Let the Obfuscation Begin!

By: James G. Wilson

The Republican propaganda machine was set into motion almost immediately after the news broke that the Justice Department had launched a criminal probe into the Enron collapse. Why was there a need to create an offensive blitz so quickly? Could it be that they know George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and members of their administration have some role to play in this scandal?

Of course, the Rush Limbaughs of the world tried to first convince us that there was nothing to this story. That didn't work, so they're now trying to "warn" us not to dig too deep into this because the Democrats (especially Bill Clinton) are as dirty as Republicans in all of this. They offer up three examples as proof of their warning.

"Democrats received campaign contributions from Enron, too." This is a red herring designed to deflect the issue away from Bush & Co. Since there is no question that Enron followed the laws regulating campaign contributions, there is no problem with Democrats receiving money from them. However, it is worth noting that Democrats received a pittance compared to what Enron and Ken Lay contributed to Republicans and George W. Bush, in particular.

"If Bush and Lay are such good friends, why didn't Bush bail out Enron to keep it from collapsing?" That's a good question. Bush bailed out the airlines with $15 billion in taxpayer money. He is trying to bail out the insurance industry even though they don't need it. He gave a "backdoor bailout" to the energy industry (including Enron) last summer after the California power crisis came to a head. Yet, he wouldn't raise a finger to help Enron when they came begging in November. Is it possible that he knew Lay and his people were cooking the books and didn't want to be involved when the hammer fell? Given that Bush is a grand proponent of corporate welfare, what other explanation is there?

"Bill Clinton took money from Enron in exchange for helping to get them a power plant in India." It was Thomas "Mack" McLarty (now vice chairman of Kissinger McLarty Associates - working for Bush in Latin American projects these days) who facilitated the Enron/India agreement. As to the money, it is well-documented that Lay/Enron had a philosophy of giving money to both parties to cover their bets. Just because Republicans want so desparately to see a quid pro quo based on coincidence doesn't make it so. Besides, America knows all-too-well that, had there been even a shred of evidence pointing to one, Dan Burton would have been all over it! The story they cite for this accusation ran in Time magazine, so it is unlikely that he and other Republicans wouldn't have been alerted to it.

Guess what, though, folks? George W. Bush went to bat for Enron back in 1988 by "making a phone call to secure a $300-million deal for a U.S. pipeline company - a deal that provoked a political firestorm in Argentina". NOTE: This same article might be of interest for more than just Bush's Enron connection given what is currently going on in Argentina with its financial woes. Congress should investigate this one, as well, to see if the Bush family had anything to do with the current crisis there.

All in all, the claims made by Limbaugh and his sheep are nothing more than feeble attempts to smear Bill Clinton and the Democratic party while denying Bush & Co. did anything wrong. Just as they did with the failing economy and 9-11, CONservatives would have us believe that this is all Bill Clinton's fault. Hmmm. None of these disasters happened on Clinton's watch, nor did Clinton intentionally talk down the economy in December 2000. Clinton did not tell the FBI and CIA to "back off" the terrorism probes in the summer of 2001 so that a pipeline across Afghanistan could be secured via negotiations with the Taliban. No folks, the Enron fiasco - like all the others - is fully 100% George W. Bush's scandal. No amount of obfuscation will change that fact.

Now that the Republican propaganda has been debunked, we can get on to what makes this scandal an even bigger albatross around George W. Bush's neck than Whitewater was for Clinton. Everyone knows that Bush is up to his eyeballs in conflicts of interest in dealings with Ken Lay and Enron. Why else would the White House be circling the wagons?

Let's look at some of the Bush people with ties to Enron. First, we have White House economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, who is a former advisor for Enron. Did he propose any plans that may have been beneficial to Enron at the expense of our already faltering economy? Then, there's Karl Rove, who was forced to sell $250,000 in Enron stock after news stories broke about him meeting with company executives. Was Rove provided with inside information that could have influenced federal policy-making decisions in an effort to increase the value of his investments?

Army Secretary, Thomas White, is a former Enron executive who cashed out $50 million to $100 million in Enron shares. White also pushed hard to let private contractors run utilities on military bases last June. U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft, had to recuse himself from the DOJ probe after it was discovered that he accepted campaign contributions from Enron. His deputy A.G. had to follow suit.

Perhaps the biggest player in all of this (aside from Bush himself) is Dick Cheney. He met with Ken Lay in April 2001, and he allowed other Enron executives to meet at least six times with aides working on the White House energy task force. Cheney is still under fire from congress and the GAO over not releasing information regarding these meetings. What is he hiding?

According to ABC News, "Lay himself worked with the Bush transition team and helped screen candidates for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission". This is an extraordinary conflict of interest for Bush to let Lay have that kind of voice in the shaping of the administration! Another conflict of interest has been reported by the Houston Chronicle: "America's top markets cop is being hobbled in leading the Securities and Exchange Commission's probe of Enron Corp. by his links to the accounting firm entangled in the deepening scandal over the company's collapse. SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt represented the accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, now under SEC investigation for its auditing of Enron's books [and shredding of documents related to Enron], when he was a private attorney." It remains to be seen how many more of Bush's administrative appointees were tainted by Enron's influence.

Let's not forget the congressional Republicans who have been involved with Enron. First, we have the wife of Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. Wendy Gramm sat on the board of Enron and is currently being sued for allegations of insider trading regarding $276,912 in Enron stock before the collapse. We also have Rep. Dick Armey of Texas. According to this website, Armey's political advisor, Pat Shortridge, became a senior director of governmental affairs for Enron in charge of "lobbying the federal government on Enron's behalf". Is it possible that these events might have something to do with the odd timing of both congressmen announcing that they will not be running for another term this year?

If George W. Bush, his administration and these congressmen are simply innocent bystanders in the Enron collapse, then they have nothing to worry about. If, on the other hand, they knew what Ken Lay and Enron were up to with their financial shenanigans, they are in serious trouble. Will the prosecutor appointed by Ashcroft's DOJ have conflicts of interest of his own that have yet to be revealed? Will congress set aside its Republican bias and properly investigate this? Will the media report on it the way they do every little rumor about the Clintons? Only time and thorough investigations will provide us with the answers to these and many other questions.