COL Gene COL Gene

One Member of the Bush Base in TROUBLE

▼

One Member of the Bush Base in TROUBLE

Ken Lay the biggest contributor of George W. Bush Convicted!

from JoeUser Forums




Yesterday one of the Bush Base was convicted in two trials- One before a judge for personal fraud by making false statements to his bank and the jury trial in the ENRON case. Between the two convictions the former Bush supporter could spend 30 years for the first conviction and 176 years for the ENRON conviction in prison.

Here is an example of the type of person that Bush calls the elites- the Haves and the Have Mores - ”His Base. I wonder if Mr. Lay or his side kick Jeffery Skilling can make enough contributions to the GOP to BUY a Bush Pardon?
politics
25,023 views 74 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
There was NO INTEL that said he had a nuclear program like Bush and Cheney said with their mushroom Cloud scare tactics. That was a LIE pure and simple


Col, was this statement a lie. Just answer the question without your usual BS rhetoric.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."


In March 2003, Saddam had no nuclear weapons and no means of delivery. In addition, Saddam had no offensive military capability and no way to attack the United States. In 3.5 Years we have not found the WMD Bush said was present and we did not locate any missiles and anything close what would be required to launch an attack on this country. In addition, No rogue state dictator would ever risk his power by attacking a major power much less the world's ONLY super power. The claim by Bush that we were in danger from Iraq in 2003 was a LIE!!!!!
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok col. That quote was from a democrat. So you are saying that democrat was lying then?


As I said before col. Who cares Lay supported Bush. Do you have a problem with hookers, felons, and illegal immigrants supporting democrats?
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
There was NO INTEL that said he had a nuclear program like Bush and Cheney said with their mushroom Cloud scare tactics. That was a LIE pure and simple


So then I guess that ALL these "democrats" where lying?


Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."



Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."




Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."



Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998

"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."




Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."



Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998


"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."


Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."


And BTW there are a ton more, just like these! Please note the dates. Please try to answer "without" your usual BS.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

Today we know the truth that there was no threat from Saddam in March 2003 and no amount of BS can alter that fact. There were many Democrats and Republicans that believed that Saddam was the danger Bush and Cheney claimed in 2002-2003. The problem in you assertion is that ONLY Bush and his closely held staff (which did not even include Powell) had intelligence that disproved the assertions Bush and Cheney were making about Saddam's nuclear program as well as other WMD that Bush and company claimed was a danger to the U.S. There was also the Military Assessment that the Pentagon provided Bush that Saddam had no ability to attack anyone in 2002-2003 and had not recovered from the 1991 war. The Democrats and MOST of the Republicans were not provided that information and the people that had this information were muzzled by the fact this intelligence and military assessment was classified. That even prevented it being debated in Congress prior to the War resolution. ONLY Bush had the power to keep classified that information that did not support his position. If the Congress had ALL the military assessments and Intelligence in late 2002 and early 2003, the Vote to invade Iraq would have been VERY Different. We went to war with only SELECTED INFORMATION available to Congress and that was 100% because of Bush. Even Powell was out of the loop and has now admitted that he was not told everything. He admitted the biggest mistake of his career was the speech he gave before the UN supporting the War on Feb 5, 2003.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
You didn't answer the question. Stop being a hypocrit and stop giving democrats a pass.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
You gotta hand it to Col, the guy knows how to take a hit over and over and still stand up and repeat himself. If Col was the Host of "Who wants to be a millionaire" everyone would lose cause only he knows the answers.

I'm really gonna miss Col. Not.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
So let me get this straight:

1. Enron donates huge amounts of money to whatever administration is in power, probably in exchange for political favors from that administration.

2. As the government investigation into Enron's corporate shenanigands heats up, its top executives donate even more money to the incoming administration, possibly in the hope of buying some leniency.

3. Instead of leniency, though, all Enron gets from the new President is a conclusion to the investigation, followed by a trial and a conviction for Enron's top executives.

4. Gene, possibly using Outer Space Logic, concludes that this is proof that the new President is Enron's partner in corruption.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
How do you ignore that Ken Lay was the largest contributor to Bush and was just convicted as a person that caused financial harm to tens of thousands? How do you explain the other scandals that mostly impact GOP supporters or GOP legislators? On balance the majority of the current corruption is among either the GOP members of Congress or supporters of the GOP. This from a President that said he did not want even a hint of improper actions during his administration!
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
How do you ignore that Ken Lay was the largest contributor to Bush and was just convicted as a person that caused financial harm to tens of thousands?


Because being a contributor actually means nothing in this case. Lay was a huge contributor to Clinton and you haven't said ANYTHING about it. Your whole obsession with Bush is really sad.


How do you explain the other scandals that mostly impact GOP supporters or GOP legislators? On balance the majority of the current corruption is among either the GOP members of Congress or supporters of the GOP.


Scandals are equal among all parties. The only difference is the media focuses on Repbulicans and gives a pass to Democrats. Much like you do. When is the last time you heard about Pelosi's or Reid's investigations against them? You don't because the media protects them.

Forgive me col, but maybe I haven't read all the posts. Where is your outrage and blogs about the Democrat who has cash in his freezer among other charges? For you to even say the majority of corruption is among the Republicans is a total joke. It proves to me once again you are nothing but a political hack for the democratic party.


This from a President that said he did not want even a hint of improper actions during his administration!


The President does not control the actions of individual members of the Republican party. Now you are blaming Bush for the actions of some politicians. If you want to compare scandals and Presidents go ahead. Bush has had nearly none, a lot of media and democrat accusations, but nothing that actually holds weight.
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
How do you ignore that Ken Lay was the largest contributor to Bush and was just convicted as a person that caused financial harm to tens of thousands?

I don't ignore it. I just think you're ascribing meaning to this fact where no such meaning exists.

We already know that corrupt people donate money to politicians. What makes this particular story stand out isn't the corruption, which is commonplace, nor the donations, which are normal, nor even the size of this donation by itself.

Rather, what makes this story interesting is that in spite of the record-breaking size of the donation, the recipient went right ahead and busted the donor anyway.

No matter how you slice it, Gene, the only reasonable conclusion is that Bush disapproves of Enron just as much as you do--more, even since you didn't have to overcome millions of dollars of donations, in order to get your Enron-hate on.

It's easy for you to hate Enron, who have never received anything from them. Imagine what a man of principle it would take to hate Enron after receiving so much money from them.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
When you look at the administrations actions to give tax breaks to Big Energy and to conceal their actions, the question is WHY. For example the White House went all the way to the Supreme Court to keep secret the names of the people Cheney used to develop the first energy give away. The entire way Bush and the GOP has passed laws the benefit certain groups make it clear, their actions are paid for by contributions like the one Ken Lay made! Say what you will, the Democrats do not pass give away tax breaks to Big Business and the wealthy. They tend to want to expand welfare and social help. We need policies that do not favor the rich and that do not go off and create new spending programs like the Prescription Drug Plan that Bush and the GOP failed to explain where the money is to come from for that new entitlement program. Do any of you Bush supporters know how we are to pay for the Prescription Drug plan?
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
Say what you will, the Democrats do not pass give away tax breaks to Big Business and the wealthy. They tend to want to expand welfare and social help.


Perfect reason not to elect democrats. The last thing we need is to expand welfare and social programs. Democrats are typically anti-business and their plans to tax small businesses shows that.

Once again you completely ignore all the posts directed at you. You ignore every single thing that doesn't relate to somehow blaming Bush or the republicans for something.

Why do you keep ignoring this?

Documents obtained by TIME show the energy giant enjoyed much closer ties with Clinton Administration regulators than was generally known. Long before Cheney's task force met with Enron officials and included their ideas in Bush's energy plan, Clinton's energy team was doing much the same thing. 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.
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
"35. To help push through energy initiatives in Africa, Clinton's Energy Secretary (and Monica Lewinsky's job counselor), Bill Richardson, visited Nigeria in August 1999.

"As a result of Secretary Richardson's visit to Nigeria in August, we have embarked on a bilateral cooperation program. The Department is developing an action plan with the Government of Nigeria, which will be coordinated with USAID. Cooperation could include: restructuring and privatization; rural electrification; deployment of clean energy and renewable energy technologies; promotion of energy efficiency; and development of an independent regulatory authority.

This initiative, coordinated by Richardson, led to $882 million dollars in power contracts for Enron from the government of Nigeria: Enron, an oil and gas firm in Houston, has signed a power purchase agreement to supply emergency electricity to state-owned power utility Nigerian Electric Power Authority (NEPA) through 30MW power barges located on the coast of Lagos State. Enron and its Nigerian joint venture partner signed the $82 million deal with NEPA and the power ministry in the capital Abuja. Enron and the Lagos state government entered a joint venture earlier in 1999 to build an $800 million gas-powered plant with capacity for 540 Megawatt (MW) to augment supply to the city.

Unfortunately for Enron, the Nigerian Government cancelled these contracts in April 2000. As a further reward for their generosity to the Democratic Party, Clinton Administration Special Envoy Thomas Pickering hustled off to Nigeria (on the taxpayer's dime) to plead Enron's case."


Looks to me like Enron got a LOT more for their campaign donations from Clinton than Bush.

"Clinton officials publicly helped Enron win the contract in India as well as in Indonesia. Enron had received U.S. government funds to build power plants in China, the Philippines and Turkey. Enron also won contracts in Pakistan and Russia while accompanying senior U.S. government officials on state trips. In June 1996, four days before India granted final approval to Enron's project, Lay's company gave $100,000 to the DNC. Source: Time Magazine"


"Ken Lay hired Betsy Moler, Clinton's deputy energy secretary, as a consultant. She was accused of stopping Energy Department counterintelligence chief Notra Trulock from briefing Congress early on about Chinese espionage and security lapses at Energy's nuclear weapons labs Source: Houston Chronicle"


*Yawn*... what's the point...
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
I never said Clinton solved the energy needs or was not impacted by donations. However, the extent of the Republicans is the issue. Why would anyone give big oil a $12 Billion dollar tax break with the profits they are making? They have all the profits they need to build more refineries and look for new energy sources. The Democrats would NEVER have passed such a bill. What we need is a split in the power because if either party has control we get screwed.

Bush is president now and he and Cheney were the OIL Men. They have done NOTHING to help the energy needs of this country and have no plan but to tell us we are addicted to oil. All Bush wants is to give the oil companies tax cuts and drill in Alaska. The estimates I have scene as to the potential oil in Alaska is a drop in the bucket to what we need to become independent of foreign controlled energy. When Bush could have required higher mileage on car and SUV’s he refused to act. Had he required higher mileage standards in 2001, we would be seeing the impact today. The way Bush and Cheney helped find a REAL solution to our energy needs is a perfect example of the total incompetence of the Bush Adminisdtration!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
dance, dodge, dance... when one argument is defeated claim a different one was the point...

You aren't claiming to do a damn thing about the oil problem either, and nothing you've suggested would do anything more to solve it. The Clinton administration fed China and played to China and now China has doubled their use of oil, and will double it again in just a few years. Bush at least gives breaks to American companies. Clinton spent their time arranging business marriages, and often with nations we must now compete with to get our oil.

You couldn't make your point about Enron, now you are shifting down to your taxes and oil dance. If I bothered to address it you'd just shift to something else.

Let the dittoheads bother with you. Bloggers that read and acknowledge arguments are worth my time. You do neither, so I'm not going to waste it.
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have NEVER proven me incorrect you simply attack me of try and shift the issue. You just keep supporting Bush which shows just how little you either care or understand about the Harm this man the GOP that support him have done to our country!
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
lol... someone's obviously not following his own conversation. You just keep trying to pass off the idea that what you wrote in the blog above isn't the issue once someone hoists you on your own petard.
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
They have all the profits they need to build more refineries and look for new energy sources. The Democrats would NEVER have passed such a bill. What we need is a split in the power because if either party has control we get screwed.


They can't build new refineries because of the leftist environmental wackos.


Bush is president now and he and Cheney were the OIL Men. They have done NOTHING to help the energy needs of this country and have no plan but to tell us we are addicted to oil. All Bush wants is to give the oil companies tax cuts and drill in Alaska. The estimates I have scene as to the potential oil in Alaska is a drop in the bucket to what we need to become independent of foreign controlled energy. When Bush could have required higher mileage on car and SUV’s he refused to act. Had he required higher mileage standards in 2001, we would be seeing the impact today. The way Bush and Cheney helped find a REAL solution to our energy needs is a perfect example of the total incompetence of the Bush Adminisdtration!!!!!!!!!!


Yeah col, because years of democrats helped us get off foreign oil.


You have NEVER proven me incorrect you simply attack me of try and shift the issue. You just keep supporting Bush which shows just how little you either care or understand about the Harm this man the GOP that support him have done to our country!


I have proven you wrong about 5 times in the past couple of days. Bush is hardly perfect col, but he's far from doing this "harm" that you keep complaining about. There are so many good things about this country that you refuse to acknowledge. All it is with you is "blame Bush". You NEVER HOLD DEMOCRATS accountable for their actions. Where is your comments about the corruption that's finally being exposed? You are silent as usual.
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top

You have NEVER proven me incorrect you simply attack me of try and shift the issue. You just keep supporting Bush which shows just how little you either care or understand about the Harm this man the GOP that support him have done to our country!


BS! Try reply #55
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
Something else is always the issue with Gene. I've begun to think that he's in reality an Ivy League class project designed to test the theory that simple repetition is the key to successful propaganda.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
Something else is always the issue with Gene. I've begun to think that he's in reality an Ivy League class project designed to test the theory that simple repetition is the key to successful propaganda.


N'ah, that's giving him too much. I say he's actually just a retired "colonel", who sudddenly was recruited by the DNC to prove they are...difficult. Yeah, that's it.





~L
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's time again. He has been proven wrong in this thread. It's either time for another useless thread about Bush, or he will disappear for a few days.

I bet we will see another Bush bash thread by today.
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

Today we know the truth that there was no threat from Saddam in March 2003 and no amount of BS can alter that fact. There were many Democrats and Republicans that believed that Saddam was the danger Bush and Cheney claimed in 2002-2003. The problem in you assertion is that ONLY Bush and his closely held staff (which did not even include Powell) had intelligence that disproved the assertions Bush and Cheney were making about Saddam's nuclear program as well as other WMD that Bush and company claimed was a danger to the U.S. There was also the Military Assessment that the Pentagon provided Bush that Saddam had no ability to attack anyone in 2002-2003 and had not recovered from the 1991 war. The Democrats and MOST of the Republicans were not provided that information and the people that had this information were muzzled by the fact this intelligence and military assessment was classified. That even prevented it being debated in Congress prior to the War resolution. ONLY Bush had the power to keep classified that information that did not support his position. If the Congress had ALL the military assessments and Intelligence in late 2002 and early 2003, the Vote to invade Iraq would have been VERY Different. We went to war with only SELECTED INFORMATION available to Congress and that was 100% because of Bush. Even Powell was out of the loop and has now admitted that he was not told everything. He admitted the biggest mistake of his career was the speech he gave before the UN supporting the War on Feb 5, 2003.


I love the way you dance around and change the subject, fool! That was NOT your original premise this was:


There was NO INTEL that said he had a nuclear program like Bush and Cheney said with their mushroom Cloud scare tactics. That was a LIE pure and simple



So the INTEL that these dems had was wrong?