senator edward kennedy - massachusetts

[blueedwards]

does anyone take this guy seriously? he looks and talks like a character from saturday night live. he is a total joke.

 

[gns61]

mary jo kopeckne took him seriously

 

[RobFunk]

you can't get with the exquisite shyt he ki-dicked, you'll get caught up, like ted kennedy, in Chappaquiddick

 

[SENDITIN]

What's it say about the idiots who keep electing him to office?

 

[RobFunk]

sendit, change your last name to kennedy, move to mass and run for something. anything. you'll make the crack game look like the joy luck club

 

[blueedwards]

mary jo kopeckne took him seriously

 

[gns61]

gosh and i like the new england patriots
i wonder

 

[Journeyman]

I always think the same thing when I look at this real life characature...

drunk, manslaughter, conspirator...Total Joke...

 

[919]

i guess same could be done for bush...

drunk, failed businessman, cokehead.....

 

[gns61]

statute doesnt run out on murder

 

[gns61]

bush failed at what?
or are you just rattling

 

[lander]

If dum dum touches it, it will break.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.html

 

[docmercer--banned]

Cheney is a 2 term VP ...

name a more disgusting form of human exsistence on this planet?

 

[GAMEFACE]

clintoon
saddamn
kim ill
cup of coffee
fidel

 

[docmercer--banned]

Cheney: ENRON

Enough said .. Cheney should be in Prison for his role

 

[docmercer--banned]

Enron: What Dick Cheney Knew

by JOHN NICHOLS

[from the April 15, 2002 issue]

In the spring of 2001 the severity of the California energy emergency had inspired demands for government action, and Enron had a problem. Officials in California were arguing that federal price caps on wholesale energy sales would prevent profiteering and stabilize wildly fluctuating energy markets, and even some Republicans were saying that caps made sense. But the caps would cost Enron--which had come to dominate energy markets by taking advantage of deregulation--a fortune.

Enron CEO Kenneth Lay knew he needed high-level help. So he arranged to meet with a man who had headed a corporation with extensive business ties to Enron and who had been a prime recipient of Enron's political largesse. Vice President Dick Cheney cleared his calendar for an April 17 private meeting with Lay regarding what aides described as "energy policy matters" and "the energy crisis in California." At the meeting Lay handed Cheney a memo that read in part: "The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps...."

The day after he met with Lay, Cheney gave a rare phone interview to the Los Angeles Times that had one recurrent theme: Price caps were out of the question. Dismissing the strategy as "short-term political relief for the politicians," Cheney bluntly declared, "I don't see that as a possibility."

Cheney's prognosis was flawed; within days, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission agreed to price caps and the markets calmed down. But Cheney was undeterred in his drive to deliver for Enron. The Houston-based firm enjoyed a level of vice-presidential attention during the Bush/Cheney team's first year that included explicit support of Enron's choices for key regulatory positions, intervention in the affairs of a foreign government and the structuring of an energy policy task force to allow Enron and other corporations to effectively set policy. Indeed, so close was the Cheney-Enron relationship that it is entirely reasonable to ask whether ethical and legal lines were crossed. That possibility offers the most realistic explanation for Cheney's refusal to disclose details of his Enron contacts to Congress. "Cheney says he is refusing to provide information to the Congress as a matter of principle. He told the Today show that he wants to 'protect the ability of the President and the Vice President to get unvarnished information advice from any source we want,'" notes former White House counsel John Dean. "That sounds all too familiar to me. I worked for Richard Nixon."

Less than ten days after he became Vice President--promising that a Bush/Cheney Administration would "restore decency and integrity to the Oval Office"--Cheney took charge of the Administration's energy policy task force, the National Energy Policy Development Group. No initiative interested Enron more, and Cheney welcomed the company's active participation in its deliberations. Cheney was hardly a stranger to the company. He had chaired Halliburton, a Texas-based oil services and construction conglomerate whose subsidiary, Brown & Root, helped build Houston's Enron Field, and his return to politics--after he selected himself to be Bush's running mate--benefited from Enron-linked contributions that paid for the Bush/Cheney campaign, the Florida recount fight fund and the inauguration. Cheney and his aides met at least six times with Lay and other Enron officials while preparing the group's report, which is the basis for the Administration's energy policy proposals. Additionally, Cheney's staff met with an Enron-sponsored lobbying organization, the "Clean Power Group."

Cheney claims this access gave Enron no advantage. "The fact is Enron didn't get any special deals," he declared when questioned in January. Yet an Enron memo discovered after that interview suggests the corporation shaped substantial portions of the task force's recommendations. When Cheney and Lay met in April 2001, Lay handed Cheney a three-page "wish list" of corporate recommendations. Representative Henry Waxman, the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform, ordered an analysis of the memo against the final report of the task force; it shows that the group adopted all or significant portions of the recommendations in seven of eight policy areas. Seventeen policies sought by Enron or that clearly benefit the company--including proposals to extend federal control of transmission lines, use federal eminent-domain authority to override state decisions on transmission-line siting, expedite permitting for new energy facilities and limit the use of price controls--were included. Noting that "there is no company in the country that stood to gain as much from the White House plan as Enron," Waxman wrote Cheney, "the recent revelations regarding the extent of Enron's contacts with the White House energy task force have only underscored the need for full public disclosure."

Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, task forces like Cheney's must conduct public meetings, must allow interested parties to attend and must keep publicly available records. But arguing "executive privilege," Cheney, his aides and Cabinet departments have refused requests for records, despite legal challenges from the General Accounting Office and private groups. One lawsuit has freed up Energy Department documents that begin to hint at the extent of the influence that energy corporations exercised over Administration policies.

Cheney also provided other official services to Enron. Copies of e-mails obtained by the New York Daily News indicate that Cheney aided an attempt by Enron to force the Maharashtra State Electricity Board in India to pay it at least $2.3 billion in connection with a failed $2.9 billion effort to develop a power plant. A June 28, 2001, e-mail from a National Security Council aide read, "Good news is that the veep mentioned Enron in his meeting with [Indian Congress Party leader] Sonia Gandhi yesterday." In an October 3, 2001, discussion with India's foreign minister, Cheney raised the issue again. And when Cheney's energy task force was finalizing its report in August, a draft document was altered to include a provision recommending that the US Secretaries of State and Energy work with India to help that country maximize its domestic oil and gas production. "The energy plan does not discuss this recommendation or explain why maximizing oil and gas production in India should be a US national energy priority," Waxman wrote in a letter to Cheney. Instead, Waxman argued, the provision "benefited Enron by formally enlisting two Cabinet secretaries in Enron's conflict with the Indian government."

With the notable exception of Waxman, the Enron-Cheney connection so far has received troublingly limited attention from Congressional Democrats. Senator Joseph Lieberman announced that a committee he heads would issue more than two dozen subpoenas that could cast light on Enron-White House contacts, but Lieberman's determination to maintain a "bipartisan" approach has so far limited the scope of the inquiry. Democratic leaders moreover appear reluctant to invite charges that they are repaying the GOP for eight years of investigations of the Clinton Administration.

Cheney's refusal to cooperate with investigators--which presidential historian Stanley Kutler refers to as part of a broad "assault on the legal and Constitutional order" by the Bush Administration--forms the most powerful argument for the appointment of a special counsel. Congress allowed the Independent Counsel Law to expire in 1999, ceding to the Attorney General the right to make such appointments. Current Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself after it was learned that he had taken campaign contributions from Enron, but his aides are free to make the call. John Conyers Jr., the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote the Justice Department in January to argue, "The Enron case represents one of the largest corporate frauds in the nation's history, and the potential for conflicts of interest is so sweeping that it necessitates an outside counsel to insure public confidence." So far, however, Conyers's call has been little noted beyond the ranks of serious reformers like Representative Bob Filner, whose "sense of Congress" call for a special counsel has drawn only eight co-sponsors.

Conyers and Filner have recognized reality. Neither the Justice Department nor Congress appear to be prepared to conduct the sort of investigation that is required to expose the full extent of the Bush Administration's service to Enron. That investigation would have to be broad, since the connections with Enron are not limited to Cheney's office. From Army Secretary Thomas White, a former Enron executive, to Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, formerly on Enron's advisory council, Enron's tentacles have reached throughout the Bush White House, shaping tax, trade, energy and environmental policy. All such connections are worthy of legal and Congressional scrutiny. But make no mistake, the place to begin is at Dick Cheney's door. If there is any realistic hope of exposing the extent to which Enron's machinations corrupted US policy at home and abroad, then the Office of the Vice President is not only a good place to start, it is the essential beginning point.

 

[docmercer--banned]

There is a wide trail of lies told by Cheney. There is the Iraqi connection, the Enron ties, the India deal, the so on and so on. Cheney also lied about not living in Texas as late as November 2000 in apparent violation of the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He didn't sell his Dallas-area mansion to a major Republican donor until Nov. 30, 2000, according to deed records. I have been by that $2.7 million home several times since Cheney sold it and have never seen any evidence anyone occupies it. The owner, Dianne T. Cash, owns another million-dollar home in Highland Park, one of the wealthiest suburbs in the country. So, she needs two mansions in the same tiny suburb, huh? From Sept. 2000 until June 2001, Cash - an appropriate name for a Republican, right? - gave a whopping $229,433 to national Republican organizations, in addition to buying Cheney's house, according to federal records. Interestingly, she also gave $1,000 to Democrat Bill Bradley in 1999 - her only contribution to a Democrat since then. Was that a ploy to foil Gore? Surely, this staunch Republican did not embrace Bradley's proposals, which were more liberal than Gore's.

Another lie concerns another basic piece of public information with a paper trail: Cheney's Texas driver's license. Dick's license is still active but lists his address as 500 N. Akard Street in Dallas, which is where he worked at Halliburton, not his home on Euclid Avenue in Highland Park. Lynne Cheney's driver's license lists the same Akard address. Texas law requires residency addresses to be placed on licenses. Even someone as paranoid as billionaire H. Ross Perot - remember his weird reason for getting out of the 1992 presidential election because the Bush campaign supposedly planned to disrupt his daughter's wedding? - has his home address, not work address, on his Texas driver's license. Even Bush listed the Texas governor's mansion - which was where he lived and worked (er, goofed off) - on his license. Other high profile politicians - such as former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, who is running as a Democrat for U.S. Senate, and his Republican challenger, Attorney General John Cornyn - list their home addresses, not work. Why were both Cheneys allowed to be above the law, once again?

That is another pattern in Cheney's - and Bush's - life, getting perks most others do not. As a tyrant, Cheney expects preferential treatment. He thinks nothing of holding closed-door White House meetings with Enron executives to discuss public energy policies. He is surprised when some question why such public meetings are allowed to be private. He thinks nothing of using public tax money to fly to India to demand that they pay a private company, Enron, a loan. He is surprised when some accuse him of abusing his office.

Let me say it because most will not: Dick Cheney is evil. There is a bit of evil in most human beings, but in Cheney it is easy to spot, although most people don't have the guts to say it. I especially hate it when I see Cheney on some Sunday morning media show talking like he's an authority figure and no one has the guts to question him. Can't they see through his BS? Granted, it's not as easy to see through as Bush's, who gives new meaning to the word, "shallow."

That's not to say Bush and Cheney are stupid; on the contrary, they know how to use people and cleverly turn things to their advantage. Bush's father's CIA background is apparent; in the CIA, you are trained to lie, to twist, to show different faces. That's what spies do. That's why I cannot understand someone like The Nation's John Nichols, who wrote an excellent book called Jews for Buchanan: Did You Hear the One About the Theft of the American Presidency?, actually saying he thinks Bush is a decent, nice guy. Nichols, who said that during an interview earlier this year with Internet radio host Meria Heller, should know better. Bush is trained to be nice to the media, to project a nice-guy public image. It gets him votes. That's what he cares about. Same with Mr. Big Time, Cheney.

Bush's and Cheney's real personas are closer to the ones where they did the major-league-*******-big-time routine on New York Times journalist Adam Clymer during the 2000 campaign. Remember, these are people who thought nothing of trashing their own - war vet John McCain - with a below-the-belt smear campaign in South Carolina. These are people who thought nothing of trashing the Constitution and people's voting rights in 2000. These are people who thought nothing of using the legal system to not count legal votes as they trashed anyone who used that same legal system to attempt to gain some justice. These are people who thought nothing of getting a federal court to intervene in a state matter as they called for the federal government to stay out of state matters. I could list more hypocrises here, but that's enough, for now.

Anyways, Cheney is smarter, more experienced, and more dangerous than Bush. He's known as the enforcer on Capitol Hill, with his office known as the torture chamber. There is a reason for those nicknames, and it's not something I would be proud of, but Cheney probably is. It's obvious Cheney really thinks Bush is a lightweight and deals more with Bush Sr., who is running more of this show than many think. Cheney's CIA connections are long, including with his private firms and Defense Department position. He knows how to put on his spy costume and routine as well as Bush, probably better. Cheney is evil, I tell you. There's no other way to put it, in my book.

The media, most of whose members are as intimidated by Cheney as the major Democratic politicians, just continues to protect Cheney. A mid-June Associated Press article on Lynne Cheney's return to Dallas to promote a children's book - well, isn't that special? - said only that she and Dick "lived in the Dallas suburb of Highland Park in the 1990s when he was the head of Halliburton Co., an oil field services company." No way, AP. The Cheneys lived there in 2000, too.

But it's good to see some in the mainstream media aren't quite as intimidated. In June, Business Week pointed out how the White House was "compromised at this juncture in history by its once-incestuous relationship with Enron. The recent revelations of aggressive accounting techniques at Halliburton, one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the energy industry, during Vice President Dick Cheney's tenure as CEO doesn't help either." That relatively mild criticism is about as strong as the mainstream media gets against Cheney.

I'm at a loss at what to do about confronting Cheney's evil. I'm not sure essays like this one accomplish much, beyond getting something off my chest and on the record. Congress does not have the guts to impeach Bush, much less Cheney. The mainstream media is too corporate-controlled these days to pull another 1970s Watergate, when the media was a real force, a force that compelled me to jump aboard the profession. How disillusioned can I be? Jackson Thoreau is co-author of We Will Not Get Over It: Restoring a Legitimate White House. The 110,000-word electronic book can be downloaded here, here, or here. Thoreau can be emailed at jacksonthor@justice.com <!-- #EndEditable -->

 

[HiloBoy]

doc, what about strong thurman and jesse helms.

 

[eek.]

The mainstream media is too corporate-controlled these days to pull another 1970s Watergate, when the media was a real force, a force that compelled me to jump aboard the profession.

It is interesting to watch the homogonisation of society by massively capitalised corporate structures.

Originality is pushed to one side as mass marketing searches for maximum scope and penetration for the fastest return on the buck.

The easiest area to see how obvious it is, is probaly the music industry.

 

[nimue77]

.