Will Republicans Condemn Oil Execs for Lying to Congress?
Published November 16, 2005
Today's Washington Post reports that a White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force in 2001. The revelation is an interesting one, given that as recently as last week, industry officials testifying before Congress denied that such a meeting had taken place.
According to Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ, who initially asked five oil executives whether any of their companies had participated in the energy task force, "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."
Last week, "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."
The newly discovered document asserts the contrary. According to the Post, "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."
Additionally, the General Accounting Office has found that Chevron "gave detailed energy-policy recommendations" to the task force. And, according to a "person familiar with the task force's work," the vice president held a private meeting with BP's CEO, John Browne.
But Browne and the other oil robber barons have little to worry about, for they never swore to tell Congress the truth, thanks to the hard work of a few dedicated Republicans.
Consider this exchange from Dana Milbank's column or watch the video (Dollar amounts noted in the section below indicate Big Oil's contribution to each senator):
When Energy Committee Chair Ted Stevens (R-AK, $102,190) announced that he would not require the executives to give their testimony under oath, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA, $9,400) asked for a vote on the issue. Stevens shot back: "There will be no vote . . . It's the decision of the chairman, and I have made that decision."page 1 | 2
- Will Republicans Condemn Oil Execs for Lying to Congress?
- Published: November 16, 2005
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Igor Volsky
- Igor Volsky's BC Writer page
- Igor Volsky's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
OMG the white house asked ENERGY COMPANY EXECUTIVES to participate in a task force on ENERGY POLICY! What's next, asking DOCTORS for input on HEALTH CARE. What are they, INSANE!
Dave
One may argue it takes a thief to catch a thief, but in this case, the thieves are all in it together to screw everyone else. Not insanity: connivance & collusion.
Dave: did any of the other stakeholders in the energy policy debate get invited to supply their input to the Vice-President of the United States? Nothing is ever said about that consideration.
OMG the White House is holding a task force meeting on fuel efficiency. Watch out, they're inviting car manufacturers. The Bastards!
Dave
Yes, but would they invite other stakeholders in the issue of fuel efficiency? Hmmm?
Once I knew that they testified NOT under oath, I disregarded the hearings entirely. Why would anyone give them any heed? Obviously, the hearings just become an opportunity for oil company propaganda and congressional posturing.
The problem isn't that oil companies met with Cheney. The problem is that they lied about it. Repeatedly. Lucky for them they weren't under oath, but the fact that they weren't just proves there is a connection between GOPsters and Big Oil. It all stinks.
Dave, r u serious? If it is not a big deal, why was it done in secrecy? If it is not a big deal, why did they lie and say they were not involved as recently as last week? If it is not a big deal, why lie about it in front of congress?
I mean come on. And if you think it is such a good idea to have energy executives involverd in energy policy then I am sure you would also think it is a good idea to have environmentalist and the like? Unfortunately they were not asked.
Maybe that's why our energy policy was such a joke and completely oil reliant.
It amazes me the length that defenders of this Administration will go to defend it. Didn't you ever play connect the dots growing up. It ain't that difficult.
And do you not find it particularly strange that the executives were not asked to take an oath before testifying? It is actually one of the funniest things I have seen/heard in a long while. Of course, you still can't lie in front of Congress so we shall see if charges are broght. I'm not holding my breath.
No, Nalle.
It is a problem because it's a continuation of the Bush administration's policy of having industry representatives set government policy for their industries.
Besides external control as in this instance, Bush has appointed over 100 lobbyists to oversee the industries they were lobbying for.
Government of business, by business, for ...
B U S I N E S S ! ! ! ! !
OMG the administration is forming a policy on fluffy bunnies and they only met with representatives of Ty, Gund and Stieff and didn't meet with one action figure manufacturer. It's a conspiracy!
Dave
BTW, I'm writing my own post on this subject. If you want to me to be serious, read that.
Dave
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/39617)
These are the kinds of corporate pigs - hogs, rather - who should be thrown to the mobs to be ripped apart, together with their congressional whores.