Hillary Clinton claims she learned how to deal with men in an all-girls school. What, did they have cut outs of male images around the campus and they all had labels on them like … belligerent, mean, rude, nasty, etc. and the girls were taught to go up and whine in front of them?

Now, if Hillary had gone to the same school that Anne Coulter had, she would have learned how to deftly dodge a cream pie aimed at her while giving a speech. Oh, did I mention the thrower was a man? Yes, on her campus, half filled with these pesky little beasts, she was forced to actually dialogue with them, present her point in a cogent way, standing toe to toe facing their gnarly arrogance. She came out unscathed from her college experience, ready to face the world of pie hurling idiot men who intersperse the F bomb between tosses. Now, that’s an education.

And Condoleezza Rice had to endure an education where nationally syndicated columnists regularly depict her as an Aunt Jimima and poor little black girl stuck on a white plantation. Oh, did I mention these are white men who are the cartoonists drawing these very degrading and racist depictions? Quiet . . . shhhhhhh . . . .what do you hear? You hear the sound of a very successful, brilliant, confident woman squishing these insignificant bugs under the shear power of her presence. What you don’t hear is her whining about it and calling racism or sexism or meanism or belligerentism.

I am still trying to get my arms around the concept that Tim Russert could be called belligerent . . . by either side. And if you think he is belligerent, and are afraid of him, don’t subject yourself to his line of questioning. Oh, wait, that must be why every single Democrat candidate for president refused to debate on a FOX News debate because, oh, boo hoo, they are going to ask weally weally tuff questions and it’s going to hurt my itty bitty feelings.

But Hillary, running in the shadow of a belligerent husband ready to rap any nave that challenges her, wants us to believe, that beyond that, she is tough enough to stare down even the cruelest dictator, as long as he doesn’t ask her direct questions, want a direct answer, expect anything substantive to occur and they all leave as really good friends.

What does Hillary think she is running for, head cheerleader? Oh those mean football players are always treating us like girls. Yeah duh, because you are one. But heh, you brought it up. You retreat to the feminine camp when things get tough and your little insecure minions circle the wagons and live vicariously through your abuse. Yep, just the kind of person we want leading the free world.

News flash Hillary . . . women today are smart enough to know a weak woman when they see one. Because they have all known weak, whiney, complaining, women in their lives who made their lives and everyone’s around them miserable. They thought they were the star, they subjugated everyone to their demands and blamed others for their own shortcomings. The problem with most of these irritating women is that they weren’t in a co-dependent relationship with someone who has the same exact character traits. Hillary’s addiction to power is no different than Bill’s addiction to sex, which in a way translates to power over women. He knows he can’t ever tame the beast he has created so he vicariously demeans women imagining he has the courage to stand up to Hillary.

And because Bill is the perfect representation of one of those Wellesley cutouts of the male chauvinist pig, she projects on all men the same despicable characteristics her husband displays, while continuing to enable him to display them.

Isn’t America sick of this pitiful drama that is being played out before us? With almost 150 million women in the country to choose from, are we really reduced to one who represents the absolute worst traits in either man or woman? She is so blinded by lust for power and hate for opposition to her getting that power, that she really can’t see her flaws. She really believes that everyone around her has a problem . . . she doesn’t.

She blames her staff for trashing Obama with racial slurs that rolled out over her own tongue. This a woman who would be very dangerous in a position of real power and all the anger and hatred she has for more than half the country would come spilling out should she get the reigns of power. And, no, the half she is angry at is not necessarily men . . . it is anyone who disagrees with her or embraces values she finds personally offensive. Yeah, that’s inclusive.

She hates all things and people who could possibly be associated with the vast right wing conspiracy, which pretty much includes all conservatives, most Republicans, most Christians, and anyone who watches Fox News.So, when you peal it back, it looks like she pretty much hates about 85% of the country, yet thinks she is equipped both emotionally and intellectually to be our leader. I don’t think so.

Hillary Clinton claims she learned how to deal with men in an all-girls school. What, did they have cut outs of male images around the campus and they all had labels on them like … belligerent, mean, rude, nasty, etc. and the girls were taught to go up and whine in front of them?

Now, if Hillary had gone to the same school that Anne Coulter had, she would have learned how to deftly dodge a cream pie aimed at her while giving a speech. Oh, did I mention the thrower was a man? Yes, on her campus, half filled with these pesky little beasts, she was forced to actually dialogue with them, present her point in a cogent way, standing toe to toe facing their gnarly arrogance. She came out unscathed from her college experience, ready to face the world of pie hurling idiot men who intersperse the F bomb between tosses. Now, that’s an education.

And Condoleezza Rice had to endure an education where nationally syndicated columnists regularly depict her as an Aunt Jimima and poor little black girl stuck on a white plantation. Oh, did I mention these are white men who are the cartoonists drawing these very degrading and racist depictions? Quiet . . . shhhhhhh . . . .what do you hear? You hear the sound of a very successful, brilliant, confident woman squishing these insignificant bugs under the shear power of her presence. What you don’t hear is her whining about it and calling racism or sexism or meanism or belligerentism.

I am still trying to get my arms around the concept that Tim Russert could be called belligerent . . . by either side. And if you think he is belligerent, and are afraid of him, don’t subject yourself to his line of questioning. Oh, wait, that must be why every single Democrat candidate for president refused to debate on a FOX News debate because, oh, boo hoo, they are going to ask weally weally tuff questions and it’s going to hurt my itty bitty feelings.

But Hillary, running in the shadow of a belligerent husband ready to rap any nave that challenges her, wants us to believe, that beyond that, she is tough enough to stare down even the cruelest dictator, as long as he doesn’t ask her direct questions, want a direct answer, expect anything substantive to occur and they all leave as really good friends.

What does Hillary think she is running for, head cheerleader? Oh those mean football players are always treating us like girls. Yeah duh, because you are one. But heh, you brought it up. You retreat to the feminine camp when things get tough and your little insecure minions circle the wagons and live vicariously through your abuse. Yep, just the kind of person we want leading the free world.

News flash Hillary . . . women today are smart enough to know a weak woman when they see one. Because they have all known weak, whiney, complaining, women in their lives who made their lives and everyone’s around them miserable. They thought they were the star, they subjugated everyone to their demands and blamed others for their own shortcomings. The problem with most of these irritating women is that they weren’t in a co-dependent relationship with someone who has the same exact character traits. Hillary’s addiction to power is no different than Bill’s addiction to sex, which in a way translates to power over women. He knows he can’t ever tame the beast he has created so he vicariously demeans women imagining he has the courage to stand up to Hillary.

And because Bill is the perfect representation of one of those Wellesley cutouts of the male chauvinist pig, she projects on all men the same despicable characteristics her husband displays, while continuing to enable him to display them.

Isn’t America sick of this pitiful drama that is being played out before us? With almost 150 million women in the country to choose from, are we really reduced to one who represents the absolute worst traits in either man or woman? She is so blinded by lust for power and hate for opposition to her getting that power, that she really can’t see her flaws. She really believes that everyone around her has a problem . . . she doesn’t.

She blames her staff for trashing Obama with racial slurs that rolled out over her own tongue. This a woman who would be very dangerous in a position of real power and all the anger and hatred she has for more than half the country would come spilling out should she get the reigns of power. And, no, the half she is angry at is not necessarily men . . . it is anyone who disagrees with her or embraces values she finds personally offensive. Yeah, that’s inclusive.

She hates all things and people who could possibly be associated with the vast right wing conspiracy, which pretty much includes all conservatives, most Republicans, most Christians, and anyone who watches Fox News.So, when you peal it back, it looks like she pretty much hates about 85% of the country, yet thinks she is equipped both emotionally and intellectually to be our leader. I don’t think so.

Poor Bill Clinton just can’t help himself. Does anyone find it a little ironic that he can “remember like it was yesterday,” something that was supposed to have happened 50 years ago, when he can’t even remember what he and Monica did together? But to use the platform of Rosa Parks’ funeral to lay the biggest egg of lies on the American people is beyond shameful

He claims, “I remember as if it were yesterday, that fateful day 50 years ago. I was a nine-year-old Southern white boy who rode on a segregated bus every single day of my life.” He goes on to say that it was after Parks refused to give up her seat that he and two friends decided they wouldn’t sit in the front anymore. Hmm, I wonder if his two “friends” have the same memory. There is only one, small problem with his story. Where he was raised and lived until he was in first grade, Hope, Arkansas, doesn’t have public transportation. . . And never has.

Well perhaps it was in Hot Springs, that he remembers vividly riding the bus every day of THAT life. The problem there is that Hot Springs only got public transportation 26 years ago. So what parallel universe was Bill Clinton living in where he not only rode a public bus every day of his life . . . but remembers moving to the back of it?

But there is an old saying, which is “actions speak louder than words.” If Bill Clinton was so incensed by segregation at such a young, tender age, why did he embrace a segregationist as his mentor? A man who, within a year of Bill moving to the back of an imaginary bus, signed the Southern Manifesto with 99 other Democrat segregationists to protest the Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education? If he was so abreast of the news to have the knowledge, within a day, of Rosa Park’s arrest, he certainly must have known about his mentor, Senator William Fulbright, and the Southern Manifesto condemning integration.

But since young Bill was such a compassionate lad, concerned about the fate of those his mentor determined unequal and separate, he must have been very upset in 1957 when he was 11, and Democratic Gov. Orval Faubus called out the state National Guard to keep black students from entering Central High in Little Rock. I hope we don’t have to wait for another funeral of another fallen civil rights hero to hear that story

But it is interesting to try and see how the young Bill Clinton’s mind works. His mentor is a segregationist and Democrat. The governor of his own state, that kept kids his own age from attending school, was a Democrat. All of the southern governors who either prevented integration, or closed schools to prevent integration . . .were all Democrats. But, President Eisenhower, who federalized the Arkansas National Guard to prevent Faubus from abusing his power as governor . . . was a Republican. You would think that a young impressionable lad, concerned about the plight of blacks and institutionalized Jim Crow laws, would have been astute enough to see which party represented racism, and which party represented liberation.

Why would someone who is so concerned about the issue, embrace a party that continued years of racial practices that had been a pattern long before the civil war was every fought? President Eisenhower was extremely unpopular in Arkansas when he not only Federalized the National Guard, but he replaced them with the elite 101st Airborne Division, ordering them to protect the nine black students who had chosen to go to Central High. If he had truly been supportive of what Rosa Parks did, he would have been delirious with joy at Eisenhower’s bold, courageous move to make sure his fellow Arkansasians could go to school. In fact a move like that would stir the heart of a young warrior and ignite in that future leader the desire to emulate that type of leadership and switch to his political party, since, by his own admission . . . he was now socially and politically active from the age of nine. But instead, he developed a “loathing” of the military . . . not a deep respect and love for it, nor seeing it as a force of liberation.

Instead of it being Eisenhower who Clinton would align his political star with, he instead chose to follow the leadership of Democrat governors like Marvin Griffin of Georgia who attacked Eisenhower’s actions, praised Faubus and said as long as he held office, “he would maintain segregation in the schools, and the races will not be mixed, come hell or high water.” And certainly he must remember in great detail the next year when Faubus, instead of agreeing to integrate schools just simply shut them down. Isn’t it odd that he can remember in explicit detail moving to the back of a non-existent bus, but has never mentioned the horror of the Democrat Governor literally keeping all kids from attending public schools because he hated little black children so much? Possibly the reason he does not remember it is because the southern Democratic governors who did this, opened what they referred to as, segregation academies, that were run by the state, and allowed white students only.

Interestingly, the modern Democratic Party has discovered another way to stand in the school house door and prevent young black children from getting a quality education and that is to oppose vouchers which would finally give them a chance to compete on equal footing with white children in the suburbs. Where is Bill on vouchers? Where is Bill on ending welfare and integrating every single citizen into the work force with either full employment or business ownership and opportunities? What did the first black president ever really do for blacks in America except further entrench a broken system that does nothing but destroy lives and rob dignity from American citizens who are considered less than capable, entrapped by a stigma of victimization, simply because of the color of their skin?

It is not hard to see why the poverty pimps and race-baiters still embrace the party that has historically oppressed blacks and kept them on one plantation or another. And it is not hard to see why someone who has built his entire career on one flimsy lie after another would choose a historic somber occasion to put one more stone in that crumbling wall. But what is really sad . . . . is to see all those who continue to fall for it and turn a blind to the truth, while these hustlers continue pushing their con game on the country.

Rosa Parks doesn’t need hallow lies and self-serving stories to preserve her memory. Her dignity and that of those who suffered unspeakable persecution at the hands of one political party has served to help liberate millions of people to now make choices as to which ideology they embrace, which party they join, and what candidate they support. And any Democrat today, who would condemn a black for choosing the party of Lincoln is no different than those who condemned all blacks to ride on the back of the bus, or closed school house doors to prevent them from attending. Racism and discrimination should not be tolerated . . . by anyone . . . and that is what Rosa Park’s actions said.

The discussion, by social conservatives, of supporting a third candidate if a pro-abortion presidential candidate is chosen in the Republican primary, is exciting news . . . to Hillary. That is exactly what she needs to ensure her coronation with a repeat of her husband’s failure to ever get a majority of the vote in order to be elected. If you listen carefully, that dripping sound is the left salivating at the idea.

What is baffling, and even bewildering is why do these leaders, who claim to have that much political power and muscle think they have to wait to flex that muscle. If the numbers are, as we have all seen, the majority of the American people identify themselves as conservative, even though the moniker of right-wing has been firmly attached by the left, then why don’t WE determine who the candidate will be before the party machine rolls over us.

When looking at minorities, assessing winnable numbers, all you have to do is look at the 10% of the far left that have successfully invaded and now run the Democratic Party. They do not reflect the values of the vast majority of Americans who are either apolitical, or occasionally vote every four years. And this majority is the number, when polled, who disapprove of George W. Bush, not because of the war, but because of issues that are far more personal to them. His lagging poll numbers reflect the disgust of millions of Americans at his wavering and weakness on the border issue. They have always been told that the Republicans are the party of lower taxes and less spending. They voted for Bush, hoping that he would lead the way Republicans are supposed to lead . . . less government interference, fewer regulations, greater national security, lower taxes and more individual liberty and freedom.

Let’s break down a Giuliani race, based on the myth that he is the only one who can beat Hillary. There are more people who vote specifically on the social issues like pro-life and sanctity of marriage, than vote solely for pro-choice candidates. The gay community makes up about 2% of the population, whereas the pro-life community is now over 50%, and many of them are motivated solely on that issue and will only support pro-life candidates.

If the argument for Rudy is that he is strong on national defense, and that will gain him the support of those who see him as a fighter, then why not take that issue and find another candidate who is not only strong on defense, but also embraces pro-life and pro-family positions?

And why suddenly is Rudy so electable nationwide when polls show he would not even take New York . . . and knowing that, did not run against Hillary in 2006 for the Senate. The argument is that he will motivate the moderates and undecideds and they will vote for him. Hello . . . undecided means just that. It means that two seconds before someone marks their ballot they can change their mind. You do not want them near a voting machine on Election Day. And the only thing you will find in the middle of the road besides moderates are yellow lines and dead chickens.

There are two very easy solutions to this hand-wringing problem that has inspired third-party conversations. Since the Republican party is merely a shadow of its former self, suffering from historic amnesia, being rendered not only useless but a bit of an embarrassment, there needs to be a shakeup in the halls of power. We need to see a real Paul Tillich shaking of the foundations to bring the party back to its roots of being the civil rights party that was based solely on principle and the cause of abolishing slavery. Their history has always been to champion the cause of the downtrodden and voiceless, but ironically, through the years they have been Harry Reided. All their accomplishments as far as race relations, that were hamstrung and prevented by the Democrats, are now credited to the very party who were the obstructionists. The Republicans have allowed themselves to be portrayed as racists, while the Democrats sit smugly on their stolen accolades. They stupidly go around apologizing for the Southern Strategy which is a myth created by the Democrats when their members were leaving in droves because they were embarrassed to be part of the party of Maddox, Wallace, Faubus, Byrd, Fulbright, and every other racist Democrat. As a product of the Southern Strategy, I left the Democratic Party when a leading Democrat told me that Republicans were “N”-lovers. I said I must be one and switched parties as a result.

The second solution is to select one of the declared candidates who pass the social litmus test and support them. There are some great people running, any of which would be a far better choice than Hillary Clinton. But why settle for just “electable” when we can actually get a leader in there who will, not just put their finger in the dike, but move policy that helps and protects the country.

If strong defense is an issue, and that is the ONLY reason to support Rudy, then why not pick the real deal in Duncan Hunter. He was not only an Army Ranger in Vietnam, was head of the Armed Services Committee, but his son Duncan Dwayne is on his third tour of duty. The first two were in Iraq and this time he is in Afghanistan. Duncan is the only candidate who can articulate a clear position on how to transition out of the war in Iraq.

If the issue against Rudy is that he is not pro-life, which is stimulating third candidate support, why wait until after the nomination process to choose a pro-life, third party candidate? Duncan has been pro-life forever and has never swayed or altered his view on that issue. He is fearless when it comes to fighting for what he believes in and figured out legally, how to save the cross at Mt. Soledad that the liberals wanted to tear down. He was the first one to speak out against the disparate treatment of Ramos and Campion and has been a supporter of border control, even authoring the bill that authorized the building of the border fence. This has been his issue for over 20 years.

He is from California for those who think the state of origin is an issue. As a congressman, he has always received about 80% of the vote in his San Diego district, which is predominately black and Hispanic. He does not pander to minorities, but speaks honestly and has garnered the support of many key black leaders as a result of his desire to bring them back into the Republican Party. He reminds them that it is THEIR party, created specifically for their ancestors to abolish slavery and give full and equal rights to the liberated slaves. He is doing what the RNC is too brain-dead to do, and that is to reach out to them, empower them to be involved politically and let them know that their values are our values.

Only 27% of blacks vote, and 90% of them vote for Democrats. The reason the other 73% are not involved is that they can’t stomach the policies of the Democrats, but they have been so beaten down and intimidated by the Democrats against voting for Republicans, that they abstain.

We make a fatal flaw, as conservatives when we drink the Kool-Aid of candidate viability that the Democrats so willingly serve to us. An election is not won by millions of dollars, but millions of votes. Almost every person on Duncan’s campaign is a volunteer, including his manager, his communications director, scheduler, etc., because they believe in him. Anyone can hire a consultant for $100,000, and believe me, that consultant would work for anyone. Follow the trail of consultants from one political trough to the other, and get an idea of their loyalty. But, if the issue is about money and you don’t believe that political viability exists unless you can put your hand in the side of the balance sheet, then start supporting these alternative candidates NOW. Put your money where you mouth is, stop whining, stop threatening to take your bat and your ball and go home if the game isn’t played the way you want it to be. If you want to be a player, step up to the plate and hit the ball that is thrown you and stop threatening to leave the game and start another one.

No one likes a spoiler as demonstrated by the valid accusations that if Ross Perot had not started a third party, then Hillary would be baking cookies today. And if a third party is to be formed, alternative candidate is to be selected, it should not be done two months before the primary but four years before one.

If social conservatives truly do have the choice and power to make or break a presidential race, then at least make it for the good of the country, with a candidate that the vast majority can get behind, not for the sake of making a hallow promise that will only serve to crown Hillary as our nation’s first socialist president.

Enron’s chairman did meet with the President and the Vice President in the oval office.

• Enron gave $420,000 to the President’s party over 3 years.
• It donated $100,000 to the Presidents inauguration festivities.
• The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.
• The corporation had access to the administration at its highest levels and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.
• The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction.

This appears to be a major scandal that could turn into a criminal investigation of political as well as business leaders. BUT… The President under whom all this happened wasn’t George W. Bush, It was Bill Clinton!

Is that why the Enron scandal has fallen off the front pages?  Can Anyone Prove the RNC Wrong on This?

---

THE CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATION HELPED ENRON WITH NUMEROUS BUSINESS DEALS

President Clinton Took A Personal Interest In An Enron Energy Deal. “On Nov. 22, 1995 . . . Clinton scrawled an FYI note to [Chief of Staff Mack] McLarty, enclosing a newspaper article on Enron Corp. and the vicissitudes of its $3 billion power-plant project in India. McLarty then reached out to Enron’s chairman, Ken Lay, and over the next nine months closely monitored the project with the U.S. ambassador to New Delhi, keeping Lay informed of the Administration’s efforts, according to White House documents reviewed by Time. In June 1996, four days before India granted final approval to Enron’s project, Lay’s company gave $100,000 to the President’s party.”

Michael Weisskopf, “The White House: That Invisible Mack Sure Can Leave His Mark,” Time, September 1, 1997

---

 

The Clinton-Gore National Security Council And Vice President Gore Interceded On Enron’s Behalf. “Gas giant Enron Corp.’s plan to develop Mozambique’s
Pande natural gas field appears to have been saved from cancellation last month by a blunt threat from the U.S. National Security Council to cut off future U.S. aid to the country. . . . U.S. sources said [Mozambican Energy  Ministry John] Kachamila then entered into negotiations on [an] alternative proposal . . . [and] began to portray the Enron deal as bad financially . . . . Given the hurdles, Enron is pinning its hopes on a visit to South Africa on Dec. 6 by Vice President Al Gore, who will take in talks with President Nelson Mandela.”

Jonathan Bearman, “White House Rescued Enron’s Deal To Develop Mozambique’s Pande Field,” The Oil Daily, December 1, 1995

---

 

Enron Received Over $4 Billion In Federal Assistance During The Clinton-Gore Administration. “All told, Enron received over $4 billion from the federal Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Export-Import Bank for projects in Turkey, Bolivia, China, the Philippines, and elsewhere during the Clinton administration.”

Greg Pierce, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, January 14, 2002

---

 

The Clinton-Gore Commerce Department Had An “Economic War Room” To Aid Enron And Other Corporations. “From . . . [the] Washington war room, the negotiators for the Enron Corporation, the lead bidder in the American consortium, have been shadowed and assisted by a startling array of Government agencies. In a carefully-planned assault, the State and Energy Departments pressed the firms’ case.”

David E. Sanger, “How Washington Inc. Makes A Sale,” The New York Times, February 19, 1995

---

 

Clinton-Gore Administration Officials Were “Unabashed Cheerleaders” For The Enron Power Contract In India. “Many Clinton Administration officials had been unabashed cheerleaders for the deal, with Energy ecretary Hazel O’Leary warning in June that canceling the Dabhol contract would endanger other private power projects being financed from outside India.”

John-Thor Dahlburg, “India Orders Plug Pulled On U.S.-Run Power Project,” Los Angeles Times, August 4, 1995

---

 

The Clinton-Gore Energy Department Awarded A Contract To Enron For The Construction Of The Largest On-Grid Photovoltaic System In The United States. (Amoco/Enron Solar will develop the country’s largest on-grid photovoltaic farm–a 10 MW facility on Department of Energy land at the Nevada Test Site – under a power purchase agreement with the Corporation for Solar Technology and Renewable Resources, a DOE-funded nonprofit organization. Although the 10 MW purchase commitment from the Nevada Test Site is a mere 10 percent of the hoped-for 100 MW solar goal, CSTRR president Rose McKinney-James said she was “pleased and encouraged” by CSTRR’s accomplishments to date.”

Libby Brydolf, “Largest PV Farm Set For Nevada Test Site,” The Electricity Daily, November 6, 1996

---

 

The Clinton-Gore Administration Helped Enron Salvage An Energy Contract In The Philippines. “President Clinton today salvaged a U.S. proposal to ease trade barriers on computer technology by the year 2000 as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum wrapped up its work. . . . Key investors in Subic Bay include Houston-based Enron Corp., which has a subsidiary developing the area’s power source, and Coastal Corp., which has taken over the huge tanker storage area. Enron and Coastal were among the first 94 investors in Subic Bay, which now serves as the Asia hub for Federal Express. Those firms, along with Dallas-based EDS, serve on the APEC Business Advisory Council that met with Clinton Sunday night.”

Nancy Mathis, “Clinton Salvages Motion On Computer Technology,” The Houston Chronicle, November 25, 1996

---

 

The Clinton-Gore Administration Helped Enron Secure Over $400 Million In Loans For A Joint Venture. “The U.S. will provide up to $400-mil in government-backed loans to support a possible joint venture between Enron and Uzbekistan to develop gas reserves, the U.S.” Overseas Private Investment Corp (OPIC) said June 24. OPIC’s announcement coincided with a state visit by Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov, who meets with President Clinton June 25.”

Support For Possible Enron-Uzbek Link, Platt’s Oilgram News, June 25, 1996

---

 

The Clinton-Gore Administration And The OPIC Helped Enron Finance A Gas Pipeline Through Eastern Bolivia And Brazil. “Environmentalists say U.S. government financing is being misused to finance a gas pipeline through a rare forest ecosystem in violation of the Clinton administration’s own policies. American energy giants Enron and Shell, along with the Bolivian consortium Transredes, are hurrying to complete the 243-mile pipeline, which will extend from an existing gas pipeline near the city of Santa Cruz in eastern Bolivia to Cuiaba, Brazil. . . . The $570 million Cuiaba Integrated Energy Project is set to be completed by March, financed in part with a $200 million loan delivered to the companies on June 15 from the Overseas Private Investment [Corporation].

James Langman, Clinton Regime Ripped For Supporting Pipeline, The Washington Times, January 11, 2000

---

 

The Clinton-Gore OPIC Issued A $200-Million Loan That Helped Enron Construct A South American Gas Pipeline. “The Overseas Private Investment Corporation approved a $200 million loan Tuesday for a gas pipeline in Bolivia, a project opposed by environmental groups and some U.S. lawmakers. . . . In addition, Enron and Shell committed themselves to spending more than $20 million to develop and implement a regional conservation plan for eastern Bolivia over the next five years.”

Harry Dunphy, “OPIC Approves $200 Million Loan For Bolivia Pipeline,” The Associated Press, June 15, 1999

---

 

ENRON OFFICIALS HAD REGULAR SEATS ON CLINTON OVERSEAS TRADE MISSIONS

Enron Executives Traveled So Often On Trade Missions That The Company Was “Compelled” To Let The World Know That No Employees Were On Ron Brown’s Plane When It Crashed. “Enron officials were so often part of Clinton’s international trade missions that the company felt compelled to issue a news release saying no one from Enron was involved when a plane crashed in Croatia in 1996, killing all aboard, including [then] Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.”

Jack Douglas Jr. and Jennifer Autrey, “Enron Spread Its Political Donations,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, January 27, 2002

---

 

A Sample Of Clinton-Era Trade Missions That Included Enron Executives: Russia In March And April 1994. Rodney L. Gray, chairman and chief executive officer of Enron International accompanied Brown on [a] . . . trade mission to Russia in March and April of 1994. In Russia, Enron signed a deal to develop a market for Russia[n] gas in Europe.”

Center For Public Integrity Website, www.publicintegrity.org, accessed August 20, 2002

---

 

India In January 1995. “Kenneth Lay, chairman and chief executive officer of the Enron Corporation, accompanied Secretary of Commerce Ronald Brown on the trade mission to India in January, 1995. In India, Enron signed a contract for a 2,000 megawatt power plant in Dahbol worth an estimated $400 million. Enron also won a contract to build a $920 million power plant on the West coast of India and a $1.1 billion contract for offshore gas and oil production.”

Center For Public Integrity Website, www.publicintegrity.org, accessed August 20, 2002

---

 

Bosnia And Croatia In July 1996. “The Enron Development Corp. had good reason to be thankful when its president accompanied Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor on a trade mission to Bosnia and Croatia last July. With Kantor’s help in Croatia, Enron signed a memorandum of understanding to construct a 150-megawatt power plant that will cost $100 million or more to build.”

Walter V. Robinson, “Donations Are Linked To Kantor Trade Missions,” The Boston Globe, February 12, 1997

---

 

South Africa In December 1998. “[F]or every South African and American who cares about jobs, and about making our economies work for all people, this is a very important trade mission. . . . These companies see a new Africa. They want to trade and invest more with countries that are moving from the margins to the mainstream of the global economy. . . . Another company is Enron [represented by Terrence Thorn]. They want to develop a $2,500 million gas pipeline and iron and steel facility in Mozambique that will mean thousands of jobs.”

Then-Commerce Secretary Daley As Quoted In “United States And Africa,” Africa News, December 2, 1998

---

 

China In April 1999. “U.S. Commerce Secretary William Daley’s infrastructure trade delegation to China this week produced several business deals. Some were part of the trade mission and others were timed to coincide with it. . . . Enron International China Pipeline, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enron Corp. of Houston Texas, signed a memorandum of understanding with China National Petroleum Corporation on Wednesday to jointly develop a natural gas pipeline. The 765 kilometer pipeline, the first onshore pipeline to be built in cooperation with a foreign company, will transport natural gas from Sichuan Province to markets in Hubei Province.”

“Daley’s China Visit Nets Trade Deals For U.S. Companies,” ChinaOnline, April 2, 1999

---

 

Egypt In October 1999. “A group of U.S. corporate executives headed by Commerce Secretary William Daley arrived here Wednesday hoping to exploit fresh trade opportunities with Egypt after a change of government. The delegation is looking forward to exploring commercial opportunities resulting from Egypt’s economic reforms and ongoing privati[z]ation reforms,” Daley said on his arrival here at the head of a delegation of 12 business leaders. Among the U.S. companies represented were Nortel Networks, Enron Corporation [represented by Richard Bergsieker, Senior Vice President], ProNetLink.com and New York Life International.”

“US Trade Mission To Explore New Privati[z]ation Opportunities In Egypt,” Agence France Presse, October 13, 1999

---

 

Latin America In February 2000. “Commerce Secretary William Daley left Friday evening for Latin America with 19 U.S. corporate executives on a U.S. business-development mission focusing on information and communications technology, environment, and energy. Among the 19 executives are . . . Terrence Thorn, executive vice president of Enron. The mission will travel for eight days to the Southern Cone countries of Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. The key issue in that region is the privatization of power companies, not just at the federal level, as in the past, but now at the state and local levels, according to a Commerce department official. In addition, the mission will look at ongoing and new opportunities in cross-border oil and gas pipelines.”

“Daley Visits Latin America,” The Oil Daily, February 14, 2000

---

 

Like Infamous DNC Fundraiser Johnny Chung, Enron Also Donated To A Charity For Clinton Energy Secretary O’Leary. Chung said that a Department of Energy
official offered to arrange a meeting with Secretary O’Leary for a Chinese businessman in exchange for a $25,000 donation to Africare, a charity support by O’Leary.” Similarly, after O’Leary included Enron officials on her trips, “Enron showed its gratitude. At Christmas 1995, documents show, it donated an unknown sum of cash in O’Leary’s name to a charity called “I Have a Dream.”

“O’Leary To Testify Before House Panel On Contribution To Charity, Inside Energy/With Federal Lands, December 8, 1997; Michael Weisskopf, “Enron’s Democrat Pals,” Time, August 17, 2002

---

 

Enron “Seemed To Purchase” Seats On A Clinton-Era Overseas Trade Mission. “In 1995, a $100,000 check from Enron to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) seemed to purchase some highly coveted seats for Enron executives on an overseas trade mission led by then-Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor. Earlier, Enron Chairman Ken Lay accompanied the previous commerce secretary, Ron Brown, to India. Mr. Clinton instructed his chief of staff, Mack McLarty, to help Enron obtain a contract to build a power plant in India, for which the firm received $398 million in U.S. taxpayer assistance. In 1996, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rulings favorable to Enron coincided with another $100,000 contribution from Enron to the DNC.”

Editorial, “Enron And The Clinton Administration,” The Washington Times, January 18, 2002

---

 

ENRON AND THE CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATION: A SHARED VISION ON GLOBAL WARMING

The Clinton-Gore Administration’s Global Warming Agreement Would Have Helped Enron. “The Clinton administration’s interest in an international agreement to combat global warming also dovetailed with Enron’s business plans. Enron officials envisioned the company at the center of a new trading system, in which industries worldwide could buy and sell credits to emit carbon dioxide as part of a strategy to reduce greenhouse gases. Such a system would curtail the use of inefficient coal-fired power plants that emitted large amounts of carbon dioxide, while encouraging new investments in gas-fired plants and pipelines — precisely Enron’s line of business.”

Dan Morgan, “Enron Also Courted Democrats,” The Washington Post, January 13, 2002

---

 

Enron Shaped The Clinton-Gore Global Warming Policy. At a July 1997 meeting, Enron was part of a select group that shaped the administration’s case for policy action on the theory of man-made climate change.

Christopher C. Horner, “Controlling Hypocritical Authority,” National Review, April 23, 2002

---

 

Ken Lay Urged Clinton And Vice President Gore “To Back A ’Market-Based’ Approach To The Problem Of Global Warming,” Which Would Be “Good For Enron Stock.” In a White House meeting in August 1997, “Lay urged President Clinton and Vice President Gore to back a ’market-based’ approach to the problem of global warming — a strategy that a later Enron memo makes clear would be ’good for Enron stock.”

Dan Morgan, “Enron Also Courted Democrats,” The Washington Post, January 13, 2002

---

 

Ken Lay Said The Kyoto Global Warming Accord Would Dramatically Help Enron. Following the White House meeting, Ken Lay said there was broad consensus in favor of an emissions-trading system. An internal Enron memo noted that “the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would” do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.”

Dan Morgan, “Enron Also Courted Democrats,” The Washington Post, January 13, 2002

---

 

Ken Lay Bragged That Gore Had “Solicited” His Views On Global Warming. “In an August 1997 memo by Mr. Lay to all Enron employees, the chairman said Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore had “solicited” his view on how to address the issue of global warning in advance of a climate reaty to be negotiated at an international conference.” That memo said Mr. Clinton agreed a market-based solution, such as emissions trading, was the answer to reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

Jerry Seper, “Enron Gave Cash To Democrats, Sought Pact Help,” The Washington Times, January 16, 2002

---

 

Enron Officials Pressured The Clinton-Gore administration To Restructure Legislation Relating To Global Climate Change. “Despite the Senate decision,
Enron continued to push the Clinton administration well into 1998 for what the company called a ’restructuring’ of legislation that would have been a “first step to solving the problems of global climate change.” The firm, according to the records, sought laws that would have favored Enron’s natural gas inventory and reduced competition from coal.”

Jerry Seper, “Enron Gave Cash To Democrats, Sought Pact Help,” The Washington Times, January 16, 2002

---

 

The Clinton-Gore Energy Department “Rework[ed] Its Proposal So That It Was To Enron’s Liking. “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.”

Michael Weisskopf, “Enron’s Democrat Pals,” Time, August 17, 2002

---

 

Enron Said The Final Gore Global Warming Treaty Was “Another Victory For Us.” An internal Enron memo about the Kyoto Protocol said, if implemented, this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States. . . This agreement will be good for Enron stock!!” Drafted by Enron’s Kyoto emissary immediately upon his return from Japan, it praises individual Kyoto features with “we won,” “another victory for us,” and “exactly what I have been lobbying for.”

Christopher Horner, “Outside View: Caught En Flagrente Kyoto,” United Press International, January 31, 2002

---

 

THE CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATION WAS A KEY SUPPORTER OF ENRON’S ELECTRIC DEREGULATION PLAN

Ken Lay Was A Clinton Golfing Partner And Energy Advisor. Lay played golf with President Clinton and “advised the Democratic administration on energy.”

David Ivanovich, “Power Play,” The Houston Chronicle, November 10, 2001

---

 

The Clinton-Gore Administration Supported Enron’s Agenda To Deregulate Electricity. “Closer to home, deregulation of the electric-power industry tops the company’s domestic political agenda. To date, electricity deregulation has progressed piecemeal, state by state. Bills in Congress to deregulate the industry nationwide have gone nowhere. Enron officials were able to enlist the support of the Clinton administration, but the legislation failed to move on Capitol Hill, largely because of personalities and turf issues.”

David Ivanovich, “The New Power,” The Houston Chronicle, April 15, 2001

---

 

A Regulatory Change By The Clinton-Gore Administration Transformed Enron. “Key orders by FERC in 1996 also supported Enron’s transformation into a freewheeling trader of gas, electricity and more exotic products, such as telecommunications services and sulfur-dioxide emissions credits. The new rules ensured that Enron and other merchant companies could buy electricity
from independent power plants and sell it to distant customers, using transmission lines borrowed from utility companies.”

Dan Morgan and Juliet Eilperin, “Campaign Gifts, Lobbying Built Enron’s Power In Washington,” The Washington Post, December 25, 2001

---

 

Enron Lobbied Clinton To Act On FERC Order 888 And “Allow Wholesale Open Access To The Nation’s Electricity Transmission Grid.” “Gas companies, trade groups and utilities are barraging the White House with support for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) Order 888, telling President Clinton that the administration should not delay implementation because of unfounded environmental concerns. . . . Order 888 will allow wholesale open access to the nation’s electricity transmission grid. Also writing to Clinton was a group of 26 trade groups and energy companies that urged that EPA not turn the rule over to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for review. The group includes . . . Enron Corp. . . .

Paul Connolly, “Gas Firms Ask White House To Move On FERC’s Electric Rule,” The Oil Daily, May 14, 1996

---

 

Clinton-Gore Energy Secretary Federico Pena Urged The White House To Take Action On Energy Legislation Favored By Enron. “Lay met with Energy Secretary Federico Pena to urge White House action on electricity legislation favored by Enron. Pena” suggested that President Clinton might be motivated to act by some key contacts from important constituents,” according to another Enron memo. Taking the cue, Lay, one of 25 business executives on Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development, wrote to the president the same day.”

Dan Morgan, “Enron Also Courted Democrats,” The Washington Post, January 13, 2002

---

 

In 1992, Clinton Signed A Major Energy Bill (H.R. 776) That “Set The Stage For A New Wholesale Electricity Marketplace” And The Growth Of Enron. The law “set the stage for a new wholesale electricity marketplace. Trading companies such as Enron could use the transmission lines of regulated utility companies to sell [blocks] of electricity to private customers.”

Dan Morgan, “Enron Also Courted Democrats,” The Washington Post, January 13, 2002

---

 

Energy Secretary Pena Solicited Comments From Enron On The Clinton-Gore “Comprehensive National Energy Strategy.” “Pena asked Enron officials to keep Energy Department staffers posted on developments in Congress, and solicited comments on the administration’s draft of its Comprehensive National Energy Strategy, an Enron document said. Lay felt the draft was “headed in the right direction” except for a few points, the document said.”

Dan Morgan, “Enron Also Courted Democrats,” The Washington Post, January 13, 2002

---

 

An Enron Spokesman Said That The Company Was Encouraged By The Final Clinton-Gore Plan. “Houston-based Enron Corp., a gas and electricity utility that has been aggressively pushing into newly deregulated state markets and is increasingly competing with Southern Co., said it was encouraged by the plan. “We like that there’s an absolute deadline for competition,” said
Enron Senior Vice President Steven Kean.”

Matthew C. Quinn, “Plan For Deregulating Nation’s Electric Utilities Finally Sent To Congress,” The Atlanta Journal And Constitution, March 26, 1998

---

 

Provisions In The Clinton-Gore Energy Plan Were “Much To The Liking” Of Enron. “Under the Clinton plan, states would not be compelled to open up their markets to competition. States could retain the status quo if they
decided their consumers would be better off with a regulated, monopoly system, although they would be forced to hold public hearings to explain why competition would not work. That provision is much to the liking of officials at Houston-based Enron Corp., the natural gas and power giant that has led the electricity deregulation push.”

David Ivanovich, “Clinton Power Deregulation Plan Detailed,” The Houston Chronicle, March 26, 1998

---

 

GORE AND ENRON: DONATIONS AND ACCESS
Former Enron Chairman Ken Lay And His Company Contributed Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars To Assist President Clinton And Vice President Al Gore. “Ken Lay contributed $11,000 to former President Bill Clinton during his two campaigns; Vice President Al Gore got $13,750 from Enron in the 2000 election. During Clinton’s eight years in office, the company and Lay contributed about $900,000 to the Democratic Party.”

Stephen J. Hedges, et al., “Enron ’Players’ Worked D.C. Ties,” Chicago Tribune, January 13, 2002

---

 

Enron Donated To The DNC Shortly Before Company Executives Met With Gore. Over a 17-month period between May 1997 and October 1998, Enron donated
$55,000 to the Democratic National Committee. “The cash came as Enron reportedly scored meetings with high-level Democrats – including then-President Bill Clinton and then-Vice President Al Gore.”

David R. Guarino, “Outsider” Grossman Got Enron Cash For DNC,” The Boston Herald, February 20, 2002

---

 

Enron’s Large Donations To Democrats Preceded Its Intensive Lobbying Efforts With Gore. “Enron Corp. donated $420,000 to Democrats over a three-year period while heavily lobbying the Clinton administration to expedite passage of a 1997 global warming treaty that would have dramatically increased the firm’s sales of natural gas. Federal and confidential corporate records show that after donating thousands of dollars in soft money and PAC donations beginning in 1995, Enron received easy access to President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.”

Jerry Seper, “Enron Gave Cash To Democrats, Sought Pact Help,” The Washington Times, January 16, 2002

---

 

The Ties Between The Democrat Party And Enron Are Deep And Friendly. “Relations with the Clinton White House included Enron chairman Kenneth Lay’s golf outings with the president and Lay’s face-to-face lobbying session with Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. . . . Former Clinton officials working for Enron, included a former chief of staff and a former White House counsel.

Robert Schlesinger, “Enron Ties May Also Tar Democrats,” The Boston Globe, January 24, 2002

---

 

In April 1995, Ken Lay And His Wife Linda Attended A Clinton White House State Dinner In Honor Of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, President Of Brazil.

Roxanne Roberts, “Dark Night At The White House,” The Washington Post, April 21, 1995

---

 

President Clinton Selected Enron’s Ken Lay As A “Corporate Citizen” Who Is “Doing Well By Doing Good.” “President Clinton, seeking to ease fears over job security, hosted a conference Thursday to highlight corporate citizens” who are doing well by doing good. . . . “I think it’s good to have an open dialogue,” said Kenneth Lay, chairman and CEO of Houston-based Enron Corp., a $13 billion natural-gas production and distribution firm. “I appreciate the tone that the president has set, trying to address things in a nonemotional way.”

George Rodrigue, “President Salutes Firms That Do Right By Workers,” The Dallas Morning News, May 17, 1996

---

 

The Clinton-Gore Administration Considered Appointing Enron’s Terrence Thorn To Be Deputy Secretary Of Energy. “Bill White, the campaign chairman for Texas Sen. Bob Krueger’s election campaign, and Terence Thorn, president of Houston-based Transwestern Pipeline Co., are under consideration at the White House for deputy secretary at DOE, several sources said last week. . . . Thorn, described by the source as Enron Corp’s “token Democrat,” has been president of the corporation’s Transwestern Pipeline subsidiary since 1985. Thorn began his involvement with the gas industry in 1975 as a lobbyist for the American Gas Assn., where he was director of congressional relations from 1977-79. He joined Enron’s predecessor, Houston Natural Gas Corp., as the firm’s Washington representative in 1981.”

“Texans Among Candidates For Deputy,” Inside Energy, March 29, 1993

---

 

ENRON’S PLAN FOR THE GORE 2000 CAMPAIGN: CULTIVATE CLOSE TIES, DONATE, AND HIRE GORE AIDES

During The 2000 Presidential Campaign, Enron Tried To Cultivate Close Ties To Gore. “The Enron Corporation quietly drew up a plan to cultivate close political ties to Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 presidential race and tried to build relationships with his inner circle . . . . In May 2000, shortly after Mr. Gore was assured of the Democratic nomination, Enron hired Sally A. Painter, a public relations executive, who drafted a “six-month action plan for Enron” for “Democratic political outreach in the 2000 presidential election,” the documents show.”

Richard L. Berke, “Enron Pursued Plan To Forge Close Ties To Gore Campaign,” The New York Times, February 18, 2002

---

 

The Recommended Enron Strategy: Get Involved In The DNC Convention, Help Gore In Swing States And With Inaugural Planning. “Ms. Painter identified influential advisers at the Gore headquarters in Nashville and in Washington whom she said Enron officials should get to know. Her plan called for writing briefs for Mr. Gore’s staff on issues important to Enron and for Enron to play an “active and visible role” at the Democratic National Convention. She also suggested that Enron “actively participate in campaign activities on the ground in a key swing state.” If Mr. Gore was elected, she said, Enron should “participate in senior team for inaugural planning.”

Richard L. Berke, “Enron Pursued Plan To Forge Close Ties To Gore Campaign,” The New York Times, February 18, 2002

---

 

Enron Hired A Close Gore Adviser As A Lobbyist During The 2000 Presidential Campaign. “In the summer of 2000, Enron hired one of Mr. Gore’s old friends and a longtime financial supporter, Charles W. Bone. Mr. Bone, with contacts in Washington and at the Tennessee Valley Authority, helped Enron settle a bitter contractual dispute with the T.V.A. The suit was settled in January 2001 for more than $200 million. The authority, not Enron, disclosed the settlement.”

Richard L. Berke, “Enron Pursued Plan To Forge Close Ties To Gore Campaign,” The New York Times, February 18, 2002

---

 

Enron Donated To The Democrats In An Attempt To Curry Favor With Gore. “Former Enron officials said an important part of their strategy to win favor with the Gore campaign was a significant increase in the company’s donations to Democrats.” In 1999 and 2000, the company gave $362,000 in soft-money donations to Democrats.

Richard L. Berke, “Enron Pursued Plan To Forge Close Ties To Gore Campaign” The New York Times, February 18, 2002

---

 

Enron Sponsored A Private Meeting With Senior Gore Aides During The 2000 Campaign. “In what one Enron official recalled as a desire to have Enron’s
message become part of the energy and telecom policy of the Gore campaign,” Enron organized a dinner in the private Nest Lounge of the Willard Hotel, two blocks from the White House, that included top Gore and Enron officials as well as executives in the high-tech industry.”

Richard L. Berke, “Enron Pursued Plan To Forge Close Ties To Gore Campaign,” The New York Times, February 18, 2002

---

 

Enron Scripted The Meeting With Gore Aides. “Enron painstakingly prepared for the dinner. Ms. Painter wrote a document of potential questions to consider for the dinner discussion” for the Gore officials, including “How can the vice president and the Democratic Party strengthen its business message” and “What has been your reaction to the vice president’s leadership strategies?” People at the dinner said the discussion roughly followed the questions outlined.”

Richard L. Berke, “Enron Pursued Plan To Forge Close Ties To Gore Campaign, The New York Times, February 18, 2002

---

 

Enron Drafted Policy Briefing Papers For Gore. “Christopher M. Long, who was a lobbyist for Enron, suggested in an internal memorandum that the company draft issue briefs for Mr. Gore on four policy areas on which Enron has unique experience: electricity deregulation, e-commerce (trading), energy services and broadband.”

Richard L. Berke, “Enron Pursued Plan To Forge Close Ties To Gore Campaign,” The New York Times, February 18, 2002

---

 

Enron Worked To Hire Gore Aides. “As Ms. Painter was planning more public interaction between Enron and Gore officials, Enron officials said, Mr. Shapiro worked behind the scenes to hire people close to Mr. Gore. In the summer of 2000, they said, Mr. Shapiro wanted to hire Johnny Hayes, one of Mr. Gore’s closest friends and top fund-raisers in Nashville. But Mr. Shapiro could not hire Mr. Hayes because he was already on the Gore campaign’s payroll. After the campaign, Enron hired Mr. Hayes as a lobbyist.”

Richard L. Berke, “Enron Pursued Plan To Forge Close Ties To Gore Campaign,” The New York Times, February 18, 2002

---

 

Enron “Paid Large Sums” To Gore Friends And Aides. “Records show Enron paid large sums to enlist the lobbying aid of former Tennessee Valley Authority Director Johnny Hayes and another Tennessee friend of former Vice President Al Gore. Enron paid $200,000 to Sideview Partners Inc., a company headed by Mr. Hayes, for lobby work involving TVA earlier this year, according to Mr. Hayes midyear 2001 lobby activities report.” Enron also paid $500,000 to the Nashville law firm of Charles Bone, another longtime Gore friend and fund-raiser. “Also registered to lobby on behalf of Enron this year was former Vice President Gore’s former chief of staff, Jack Quinn. Disclosure reports for the first half of 2001 indicate Mr. Quinn’s lobbying firm, Quinn, Gillespie $10,000.”

Andy Sher, “Ex-TVA Director, Gore Friend Got Large Sums To Aid Enron,” Chattanooga Times/Chattanooga Free Press, December 7, 2001

---

 

Several Senior Enron Officials “Spent Election Night At Vice President Gore’s Headquarters In Nashville.” “Several senior Enron officials spent election night at Vice President Gore’s headquarters in Nashville.”

Dan Morgan, “Enron Also Courted Democrats,” The Washington Post, January 13, 2002

We wish Bill Clinton a quiet retirement, if only he’d return the favor. But when the former President distorts history for the sake of political advantage, someone has to clean up afterward.

Responding to Bush Administration suggestions that some of today’s corporate scandals first got out of hand under his watch, Mr. Clinton recently shot back: “These people ran on responsibility, but as soon as you scratch them they go straight to blame. Now, you know, I didn’t blame his [President Bush’s] father for Somalia when we had that awful day memorialized in ’Black Hawk Down.’ I didn’t do that.”

We can understand Mr. Clinton wanting to defend himself, but as usual he can’t get his own facts straight. His introduction of Somalia here is one of those breathtakingly brazen attempts to dodge responsibility for which Mr. Clinton is justly famous. Here’s the real history:

President Bush the Elder sent U.S. forces into Somalia in December 1992 to aid the United Nations in relieving a massive famine. In May of 1993, four months into his term, President Clinton declared that mission accomplished and pulled out most of the U.S. forces. In a speech on the South Lawn to associate himself with the effort, he extolled the decision to intervene: “If all of you who served had not gone, it is absolutely certain that tens of thousands would have died by now.” It was a “successful mission,” he said, and “proved yet again that American leadership can help to mobilize international action …”

But back in Somalia, with no U.S. deterrent, Somalia’s warlords began fighting again. After a series of bloody attacks on U.N. peacekeepers, Mr. Clinton launched a new mission: In August 1993, he sent in a force of Rangers and Special Forces units to capture the brutal warlord Mohammad Farrah Aidid and restore order.

That force asked for heavy armor — in the form of Abrams tanks and Bradley armored vehicles — as well as the AC-130 gunship, but the Clinton Administration denied those requests. On October 3 on a mission to pick up Aidid, two Black Hawks were unexpectedly shot down; in the ensuing urban gun battle, 18 American soldiers were killed and another 73 injured

Many military experts believe that if the U.S. forces had had armor, fewer would have died. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin resigned two months after Somalia, having acknowledged that his decision on the armor had been an error. A 1994 Senate Armed Services Committee investigation reached the same conclusion. But perhaps the most poignant statement came from retired Lieutenant Colonel Larry Joyce, father of Sergeant Casey Joyce, a Ranger killed in Mogadishu: “Had there been armor … I contend that my son would probably be alive today …”

Mr. Clinton’s responsibility in Somalia doesn’t stop there. Despite the mistakes that October day, Aidid had been struck a blow. The U.S. military, with 18 dead, wanted nothing more than to finish what it had started. Mr. Clinton instead aborted the mission. The U.S. released the criminals it had captured that same day at such great cost, and the U.N., lacking U.S. support, was powerless to keep order. Somalia remains a lawless, impoverished nation. Worse, the terrorists of al Qaeda interpreted the U.S. retreat from Somalia as a sign of American weakness that may have convinced them we could be induced to retreat from the Middle East if they took their attacks to the U.S. homeland.

Those are the facts. The reason Mr. Clinton can’t blame the events of “Black Hawk Down” on President Bush’s father is because those events had nothing to do with him. They were Mr. Clinton’s responsibility, and his alone.

REPORTER: “Sir, you said in your speech . . . you’re going to talk about some of the excesses of the 1990s, when a lot of money was flying around, people were playing a lot of games with money. You weren’t president then, Bill Clinton was president. Do you think in some way he contributed to that, set a moral tone in any way?”

PRESIDENT BUSH: “No.” (President Bush, Press Conference, July 8, 2002)

(This is a statesman, ed. note)

---

Clinton: Republicans Derailed Accounting Reform

Clinton Rhetoric (. . . and this is a politician. ed. note)  Clinton Accused Congressional Republicans And SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt Of Derailing His Corporate Accounting Reform Proposals. “I’m sure that some of the people in Congress that stopped a lot of the reforms I tried to put through are probably rethinking that now. Arthur Levitt tried to stop the Enron accounting issues — using the same accounting company being consultant and accountant — and the Republicans stopped it.” Clinton added that Republicans fought Levitt’s effort, and Harvey Pitt was the leader trying to stop us from ending those abuses. That is a matter of record.”

David M. Halfbinger, Clinton Says Republicans Blocked His Audit Reforms, The New York Times, July 25, 2002

---

 

Clinton Said Republicans Stopped Him From Addressing Corporate Malfeasance:

“There was corporate malfeasance both before he took office and after. The difference is I actually tried to do something about it and their party stopped it. And one of the people who stopped our attempt to stop Enron account was made Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.”

Interview With Bill Clinton, ABC 7 News, July 26, 2002

The Facts:

• Senator Lieberman Has Been Responsible For Sinking Two Regulations That Would Have Required Higher Accountability Standards In The Industry. [Lieberman] played a key role in killing two major pieces of accounting reform in the last eight years.
• In 1994, the Financial Accounting Standards Board proposed rules that would require companies to charge the value of stock options granted to workers against current earnings.
• The Senate passed a Lieberman-sponsored resolution urging the Financial Accounting Standards Board to back off on its proposed rules.
• In 2000 Lieberman joined with 13 colleagues to write a letter to the board, urging it to postpone rules that would have called for new disclosure on mergers and acquisitions.
• Again the board backed off critical parts of its new rules.

Jim Jubak, An Enronitis Cure, TheStreet.com, February 13, 2002

---

In November 1993, Senator Lieberman Scolded SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt For Not Stepping In To Overrule The Accounting Proposal Put Forth By The Financial Accounting Standards Board. Lieberman urged the SEC to step in. The FASB process is broken. It’s time for the SEC chairman [Arthur Levitt] to step in and put an end to this misguided exercise in accounting theory. He should do so because the process is flawed. He should do so because the proposal is bad policy, bad economics and bad accounting.

Sen. Lieberman Mocks FASB, Bloomberg News, November 17, 1993

---

 

Senator Lieberman Said He “Had No Regrets” About His Role In Killing The Accounting Standards Proposals. Lieberman said he was “proud to consider myself a pro-business Democrat,” and that he “had no regrets” about his opposition to the FASB and IASB proposals.

David E. Rosenbaum, “Lieberman’s Pro-Business Views May Haunt Him,” The New York Times, July 14, 2002

---

 

Shortly Before The Enron Scandal Broke, Senator Lieberman Repeated His Opposition To Forcing Companies To Account For Stock Options. In an October 15, 2001 letter to the International Accounting Standards Board, Senator Lieberman said it was “unfortunate that IASB is now relitigating the issue [of stock options].” The Senator said that the IASB’s proposal was “inconsistent with its mission,” and charged that IASB was biased because it had “already expressed a view on the desired outcome.”

Senator Lieberman, Letter To IASB Chairman Paul Volker, October 15, 2001

---

 

 

Clinton: Republicans Derailed Securities Litigation Reform Clinton Rhetoric ( . . . who still can’t get his facts straight. ed. note)

Clinton Blamed Republicans For Overriding His Veto Of A Securities-Industry Bill. “Clinton said he was overridden by Republicans when he vetoed a securities-industry bill that would have basically cut off investors from being able to sue if they were getting the shaft.” And he recalled that Treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers, tried to crack down on the use of offshore accounts to conceal corporate financial information, but that Sen. Gramm and other Republicans stopped that.

David M. Halfbinger, “Clinton Says Republicans Blocked His Audit Reforms,” The New York Times, July 25, 2002

The Facts:

Senator Lieberman Voted To Help The Securities Industry Protect Itself Against Lawsuits.

H.R. 1058, Roll Call #589: Agreed to 65-30: R 46-4; D 19-26, December 5, 1995

---

 

After President Clinton Vetoed The Securities Litigation Act, Senator Lieberman Voted To Override His President’s Objections.

H.R. 1058, Roll Call #612: Agreed to 68-30: R 48-4; D 20-26, December 22, 1995

Corporate Joe Helped Companies Protect Themselves Against Lawsuits. Senator Lieberman has opposed tighter accounting rules and supported restrictions on lawsuits against companies and their accountants.

David E. Rosenbaum, “Lieberman’s Pro-Business Views May Haunt Him,” The New York Times, July 14, 2002

---

 

SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT (H.R. 1058)

Description: “An Act to amend the Federal securities laws to curb certain abusive practices in private securities litigation, and for other purposes. Introduced by Representative Tom Bliley on February 27, 1995, it became Public Law No. 104-67 on December 22, 1995 over the President’s veto. (H.R. 1058, Roll Call #589: Agreed to 65-30: R 46-4; D 19-26, December 5, 1995)

Note: The original vote on passage in the Senate was vetoed by President Clinton.

Tally: 19 Democrats voted “Aye” with Republicans to pass the bill. They include: Baucus, Johnston, Moseley-Braun, Bingaman, Kennedy, Murray, Dodd, Kerry, Pell, Exon, Kohl, Reid, Feinstein, Lieberman, Robb, Ford, Mikulski, Rockefeller, Harkin

Note: 20 Democrats voted with Republicans to override the President’s veto. Baucus, Bradley, Johnston, Moseley-Braun, Bingaman, Kennedy, Murray, Dodd, Kerry, Pell, Exon, Kohl, Reid, Feinstein, Lieberman, Robb, Ford, Mikulski, Rockefeller, Harkin.

H.R. 1058, Roll Call #612: Agreed to 68-30: R 48-4; D 20-26, December 22, 1995

---

Clinton: President Bush Should Do More To Fight AIDS Clinton Rhetoric ( . . . because it never was about telling the truth. ed. note)

Clinton Attacked The Bush Administration For Concentrating Too Much On The War On Terrorism And Too Little On The Global AIDS Epidemic.

I’m all for  fighting in Afghanistan . . . but no one believes that we can build a safe world just by preventing and punishing bad things, Clinton said at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition’s annual convention. Clinton urged world leaders to spend the $10 billion a year recommended by experts to fight AIDS globally, with the United States contributing about $2 billion.

The United States now spends up to $1 billion on worldwide anti-AIDS efforts. That sounds like a lot of money, Clinton said. But it’s less than two months of the Afghan war.

Kate Grossman, “Clinton Bashes Bush For Lack Of Focus On AIDS,” Chicago Sun-Times, July 24, 2002

---

 

Clinton Criticized The Bush Administration During An MTV HIV/AIDS Special For Its Lack Of AIDS Funding.

“Clinton” took a jab at President Bush. Pointing out that the United States produces 22 percent of the world’s GDP, and that the poorest countries can’t afford to spend anything on AIDS, Clinton told the group that the nation’s contribution should equal 25 percent of the U.N. fund, or $2.5 billion. “We should be able to come up with money like this,” Clinton said. “Where we need to be [would cost] less than two months of the
war in Afghanistan.”

Clinton spent an impromptu second hour helping the youths brainstorm how they could do more to fight AIDS”

Fred Tasker, “Young Men And Women Talk Facts, U.S. Funding With Clinton,” The Miami Herald, July 12, 2002

---

 

At A Global AIDS Conference, Clinton Said He Wishes He “Could Have Done More” To Fight HIV. Bill Clinton said, “AIDS is an issue that was not getting the requisite amount of effort, I thought the potential for destruction was breathtaking, America was a little slow on the uptake, and there it was exploding.”

He called the epidemic an economic, security and humanitarian issue for which the United States should pay its fair share, adding, That requires us to go from $800 million a year now to $2.5 billion, which is a couple of months of the Afghan war.

Asked about what he had done to fight AIDS as president, Mr. Clinton said: Do I wish I could have done more? Yes, but I do not know that I could have done it.

Lawrence Altman, “Clinton Urges Global Planning To Halt H.I.V.,” The New York Times, July 12, 2002

---

 

Clinton Regrets Not Fighting Harder For A Needle Swap Program While In Office.

“Former president Bill Clinton said Thursday that he should have fought harder while in office to fund needle-exchange programs that help reduce the rising AIDS toll among drug addicts. “I think I was wrong about that,” Clinton said. “We were worried about drug use going up again in America.” Clinton said Congress was evenly divided on the issue during his last term, and he may have been able to get enough GOP votes to fund needle-exchange programs. “But I’m not sure that even if a Republican administration had proposed that, it would pass.”

Steve Sternberg, “Clinton Wrong On Needle Swaps,” USA Today, July 12, 2002

The Facts:

AIDS Activist Groups Have No Criticism For Bush’s Efforts. “Bush hasn’t received the same criticism his dad, or even former President Clinton, did from the HRC and other AIDS activists. That’s because he’s sustained funding for AIDS programs. And Bush put the AIDS czar’s office right across the street from the White House, while Clinton made sure it opened a couple of blocks away. In a community that reads symbolism into everything, that’s made a difference.”

---

“Gays Approve Of AIDS Move By Bush,” White House Weekly, July 23, 2002

President Bush Has Aggressively Funded AIDS Research Efforts. “U.S. officials said they are doubling international spending on AIDS in the next 18 months. At the AIDS conference in Spain, they described a new $500 million program aimed at preventing mother-to-child transmission and improving health care delivery in Africa and the Caribbean.

President Bush also has pledged $500 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, a quarter of the fund’s pledges and more than any other nation, U.S. officials said. America’s total spending on AIDS/HIV this year is more than $16 billion, up from $14.2 billion two years ago, with most spent in the United States.”

Kate Grossman, “Clinton Bashes Bush For Lack Of Focus On AIDS,” Chicago Sun-Times, July 24, 2002

---

 

The Bush Administration Has Spent More Money To Prevent AIDS Than Clinton Administration.

“The U.S. delegation is headed by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson, who will address the gathering on Tuesday. At a news conference yesterday, he said the United States is committed to the
fight against global HIV/AIDS. We want to serve those most in need, and we’re ready not just to discuss and learn, but to act. He noted that the Bush administration has provided more money to fight AIDS overseas than any previous administration, including that of former president Bill Clinton, who will speak at the conference’s closing ceremonies.”

David Brown, “Study: AIDS Shortening Life In 51 Nations,” The Washington Post, July 8, 2002

---

 

Clinton: Taxpayers Owe Clinton For Whitewater Legal Mess Clinton Rhetoric ( . . . it was always about power, control, money and ego. ed. note)

According To The Clintons, The Federal Government Should Pay Their Legal Bills. “Former President Bill Clinton and his wife have asked a court to have taxpayers reimburse them for legal costs related to the Whitewater investigation, their lawyer said in a statement late Friday. “The Clintons paid $1.3 million in legal bills last year, according the Senate filing. It is unknown how much of the outstanding bills are related to the probe into the failed Arkansas land deal. The Clintons were never charged in connection with the Whitewater probe. In a statement, first reported by ABC News, Clinton lawyer David Kendall said he was seeking reimbursement under the independent counsel statute and was following the precedent set by ex-presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, both Republicans.

Shannon McCaffrey, “Clintons Ask Taxpayers To Reimburse Whitewater Legal Bills,” The Associated Press, July 26, 2002

---

 

CNN’s Aaron Brown Reported That It’s “Payback Time” For Bill Clinton

“It may be payback time for the Clinton, the Clinton family in terms of Whitewater in a strangely literal sense. Former President Clinton and Senator Clinton have asked the federal government to pay the legal fees they racked up during the Whitewater investigation. Under the law, those who are investigated but not indicted have the right to request reimbursement. They’re said to be asking for $3.5 million in legal fees.

CNN’s “NewsNight,” July 26, 2002

The Facts:

The Clintons Have “Raked In Millions” Since Leaving The White House. “The Clintons raked in millions of dollars last year after leaving the White House. The former president earned $9.2 million on the lecture circuit, and Hillary Clinton – now New York’s junior senator – received an $2.85 million advance on her memoirs. But they still have legal bills totaling between $1.75 million and $6.5 million, according to the financial disclosure form Mrs. Clinton was require to file as a member of the Senate.”

TREASURY SECRETARY RUBIN MISLED THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE 1995 BUDGET CRISIS: IF WE COULDN’T TRUST HIM THEN, WHY SHOULD WE TRUST HIM NOW?

---

A Bipartisan Congressional Committee Found That Rubin Misled The American People About Whether The Government Would Be Forced To Default. A Joint Economic Committee investigation of the November 1995 debt-limit increase found that “there was a deliberate effort on the part of Treasury officials, including Secretary Rubin, to mislead the country relative to the November default.”

(Representative Saxton, House Banking and Financial Services Committee Hearing, February 8, 1996) (emphasis added)

---

Rubin Also Misled The Country About Whether The Government Could Function If A Budget Agreement Was Not Reached By November 1995. The Joint Economic Committee found that Rubin had a plan that would have let government operations continue without a November 1995 budget agreement; nonetheless, Rubin and other “high-ranking Clinton administration officials created the misleading impression” that nothing could be done to prevent a default if there was no budget in place.

(Representative Saxton, House Banking and Financial Services Committee Hearing, February 8, 1996) (emphasis added)

---

Rubin Tried To Hide Debt Limit Information From Congress. A leading member of the Joint Economic Committee complained that Rubin and other officials “went to great lengths to conceal information relative to the planning that preceded the default hoax.”

(Representative Saxton, House Banking and Financial Services Committee Hearing, February 8, 1996) (emphasis added)

---

In An Effort To Juggle The Government’s Books, Rubin Enronized Federal
Pensions. Rubin raided “the last cash at the federal retirement corral” by stopping routine reinvesting of federal employee contributions to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund.

(Representative Mica, House Banking and Financial Services Committee Hearing, February 8, 1996) (emphasis added)

---

Rubin’s Pension-Raiding Violated A Law Defended By Al Gore. As a Senator, Gore supported a bill that became law that aimed to “preserve . . . contributions that these [federal] employees have made towards their retirement.” Gore said the bill required that employee retirement contributions be “usable only for the payment of civil service retirement and disability benefits.”

(Representative Saxton, House Banking and Financial Services Committee Hearing, February 8, 1996) (emphasis added)

---

RUBIN LEFT GOVERNMENT AND JOINED CITIBANK, WHICH HELPED ENRON HIDE 40% OF ITS DEBT

Rubin Left The Treasury Department In July 1999, And Became A Director For Citigroup In October Of The Same Year. (“Citigroup’s Business Heads,”Citigroup Website, wwww.citigroup.com)

Partly While Rubin Was At Citibank, The Firm Effectively Loaned Enron Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars, But It Did Not Show Up On Enron’s Books.

Citibank “prepaid” Enron hundreds of millions of dollars for “energy,” and the money was repaid, along with interest. “The effect of the transaction is like a loan, but it is not accounted as such in Enron’s financial statements.”

Robert Roach, Chief Investigator, Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations Hearing, July 23, 2002

---

The Citibank Deals Helped Enron Hide Billions Of Dollars In Debt, And
Maintain Its Credit Rating And Share Prices. The Citibank prepayment deals allowed Enron “to understate debt and overstate cash flow from operations [which] made its financial statements look much stronger. That, in turn helped Enron maintain its investment grade credit rating and support, even boost, its share price.”

Robert Roach, Chief Investigator, Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations Hearing, July 23, 2002

---

Without The Citibank Deals, Enron’s Debt Would Have Increased By 40% To About $14 Billion.

Robert Roach, Chief Investigator, Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations Hearing, July 23, 2002

---

Citibank Knew That The “Prepays” Were Designed To Help Bolster Enron’s
Bottom Line. Evidence uncovered by the Senate shows that Citigroup not only understood Enron’s accounting goal — increasing operating cash flow without reporting debt — but designed and implemented the financial structures to help Enron achieve the objective.

Robert Roach, Chief Investigator, Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations Hearing, July 23, 2002

---

A Selling Point Of The Prepay Arrangements Is That They Gave Enron Money That Was Not Showing Up On The Books As Debt. An internal Citibank email, sent one year after Rubin joined the firm, instructed bank workers to tell potential investors in the Enron prepayments that the deal “gives some oomph to revenues . . . [Enron] gets money that gives them cash flow but does not show up on the books as big D debt.”

Robert Roach, “Appendix B: Knowledge And Participation Of Financial Institutions In Enron Prepays,” Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations Hearing, July 23, 2002

---

Citibank Suggested A Way To Restructure The Deals So They Looked “A Little More Like A True Trade.” In May 2001, an internal Citibank memo suggested adding a minimal charge of one penny to the price of the prepayment deals to make it seem a little more like a true rade.

Robert Roach, Appendix B: Knowledge And Participation Of Financial Institutions In Enron Prepays, Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations Hearing, July 23, 2002

---

Citibank Stonewalled An Institutional Investor Who Asked Too Many Questions About An Enron Prepayment Deal. Internal emails show that, in November 2001, an investor tried to find out more information about one of the Enron deals. An Enron official told Citibank: “We need to shut this down.” Citigroup did just that, not providing any further information to the investor.

Robert Roach, Appendix B: Knowledge And Participation Of Financial Institutions In Enron Prepays, Senate permanent Subcommittee On Investigations Hearing, July 23, 2002

---

Under Rubin, Citibank Shopped The Idea Of Prepayment Arrangements Similar To The Enron Deals To 14 Other Companies, “Successfully Selling It To At Least Three.”

(Robert Roach, Chief Investigator, Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations Hearing, July 23, 2002)

---

AS ENRON WENT BANKRUPT, RUBIN TWICE INTERVENED TO HELP

Rubin Telephoned A Senior Treasury Official In An Attempt To Stop Bond-Rating Agencies From Downgrading Enron Credit. On Nov. 8, 2001, Rubin called Peter Fisher, Undersecretary for Domestic Finance, to ask what Fisher “thought of the idea of calling bond-rating agencies to halt a reduction in Enron’s credit rating. Fisher said he did not think the idea was advisable and did not make the call. Rubin prefaced his call by saying, “This is probably not a good idea.”

Dana Milbank and Susan Schmidt, “Rubin Asked Treasury About Aid To Enron,” The Washington Post, January 12, 2002

---

After Trying To Influence The Treasury Department, Rubin Personally Called A Credit-Rating Agency On Enron’s Behalf. The same day he made the call to Fisher, Rubin called Moody’s and asked them to delay changing Enron’s credit-rating to below-investment-grade bond status.

Martha McNeil Hamilton, “Enron Hid Debt, Rating-Agency Officials Say,” The Washington Post, March 21, 2002

---

RUBIN WORKED WITH ENRON AND WAS OFFERED AN ENRON BOARD SEAT

Rubin And Enron CEO Ken Lay Hammered Out The U.S. Position On Global Warming. In August 1997, Rubin and other Clinton officials met with Ken Lay to discuss the U.S. position at the Kyoto global-warming summit. The company’s position was largely adopted by the Clinton Administration. Enron officials exalted at the Kyoto treaty, saying it would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative.”

Dan Morgan, “Enron Also Courted Democrats,” The Washington Post, January 13, 2002

---

After Rubin Resigned, Lay Offered Him A Seat On Enron’s Board, And Then
Successfully Lobbied Rubin’s Successor. Two days after Rubin announced that he would step down as Treasury Secretary, Rubin was offered an Enron board seat by Ken Lay. A few months later, Lay urged Larry Summers, Rubin’s successor, not to regulate derivatives. The Clinton Administration decided against oversight of derivatives traders.

Kathleen Day and James V. Grimaldi, Lay’s Lobbying Reached The Top Of Treasury,” The Washington Post, February 21, 2002