The BuzzFlash Mailbag
January 28, 2002
The Constitution of the United States of America is prefaced by "We the people..." .
We have a right to have full disclosure of the facts .... to insure that the principles of "justice, domestic tranquility, and general welfare" of the American people are protected and preserved. This particularly applies to events that pertain to management and operation of public office.
live in Texas (yes, the Enron state) and just received a telephone call
(message left on answer machine) from the Bush Campaign telling me that
I should help them defeat Tom Daschle, that he is a threat to America.
What gall. I live in Texas, Tom Daschle represents South (?) Dakota. What's
wrong with this picture? They must be running scared if they have to call
people in Texas to try to defeat someone from another state. It makes
The Secretary of the Army has been publicly supportive of the Crusader, and so has the Bush administration, as well as the Clinton administration before it. Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., also has voiced support for the program. Dayton is a member of the Armed Services Committee, which allocates defense money.
The company's largest backer is the Carlyle Group, an investment firm led by Frank Carlucci, who was secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan. The firm's advisers include former President George Bush, former Secretary of State James Baker and former British Prime Minister John Major.
The 1990 reply from SEC to Arthur Andersen regarding an April 18, 1990 submission by Mr. Harvey Pitt, on behalf of Arthur Andersen & Co., titled "Business Relationships Between Andersen Consulting and Audit Clients of Arthur Andersen & Co." Pitt was appointed by BUSH to head the SEC, but then he was a lawyer for Andersen and was defending Andersen against conflict of interest between the consulting and auditing portions of their company, the very issue that is now surfacing in the Enron disaster.
Have a Nice Day!
have just finished reading the Goldberg book, so it is interesting to
read the comments.
Despicable, evil, immoral...those are the words that come to my mind as I read this news item about the shrub limiting asbestos liability. (http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020125/n25234994_1.html) My father died of lung cancer which metastisized to liver, brain and finally spinal cancer..all from asbestos. Thank God he was a veteran and received care at the V.A. hospital. He was, of course, uninsured.
This absolute disregard for human life, for PROFIT, by our "leader," makes my blood boil. I am so outraged by the constant bombardment of the actions of this administration, I am so furious, I feel so helpless. WHAT CAN WE DO??? HOW CAN WE FIGHT THEM?? HOW CAN MILLIONS OF AMERICANS SIT IN FRONT OF THEIR TELEVISIONS AND SWALLOW THE LIES THEY ARE BEING SPOON FED BY THE GOVERNMENT- OWNED MEDIA???
Buzzflash, you have GOT to get a television network to sponsor you for your own prime time news show. Your resources are fantastic, your sense of humor is life-saving, your constant search for truth is inspiring. WHAT CAN WE DO TO GET BUZZFLASH INTO THE MAJOR MEDIA???
Thanks for listening, Buzz, keep it up.
A fan in Petaluma, CA
Peggy Noonan's Jan 25 OpinionJournal article "An Empire Built on
Ifs - Enron deserves a big Texas whippin'," http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=95001773
The first five paragraphs constitute a surprising class-warfare complaint from an upper-class self-employed professional, and a conservative opinion-maker. She writes of the "pretty rich," the "already rich," the "really rich." Indeed, she leads with "How rich do you have to be?"
Then she suddenly segues into her mea culpa: yes, she was paid to write a speech for Ken Lay, and to write blurbs for the annual report. With amazing candor (or guile?), she admits "I wasn't good at it. . I just didn't get modern big business."
In the next section, she details her experiences gathering info at Enron. Another bombshell: her newly-revealed skepticism of utility deregulation and technology cheerleading!
there's a boring passage about Noonan's "Texas-Armani" envy.
Oh, and Enron's fragility, its "tentative . provisional" nature.
toiled really hard "for a few weeks . but none of it really worked."
Make no mistake, Enron DID use SOME of her output to influence shareholders
and prospective investors, but she insists "mostly [her] contributions
Then the other shoe drops: she billed "if memory serves" 100-200 hours at $250/hour. This statement surprises for two reasons: (1) Despite her "how rich do you have to be" theme, she can't remember whether she received $25000 or $50000 for that consulting gig in 1997; if her confusion is genuine, she's VERY rich in my opinion (2) She completed the assignment and TOOK the money, even though she felt she did a poor job, and did not believe the message she was selling.
This constitutes a surprising confession that Peggy Noonan will, for money, write for a cause in which she has neither knowledge nor conviction. She's a mercenary, a pen for hire.
So why should we ever again believe what she writes? For example, when she wrote that loony divine-dolphins-delivered-Elian op-ed, was that genuinely her own delusion, or was she being paid by the anti-Castro lobby?
I predict that by Monday evening, Jan 28, another opinion-maker/pundit (could be liberal or conservative; flip a coin) will either confess to being, or be revealed as, an Enron money recipient.
Let's play along here on this one.
Why would Baxter commit suicide?
1. He was distraught over being a target of the congressional investigation? Not likely, since he must have known that his attorneys would have negotiated a deal with the congressional investigators. Ms. Watkins had already painted Baxter in a favorable light through her email. This man would never had done time.
2. He was depressed or mental? Not likely, since this man was shrewd enough to cash out the stock over a period where he netted over $20 million. If he was depressed or mental, Enron would not have kept him on as a consultant. Besides, what does his family say about his behavior just before this happened?
The fact is that a 42-year old man with money in the bank and a family, with attorneys already working with investigators, would not have committed suicide because of the implications it would have for his perceived guilt.
This man, like J. H. Hayworth, was a threat because of what he knew, and the risks his visibility posed to those in power.
Since he was in discussions with the congressional investigators, how come the FBI hasn't stepped in and taken over the case and the autopsy, and sealed off his family?
To the editor [of the New York Times]:
I have a question concerning the prosecution of John Walker Lindh with respect to an article from the New York Times last May 20 (2001) called "Taliban's Ban On Poppy A Success, U.S. Aides Say".
The article says:
It appears likely that in May of 2001, John Walker Lindh was already with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Even though Mr. Bush and Gen. Powell would probably like to forget it, in May the US was contemplating further aid to that country whose "decision by the Taliban ... we welcome." How can we then go forward and prosecute a young man who remained past September in a country whose rulers we were openly helping in May? The prosecution seems to center on his presence with the Taliban. but was it even possible for him to leave after September?
It seems to me that Lindh was mostly unfortunate, and, for the rest, perhaps foolish, in casting his lot with the Taliban, but, like Mssrs. Bush and Powell, maybe opposition to drugs was his ruling motivation. Is that culpable--or prosecutable?
When it comes to Walker, I am not a real sympathizer with someone who was into joining the Taliban. Obviously not the result of a liberal background, but the turning away from it to become a far-right fundamentalist. However, what I don't understand is if he converted to Islam four years ago and went to Pakistan two years ago, then he was already over there while we were dealing with the Taliban ourselves. "Aiding and abetting the enemy" to the tune of 43 million last spring...with the CIA Helm's niece lobbying for them...not to mention negotiating for a pipeline in August. So if the administration was openly dealing with them at that time, how can he be charged with helping the enemy? Is Ms. Helms?
Since most of the hijackers themselves didn't even know what was coming
down, literally and figuratively, surely he didn't. And it would have
been more than a bit difficult to quit for him afterwards when he did
find out, don't you think? He might have had to stay
Filegate and Travelgate?
Re: BUSH SHILLS FOR A DISCREDITED BOOK CLAIMING "LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS"
If the media were "liberal slanted", this guy that's assumed a place in the White House would be dead in the water. It's only because the highly conservative media (just look at the TV!) have given him a "pass" on basically all of his right wing agenda issues that he is so popular. Like my husband says, the vote of the people in 2004 will be the real test. Or will it? We can only hope we don't have another fraudulent election like Election 2000.
Enron sounds to me like a GOP Money Laundering Bank --
Re: A BuzzFlash Reader Commentary: Where's the Outrage?
<< Is it possible that Walker was a US spy and they have to get him off the best way they can and save face in the process? Call me a conspiracy freak, but much does not add up here.>>
If I were Walker's attorney, part of my defense would be to establish exactly who the enemy was. Particularly since the Bush administration was wooing and cooing the Taliban at the same time Walker was there. Seems to me, Walkers friends were also Bush's friends until the Unocal pipeline deal turned sour.
A BuzzFlash Reader
I sent you an earlier email as follows:
According to the The Center for Public Integrity (http://www.public-i.org/story_02_010902.htm) John Clifford Baxter, the 43-year-old Enron executive who was found dead this morning, made $14,270 in campaign contributions from 1999-2001. The Center for Responsive Politics shows that most of that was a contribution of $10,000 (two equal contributions of $5,000 each from him and his wife) to the Republican National Committee in September 2000. This was by far the single largest recorded contribution he had ever made.
Here is the revised story with an "extra":
According to the The Center for Public Integrity (http://www.public-i.org/story_02_010902.htm) John Clifford Baxter, the 43-year-old Enron executive who was found dead of an apparent suicide this morning, made $14,270 in campaign contributions from 1999-2001. The Center for Responsive Politics shows that most of that was a contribution of $10,000 (two equal contributions of $5,000 each from him and his wife) to the Republican National Committee on September 26, 2000. This was by far the single largest recorded contribution he had ever made. Three weeks later he was promoted to Vice Chairman by Ken Lay (http://www.enron.com/corp/pressroom/releases/2000/ene/90-Baxter.html)
Cliff Baxter, The Author of Fortunate Son, The Texas Funeral gate Exec in Florida........
Will Dan Burton investigate as he did with Vince Foster?
A BuzzFlash Reader
wanted to note the recent news posted on Yahoo, stating that Chimpo (Bush)
is going to propose Corporate relief from Asbestos liabilities in his
State of the Union address. Wonder if this was related to the surprising
Halliburton stock rise today? How many corporate friends does Bush have
to support? He's really quite busy!
Ralph Buttyan, Ph.D.
It seems to me that Dubya had more than enough time to look into Kenny Boy's eyes and see his soul. I mean, he did Putin in half an hour. How did he miss Lay's?
I am enraged that C-span is not televising the Enron hearings and have sent them the following email:
[Commentary & Reportage from my favorite Texas stringer. -- vcz]
Our local NBC affiliate (owned by Newsweek, BTW), 10pm news, local anchor ending a report on how the screwed employees are doing looks at the camera and says, "Well, you know Lay himself has lost a lot of money in the fall of Enron." (paraphrased but that's it.)
A graphic popped up showing Lay had lost $60 million as the stock dropped. There was no graphic showing how much he sold just before it cratered completely.
I was stunned. I'd never heard anyone point out that Ken Lay had also lost money as the stock prices dropped.
I did notice none of the (three) anchors made eye contact with each other or nodded in consent to what the first one had just said. A second anchor just went immediately into the next story which had nothing to do with Enron.
The only thing I can think of is either Channel 2 in Houston or Newsweek itself is negotiating for a big interview with Kenny Boy or his attorneys. Their announcement will have no effect on Lay's reputation or future but it did put them on record as being...impartial? LOL
A BuzzFlash Reader
MSNBC's webpage just posted the bulletin about the Enron exe--without
question he committed SUICIDE, but they have very little information beyond
Note: We now know that they've done an autopsy. Of course, the answer
came back exactly the same.]
I'm sure Mr. Baxter committed suicide in much the same way as J. H. Hatfield did.
While reading the LA times this morning, I had to stop at one point, rub my eyes, and re-read a paragraph just to be sure I wasn't imagining it. The paragraph in question?
"...Last week, he was charged with federal offenses including conspiring to kill U.S. citizens overseas and providing material support and resources to foreign terrorist organizations."
Er...didn't the Bush administration provide "material support and resources to foreign terrorist organizations" when they sent that 43 million over to the Taliban last year?
I won't hold my breath waiting for a reporter to ask Ari that question.
Keep up the great work, Buzz!
LA time article can be found here:
Dear Mr. Sullivan,
Thanks for pointing out Paul Krugman's hypocrisy on your website today.
It's about time we found out why he's been defending Enron all this time; no wonder he's always trying to change the issue by attacking the (typical liberal bleating whine) "vast right-wing conspiracy," just like in his column today. In fact, I reread the column and he never used that phrase; you did.
He's been up-front about his Enron connection, acknowledging it months ago before the scandal broke-not after the fact, like your friends.
You also toss off the phrase 'millionaire pundit;' I don't recall you taking a vow of poverty. (Shame on you, resorting to start class warfare!)
Perhaps what's really upsetting you is that he didn't stay bought and paid for like your (and Ken Lay's close personal) friend in the White House - or that Enron, and the current administration deserve every word he's written about them.
the way, I read in Buzzflash this morning (where I also linked to your
website) that Rove and W. used Enron to keep Ralph Reed on the reservation
during the 2000 election, without having him officially connected to their
campaign. Sounds to me like a nice, cozy close-up & personal relationship
between W. & Enron; maybe Lay was spreading around his $ to everyone,
media included - but with a 73-27% tilt towards the GOP - do the math,
So let's be honest (since it's full disclosure time): can you admit that W. and his administration is just another 'off-the-books,' outside but wholly owned Enron subsidiary?
- Joe Strike
come I can't buy an Andrew Sullivan T-shirt on your website?
If I remember correctly, one of the provisions in the House passed / Bush backed so called Stimulus Package would allow corporations to move profits to overseas subsidiaries tax free. These profits would remain untaxable as long as this money remained oversees.
In light of the revelations of Enron's 3000 offshore subsidiaries, I have been searching the web for a reference to this provision. I am sure that it was there but not sure exactly how it was worded. Last Fall, when I called my Repub congressman to communicate my displeasure with his "yes" vote, this was one of the provisions (among many) that I cited. I asked them how it could possibly be an economic stimulus to our country to encourage companies to move profits overseas tax free and then keep those profits there.
Can you or your readers help bring this to light? It would certainly add one more place where the Bushies are attempting to give assistance to Enron and other corporate tax dodgers like them.
Buzz, thanks for being there for me and all the others trying to keep our sanity.
Re: A BuzzFlash Reader Commentary: Why I Will Not Just Get Over It
Thank you , Jackson Thoreau. You have expressed my exact feelings. The case you state against Bush is very clear . The Republicans have bought themselves a puppet to do their will which is to protect the very wealthy.
We must continue to "not get over it". Speak out. Encourage others of like mind to keep the message out there.
THANK you, BuzzFlash for giving us this excellent presentation of the case against the fraud against the people of our country.
After reading Greg Palast's article, "Did Bush Turn A Blind Eye To Terrorism" I sat here and wondered how in the world does Bush have the audacity to walk around and spout how America is going to get those terrorists? It then occurred to me because it all points to profits and money. If one is curious enough to look at the history of these people everything they do is based on adding to their bank accounts, and it really doesn't matter who gets caught in the backlash as long as their profits increase. I wonder sometimes how they can sleep at night? Perhaps they are dreaming about who else can be done in so they can become richer.
otherwise noted, all original