Wednesday, January 30, 2002

Hastert's lies and A Blue Burka for Justice

This is my letter to the New York Times regarding Maureen Dowd's article today, A Blue Burka for Justice
I can attest to the fact that there were no Calico cats or nude statues anywhere near me while I researched this.

Yesterday, the speaker of the house remarked, when asked how the Cheney Task Force records differed from Hillary's, that they didn't get Hillary's documents. This is a lie. According to the NATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY CENTER's (NLPC) web site, they did get Hillary's Task Force documents.

They claim that "U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Hillary's task force violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) because it included private citizens in its closed door sessions."

OK. There's some precedent for Comptroller Walker and the GAO's office.

The NLPC's site goes on to say "Additionally, the Clinton effort had close to 1,000 participants while the Bush effort has merely twelve officials and twelve staff, all of whom are government employees. If no 'outsiders' take part in a government task force, FACA does not require open meetings. NLPC's litigation against Hillary's task force revealed that many of the participants were lobbyists and representatives of special interests which stood to gain financially from inside information..."

Well, we now know that the Bush effort was no all government employees. The NLPC did not answer my inquiries into this matter, nor has the Bush administration. Maybe you'll have better luck.

Scott Supak

Tuesday, January 29, 2002

Ken Lay's wife says they're broke, that the $300 million he made in the last three years is gone

Ken Lay's wife is either a stupid mushroom who's been kept in the dark and should be keeping her mouth shut, or she's a lying Republican bitch. Wait. Is that redundant? See, this story just keeps getting better:
Little sympathy for Enron Chief

In fact, NBC News found eight homes and lots in Houston and two in Galveston still owned by Ken and Linda Lay. It amounts to a total value of more than $10 million, and area realtors say none of the properties are currently listed for sale.

As of January 1, Lay still owned more than 5 million in stocks, including 341,000 shares of Compaq worth $3.5 million and 20,000 shares of Lilly, worth $1.5 million. He’s also entitled to an Enron severance package of $25 million.
Hey, I want to go broke like that!

Was Ken Lay really some sort of corporate Chauncey Gardiner, placidly floating along while the sharks circled? Not likely. After all, he created the company and hired many of the biggest sharks. As chairman, he either knew—or should have known—about many of Enron’s corporate shenanigans, its elaborate schemes to hide losses and debts and put on a misleadingly robust face.

Be sure to vote "7" for this story and "1" for any pro-bush stories at MSNBC.COM. Particularly good stories for tonight, during the Resident's state of the Union address, would be Cheney refusing to turn over the records of his meetings with Enron, Ken lay is uberwimp and made his wife go out on PR for him, and the Suicide of one of the Enron whistle blowers.

Monday, January 28, 2002

"Get this: if the stimulus bill that passed the House, backed by the White House, somehow survives intact, the government would write a rebate check for $254 million to... Enron." -- Jonathan Alter, NEWSWEEK

I still want someone to take Resident Bush's dare and ask him about why price caps weren't put in place sooner on the west coast while Enron made at least $70 billion in a few months on the "crisis" in California? The administration was, at least for a while, against price caps "in principle." Yet, while saying that on the west coast, they were allowing price caps on the east coast. Alter's on to another track of investigation that's much bigger. Flat out influence peddling and gutting of government regulation of all kinds:
"Curtis Hebert, the former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, confirmed for me last week that he was “interviewed” by Ken Lay for his job. I later learned that at least three other candidates for commissioner were also “interviewed” by the man they were supposed to be regulating, presumably at the direction of someone in the Bush personnel office. Who decided on that? And where else was this favor extended? Did the heads of big telecommunications companies get to vet candidates for the FCC? How about agribusiness executives handpicking USDA officials or drug companies staffing the FDA? Just asking."
Well, Mr. Adler, the Resident dared us to ask. He didn't say he'd answer.

Saturday, January 26, 2002

The right wing nuts try to blame liberals for Enron

I find the attempt to blame Clinton for the moral deterioration of Enron particularly funny. Like Texas energy barons were bastions of morality until Clinton came along. Right. For all the red-neck, gun-loving, choice-hating, regulation-hating, hypocritical, money-grubbing, hateful, racist, bigoted religious fanatics out there, read Paul Krugman today: Spreading It Around.
Why is Enron a problem for conservatives? Even if the Bush administration turns out to be squeaky clean, which we'll never know unless it starts to be more forthcoming, the scandal threatens perceptions that the right has spent decades creating.

Friday, January 25, 2002

White House Oil Slicks try to slime out of Enron

I've been reading the Bush and Enron goodies at the Nation and, even though I've been reading a lot about this, I really enjoyed hearing The Nation's writers sum it up for me. One really good one is by Robert Borosage:
It is Enron's rise that lays bare the hypocrisy of modern conservatives--call them Enron conservatives. Enron conservatives fly the flag of free markets but actually use political and financial clout to free themselves from accountability, rig the market and then use their position to ravage consumers, investors and employees. These are not the small-is-beautiful compassionate conservatives George Bush advertised in the election campaign, or the tory conservatives who protect flag, family and honor. Enron conservatives make the rules to benefit themselves. "They have clout and the ability to get the rules written their way," said Stephen Naeve, chief financial officer for Houston Industries, Inc. about Enron in 1997. "They play with sharp elbows."
Well, there's a lot of people sharpening their elbows for a fight with Enron. And if there's any question if what they did was criminal, ask the family of the man who tried to stop the company from its evil-doing, and was found dead of an "apparent" suicide this morning in Sugarland, Texas. Wonder what kind of investigation will go into that death? And I wonder if Jerry Falwell will make a tape (available to you for only $35) explaining how this President was responsible for that death?

It gets better. In Robert Scheer's article "Bush to Lay: What Was Your Name Again?", we discover that the Bush's were pushing for Enron business all over the world.
After Bush the elder's defeat in 1992, the ties between Enron and the Bush camp grew even stronger. In March 1993, Enron hired Bush's Commerce secretary, Robert A. Mosbacher, and his secretary of State, James A. Baker III, to line up contracts for Enron around the world. As Enron's representative, Baker--later George W.'s Florida election strategist--even went on a trip accompanying the ex-President to Kuwait to do big business in the nation Bush had fought the Gulf War to save.

The trip was criticized by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, who said that he had turned down millions in proffered deals to do business in Kuwait after the war.

"I represent 540,000 American men and women, not some private company," said Schwarzkopf. "They were willing to die in Kuwait. Why should I profit from their sacrifice?"
I wonder what Stormin' Norman thinks about the profit the new wave of Bushies made from the sacrifice of the average investor? I wonder what the Genreal thinks of W in general? Or, what he thinks of the at least 34 people in the Bush administration who owned stock and/or worked directly for Enron? I wonder if anyone will ask about the conflict of interest between not imposing price caps and owning Enron stock? Nah, only Republicans get upset when democrats do that, not the other way around.

Wednesday, January 23, 2002

Enron Sailed into a Perfect Storm

Enron and the Bush administration are stuck together like two dogs on the front yard - throw some cold water on them! Go read another damning Enron story that details Republican ties to the crooked company. Vote 7 at the bottom so this story will make the top ten and maybe get some swing vote interest!
Buried in the confusion that followed the Supreme Court ruling that iced the election for George W. Bush, Sen. Gramm stuffed major commodity deregulation language into an appropriations bill that passed in December of 2000. The move insured that there would be no public debate and little scrutiny of the language. The language “allowed Enron to operate as an unregulated energy-trading subsidiary,” Slocum said. “Operating a commodities exchange with no transparency and no accountability, Enron was able to command for more market share than before Gramm’s legislation,” he wrote in his Public Citizen report.
One last thought, here. According to some [fuzzy] political math that George Will quotes here, Democrats have to win 75% of the "close" house races in order to take back the House of Reps.
So for Democrats to gain the six seats necessary for control of the House, “they must win 18 of the 24 closest races, a 75 percent victory percentage.” Cook notes that six is a small number out of 435, but 75 is a very high percentage.
Funny, isn't 75% the percentage of Enron political donations that went to Republicans? Hmmmm. Of course, that's not counting stock options, consulting fees, and salary, of which members of the Executive branch and the wife of a Texas Senator took the vast majority.

Uh, we needed more packing material...for all the stuff we ripped off from our employees!

In light of Enron's shredding of documents right up until last week, when they were physically stopped by armed feds who took it all, I have but one question to ask at this time. WHO DECIDED TO WAIT THIS LONG? OK. I have some questions related to that question. Did the DOJ tell the FBI and the Marshals not to storm the place? DId we not have a warrant? Did the Bushies order feet dragging while documents were being shredded? There was plenty of probable cause wasn't there? Did the white house tell Enron that there wouldn't be any armed federal agents at the building to pick up documents until yesterday? Who ordered shredding? Besides Chewco and Jedi, were there any other star wars references? Perhaps to Bush's Faith Based Missle Defense system? Is the president's name on anything shredded? How about Phil Gramm? Maybe one of the 34 white house people who owned stock or directly worked for the company? Any of their names on any of the shredded Enron or Anderson documents? Carl Rove? Laurence Lindsey? Bush's mother-in-law? Let the impeachment begin!

Tuesday, January 22, 2002

We love you, Tina Fey!

Tina FeyTina Fey, Head Writer, Saturday Night Live, head writer of Saturday Night Live and Weekend Update Co-anchor, is the funniest person in America, hands down. She's intellegent, cute, sarcastic, observant, did I say cute? On Saturday, Jan. 19th, Tina went off on an Enron tirade that still has me laughing!
I figured out that Republicans are geniuses because they keep their scandals so incredibly boring that people will stop paying attention to them. Democratic scandals have words like "fondle" , "intern", "murder". Republican scandals have words like "oversight sub-comittee chairman" and "partially exempted multilateral platforms". Come on, so boring!

Basically the Enron executives ran off with hundreds of millions of dollars, and let their employees lose their entire life savings. It's like basic evil guy stuff, like tying ladies to railroad tracks or trying to take over the world with a laser beam. Also, Enron had all these shady foreign subsidiaries to avoid taxes. They had 692 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands. "What you do for a job man? I braid the white girls hair by the cruise ship, I sell a little weed, den on the weekends me a CEO for a subsidiary of Enron!"

Now Enron's accounting firm Arthur Andersen is in trouble because they destroyed several months worth of Enron documents. Okay, in this day and age - how could you possibly not know if you shred documents you're gonna get in trouble? It's like if your girlfriend says "Hey, lets go on the Jenny Jones show, I have a surprise for you". How could you not know that's bad? It's not gonna be good!

Then on Friday, Enron fired Arthur Andersen as their accounting firm. Like that's gotta be a blow, to fired by a totally bankrupt company? It's like Tom Green divorcing Drew Barrymore. You know Drew was like "So, you're getting rid of me? That's amazing."

So now, the government is investigating the whole thing but John Ashcroft had to recuse himself because Enron donated money to his campaign, same thing with President Bush, Dick Cheney, Joe Leiberman has recused himself, the commerce secretary, the treasury secretary...

Basically, the only person in the country without any kind of tie to Enron is that kid from the Dell computer commercial. But I'm sure Steve will get to the bottom of this, 'cause he's a very bright boy."

Sunday, January 20, 2002

My letter to John McCain (R, AZ)

Help me convince John McCain to run for president! Here are my reasons why in a letter to him. You can write to him at this address:
I'll never forget the horrible things the Bushies said about you during the campaign. When they realized you could beat them, they really went for your throat. You, of all people, had a real chance against this AWOL draft dodger who was snorting coke, drinking booze, and losing his Daddy's money while you were in that prison in Nam.

Unbelievable. There is obviously no justice in the world, or you would be the President right now. We need someone who can get all this soft money out of politics, someone who can put an end to the pork, someone who is a true American hero.

I am no Republican. I admire Jim Jeffords. I also admire Tom Daschle. I implore you to run as an Independent. While you will most likely pull votes away from Bush, thereby leading to a Democrat winning, I think that this would be a good thing for two reasons.

1) The Bushies are tainted with more than just campaign contributions from crooked companies. They are stockholders, board members, consultants, and lobbyists for these companies. While everyone keeps talking about Enron's donations, what they are missing is that there weren't a lot of Democrats consulting or on the Board. The most prominent Democrat was in charge of the Washington Lobbying office, a prudent move on Enron's part when trying to force deregulation down the American throat. The actual company, especially the higher ups, were prominent Republicans, including 35 people in the current Bush administration.

Enron ties permeate Bush’s ranks
35 administration officials held stock, many had business ties

2) You would make the issues that really matter, like campaign finance reform, a subject of debate, thereby increasing their prominence in the election. The other candidates would have to make their position on the issue clear. Another reason I think having Daschle, or maybe Edwards of North Carolina, win instead of Bush is that they are more likely, I believe, to sign your bill into law. Bush has not only come out against your bill, but has raised so much money that there's no way he would possibly give up that edge. Campaign finance reform cannot go anywhere with this guy in office.

There are many other reasons, like the other possibly criminal actions taken by the Bush administration, their position on many other issues, like the environment, and much more. However, I believe the two above are plenty for you to believe that running as an independent for President is worthwhile. And who knows? Maybe people will be so fed up with the two party system that they'll actually vote for you!

Scott Supak

Saturday, January 19, 2002

The United States of Enron

This article in the New York Times today is an absolute must read. There's stuff in here that even I hadn't dug up, like Enron wanting in the Porn business and sexual hijinx in the executive suites.
As the world knows now, George W. Bush told two lies when first asked about his ties to the top guy in what may prove the largest corporate flimflam in history. The president said (1) that he only "got to know" Mr. Lay in 1994, when in fact their relationship goes back at least to 1992; and (2) that Mr. Lay "was a supporter" of Governor Richards, when in fact Mr. Lay told TV's "Frontline" last year that he "did support" Mr. Bush over Ms. Richards in their Texas race.

This is the president who promised to usher America into "a new era of personal responsibility"?

Friday, January 18, 2002

A good editorial that nobody will read....

Well, you guys, my good buddies here in blog world, will read it. Maybe you'll give it a 7 so it might have a chance at the MSNBC top ten page. Maybe you'll even write them, like I did, and suggest that it be a top 25 page. But I just hope we'll get all our friends in swing states to go door to door in poor and minority neighborhoods and get out the vote for the House and Senate races.

Here's the story:
Looks can be deceiving
War on terror obscures the actions of despoiler-in-chief

Enron ties permeate Bush’s ranks
35 administration officials held stock, many had business ties

Go to this story, and at the bottom, vote 7 - the highest ranking. While you're there, vote 1 - the lowest - for anything else that tries to make Bush look good. I vote ONE for everything on the top ten that is not bad press for Bush, trying to make sure bad Bush press makes this highly visited page (the MSNBC top ten page). I do this from as many machines and as many different browsers as possible.


News from

Enrongate Ensnares Jeb Bush

If there's a Bu$h scandal, you can be sure that Little Brother Jeb is involved. So it comes as no surprise that Florida's pension fund lost $300 million in Enron's collapse. Jeb claims to be a hero because he recently fired the pension fund manager, Alliance Capital Management. But why did he hire the firm in the first place? The chairman of Alliance is Frank Savage. Savage is on the board of directors of - you guessed it - Enron. So why did Jeb give his state's pension funds to a director of Enron in the first place, and why did he wait until he lost $300 million before firing him? Could a $6,500 contribution from Enron to Jeb in 1998 have influenced him? Jeb's campaign manager, Karen Unger, says "Gov. Bush has never been swayed on an issue by a campaign contribution. He cannot be bought." Hey Karen - tell that to a judge! Read the Bussflash story here.

Florida's State Pension Fund Continued to Buy Enron Stock As the Company Imploded; State Pension Official is Coleman Stiponovich, Whose Brother Masterminded Katherine Harris's Moves to Steal the Election!

"The state Board of Administration fired Alliance Capital Management Corp. last month, saying it was troubled by the New York financial adviser's decision to continue buying Enron shares for the fund after indications of the company's financial problems became public. One of Alliance's executives, Frank Savage, was also a board member of Enron and a major contributor to political campaigns…'We've been investigating,'' said Coleman Stipanovich, deputy executive director of the State Board of Administration, which oversees the pension fund. 'If Alliance did anything improper or was unduly influenced by Savage, we could sue Alliance, but we have made no decision on that'… Stipanovich said state officials did not learn until late last year of Savage's tie to Enron." Hold the phone! A Jeb Bush appointee -- Coleman is the brother of 'Mac' Stiponovich – the Tallahassee lobbyist who masterminded Katherine Harris' moves to steal the election. Both brothers served key roles in Jeb's campaigns. Read the Sun-Sentinal story here.

Senator Gramm Lied About His Role in Enron Debacle

In December, Phil Gramm's press secretary said "Senator Gramm took no role, had no say, and did not vote on the energy futures provisions." But "on December 15, Gramm curiously turned up as co-sponsor of a bill with the same name, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which did deregulate energy futures and which, without undergoing the usual committee hearings and preliminary votes, was immediately attached as a rider to an 11,000-page appropriations bill." So reports James Ridgeway in the Village Voice.

Phil and Wendy Gramm Belong In Jail

No two people played a greater role in Enron's massive fraud than Phil and Wendy Gramm. "In December 2000 Mr. Gramm was one of the ringleaders who engineered the stealthlike approval of a bill that exempted energy commodity trading from government regulation and public disclosure." Wendy "was chairwoman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 1988 until 1993. In her final days with the commission she helped push through a ruling that exempted many energy futures contracts from regulation, a move that had been sought by Enron. Five weeks later, after resigning from the commission, Wendy Gramm was appointed to Enron's board of directors." Together, Phil & Wendy enacted the laws and regulatory policies that let Enron get away with financial murder. They belong in jail - after they turn over their Enron profits to Enron's employees. Read about it in the New York Times.

Bush is a Liar

Like this is a big suprise. The fun part about this one, aside from the documentation, is that he's doing it to distance himself from Ken Lay, of Enron. And he's trying to pin "Kenny Boy" on Ann Richards, the Democratic Governor of Texas who Bush beat in 1994, with the help of big time Enron money.

Get this story of Bush's outright lie from the Houston Chronical:
When asked about his ties to Lay on Thursday, Bush suggested that he only inherited Lay as a political supporter.

"He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994," Bush said. "And she did name him the head of the Governor's Business Council, and I decided to leave him in place just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken and worked with Ken, and he supported my candidacy."

But Texans for Public Justice, an Austin-based campaign finance reform organization, said Lay and Enron financially favored Bush in the 1994 race and said Bush had "revised history."

The group said Richards received $12,500 from Enron sources during the 1994 election cycle. But contributions from Enron's political committee and executives totaled $146,500 for Bush, including $47,500 directly from Lay and his wife, Linda.

"President Bush's explanation of his relationship to Enron is at best a half truth," said Craig McDonald, the group's director.

The White House, however, stood by the president's assertion that Lay supported Richards.

"Mister Lay was a supporter of Ann Richards during the 1994 races. The public campaign records clearly reflect his support. Any other suggestion is revising history," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday.

As evidence, McClellan cited the dates of the campaign filing reports showing that Lay gave Richards a $10,000 contribution in October 1994, shortly before the November election. He also gave her a $2,500 contribution in July of that year.

However, the reports also show that Ken and Linda Lay gave Bush a $25,000 contribution in January 1994. But McClellan said that was during the primary season. However, Bush faced no primary opponent that year. Linda Lay also gave Bush a $12,500 contribution during the general election in October.
We have to get rid of this lying scumbag. Since that's unlikely, we need to get control of the House (and further control of the Senate) away from his deregulation crazy Republican asshole buddies.

Key Senate Races
(Democrat to vote for in parenthesis)

North Carolina (?), Oregon (?), New Hampshire (Shaheen?), South Carolina (?), Missouri (Carnahan), South Dakota (Thune), Louisiana (Landrieu)

House Races
Well, just tell all your friends to get out and vote for Democrats. We need to protect ourselves from these greedy zealots. Controlling both the House and Senate is the only way, short of impeachment. We can always hope.

Thursday, January 17, 2002

Lying, cheating, cover-ups, and influence peddling being ignored by Republican thugs everywhere

Gun nuts, American Taliban religious fanatics, even log cabin Republicans who screamed for blood anytime the Clinton administration even looked like it did something wrong...these people are all saying we shouldn't be going on witch hunts or fishing expeditions. The hypocrisy abounds, but they'll defend their protection of this corrupt asshole's administration saying it's different than Clinton. Damn right it is! This a hell of a lot bigger and more important than any blow job or stupid land deal gone sour. This involves top level administration people actually doing illegal and unethical things like giving a huge tax break to a company that hasn't paid taxes in 5 of the last 6 years (the House approved stimulus package, stopped by Daschle). It involves huge favors to Enron in the Vice Resident's energy policy. It involves records, documents, and other information about the formation of that energy policy which this administration refuses to release, despite requests that they do so from many different political bases, including their own and the non-partisan GAO.

Go to and vote a big fat 7 on this story. While you're there, vote 7 on all the other Enron stories. And vote 1 on anything else that makes the top ten. At the moment, help make ENRON the ONLY story. It's time to run these crooks out of town.

Tuesday, January 15, 2002

Fight the republicans voting for pro-bush stories at

The Bush junta released some more environmental bomb shells today, hoping no one would notice the truth under the despicable cover provided by Justice and Gail Norton. These two issues, the clean air act, and wetlands protection, are so important to Americans that Bush had to lie about them to get elected. He lied about Kyoto, and he lied about "no net wetlands loss." Read the stories below for more info, and don't forget that at MSNBC.COM, vote 7 at the bottom of any bad press for Bush and 1 at the bottom of any good press. Republicans have been focusing their internet thugs on this top ten voting system at MSNBC to keep bad Bush press out and good Bush press into the top 10 there. This is a very popular news service and their top ten gets a lot of hits, so this is a good way for our vote to actually count for a change. And we can get some truth in the soccer mom's faces.


Clinton-era Clean Air lawsuits OK’d

“This is the most cynical publicity stunt I have ever seen,” he added. “Look good ... by announcing you’re going to prosecute polluters — and hope nobody notices when you quietly announce that you’re gutting the very rules under which the polluters are being prosecuted.”


White House relaxes wetlands rules

“The Corps says that blowing up forested mountains and dumping massive amounts of waste into streams has only a minimal adverse effect on the environment,” said Howard Fox, managing attorney for Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm. “I do not want to see what they would consider a major impact.”


Interior's Silence on Corps Plan Questioned
Norton Never Submitted Fish and Wildlife Critique of Controversial Proposal to Relax Wetlands Rules

Jamie Rappaport Clark, a National Wildlife Federation vice president who was Fish and Wildlife director under President Bill Clinton, said Interior would not have abstained from commenting on a major wetlands issue during her tenure.

"This is just nuts," Clark said. "For Interior to stop Fish and Wildlife from commenting on something of this magnitude and importance, that's really unbelievable."


Don't foget to vote at the bottom of the stories! Let's see some truth make the top ten, instead of the Junta's spin....

Sunday, January 13, 2002

Impeach Enron, er, Bush, ah, what's the difference?

Bush wished they'd stop asking about Enron and start asking about his cocaine use again.I've been reading the Enron stories at MSNBC.COM. Good writing. Still a few honest, objective people over there who aren't "won over" by Resident Bush's "way" with people (or by their conservative CEOs demands they ignore this story). What's funny is that MSNBC has a top ten list. At the bottom of each story you can vote on its importance, and that vote gets counted toward's the story's ranking. Apparently, some Republicans have been spreading the word about this MSNBC feature because only stories that are flattering to the Resident make the top ten. Even with a flurry of well written stories about Enron over there, not a one of them has made the top ten. The Bush stories in the top ten are all about his paltry urban clean up plan (we're supposed to think this makes him the environmental president?), and his Education plan (because if you "teach a child to read and he or her will be
able to pass a literacy test"), while the stories of W trying to make it sound like "Kenny Boy" isn't really a friend are probably being given one's (the lowest rating) by the young Republican thugs club. Meanwhile, Dickhead Cheney still hasn't released the info that Henry Waxman and the GAO have asked for about his Energy "policy" meetings with Enron, and other, executives. I remember Republicans telling Clinton that if he had nothing to hide, he should just turn over the documents. What's up, boys? Something to hide?

So, go to and vote seven for the anti-bush stories, and one for the pro-bush stories. Let's get some truth in the faces of the soccer Moms who will determine our next president.

Friday, January 11, 2002

Bush chosen by God, and other right-wing nut spewings.

Bush was chosen by God? "A skeptic might impiously wonder why the Lord didn’t simply bless Mr. Bush with the actual majority of votes."


"In essence, the Federal agent who knew more about bin Laden than any living American was kept from investigating terrorist threats against this country. He was hindered because the Bush administration was desperate to cultivate the favor of the Taliban, who held terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden in great esteem, so as to gain access to lucrative natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan."


Village Voice Article from June 6, 2001
"Early this year (2001), the Taliban's ambassador at large, Hashami, a young man speaking perfect English, met with CIA operations people and State Department reps, (Laili) Helms says. At this final meeting, she says, Hashami proposed that the Taliban hold bin Laden in one location long enough for the U.S. to locate and destroy him. The U.S. refused, says Helms, who claims she was the go-between in this deal between the supreme leader and the feds.

"A U.S. government source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, made clear that the U.S. is not trying to kill bin Laden but instead wants him expelled from Afghanistan so he can be brought to justice. Acknowledging that Laili Helms does a lot of lobbying on behalf of the Taliban, this source said Helms does not speak to the Taliban for the U.S."

"The Taliban and Unocal soon became pals. The only obstacle facing the massive pipeline project, which would have linked Turkmenistan's vast resources to Pakistan's ports, was the United States' refusal to embrace the theocratic Islamic regime. Khalilzad dutifully played his part, urging federal policy makers to make nice with the Taliban. "The Taliban does not practice the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran," he wrote in a 1996 op-ed in the Washington Post, which was referenced in the Nov. 22 story."

" For example, according to the federal Web site for the fund, a 25-year-old with two children, whose deceased spouse made $10,000 a year, will get $740,000, while a person with no children, whose spouse made $100,000, is eligible for $3 million. Under Feinberg's scheme, the amount for each person is determined by a combination of factors including the victim's salary and "pain and suffering" damages, which are the same for everyone. But Feinberg weighted the calculation toward economic damages – building in inequality.

"Partners of gay and lesbian victims could be totally left out. The federal fund's regulations don't mention the issue, so gays are free to apply but may be turned away."

Ariana Huffington is really pissed about Enron!

"While many of our citizens prosper," the freshly anointed president said in his inaugural address a year ago, "others doubt the promise, even the justice, of our own country." And those nagging doubts are only aggravated by the behavior of Enron executives who continue to prosper even as thousands watch their jobs -- and their life savings -- disappear.

Candidate Bush was so eager to paint himself as a Compassionate Conservative he even dared to impugn the moral supremacy of the free market -- blasphemy in the eyes of his party's doctrinaire right wing.

"The invisible hand works many miracles," said Bush during the summer of 1999, evoking Adam Smith's famous paean to market forces, "but it cannot touch the human heart." This simple truth lies at the core of the need for fair and rational government regulation of industry. All too often, after all, the human heart is filled not with goodness, but with greed, selfishness and a desire for profit-at-any-cost.

Too bad Bush left this noble idea behind on the campaign trail. Since taking office, the hallmark of his administration has been an unwavering belief in the free market's invisible hand.

Then there's Lawrence Lindsey, the president's top economic adviser, and a former advisor to Enron, who went so far as to claim that the Enron disaster "is a tribute to American capitalism." And 9-11 was a tribute to Islamic ingenuity.


Gleaned mostly from

where you can actually hear the truth about this administration, instead of just what the corporate media barons like Jack Welch and Michael Eisner want you to hear.

Thursday, January 10, 2002

Enrongate will make Whitewater look like a bake sale

Here's some great stuff from today's New York Times story about the political fallout from Enron.
The Justice Department, as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission, also learned today that Arthur Andersen, the Enron auditor, had destroyed documents related to the company. The accounting firm said it was also notifying Congressional committees and other agencies investigating the Enron collapse that the documents were missing.

"In recent months, individuals in the firm involved with the Enron engagement disposed of a significant but undetermined number of electronic and paper documents and correspondence relating to the Enron engagement," the firm said in a statment.
Hmmmm...... This is getting good. AND IT'S JUST THE TIP OF THE OIL BERG!
"It's appropriate to take a look at what led to the bankruptcy of Enron," Mr. Fleischer said. He expressed the hope that any Congressional inquiry would be even-handled, not a "partisan, politically charged investigation" of the kind that he said had so soured many Americans on Washington.
Yeah, Ari, like the kind of witchhunt you right-wing nuts went on against Clinton? These Republican pukes make me want to throw up on Rush Limpdick.

Also in the news from CNN:
This comes from CNN...


Explosive New Book Published in France Alleges that U.S. Was in Negotiations
to Do a Deal with Taliban
Aired January 8, 2002 - 07:34   ET

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Time to check in with ambassador-in- residence,
Richard Butler, this morning. An explosive new book published in France
alleges that the United States was in negotiations to do a deal with the
Taliban for an oil pipeline in Afghanistan.

Joining us right now is Richard Butler to shed some light on this new book.
He is the former chief U.N. weapons inspector. He is now on the Council on
Foreign Relations and our own ambassador-in- residence -- good morning.


ZAHN: Boy, if any of these charges are true...


ZAHN: ... this...


ZAHN: ... is really big news.

BUTLER: I agree.

ZAHN: Start off with what your understanding is of what is in this book --
the most explosive charge.

BUTLER: The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the Bush administration --
the present one, just shortly after assuming office slowed down FBI
investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a
deal with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across Afghanistan.

ZAHN: And this book points out that the FBI's deputy director, John O'Neill,
actually resigned because he felt the U.S. administration was obstructing...

BUTLER: A proper...

ZAHN: ... the prosecution of terrorism.

BUTLER: Yes, yes, a proper intelligence investigation of terrorism. Now, you
said if, and I affirmed that in responding to you. We have to be careful
here. These are allegations. They're worth airing and talking about, because
of their gravity. We don't know if they are correct. But I believe they
should be investigated, because Central Asian oil, as we were discussing
yesterday, is potentially so important. And all prior attempts to have a
pipeline had to be done through Russia. It had to be negotiated with Russia.

Now, if there is to be a pipeline through Afghanistan, obviating the need to
deal with Russia, it would also cost less than half of what a pipeline
through Russia would cost. So financially and politically, there's a big
prize to be had. A pipeline through Afghanistan down to the Pakistan coast
would bring out that Central Asian oil easier and more cheaply.

ZAHN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) as you spoke about this yesterday, we almost
immediately got a call from "The New York Times."

BUTLER: Right.

ZAHN: They want you to write an op-ed piece on this over the weekend.

BUTLER: Right, and which I will do.

ZAHN: But let's come back to this whole issue of what John O'Neill, this FBI

BUTLER: Right.

ZAHN: ... apparently told the authors of this book. He is alleging that --
what -- the U.S. government was trying to protect U.S. oil interests? And at
the same time, shut off the investigation of terrorism to allow for that to

BUTLER: That's the allegation that instead of prosecuting properly an
investigation of terrorism, which has its home in Afghanistan as we now
know, or one of its main homes, that was shut down or slowed down in order
to pursue oil interests with the Taliban. The people who we have now bombed
out of existence, and this not many months ago. The book says that the
negotiators said to the Taliban, you have a choice. You have a carpet of
gold, meaning an oil deal, or a carpet of bombs. That's what the book

ZAHN: Well, I know you're going to be doing your own independent homework on


ZAHN: ... to see if you can confirm any of this. Let's move on to the whole
issue of Iraq. The deputy defense secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, at one time was
considered one of those voices within the administration...


ZAHN: ... that was pushing for moving beyond Afghanistan. He seemed to back
off a little from that yesterday.


ZAHN: What do you read through the tea leaves here?

BUTLER: A very interesting report that the administration will focus on the
Philippines, Yemen, Somalia as places where there are al Qaeda cells. But
the word Iraq wasn't used by the man who was the chief hawk -- used as a,
you know, as a future target. So what I interpret from that is this: That
very likely our allies have been saying to us, this is too hard. This is
really serious. Be careful. Saddam is essentially contained at the moment.
Don't start, you know, a bigger problem either in the Arab world or in the
coalition by going after him. And Wolfowitz, it seems, has probably accepted

ZAHN: A quick thought on the Israelis intercepting this latest armed
shipment? What that means? You've got to do it in about 15 seconds.

BUTLER: It's extraordinarily serious, because it seems to have been tied to
Yasser Arafat himself. It needs to be further investigated, but you know,
Paula, the potentiality that this could once again prove an impediment to
resume peace negotiations is really quite serious.

ZAHN: Thank you as usual for covering so much territory. Richard Butler, see
you same time, same place tomorrow morning.


ZAHN: We appreciate your insights.
Amazing isn't it? How much do these assholes stink? I know I can't hold my nose much longer. War or no war, it's time to wash these SOBs down with a firehose and the same kind of soap they used on Clinton.

But wait, there's more!

Oil company adviser named US representative to Afghanistan

By Patrick Martin
3 January 2002

President Bush has appointed a former aide to the American oil company Unocal, Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad, as special envoy to Afghanistan. The nomination was announced December 31, nine days after the US-backed interim government of Hamid Karzai took office in Kabul.

The nomination underscores the real economic and financial interests at stake in the US military intervention in Central Asia. Khalilzad is intimately involved in the long-running US efforts to obtain direct access to the oil and gas resources of the region, largely unexploited but believed to be the second largest in the world after the Persian Gulf.

As an adviser for Unocal, Khalilzad drew up a risk analysis of a proposed gas pipeline from the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. He participated in talks between the oil company and Taliban officials in 1997, which were aimed at implementing a 1995 agreement to build the pipeline across western Afghanistan.

Unocal was the lead company in the formation of the Centgas consortium, whose purpose was to bring to market natural gas from the Dauletabad Field in southeastern Turkmenistan, one of the world’s largest. The $2 billion project involved a 48-inch diameter pipeline from the Afghanistan-Turkmenistan border, passing near the cities of Herat and Kandahar, crossing into Pakistan near Quetta and linking with existing pipelines at Multan. An additional $600 million extension to India was also under consideration.

Khalilzad also lobbied publicly for a more sympathetic US government policy towards the Taliban. Four years ago, in an op-ed article in the Washington Post, he defended the Taliban regime against accusations that it was a sponsor of terrorism, writing, “The Taliban does not practice the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran.”

“We should ... be willing to offer recognition and humanitarian assistance and to promote international economic reconstruction,” he declared. “It is time for the United States to reengage” the Afghan regime. This “reengagement” would, of course, have been enormously profitable to Unocal, which was otherwise unable to bring gas and oil to market from landlocked Turkmenistan.

Khalilzad only shifted his position on the Taliban after the Clinton administration fired cruise missiles at targets in Afghanistan in August 1998, claiming that terrorists under the direction of Afghan-based Osama bin Laden were responsible for bombing US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. One day after the attack, Unocal put Centgas on hold. Two months later it abandoned all plans for a trans-Afghan pipeline. The oil interests began to look towards a post-Taliban Afghanistan, and so did their representatives in the US national security establishment.

Liasion to Islamic guerrillas

Born in Mazar-e Sharif in 1951, Khalilzad hails from the old ruling elite of Afghanistan. His father was an aide to King Zahir Shah, who ruled the country until 1973. Khalilzad was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, an intellectual center for the American right-wing, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

Khalilzad became an American citizen, while serving as a key link between US imperialism and the Islamic fundamentalist mujahedin fighting the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul—the milieu out of which both the Taliban and bin Laden’s Al Qaeda group arose. He was a special adviser to the State Department during the Reagan administration, lobbying successfully for accelerated US military aid to the mujahedin, including hand-held Stinger anti-aircraft missiles which played a key role in the war. He later became undersecretary of defense in the administration of Bush’s father, during the US war against Iraq, then went to the Rand Corporation, a top US military think tank.

After Bush was installed as president by a 5-4 vote of the US Supreme Court, Khalilzad headed the Bush-Cheney transition team for the Defense Department and advised incoming Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Significantly, however, he was not named to a subcabinet position, which would have required Senate confirmation and might have provoked uncomfortable questions about his role as an oil company adviser in Central Asia and intermediary with the Taliban. Instead, he was named to the National Security Council, where no confirmation vote was needed.

At the NSC Khalilzad reports to Condoleeza Rice, the national security adviser, who also served as an oil company consultant on Central Asia. After serving in the first Bush administration from 1989 to 1992, Rice was placed on the board of directors of Chevron Corporation and served as its principal expert on Kazakhstan, where Chevron holds the largest concession of any of the international oil companies. The oil industry connections of Bush and Cheney are well known, but little has been said in the media about the prominent role being played in Afghan policy by officials who advised the oil industry on Central Asia.

One of the few commentaries in the America media about this aspect of the US military campaign appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle last September 26. Staff writer Frank Viviano observed: “The hidden stakes in the war against terrorism can be summed up in a single word: oil. The map of terrorist sanctuaries and targets in the Middle East and Central Asia is also, to an extraordinary degree, a map of the world’s principal energy sources in the 21st century.... It is inevitable that the war against terrorism will be seen by many as a war on behalf of America’s Chevron, Exxon, and Arco; France’s TotalFinaElf; British Petroleum; Royal Dutch Shell and other multinational giants, which have hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the region.”

Silence in the media

This reality is well understood in official Washington, but the most important corporate-controlled media outlets—the television networks and major national daily newspapers—have maintained silence that amounts to deliberate, politically motivated self-censorship.

The sole recent exception is an article which appeared December 15 in the New York Times business section, headlined, “As the War Shifts Alliances, Oil Deals Follow.” The Times reported, “The State Department is exploring the potential for post-Taliban energy projects in the region, which has more than 6 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and almost 40 percent of its gas reserves.”

The Times noted that during a visit in early December to Kazakhstan, “Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said he was ‘particularly impressed’ with the money that American oil companies were investing there. He estimated that $200 billion could flow into Kazakhstan during the next 5 to 10 years.”

Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham also pushed US oil investments in the region during a November visit to Russia, on which he was accompanied by David J. O’Reilly, chairman of ChevronTexaco.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has also played a role in the ongoing oil pipeline maneuvers. During a December 14 visit to Baku, capital of Azerbaijan, he assured officials of the oil-rich Caspian state that the administration would lift sanctions imposed in 1992 in the wake of the conflict with Armenia over the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Both Azerbaijan and Armenia have aligned themselves with the US military thrust into Central Asia, offering the Pentagon transit rights and use of airfields. Rumsfeld’s visit and his conciliatory remarks were the reward. Rumsfeld told President Haydar Aliyev that the administration had reached agreement with congressional leaders to waive the sanctions.

On November 28 the White House released a statement hailing the official opening of the first new pipeline by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, a joint venture of Russia, Kazakhstan, Oman, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil and several other oil companies. The pipeline connects the huge Tengiz oilfield in northwestern Kazakhstan to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, where tankers are loaded for the world market. US companies put up $1 billion of the $2.65 billion construction cost.

The Bush statement declared, “The CPC project also advances my Administration’s National Energy Policy by developing a network of multiple Caspian pipelines that also includes the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, Baku-Supsa, and Baku-Novorossiysk oil pipelines and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline.”

There was little US press coverage of this announcement. Nor did the media refer to the fact that the pipeline consortium involved in the Baku-Ceyhan plan, led by the British oil company BP, is represented by the law firm of Baker & Botts. The principal attorney at this firm is James Baker III, secretary of state under Bush’s father and chief spokesman for the 2000 Bush campaign during its successful effort to shut down the Florida vote recount.
I can't wait to watch these guys try to work their way out of this one. The walls are going to fall from all sides! Spread the word, since the right-wing owned media won't!

Sunday, January 06, 2002

More Lies from the Bush Administration

My letter to the NY Times editor, in response to Christie Whitman's

To the Editor:

Resident Bush's energy policy is all about rewarding his rich buddies in the oil, coal, and natural gas industries. His plan stresses energy supply, not conservation or alternative energy. Dick Cheney actually said that conservation was only a personal virtue and couldn't do anything to help the problem. In California, record conservation has solved the states energy woes, and conservation is the one source of energy that creates absolutely no pollution. Californians have proven the Vice Resident wrong. This administration would rather pollute, drill, and pillage our way to energy independence. Alternative means of energy production do absolutely nothing to help the large corporations that were so instrumental in raising the $150 million dollars it took to get Bush "elected."

Plenty of news organizations, including the NY Times, have pointed out repeatedly that every environmental organization has criticized the energy plan that was cooked up by Dick Cheney in secret meetings with Ken Lay of Enron, among others. Ms. Whitman didn't mention that this administration, which has stressed that government should be transparent, has refused to turn over documents about Cheney's secret energy meetings with energy executives who we now know were cashing out for millions of dollars just before Enron collapsed, stealing the retirement savings of employees and other stock holders who weren't privy to the insider info that the executives used to get rich.

Ms. Whitman failed to point out that the alternative energy plans in Bush's energy doctrine are dwarfed by the big payoffs to huge energy conglomerates. Tax cuts and credits to these big polluters used up the majority of the funding called for in the Bush plan, which is yet another pay-out to the ultra rich. Ms. Whitman also fails to mention that research and development funding for alternative energy plans actually face severe cutbacks*. She also fails to mention that Bush's history in Texas is a far cry from environmentally compassionate. Our most polluted state got that way because Bush removed regulatory constraints from polluters while he was Governor. Ms. Whitman mentions an expansion of the Energy Star program, but that expansion is dwarfed by the proposed cuts elsewhere in the energy plan, and in the Resident's budget**.

Ms. Whitman has found herself smothered by the politics of an administration that is far to her right. Rather than try to support a plan that Ken Lay had more to do with crafting than she did, she should just keep her mouth shut. Her defense rings as hollow as the plan she's trying to defend.

Scott Supak

* "Despite glowing prose in the report for renewables, the proposed Bush budget includes significant research funding cutbacks. Many programs, particularly in solar, wind, and building efficiency, have seen budgets sliced 40 percent to 60 percent. Unless funding is restored during Congressional budget negotiations -- and there is considerable support for it on the Hill -- renewables and efficiency R&D budgets stand to lose $100 million."

** "In addition, the plan's calls for an increased focus on renewable and alternative energy technologies is undermined by the administration's recently released 2002 budget proposal, which cuts Department of Energy funding for renewable and alternative energy sources by 37 percent. Solar research funding would be cut by nearly 54 percent, while geothermal, hydrogen and wind research programs would all be cut by 48 percent. Funding to encourage the building of energy-efficient homes and offices and to reduce energy use at steel, glass, pulp and paper and refining companies would also be reduced under the budget proposal."


Bush's Energy Strategy

To the Editor:

I applaud Thomas L. Friedman's call for energy independence based on renewable resources, domestic production and energy efficiency (column, Jan. 2). Last May, President Bush unveiled his National Energy Plan, which laid out the proposals that Mr. Friedman calls for.

At the Environmental Protection Agency, we have been involved in many of those initiatives, including an aggressive expansion of the Energy Star program to promote energy efficiency and a commitment to alternative and renewable sources, like biomass, wind and solar power. In addition, President Bush called for environmentally responsible exploration of additional domestic sources for our energy mix.

The purpose of this energy plan is to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and increase our energy security for the future, all the while protecting our environment. Mr. Friedman was correct in highlighting this important national priority, just a little bit late.

Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, Jan. 3, 2002

Thursday, January 03, 2002

The Bush Administration is a bunch of red-neck, pollution loving, dog faced liars

Well, there is no question about the hypocrisy of the Republicans. You only have to look at this from the perspective of what would the response be of the Republicans if this were the Clinton Administration? If the Clinton Administration had such close and intimate ties with a corporation, or put it another way, a labor union, in which executives walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars while the union's pensions were dissipated. They would be not only calling for an investigation before they got the facts; they would be calling for impeachment. I have made no accusations because I need to get more facts to find out if there has been wrongdoing by the Bush Administration. And all we are asking for is an honest investigation of the facts. I don't think that we're going to get it from the Republicans. That's why we're doing it on our own.

It's interesting also to note how this administration has handled policy information. They are not only withholding the information about their ties to Enron and Enron's role in the Energy Task Force and how the Energy Task Force operated, but they've lied to the American people about a Social Security surplus. They have been very careful to try to keep the public from getting information that I think, that should rightfully belong in the public domain, that they single-handedly changed the presidential records that should be made available to public and academics. And to try to withhold those records, they've used executive privilege most recently in one of the hearings in the Government Reform Committee, which even prompted Chairman Dan Burton to speak with outrage that we had information being withheld on the pretense -- and I think it was a real reach for them -- of claiming executive privilege.

But those are the policy issues. If you evaluate the constant ways that the Bush Administration has treated certain facts in the time that they have been in office, it's disconcerting. Because if you look back, there was a time when it looked like Vice President Cheney had a heart attack. And they said, "No, he didn't." But it turned out he had. They came into office and immediately claimed there had been vandalism by the Gore people. And that it turned out that there were no facts behind that allegation. It was just a fiction.

In August, the President was faced with a difficult decision on stem-cell research, so he came up with the idea that there were 63 lines. It turned out later that it was all made up. There was no such thing as 63 lines that were available for research. And even on September 11, when the issue was raised where the President might be and he received some criticism for not returning to Washington, Karl Rove issued a statement that there was specific and credible evidence that Air Force One was going to be a target of terrorists. And then it turned out later that the Vice President I think said that just wasn't anything they could verify, that they had no real information about it. So if they're in a tight squeeze, they're willing to make up information that's not real. And when it comes to policy matters, they want to withhold information that is real and ought to be available to Congress, which has the legal responsibility to conduct oversight of the administration on behalf of the public that ought to know how their government is operating.

-- Representative Henry Waxman, D, CA
Interview in