NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted August 27, 2004 Umm, that is like saying, under which president did 9/11 happen. Oh, my bad --- NO CEO did anything wrong for 8 years. Gordon Eubanks, May 1993, you can now modify your argument accordingly Care to provide a link? -=Mike Umm, I didn't say that. My gripe wasn't with Ken lay going down under Bush. I was just trying to stop this "he helped Enron more, no he did, no he did, no he did" nonsense. Of course CEOs were crooked and running rampant under Clinton, as they still are now. Ken Lay went down, that is great, but it is not like any new laws, provisions, trade policies etc.....have been modified that would make it seem like there is any type of effort to actively seek and destroy more law breakers, instead, under the current administration they all just got a huge kickback in tax cuts. Enron made billions under Clinton. Bush refused to bail out his friend --- and refused to protect him from prosecution. Of course CEOs were crooked and running rampant under Clinton, as they still are now. Ken Lay went down, that is great, but it is not like any new laws, provisions, trade policies etc.....have been modified that would make it seem like there is any type of effort to actively seek and destroy more law breakers, instead, under the current administration they all just got a huge kickback in tax cuts. And some actual punishment for committing crimes. -=Mike Bush didn't personally hand down any punishment. Ken Lay was caught plain and simple, what choice did Bush have, unless there was absolutely no coverage and/or reports of Lay being caught. Is it good Bush didn't try to go to bat for Lay, Sure, of course it is, but what other choice did he have given the circumstances. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted August 27, 2004 Bush didn't personally hand down any punishment. Ken Lay was caught plain and simple, what choice did Bush have, unless there was absolutely no coverage and/or reports of Lay being caught. Is it good Bush didn't try to go to bat for Lay, Sure, of course it is, but what other choice did he have given the circumstances. Whoa, how many people HERE were arguing that Bush would save his friend Ken Lay? Give me a break. Would Clinton permit a friend to be punished --- well, unless they were covering up for him? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted August 28, 2004 If he did, Mike, he'd just grant them a pardon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
