUOTE ]
Lay is a crooked SOB, plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't need the benefit of a trial and evidence to come to this conclusion I see. You're not eligible to serve on the jury then /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]
There's really not much that needs to be proven here in order to cast a bad light on Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for facists who condemn people for guilt by association. A Lay conviction in this case is not a slam dunk IMO FWIW. Most of the analysis I read is that the government has a tough road to a conviction in this case. My understanding is that the government is relying on the testimony of Fastow who is an admitted liar and cheat. I also find it ironic that the whack jobs in this thread are convinced that the Ashcroft led Justice Department has developed an open and shut case against Lay who the whack jobs have already deemed a crook and a criminal. So much for the whack jobs advocacy of the preservation of individual rights.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Typical response from a modern day conservative. Anything that makes Bush (or any Republicans) look bad is simply "left wing propaganda."

[/ QUOTE ]

Pure rhetoric and hyperbole. Just go to the sight and tell me there not a left wing leaning site.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall anyone saying that Bush had a "role" in Enron fraud or that his administration created the lax environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the facist tactic of guilt by association, Bush must be as bad as Lay (if indeed Lay really is a criminal more at the end) since he had dealings with him in the past.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is just a repeat of what you have already said, no new information.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If blame must be placed, the Reagan administration is responsible for creating the lax regulation of corporate America that has been standard in this country.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm fairly certain that the SEC prosecuted more cases in the Reagan administration than the Clinton administration. The corporate fraud of recent headlines occurred basically about 10 years after Reagan was out of office. Glass-Steagall was terminated during the Clinton years. As stated earlier plenty of blame to go around for both parties. I'll bet J.R. doesn't reply to your post stating that you should stay on the topic of the post and start a separate thread about Reagan and his supposed lax regulation either.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know if the SEC prosecuted more cases during the Reagan administration. My point is that Reagan's deregulation paved the way to the more "creative" ways that large corporations use to make money in modern times.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bush and Lay were good friends.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a red herring. My understanding is that this is actually not true and that Lay was good friends with his father. Dubya had a falling out with Lay over Lay's contributions to Richards campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is very true, they were good friends. Official correspondence between the two can be found online. This correspondence consists of several dozen letters exchanged between the two when Bush was Governor.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lay was Bush's largest campaign contributor.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe this is true. Is Kerry getting any campaign contributions from big business?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course Kerry is getting contributions from big business, all politicians at the national level do. But to my knowledge, Kerry is not courting big-time con artists like Ken Lay.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lay is a crooked SOB, plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you don't need the benefit of a trial and evidence to come to this conclusion I see. You're not eligible to serve on the jury then /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]
For God's sake, the man was dumping his own stock while encouraging employees to buy, telling them how good of a deal it was. Yes, I know he says he did this to satisfy margin calls, this excuse doesn't hold water. I believe the truth will come out in court.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's really not much that needs to be proven here in order to cast a bad light on Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for facists who condemn people for guilt by association. A Lay conviction in this case is not a slam dunk IMO FWIW. Most of the analysis I read is that the government has a tough road to a conviction in this case. My understanding is that the government is relying on the testimony of Fastow who is an admitted liar and cheat. I also find it ironic that the whack jobs in this thread are convinced that the Ashcroft led Justice Department has developed an open and shut case against Lay who the whack jobs have already deemed a crook and a criminal. So much for the whack jobs advocacy of the preservation of individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that the conviction of Lay is not a slam dunk, actually I was surprised he was even indicted and I'll be even more surprised if he's convicted. You mention Lay as if he has been unfairly treated. I thinks he's been treated too lightly.

There are two ways to look at Lay's case: 1) He had no knowledge of any wrongdoing. If this is true, he was one of the worst CEO's in the history of business. We're not talking about wrongdoing that boosted the bottom line a few percentage points, we're talking about pure fraud that omitted 100's of millions of dollars of debt from the records (among other fraudulent activities). So if he knew nothing about any wrongdoing, did he ever question why profits were so high or why debts were so low? I know that it's impossible for him to be intimately familiar with every dollar and cent, but again we're talking about very large numbers (even for a company of that size). So if it's true that he knew of no wrongdoing, he should be prosecuted for gross negligence. I am not joking about this. How can he collect his massive salary and huge bonuses, fly around in corporate jets, etc. and justify that he is worth anything to the company? If Enron was a private company, then I couldn't care less. But the fact is that Enron was a PUBLIC company owned by thousands and thousands of shareholders. Ken Lay did not do the job he was supposed to, which was to do what was best for the company by managing people like Fastow (whether directly or indirectly) and looking after sharholders' interests. This amounts to gross negligence. He is therefore GUILTY, but not necessarily guilty of what he is charged with.

Or 2) He had knowledge of wrongdoing. In this event, he is guilty of any or all of the charges against him.

I figure what happened was that Fastow began his creative accounting and somewhere along the line Ken Lay found out about it. When Lay found out, he assessed the risk/rewards and decided to let it keep happening. That's just my opinion (or guess, I should say). But it doesn't really matter, as shown above he is guilty either way.

[John Cole]

You may have read this already, but just in case.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1111/is_1797_300/ai_59086099

Hardly a "left wing" publication.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the conviction of Lay is not a slam dunk, actually I was surprised he was even indicted and I'll be even more surprised if he's convicted. You mention Lay as if he has been unfairly treated.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a crock, point to the place where I stated he's been treated unfairly.



[ QUOTE ]
There are two ways to look at Lay's case: 1) He had no knowledge of any wrongdoing. If this is true, he was one of the worst CEO's in the history of business. We're not talking about wrongdoing that boosted the bottom line a few percentage points, we're talking about pure fraud that omitted 100's of millions of dollars of debt from the records (among other fraudulent activities). So if he knew nothing about any wrongdoing, did he ever question why profits were so high or why debts were so low? I know that it's impossible for him to be intimately familiar with every dollar and cent, but again we're talking about very large numbers (even for a company of that size). So if it's true that he knew of no wrongdoing, he should be prosecuted for gross negligence. I am not joking about this. How can he collect his massive salary and huge bonuses, fly around in corporate jets, etc. and justify that he is worth anything to the company? If Enron was a private company, then I couldn't care less. But the fact is that Enron was a PUBLIC company owned by thousands and thousands of shareholders. Ken Lay did not do the job he was supposed to, which was to do what was best for the company by managing people like Fastow (whether directly or indirectly) and looking after sharholders' interests. This amounts to gross negligence. He is therefore GUILTY, but not necessarily guilty of what he is charged with.

Or 2) He had knowledge of wrongdoing. In this event, he is guilty of any or all of the charges against him.

I figure what happened was that Fastow began his creative accounting and somewhere along the line Ken Lay found out about it. When Lay found out, he assessed the risk/rewards and decided to let it keep happening. That's just my opinion (or guess, I should say). But it doesn't really matter, as shown above he is guilty either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok so what does this have to do with Bush? Unless you don't think that Justice department is mishandling the case in some way. Anyway I think you've made an astute analysis of the issues in this case. It will be an interesting case I think. The Skilling case should be interesting as well. I think if Sarbanes-Oxley had been in place and the Enron events would have unfolded as they did Lay would be a goner for sure. Then again if Sarbanes-Oxley had been in place the Enron collapse and associated fraud may not have happened as well at least it would have lessened the liklihood. With Sarbanes-Oxley when a CEO signs the quarterly and annual financial statements in such a situation they're criminally liable. CEO's have taken note and have put in more costly accounting "checks and balances" if you will to try and head these kind's of things off at the pass so to speak.

[adios]

What does this article have to do with the topic of this thread which I thought was related to Ken Lay, his association with Bush, the implications of that relationship, and the significance of this relationship to the events that transpired at Enron. Stay on topic John and lets make the effort to be more focused on the subject matter /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[John Cole]

Whack Job

[adios]

Or do you dispute that several posters in this thread utilized guild by association? I didn't say all liberals are "whack jobs" either if that's what you're implying.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
You may have read this already, but just in case.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1111/is_1797_300/ai_59086099

Hardly a "left wing" publication.

[/ QUOTE ]

This article provides a good summary. Bush's business dealings were a joke. I know I will catch alot of crap for that statement. BUT instead of replying by attacking me, please respond by posting at least ONE article that provides information on Bush's business deal(s) that were 1) successful, 2) legal, AND 3) where Bush actually performed a function other than being a figurehead that used his family name to gather money/investors.

I won't hold my breath waiting for this information.

[adios]

Ken Lay get's indicted, jokerswild posts a link to an article about Bush and Ken Lay with the implication being that Bush is culpable in the indictments.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Or do you dispute that several posters in this thread utilized guild by association? I didn't say all liberals are "whack jobs" either if that's what you're implying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guild by association? Aren't most guilds an association of professionals or otherwise like-minded people?

Seriously, if you're going to call people fascists, spell the word right. And guilt by association is a tactic used by just about every modern politician in this country. So unless you're calling them all fascists (hey, now we're getting somewhere!) I might tone it down.

You never called all liberals whackjobs. You just implied that everyone who responded to your post by criticizing Bush was likely to be one, pulling facts out of thin air or his own ass or some silly Marxist diatribe on the web. Sure, you didn't explicitly say that, but I think it's fair to say your remarks could have the effect of polarizing the debate. (By the way, not all people responding with criticism of Bush would call themselves liberals, either.)

I stand by my original point that we haven't got much in the way of evidence right now that Bush was in any way culpable in the Enron debacle. But his dishonest actions to prevent further investigation into his relationship with Ken Lay merit suspicion, and probably investigation. If no link is found, leave the man alone. At least on this topic.

NT

[Cyrus]

"Hardly a "left wing" publication."

John,

Thanks for the article. For what it's worth, Joe Conason is the author of "Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312315600/qid=1089475196/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-8633962-7352054) , which decimates the hydra-like heads of neo-conservative distorters of the truth. He also wrote "The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton", which puts him, I'm afraid, even more to the left, in the eyes of most people on this forum.

As to Harper's magazine, it was never right wing. Which passes for left wing in our times, I'm afraid.

Regards,

--Cyrus

PS: The title of my post is, of course, not relevant to the subject at hand. But I happened to be reading the latest on Enron and suddenly felt usurious. Peckish, you could say.

PPS : Don't show this post to Adios. He will think it's ammunition for his left-wing media argument!

[John Cole]

I think most of the posters simply questioned why Bush would deny knowing the guy; furthermore, I didn't think you meant all liberals are crazy. I know one who isn't.

[John Cole]

Nothumb,

I enjoyed reading your responses, but let me offer one word of advice, which you may or may not accept. We tend to let typos go around here, and we don't go in for correcting spelling, punctuation, and usage. This is not RGP.

BTW, I pointed out to you in the Big Lebowski thread that "misspelling" does not take a hyphen, hoping you would get the hint. You may also note that Adios spelled "guilt" correctly in the post's title.

Best,

John

[nothumb]

John,

I've never been to RGP, so I don't know what you're talking about.

And I know everyone hates a grammar nazi (hey, I'm a professional writer, give me a break) but when you use a loaded word like 'fascist' repeatedly I would expect you to spell it properly. When you simply reproduce it incorrectly time and time again it implies that you heard it somewhere and like the way it sounds. While it may be elitist of me to say this, those who have a good command of the English language tend to have good command of the topics they argue as well. Not to say that adios is not fluent, but the word in question is particularly important - and often misused. In political discussions in particular, words like 'liberal' and 'fascist' are often misused, and thus paying attention to their usage - which you suggest I kindly ignore - is very important as well.

The people on 2+2 are vastly more intelligent than the general population and the poster in question here is clearly no fool either. But quite frankly I will not give someone credit for understanding something they can't spell until they demonstrate it.

I hope you will note my response was not solely devoted to correcting his spelling.

I have tried (and will continue to try) to contribute to these very serious discussions with attention to civility and logic (not to say you have implied anything to the contrary).

Regards,
NT

[MMMMMM]

" have tried (and will continue to try) to contribute to these very serious discussions with attention to civility and logic..."

Ah...what a waste of time;-)

[John Cole]

By all means, argue about how a word or term is used. When I used "usage," I meant the rules of Standard Written English--not the specific meaning of a word or term. For example, although the National Council of Teachers of English approves of the general "they" with the singular pronoun "someone," I'm usually a bit more fastidious about this in my own writing. That's what I meant by usage.

In addition, I'm sure, in time, you will find Adios's (I like to add the both the apostrophe and the "s" to words that end in "s") posts both thoughtful and reasonable, but I also think he went too far in his responses in this thread.

RGP posters often engage in pointing out various writing mistakes, which, to me, is a useless and pedantic exercise.

Finally, I think it sets a bad tone when any poster starts out by nitpicking and then tries to make a point. I did notice that you spent more time responding than you did correcting, and, again, I enjoyed your response (and those in the other thread, too).

BTW, a fine book that looks at how words change meaning over time is Keywords by Raymond Williams.

John

[John Cole]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah...what a waste of time;-)

[/ QUOTE ]

Bite me! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[nothumb]

Hey John,

Keywords is indeed a great book! I think the definition he gives of 'liberalism' is really excellent, and does a great job of clearing up the silly connotation the word has in America today. I wish I had it so I could post it, but I used a library copy when I read it (and incorporated it in my senior thesis, BTW).

Now that was off topic.

NT

[John Cole]

NT,

I have it around here somewhere, but I've cleaned out my bookcases to paint; it may take a week or two before I can dig it out. (I can't stay on topic for long.)