Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
This seems to be the predicament in which President Bush and his top advisers find themselves concerning the shocking collapse of energy giant Enron.
As soon as news of the apparent failure of the nation's seventh largest business and the catastrophic financial losses to individuals, businesses and banks started to spread across the country and around the world, the finger-pointing and political posturing began.
Apart from the shock of such a huge company imploding, some of the first questions were: "How could this have happened, who knew what, and how could it have been avoided?"
Because Enron and its chief executive, Kenneth Lay, had headquarters in Houston and both Enron and Lay had been generous financial supporters of Bush, it didn't take long for Democrats to start asking about the relationships and whether Enron officials had been in contact with Bush or top White House aides.
Seeking any possible political gain out of the Enron mess, Democrats wanted to know whether Bush had been asked to help his friends and supporters. Had others in the Bush administration been asked? When did these GOP leaders realize Enron was facing serious financial problems and was on the brink of collapse? If they did know, didn't they have the obligation to inform the public?
Again, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If Enron representatives had asked Bush or his people to help save the energy company, and one of them had offered assistance, it would have triggered all kinds of accusations that Enron had used its clout to get favorable attention and help.
Another question was whether Bush people had the obligation to inform appropriate officials to see whether there might be a way to avert the collapse and the subsequent financial losses to so many Enron employees and investors.
Several senior Bush people, including one Cabinet member, said they had become aware of possible serious problems at Enron but didn't inform the president. Neither, they said, did they offer or supply any help to the energy company representatives.
One official reportedly asked another fiscal expert whether Enron's problems would have serious effects on the world's capital markets and was told it would not be a dangerous situation.
The Bush team will be criticized for not stepping in to help the Houston-based company and, by so doing, perhaps give sufficient warning to the public that many personal financial losses could be prevented.
On the other hand, anything Bush might have done to help his friend Lay and his company would have appeared to be a massive favor for a generous financial supporter. This would be looked upon as proof that money buys access to and favored treatment from the White House.
There was no way for Bush and his senior aides to avoid criticism by the armchair business, ethics and political quarterbacks.
There will be many House and Senate committee investigations. There's no question that numerous details of the final months of Enron will be studied. The role of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm will be examined, and the question of whether any Bush or White House officials intervened in the process will be explored.
At this time, Bush and his top lieutenants claim they did not make any calls to help Enron. Some say this is wrong if action could have averted or softened Enron's fall; others say it was the right decision for Bush to steer clear.
At this time, who knows the eventual outcome and fallout of the Enron mess? What happens to the image of the public accounting business? What happens to Enron officials? Will anyone go to jail? Is there any way for Enron stockholders to recoup any of their losses? And what impact will this have on the public's perception of how Bush and his top aides are carrying out their responsibilities?
What happens to Enron officers who benefited from inside information and were able to dump their stock when prices were high while Enron employees were limited in what they could do with the Enron stock held in their 401(k) retirement plans?
Lastly, will the Enron disaster play a role in the outcome of the 2002 House and Senate elections, and will the fallout be harmful to Bush's re-election efforts in 2004?
When Bush entered the White House in January 2001, he had no idea what was in store for the United States with the September terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Likewise, who could have predicted in January 2001 that this nation would be involved in a worldwide war against terrorism? Now comes the Enron collapse.
Being president of the United States certainly is one of the most, if not the most, demanding and stressful job in the world. In most cases, the public has no idea how a president is likely to react to such situations and accompanying pressures.
Photographs of past presidents early and later in their terms offer vivid proof of how the job ages an individual. For the good of the entire country, both Republicans and Democrats, it is hoped Bush will measure up to the responsibilities of the job. Here is a case where a president had absolutely no hand in any of the major challenges he now faces, but how he handles these situations will determine the health and security of this country and his chances for re-election.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.