Coldheartedtruth

For the past few weeks, many of you have been calling for an investigation into perceived illegal activities of President and the White House in their dealings with Enron. This sentiment has been shared by some of our Democratic Politicians, who have also made attempts to link Bush and his administration to the Enron scandal. As one who has traditionally been a cynical type when it comes to such things, my need for cold hard facts, and the lack of said facts, has made me side with those who feel no need to politicize this scandal. However, as my favorite self-help guru preaches� first work to understand, then work to be understood. Following this philosophy, I have been keeping track of the top reasons given in justification of a criminal investigation into White House affairs. I have given it my best shot at understanding, but in the end�. This pesky thing called logic keeps getting in the way. In no particular order I will address the most common reasons that the liberals are using to advocate an investigation�.

1) Enron is Bush�s # 1 campaign contributor - The truth of this statement is open for argument� In terms of hard money contributions Enron ranks in the top 10, but is not number one. In terms of soft money it has been suggested that Enron gave much more, and when you include the $1 million plus that Bush received from Enron while running for Governor, many believe you can safely tag them Bush�s #1 campaign contributor. Even if one concedes the �tag� or �title�� having a large campaign contributor is not worthy of investigation. Campaign contributions are perfectly legal�. and if politicians work in behalf of those contributors (as many labor friendly Democrats do after receiving large contributions from labor groups) there is nothing unusual about it� It is not illegal, and investigations would not be justified. If you don�t like it� then you should push for campaign finance legislation� and not a softcore bill like McCain-Feingold� but a real one that eliminates the power of special interests in politics�

2) He calls him "Kenny boy" - Hmmm� as if a nickname is illegal�. Actually, as we all know, bush is known for giving people nicknames, even congressional Democrats� and certainly noone would accuse him of being too chummy with them. Obviously the real problem is that people think that Kenneth Lay had unfair influence on the White House based on his relationship with the President; or that somehow Bush�s friendship with Lay makes him somewhat responsible for what happened to Enron. Problem with part one is that there really is no such thing as �unfair� influence�unless that influence created illegal policy�. The other problem is that there are no specific Bush policies that people point to that are �unusual� for a Republican Administration. Obviously if Bush was a Democrat, and campaigned on a platform that criticized Big Businesses such as Enron� then created policy inconsistent with his platform that benefited Enron� that might be a valid complaint. However, if anyone had any doubts to how Bush stood when it comes to these types of issues�. Then they simply were not paying attention. His actions are consistent with his campaign pledges, as they should be. The problem with the second part is obvious� how many of us feel the need to accept responsibility for the bad deeds of our friends and acquaintances?? If your high school buddy steals a car one night� would you go to jail with him, even if you were not with him when he stole it??

3) Enron officials met with Cheney 6 times � Well there you go�. In a nutshell, this is what Washington is all about. Our President, Vice President, every member of the Administration, as well as Senators, Congressman, and their staffs�. meet with people everyday� and 99% of those people are attempting to influence policy. Some of them influence policy for a living� and no, they are not called criminals, they are called lobbyists. If the Vice President chose to meet with the same lobbyist everyday for lunch for 8 years straight� it would not be considered illegal, and would not be subject to investigation. Enron executives have as much right to lobby the White House as does environmental groups, or teacher�s unions� If you do not like whom the President and Vice president meet with� then you should vote for someone else� not investigate.

4) Enron officials called the White House twice asking for favors right before the bankruptcy � Two lines of thought on this one� Some say they should have helped while others say they should have �revealed� the conversations to the SEC. First of all, I have not seen anyone who argues the first point ever advocating corporate welfare, or corporate bailouts in principle. Anyone who argues venomously against corporate aid, then criticizes the Administration for not helping Enron is hypocritical at best. The fact that the White House did not help a large campaign contributor when they called should be applauded not cursed. As far as the 2nd line of thought�. most of these people are either uninformed of the timing of the conversations, or uninformed with the laws regarding insider information. The telephone calls took place �after� Enron posted a 600 million dollar loss for one quarter, and after they were informed that their credit rating was about to take a hit� The fact that they were in trouble was a forgone conclusion. However, even if members of the White House were privy to insider information, revealing that information could put them in jeopardy of breaking SEC rules. Leaking insider information in an attempt to manipulate stock for good or bad is inherently wrong�. whether it would be done by Enron, the or the White House.

5) The public deserves to know the Truth - Well, well� and just who is it that speaks for the public?? Recent polls have suggested that the general public is more likely to think that congressional democrats (not the White House) did something illegal or unethical in their own dealing with Enron. Yet, those who �just want to know the truth� are not so quick to ask for their favorite Democratic congressmen/women to be investigated. Those complaining are not in the majority here� they are a vast minority. While polls do show that many people may think the White House is hiding something, only 15% think it is something illegal� and right now the general public does not have the stomach for another �special prosecution� type investigation. Similar to the 'moral majority'� who are neither a majority or all that moral� being a really loud minority shouldn�t get you special privileges at the expense of everyone else.

6) They did it to Clinton and turnabout is fair play � This is my personal favorite� someone who is honest about their reason. Revenge!!! Problem with this argument is that we are talking apples and oranges. The investigations we have had in the past had specific allegations and some kind of a �smoking gun�. White water was started because Clinton was accused of a specific crime (fraud), and there was evidence to connect him directly to the crime. Likewise, the Monica investigation came after specific allegations (perjury), taped conversations, and a blue dress were presented� Going back further, Iran/Contra was started after specific allegations (trading arms for hostages) came forth along with some evidence that those allegations where true. In the present situation� not only is there not a �smoking gun�� we don�t even have a specific crime to investigate.

Now don�t get me wrong, my friends, I do think Enron should be investigated heavily, and I am quite sure they will be�. Anyone found guilty of any crimes should be held to the fire and a judge should sentence to the fullest extent of the law�.. And if the investigation happens to unveal a �smoking gun� that ties the White House directly to illegal activities, then I would fully support further investigation into the matter. Until that time� Let those who should be investigated be investigated�.. and let those who should be leading the country, lead the country.

And that, my friends, is the coldhearted 'truth'.........