For the White House, Jack Abramoff Is No Ken Lay
For the White House, Jack Abramoff Is No Ken Lay
White House press secretary Scott McClellan has reneged on his promise to provide a “thorough report” about administration contacts with Abramoff because he said he would not participate in a “fishing expedition.”
When the Enron scandal broke, however, the White House didn’t have any problems publicly detailing Ken Lay’s communications with top Bush administration officials. A January 4, 2002 article in USA Today documents a coordinated public relations campaign where cabinet members used details of their contacts with Lay in an effort to clear the administration:
The White House sent two Cabinet members on television news programs Sunday to emphasize that despite more than a dozen contacts, the administration did nothing to help Enron avert bankruptcy.
Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill said on ABC that Enron CEO Kenneth Lay phoned Oct. 28 to seek leniency from Enron’s creditors. Lay called again Nov. 8 to talk about the firm’s financial status but “asked me for nothing,” said O’Neill, who took no action.
Commerce Secretary Don Evans said on NBC’s Meet the Press that he had spoken to Lay about five times last year. “He was looking for all the possible ways he could stabilize his company,” said Evans, who decided not to respond. Neither Cabinet official informed President Bush of the calls, they said.
At least six other calls from Enron executives went to O’Neill’s domestic finance undersecretary, Peter Fisher. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham made a call to Lay on Nov. 2.
So what’s different this time? Why won’t the White House disclose this kind of information with Jack Abramoff? What are they trying to hide?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush and Abramoff have been friends for years, but the press refuses to investigate their relationship because they are controlled by the GOP, so paid-off!
February 9th, 2006 at 9:57 amWhen you work for a man who tells lie after lie after lie, you eventually become just like him.
Just like the so-called “I support the troops!” lie that Pres. Bush has mouthed ever since he was (s)elected.
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/02/senate-republicans-screw-veterans.html
Too bad the elected Republicans hate our honored Veterans so much!
February 9th, 2006 at 10:00 amWhy would anyone expect the chickenhawk neocon crowd to do anything beyond mouthing hollow platitudes about “supporting our troops”? They couldn’t be bothered to serve when it was their turn; each conveniently had “other priorities” to attend to. Yeah, Bush wore a uniform for a time but it was a sham–everyone knows he jumped the queue and got placed into the TANG–then he went AWOL when it was time to submit to a drug test.
These b@st@rds have pissed all over the uniforms that I and many of my family members have worn, just as they’ve pissed all over the flag and the consitution. So why should I grant them any respect?
February 9th, 2006 at 10:07 am#6 – I agree with your sentiments. I honorably served, and didn’t try to “cut & run” like WAY too many of our elected Republican leaders did. There were some elected democrats who did as well, but the vast majority of the “other priorities” elected Republicans just didn’t have the moral fortitude to serve our country.
Respect is something that is earned, not just granted because of the party to which they belong or the words they parrot. Deeds are what set the foundation for respect, and the Republican party has proven themselves to be the party of “do as I say, not as I do” and “I’m not responsible for my own actions” and “one standard for me, another for you”.
Elected Democrats have done some things that I find troublesome, but the elected Republicans have done so very much more that is beyond the pale, and directly contradicts the standards they set for everyone else. When you compare the two parties side by side, the Republicans fall short on so many levels that I don’t understand how the American people can let themselves become hoodwinked by their posturing. I guess you CAN fool some of the people most of the time! It does look like people are waking up to the mendacity and calumny the elected Republicans are spouting.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:23 amAs I’ve said before, I’m a FORMER republican. I jumped ship when the religio-crazies and neocons gained control of the party. I was a registered democrat for awhile but they’ve become such enablers of the corporate-neocon agenda that I can no longer support them either.
I don’t see anything “conservative” about today’s republicans. They merely want to funnel taxpayer money to their favorite corporate sponsor, be it Halliburton or whatever. That’s what privitization is all about. Eisenhower was a true conservative, espousing limited government and individual freedom. He warned us about the dangers of the military-industrial complex (making bombs for the sake of raking in money; engaging in wars for the sake of enriching the companies that make the destructive materiel). Today’s “conservatives” have drastically increased the size of the government while threatening civil liberties–and as already mentioned, enriching their corporate sponsors.
I want nothing to do with them and their traitorous actions.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:44 amYou know, I wouldn’t be so against the conservative fiscal policies, but their propaganda about smaller government only means a smaller government when it comes to big business. I will never goose-step in line with their brown shirt mentality. I am prepared to fight and die if I must. I will stand against tyrany.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:54 amThe USS Republican Titanic set sail on November 7, 2000. It hit an iceberg in Florida, of all places, the following day.
Anyone dumb enough to call themselves a ‘Republican’ these days is as crazy as a loon. The funny farm is located at Crawford Ranch.
If you boarded the vessel that day in November of 2000 CE, it is too late to jump ship. Sayonara, Republicans, it just hasn’t been that good to know you.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:59 amMeowomon is right–the republicans chant the “smaller government” mantra but it only applies to corporations. They want MORE control on the lives of individuals, and the burden for financing their schemes has increasingly fallen upon individuals as well because corporations are paying less and less of their “fair share”. If we REALLY want to tackle the “welfare state”, let’s go after all of the government subsidies to corporations–and discontinue any kind of government services to those companies that move their headquarters offshore. As far as I’m concerned, if a company moves headquarters, then it should no longer receive any public services, nor should it expect any protection from our fire & police departments, or even our military.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:03 amIt is important to remember that when the Enron scandal broke, on January 10, 2002 President Bush claimed to have little relationship with Lay, and further portrayed him as a supporter of Democratic Governor Ann Richards:
“I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the-what they call the Governor’s Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994. And she had named him the head of the Governor’s Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that’s when I first got to know Ken.”
February 9th, 2006 at 11:06 am#11 And it is my understanding that even though Ken Lay did give money to Ann Richards, he gave even more money to George Bush. The president liked to leave that part out.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:50 pm