Posted on 07/31/2002 8:35:42 AM PDT by wcdukenfield
What was I thinking on July 22 when I recklessly accused Sen. Joe Lieberman, "the Conscience of the Senate," of covering up Robert Rubin's role in the Enron scandal? My call for Rubin's testimony seems to have ignited a firestorm of criticism against this giant of a statesman, for which I publicly apologize.
As reported in today's Washington Times, Lieberman, who serves as chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, says that he'll call Rubin as a witness if it can be shown that Rubin played some role in Enron's collapse; if Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the subcommittee conducting the investigation, concurs; and only if the rest of the Senate's business can be completed first, which won't be before January, well after the election.
Once again, Lieberman has demonstrated his wisdom, judgment, and evenhandedness. Upon reflection, it's obvious that I was putting the cart before the horse, letting the tail wag the dog, and not looking before leaping. I should have remembered that a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step and you shouldn't count your chickens before they hatch.
And if I had thought this through, I would have realized that there's no way Rubin can offer any useful information to the Senate. All Rubin did was place two phone calls to the Treasury Department and Moody's, an independent credit-rating agency, in an attempt to elicit support for propping up Enron's credit rating, which would have bought time for Rubin's company, Citigroup, to dump its bad Enron debt on unsuspecting investors. You have to admit that 1,000 years from now, no one will give a damn about Rubin's harmless and well-intentioned telephone calls, so why waste the Senate's time?
I also didn't take into account Rubin's extremely busy schedule. He's chairman of Citigroup's executive committee, an adviser to Sen. Tom Daschle on economic matters, writes op-eds urging President Bush to raise taxes, and for all I know he may well be shuttling between Beijing and Little Rock raising money for the Clinton library.
And it's obvious that Carl Levin is busy, too. He held hearings on July 23 and yesterday looking into the role of financial institutions in the Enron debacle. He called a total of 17 witnesses, four of whom were from Citigroup. It makes complete sense that Levin overlooked including Rubin in this gaggle. After all, Rome wasn't built in a day.
Now that I've apologized to Lieberman, perhaps I should rethink my criticism of Terry McAuliffe and the 18,000 percent profit he received from Global Crossing.
They'd have to read it first...
I heard one of Rubin's many apologists say that he had nothing to contribute to this discussion because he 'wasn't involved in day-to-day decisions'. Give me a break. He makes those phone calls but he's out of the loop?
I'm still waiting to hear a committee with teeth question Rubin about the Plunge Protection Team.
And while we're at it.... why doesn't someone ask Rubin to name the 10 things he did to 'fix' the economy. With specificity. And follow-ups.
There are greedy businessmen out there who should be interrogated and lead off in chains to teach others than they should also contribute to democrat campaigns or face the consequences.
LIRberman and these arrogant demmocrat crooks are screaming about Republican business ethics while doing nothing about a known/proven democrat crook. This is disgraceful! And, the media, as always, will bury it.
Why is Rubin such an icon to these idiots?
Pull on one thread and the whole thing unravels?
I think it is time for the so-called "Conscience of the Senate" to turn in that badge of honor. Relatively speaking though, it is hard to imagine just how little conscience you would actually have to have to be the leader of that pack of thieves in that category.
Anyone think he will speak out against Torricelli with his "Conscience of the Senate" hat? Do you think he finds it "troubling?" Don't bet anymore than you are willing to lose on that one.
My experience is that rank-and-file Dems (including those in Congress) have little or no understanding of financial issues or the economy. Rubin looks serious, sounds intelligent, and speaks 'financial language' they don't understand. Ergo - he must be BRILLIANT! You see the same reaction to Greenspan.
Clinton brought it up because everything in him screams 'me, me, me'. He can't bear the thought that his one (perceived) legacy is in danger of being trashed.
That's the probelm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.