1.30.2002

...

WEISBROT: Rubin Shouldn't Escape Enron Investigation
Mark Weisbrot, AlterNet
January 17, 2002


One of the leading political figures embroiled in the Enron scandal is being handed a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, and he doesn't deserve it. That is Robert Rubin, President Clinton's former Treasury Secretary. Rubin seems to have everything he needs to be inoculated from the scandal's contagion: One of the most powerful and influential people on the planet, he has charmed not only bankers and political leaders of both parties, but the media and opinion-makers as well. In the press he was often portrayed as a primary architect of America's longest-running economic expansion, in the 1990s.
A cover of Time magazine in 1999 displayed Rubin, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, and Larry Summers (number two at Treasury, later replacing Rubin) as "The Committee to Save the World." But more recently he has been caught peddling his influence for the financial giant Citigroup, where he left public office to become a top executive.
As Enron's accounting irregularities were being discovered and its fortunes rapidly sinking, Bob Rubin placed a call on November 8 to Peter R. Fisher, current undersecretary of the Treasury for domestic finance. According to Treasury, Rubin wanted to know if the Bush administration was going to intervene with the big credit rating agencies, who were about to lower their rating of Enron's debt. Since Rubin's Citigroup was holding hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Enron's debt, it had quite a large stake in the outcome of any such decision. Treasury told the press that Fisher said no, and Rubin agreed with the decision -- as if this were just an informational call to discuss the pros and cons of political intervention to protect the credit rating on Enron's bonds. But this should not be allowed to drop.
The public needs to know more about this phone call, and any others that Rubin may have made on Citigroup's behalf. Whether or not they are technically illegal, such actions are a blatant and corrupt abuse of one of the highest offices of our government. For those who followed Rubin's role in the Asian economic crisis a few years ago, this comes as no surprise. If we look at what Treasury actually accomplished with a $120 billion loan package for the region, it was quite different than what Time magazine and the rest of the press were led to believe. They got the taxpayers of Indonesia, South Korea, and the other affected countries to guarantee the bad debt held by foreign corporations and banks. Rubin and Summers did nothing to help these countries when they needed reserves to keep their currencies from falling, and we now know that Treasury's actions actually helped cause the crisis and made it much worse. They were not "saving the world." They were saving Citibank and others from losses due to their bad loans -- just as Rubin tried to do when he called Treasury about Enron's debt. But these details of the Asian crisis did not get much press. That is why it is so important that the current investigations pursue the political corruption involved in the Enron scandal. Rubin is holding one of the two biggest smoking guns so far discovered. (The other is held by the Bush administration: According to former Federal Energy Commission Chairman Curtis Hebert, Jr., Enron CEO Kenneth Lay told him he would support him as Chairman if he changed his views on utility deregulation. Hebert said he refused. He was subsequently replaced by Pat Wood III, a friend of Ken Lay and George W. Bush.)
Of course most of the political casualties of an independent investigation would be in George W. Bush's camp. After all, this is the Enron administration -- the list of officials with Enron ties is long and goes right to the top, including chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey (former Enron consultant); US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick (former Enron advisory board); chief political advisor Karl Rove (investor). But the Democrats have been unsure about whether to pursue the investigation into the political realm. Part of this timidity is a desire to avoid the appearance of partisan excess that, in the Clinton scandals, drew a backlash against the Republicans. But they are undoubtedly afraid that some of their own luminaries, Rubin chief among them, might end up on the wrong side of a subpoena. It would be a shame if these fears, and the media's reluctance to pursue these issues independently, kept the public from learning the truth about the political corruption involved in Enron's rise and decline.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. ( www.cepr.net).

1.29.2002

Subj: Mark this date as the first day of Bush's Watergate...
Date: 1/12/02 1:23:08 AM Eastern Standard Time

Please distribute this to everyone you know. It was written by William Pitt,
a teacher in Boston (http://www.willpitt.com/)


HELL TO PAY

"Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it
concentrates his mind wonderfully." - Samuel Johnson

Some time just before January 7th, 2002, an asteroid capable of pulverizing a
good-sized nation flashed through the void, passing perilously close to
Earth. Had it struck our planet, the impact would have had global
consequences. The energy of the strike would have been equivalent to the
explosion of a number of large atomic weapons. From the media perspective, it
would have been the biggest story since the extinction of the dinosaurs.

At some point in the next six months, a small, darkened corner of George W.
Bush's consciousness will wish the thing had hit us. The apocalypse he and
his fundamentalist buddies have been waiting for would have been at hand, and
a number of potentially calamitous questions about to be put to his
administration would have been avoided.

Sadly for him, the planet spins on. Beneath the unpierced stratosphere, the
electronic beams of news agencies like CNN and the Associated Press have
begun to spread like a widow's web from city to city and house to house.
Carried on this invisible wind are rumors of doom, negligence and greed. Each
and every one of these rumors lead inexorably back to 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, which will soon be issuing significant numbers of visitor passes to
lawyers if the pattern holds much longer.

Whichever part of the nation that never heard of the energy giant Enron
Corporation has recently been introduced to the company in odious context.
The story thus far is nothing less than astounding: Enron, a company valued
in the billions on Wall Street, suddenly filed for the largest bankruptcy
claim in the history of the known universe. 4,000 employees were abruptly
shown the door after having been barred from dumping the company stock, meant
to fund their retirement, while it was worth something. Meanwhile, Enron
executives in the know were able to dump the stock, back when it was the gold
standard on the Street, for a cool $1 billion.

Apparently, Enron was ailing for quite a long time. The aforementioned
executives were able to maintain the mirage of financial viability by
stuffing the debt into what are called 'off-balance-sheet partnerships.' In
essence, each of the executives built personal banking bunkers and hid what
has been revealed to be staggering Enron debts within them, keeping fact that
the company was hemorrhaging money off the publicly displayed balance sheets.
This maintained the company's credit rating, and allowed it to continue doing
business.

This went on for four years, which means several things. It means most of the
Enron executives were aware of and/or actively participating in this highly
criminal and irresponsible activity. It means the stockholders, including
4,000 loyal Enron employees, were lied to. It probably means that the
executives knew the stock value was doomed when they bailed out and
cashed in several months ago. It means they let their employees lose the
retirement funds they believed were growing within their Enron stock
portfolios. It means a lot of people got screwed by a pack of sharp operators
who didn't give a damn about anyone but themselves.

All this could simply be chalked up as yet another story of corporate greed
run amok, until the umbilical political and financial connections between
Bush and Enron are illuminated. Enron's capo, Kenneth Lay, was perhaps the
best financial friend George W. Bush has ever known. Lay and a number of
Enron employees essentially bankrolled Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign,
going so far as to lend Bush an Enron corporate jet for trips between whistle
stops. Before Bush got White House stars in his eyes, he worked very closely
with Enron on energy policy in Texas.

This close connection led to the Bush administration's hiring of a number of
influential individuals within Enron's orbit for important government
positions:

- Thomas E. White, Bush's Secretary of the Army, was once Vice-Chairman of
Enron Energy Service, and held millions in Enron
stock;

- Presidential Advisor Karl Rove owned as much as $250,000 in Enron stock;

- Economic adviser Larry Lindsay leapt straight from Enron to his current
White House job;

- Federal Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick did the same;

- SEC Chairman Harvey Pitts was hand-picked by Kenneth Lay for the position,
due to his notorious aversion to governmental regulation of any kind.

There are some thirty one Bush administration officials who had a line item
for Enron in their stock portfolio, including Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld. It is fair to say that the woebegone corporation held, and
continues to hold, enormous influence over the day-to-day machinations of
Federal government policy. One wonders if Bush's recent gutting of the Clean
Air Act, a decision designed to improve the fortunes of companies like Enron,
was the brainchild of people with deep connections to the energy industry.

The trail of influence left by Enron leads also to the scabrous heart
ventricles of Vice President Dick Cheney, who admitted recently to six
separate meetings with Enron executives while formulating the Bush
administration's energy policy. Cheney, a former executive of the Halliburton
Petroleum interest, was in charge of creating this policy. For reasons soon
to be exposed by subpoena, Cheney refused to detail the specifics of the
creation of this policy, which included the multiple Enron meetings.

The General Accounting Office was preparing to sue Cheney to reveal this
information when the September 11th attacks took place. Those subpoenas may
be dusted off and mailed within a month. In the meantime, the Justice
Department is preparing a serious criminal investigation into the collapse of
Enron. The democratically-controlled Senate is planning hearings on the
matter as well. Columnist Robert Scheer has referred to the Bush
administration's involvement in the Enron debacle as "Whitewater in spades."
One wonders if "Watergate" would be a more appropriate comparison.

Bush's own dealings within the energy industry carry a disturbingly familiar
echo to the Enron situation: once upon a time, he was a high-ranking officer
of a petroleum interest called Harken Oil. On June 22, 1990, Bush sold his
Harken stock and made $848,560, earning him a 200% profit. One week later,
Harken announced a $23.2 million loss in quarterly earnings and its stock
dropped sharply, losing 60 percent of its value over the next six months.
Bush made a bundle while the other investors lost millions. Harken was Enron
in miniature, and might have served as a warning to the American people if
the press had chosen to pay any attention to it during the 2000 Presidential
campaign.

There is a school of thought, espoused primarily by Republicans, that any
investigation into potentially dishonorable or illegal actions by the Bush
administration is tantamount to treason. We are at war, undeclared though it
may be, and Bush must be free to prosecute this war vigorously, so as to
defend our freedom and bring the murderers of American civilians to justice.
If reports recently aired on CNN have any credence, however, Bush and his
people may well have to answer for actions that make the Enron catastrophe
look like a jaywalking offense, actions that led directly to the incredible
carnage in New York and Washington, D.C.

In 1998, during the Clinton administration, the U.S.-based energy concern
Unocal canceled plans to exploit massive natural gas deposits in
Turkmenistan. They had planned to run a pipeline from Turkmenistan to
Pakistan, where the natural gas could have been processed for Asian and
Western energy markets. The idea was scuttled after Clinton ordered the
cruise missile bombing of Afghanistan in response to a terrorist attack upon
U.S. embassies in Africa which were planned and executed by Osama bin Laden.
The pipeline would have had to pass through Afghanistan, and Unocal was given
the message in Technicolor by Clinton's people that Taliban-controlled
Afghanistan was not to be given any sort of financial boon.

Apparently, the Bush administration found no moral dilemma in dealing with
the Taliban to get to the gas. Immediately upon their arrival in Washington,
a vigorous courtship of the Taliban was undertaken by Bush's people. In fact,
if former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler is to be believed, the Bush
administration had a vested interest in strengthening and stabilizing the
Taliban regime, because a stable regime would compel investors to revive the
Turkmenistan natural gas pipeline deal. The Taliban, demon of the moment, was
the Bush administration's idea of a 'stable' government. Stable enough,
anyway, to see the pipeline through.

The connections between Bush and the Taliban became so close that the Taliban went so far as to hire an expert on U.S. public relations named Laila Helms,
so as to smooth the way between the two regimes. Meetings between the two
nations continued at a high level, the last of which occurred in August,
scant weeks before the September 11th attacks. All of these actions were
taken to exploit the vast energy reserves in Turkmenistan for the benefit of
American energy corporations.

The cozy relationship between Bush and the Taliban frustrated the
investigative efforts of former Deputy Director of the FBI John O'Neill.
O'Neill was the FBI's chief bin Laden hunter, in charge of the investigations
into the bin Laden-connected bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, the
destruction of an American troop barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the
African embassy bombings in 1998, and the attack upon the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.

O'Neill quit the FBI in protest two weeks before the destruction of the World
Trade Center towers. He did so because his investigation was hindered by the
Bush administration's connections to the Taliban, and by the interests of
American petroleum companies. O'Neill was quoted as stating, "The main
obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil
corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it." After
leaving the FBI, O'Neill took a position as head of security for the World
Trade Center. He died on September 11th, 2001, trying to save people trapped
by the attack, when the towers came down on top of him. The irony in this,
simply, is horrifying.

In essence, the Federal agent who knew more about bin Laden than any living
American was kept from investigating terrorist threats against this country.
He was hindered because the Bush administration was desperate to cultivate
the favor of the Taliban, who held terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden in
great esteem, so as to gain access to lucrative natural gas deposits in
Turkmenistan.

If these allegations prove true, Bush and his friends allowed this affinity
to hamstring investigations that could have thwarted bin Laden's September
plans. If these allegations prove true, everything since September 11th has
been a massive cover-up operation in which American soldiers and thousands of
Afghan civilians have died. If these allegations prove true, the Bush
administration has the blood of thousands of American civilians on its hands.
If these allegations carry even the faintest whiff of credibility, George W.
Bush and members of his administration stand in taint of high treason and
murder.

On November 7th, 2000, a clear majority of Americans came to the conclusion
that George W. Bush was unfit to govern this nation. For a variety of dark
and controversial reasons, that conclusion was thrown over. Sometime soon, if
the media's electronic web continues to carry these sordid stories of
corruption, greed and death, the American people will come to fully
understand the consequences of that failed election.

It is one thing to coddle and court a corrupt energy company for political
and financial gain. It is quite another to coddle and court a murderous
terrorist-supporting regime, hindering anti-terrorism investigations in the
process, for the purpose of exploiting valuable natural resources. The former
cost a number of people their retirement funds. The latter has cost thousands
of people their lives. One is criminal. The other is abominable. George W.
Bush is deeply implicated in both. There will be hell to pay.



1.28.2002

Second Part of the Frances Moore Lappe Interview with Greg Palast of the The Guardian
Subject: Above the Law, pt. 2



[Continued from part 1]

>>Palast: Yeah, one of the problems is exactly what is their
>>relationship to the terror networks. One thing you should know is that
>>the Saudis say that they have removed Osama bin Laden's citizenship in
>>Saudi Arabia. Of course, there are no citizens of Saudi Arabia, there
>>are only subjects. So he is not allowed to be a subject of the king of
>>Saudi Arabia. What a loss. And they have frozen his assets,
>>supposedly. But the information I am getting from other sources is
>>that they have given tens of millions of dollars to his networks. This
>>is being done as much as a protection racket as anything else.
>>
>>LappÈ: Some of this was reported, or at least alluded to, in the
>>recent Frontline report.
>>
>>Palast: There was a little bit of whispering in the Frontline by my
>>buddy Lowell Bergman. He could go further. At least you got a little
>>bit of it on PBS. What is interesting is Bergman, who is also a
>>reporter for The New York Times, did not have this in The New York
>>Times.
>>
>>LappÈ: That is interesting, I actually noticed that myself.
>>
>>Palast: Now here is a guy who has an agreement that whatever he puts
>>on Frontline by contract can be put in The New York Times exclusively.
>>And here The New York Times skips the report. Now we went further on
>>BBC Newsnight, we had some of the same sources, and we have been
>>digging further. We are allowed to dig further.
>>
>>We also had another source explaining a meeting that was held, and I
>>can't give the details because I would be scooping myself. But I got
>>particulars of a meeting in which Saudi billionaires up who would be
>>responsible to paying what to Osama. And apparently around the time of
>>the meeting is when Osama blew up the Kohbar Towers in Saudi Arabia
>>killing 19 American servicemen. It was seen by the group as not so
>>much a political or emotional point, but as a reminder "to make your
>>darn payment."
>>
>>Osama is often compared to Hitler but he should be seen as John Gotti
>>times one hundred. He is running a massive international protection
>>racket: Pay me or I will blow you up. The fact these payments are made
>>is one of the things the Bush administration is trying very hard to
>>cover-up.
>>
>>Now whether these payments were paid because they want to or it is
>>coercion, the Bush administration does not want to make a point of it.
>>I have to tell you the Clinton administration was not exactly
>>wonderful on this either. One of the points I made on the BBC was
>>there was a Saudi diplomat who defected. He had 14,000 documents in
>>his possession showing Saudi royal involvement in everything from
>>assassinations to terror funding. He offered the 14,000 documents to
>>the FBI but they would not accept them. The low-level agents wanted
>>this stuff because they were tremendous leads. But the upper-level
>>people would not permit this, did not want to touch this material.
>>That is quite extraordinary. We don't even want to look. We don't want
>>to know. Because obviously going through 14,000 documents from the
>>Saudi government files would anger the Saudis. And it seems to be
>>policy number one is we don't get these boys angry. Unfortunately, we
>>see the results. We are blowing up Afghanistan when 15 of the 19
>>bombers were from Saudi Arabia.
>>
>>Not that I am friends of the Taliban, who are vicious, brutal maniacs,
>>but 15 of the 19 were Saudis and we seem to be giving these guys a
>>full and complete pass.
>>
>>LappÈ: Now let's take these two stories, the Florida election theft
>>and the Saudi cover-up, together as a backdrop. Paint me a picture of
>>the Bush crew and how they operate. Are they above the law?
>>
>>Palast: Well, they are our law. Remember they are two presidents of
>>the United States, they go back generations to the Mayflower. The Bush
>>family is one of the true royal families of America. They have a
>>long-term idea of what is good for us. Other countries think it is
>>quite spooky that we have a guy who came out of the CIA to head of the
>>nation. Just like Americans have a lot of doubts about Putin because
>>he was the head of the KGB. These people are used to secrecy and not
>>letting America know what would be frightening and troubling to us in
>>our sweet innocence.
>>
>>The problem is Sept. 11 took away our innocence. The question is will
>>it take away our blinders. The U.S. press does not seem capable of
>>wanting to dig.
>>
>>LappÈ: Now why is that? From an outsider looking in, you have the BBC,
>>a news organization owned by the government, and you have the American
>>media, which has this great tradition of Woodward and Bernstein and
>>Watergate. They are independent organizations that are not answerable
>>to any government organization. Why is there this chasm between
>>investigative reporting in the U.K. and in America?
>>
>>Palast: Well, first of all you hit a good one. Woodward and Bernstein,
>>which everyone comes back to, was three decades ago! What has happened
>>in thirty years? When have we had a story in thirty years that has
>>come close to that? I gave a talk with Seymour Hersh, who is one of
>>the guys who broke the My Lai story. That was thirty years ago. He
>>cannot work for an American newspaper. He writes for the New Yorker
>>magazine. Think about that. One of our best investigative reporters in
>>America, he has won at least two Pulitzer prizes, can't even work for
>>an American newspaper. What is going on?
>>
>>Investigative reporting is so rare in America we had to make a movie
>>out of it. I was on a panel at Columbia University School of
>>Journalism and there was a reporter who worked on both continents who
>>said that the odd thing he found was the worst thing you could be
>>called in an American newsroom is a "muckraker." Someone who looks
>>like they are going after someone, someone who looks like they are
>>getting too enthusiastic about going after someone. No one likes that
>>guy.
>>
>>Look what happened to Lowell Bergman. As soon as he said, 'gee we
>>really have to push a story that will make corporate America a bit
>>unhappy.' They killed it. After all 60 Minutes for the most part does
>>mostly small potatoes stories. Small-time operators are the ones
>>basically in their sights. But when they took on a big operation like
>>tobacco they killed the story. I can tell you other stories with 60
>>Minutes that are just insane that have gone by the boards. I did a
>>story about George Bush's connections to a brutal gold mining company
>>out of Canada. And 60 Minutes said, "Oh we want to do a big story."
>>And I said, "Oh, no you don't." And three days later they said, "Oh,
>>we can't do that story."
>>
>>LappÈ: Why?
>>
>>Palast: They're gutless. No one has ever advanced their career in the
>>last thirty years by coming up with a great investigative piece. That
>>is a way to get unemployed. Anyone who thinks it's all "Murphy Brown"
>>and "All the President's Men" out there is wrong. That's the fantasy.
>>That's all television and the movies. It's not in the newsrooms. If
>>you say what I want to do is expensive and difficult and involves
>>getting inside documents, and upsetting the established order, you are
>>not going to get anywhere. Businessmen are the hardest ones to go
>>after. You can go after a crooked politician but go after a
>>corporation . . .
>>
>>LappÈ: And their lawyers will bury you . . .
>>
>>Palast: Well, we have the First Amendment, which by the way there is
>>no First Amendment in Britain. There is no freedom of speech or the
>>press. Very difficult here legally, even though culturally it's easier
>>to report the news here in Britain, even though you don't have the
>>protection. But there is a great fear in the U.S. of corporate power,
>>which I think has a lot to do with losing advertisers. There is a
>>legal question because they can't win lawsuits but they can cost you a
>>lot of money. You are looked at like some kind of left-wing,
>>muckraker, conspiracy nut if you decide to go past an official denial
>>and say, "I don't accept that. I want to see a document."
>>
>>I got to tell you, I have seen this over and over again: my story on
>>the Florida elections - one of the things I found out was that Jeb
>>Bush had deliberately excluded at least 50,000 voters, 94% of them
>>democrats, because they had been convicted of a crime in another
>>state. Now Florida under the U.S. constitution and its own
>>constitution they cannot do that
>>-- punish someone for a crime in another state by taking away their right
>>to vote in Florida. You can't do that. They know that. When we spoke to
>>Jeb Bush's functionaries they said we know we can't do that, and then
>>quietly they said, but we do it anyway under instructions from our
>>superiors. The papers I was working for said, "Well, Jeb Bush denied
>>it." And flat out denial from an official was enough to stop all these
>>investigations. Dead cold. I was with Salon.com. They killed the story.
>>And it was only later when the U.S. Civil Rights Commission said I was
>>correct, and then the state of Florida admitted what they did, and then
>>I was vindicated.
>>
>>The New York Times did a story about how gold mining companies out of
>>Nevada have tremendous influence over the Bush administration. Nowhere
>>in the story did they mention that George Bush Sr. was on the board of
>>the biggest gold mining company in Nevada. They didn't mention the
>>name of the company. Here they are doing a story on gold mining in
>>Nevada and they don't mention the name of overwhelmingly the biggest
>>company in Nevada, which by the way is called Barrick. And it had on
>>its advisory George Bush Sr. It left out the name of the company and
>>the fact it had on its board a former president. How did that happen?
>>I can tell you because that company sued my paper when I ran a story,
>>and I have the same lawyer as The New York Times. You can bet that The
>>New York Times figured out it was going to cost them money or create
>>controversy. God forbid you create controversy, that would be
>>considered disastrous in a newsroom. When you get a letter from a
>>lawyer who says we disagree, the story gets blocked. The Globe and
>>Mail, which is the number one paper in Canada, was going to run the
>>story. I was told that the top people in the Globe and Mail killed the
>>story. So you have absolute direct corporate influence killing
>>stories.
>>
>>Most reporters understand that it is not a career-maker to have these
>>letters coming in. In other words, you never want to have your story
>>killed. Because if your story is killed by corporate big shots, from
>>then on you are marked as a troublemaker and a problem, and your
>>career is in deep trouble. When a guy like Seymour Hersh can't get a
>>job with an American newspaper. When Lowell Bergman has to work in the
>>PBS ghetto. When Greg Palast has to work in exile, there is a pretty
>>evil pattern here.
>>
>>What you see is institutionalized gutlessness. I'm pissed off about it
>>because I want to come home and work. My kids have British accents. I
>>wanna get home already.
>>
>>LappÈ: On that note, we'll wrap up. It seems that with this new war
>>all of these trends you have talked about are getting worse. Do you
>>have any hope for the future of journalism?
>>
>>Palast: My only hope for the future of journalism is one word: the
>>Internet. The big boys are trying to grab it and seize it and control
>>it and own it and stop it and freeze it and fill it up with corporate,
>>commercialized crap and junk. But it is still the conduit of the real
>>information, the real news. You are always being warned about things
>>you read on the Internet. But be warned what you read in The New York
>>Times. At least when you read the Internet you know you are getting
>>all kinds of voices, some nuts, some real, and you evaluate it. The
>>problem with something like The New York Times is it is coming to you
>>as the stone-cold truth. It isn't true that Bush would have won
>>Florida anyway. When the people voted they voted for Al Gore. He
>>should have been inaugurated as president, not because I like him, but
>>because he got the vote nationwide and in Florida, and they knew it
>>and they didn't tell you that.
>>
>>I can tell you right now the information I broadcasted on the BBC
>>about the chilling of the investigation of the FBI and the CIA of the
>>bin Laden family and the Saudi royal family, and I have more coming
>>up, I can tell you that information was given to The New York Times.
>>They didn't use it. It was given to 60 Minutes. Not that they aren't
>>going to use it. It's like my story about the elections. They run it
>>seven months later in the back of the paper. Or it's just like the
>>Florida vote count. If you go to The New York Times web site you can
>>get all the information that shows that Gore won, but they either
>>don't run it, or eviscerate it, or they give it to you chopped up and
>>spin it so the order of things are not disturbed.
>>
>>I can't tell you all the reasons why that happens. I'm not sure
>>myself. I think a lot of it is these guys hang out together. They go
>>to the same clubs and they go to each others' daughters weddings. It
>>makes me ill. It makes me want to throw up when I watch Tom Brokaw,
>>that fake fucking hairdo, go to dinner with Jiang Zemin at the White
>>House. He's a reporter. What the fuck is he doing eating spring rolls
>>with a dictator? He should be reporting the story.
>>
>