ON SECOND THOUGHT: The relaunched
TalkingPointsMemo.com has some fun with Army Secretary Thomas
White’s Defense Department bio, at least in its description of the
Enron part of his career. Before Enron became synonymous with
scandal, the bio read:
“Prior to his appointment as Secretary of the Army, Secretary
White served as Vice Chairman of Enron Energy Services, the Enron
Corporation subsidiary responsible for providing energy outsource
solutions to commercial and industrial customers throughout the
United States. Mr. White was responsible for the delivery component
of energy management services, which included commodity management;
purchasing, maintaining, and operating energy assets; developing
and implementing energy information services; capital management;
and facilities management.
“Secretary White also served as a member of Enron’s Executive
Committee and was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for Enron
Operations Corporation. He was also responsible for the Enron
Engineering and Construction Company, which managed an extensive
construction portfolio with domestic and international
projects.”
That has now been changed to:
“From 1990 to 2001, Mr. White was employed by Enron Corporation
and held various senior executive positions.”
Lest anyone suspect a coverup, how about someone thanking
whoever it was who finally edited the bejargoned original? “Energy
outsource solutions,” “the delivery component of energy management
services,” “implementing energy information services” — how can
anyone treat English this way?
FORGET ENRON: Enron’s no longer the only game in
town. After a few fits and starts, Global Crossing has broken
through. One sign: Salon.com ran a long AP report
last Friday that raises many questions about the once high-flying
company’s ties to key Washington officials, including top Democrats
as well as former Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen and the
sainted John McCain. These days one no longer even rolls one’s eyes
about McCain: The same day his campaign finance reform baby was
delivered to the Senate last week, the AP was reporting that no one
else in Congress received more money from Global Crossing than
McCain. A $31,000 donation to his presidential campaign from Global
Crossing employees was followed that same month by McCain’s
intervening, “at the company’s urging,” with the FCC about a
project of great interest to GC.
As for DNC wildman Terry McAuliffe, the AP story did note he
parlayed a $100,000 investment into $18 million in profits. It
probed the matter no further, other than include a response from
McAuliffe’s spokeswoman at the DNC. “Terry just invested his money
and did nothing else,” she said. To attempt any “political analogy”
to Enron, she added, “is just ridiculous.”
But Frank Rich doesn’t think so. In a breakthrough column,
he blasts Terry McAuliffe with as much relish as he does Enron and
the Republicans. And without realizing it, he rebuts the DNC
spokeswoman. McAuliffe a passive investor? On CNN McAuliffe called
his humongous profits part of “a great success story.” But Rich,
citing a “Wall Street Journal” report, notes that “Global Crossing
executives also started unloading shares in 1999 — hauling home
$1.3 billion, even more than Ken Lay and company netted when they
dumped Enron stock while telling employees to buy.” Did these GC
execs know something other GC shareholders didn’t? Did they tell
McAuliffe? Here’s where Rich nails McAuliffe: “On Tuesday I asked
the Democratic National Committee merely for the dates of the party
chief’s Global Crossing sales within 1999. The answer has been
silence.”
Wonder who Democrats have lined up to succeed Terry
McAuliffe?
NO SO FAST: Reader Al Bullock isn’t holding his
breath. In a letter to TAP, he describes a search he did at
WashingtonPost.com: “A search of ‘enron’ revealed 212 instances of
mention from 2/5/2002 through 2/18/2002. A search of ‘global
crossing’ during the same time frame revealed 16 instances of
mention and many were one-phrase references. Bernard [Goldberg]
could write a series on the Post’s bias.” But before he does, maybe
we should check again in two weeks to see if the disparity has
become smaller.
BILL COMES DUE: The aforementioned William Cohen’s
ties to Global Crossing are the subject of many pointed questions.
None of them have yet been posed by the so-called mainstream press.
But a letter to TAP from Marsha C. Tucker of Houston, Texas, makes
an impressive case indeed:
“Is anybody going to make the connection between Clinton’s
Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, who now serves on the Global
Crossing board, and the ‘grease-skidded’ award of a $400 million
DOD contract that the Bush Administration canceled due to a faulty
bidding process?
“And how, in heaven’s name, does a five-year-old company have
the gravitas to qualify for a contract of this magnitude? What did
Global Crossing represent about itself in the RFP that was
submitted to the DOD? Was there a balance sheet, cash flow
statement and P&L? What about disclosure of related party
transactions? Who analyzed Global Crossing for the DOD? Who
recommended and signed the contract on behalf of the U.S.
government? What guarantee was made to the U.S. government in the
event of a Global default?
“Did Bill Cohen have contact with the DOD after he became a
Global Crossing director? If so, who did he talk to, when did he
talk to them and what was the nature of the conversation? What
options, etc., did Cohen have has a director?
“And, upon cancellation of the contract what, if any, work had
been completed on behalf of the U.S. government? What is the status
of that today? Finally, how is it that a Bermuda-chartered company
— a foreign entity that pays little or no taxes to the U.S. —
qualified for U.S. government work?”
How Bill Cohen might reply is anyone’s guess. If he were Terry
McAuliffe he’d no doubt accuse the Houston-based letter writer of
trying to divert attention from her hometown’s homegrown Enron
scandal.
