Kudos to Patrick Sullivan: Archive Entry From Brad DeLong's Webjournal

Hold on! Just because there may be no smoking gun email does not mean Thomas White is innocent. White's division was on of the key book-cooking centers of Enron. White was the head of his division, with line responsibility. He's either Magoo or Moriarity, neither which is acceptable for Secretary of the Army. Also, White's letter to the Times he "does not recall writing anything close" to what was in the email. I don't want to seem like Watermelon Dan, but that is not quite a flat denial.

Posted by: roublen vesseau on October 3, 2002 10:11 PM

Funny... one of Krugman's sources is merely called into question and Krugman apologizes.

How many conservative pundits would do that?

How many high profile conservative pundits have apologized even when their sources have been proven outright fabrications?

Posted by: on October 4, 2002 12:12 AM

>> How many high profile conservative pundits have apologized even when their sources have been proven outright fabrications?

How many anti-globalization pundits have apologied even when their sources have been proven outright fabrications?

Sadly, it is a principal of human nature that people are quick to reject evidence that contradicts their views, and quick to adopt evidence that enforces their views, regardless of the source. This is a well-known fact amoung psychologists.

I think Paul Kurgman's admitting his source was possibly flawed says more about his character than his political ideologies. That said, I do agree that there is a scary trend in the US for the abundance of this character flaw in right-wingers...

Posted by: Amit Dubey on October 4, 2002 05:16 AM

These days, Krugman is Paul Begala with a Clark medal.

Posted by: arheles on October 4, 2002 07:16 AM

Rooublen has it right. There was, and remains, plenty of reason to fire Tom White, regardless of the email. I'm not sure why Patrick Sullivan doesn't think that.

Remember, this is an administration that longs for accountability in everyone else but itself. An administration that took accountability seriously would have fired Tom White, the hack Ashcroft appointee who gave the wrong documents to Moussaouai, and at least some people in the FBI and CIA.

Instead, they talk about accountability and management flexibility for that awful bureaucracy they are trying to create called the Department of Homeland Security.

Krugman is dead on target with 99% of what he writes about the Bush Adminstration, and has been dead on target since the dishonesty of the Bush economic policies were first revealed on the campaign trail. And as the unnamed poster noted, at least he admitted the possibility of being wrong about a specific fact.

Posted by: howard on October 4, 2002 07:24 AM

Just to parse that sentance a bit, one e-mail does not equal "virtually everything".

Posted by: Michael on October 4, 2002 08:03 AM

Wow, I am glad I wrote this back then: :-)

>>I aggree with you in a way, Patrick. Krugman has some evidence that he finds compelling, but it would be up to a court or a committee at least to shed light on this.<<

But I will also stick to my second point:

>>The thing is: if there are no Krugmans to throw some spotlight on this, it will just get slipped under the rug... We should all agree that we have to be able to expect a minimum of integrity from people with such important responsabilities.

Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on September 18, 2002 10:09 AM <<

Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on October 4, 2002 08:41 AM

Paul Krugman did just what an honest journalist must when a source turns questionable....

Posted by: on October 4, 2002 10:46 AM

Paul Krugman did just what an honest journalist must when a source turns questionable....

Posted by: on October 4, 2002 10:46 AM

Paul Krugman did just what an honest journalist must when a source turns questionable....

Posted by: on October 4, 2002 10:46 AM

The posts above are very good (with the notable exception of arheles).

Another point: Krugman is writing an opinion column. Of course, that doesn't excuse him for citing questionable evidence. But the evidentiary standard there is surely lower than, say, in a scholarly economics journal.

Best,

Posted by: Stephen Fromm on October 4, 2002 10:52 AM

The anti-Krugman crowd is way over-reacting to this "dramatic" revelation of White denying he sent the email. And Krugman even has the integrity to mention when something he once said may not be correct. When you compare that to all the things you read about daily at the The Daily Howler (www.dailyhowler.com), things like this are chump change... And even if White didn't write this email, does anyone really think White had no clue that the people of California were getting robbed blind or that he had no idea Enron was a house of cards?

Posted by: John on October 4, 2002 10:57 AM

At least Jason Leopold's letter on MediaNews (scroll down a little) provides some background that may suggest this isn't an anomalous moment in which Patrick gets something right:

"when Krugman informed his editors and the editorial board of the NYT that he had independently secured confirmation from all of my sources and verified the authenticity of the email, the NYT was shocked, according to Krugman, and then told him it was not good enough, that despite all of this verification he could still not write a column in support of my story, the documents mentioned, or reveal to readers that he spoke to my sources. Krugman, to his credit, did everything in his power to get the NYT editorial board to allow him to write the column he wanted regarding the Tom White email."

Anyhow, I'm sure that Andrew Sullivan will try to use even this to continue his one-man jeremiad against the Grey Lady. Damned if you do...

Posted by: nick sweeney on October 4, 2002 11:24 AM

On Howard's point about accountability (Hi, Howard), the hypocracy goes even further than wanting "accountability" from people it is politically useful to be mad at.

The Bush administration argues that employment guarantees for federal workers (in place to avoid the politicization of the civil service) must be ended because "homeland security" is too important to allow losers to keep their jobs. This same bunch, when faced with strong evidence of dishonesty or just plain uselessness among political appointees explicitly exempted from employment protections, leaves them in place. There has to be a suspicion their own guys are being left in place for political reasons. The mirror image of this is the suspicion that civil servants without employment protection might be fired for political reasons.

On occasion, civil servants have gone toe-to-toe with politicos over the years, preventing them from running away with policy, the truth and other important stuff. On occasion, political appointees have proven dishonest, wrong, arrogant, dangerous, ________ (fill in the blank). Three cheer for civil service rules, even if a few lazy jerks do manage to hang on to civil service jobs for life.

Posted by: kh on October 4, 2002 11:42 AM

I think you were a bit hasty in extending kudos to Mr. Sullivan. If Krugman confirms the information in Leopold's letter, I expect a prompt retraction of said kudos.

Posted by: on October 4, 2002 11:46 AM

I want to repost an other thing I wrote on that day:

>>We should perhaps spend some time thinking what things would be like without any Krugman... And for that matter sharp conservative columnists.<<

Maybe it's time for us to ackowledge or remind ourselves that a guy like Sullivan plays a useful role in the public debate at times, regardless of our general opinion about his political ideas etc. Kudos to him on this one, so far. I look forward to read more about this, though...

P.S. Yes, I realize it's pretty narcicistic to quote oneself, but look I think we all have a right but please ourselves at times :-)

Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on October 4, 2002 12:06 PM

The point is not conservative or liberal but trying to be accurate. Paul Krugman and the Times always try to be accurate, and correct when it turns out otherwise.

Posted by: on October 4, 2002 12:43 PM

The only way to be sure not to ever say something wrong is to never express your opinion... There is a trade-off obviously, but the point is that corner solutions aren't optimal here. Neither verbal or written incontinence nor complete retention are useful to society as a whole, even though as individuals one of these can still be our prefered attitude.

Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on October 4, 2002 01:17 PM

It is good to know Times' op-ed writers rely on only the most reliable of sources.

In this case, according to a story in the Times today, a plagiarist who had already been bounced from a job for grossly misreporting, of all things, the Enron story...
~~

Web Article Is Removed; Flaws Cited
By Daid Carr
...

The online magazine Salon has removed an article [published on Aug. 29 and written by Jason Leopold] charging Thomas E. White, secretary of the Army, with participating in accounting practices that led to the collapse of Enron ...

Paul Krugman, the economics columnist for the Op-Ed page of The New York Times, used the article as evidence in a column on Sept. 17 ...

"Initially, I asked Leopold for background on White's dealings," Mr. Krugman said in an interview. ... As for the e-mail exchange, Mr. Krugman said, "I didn't press for validation because it was consistent with everything else." ...

Salon editors began investigating the article after an editor at The Financial Times told them that paragraphs of Mr. Leopold's article were copied directly from an article in The Financial Times ...

Until April, Mr. Leopold was a correspondent for Dow Jones Newswires. He said he resigned from Dow Jones to write a book about the energy crisis.

His resignation came about a week before Dow Jones published the second of two extensive corrections of a March 18 article by Mr. Leopold and another reporter.

The corrections there and in The Wall Street Journal, which also published the article, invalidated virtually all of the major points
of the article, which accused Enron of compensating several executives excessively.

Mr. Leopold said he believed he was being singled out because of his aggressive reporting. "I don't think there's any reporter out there who has skirted the edge like I have ..."
~~

Only the best!

Hey, when your source for calling someone "a corporate evildoer" in the NY Times is a person whose last published work on the subject had to be totally retracted in print, apparently costing him his prior job, heck, why ask for validation of what he tells you, as long as it is "consistent"?

Posted by: Jim Glass on October 4, 2002 02:37 PM

As to authenticity of that crucial email, one party says through a spokesman he doesn't remember, the other refuses to talk; both could be expected to scream bloody murder if it were fake. There is good, but not goldplated, corroboration. Thereupon Krugman, perhaps leaned upon by the Times, withdraws. Which of Krugman's critics would have done the same?

Posted by: Ken Doran on October 4, 2002 02:42 PM

>> Hold on! Just because there may be no smoking gun email does not mean Thomas White is innocent. <<

For sure! Just because we've discovered that the prosecution cooked the evidence doesn't mean we should consider the idea that there defendant might be innocent. (Where could that lead?)

The familiar liberal attitude. ;-)

Posted by: Jim Glass on October 4, 2002 02:49 PM

>>> As to authenticity of that crucial email, one party says through a spokesman he doesn't remember, the other refuses to talk; both could be expected to scream bloody murder if it were fake. <<<

It's more than the e-mail, as per my comment above. But as to the e-mail itself, there's a very simple starting point to verifying it.

If one *quotes* an e-mail in print as evidence that a given person is "a corporate evildoer" then one should *have* the e-mail. E-mail is not that difficult to verify, what with the headers and all (and in the case of anything but an expert forgery, a fake is easy to debunk).

OTOH, if all one has is a paper with words printed on it (or worse, only word-of-mouth about it) then one *doesn't* have an e-mail, and common sense would indicate that one shouldn't say one has it and quote it to possibly libel another person in a major national publication.

So somebody who quoted this e-mail has to *have* it -- Krugman, Leopold, or *somebody*.

The easiest way for such person to defend his journalistic integrity is simply to say, "Hey, I've got it, here it is. Look at it for yourself!"

Posted by: Jim Glass on October 4, 2002 03:08 PM

First, thanks to Prof. DeLong for honestly and prominently addressing this. And I'm glad to see that Jean-Philippe thinks the truth can at times have a useful role to play.

Second, I'm not sure how much credit Krugman deserves here. He's been on a jihad against Thomas White for many months, and at every point he's been demonstrated to be either wrong or grossly distorting the truth. This latest is just another entry detrimental to him in the Krugman-Coulter Fact Checking Derby (maybe he can get the New Jersey Supreme Court to have him replaced).

And after the Times decided to go with the story Jim Glass just quoted from, what choice did he have, but to offer at least a half-hearted retraction?

Now, as long as we're willing to face up to the fact that famous (and very competent) economists can be victimized by sleazy journalists, I've got some more bad news for most of the participants on this site. The suck.com article supposedly showing that Norman Schwarzkopf "dissed" Dick Cheney that was cited here as "Chickenhawk Down", is also a total crock.

I was equally suspicious of it, but didn't have the time until yesterday evening to get to the library to get Schwarzkopf's book. Now that I have, my suspicions have been confirmed. For instance, from the article in question:

<<--------quote------------
In his book It Doesn't Take a Hero, retired U.S. Army Gen. Norman
Schwarzkopf [writes] ....Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell called
to warn the Desert Storm commander that he was being loudly compared, by a
top administration official, to George McClellan. "My God," the official
supposedly complained. "He's got all the force he needs. Why won't he just
attack?" Schwarzkopf notes that the unnamed official who'd made the comment
"was a civilian who knew next to nothing about military affairs, but he'd
been watching the Civil War documentary on public television and was now an
expert."

And then, twenty pages later, Schwarzkopf casually drops the information
that he got an inspirational gift from Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney
right before the air war finally got under way. Cheney was presenting a gift
to a military man, and he chose something with an appropriate theme: "(A)
complete set of videotapes of Ken Burns's PBS series, The Civil War."
--------endquote-------->>

First, about the above, the writer is confused and conflated two different stories related to Schwarzkopf, one by Colin Powell, and one by Bob Johnston (a military aide).

Pretty clearly the unnamed official and Dick Cheney are not the same person,
as Schwarzkopf straightforwardly names Cheney at another point when he has
a criticism of him. But overall, it's clear he has a great deal of respect
for Cheney's abilities, and both he and Powell were allies of Schwarzkopf in the inevitable turf battles.

But here's the kicker, this is what Schwarzkopf wrote about the gift:

"Secretary Cheney left us a Christmas present: a complete set of video-tapes
of Ken Burns's PBS series, The Civil War. The programs, with their chilling
portrayal of wartime death and destruction, had an enormous impact on
everybody at headquarters.... Watching those tapes renewed my conviction
that if I had to send my troops into battle, I would find a way to minimize
the loss of life."

In other words, Cheney's gift was not only appreciated it may have saved American lives.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 4, 2002 05:41 PM

I'm going to stick to Tom White, as much fun as you had, Patrick, with this other story.

I don't get your perspective. White was brought in as a supposed top-notch corporate executive. If he was, then he was either crooked or incompetent, based on the performance of his department and his company.

If, on the other hand, he was another of those distanced leaders who didn't know what the hell was going on, then what is he doing with the job he currently has?

And it's not as though there's any ambiguity about the way he played games with expenses and the way he didn't reveal phone calls.

Why in the world would an administration that is supposed to be serious about cleaning up corporate corruption want to maintain a senior executive from that company in an important role?

I didn't see your earlier postings, but just what is it about tom white that you think worth defending?

Posted by: howard on October 4, 2002 05:50 PM

Jim Glass writes "Hey, when your source for
calling someone 'a corporate evildoer' in the NY
Times is a person whose last published work on
the subject had to be totally retracted in print"

You're making no sense and being irrelevent (as
usual). The salon "retraction"

http://archive.salon.com/letters/editor/2002/10/0
1/note/

had absolutely nothing to do with the truth with
what was said in the article, and in fact Salon
wrote and implied they have "corroborated most
of the reporting in the article" and couldn't
disprove anything anything in the story. The
Salon retraction was based on the charge of
plagiarism by the Financial Times, and not to do
with questioning the truth of the story. In fact
if the plagiarism charge is true this would make
the Tom White story even more likely to be true
because a bunch of big whigs like the Financial
Times is willing to publish the story and not
just small potatoes like Salon. Accordingly your
charge of the prosecution cooking the books is
simply irrelevent (as usual) because after all we
were talking about the truth of the Tom White
story and not the ethics of journalistic
plagarism.

Posted by: on October 4, 2002 10:08 PM

"I revealed my sources on the Thomas White story
to Paul Krugman, including the person who sent
me the email. He spoke to each and every one of
my sources and verified their employment with
Enron through W-2 documents they faxed to him.
In addition, he verified the authenticity of the
email by speaking directly with the person who
sent it.

I took these unusual steps to reveal my sources
to Krugman and provided him with documents
because he was told by the NYT editorial board
that if he could get me to do that then he
could write a column that defends me and state
that he independently verified everything. This
was a painstaking process, having to convince
more than a dozen sources to speak up, albeit
in defense of me and confirm the authenticity
of documents, particularly the email.

However, when Krugman informed his editors and
the editorial board of the NYT that he had
independently secured confirmation from all of
my sources and verified the authenticity of
the email, the NYT was shocked, according to
Krugman, and then told him it was not good
enough, that despite all of this verification
he could still not write a column in support
of my story, the documents mentioned, or reveal
to readers that he spoke to my sources. Krugman,
to his credit, did everything in his power to
get the NYT editorial board to allow him to
write the column he wanted regarding the Tom
White email."
-- JASON LEOPOLD
Jim Romenesko's Media News

Posted by: Facts Are Stupid Things on October 5, 2002 04:35 AM

It takes a big man to admit he is wrong, and it takes a big man to graciously admit that one of his regular critics is right. Kudos to The Prof and P Krug.

Regards,

Posted by: Tom Maguire on October 5, 2002 07:53 AM

Regarding the post quoting Jason Leopold:

"[Krugman] verified the authenticity of the
email by speaking directly with the person who
sent it."

Excuse me! That person was supposedly Thomas White.

And what is this supposed to mean:

"when Krugman informed his editors and
the editorial board of the NYT that he had
independently secured confirmation from all of
my sources and verified the authenticity of
the email, the NYT was shocked, according to
Krugman, and then told him it was not good
enough, that despite all of this verification
he could still not write a column in support
of my story, the documents mentioned, or reveal
to readers that he spoke to my sources. Krugman,
to his credit, did everything in his power to
get the NYT editorial board to allow him to
write the column he wanted regarding the Tom
White email."

He did write that column. This is bizarre.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 5, 2002 08:26 AM

Howard demonstrates the problem with the slanders directed at Thomas White, with:

<<--------quote----------
White ...was either crooked or incompetent....

If...he ... didn't know what the hell was going on....

...he played games with expenses and the way he didn't reveal phone calls.

Why in the world would an administration that is supposed to be serious about cleaning up corporate corruption want to maintain a senior executive from that company....

I didn't see your earlier postings, but just what is it about tom white that you think worth defending?
------endquote------->>

I'm not defending Tom White, I'm insisting on there being a factual basis to any charges leveled at him. And none of what Howard claims has been shown to be factual (or, it's grossly distorted). White faced a hostile congressional committee recently, and no one laid a glove on him.

There's a reason why one of the Ten Commandments is about not bearing false witness (hope Jean-Philippe isn't traumatized by that). Krugman accused White of felonies, more than once. With NO VALID EVIDENCE.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 5, 2002 08:39 AM

I'd truly appreciate it, Patrick, if you could show what is so grossly distorted about White. What's there to distort? I hate to repeat myself, but either he knew what was going on at Enron, or he's an incompetent administrator.

In either case, what is he still doing occupying a position in an administration that claims to be on the offensive against corporate corruption?

As for the expenses and the phone calls, are you really calling them into question? If so, please say so, and we can get down to it.

Posted by: howard on October 5, 2002 02:41 PM

October 3, 2002

Charges Against Ex-Enron Official Unveil Some Ugly Truths
By KURT EICHENWALD - New York Times

HOUSTON -— The criminal complaint filed today against Enron's former chief financial officer lays bare an ugly truth about what was once the country's seventh-largest corporation. During the years it was celebrated for its ingenuity, Enron was fundamentally mismanaged, entering into absurd business deals that could be hidden from the marketplace only by manipulations the government now says were crimes.

Time and again, the complaint describes instances of Enron's entering into huge acquisitions demanding billions of dollars in cash, only to find shortly afterward that the deals were disasters that had to be sold to avoid damaging its financial performance.

But, the complaint says, some of the acquired assets — which were referred to internally as "nuclear waste" — were so unattractive that no independent buyer would ever consider purchasing them. As portrayed in the filing, into that void stepped the former chief financial officer, Andrew S. Fastow, who used a partnership to create the illusion that the assets had been sold. That funneled tens of millions of dollars in cash into Enron at critical times, when the company was struggling to meet Wall Street's expectations — projections that proved to be far too optimistic.

But in truth, the complaint says, Mr. Fastow did not want to own the products of Enron's foolishness either, and only acquired them through the partnership because he was given an illegal guarantee by the company that he could "sell" the assets in the future, at a profit.

If the accusations in the criminal complaint prove true, Mr. Fastow and Enron had effectively created a mechanism to transform dross into gold — and Enron had plenty of dross with which to work. Indeed, an unanswered question that looms over Enron in the wake of the complaint is: How could the company attain its once stellar reputation at the same time that it was flinging billions of dollars around the globe in a desperate bid to acquire assets that no one else wanted?

Posted by: on October 5, 2002 02:51 PM

Enron appears to have been run by a combination of astonishingly foolish or dishonest managers or both. We need to know how the fiasco came to be and slowly we will come to know just that. I thank the Times and the Journal and Paul Krugman for gradually and carefully wading through a most important and complex story.

Posted by: on October 5, 2002 03:01 PM

By the way, I think we should take Krugman's straightforwardness about his (so far) unsubstanciated accusation as an additional reason for taking his Economic Plan seriously. It's wholesome food for thought at least...

Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on October 5, 2002 03:04 PM

Indeed - Paul Krugman's economic plan is most compelling. The plan echoes DeLong and Roach who find this recession different and possibly more dangerous than other post 1945 recessions.

Posted by: on October 5, 2002 03:21 PM

Paul Krugman's Economic Plan

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/04/opinion/04KRUG.html

Posted by: anne on October 5, 2002 03:22 PM

Did I miss the heartfelt apologies from Krugman's colleague, William Safire? Safire stated repeatedly that a indictments of the Clinton's were on the verge of being delivered, that monstrous wrongdoing visa vi Whitewater would be soon revealed, that the public would turn on William Jefferson Clinton within minutes and so on. Can someone point me to the pages in which Safire begs forgiveness?

No? Oh, I forgot. Ritual self-denunciation is required for the Enemies of the State. Prosecutors in show trials don't have to apologize.

Posted by: citizen k on October 5, 2002 07:01 PM

Concerning Leopold's letter in which he wrote

"I revealed my sources on the Thomas White story to Paul Krugman,
including the person who sent me the email.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[...] In addition, he verified the authenticity of
the email by speaking directly with the person who sent it."

Patrick Sullivan wrote: "Excuse me! That person was supposedly Thomas
White."

Obviously Leopold was talking about the e-mail he himself (Leopold)
received.

Hey, is Patrick Sullivan related to Andrew Sullivan? He can't even
recognize the obvious reference of pronouns.

Posted by: on October 5, 2002 11:03 PM

arheles wrote:
>>These days, Krugman is Paul Begala with a Clark medal. <<

Begala apologized on TV about the White story:...
"I'm very sorry if I cited something that turns out to be factually false."

Which shows it's possible to be highly partisan but also honest, fair and even graceful about it.

howard wrote...
>>just what is it about tom white that you think worth defending? <<

Hey, I thought this was mostly liberal blogspace.

But above we have comments saying: Just because the evidence is false doesn't mean he's innocent ... Hey, the accused should be able to refute messages he hasn't seen and that the accusers can't produce ...Why do you think this guy is worth defending against false charges?

Y'all sound like a bunch of conservatives to me!

From anonymous...
>> Jim Glass writes "Hey, when your source for calling someone 'a corporate evildoer' in the NY Times is a person whose last published work on the subject had to be totally retracted in print" You're making no sense and being irrelevent (as usual)....<<

You seem to have missed the two-part correction of Leopold's previous reporting on Enron that the Wall St. Journal had to publish "which invalidated virtually all of the major points" and coincided with Leopold's departure from Dow Jones.

If you think that's irrelevant, try this mental exercise: You write a story in a national pub calling someone an "evildoer" quoting written evidence. Then have it turns out the evidence is bogus. Also that you got it from someone who you knew had lost a job for making similar bogus claims before, and who as it happens is a plagiarist.

At your libel trial, will the jury consider it "irrelevant" that you knew the history of your source yet *still* decided not to verify what he gave you, because, as you explain, it was all "consistent"?

>> if the plagiarism charge is true this would make
the Tom White story even more likely to be true <<

Oh sure, plagiarism always adds to a journalist's credibility. ;-)

Posted by: Jim Glass on October 6, 2002 12:11 AM

Jim Glass writes
"You seem to have missed the two-part correction of Leopold's previous
reporting on Enron"

You seem to have missed the fact that Salon itself "corroborated most of
the reporting in the article" and didn't dispute the truth of anything in
the article.

"If you think that's irrelevant, try this mental exercise:"

Try this as a mental exercise: a story in a web site was published in
which the website "corroborated most of the reporting in the article" and
didn't dispute the truth of anything in the article. Would you reject the
truth of the article merely because Jim Glass kept on complaining about
how much more he knows about the subject than everyone else?

Try this as another mental exercise: suppose somebody named Jim Glass kept
on relying on a NY Times story parts of which clearly lied about what
Salon said. Would you continue to believe the total truth of the what the
NY Times story said or the total truth of what the Jim Glass individual
said?

In fact if the plagiarism charge is true this would make the Tom White
story even more likely to be true because a bunch of big whigs like the
Financial Times is willing to publish the story and not just small
potatoes like Salon.

Posted by: on October 6, 2002 01:20 AM

The plagiarism was plagiarism *by* Leopold *from* Leopold -- he used two paragraphs of a story he'd written for the FT.

Oh, and by the way -- blogspace isn't a court of law. And since we're going to f***ing WAR, I think that it'd be nice to have a competent civilian administrator for the Army.

Crazy, I know.

Posted by: Paul on October 6, 2002 10:23 AM

Most of the comments seem to be breaking down to reasoning thus;

1. All Republicans who worked at Enron are corporate evildoers.

2. Thomas White is a Republican who worked at Enron.

3. Ergo, White is a corporate evildoer.

That's the only way to make sense of such as the news story about Fastow, cited anonymously. That White is not Fastow, that there is nothing in White's background to suggest financial or accounting sophistication, that White's job seems to have been operations not finance, all becomes nit picking to those already committed to the syllogism.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 6, 2002 10:44 AM

Paul writes:

"...since we're going to f***ing WAR, I think that it'd be nice to have a competent civilian administrator for the Army."

Which answers Howard's question of why White is still Sec'y of the Army. He's a retired General AND he a track record of successfully organizing large projects from scratch in the private sector.

I'll let Norman Schwarzkopf explain it, since his autobiography is accepted as relevant on this blog:

"...the phenomenon I'd observed among some secretaries of the Army: put a civilian in charge of professional military men and before long he's no longer satisfied with setting policy but wants to outgeneral the generals."

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 6, 2002 10:52 AM

Someone posted:

<<----------quote------------

Patrick Sullivan wrote: "Excuse me! That person was supposedly Thomas
White."

Obviously Leopold was talking about the e-mail he himself (Leopold)
received.

Hey, is Patrick Sullivan related to Andrew Sullivan? He can't even
recognize the obvious reference of pronouns.
--------endquote----------->.

The point was that the e-mail we need to verify is the one FROM Thomas White.

And we still need the entire context of the line Krugman quoted, if it is authentic. It actually reads to me like what millions of salesman hear from their bosses all the time: "We're having a lousy quarter, aren't their some deals you guys can close right now?"

Posted by: on October 6, 2002 11:03 AM

Paul wrote:
"The plagiarism was plagiarism *by* Leopold *from* Leopold -- he used two
paragraphs of a story he'd written for the FT."

Amazing. Was the FT really that lame? I take back any suggestions
Leopold was a plagiarist. It turns out FT is simply run by a bunch of
twits. This reminds of the story of a famous musician who couldn't
even sing his old songs written under his old label because the old label
claimed it violated copyright laws.

Incidentally the NY Times article about Leopold is even more mendacious
than I realized. The article said,
"The editors of Salon said one reason they removed the article was that a
critical piece of evidence, an e-mail message attributed to Mr. White,
could not be authenticated."

The part about Salon not being able to authenticate the e-mail message
wasn't even what Salon itself said. What Salon really said was,
"we have been unable to _independently_ confirm the authenticity of an
e-mail from former Enron executive and current Army Secretary Thomas White
that was quoted in the article."

Note the word "independently." What is this weasel word supposed to mean?
Here's one explanation: Salon wasn't able to confirm the authenticity of
the e-mail independent of the sources which Leopold himself gave. So in
fact Salon might have been to confirm the authenticity of the e-mail, but
not in a way independent of Leopold's sources -- which is all they might
be saying. Contrast this with Salon's previous message in the same note
in which it said, "we have corroborated most of the reporting in the
article" where they decided to not use the word "indepedently corroborate"
or something like that.

Posted by: on October 6, 2002 11:41 AM

Sullivan's moral relativism (going after one NYTimes columnist but not all the others who have yet to apologize for all the false accusatons against Clinton) should not divert anyone from the real issue: Thomas White's actions are suspect, and deserve a great deal more scrutiny than they have gotten.

(I'm not sure if the a href tag will work here, so pardon me not making the links. Just cut and paste urls into the browser.)

Here is a nice chart showing White's Enron stock sales plotted agains the value of Enron's stock and US military actions: http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/white-stock-contact.htm

White himself is hiding something, as he's altered his official army biography: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0216-04.htm

An article using White's testimony in front of the Senate Commerce Committee to urge a Special Counsel investigation into the California energy scams: http://www.counterpunch.org/claybrook0722.html

And so on. To repeat Prof. DeLong's urging: People, use Google!

Posted by: Dave Romm on October 6, 2002 02:24 PM

I had hoped that Patrick might have a legitimate argument on why White shouldn't be replaced, but what he offers are these two points: a.) White is being unfairly regarded as a Republican at Enron and therefore guilty; and b.) he's a retired general and he organized sucessful big projects.

Point "a" is a defensive distortion. It's not a question of whether all Republicans at Enron are automatically guilty; it's a question of senior management at Enron. White was part of senior management. Either he knew what was going on or he was incompetent. Either way, why is he still in office?

And if the answer is he's a retired general, that's silly. There are plenty of retired generals (if that's now a mandatory requirement for secretary of the army) who don't have sleazy corporate behavior on their resumes.

And as for organizing large projects, how about some examples (and if they were at Enron, they don't count!).

Posted by: howard on October 6, 2002 07:22 PM

Points to Patrick for the Schwarzkopf quotation -- but double points to Howard: "And if the answer is he's a retired general, that's silly. There are plenty of retired generals (if that's now a mandatory requirement for secretary of the army) who don't have sleazy corporate behavior on their resumes.

And as for organizing large projects, how about some examples (and if they were at Enron, they don't count!)."

Indeed. Too bad America's best ex-general is sitting in Foggy Bottom ignored....

Posted by: Paul on October 6, 2002 10:08 PM

Note Safire's column today in which he refuses to retract an allegation despite denials, because he sticks by his sources. Why was Krugman pressured to retract, but apparently Safire was not?

Posted by: Claudius on October 7, 2002 06:08 AM

Dave Romm throws another red herring into the frying pan with: "Sullivan's moral relativism (going after one NYTimes columnist but not all the others who have yet to apologize for all the false accusatons against Clinton)...."

The subject at hand in this thread is a Paul Krugman column, and Prof. DeLong is the one who brought this up, not I. BTW, I rarely read the other Op-ed columnists.

However, thanks for providing me with so much ammunition, because your three Googled-up items are particularly eggregious examples of the kinds of slanderous charges made about White.

In reverse order, you linked to what is in effect a press release by notorious political moderate Joan Claybrook. Under the Counterpunch header reading:

"Read Cockburn and St. Clair's Whiteout: the CIA, Drugs and the Press and discover how the CIA gave a helping hand to the opium lords who took over Afghanistan, thus ushering the Taliban into power."

We find Claybrook's embarrassing inability to understand the difference between wholesale and retail, and her ignorance of the Frank Wolak article in which he explains that the "Fat Boy" and other colorfully named strategies, were "standard arbitrage strategies" that may have made the California market more efficient. Said article by Wolak having been cited approvingly by both Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong.

Second, you cite biographical data from White's resume, which validate exactly the points I've been making (and Howard has been persistently missing the point of). To wit:

"...Secretary White served as Vice Chairman of Enron Energy Services, ...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."

Just as I've been telling everyone all along, he wasn't a financial type at all, but an operations guy. And he got started when Enron was a podunk pipeline operator; helping to build it into the powerhouse it later became. Wouldn't it be fair to give him credit for his actual job, rather than to criticize him for what others at Enron did?

Finally, the Barbara Boxer piece is so delicious I'm going to post the url again so everyone has the opportunity to see what a stupendous idiot represents California in the Senate:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/white-stock-contact.htm

Hi-lites being that White, in June 2001, a few weeks after being confirmed as Army Sec'y, divested himself of some 169,000 share of Enron at about $48, for $8 million (2/3 of the gain he eventually made). Had he sold all 405,000 shares he was entitled to (and I believe he also turned back many more options unexercised) at that time, he would have received $19-1/2 million.

Had he sold prior to be being confirmed, he could have received more than $60 per share (May 1, according to the chart). And, also according to Boxer's chart, White made just ONE phone call before selling this stock.

Then, we get to the entirely gratuitous Sept 11 arrow on the chart. White actually began to sell more stock on Sept 7, four days before the WTC attack, but Boxer's chart seems designed to obfuscate that. The sale was of 28,000 shares at $30, for $850,000; $18 less than he could have gotten in June.

Finally, the largest block of stock, 208,000 shares, goes for $14 starting on Oct. 24th. Proceeds being $3 million. Most importantly, and what is apparent to anyone who bothers to look, the great bulk of White's phone calls are AFTER this last sale. I count 45 made from Oct. 25 to Jan. 2002. So, they obviously had nothing to do with White's sales of any stock.

And, I remind Mr. Romm, I've already referenced this little episode in earlier comments. What we have here is Boxer calling a press release to announce these supposedly embarrassing questions (complete with numerous gratuitous references to 9-11 and the war in Afghanistan) that she was going to use to make mincemeat of Thomas White when he appeared. But that's not what happened. White won this confrontation, hands down.

Now, let's get back to the Krugman column:

" In February 2001.... [White's] e-mailed response summed up the whole strategy: 'Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q.'

"The strategy worked. Enron collapsed, but not before insiders made off with nearly $1 billion. The sender of that blunt e-mail sold $12 million in stocks just before they became worthless. "

Thanks to the Boxer chart, we can see that Krugman is being, at best, disingenuous. "Just before they became worthless" is not at all what White did. In fact, if he was a conspirator in a stock fraud scheme, he was a particularly inept one. He should have sold in February and raked in the really big bucks.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 7, 2002 10:28 AM

Thanks to Henry Hanks, for this in the Washington Post today from Howard Kurtz:

<<----------quote------------
Leopold says he is "shocked" that "Salon was very wimpy and caved in." He says a copy of the e-mail, provided to Salon, came from a former Enron colleague of White who also provided other documents. But when Salon later called the source, he says, the man denied the e-mail correspondence and denied talking to Leopold.

Salon Managing Editor Scott Rosenberg calls Leopold's accusations "bizarre," saying, "This is about journalism and ethics. There was more than one problem with the story that we tried to resolve with the writer."

Army spokesman Charles Krohn says White doesn't recall sending such an e-mail. While praising Salon for its "high-minded" correction, he says Leopold never followed up on an offer to provide the disputed e-mail.

Footnote: New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who had picked up the story, has now retracted his reference to the e-mail. But although Leopold provided the e-mail on condition that his source, the former Enron executive, not be named, the Times published the name Friday after Krugman passed a copy to a colleague with the name only partially scratched out. "I am sick to my stomach. . . . I have screwed up very seriously," Krugman told Leopold by e-mail. Says Leopold: "The Times broke its promise to me. . . . I felt like the Times news division sold me out."
------endquote------->>

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 7, 2002 11:33 AM

To be technical, I think Krugman is saying he "screwed up very seriously" in not fully removing the source's name from the document.

Posted by: Jason McCullough on October 7, 2002 02:13 PM

Leopold writes to Alterman about this.

' My point is this: Yes, the correction the NYT mentioned in the article is true. It was a major correction. Huge. The biggest of my career. But guess what? It was the only one in my two years at Dow Jones. Out of 2,000 stories I wrote in two years only one correction ran. I misread documents and so did the WSJ fact checkers. We had to issue a correction. When I resigned from Dow Jones to pursue a book, the company offered me more money to stay.

Frankly, I just didn’t want to work in a corporate environment like that anymore. I wanted to pursue a career writing books.'

Posted by: Jason McCullough on October 7, 2002 03:23 PM

I totally agree, citizen K, about Safire never once retracting/apologizing for his wild columns on Clinton's coming indictment/impeachment/resig-
nation/being struck down by God.

But let's not overlook those clowns writing the WSJ's editorials. They published so much anti-Clinton crap they collected it in bound volumes for sale to nutjobs who really believe Bill Clinton once tried to renounce his US citizenship while visiting the UUSR as a Rhodes scholar. Or that Mena, Arkansas, was a major center of cocaine distribution and Clinton was up-to-his-eyeballs involved. When Clinton left office, they were up to volume 3? or was it 4?

And now we're making a big thing about whether Leopold/Krugman have properly sourced their claims that Army secretary White is/is not a scumbag. What a double standard.

It seems to me, the substance of the claim still stands, whether or not Salon/FT can independently verify the emails.

Posted by: xtopher on October 7, 2002 04:25 PM

"Leopold writes....Out of 2,000 stories I wrote in two years...."

A thousand stories a year? Three per day, if he works week-ends and holidays. Yeah, this guy has loads of credibility.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 7, 2002 04:28 PM

Chief, I've got this great candidate for secretary of the army. He held a tip-top management position in one of he most corrupt corporations in our history but not to worry -- he assures us he didn't know a thing about it.

Posted by: jda on October 7, 2002 04:32 PM

I don't know if anyone has addressed Patrick's claim that White was forced to sell his Enron stock. Patrick also says that White was criticized for not selling earlier.

Now, to me that seems that the timing of the stock sale is all the more important. If White held on for too long already, why sell just before the stock really tanked?

According to reports I read 'having to sell the stock' also came after phone calls with Enron executives. Are those phone calls in question (i.e. were they made)?

Posted by: Wolf on October 7, 2002 06:20 PM

Anonymous wrote:
>> Try this as another mental exercise: suppose somebody named Jim Glass kept on relying on a NY Times story parts of which clearly lied a...<<

Jim Glass, being a lawyer, writer,and editor in the publishing biz for 20-odd years, would not rely on any third party's *story* for *anything* when publishing a claim that some named individual is an "evildoer".

And if Jim Glass ever quoted words from an e-mail in support of any such strong and potentially libelous claim, he would:
#1. Damn well have the e-mail, authenticated, to show the world.
#2. Have done what they teach every undergraduate in journalism school -- called up the purported author of the e-mail to ask if he admits to being the author and/or has any explanation of it that might be missing from the story.

These are two simple steps of journalistic competence, and yes, ethics. And having followed them you wouldn't be reading any discussion like this now.

BTW, since you were talking of Salon, I assume you saw the quotes from WaPo above...

"Salon Managing Editor Scott Rosenberg calls Leopold's accusations 'bizarre,' saying, 'This is about journalism and ethics. There was more than one problem with the story that we tried to resolve with the writer.'
"Army spokesman Charles Krohn says White doesn't recall sending such an e-mail. While praising Salon for its 'high-minded' correction, he says Leopold never followed up on an offer to provide the disputed e-mail."

So, it ought to be *real* easy to settle this whole thing at least as far as the infamous e-mail is concerned. Just have somebody produce the e-mail!

I mean, if everyone else is seeing it, White, the accused, ought to be entitled to a look at it too, eh? And since Krugman now apparently has compromised the "confidentiality" of Leopold's purported source, who denies being that, what's the problem?

Leopold offered, right? So what's stopping him??

Posted by: Jim Glass on October 7, 2002 11:35 PM

Jim Glass wrote:
**
Anonymous wrote:
>> Try this as another mental exercise: suppose somebody named Jim
Glass kept on relying on a NY Times story parts of which clearly lied
a...<<

Jim Glass, being a lawyer, writer,and editor in the publishing biz
**

Jim Glass, being a lawyer, writer,and editor in the publishing biz has a
habit of changing the subject and giving deliberately misleading quotes
from others -- perhaps because he realizes he's thoroughly wrong. Since
I even pointed out specifically where the article lied, and you have to
yet to even try to respond to it, suffice it to say, gosh, I'm unimpressed
with your credentials.

By the way what I wrote in full was, "Try this as another mental exercise:
suppose somebody named Jim Glass kept on relying on a NY Times story parts
of which clearly lied about what Salon said." See the part where I wrote,
"about what Salon said" and you deliberately deleted? Your attempt to
mislead others about I really wrote was a miserable failure.

Jim Glass wrote

>>BTW, since you were talking of Salon, I assume you saw the quotes from
WaPo above<<

Well, yes, at http://www.msnbc.com/news/818166.asp?cp1=1.

And where does it even contradict the specific lie "about what Salon said"
which I pointed out? Huh? Double huh? Triple huh?

Posted by: on October 8, 2002 12:24 AM

Wolf seems to be missing the point, Krugman claims that White was in on some sort of stock fraud scheme back in February. That he knew Enron was in big trouble and the stock was going to tank, yet White didn't sell then.

The history of White's sales of his stock, so conveniently documented in the Barbara Boxer chart, destroys the logic of Krugman's claims.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 8, 2002 07:13 AM

Tsk Tsk Patrick. As I mentioned earlier, White DID sell when the stock was going to tank, and when he had insider knowledge of US actions.

To repeat: Here is a nice chart showing White's Enron stock sales plotted agains the value of Enron's stock and US military actions: http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/white-stock-contact.htm

The convenient memory lapses of conservatives are only outweighed by their moral relativism. The GOP is soft on crime when it's theirs.

Posted by: Dave Romm on October 8, 2002 09:11 AM

The most important point should be that we have an administration that is profoundly antagonistic to the economic concerns of the middle class. Corporate executive after executive has milked shareholder value and harmed hard working employees with impunity, and there needs to be an extensive and intensive period of cleaning up the mess and building corporate structures that are properly benign.

Paul Krugman has my thanks for brilliant commentary on economic matters that affect us profoundly but that were ignored by economic or market analysts for years.

Posted by: on October 8, 2002 11:33 AM

This thread is rapidly degenerating into a logic free zone. Dave Romm is trying to change the subject from Krugman's charges that White knew IN FEBRUARY that Enron stock, then trading about $80 (and 405,000 shares would have been worth $32 million)was going down, to White's sale of $3 million in stock in late October. What a master criminal! (Krugman should be able to make a great column out of such ineptitude)

Then we have apparently re-written the insider trading laws to include outsiders. As in, insider knowledge of US military actions that were supposedly going to depress Enron stock to zero. Funny, I thought it was the revelation of accounting shenanigans that did that.

But no matter how many times the url for the hapless Barbara Boxer's chart gets posted here, the facts are not going to change. Which are, that two of the three sales took place BEFORE Sept. 11th, and the third took place starting Oct. 24th, which is nearly three weeks AFTER the bombing of Afghanistan started. Meaning that anyone with a newspaper or television knew about it by the time White sold his last stocks.

Further, right there on the chart you provided for us, Dave, the stock was trading about $35 the day the bombing began, and White's waiting three weeks cost him $21 per share or, over $4 million.

Perhaps I'm soft on bumbling criminals?

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 8, 2002 12:47 PM

Mr. Anon, shouldn't the most important thing be to get the facts straight, first?

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 8, 2002 12:52 PM

I may be missing the point, Patrick. That's why I asked about phone calls. Obviously phone calls were made, as were stock sales. That's what I care about, and Krugman pointed out.

I do not recall Krugman writing about White knowing in February about the impending collapse. What I clearly recall is that Krugman wrote that White had contact with Enron executives and sold shares (and why would he do that?). Feel free to quote Krugman here, I'll check it out.

The fact of the Enron contacts and stock sales alone ought to make us very suspicious. How about an independent counsel with a hefty budget?

Posted by: Wolf on October 8, 2002 03:04 PM

Wolf, how can you say this: "I do not recall Krugman writing about White knowing in February...."?

I just got through quoting him in an earlier post, note the first three words:

" In February 2001.... [White's] e-mailed response summed up the whole strategy: 'Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q.'

Not to mention that you've just completely ignored my two recitations of how flawed the logic is regarding the telephone calls (most came AFTER he had sold all his stock).

BTW, the Independent Counsel Law has expired.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 8, 2002 05:14 PM

Heh.

Meanwhile... so far, I haven't seen anyone actually dispute Krugman's charges beyond their own spin. Just that his sources don't want to go on the record. Still a pretty disgusting whiff of impropriety, at best. Didn't Bush claim he was going to avoid that?

I'm glad Krugman is being held to a higher standard. I just wish White was held to a standard nearly as high.

Posted by: Dave Romm on October 8, 2002 06:01 PM

The authenticity of the email will be verified, but not for months or maybe years.

White will have left the administration and taken a lucrative job at Halliburton where he will set up great deals in post-Saddam Iraq.

No one outside blogtopia will care.

Posted by: BJ on October 8, 2002 08:05 PM

White could have known that his division was based on a house of cards, yet not known that the whole company was facing impending doom. That doesn't make it any less damning.

So your argument also comes down to saying that, since he was in operations and not finance, he didn't know that the division that he was heading was committing massive fraud in place of actual profits?

Posted by: Adam on October 8, 2002 08:52 PM

Dave Romm isn't looking very hard if he hasn't seen the TWO instances of my pointing out that the information Dave himself provided us, Barbara Boxer's silly chart, has completely destroyed Krugman's charges that White's February e-mail proved that he conspired with other Enron insiders to sell their stock at "good prices" to duped outsiders. For the third time, White sold the bulk of his stock in late October at about $14 per share, had he sold it at the time of the (alleged, but unsubtantiated) e-mail, he could have gotten as much as $80.

But I'm the last guy you want to claim is holding Krugman to a higher standard, since I'm the proprietor of the Krugman-Coulter Fact Checking Derby, and am scrupulously fair. Here's Krugman's own entry (on his MIT website):

" Ann Coulter's book Slander concludes with a flat lie designed to play into cultural stereotypes: she claims that the Times didn't have a front-page story on the death of Dale Earnhardt...."

Actually, that's an error, not a "flat lie", as the story was actually below the fold, and the headline only referred to a Stock Car Star. Which headline brought this deserved ridicule from Christopher Caldwell, at the time:

>>I love that "stock car star"–as if to say, "Well, you wouldn’t recognize his name, but take my word for it, a lot of people will." God knows who writes the Times’ headlines, but it’s probable the one they had in mind was more along the lines of: "Inexplicably Treasured Cracker with Mustache Immolated in Bizarre Folk Ritual." <<

But, let's play according to Krugman's rules, if Coulter's error, which did not even harm her larger point, is "a flat lie", then Krugman's false statements, such as:

"The sender of that blunt e-mail sold $12 million in stocks just before they became worthless.", is a much bigger "flat lie", because the truth does destroy his larger point.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 9, 2002 07:41 AM

Adam's: " So your argument also comes down to saying that, since he was in operations and not finance, he didn't know that the division that he was heading was committing massive fraud in place of actual profits?", is yet another logical fallacy. I've forgotten the Latin (cartus ante equus?), but a charge is not true just because it has been made. It is up to the one making the charge to provide the evidence.

And posting a news story about Andy Fastow (CFO) being indicted is not evidence against Tom White. Especially since White's background does not include, afaik, any training in finance. White's resume does mention a Master's (at least I think that's what it is) from some U. S. Army institution, in Logistics. Which General Omar Bradley considered the most important thing to the success of a military campaign.

Bradley made that remark in his autobiography, in a complaint about how ridiculous it was that "history's mightiest military endeavor" was constrained by a shortage of LSTs. Resulting in delays, and a scaling down, of the invasions of Normandy and Southern France. White got his Enron job because of his skill in making sure there were enough (metaphorical) LSTs to carry the energy to the users. He could easily accomplish that without a clue as to how the projects were financed.

Posted by: on October 9, 2002 08:12 AM