It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Oil Executives Lie about Cheney's Energy Task Force

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
You may be familiar with last weeks congressional hearings were executives from the top energy companies were dragged before congress. Their mission was to testify before Congress about current energy market prices and to explain why their companies were making record profits when the price of oil was so high. Despite Democrats instance that the executives be sworn in, Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) insisted that they be allowed to testify without taking the oath. It now appears that they may have lied. Lucky for them it wasn't under oath.
 



www.msnbc.msn.com
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.

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.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I would have overlooked this story if not for the bitter battle last week to get the executives to take the oath before testifying. Looking back now I have to ask, what was the big deal about taking the oath. If you're only going to tell the truth then why all the fuss about being sworn in? I This also makes me question why Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) overruled the decision to have the executives sworn in. Why did it matter to him?

All the big executives were there. After defending their salaries from Barbara Boxer (D-Cal), which I might add isn't much worse than the salaries the movie stars in her state make, they were asked about their involvement with Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force. When asked bluntly about if they or a representative from their company attended the meetings, they all replied "No", or "Not to my knowledge." Secret service records that log the comings and goings in the White House seem to show a different record.




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

This also makes me question why Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) overruled the decision to have the executives sworn in. Why did it matter to him?




You're kidding right?







All the big executives... When asked bluntly about if they or a representative from their company attended the meetings, they all replied "No", or "Not to my knowledge." Secret service records that log the comings and goings in the White House seem to show a different record.



Good thing they weren't under oath, huh?


Congressional hearing?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Well, you should never ask a question you don't know the answer to. I have a feeling his pockets are lined with oil money. I watched some of the hearings and he was so passionate about them not being sworn in.

What's the big cover-up here? Why all the secrecy? While everyone is running around yelling White Phosphorus and No WMD, there's a bigger conspiracy right under our noses, and it's pulling the money right out of our wallets, one gas tank at a time. The whole Iraq war can probably be traced back to this issue if you followed the trial long enough. People need to stop yelling "WMD" and follow the money. Always follow the money trail.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Some people may be wondering, what exactly is this Energy Task Force? The National Resource Defense Council defines it as this:

The Cheney Energy Task Force


In early 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney presided over a task force charged with setting a new national energy policy. For months high-ranking Bush administration officials met in secret with lobbyists and executives from utility companies and the oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy industries. In May 2001 the task force released its recommendations: more subsidies to polluting industries, more reliance on oil, more nuclear power.


O, this just keeps getting better and better. Of course there was a recommendation to rely more heavily on oil. All the executives from the major oil companies had their chance to put their two-cents into what would become the United States policy on energy usage. Now keep in mind that all that all these decisions were made at the very beginning of the Bush administration's first term. This was months before 9/11 ever happened. The United States decided that it was going to rely even more heavily on oil for it's energy needs. Now ask yourself, where is all this oil going to come from? I think we all know the answer to that question. The Middle East.

If there is a possible conspiracy, if there is a reason for the government to create, or allow 9/11 to happen, this is it. Everyone needs to quit following the WMD trail and follow the money trail. I know we kept saying "If we invaded for oil then where is our benefit?" It was almost a good defense that the United States was in Iraq for the right reasons. Well, now we are starting to see the benefit. It's clearly visible in the record profits that the oil companies are receiving right now.

This also helps explain why much of the UN was against the Iraq invasion. It's common knowledge that the Oil For Food scandal was filling the coffers of many of the resistant UN countries. Perhaps the United States was felling left out of this sweet money-making deal and wanted to interject itself into the equation. Maybe it's just pure speculation but right now when I follow the money trail and ask myself who has benefited most from the war in Iraq, the answer has to be the oil industry. The constant instability in the middle-east keeps the prices up, up, up.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by dbates

This also makes me question why Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) overruled the decision to have the executives sworn in. Why did it matter to him?




You're kidding right?



It wasn't necessary because had they lied it would have been a punishable crim regardless. It was a waste of time and not good pr as seen by those who objected since it did not matter.

Also, we again see another mislabeled ATSNN title, they did not lie, they denied. Saying 'I do not recolect' or 'I do not remember' is not lying, it is simply the SOP in Washington to cover your ass.


[edit on 16-11-2005 by Frosty]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I would suggest an alternative to why their was a debate over swearing them in.

We live in a country that is currently a hostile climate for oil companies and executives of all kinds (but especially oil company executives). If you don't believe me, understand that I am not talking about the political climate, but rather the social climate; next time you're gassing up, think about your reaction to the price. Are you happy with the oil barons? NO!

To that end, some politicians may have it on their agendas to "do in" the oil executives. What better way than to catch them lying under oath? If I were an oil executive invited to this "task force" I'd say no if I had to be under oath, cause I'd assume there would be some folks with itchy trigger fingers gunning for me (figuratively, of course). I’d assume they would ask me questions that would put me in a difficult position (either with my shareholders or the public), then wait for me to say anything remotely inaccurate, and then subpoena my butt for perjury. I'd make a lack of swearing in a requirement for my cooperation for exactly that reason. I wouldn't trust pissed off senators anymore than I'd trust oil executives.

Just a thought. Don't know if it's true.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by dbates

This also makes me question why Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) overruled the decision to have the executives sworn in. Why did it matter to him?




You're kidding right?



Also, we again see another mislabeled ATSNN title, they did not lie, they denied. Saying 'I do not recolect' or 'I do not remember' is not lying, it is simply the SOP in Washington to cover your ass.





"All the big executives... When asked bluntly about if they or a representative from their company attended the meetings, they all replied "No", or "Not to my knowledge." Secret service records that log the comings and goings in the White House seem to show a different record."

That would be a lie.




Forgot quote marks.








[edit on 16-11-2005 by soficrow]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Also, we again see another mislabeled ATSNN title, they did not lie, they denied. Saying 'I do not recolect' or 'I do not remember' is not lying, it is simply the SOP in Washington to cover your ass.


Some denied and some lied. Look at the quoted text at the end of the source article. Some of the executives flat out said "no". Of course the smart ones said "I don't remember".



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

"No," said 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.


[edit on 16-11-2005 by dbates]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Frosty:

Also, we again see another mislabeled ATSNN title, they did not lie, they denied. Saying 'I do not recolect' or 'I do not remember' is not lying, it is simply the SOP in Washington to cover your ass.


Haha, you're joking, right? They just "forgot" that they had been present at a meeting with the VP, right? It just slipped their minds that they were directly involved in determining energy policies with the Vice President, a former CEO of an oil company himself.

Are you an oil lobbyist?

jako



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
actually lieing under oath, and lieing without taking the oath, are two separate crimes, with 2 separate punishments...

one can involve jailtime... guess which one?

there is an obvious ploy by the big oil lobbiests to control what our energy policy is... that is their job... and they get paid the big bucks to do it...SOP all the way...

but it is still unethical to buy the energy policy with highlevel lobbiest trades...

Ted Stevens from Alaska just got his big funding for a bridge to nowhere, that is not needed, but nonetheless will bring big contracts to all his campaign contributing buddies...
so he is merely "paying back" his debt to the people that pushed his bridge thru...(this is why he threw such a hissyfit when they almost removed his bridge from the package... he had already "paid" for it)
it is also why there is a big push to drill more oil in Alaska (which will all be exported to China)...
this is the scummy and unethical world of politics... and if you don't beleive it, then open your eyes. It is all about money, and following it is becoming more difficult.

even the players themselves forget that corruption is NOT part of the job... (i.e. Delay not knowing he was acting unethically-because it is so common practice)



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
You don't have to be sworn in front of Congress. It is a crime to give false testimony to Congress without being sworn.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
You know dbate that is a great question if these meetings were done in 2001 and they had everything plan then they already knew or have exclusive knowledge of where the oil was going to come from.

As you pointed out this happen before 9/11, many things happen before 9/11 but we don’t get to see much of it.

I guess the oil was coming . . . from . . . perhaps Iraq?

But how can that be!!!!! Iraq was later on after 9/11, Right? I guess it was some insider’s information on this one.

But have the oil companies gotten their hands on the vast oil reserves in Iraq?

I got a conspiracy, How about if Cheney was asking the oil companies to invest on Iraq before Iraqi war and they have lost their investment because the Iraqi oil has proof to be a hard cookie to get from the cookie jar?

Perhaps that is the reason of the incredible profits that they have reap from the American consumer.

Somebody wanted their money back and it had to come from somewhere.

I believe that they didn’t sworn it because they knew that they will be lying through their teeth and nobody wants to be indicted later on after the BS comes down and the true makes it to the public.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
If you are sworn in and you lie you are fined and may go to jail.

If you are NOT sworn in, and lie, you get a fine.


So they'll get fines if anything.

jako



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I don't care who was sworn in or not... I've had enough of this administration's behavior. The next photograph I see of any of them, I hope it includes bars in the picture.

This is the most criminal government in my lifetime.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
You'll see bars, alright. Problem is, they'll be cash bars.

Had they been required to swear in, there wouldn't have been enough space in that room for all the lawyers that would have magically appeared.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join