Ravenwood - 11/16/05 06:15 AM
The Washington Post is trying to imply that there was hanky panky going on between Dick Cheney and "Big Oil". Apparently when developing energy policy, Cheney and his Halliburton cronies had the nerve to meet with energy companies.
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.And if not energy companies, with whom should Cheney meet? Environmentalist wackos? Big Media?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.
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.Why would the Sierra Club be permitted to discuss our energy policy? Shouldn't they be out burning SUVs?
And everyone seems to have forgotten Clinton's meetings with oil companies and producers. Despite questions about human rights abuses, he pushed through a Caspian pipeline that was sure to enrich "Big Oil".
I love the way this administrations tell whackos to go screw themselves
Posted by: Sgt Fluffy at November 16, 2005 8:59 AMSteve,
This doesn't even make any sense. Are you even sober these days?
-Duane
Posted by: Duane at November 16, 2005 12:49 PMThat's some interesting logic you're using there. Don't include the people that want to change our policy and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and do include the people that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
What kind of energy policy do you think you'd get? Maybe one like.... the one we got! The one that gives our oil companies $11 billion in kick backs.
Boy, that is just crazy thinking....
Posted by: The Other Mike S at November 17, 2005 6:35 PMEnergy companies will sell whatever energy source is profitable. That's the whole reason they're in business. Economic transactions in a free market, by definition, are mutually beneficial.
Allowing people who would force energy companies to sell unprofitable (or less profitable) products or force people to buy them is crazy thinking. Environmentalists aren't looking for alternative energy sources or domestic oil production. They want less (or zero) energy production or in some cases to exterminate the human race. They don't deserve a seat at the table.
Posted by: Ravenwood at November 17, 2005 7:24 PMWho said anything about focing energy companies to sell anything? Our government's job when setting an energy policy should be to do whatever is going to be in the best interest of the entire country. That would be reducing or eliminating our dependence on foreign oil.
Our government says this, but does just the opposite. To suggest that no one other than oil companies should be included in the discussion is preposterous. You're not saying that, are you?
If we are going to subsidize anything, it should be experimental alternate energy sources, not ones we already know work. Or dust off the how-to books and start building nukes again. Or figure out ways to make coal clean. Or produce hydrogen cheaply.
Yet, oil seems to be the only private interest invited to the party. And they got the $11 billion in tax dollars. Wow, who'd a thunk it?
From the WAHINGTON SEWER comes the usial bildg and crap
Posted by: sandpiper at November 19, 2005 9:55 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
