note the dates. Clinton Repaid Enron With $1 Billion in Subsidized Loans
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com Friday, Feb. 22, 2002
Democrats have hoped the Enron scandal would tar the Bush administration, but as investigators dig deeper it's the Clinton administration and the Dems who are emerging as the villains of the piece.
The Washington Times reported Thursday that the Clinton administration coughed up more than $1 billion in taxpayer-subsidized loans to Enron Corp. just when the energy giant was kicking in almost $2 million for Democrat causes. And as we have previously reported, to help persuade then-President Bill Clinton to push the disastrous Kyoto Protocol, Enron gave $420,000 to Democrats.
Times reporter Patrice Hill writes that, according to the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp., the agencies that provided the subsidies, the Clinton administration turned down only one out of 20 Enron projects to build power plants, natural-gas pipelines and other "big-ticket energy facilities" between 1993 and 2000.
Moreover, the Clinton administration, "which lauded Chairman Kenneth L. Lay as an exemplary 'corporate citizen,' granted about $200 million worth of insurance against political risks for nine Enron projects in such politically volatile areas as Argentina, Venezuela and the Gaza Strip, according to documents the agencies provided to the Senate Finance Committee."
"These projects obviously were a tremendous benefit to Enron's operations," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking minority member of the committee, told the Times. The Reagan and Bush administrations approved not a single loan for Enron between 1985 and 1992 and provided insurance for only one Enron power project in Guatemala in 1992, he noted.
On the other hand, the Clinton administration made three loans between 1994 and 1998 to the now-defunct Dabhol power project in India. Ron Brown, Clinton's commerce secretary, bragged about the approval of the Dabhol loans during a trade mission to India in 1995, while Lay stood by his side.
don't make the smae mistakes again. the Clintons were deeply involved in the energy deregulation process that has led to tehis crash we are in right now...
fool me once? shame on me twice? fool US twice? shame on the voters.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
The Times noted that the junket was "one of 11 Clinton trade missions provided at taxpayer expense for corporate executives from Enron and other companies." Moreover, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, which sponsored the trips, also coughed up $1 million in funding to study Enron energy projects in Russia, Eastern Europe and former Soviet states.
While Democrats go rooting around trying to find any single indication that Lay was somehow in cahoots with the Bush administration, evidence of his links to the Clinton administration is popping up all over the place.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
# Lay not only was a golfing partner of Clinton, he even slept in the Lincoln Bedroom. Other members of Enron's top executive echelon attended the White House's infamous "coffee klatches" hosted by Clinton, according to published reports.
# Lay offered a seat on Enron's board of directors to Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury secretary, in 1999 just before he left office, according to an Associated Press report Thursday. It turns out that Rubin, being paid an astonishing $40 million a year by Enron creditor Citigroup, tried to get the Treasury Department to intervene for Enron last fall when the company's credit rating was threatened.
# In May 1996, Clinton touted Lay as being a good "corporate citizen" at a White House event because of Enron's alleged enlightened personnel policies, including profit-sharing of Enron stock and generous health and pension benefits. As the Times noted, Enron employees now are suing because those benefits proved as worthless as the bankrupt company's stock.
# The Times reported that according to Federal Election Commission records, during the Clinton administration Enron kicked in more than $1 million to the Democrat party, including $600,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Clinton and Vice President Al Gore got contributions of $11,000 and $13,750, respectively, for their presidential campaigns.
# Enron made a $100,000 contribution to the DNC just before India gave final approval to Enron's Dabhol project in June 1996. According to the Times, Dabhol, the largest and most expensive capital project ever undertaken in India, was of dubious economic value and never went on line.
After looking at the Dabhol project, the World Bank declared said it was not economically viable and of inordinate benefit to Enron, which had a 65 percent stake in the project. Enron still owes $203 million on an Export-Import Bank loan for the project, which the bank says is covered by guarantees provided by five Indian banks.
wake up!!! smell the outhouse? these two are just as bad as what we have right now.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
this wasn't some GOP smear campaign, this was all over the news by the "liberal media" five years ago, but nobody can remember it anymore?
comeon...
Documents obtained by TIME show the energy giant enjoyed much closer ties with Clinton Administration regulators than was generally known. Long before Cheney's task force met with Enron officials and included their ideas in Bush's energy plan, Clinton's energy team was doing much the same thing. Drafting a 1995 plan to help facilitate cash flow and credit for energy producers, it asked for Enron's input—and listened. The staff was directed to "rework the proposal to take into account the specific comments and suggestions you made," Clinton Deputy Energy Secretary Bill White wrote an Enron official.
Political campaign donations helped Enron play a major role in the deregulation campaign. In total, Enron donated just under $6 million to election campaigns beginning with the 1989-90 election cycle. It contributed to the campaigns of 71 current senators and 188 current members comprising 43 percent of Congress. It became the sixth highest contributor during the 1994 election cycle and by 2000 was the top contributor of all corporations in the Energy/Natural Resources sector. Enron also spent millions lobbying Congress, the White House and federal agencies. Like the EEI, Enron drew its lobbyists from both the Republican and Democrat parties. By the late 1990s it employed more than 150 people on state and federal government affairs in Washington, DC. http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/dereg.html
it's everywhere if you JUST LOOK.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Now you've gone and done it. How is Bdgee going to defend any of that? How dare you speak ill of his God? Heartless... just heartless.
IP: Logged |
posted
conspiracy? well. yes it is and here's why IMO:
Say you are the owner of a medium or even large size media outlet. Your assistant tells you you have a phone call scheduled in ten minutes with an ex-president. What do you do?
duh! you clear your calendar and take the call..
now this guy (slick willie) gets in your ear and starts telling how you have to back his wife or he'll be very unhappy with you. of course it isn't presented as direct threat, it's much better veiled than that.
that is a conspiracy.
Kissing Willie Lyrics by Jethro Tull
Lyrics for Kissing Willie;
performed by Jethro Tull
Breaking hearts in a market town. She eats filet of sole and washes it down with sparkling wine. Nice girl, but a bad girl's better. Qualifies in both ways to my mind. But now she's kissing Willie. She shows a leg shows it damn well. Knows how to drive a man right back to being a child. Well, she's a nice girl, but her bad girl's better. I can read it in her cheating eyes and know that in a while. Well, she'll be kissing Willie. (My best friend, Willie.)
Willie stands and Willie falls. Willie bangs his head behind grey factory walls. Well, she's a nice girl, but her bad girl's better. Me and Willie just can't help come, when she calls. Now she's kissing Willie. (My best friend, Willie.)
One must remember, as much as it undermines the efforts and lies of the republican party and the "Hate Clinton Liars Club", that Enron was an enormous sham run on the United States and it's people by a collection of big time republican policy makers, working with very forceful encouragement and support of the Republican Party itself.
One must also remember that Bill Clinton is not a candidate for any elective office anywhere and that those that choose to broadcast the hate and vile against him clearly are doing so to justify that they have no intent toward honest consideration of the candidates in this election or the deplorable conditions into which Enron and the Republican Party have forced our Nation and the World and are intent on again voting for their Party before their Country (proving where their real sentiment and loyalty lies). It is shameful that they would require that the World must to overcome that sort sickness again.
IP: Logged |
posted
[qb]this wasn't some GOP smear campaign, this was all over the news by the "liberal media" five years ago, but nobody can remember it anymore?[QB]
I DIDNT FORGET!
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
IP: Logged |
posted
Want 4 more years of Bush? Vote for Billary...
Budge...are you really that blind that you can't see how despicable the Clinton Clan really is? I can see through the Bush bull..it, why are you not able to see the Clintons as they really are? Practice what you preach about aligning yourself along party lines. The Dems are just as bad as the Reps.
Personally I don't see one candidate from either side that will change anything, or hasn't been "bought by lobbyists"
posted
Of course you haven't forgotten. But you have forgotten that a roll call of the Board of Enron amounted to a listing of the biggest republicans powers ever.
You have collected every bit of possible or impossible lies you can to spew out hatred toward the Clintons to use as a smoke screen to hide the actual purposes and direction of the Republican Party. It is the Republican Party that is responsible for the deplorable conditions into which politique de parti de dubya has carried us.
Let me point out that Clinton has not yet achieved the nomination and may not.
Moreover, any candidate not a republican is better than any republican that wishes to continue on the anti-American unconstitutional road to devastation we have been on since January of 2000.
It is time to become thoroughly and truely American again and reject the appeals to hate campaigns and the shamefully unpatriotic Party first attitude of "Repubilcan uber alles".
IP: Logged |
posted
"Personally I don't see one candidate from either side that will change anything, or hasn't been "bought by lobbyists", amounts to nothing more than an admission that you are a pure disciple of Party first and always and an excuse to vote for the crooks that have run the world into this mess.
Don't give me your bigotry and hate of the Clinton until after you have dissected the facts and observed that each and every one of the republicans (Paul isn't a republican...sorry) has promised to continue on the dubya path to destruction.
IP: Logged |
posted
Don't give me your bigotry and hate of the Clinton until after you have dissected the facts and observed that each and every one of the republicans (Paul isn't a republican...sorry) has promised to continue on the dubya path to destruction.
Oh I am not a bigot concerning my "hate" for the Clintons...it is justifiable...and I have dissected the Rep candidates and agree that they will all continue down the same path as Bush, so therefore I have the same "hate" towards them.
The difference between you and I, is that I can see that every Dem candidate will also lead us down the same path...
posted
In a recent debate Obama remarked that he sometimes didn't know who he was running against Hillary or Bill. Don't be blind enough to not realize that a Clinton is a Clinton, you get one with the other.
Obama in 2008.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!!
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not blind. Electing another republican is dangerous to an extreme. There is nothing but destruction of the Constitution in more republicans in office, just as there has been with dubya. It is a fundamental of the Party philosophy.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: Obama in 2008! What else can I say.
Other than recognizing how dangerous continued control of our nation by the Party would be, I have not been tempted to select any preferred candidate.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "The difference between you and I, is that I can see that every Dem candidate will also lead us down the same path..."
No, you are just a Party first republican puppet that wants the world to follow the RNC talking points and gleefully be led into fascism.
The difference us is that I refuse to be duped into anti-Americanism, while you eagerly speak of undermining the Constitution.
We are guaranteed that electing another republican will continue this mess.
Can you NOT read or are you just stupid?
I have stated loud and clear that I despise what the republican party has become, and I will NOT vote for any of the republicans currently in the mix...
I am also smart enough to see that a vote for Hillary would achieve the same results.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "The difference between you and I, is that I can see that every Dem candidate will also lead us down the same path..."
No, you are just a Party first republican puppet that wants the world to follow the RNC talking points and gleefully be led into fascism.
The difference us is that I refuse to be duped into anti-Americanism, while you eagerly speak of undermining the Constitution.
We are guaranteed that electing another republican will continue this mess.
Can you NOT read or are you just stupid?
I have stated loud and clear that I despise what the republican party has become, and I will NOT vote for any of the republicans currently in the mix...
I am also smart enough to see that a vote for Hillary would achieve the same results.
Stupid?
No you are the stupid one.
Declaring you will not vote for any of the current republicans or for Clinton ignores the possibility that she might win the nomination, leaving you, assuming you are honest, voting for a third party candidate (thus essentially not voting) or not voting at all. That is stupid.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: I'm not blind. Electing another republican is dangerous to an extreme. There is nothing but destruction of the Constitution in more republicans in office, just as there has been with dubya. It is a fundamental of the Party philosophy.
i will vote for anybody other than Billary (unless Jeb or another Bush was running) i wold vote for david duke before them.
budge. i am not spreading right wing lies. i am telling you factually that the Clintons are just as dirty as the Bush's.
the only difference is how long they have been.
Chelsea got cherry jobs and last i could find? she's working at a hedge fund.
stop calling us liars when we present the truth.
the Clintons have been LYING about Obamma and the media is even proving it by showing how they are doing it.
these two people are dangerous to our country by only a small margin less than the Bush's.
as far i am concerned? the Clintons are setting up their own circular firing squad for their party AGAIN. when will the democrats learn?
a GOP president with Congress firmly in the Dems hands (which it will be) is not so bad..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Billary signed George the Firsts NAFTA agreement with a Dem congress behind him.
FactCheck: for NAFTA while First Lady; now against CAFTA Barack Obama accused Clinton of flip-flops on trade. Obama said, "Senator Clinton in her campaign has been for NAFTA previously, now she's against it."
Obama is partly right concerning the North American Free Trade Agreement. Clinton's views on NAFTA have shifted, but they shifted prior to her official run for the White House. Back in 1998, in a keynote speech given at the Davos Economic Summit, Clinton praised business leaders for mounting "a very effective business effort in the US on behalf of NAFTA," adding later that "it is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun." But by 2005 she was expressing reservations about free trade agreements, voting that year against the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). And she told Bloomberg News in March 2007 that, while she still believes in free trade, she supports a freeze on new trade agreements--something she calls "a little time-out." http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm
The former president was asked about his support for the NAFTA trade agreement, which is not too popular around here. (Hillary Clinton now says she opposes it.) He did his best to distance himself from it, even though he supported it vigorously back in 1993, declaring that Congressional approval would mark "a decisive moment" in American history.
Today, his tune was very different. "NAFTA was largely a trade agreement with Canada and largely done when I got there," he told the Town Hall meeting. The first part of that statement is nonsense, as NAFTA applied to Mexico as much as Canada. It is true that NAFTA had been negotiated under Bush 41, but Clinton was a passionate supporter, and was key to persuading Congress to ratify the agreement in November 1993.
posted
I hear all of you but there is no way that I am going to vote Republican until they weed there fascist out of there party.
They are at this point either relegious right wacko's, Fascist,or ego nuts that don't know what they are talking about but there is a common denominator and that is corruption
IP: Logged |
posted
when Hillary voted to send troops to Iraq? i figured the intel must be real... apparently she never even read the reports herself..
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new biography of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has once again raised the issue of whether members of Congress read a key intelligence report before the 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq.
Clinton did not read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, according to "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton."
For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the document.
The Clinton biography, written by New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., summarizes the intelligence estimate, which combined reports of U.S. intelligence agencies about Iraq.
and before you say she was briefed? if she had read it? she might have caught the 10-12 pages:
McLaughlin, now a CNN contributor, said dissenting views by the State Department, Department of Energy and the Air Force made up about 10 to 12 pages of the report -- but critics say those dissents were not highlighted.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever and whoever the democratic nominee, it won't be a republican of this current ilk and whatever or whoever the republicans nominate, it will be a republican of the current ilk.
Thus, I cannot condone as patriotic any vote that allows for the remotest possibility of a republican president. Moreover, the same holds true for any office, at any level, until the republican party can prove, by action, not claim, it is no longer dedicated to fascism and destruction of the Constitution of the United States of America.
(It might be a good starting point for republicans to learn that The Declaration of IndependenceIS NOT, included as a subset of the Constitution and there is no statement or implication of the Constitution that awards to or asserts that the power that it holds to assure rights enumerated or otherwise allowed within issues from any God or gods, either directly, indirectly, or by construction. Moreover, even in the The Declaration of Independence, it is not said that there things therein were via any god, but that "We hold these truths to be self-evident.)
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "The difference between you and I, is that I can see that every Dem candidate will also lead us down the same path..."
No, you are just a Party first republican puppet that wants the world to follow the RNC talking points and gleefully be led into fascism.
The difference us is that I refuse to be duped into anti-Americanism, while you eagerly speak of undermining the Constitution.
We are guaranteed that electing another republican will continue this mess.
Can you NOT read or are you just stupid?
I have stated loud and clear that I despise what the republican party has become, and I will NOT vote for any of the republicans currently in the mix...
I am also smart enough to see that a vote for Hillary would achieve the same results.
Stupid?
No you are the stupid one.
Declaring you will not vote for any of the current republicans or for Clinton ignores the possibility that she might win the nomination, leaving you, assuming you are honest, voting for a third party candidate (thus essentially not voting) or not voting at all. That is stupid.
Voting for a candidate that I do not believe, or believe in, is STUPID...NOT voting for a candidate that I do not believe, or believe in, is called having integrity...
a GOP president with Congress firmly in the Dems hands (which it will be) is not so bad.. [/QB]
Yes that would be so bad... their is a reason why Republicans were not the majority in Congress in over 40 years at one point and why they lost control of it again... because enough is enough... we had it bad with Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr., Bush Sr. etc... when will the Republicans or nation learn? You go on a Clinton bash but need I remind you we had it good with Clinton in alot of aspects more so then when a Republican is in office... my memory is not too good but wasn't our economy better? did we have a surplus? our stock market in a uptrend? No Presidency is perfect but Clinton's had more good then bad unlike when a Republican is in office... Clinton had a 65% approval rating when he left office... the highest of any President since WWII... that says alot compared to Dubya and other Rep Prez... So regardless if Hillary gets nominated or not I'm voting Dem... enough is enough... when Bush was elected I am sure you did not say we should have a Dem Congress to even things out so spare me the talk about having a Rep Prez with Dem Congress now because all it is , is desperation. It will be the Dem's turn this time and hopefully they will undo all the cr*p that was done by the Reps since Newt Gingrich and the boys were in power.... The damage is done and now we need to give someone else a chance to fix it.... Below are some notable Bills that Clinton signed into law:
Major legislation signed
1993-02-05 - Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 1993-09-21 - creation of the AmeriCorps volunteer program 1993-11-30 - Brady Bill 1994-09-13 - Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, part of an omnibus crime bill, the federal death penalty was expanded to some 60 different offenses (see Federal assault weapons ban) 1996-02-01 - Communications Decency Act 1996-02-08 - Telecom Reform Act: eliminated major ownership restrictions for radio and television groups. 1996-02-26 - Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a welfare reform bill 1996-03-14 - authorized $100 million counter-terrorism agreement with Israel to track down and root out terrorists. 1996-04-09 - Line Item Veto Act 1996-04-24 - Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996-08-20 - Minimum wage Increase Act 1997-08-05 - Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 1998-10-28 - Digital Millennium Copyright Act
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
when Bush was elected I am sure you did not say we should have a Dem Congress to even things out so spare me the talk about having a Rep Prez with Dem Congress now because
actually you are blowing gas. i have said that having split control is best for the country many times. and i even said it to you directly in the past and if you don't remember? then that's prolly why you are wiling to vote the Clintons back in cuz you're memory is too short.
furthermore? i expected Hilary to run this time and i think she and Bill threw Kerry under the bus last time so she could run this time.
she isn't "for" your party she uses you all like KY.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Your on crack if you dont see the buck that Bubba passed on to Dubya. A few names that come to mind.... Adelphia, Tyco, Arthur Andersen/Enron Worldcom and a host of other conglomerates that shook the publics faith in business and wallstreet.
Of course the economy was good....EVERYBODY WAS COOKING THEIR BOOKS
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
