quote:
You're pushing me as if you want me to defend Bush
I'm not asking you to defend Bush, and I apologize if my tone makes it seem this way. My "alarm" is mainly regarding the seeming dismissal of evidence which is out there.
Could you please answer the question of my last post. Are the points that I mentioned shown or not shown in the links I provided? If not I would like more than references to my alarmism, innuendo, or circumstantial information.
The points themselves, as far as I can tell, are not merely circumstantially concluded, they are real.
Neither is the POSSIBLE conclusion one can reach, circumstantial. Circumstantial suggests that things could have just happened at the same time and so appear worse or more interrelated than they really were.
It is clear that Ken Lay was a friend of Bush-Cheney, pumping in lots of money while championing free market solutions to the CA crisis, and hoping to get that as part of national policy... unless the article written about him in a positive light before the collapse of Enron was a rushed conclusion and the statements made by an Enron executive (in support of Ken Lay) was "innuendo"?
It is also hard for me to believe that PBS and the FERC both rushed to a conclusion based on innuendo, that Enron (one of many companies) made vast profits during the CA crisis, and at least the FERC (later on) concluded that the crisis was manufactured. If you need more evidence on the manufactured part I can find more articles.
And it is certainly nothing to do with circumstance and innuendo that Bush now says he does not really know Ken Lay, which is wholly contradictory from the facts. He IS doing this and that raises a very valid question of WHY?
And it is certainly not mere circumstance and innuendo that Cheney does not want to release information about energy policy discussions which Ken Lay certainly would have taken part in at the time.
Given these valid points, it is not a rushed conclusion to say there is a very solid appearance of impropriety and perhaps a coverup of illegal activity (especially with the actions of Bush and Cheney in the face of an investigation, and the reality that Enron has been shown to actively manipulate things for profit).
That is all I am saying. It is very suggestive and should be investigated, but investigations appear to be headed to wrap up everything before reaching the doorstep of the White House. Just as the investigation into 9-11 was stopped at the doorstep of the White House, and now the investigation into use of intelligence on Iraq is set to stop at the doorstep of the White House.
My money is on if/when Ken Lay goes to jail, the White House washes its hands and walks away, without so much as a simple probe. Yet the above points are more suggestive of impropriety than what the Republicans had on Clinton when they launched an entire probe into all aspects of Clinton's life.
You can disagree with my side of the bet, or believe that it is more likely that the activities stated above were not necessarily illegal, or even unethical (perhaps just distasteful), but my eyebrows go up when it seems you are saying anyone believing those points are real are somehow rushing to judgement, or that even if they are true do not create a very solid appearance of impropriety.
Am I misunderstanding your posts?
PS--- I want to add that although I am against Bush now, I was firmly opposed to Gore and held no real reservations against Bush before the election (to tell the truth I was even kind of rooting for him of those two). Just being a kind of news junkie I have become more and more despondent as Bush (even during the election) has come out with clear falsehoods, entangled himself in clear improprieties, and then managed to have investigations or federal oversight quashed.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2