Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Remember last week when CEOs of Exxon, Conoco, Shell and BP testified before Congress that they didn't meet with Cheney's energy task force? They were lying. Good thing they weren't under oath   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 426
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

21246 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Nov 2005 at 9:23 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



426 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-11-16 10:44:58 AM  
..."just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it."

/wonders if the Administration is taking advice from fictional tv characters
 
2005-11-16 10:48:05 AM  
WilliamShatnerDoppleGanger
When is this sh*t going to stop?

When people start voting based on performance instead of distractive talking points.

THE GAY MENACE WILL DESTROY SOCIETY!
Quick, undercut after-school programs.
 
2005-11-16 10:48:56 AM  
21-7-b

I don't recall the post of mine to which you allude. I wish I did. I'm flattered that it made such a lasting impression with you.
 
2005-11-16 10:49:07 AM  
Jesus farking Christ, how can you have someone testify and not have them under oath. What the fark is the point of having them testify if they're not under oath?

Every damn day I hear something from this administration that just about makes me go off the deep end.
 
2005-11-16 10:49:12 AM  
My point, for the dimwitted among you...



What the hell does "point" mean?
 
2005-11-16 10:49:47 AM  
HappyDaddy, the battles you choose speak volumes about your character. Some of the most powerful people in the World lie about a meeting with the President of the United States, and you choose to complain about the doubtfulness of theoretical integrity concerning posters on Fark. You might not defend lying to Congress, but when offered a choice between expressing outrage about it and nitpicking at (again, theoretical) opinions of posters concerning Clinton, you expose yourself for what you really are

This is absolutely my last acknowledgment of your presence. You and your kind have been a blight on my party for too long.
 
2005-11-16 10:51:30 AM  
The difference, HappyDaddy, is that the HMO's weren't thrown the option of invading Canada in order to divy up their health care system.
 
2005-11-16 10:52:02 AM  
Dnico

Wait, so the vice prez has a private meeting after 4 years ago and now everyone is crying foul?

Why?
Every reason i have read on here is pure hearsay! Noone know's who was in the meeting's, what they were about, or even for.
You just don't know, so stop guessing!

Just when I think I can't take being Republican I simply come on fark and read a few hundred post's telling me how OTHER people should act.


1) Many cried foul then, and filed numerous suits to gain access to information pertaining to the meeting. Why? Because some of us believe in transparency in government... it serves us and ought operate solely under watchful eyes of the electorate. To say that we are only crying foul now is quite disingenous.

2) We were crying foul last week because nearly everyone who goes before the senate takes the oath. The truth is useful, all else is crap. We noticed that the senate felt oaths were key to such worthy investigations as steroids in baseball, and the hearing in which children with juvenile diabetes testified that having diabetes sucks... but Sen. Stevens strenuously and petulantly objected to the very concept of putting oil company executives under oath.

3) We are crying foul now because subsequent to Sen. Stevens unilateral decision not to place the executives under oath, said executives wasted taxpayers money (via the Senates time), and blatantly lied in an effort to use the US Senate as their own propoganda machines wherein they attempted to blame the citizens of the US for the lack of refining capacity, despite the industry choosing to shed nearly 45 percent of that capacity since the oil boom of the 80's ended. They went on to rail against environmental controls as a key factor they can't get new refineries up and running, despite having necessary environmental permits already in place for refineries they have idled of their own volition.

4) You're absolutely right, we don't know what went on in those meetings. On a regular basis, the American people are excluded from the decision making processes in creating the policies that govern us. We should neither guess, nor should we have to guess... the truth, especially when it comes to how our government reaches conclusions ought not be a matter of chance, of leaks, or of rumor-mongering.

5) If you think requiring people to tell the truth when standing before the Senate is just too far out... how can you honestly say it motivates you to be part of a party that wants to regulate how you behave in your own home?
 
2005-11-16 10:53:15 AM  
HappyDaddy

I'm not sure what it is that I am supposed to be spinning or dissembling about. I haven't defended lying to Congress and I haven't commented on the work of the Task Force except to say that it would be bizarre for it not to have met with oil industry representatives.

That's because you're too much of a coward to take a stance. It's the trademark of a wingnut troll - criticize someone yet refuse to defend an alternative or defend anything at all. Please do tell us what you think.

And yet you wonder why you have no ethos.
 
2005-11-16 10:53:45 AM  
Actually we do have a pretty good idea who was in the meeting:

""*Alan Huffman, a Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with Phillips, confirmed meeting with the task force staff. "We met in the Executive Office Building, if I remember correctly," he said.

*Exxon spokesman said the company stood by chief executive Lee R. Raymond's statement in the hearing.

*In a brief phone interview, former Exxon vice president James Rouse, the official named in the White House document, denied the meeting took place. "That must be inaccurate and I don't have any comment beyond that," said Rouse, now retired.

*Chevron said its executives did not meet with the task force but confirmed that it sent President Bush recommendations in a letter.

*The document was based on records kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex.

*Most meetings were with Andrew Lundquist, the task force's executive director, and Cheney aide Karen Y. Knutson.

*According to the White House document, Rouse (Exxon) met with task force staff members on Feb. 14, 2001.

*On March 21, they met with Archie Dunham, who was chairman of Conoco.

*On April 12, according to the document, task force staff members met with Conoco official Huffman and two officials from the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Wayne Gibbens and Alby Modiano.

*On April 17, task force staff members met with Royal Dutch/Shell Group's chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Shell Oil chairman Steven Miller and two others.

*On March 22, staff members met with BP regional president Bob Malone, chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham Barr and Deb Beaubien.""

More here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR200511150184 2.html
 
2005-11-16 10:53:51 AM  
I was watching Faux News the day those execs "testified" before the committee... Neil Cavuto was all agog about how "it was amazing that when these executives are testifying, the price of gas has been going down for some time." (Or something to that effect.) Somehow, miraculously, he viewed these two events as utterly unrelated. I was stunned that he didn't seem to even consider that possibility. Or maybe he's just too addicted to the Kool-Aid to risk losing a sip.

But, seriously, how many people think Alberto's Justic Dep't is going to investigate these oil execs for lying before Congress?

/BRING IN FITZGERALD!!!!
//HE'LL DRAG STEVENS' ARSE INTO THE GRAND JURY ROOM!
///FARK LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY!!

no, i never plan to watch Faux News again. The fact that they have a commentator who thinks one of our most beautiful cities deserves to be attacked is just too much for me.
 
2005-11-16 10:54:49 AM  
HappyDaddy [TotalFark]

My point, for the dimwitted among you, has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of the operation of the Energy Task Force and the Health Care Task Force but with the hypocrisy of criticizing the one but not the other.

I'm not sure what it is that I am supposed to be spinning or dissembling about. I haven't defended lying to Congress and I haven't commented on the work of the Task Force except to say that it would be bizarre for it not to have met with oil industry representatives. Really, you people do work yourselves into such a lather when you see my name that you apparently lose what modest comprehension ability you otherwise had.


I agree with you, both should have been fully transparent. We don't necessarily need names as to who says what at these big-table discussions, but the American people deserve to know whether their policies have been formed in a logical and intellectually honest way.
 
2005-11-16 10:55:10 AM  
Magic 8 Ball says:
 
2005-11-16 10:55:51 AM  
WilliamShatnerDoppleGanger
When is this sh*t going to stop?

Answer: When the American people get fed up enough to get off their asses and *do something about it*, and not a day sooner.

Waiting for the foxes to realize their civic duties and start guarding the hen house ain't gonna cut it, folks.
 
2005-11-16 10:58:30 AM  
Oh, I think my American-public memory vaguely remembers this. I vaguely remember Mr. Cheney arguing that releasing the names of attendees at the White House "energy" meetings would destroy the very fabric of executive privilege. I was supposed to forget about that, especially around the time of that Enron thingie, right...?

/Nevermind, Oprah and Springer are on....
 
2005-11-16 10:58:53 AM  
philphil: Wheee, it makes me happy that my congresscritter (Cantwell) did her best to stand up to the arse in charge.

It was also a pretty damned strange little conversation, too.

/senator pro tempore of a student gov't
 
2005-11-16 10:59:29 AM  
Professor_UNIX: CEOs rarely know what's going on at such a low layer of business where an oil company would be interacting with the White House on a strategic energy policy so I can't say they were openly lying. They may just honestly have not known about it. What's the big deal?


Haha. Higher 'layer' of business must be with our visitors from outer space. Meetings at the White House obviously are just attended by the fat guy from the sales office in Peoria.
 
2005-11-16 10:59:37 AM  
i thought, when all else failed, you fell back on the 'march of modern nihilism' argument by default, happydaddy. i didn't realize that we were still dismissing critics of the administration (on this topic) as dimwitted or hypocrites. i'll put the nihilism argument back in the box until we really need it
 
2005-11-16 11:01:10 AM  

1) Many cried foul then, and filed numerous suits to gain access to information pertaining to the meeting. Why? Because some of us believe in transparency in government... it serves us and ought operate solely under watchful eyes of the electorate. To say that we are only crying foul now is quite disingenous.

2) We were crying foul last week because nearly everyone who goes before the senate takes the oath. The truth is useful, all else is crap. We noticed that the senate felt oaths were key to such worthy investigations as steroids in baseball, and the hearing in which children with juvenile diabetes testified that having diabetes sucks... but Sen. Stevens strenuously and petulantly objected to the very concept of putting oil company executives under oath.


What do you expect when the Repubs are in charge. Put everyone under oath but their own. So this way if their caught lying, they cant be charged.

Ahhh, you gotta love Cheney for being a greedy, selfish rotten scumbag.
 
2005-11-16 11:01:21 AM  
Legalize It
The difference, HappyDaddy, is that the HMO's weren't thrown the option of invading Canada in order to divy up their health care system.

Someone give this guy a deed, 'cause he just pwned Happydaddy.
 
2005-11-16 11:01:24 AM  
firefly212

That is a really good post about why honesty in business and politics matter. Of course it is irrelevant too. Why? The reason that the oil companies and other massive corporations get away with what they do is because they are smarter than us, and they have more money than us, and have little motivation to be ethical. They know who's palm to grease in the government to get tax shelters, and they have tons and tons of money to give to campaigns.

Don't worry, you and I can profit from them too. If you have a 401(k) account then most likely you have a Index Fund. That Index Fund has energy companies in its portfolio. So we are all in this together. It makes none of it right, but the vast majority of the people in America who have any investments at all are making money off the oil companies too.

In fact if you want to make even more money, investing in an energy mutual fund isn't a bad idea. Before you deride me for being evil, just use the money you make from the fund to pay for the higher gas prices. That way you are just using their money to pay for their product.
 
2005-11-16 11:02:31 AM  
I would have been more surprised if they had been truthful.
 
2005-11-16 11:05:50 AM  
Dnico

Wait, so the vice prez has a private meeting after 4 years ago and now everyone is crying foul?

Why?



"Transparency is critical for modern democracies in order for the people to have trust in the government that guides them." -George W. Bush

/Is this a lie?
//or is Bush a liar?
 
2005-11-16 11:06:29 AM  
PeopleFirst

What's the big deal? People lie all of the time about money. These executives were just trying to protect their families, the companies they work very hard for, and the honorable V.P. What they did was no different than what a lot of people do every day, which is tell a small lie about meeting somebody that has to do with money. Besides, when did making money become a crime?


I'd like to commend you on your first attempt at trolling? Trolling serves an important purpose here on fark, without trolls and hacks on both sides of issues, people might get overwhelmed if they saw multiple contiguous well-reasoned points. They would be simply mind-boggled by how people like Weaver and I can have generally the same goals, yet take very different approaches to how we would ideally reach those goals. They would be absolutely dumbfounded to find that based on different social priorities, people can use parallel logic and reach vastly different conclusions. I thank you heartily for providing us with a gentle reminder as to just how many children have been left behind.

1) Lying is wrong.
2) I doubt your claim that a lot of people lie every day about their meetings to get money.
3) Making money isn't wrong. That said there are activities that are wrong that also make money (see: collusion, human trafficking, extortion, racketeering)
 
2005-11-16 11:08:30 AM  
PeopleFirst: So we are all in this together. It makes none of it right, but the vast majority of the people in America who have any investments at all are making money off the oil companies too.

I really can't tell if you're joking or not. I hope to Christ that you're not OK with all that ...

/let's all buy stock in Lockheed, then invade Iran! We'll all make a killing!
 
2005-11-16 11:09:22 AM  
LocalCynic: And yet you wonder why you have no ethos.


By definition everyone has an "ethos."
 
2005-11-16 11:12:33 AM  
I listened to that hearing and figured something like this would happen. They argued so strongly about not wanting to put these people under oath.
 
2005-11-16 11:13:01 AM  
I like how PeopleFirst thinks that energy executives will be unethical to their customers and government but thinks they will be fair and honest with their shareholders. Somebody sell this guy a bridge, fast.
 
2005-11-16 11:14:54 AM  
Impeachment Procedure

Im thinking of setting up a form to automatically send a letter to your State Representatives letting them know what you, as an individual, feel should be done about situations such as impeachments. Any thoughts?
 
2005-11-16 11:15:39 AM  
krysith

Well, keep in mind that the shareholders are the ones who pay the exec's salary and get to fire them if they screw up. The shareholder is the CEO's boss.

Then again, in your own life, who're you more honest to? Your boss, your customers, or the government.

I think we'd all answer "no".
 
2005-11-16 11:16:10 AM  
HappyDaddy

By definition everyone has an "ethos."

The ignore button disagrees.

Go home, Gorgias.
 
2005-11-16 11:16:31 AM  
Legalize It: The difference, HappyDaddy, is that the HMO's weren't thrown the option of invading Canada in order to divy up their health care system.

Interesting that the analogue hasn't happened in Iraq either.
 
2005-11-16 11:17:00 AM  
spazzhappy

Is the prez the only official that can be impeached? Or can the veep and various cabinet members and congressmen be impeached as well?
 
2005-11-16 11:18:14 AM  
LocalCynic: The ignore button disagrees.

It'll cost you five bucks a month for that button. Oh, and I am home.
 
2005-11-16 11:18:16 AM  
Now aren't we all glad Bush had his staff go to "ethical meetings"? Too bad the ones teaching ethics are the ones that believe the truth is over-rated.

Whats sad is that had the oil execs said they were at that meeting, then there would not be that much of a outlash. What do you think the execs, Cheney and Sen. Stevens (R-Alaska) have to say now? NOT A DAMN THING!

How sad that Cheney was involved in the Plame case, and now this. Yet Bush will look the other way. Its convienant that Bush is in Japan telling the wonders of democracy. What rich irony that is.

Again, this administration has managed to make us look like fools in front of the whole world. Who would take us seriously anymore? Who would think we have values and traditions. Didn't Bush say he wants to restore value's to the White House? If its THESE values, then I cry.
 
2005-11-16 11:19:02 AM  
HappyDaddy

Because Iraq's oil industry is in shambles and the reception wasn't the flowers and dancing that was expected. I don't doubt that the magical, alternate-world Iraq got shafted by the oil companies. They as much as told the American people that the Iraqi oil was going to pay for the invasion somehow, and likely these oil execs were going to middleman that process.
 
2005-11-16 11:19:39 AM  
Let me have a crack at this, okay?

Upon assuming office, we have President Bush and Vice President Cheney almost immediately setting up this "secret" energy task force. It is so secret that we are not allowed to hear what was discussed or who was present. There are rumors that among the many heads of the oil industry one of the people in attendance is Ken Lay of Enron. You might recall that the rolling blackouts that plagued California were later attributed to manipulation by Enron and that this is one of the issues George Bush campaigned very heavily on.

That seemed a little strange considering they were setting an important public policy that was part of the foundation of George Bush's 2000 presidential campaign.

Next up we hear rumors that there is a international gas pipeline that has been stalled by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Coincidently, this pipeline is critical to Enron's energy plans.

Also rumored is that the PNAC plan for the US to dominate the Middle East is being discussed but there is not way to substantiate the rumor. You will note that there is discussion here that coincidently a map of Iraq was at this meeting but we certainly don't know why.

We do know that there was an attempt by then outgoing President Clinton to warn incoming President Bush of terrorist threats that were apparently ignored. In fact, there is one memo (delivered by the qualified Harriet Meirs) that suggests commercial jetliners might be used to launch an attack. There is also reports that an FBI agent along with some other intelligence agencies had information that just such an attack might be being planned or in fact, was underway. Strangely enough, when these competent agents turned in their reports they were ignored.

But best of all we have this rumored quote from PNAC that, perhaps they needed a new Pearl Harbor to jump start their plan.

Now, I wouldn't call this any kind of evidence, certainly not a smoking gun but I will say that it becomes apparent that we need to be taking a very close look at this situation so we can make sure history doesn't get written in such a way as to besmirch our president and vice president.
Oh, TPOJ - Good Job! That is the kind of Republican I remember. We oftentimes disagreed on what might be the correct path to follow but there was never a doubt that America came first. I support your crusade, please do what you need to do to stop this insanity.
 
2005-11-16 11:20:25 AM  
NYguy

I think he meant these values: $$$$$$$
 
2005-11-16 11:21:09 AM  
krysith
I like how PeopleFirst thinks that energy executives will be unethical to their customers and government but thinks they will be fair and honest with their shareholders. Somebody sell this guy a bridge, fast.

No kidding. I wonder how much (or little) of these record profits will actually be paid as dividends.
 
2005-11-16 11:21:10 AM  
spazzhappy, won't do anything. Repubs would never impeach him. But they should worry since their own consitiants are getting angry and could cost them their OWN elections. If Repubs have half a brain they'd stay away from Bush and his admin and try to impeach him.

Every week 1 or 2 scandals/investigations/lies comes out. And every week, Bush supporters say "But Clinton got a BJ and lied"
 
2005-11-16 11:21:40 AM  
I think everyone who voted for Bush should have to pay 18.00/gallon at the pump. The rest of us get to go back to the buck-fifty a gallon days. Sound fair? You voted for it, you got it.
 
2005-11-16 11:21:48 AM  
In order to restore values to The Whitehouse, President Bush needs to rid it and himself of his version of Christianity.
 
2005-11-16 11:23:06 AM  
firefly212

It actually was my first attempt at trolling. Alas, it didn't work out the way I would have liked it too.

But on to my second post. I'm a cynic on a few issues and this is one of them. I'm 31 and in my lifetime I've heard almost every person I've known (who didn't work for an energy company) complain about energy prices and oil. I've been through Republican presidencies, senate and house control and Democrat presidencies, senate and house control. Nothing changes. Sure the GOP is "ethically challenged" when it comes to the oil companies, but from 1994-96 the Democrats had control and nothing was done then. The oil companies were the same then as they are now. The only difference is that they have a friend in the VP.

Besides, what can be done if the government is in cahoots with them? Even Gore made money on Occidental Petroleum when he owned some stock.

Also, there is little or no motivation for companies to be ethical. If anyone here on Fark has worked for a large company you will know what I am talking about. The treatment of the employees at times is despicable. The problem is how do you make companies become more ethical? So far the only thing that has worked is throwing a couple executives in jail who obviously ripped off millions.

So the problem is that the Oil companies are intertwined with the government and our economy.
 
2005-11-16 11:23:41 AM  
I'm glad to see some of my truly conservative minded farkers are starting to wake up. this administration has done more to damage our country and US interests abroad than osama himself could have ever dreamed. I'm dead serious these people have to go NOW. the sooner the better. level headed fiscal conservatives (not the batshiat crazy social cons or the evil minded neo cons) need to step up and take their party back.

to all the republicans who are awake now please do what you can to wake up the republicans around you. take your party back.

I don't know what the hell ya'll were thinking. it is scary to watch, frankly. what's important now though is that you realize that the w team is bad for the country. you don't have to go out and get a hillary 08 bumper sticker to put over your w/cheney sticker, but please put something over it. i'm not sure what the right answer is, but most sane people are aware that it's not w.

/how'd you like to be one of those guys drivin' a big truck with w/cheney stickers all over it about now?
//it's like the w team had some sort of mind control device or something. damn man. shake it off!
///sorry hardcore bush fans your credibility is in the crapper for a while. you've earned it. take your medicine.
 
2005-11-16 11:24:08 AM  
PeopleFirst

firefly212

That is a really good post about why honesty in business and politics matter. Of course it is irrelevant too. Why? The reason that the oil companies and other massive corporations get away with what they do is because they are smarter than us, and they have more money than us, and have little motivation to be ethical.


I agree (except that they are smarter), I think oaths and being under the penalty of perjury is a good motivator.

They know who's palm to grease in the government to get tax shelters, and they have tons and tons of money to give to campaigns.
Yet for all the media buys, they can't vote. Educated citizenry is a great antedote to propaganda.

Don't worry, you and I can profit from them too. If you have a 401(k) account then most likely you have a Index Fund. That Index Fund has energy companies in its portfolio. So we are all in this together. It makes none of it right, but the vast majority of the people in America who have any investments at all are making money off the oil companies too.

Oh gee thanks, because I didn't learn anything about these newfangled stock markets when I was getting my MA in Economics back when dinosaurs roamed the land. I've recently started back at academia again to get my PhD, maybe they will cover it there. I'm an independent policy analyst, I don't carry a 401k, and I don't own any index funds. We're not all in this together, and some of us aren't particularly worried about making fractionally more money by investing in an inherently inefficient energy market. The vast majority of people in America have a diversified portfolio such that they are more negatively affected by higher energy costs driving down margins in all other sectors, but that was a darn nice try. Maybe you should recap how index funds work again, this time considering how many of those companies need trucks to deliver their products, how many of them sell products where fuel is a complimentary good, and how many of them make products in multiple places, thus making their marginal costs dependent on fuel prices.

In fact if you want to make even more money, investing in an energy mutual fund isn't a bad idea. Before you deride me for being evil, just use the money you make from the fund to pay for the higher gas prices. That way you are just using their money to pay for their product.
Like I said, I'm doing quite fine with companies that aren't dependent on oil cartels, companies that don't get inflated with terrorism premiums, and companies that generally, have as little dependence on oil as possible. Oil markets right now, profitable as they may be, are not being run in an efficient manner, and TBF, I think the terrorism premium is overdone, and generally speaking, you (or I) could do better by finding better market sectors, and finding individually good companies within those sectors.

And for all that jazz... lying is still wrong, and it's not only the right, but the duty of Americans to demand transparency from our government.
 
2005-11-16 11:27:31 AM  
So, when does Cheney go duck hunting with John Roberts to pave the way for getting this swept under the rug, like he did with Scalia?
 
2005-11-16 11:28:31 AM  
That's VICE President, Mr. The_Pole_Of_Justice, sir.
 
2005-11-16 11:28:44 AM  
Pxtl: Is the prez the only official that can be impeached? Or can the veep and various cabinet members and congressmen be impeached as well?

Article II, Section 4, U.S. Constitution - all of the above except Congressmen, though they can be expelled by their own body.
 
2005-11-16 11:28:45 AM  
I guess my trolling worked better than I thought!

I know that some in the oil companies are highly unethical (the guy welding the rig is just a worker--not talking about him). But how do you make them ethical? What do you do? Throw the executives in jail? Break them up and let the government run them socialist or communist style? Send them to ethics 101?
 
2005-11-16 11:30:51 AM  
HappyDaddy

I've got a PNAC, an O'Neill, and several lying Oil Co. executives telling me I'm right

What have you? Just your pollyannish faith in the integrity of this admiministration.
 
Displayed 50 of 426 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report