Shocking New About Dick!

[shereads]

Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; Page A01


A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

Honestly, if you can't trust Dick Cheney to run an Energy Task Force uncompromised by selfish interests, who can you trust?

Despair...

 

[elsol]

Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force



Honestly, if you can't trust Dick Cheney to run an Energy Task Force uncompromised by selfish interests, who can you trust?

Despair...

You can trust me...

"Oh... I'm sorry! I didn't mean to poke THAT hole... I just missed... bad aim and all, you understand... I mean if I can't pee IN that big white thing try to image how hard this is... DAMN! I did it again didn't I?"

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[shereads]

shocking news, continued...

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is not noted in the document.

The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. "The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force," Lautenberg said.

Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on the document. She said that the courts have upheld "the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality."

The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.

Alan Huffman, who was 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.

A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the chief executive, James J. Mulva, had been unaware that Conoco officials met with task force staff when he testified at the hearing. The spokesman said that Mulva was chief executive of Phillips in 2001 before the merger and that nobody from Phillips met with the task force.

Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts 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.

Ronnie Chappell, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment on the task force meetings. Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for Shell, said she did not know whether Shell officials met with the task force, but they often meet members of the administration. Chevron said its executives did not meet with the task force but confirmed that it sent President Bush recommendations in a letter.

The person familiar with the task force's work, who requested anonymity out of concern about retribution, said the document was based on records kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex. This person said 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 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.

Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: "Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001?" When there was no response, Lautenberg added: "The meeting . . . "

"No," said Raymond.

"No," said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.

"We did not, no," Mulva said.

"To be honest, I don't know," said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari, who came to the job in August 2001. "I wasn't here then."

"But your company was here," Lautenberg replied.

"Yes," Pillari said.

Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since earlier this year, answered last. "Not to my knowledge," he said.

 

[rgraham666]

I've known about this for ages.

I gather some reporters have asked the Vice President to release the records of that meeting.

And he's given them the finger.

So much easier to avoid the justice system when you're in charge of it.

 

[shereads]

I've known about this for ages.

I gather some reporters have asked the Vice President to release the records of that meeting.

And he's given them the finger.

So much easier to avoid the justice system when you're in charge of it.

The Supreme Court supported the VP's right to keep the Energy Task Force confidential and the ruling had nothing to do with the friendship between Scalia and the Vice President who, btw, are skilled sportsmen as evidenced by their take-down of some 115 non-wild pheasant during a hunting trip they shared a few weeks prior to the ruling.

You are too cynical, rg.

 

[amicus]

Sighs...how about a little Camembert with the Whine?

The Senate Energy and Commerce Committee: Energy Prices and Profits...

A public hearing last week, broadcast on CSPAN2, I think, included representatives from:

ExxonMobil
ConocoPhilips
BPAmerica
ChevronTexaco
Shell

Female Democratic Senators, Boxer and Feinstein, embarassed themselves, again, as usual, displaying total ignorance of the energy field and blathering the same anti Bush/Cheney rhetoric, without substantiation, as is seen in this thread and in general by the Left.

Had anyone cared to take the time to view and listen to this public hearing, it would have been quite clear from whence cameth the ire of the democrat.

Private Industry and the Bush/Cheney administration have completely taken the lead in the fields of environment, epa protections, clean air, clean water, clean coal gassification, low carbon and low sulfur coal utilization; alternative sources of energy, such as wind and solar, methane, new generation nuclear and a host of other ongoing active programs while the left still whines about Halliburton and big oil.

While the left dithers about criticizing each and every action by the Bush administration, tremendous activity is being taken (not just talked about) by those who actually produce, transport and distribute energy.

The left has so curtailed energy exploration and development in the continental United States, that all of the above mentioned major oil companies have moved the bulk of their activities to other areas around the world.

In other countries it takes approximately four years and several billion dollars invested to bring a new refining plant online. In the United States, it takes double that amount of time and money because of 'access, licensing and permit search' procedures.

These restrictions, unless removed or relaxed, will continue to curtail production in the United States, requiring continued high priced imports of energy in an increasingly competitive world market.

The left is penalizing the poor and middle class with higher gasoline, heating oil, natural gas and electric utility costs by continuing to restrict and limit energy production.

The innocent ignorance such as displayed on this thread, and the unbridled hatred of the free enterprise system, is cause and method for continuing to make the poor even poorer.

Good going left wing!

amicus.....

 

[Guest]

people, people...
you simply can NOT make a good lip balm without petrolium...

 

[cloudy]

people, people...
you simply can NOT make a good lip balm without petrolium...

that damn chapstick is all pervasive!

 

[Huckleman2000]

that damn chapstick is all pervasive!

I KNEW there was a simple explanation for this!
Fucking chapstick

 

[Huckleman2000]

Speaking of shocking Dick...

Shocking Dick

 

[amicus]

As it is always blantantly obvious...those attempts to misdirect, corrupt and hijack a comment or a thread, perhaps those of you who use such tactics should keep an amply supply of KY warming oil on hand and apply it LIBERALLY to both ends to facilitate your efforts.


chuckles....grease up!

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Look, I know all you liberals mean well, but you gotta lay off Dick Cheney. Sure he's an self-righteous, opinionated, far-far-right asshole. But if he ever gets sacked, who'd run the country? I mean, can you imagine George Jr. trying to think for himself and make decisions?

Yeah, I know; it's a damn scary thought.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[amicus]

Youse guys are really funny...no...I mean it!

Who would you have? Kerry the guy who lives off women and flip flops as is necessitated? Baby faced Edwards? Lieberman? You don't really want the nagging Hillary to fail at socialized medicine again?

Or maybe you want the good old days of the Kennedy's, yeah those Bay of Pig and nationalize industry Kennedy's, or Good Old LBJ who picked a beagle up by the ears, had an ugly wife and daughters and micromanaged Vietnam until it was lost?

Or maybe a Hubert Humphrey or an old weeping Muskie. or the promiscuous Gary Hart? Maybe Howard (hoooooyahhhhhhh!) Dean?

Or do you have to look all the way back to Harry Assed Truman, the Habadashier, who didn't even know about 'Little Boy" the Manhattan Project, until FDR was pokin up daisies?

Or is it the Socialist, Franklin Delano Roosevelt you really yearn for? Who had most of his grandiose schemes ruled unconstitutional and kept the country in depression until he finally managed to let Pearl Harbor ease us into war.

Democrats are nothing and nowhere.

Now....good for business, good for the country...and good for freedom and free enterprise on a global scale, I would LOVE to see Mr. Cheney and Mr. Gingrich on the ticket for 2008.

It won't happen...but a girl can dream? (thanks to Louise Brown)

amicus...

 

[Subo97]

What? They lied? I stand aghast.

I do remember how much it cost the cigarette executives t lie. And why lie? shouldn't they be as proud of their position as Amicus is?

I think lip balm is is the key. More than once, head laid back, arms akimbo, eyes rolling back in their sockets, verbal skills fluctuating, I have appreciated the enhancement that lip balm brings to that most sublime human interaction known as the blowjob. Chapped lips just cannot compare to the smooth glide that petroleum based enhancement can offer. What are a few extra buck a gallon compared to that?

 

[Burnt_Feathers]

people, people...
you simply can NOT make a good lip balm without petrolium...

You can obtain an effect substitute for Chapstick from a bee's anus. It requires approximately 20 bees' output per lip per hour.

The main disadvantage of this lip balm is, that once you have produced a usable volume of Bee excrement to rid yourself of your chapped lips, you must also contend with bee hives, and possible bee stings.

The same caution, I fear, must also be extended the person about to receive the above mentioned blow job.

 

[Huckleman2000]

ahh! Figured out how to imbed pics.

'Big Dick' Cheney caption contest!

"Would you like that bratwurst in a bun, Mr. Vice President?"

http://www.wonkette.com/images/omg.jpg