When top oil executives appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee earlier this month, committee chair Ted Stevens (R-AK) rejected calls that they be sworn in and forced to testify under oath.
Funny thing about testifying free from any pledge to speak honesty. It makes some people feel free to lie.
And that's what the oil executives did.
During the oath-free testimony, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asked: "Did your company or any representatives in your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force in 2001, the meetings?"
Here's how they answered:
''No," said ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond.
''No," said Chevron chairman David J. O'Reilly.
''We did not, no," said ConocoPhillips chairman James Mulva.
''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.
In truth, each of the companies had participated.
A White House document shows that the company executives met with Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force in 2001. 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 to develop a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
The task force's activities drew allegations by 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 would not release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials.
***
Getting caught lying is always embarrasing.
It was around this time last year that the San Francisco Chronicle revealed leaked testimony from 2003 in which baseball stars Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi admitted to using steroids. That revelation came after Bonds and Giambi, and many other ballplayers, repeatedly told the press that they didn't use steroids. Bonds and Giambi assumed their sealed testimony would never get leaked — that what they said in court testimony would never cross paths with what they said publicly.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
You neglect to mention a few key facts here. For example you gloss over the fact that the executives called before the committee were not the same ones who had gone to the White House, several of whom had retired or left for other jobs. They were also not told in advance that they would be asked about the Energy Task Force meetings, and so had no idea whether their company had participated or not. You also suggest that only the energy companies had input into the energy plan when in fact hundreds of representatives of other companies and environemental groups did actually meet with Task Force staff to discuss their concerns and make suggestions.
For a more balanced assessment of this situation you might want to read the article posted yesterday here on blogcritics.
Dave
2 - Michael
Dave,
You honestly believe Mr. Cheney and the oil companies had the environment in mind at these meetings?
Do you think he was working hard in the interest of the american people or for the executives and stockholders of these companies?
this "democracy" is heavily influenced by those with the most money, not the individual citizen
when we can get by that, i will read you "balanced article".
3 - david r. mark
Dave, the energy executives didn't collectively say: "I don't know." They collectively said, "No."
And any suggestion that environmentalists were part of the task force is just parroting empty spin. If the environmentalists had such great access, why did they sue to get access?
It amazes me how consistently you serve as an apologist for this administration.
4 - Alethinos
Oh please Dave! Where do you think the men sitting before the committee came from - an orbiting ship that beamed them into their positions as CEOs? Of course they know what happened in that meeting!!! What, Cheney hears that the CEO of Exxon has retired, so he throws up his hands and says, "well, they're out of the loop!"
And NO no one but a select few were in the meeting with Cheney. The "task force" was nothing more than a pathetic attempt to placate everyone else...
ODD that Bush was planning to invade Iraq before entering office and immediately after Bush & Co., TOOK office THIS meeting took place...
Alethinos
5 - RogerMDillon
Dave, you defeat your own statements. The question was:
"Did your company or any representatives in your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force in 2001, the meetings?"
You say they "had no idea whether their company had participated or not."
Then that's how they should answer. Only two of the men made statements that agree with your claim. "To be honest, I don't know," said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari and Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who said, "Not to my knowledge."
Those are fine, acceptable answers. The other men said "No." If they didn't know yet answered "No", that's considered a lie.
I'll hold off on checking your "balanced" account.
6 - Nancy
Dave, you have a truly remarkable ability to close your eyes & mind to the Real World & creating a wishful-thinking la-la land to live in. These scumbags can spin all they want; it's doubtful anyone (except Mr. Nalle) will believe their lies, just as fewer & fewer believe the lies of BushCo.
7 - RedTard
This is just another Democratic dog and pony show played up to a liberal media trying to discredit Bush/Cheney. Meeting with the energy industry before creating energy policy is a logical and prudent step.
Your elected representatives voted and approved the energy bill so you have only yourselves to blame if you don't like it.
8 - Phillip Winn
If someone wasn't with the company when the task force meetings were held, "I don't know" would have been a better answer than "No." That's clear.
9 - Phillip Winn
Tying the current price of gas to the task force in question is a bit weak, though.
That said, record profits are tough to see when we're paying record prices. Financial cycles, sure. Ebbs and flows, fine. But when public companies make record profits while we're paying record prices, they have to know that's a public relations disaster in the making. I, for one, am not happy about it.
10 - Alethinos
Yes RETARD we know your stance... It comes right off the back of a John Birch Society phamplet...
Alethinos
11 - Phillip Winn
Al, that comment managed to nail several different logical fallacies at once, as well as being rude. Please restrain yourself, and treat your ideological opposites with the respect you would want in return.
Thanks.
12 - Bennett
Nice job with this David. Keep on this story if you would.
Thanks!
13 - uao
Yet one more example of criminal disregard for the American people, and another affront to decency.
Every time you think the Bush/Cheney axis of cronyism, arrogance, and deceit can't get any worse, something else comes along. On a weekly basis now, it seems.
So they've been basing policy on oil company concerns all along? What a surprise.
Watching the apologists do contortions to somehow blame all this on "liberal bias" (a bigger bogeyman than Stalin, it would seem) is pretty amusing. Yup, blame the liberals for this, too. Why not clean out your own crooked government and save your own country instead?
Oh: and it doesn't mention if these weren't the same fatcat robber-barons who testified before Congress.
They represented their companies to Congress, and a cadre-wide collective amnesia defense just isn't going to sit will with a sick-and-tired-of-this-crap guy like me. Or, most people, one would think.
How dumb do they really think we are, anyway?
You know what I'd like? About $1.50 a gallon rebate for what I've overspent on gasoline the past two years, thanks to a bogus war (the deaths are real, just the war is bogus) and intrigue among lying, thieving oil barons from Texas. It ought to be up to the $1500-$2000 range, I'd reckon. I'll gladly pump it back into the economy by using it as a downpayment on a hybrid.
14 - uao
"doesn't matter" not "doesn't mention" typo.
15 - Dave Nalle
You honestly believe Mr. Cheney and the oil companies had the environment in mind at these meetings?
I believe that they wanted to form an energy policy that included more than just oil exploration. Oil companies are not inherently evil. Some are bad corporate citizens (Conoco, Exxon). Others are responsible (BP, Chevron, Shell). My point - which you can read in my article on this - is that by talking with the last 3 they were also talking with 3 of the leading companies in alternative energy and renewable energy.
Do you think he was working hard in the interest of the american people or for the executives and stockholders of these companies?
In the absence of evidence to the contrary I'm going to assume he was working in the interest of the American people. I don't operate from the assumption that he's a demon or whatever it is people on the left think he is.
Dave, the energy executives didn't collectively say: "I don't know." They collectively said, "No."
Actually, in your own article you mention that BP and Shell didn't say 'no'. And in fact these executives were in no position to know the correct answer to the question.
And any suggestion that environmentalists were part of the task force is just parroting empty spin. If the environmentalists had such great access, why did they sue to get access?
The weren't part of the Task Force. Neither were the oil company representatives. The Task Force was made up of administration staff. The oil companies were brought in to give them information. Then a small number of consumer and environmental groups were brought in. Then the NRDC threatened to sue. Then more meetings were held with lots and lots of environmental groups. They all provided input.
It amazes me how consistently you serve as an apologist for this administration.
It amazes me that I'm consistently put in a position of having to defend the truth from your constant distortions in your efforts to attack the administration.
Dave
16 - Dave Nalle
If someone wasn't with the company when the task force meetings were held, "I don't know" would have been a better answer than "No." That's clear.
Absolutely, Philip. But in the absence of knowledge, when you're facing an accusatory Democrat ideologue I can understand the inclination to say 'no'. What David doesn't mention - of course - is that after the fact, once they had looked into the history of their involvement with the Task Force several of the company representatives reversed their positions
Dave