|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
||||||||
          |
Republicans not the only ones in Enron
by James Yerian The writer’s column about Enron and Bush naturally paints the same ignorant pictures of Republicans, and especially Bush, while at the same time excusing everybody else involved — and quite frankly, everybody was involved. And involved in what, you may ask? Well,
taking money from donors. The writer basically makes the argument
to his core college liberal audience that Bush knew he was dealing
with dishonest people by accepting money from a large energy company.
What is dumbfounding is that our friendly columnist excuses
others, including those more ideologically in line with him, of taking
money from the same hand. Money buys influence. That is the dirty
business of politics. The columnist does a tremendous job, like
most liberals, of placing blame for the Enron collapse on Bush himself,
instead of the CEOs who lied about their profit to everyone, including
the Bush White House. His column is loaded with typical liberal
pap, and why? Because like liberals and others opposed to Bush — who
is actually doing a good job as president— the writer craves a scandal.
In fact, the mere discussion of it as a scandal just makes Bush's
impression worse. And that's all liberals are about — impressions.
Facts have no place in left-wing ideology, for if they did the
writer wouldn't have written such an idiotic piece. If the writer cared about the facts of a
case instead of seeing himself in print, of showing the world his
unsubstantiated liberal disgust for Bush, and basically anyone who
dare call himself conservative, he'd come to some realizations: •In politics, everyone takes money. Democrat, Socialist, Republican,
etc. There is big energy, big tobacco, and, yes, dear friends,
big environment. •Enron lied to everyone about its profits. That’s why there
is an investigation. Democrats on Capitol Hill are hoping against
hope that something sticks to Bush, with the pretenses of caring for
those poor Enron workers. This way they can, as the writer did, label
Enron as Bush's baby, and deflect attention from themselves. •The Bush White House refused to help Enron, who also asked the other
side for help. Perhaps the flag could be raised that they asked
for help in the first place — but if Bush knew incriminating information
could be leaked if Enron collapsed, why wouldn't he help them? Could
it be because they didn't believe Enron needed "special treatment"?
That they didn't see any conflict of interest? As a follower of the news and as a citizen of this country who looks for truth and not the hopes of idle speculation, I am disgusted with the writer’s self-serving, self-righteous smut of a column. I no more believe he cares about those that are affected by the Enron debacle, as I believe he cares about getting the facts straight. He's playing by the old school approach, all right and that equals the iron stereotype of "Republicans bad, Liberals good." It's all about lying, of making up facts if there aren't any. There's nothing honored or dignified about that. – James Yerian
|