posted on June 16, 2001 08:49:11 PM new
"WASN'T this supposed to be the team that brought "honor and dignity" back to the White House? Now that the
honeymoon is over and the country is well past the getting-to-know-you stage with the White House's new occupants, the sleaze is
piling up pretty fast. The latest sordid tale concerns Karl Rove, President Bush's top political strategist and presumably a man who
had something to do with Bush's honor-and-dignity campaign theme. Details emerged yesterday of a March meeting between Rove
and top executives of Intel Corp., in which the execs pushed for approval of a merger between one of their U.S. suppliers and a
Dutch company. Soon after the meeting, Intel got the government's OK. Here's the sleaze: Rove held more than $100,000 of Intel
stock at the time of the meeting and stood to gain financially from the merger. Rove insists he did nothing wrong. But he could not
remember if he spoke to the president about the merger, and Intel's top lobbyist, who probably hadn't received the official talking
points yet, characterized the meeting as "quite useful."
"The Rove flap comes on the heels of a recent story by Salon about Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who may have
made millions in the last few months from White House-initiated increases in the value of his Alcoa stock. O'Neill, a
former Alcoa exec, publicly promised in late March that he would divest himself of the stock to avoid potential conflicts of interest,
which he acknowledged existed because President Bush had drawn him into issues involving not just the Treasury but "almost every
other issue the government is involved in." Shortly after O'Neill's high-minded promise, the U.S. Department of Energy directed
several western aluminum suppliers to halt production to conserve energy. The new policy reduced the worldwide aluminum supply
by five percent. It also caused a run on Alcoa stock -- it jumped about 30 percent in the weeks after O'Neill's divestiture
announcement. There was only one problem: O'Neill never got rid of the stock, despite his public promise. As a result, he may have
made as much as $60 million from Alcoa's increased market value. In both cases, top White House officials stood to add to their
private wealth by virtue of their connection to public policy-making. Honor and dignity? Sounds more like a bunch of rich guys -- just
getting richer." --San Francisco Examiner, 6/15/01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8230-2001Jun15.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/16/politics/16ROVE.html
posted on June 16, 2001 09:44:43 PM new
What everyone needs to realize is that these were the large campaign contributors who bought Bush lock, stock, and barrel. Does anyone think that the millions in hidden funds was not going to be recouped? Hah! Once in the White House, their patsy-boy George, Jr. is making sure that every penny and then some is going back into the pockets of those contributors. And Hey! If you're in the right position to negociate the Deal, you deserve a "commision", don't you? Just because it's sleasy graft doens't mean you shouldn't get YOUR cut! After all, that IS the political party of MORALS!
Poor Judgement got us here. I think that to be FAIR, those who voted for Bush should be made to pay for the higher energy costs in California and the higher fuel prices, and heck -- that's raised the price of everything for everyone else, so why not just take away all their money to compensate the rest of us for their lousey judgement?
posted on June 16, 2001 10:10:47 PM new
Well, well, well!!!....and the dung keeps piling up. I'll take Mr. Clinton and his...hmmmm... indiscretions, anytime over this sleaze-bag we now have for another 3.5 years!...G-d! I need to go on Prozac, if I want to survive "little bush" (as the Chinese people called him)...
Oh! and in Europe, a paper had in BIG BLOCK LETTERS (In either Deutch or Danish, not sure): "Is he STUPID OR WHAT!!!".. saw it on PBS...very refreshing...that and the "BUSH, GO HOME!" riot sandwich boards...
Patsy...exactly right Borillar...PupetMan of the worst kind...
Once more, thanks Ken, for the links.
******** Gosh Shosh!
posted on June 17, 2001 12:07:31 AM new
Certainly the Rich, Powerful, and the Large Corporations need to have their interests represented within our system too! But when the interests of the common American are trampled upon in favor of those interests, then that is totally wrong and there has to be a change. I am all for furthering the interests of the Rich, the Powerful, and the Large Coporations almost up to the point where it hurts people. When it reaches that point, I am against them. I am against them at that point because WE, human beings, people -- ordinary people make up this country; not the Rich, the Powerful, nor the Large Corporations. It is OUR interests that are important, that count, that should be represented. WE let the Rich, the Powerful, and the Large Corporations get their way only when it furthers OUR interests.
I'm glad that you now understand that.
I only hope that the Democrats and Al Gore are paying attention as well.
posted on June 17, 2001 03:54:31 AM new"Does anyone think that the millions in hidden funds was not going to be recouped? Hah! Once in the White House, their patsy-boy George, Jr. is making sure that every penny and then some is going back into the pockets of those contributors."-borillar
Let's be honest. Don't the millions in hidden funds ALWAYS get recouped? The only difference between the Democrats and Republicans, is what Corporations and private donors get there favors returned. Even Clinton/Gore's poverty avowed Chinese monks got their millions back. Nevermind that poverty avowed Chinese monks aren't supposed to have millions of dollars - after all, isn't that what the Chinese Government is for. I mean, nuclear secrets don't come cheap you know.
"I'll take Mr. Clinton and his...hmmmm... indiscretions, anytime over this sleaze-bag..."-shosh
Indiscretions? Is that what it's called. I had always heard that referred to as treason. It's pretty impressive that Clinton/Gore's list of Chinese "contributors", is longer than that of all of the other US presidents combined - ever. It's nice to know that they got what they paid for as well. Somehow though, I'm not quite as scared of Alcoa as I am of Beijing. Especially with what they know now.
"Oh! and in Europe, a paper had in BIG BLOCK LETTERS (In either Deutch or Danish, not sure): "Is he STUPID OR WHAT!!!"-shosh
Coming from Europe, might that not be considered a compliment?
"I think that to be FAIR, those who voted for Bush should be made to pay for the higher energy costs in California and the higher fuel prices, and heck -- that's raised the price of everything for everyone else, so why not just take away all their money to compensate the rest of us for their lousey judgement?"-borillar
Please, I keep forgetting, could oyu explain to all of us again what exactly Bush has to do with California's years old Energy problem, and the non-existent energy policy of the Clinton administration. After all, the price of a barrel of crude has gone up quite nicely since February of "99. Was that because Bush was Governor of Texas? Or did Clinton fail to react to any of the impending problems? After all the doubling of my home heating costs was announced while Clinton was still President. The reduction of the world oil supply was announced by OPEC while Clinton was still president. California's energy woes started while Clinton was still President.
Let's not forget the facts when we get to grandstanding on these little old message boards, now.
posted on June 17, 2001 04:17:12 AM new
I love reading those old speeches President Drunk-Driver Coke-Head gave when he was a tool of the oil co's, spouting praise for OPEC production decreases and oil price increases!
Now they come back to bite him in the butt!! Pure poetic justice!
posted on June 17, 2001 04:19:58 AM new
"I love reading those old speeches President Drunk-Driver Coke-Head gave when he was a tool of the oil co's, spouting praise for OPEC production decreases and oil price increases!"tomwii
Perhaps you could be so kind to share an example with the rest of us.
posted on June 17, 2001 06:29:38 AM new
Don't trouble yourself Tomwii; it's common knowledge.
1992: Bush Wrote Letter to His Father's Chief of Staff to Try to Remove Tax to Boost Oil Prices.
[b]1999: World Oil Said Bush Would Be the Perfect Presidential Candidate to Deal With
Low Oil Prices[/b].In 1999, World Oil wrote that Bush "would be well aware of the fact that oil prices have collapsed" and "would seem to be the perfect individual to lead the charge in doing something about the [low]price of oil." The editorial said one possibility was that Bush and his father could persuade the Middle East to hold production, increasing prices, and that if Bush was successful in increasing the price of oil, "he could parlay his actions into substantial contributions." [World Oil, 2/99]
1999: [b]Cheney Praised OPEC Production Cuts That Raised Oil Prices.According to the Associated Press in March 1999, "OPEC members agreed today to cut crude oil production by 2.1 million barrels a day and maintain lower levels of output for a full year starting April 1, oil ministers said. The group of 11 oil producing nations approved the cuts in an effort to strengthen prices and end a global oil glut." Then-Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney praised OPEC's decision. "I've been struck by the extent OPEC seems to have gotten its act together," said Cheney. [Dow Jones, 4/12/99; Mickey Kaus, Slate, 7/28/00; AP Online, 3/23/99]
[b]1999: Bush Seeks to Bail Out Oil Industry, Declares Tax Break "Emergency," to Deal
With Low Oil Prices[/b].
On [b]February 2, 1999, Bush designated a temporary $45 million tax break to low-production oil wells as an "emergency" so that it could be taken up without delay by in the state legislature. Due to plummeting oil prices, the bill was targeted to keep "small, semi-productive wells open." However, the
Texas Railroad Commission released statistics showing that "the largest 34 well operators make up less than one percent of the state's oil producers but control 25 percent of wells eligible for the tax exemption.[/b]" [Dallas Morning News, 2/3/99; Dallas Morning News, 3/12/99]
1992: Bush Wrote Letter to His Father's Chief of Staff to Try to Remove Tax to Boost Oil Prices.
In 1992, Bush wrote a letter to the chief-of-staff for his then-President father on behalf of oil producers when they were trying to get a tax on drilling removed to help boost sagging prices. [Associated
Press, 6/24/00; letter from George W. Bush to Sam Skinner, 1/10/92]
posted on June 17, 2001 09:24:33 AM new
For some reason, those don't seem like they were speeches which tomwii "loves reading" so much. So again, I must ask for a sample of a speech that Bush gave spouting his praise for oil production decreases and oil price increases. Third hand opinions such as World Oil magazine on what might be great for the oil industry just don't seem to cut. Or have we forgotten that Clinton was still president in "99 when crude oil began its magnificent rise from $11 a barrel to $29 a barrel just in the last 2 years of the "Clinton Legacy" Thanks Slick Willy. In fact as the EVIDENCE shows, the price of Crude oil didn't stabilize until Bush took over in January of this year. Of course in any economics situation, there is always a lag of some time before the effects are felt by consumers - call it a trickle down effect, if you will. That fact is often lost on our less fortunate, less educated brethren.
posted on June 17, 2001 09:29:02 AM new
"If keeping one's pants unzipped is TREASON..."-shosh
No. Did someone suggest that? I couldn't care less how many interns he had under his desk. More power to him, cause I know I would have at least as many. But, I would have taken care not to be a puppet of the Chinese and all of their millions in campaign contributions from their poverty stricken monk representatives in the US. I wouldn't have allowed the Chinese unfettered access to nuclear secrets at Los Alamos and elsewhere. And yes, THAT is treason.
