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.

Pastimes : Home on the range where the buffalo roam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Selectric II who wrote (8118)	7/10/2002 10:53:44 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13815

This is worth reading... The Corporate Scandals: Coming Clean The New York Times Editorial July 10, 2002 When George W. Bush speaks about corporate misbehavior and self-dealing by business insiders, he perches on a platform much weaker than the one from which he launched the war on terrorism. Instead of the sense of resolve and determination he showed after Sept. 11, the president is still struggling to prove that his past business dealings have not made him a product of the very system he now denounces. The president dismisses criticism of his record as political. But if he expects to restore confidence in corporate America, he needs to get his own house in order first. On Monday the president attempted to explain why the methods he employed as an oil company executive years ago are different from the insider trading and creative accounting now undermining the credibility of corporate America. He made the disastrous mistake of arguing that in his case, accounting rules were "not always black and white." For a president whose foreign policy, and entire political outlook, is based on the idea that the world can indeed be divided into good and bad, black and white, nothing could have sounded worse. The president needs to speak much more frankly about the money he made in selling his faltering oil company to Harken Energy of Texas — and later selling Harken shares shortly before the company's stock price collapsed. Harken also engaged in questionable bookkeeping practices while Mr. Bush served on its board. While the S.E.C. has found no illegalities, he would be a more persuasive advocate of reform if he found a way to acknowledge that this deal, the foundation of his personal fortune, is not a shining example of the stern code of responsibility he now demands that executives follow. The most sensitive spot in Mr. Bush's résumé has always been the strong suspicion that his success as a businessman was due in the main to his family connections. That becomes relevant if it means that the president places too much emphasis on personal loyalty and team spirit. It is not enough for Mr. Bush to declare that someone in his administration is a good man. He needs to show that he understands that good men sometimes do bad things when they are entrusted with power, and that it is the government's job to keep them accountable. Mr. Bush has repeatedly failed to make tough personnel decisions about people he regards as part of the team. It is inexcusable that Tom White, a former Enron executive, is still holding his job as Army secretary. And any clear-sighted administration would realize that Harvey Pitt, a former lawyer for the accounting industry, is not the right advocate as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission for tough new accounting standards long opposed by the industry. The administration was overly permissive when it came to demanding that cabinet members follow the rules for divesting themselves of their personal stock holdings. And Mr. Bush sees nothing wrong with the fact that Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force still refuses to release the names of the businessmen who advised the administration on its energy policy. Now Mr. Cheney's former company, Halliburton, is being investigated by the S.E.C. for practices carried out while he was in charge. The public needs some frank explanations, but Mr. Cheney has declined to comment. It's far too late for Mr. Bush to go back and demonstrate that he could have been a successful businessman even if his name were George Walker. What we need is a president who sets an example of the standards he wants corporate America to adopt. If he can't do that, his critics will have grounds to poke at that tender spot in his personal history again and again. nytimes.com

To: Selectric II who wrote (8118)	7/11/2002 12:08:38 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13815

THE CONSPIRACY TO PROVIDE VISAS TO TERRORISTS Selectric, I read last week that 15 of the purported hijackers on 9/11 were denied visas by the State Department in Riyahd, but that State was overruled by the CIA in Dahran who forced the visas through. Apochryphal? Perhaps... But this is absolutely real: Then tonight on NPR I heard that the controllers in the White House were "disgusted" that State had permitted certain visas out of Qatar. They demanded that visa permissions be yanked from State and be given to the new Homeland Security agency in order to provide better protection to "the system". npr.org [[Note: the salient discussion of the ruse to cut State out of the visa game is at the end of the segment, starting at about 3:35 into the discussion.]] Today, by a three to one majority, the U.S. House voted to allow airline pilots to carry guns in the cockpits of U.S. planes. The Bush Mal-administration was adamantly opposed to the pilots having protection. Now answer me this, oh wise one.... It appears that Bush is in cahoots with the CIA to import terrorists and stop U.S. citizens from protecting themselves by rational means. All in the meantime creating a police state monstrosity called Fatherland, umm,, errr, sorry, that just slipped out, Herr Bush, sorry, I mean Homeland Defense. Do you see something odd about all this? Or does it appear to you as it does to me, an orderly progression toward fascism and the creation of a police state aided and abetted by conspirators within our government foisting terror episodes on its own population in order to control them? Just wondering. And isn't that lawsuit against Oil Slick Dick highly inconvenient to the plan? Tough luck, that one. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Looking at one of my favorite sources: Unanswered Questions: unansweredquestions.org I run across this unanswered question: Why have no tapes of airport surveillance been released illustrating the alleged hijackers presence in the airports, passing through security, boarding the planes, et cetera? The fact that nineteen individuals, whom by their Middle-Eastern appearance to some extent alone would unfortunately quite possibly draw the attraction of a security camera, could bypass all sorts of surveillance seems a bit odd. Everyone recalls the video of Atta at the ATM machine played over and over... This is nineteen individuals... We need to demand that the government release all video footage available proving that these men actually maneuvered through US airports. The fact that many of their identities were reported to be existing men living in the Middle East and in some cases stolen identities, thus implying questionable validity of the "terrorists" true identities, should raise concern to all. Show us the video and prove that the pictures of the nineteen faces plastered in newspapers across the globe match the faces in the obviously available airport surveillance tapes. It has been almost ten months to the day since 9/11 as I pose this question, and nowhere has one individual openly called for this evidence to be placed on the table. I want this evidence produced - now - with the assumption that if it cannot be, it does not exist. Don't you? It's time for the US government to address this serious concern. Either the tapes support the faces which were published in the papers and the US government saves a little face, or the tapes don't coincide, proving there is a much deeper and sinister form of terrorism occurring within the depths of America. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" What is it that Oil SLick Dick is trying to hide from us? How many different "games" is he involved in? La vie est trop curieuse, n'est pas? Le Faineant Qui Voit