The parallel is Watergate

Forget Whitewater, Enron has the stink of conspiracy

01.23.02 | In the spring of 1974 the nation was torn by war, the White House was occupied by a rather dictatorial Republican President and there was a Scandal brewing that threatened to bring him down. Twenty eight years later the ghosts of Watergate have returned to the Oval Office with a vengeance. Now, as then, it will all come down to two small but very terrifying questions: What Did He Know and When Did He Know It?

In the beginning, as the first reports of a break-in at the Watergate complex surfaced, the White House took a firm stand: no one connected to the Administration would have been involved. But, day by day, first with one revelation, then another, Nixon's inner circle began to crumble, and the core of the White House defence strategy emerged. It was based on one premise that had to be defended at all costs: "the President had no prior knowledge of any crime." Clearly, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes and Ari Fleischer will employ the same strategy.

If guilt by association is good enough to bring down a president, George Bush is gone. Ken Lay and George Bush were heavily involved both financially and socially and made no secret of it. Access to the White House for "Kenny Boy" as he was affectionately called by Bush was in a word, unprecedented. To the extent that a private concern was actually allowed to sit in and contribute to the very planning of the policies from which they would profit -- not once but six times. Moreover, it is now clear that Ken Lay was more than a donor to George W. Bush, he was a 'stakehorse'. Supplying cash, a private jet during the 2000 campaign -- even financing the Florida recount effort that reversed the national popular vote. Clearly Kenny Boy had a vested interest George W. Bush.

Ultimately, evidence of criminal involvement will be the standard by which Mr. Bush is judged, but the parallels to those events twenty eight years ago are nothing short of Shakespearean.

Against a backdrop of war and political controversy Richard Nixon and George Bush both established reputations for being aloof, autocratic and downright vindictive. Each espoused a conservatism akin to fundamentalism.

As each scandal broke, the reaction from the White House -- the same: distance, indignation, and a call for immediate investigation. Now, as then, each day brings new revelations contradicting the denials. So too, just as Rose Mary Woods was forced to explain how critical minuets of taped White House phone conversations were mysteriously erased, Anderson Accounting must explain how critical accounting records were mysteriously deleted.

In the end Nixon was never directly implicated -- the tide just rose around him. Now twenty eight years later as Mr. Bush stands on the beach, he too must ponder a tide that is rolling in.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), January 24, 2002

Answers

bumpity bump

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), January 24, 2002.

Cherri, Nixon was directly implicated.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), January 24, 2002.

Cherri, go back and sue your doctor. It seems he has left you with decreased blood flow to the brain.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeeD@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002.

You don't deserve to call yourself a Libertarian Unk, you're just another ignorant Dubya ass-kisser. A little advice, should you wish to redeem yourself... in the future, it would be much wiser for you to attack the message, not the messenger.

-- (another ashamed Repugnant @ pretending to be. Libertarian), January 24, 2002.

Gotta agree unk. Attack the message, not the messenger.

Hell, I'm getting ready to post a few of these myself.

What's the deal with Laura's 'poor old mom'? Did you catch the pics of her coming off the plane with her daughter and 'son-in-law"? What was the story? Oh yea ... she ALSO lost in the Enron deal. Proof positive GW didn't know anything! LOL

-- Debra (they think were @ all . fools), January 25, 2002.

Debra,

You're forgetting something. She is his MOTHER-IN-LAW. Ask any man, even if he knew, he wouldn't tell her. More likely, he has been secretly laughing his ass off behind Laura's back.

-- (Dubya@is.laughing), January 25, 2002.

What message? Unless you think of Nostradamus type linking as something to Ooh at instead of humorous prattle there is no message. Think Unk's well working brain got momentarily frustrated and that he meant no harm.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 25, 2002.

Cherri regrets that she did not post her link.

-- (roland@hatemail.com), January 25, 2002.

Thanks roland. Noticed this earthshaker. Even has a "Bush Family" reference. A must read for all believers.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 25, 2002.

roland, It must be going around since that is not where "I" got it.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), January 25, 2002.

I'll attack what I want, when I want to attack it. If I posted something as silly as this I would expect questions about my sanity.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeeD@yahoo.com), January 25, 2002.

Debra, seems to me you need a chill pill. You're disturbed that they were walking off a plane?! (Did you catch the pics of her coming off the plane with her daughter and 'son-in-law"?) What the hell am I supposed to "catch"?

Thanks Cherri for another chuckle. I find this so fascinating. Dems don't know what to say. Did you hear Gephardt? We need campaign finance reform and this Enron thing is proof. (Oh btw, I especially loved Daschle using Enron as a verb - we won't Enron the people - too funny!) Now back to the esteemed rep...

See Enron gave money to the political party of their choice.

But Gep, baby, Enron didn't buy anything with that money; George didn't help Enron.

Well, there ya go; George was so fraught with looking as if there were improprieties that he didn't help. He needed to do something and didn't. That's why we need finance reform.

This is truly comic! Gotta love it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 25, 2002.

How much money did the UAW and NEA and Trial Lawyers give to each party?

-- (lars@indy.net), January 25, 2002.

Lars:

"How much money did the UAW and NEA and Trial Lawyers give to each party? "

Good question Lars. You should have added a second one.

How many employees and investors did the UAW, NEA and Trial Lawyers strip of their life savings for the sole benefit of their executives? ;<)))

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 25, 2002.

"Trial Lawyers strip of their life savings for the sole benefit of their executives?" Careful there Z. My guess is that lawyers strip lots of money away from lots of people for the benefit of their executives. It's done every day legally.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 25, 2002.

"If I posted something as silly as this I would expect questions about my sanity."

What's so silly about it Unk?

If anything, this scandal is a LOT WORSE than Watergate, millions of people were robbed. There is no evidence of political wrongdoings YET, but there is still a lot of probing to be done. There certainly is enough probable cause to be suspicious, like the fact that Dickhead Cheney is clamming up, he seems more interested in protecting Enron than the American people.

We'll see, but a parallel to Watergate is no joke, it's likely to be a lot worse than that. Definitely not "silly".

-- (your bias @ is. showing), January 25, 2002.

Maria:

You are backing yourself into a corner here with an indefensable position. Give me a documented example of this magnitude.

Everyone here seems to know more about this than me. Some people seem to know that the administration was involved. Some seem to know that it wasn't.

As for me, I haven't seen any facts that point either way on that subject, so I will wait and see.

Interesting that the ex[since May 2001]-vice chairman committed suicide today.

That may mean something or not. We will need to wait and see.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 25, 2002.

your bias, a trivia bit for you. Enron 401Ks averaged a 58% holding in Enron stock. The number for CocaCola is 81%. It's a problem. A problem not solved by shouting at the darkness and making shit up. When the 401K was created it was lauded as passing the investment options to the worker instead of a retirement plan crafted solely by the evil employer. What happened was that the newly empowered worker didn't know shit about investment and suffered accordingly. It's happening every day but what the hell, we can always blame somebody else cause we're just poor workers slaved to the capitalist machine.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 26, 2002.

LOL Carlos! That is such a load of shit that if you could find some people stupid enough to believe it you could be a politician!

"Enron 401Ks averaged a 58% holding in Enron stock. The number for CocaCola is 81%. It's a problem. A problem not solved by shouting at the darkness and making shit up."

Lots of Microsoft employees have ALL of their 401K money in Microsoft, and lots of them became MILLIONAIRES. The amount of stock held in the business is irrelevant, it is the quality of the business that determines whether or not investors will profit.

"What happened was that the newly empowered worker didn't know shit about investment and suffered accordingly."

No, what happened was that the employees listened to and trusted their CEO, Kenneth Lay, as he went about the company telling his own employees that the stock was a great buy for several weeks after he began dumping his own shares, when he knew damn well that the company was a fraud.

It used to be true that in order for a man to be successful in business he would need to be trustworthy and honest in his dealings with others. In general, someone who had made it to a position such as a CEO of a large corporation was someone who had a good reputation for being reliable and true to his word.

The only mistake those people made was they believed that this principle still holds true. Unfortunately, they were not aware that when you are doing business with friends of Dubya, it is a whole new paradigm, where criminals are allowed to run scams and call them corporations.

-- (cut@the.bullshit), January 26, 2002.

Must have forgotten to mention that Lay and his cronies are snakes and should spend serious prison time. Actually you made the 401K arguement better than I could have. There were also 'millionaires' among the Enron folk who aren't today but if the millions never actuallly existed then, gee, I guess they actually wern't millionaires afterall. Wouldn't trust a Ken Lay anymore than a Bill Gates but you pick your winners and you blame your losers. The point I tried to make is that choice has consequence.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 26, 2002.

"Wouldn't trust a Ken Lay anymore than a Bill Gates but you pick your winners and you blame your losers."

No one is blaming Enron for being a "loser" business, they are blaming them for being a complete and total FRAUD. Apparently you haven't been keeping up on the last developments, the kind of things these guys did in the name of greed is downright shocking.

-- (do@your.homework), January 26, 2002.

"do@your.homework" is as right as can be.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), January 26, 2002.