Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (229788)	2/21/2002 6:12:44 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The Clinton administration provided three loans between 1994 and 1998 to the now-defunct Dabhol power project in India. Mr. Clinton's commerce secretary, Ron Brown, trumpeted the approval of the Dabhol loans on a trade mission to India in 1995, with Mr. Lay by his side. The trip was one of 11 Clinton trade missions provided at taxpayer expense for corporate executives from Enron and other companies. The U.S. Trade and Development Agency, which sponsored the trips, also provided $1 million in funding to study Enron energy projects in Russia, Eastern Europe and former Soviet states. As congressional committees dig for evidence to tie Enron and Mr. Lay to the Bush administration, evidence of Mr. Lay's links to the Clinton administration are ample and well-documented. Mr. Lay at times was Mr. Clinton's golf partner and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom. Other top Enron officials attended the White House's infamous "coffee klatches" with Mr. Clinton, according to published reports. Mr. Lay offered a seat on Enron's board of directors to Robert E. Rubin, Mr. Clinton's Treasury secretary, in 1999 just before he left government, the Associated Press reported yesterday. Mr. Rubin tried to get Treasury to intervene on behalf of Enron last fall when the company credit rating was threatened. In May 1996, Mr. Clinton lauded Mr. Lay as a good "corporate citizen" at a White House event because of Enron's enlightened personnel policies, including profit-sharing of Enron stock and generous health and pension benefits. Enron employees now are suing because those benefits are as worthless as the bankrupt company's stock. washingtontimes.com

To: DMaA who wrote (229788)	2/21/2002 7:59:16 PM
From: ThirdEye	Respond to of 769667

Oh, please. A short blurb in the National Review is all it takes? I'll have to see if I can find the actual retraction in the WashPost if it exists, but that little piece of clever obfuscation by the National Review doesn't ring my chimes. In fact, Gramm had almost nothing to do with it. Key word: almost He didn't write it No, he supported the identical version that was previously defeated. So he got someone else to introduce the same amendment with the same name and could therefore claim ignorance? Wonder who did write it. Enron? It came to the Senate from the House, where it was part of a bill that passed by a large margin. Yeah, an 11,000 page appropriation bill. He slipped in the amendment so late that hardly anyone realized it and sure as hell didn't read it before voting on the bill. He didn't usher it through the Senate: It was considered by the Agriculture Committee, of which he was not a member, rather than the Banking Committee, which he chaired. Since when does Agriculture handle deregulation of energy trading? This is legislative stealth. And for those of you here who are so quick to presume the worst kind of behind the scenes ethically-challenged behavior on the part of people whose basic orientations you disagree with, I'm surprised but I understand the difficulty you have seeing the nose on your face. He did, however, eventually vote for the bill, like most congressmen. "Most congressmen" are not the ones who got the amendment tacked onto the appropriations bill in the first place.