NOBODY from Bill Clinton's administration.
Posted By: Just me on 2008-11-14
In Reply to: Your picks for Obama's cabinet. sm - LVMT
They did enough damage.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
Bill Clinton and his ties to India (yes, Bill),...
and China (yes, Bill) sent a lot of our jobs their way. Google it some time. Even I was amazed.
Look, it is simple economics. The big bad corporations everyone hates...first of all, it is not 5 or 6 rich guys and that's it. They employee thousands of people just like us...and when the government puts those huge taxes on them, if they want to stay in business, they are forced to move offshore. Higher taxes are responsible for more jobs going overseas than "greed." The DNC has told its members for years that "corporations" and "the rich" are the cause of all their problems and they have bought that Marxist rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Corporations are not the cause of ill in this country. They are the backbone of the economy in this country. That is simple economics 101. And I am certainly not rich...and I certainly am not on the upper echelon of a corporation, but I do understand reality and I understand how the economy works. Yes, there is wrongdoing by some upper level folks in corporations. There is wrongdoing in the government. Where there is power, there will be wrongdoing. But for every Enron there are thousands of other good, solid companies that employ thousands of Americans, but the DNC does not share the success stories, because it does not promote their agenda. In order to control people they want them beholden to government and hating free enterprise. They want big government, total power, and control. And following Alinksy's program...you have to instill class warfare. You have to make corporations the enemy. You have to make classes envy the next rung up. Classic Marxist socialism. It is being played out in this country every day.
It is just that some of us have not bought the myth and jumped on the socialism train.
Clinton Administration.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
Here is the link to this article
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Here is another one
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,432501,00.html
I was taught in school if the economy is doing bad now, it was due to the president 6-8 years ago. If the economy is doing well, it is also due to the president who was in office 6-8 years ago.
Since it's almost Income Tax time, here's some interesting facts about the Democrat and Republican tax policies. Just compare - and, while you're at it, use these facts the next time you hear that President Bush only "cut taxes for the rich". Looks to me like someone single and making $30K, or a couple making $60K, got a 46% tax break under the Republicans. That's what I would call taking care of the "middle class".
And remember, the truth only comes out when we refuse to be silent....
Source: www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
I'd say Bush paid closer attention than did the Clinton administration!
Bin Laden was on the radar during the Clinton administration and yet the potential threat he posed was virtually ignored!
You have that completely backwards, it was President Clinton's administration that had a balance
for the firs time in modern history; not only that, there was a government surplus. George came, and I think you can following the bouncing ball here....trillions of dollars in deficit left behind...talk about rewriting history!!!! I wish people would stop making ludicrous statements without one work to back it up............
Excuse me, but during Clinton administration, we had a balanced budget for the first time in ......s
American history, plus a surplus. I am not saying that everything that Bill Clinton did was good, and keep in mind that you were living in one of the most expensive areas of the country (I used to be a Californian, San Francisco is outrageous), for most of us, there was relative prosperity and peace, even though the Terrorists were were already threatening, but that also went back to Daddy Bush's time. How anyone can think that things are better now, I can't imagine! I am happy for you if you feel you personally are better off,that is great, but area you even seeing the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are filing for unemployment, many for the first time in their lives? Every day more lay-offs and closings? Banking deregulation under the Republican adminstration killed this country in so many ways, not to mention trillions for a war where.....we accomplished what? Why can't the Iraqi people fight for their own independence and freedom, as we did, and as the French did? We got rid of Saddam, and yes he was evil, but Osams is still on the loose. Afghanistan I could see, to get that demon, but going into Iraq? That all came down to oil interestes, IMHO, and Halliburton made a bundle. IMHO
WHATever and thank you, Bill Clinton
with a thriving economy, an honest attempt at protecting our environment, and peace.
Bill Clinton
Any party that could celebrate the presence of Bill Clinton at their convention like he was the second coming has their priorities wrong as far as I am concerned...bizarre!
Here's another one: Bill Clinton....sm
I don't know how valid this story is, as I have read it too, and don't know the details.
I do know, and you probably do too, that Bill Clinton did this, and I'm sure countless others. But we didn't and don't hear about it because they weren't/aren't SP.
Seems kind of hypocritical to condemn Gov. Palin for this practice, when it's been going on for decades in the good ol' boy system, don't you agree?
Bill Clinton
let this Country down with his behavior. That doesn't mean I don't think he did good things for this Country. Certainly, he did not harm the Country like the present administration has. There are many reasons I don't think John McCain should be the next president. I believe that anyone who is going to cast their vote in November should find out the facts about both candidates and make an educated decision, taking everything into consideration. This is an important election. We are facing many serious problems and we need the best person in there to do the best he can.
Bill Clinton, for one, did not come from........... sm
a wealthy background. His father died when Bill was a baby and his mother, in order to be able to support her children and herself, went away to nursing school, leaving Bill and sibs with their grandparents to raise. They ran a grocery store in Hope, AR, and couldn't have been what you would call well off.
LBJ was born in a farmhouse in a poor area near the Pendernales River and grew up rather poor. He worked his way through college and earned a teaching certificate, teaching mainly Mexican children in Cotulla.
Ronald Reagan grew up without wealth or privilege. He dealt with alcoholic parents for most of his growing up years.
These are a few of our modern day presidents who came from poor backgrounds. I'm sure some of the earlier presidents came from less than wealthy circumstances.
Ah, just as Bill Clinton
'did not have sexual intercourse with that woman....Ms. Lewinski" ? Still, it was some kind of sex, wasn't it?
And frankly, if you think sex can be done only the way the 'parts fit' um........ zzzzzzzzzzz
Bill Clinton was able to do it
Everyone knows B.C.'s "backyard" needed serious attention that it wasn't getting. If anyone had a messed up personal life it was him, yet you were okay with him as the Prez. This is very hypocritical.
Do I think Gov. Palin would be a good President. No way! There is a lot she needs to learn and be involved in before attempting something like that again, but it has nothing to do with her personal life. It has everything to do with her political life/career.
You cannot compare the two and say she wouldn't be a good President or VP because of her family life, because you don't hold the democrats up to the same standards. You give them a free pass. As we saw with B.C. - what a disaster/disgrace that administration was.
Hey hey hey...Bill Clinton did not
have sex with THAT woman. LOL! He just got a BJ from her and shoved a cigar up her hooha! Who let's people do that anyway? Of all the things to stick up there.....a cigar? You can buy a dildo for like 10 bucks. I wonder if Monica can sue Bill if she gets vaginal cancer from inserting cigars. LOL!
Bill Clinton is no more responsible for 9-11 than..sm
you or I am. It is Al quaeda who is responsible.
OK, he didn't take Osama bin Laden when he was offered up by the Sudan. Do you actually think taking bin Laden down would have stopped 9-11. So, Osama was the only terrorist out there. 9-11's plan had been in motion and was much bigger than Osama. Case and point, the fact that this admin. is not even focusing the bulk of their attention on Osama, so that's a mute point.
And I wouldn't try to defend the DEFICIT that Bush has brought to the White House because I'd take a projected surplus over a projected never ending deficit anyday.
I could care less about Bill Clinton.
And I never got hung up in all of that either. As a matter of fact, no one I know did. I am sad that America fails to take possibly the most real threat towards our annihilation seriously. Everyone seems caught up in a conspiracy theory, no different than the kajillion conspiracy theories that abounded when Clinton was in office. I am not sure why Clinton has to be brought up at every juncture, but the point is, most are missing the point. I agree that these ladies have some good ideas and I have to say that probably the majority of Americans will agree with many of their points. However, when the true jihad hits America, what will it matter who caused or allowed or perpetuated 9/11? All of that pales next to what will happen if we do not stay the course. I spend my time watching the websites that deal with these issues, not the ones who put forth conspiracy theories. I simply am not interested in that.
Still more than Obama has. As much as Bill Clinton had...
when he was elected President, not VP. If he had enough experience to be Pres with only experience as a governor, so has she. Can't have it both ways.
Bill Clinton is a murderer -- oh I
knew better than respond to you. It just encourages you. NO SOUP FOR YOU!
I did not say Bill Clinton was a murderer...
the poster intimated MURDERER in capital letters talking about Palin talking to that group. I simply said there were unexplained deaths that surround the clintons. And there are. I lived in his old stomping grounds. Why is it that you can insinuate and post innuendo and when someone else does you cry foul...oh, well how silly of me. DOUBLE STANDARD.
Uh oh.......Bill Clinton, not BUSH
xx
Actually Bill Clinton had the chance
To get Osama and he never did. This started long before GW ever got in the white house. You may not like GW - I can't stand him, but I'm not going to blame him for something that started in the Clinton administration.
Right on, Sam! I actually agree with Bill Clinton in
nm
So was Bill Clinton..you know what happened there! nm
//
Then the first finger goes to Bill Clinton
If you want to start the pointing that is.
True....still waiting for Bill Clinton to own up...
Teddy Kennedy to own up...Barack Obama to own up...there is a lot of owning up that should be done on both sides. But, as you said...integrity and guts. I think there are plenty of the "less brave" on both sides of the aisle.
here's its all Bill Clinton's fault post
like clockwork.
The problem is Bill Clinton isn't running for VP
and saying that he is going to do away with the good ole' boy network and cronyism. Palin is.
I'm sure Clinton did this too, as countless others have also. But, we are in this election, here and now, not what happened years ago.
So, no, it is not hypocritical for me to ask about this or bring it up as she is the one saying that she is not like that.
Bill Clinton also cheated on his wife....
while he was President. It did not seem to affect his ability to run the country.
He also took the time to stop by Bill Clinton's
fundraiser or some such for his foundation or charity group. I guess he wasn't in that big of a hurry to get back to DC.
Listen to the words of Bill Clinton
These are the words of Joe Biden & Bill Clinton (and some Hillary)
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=WMYty1PgHEg&NR=1
you got Bush mixed up with Bill Clinton...it was....(sm)
all Clinton's cronies who ended up on Wall Street, FM/FM, etc., in charge, who were still there when everything tanked.....Clinton's cronies have profited, not Bush's
Yeah, and Bill Clinton should have been thrown out
nm
So, Bill Clinton, the UN, and the rest of the world were lying about WMD too?
x
And Bill Clinton let 800,000 people die in Rwanda. So what's your point? sm
You bleeding heart liberals make me sick.
Hillary Clinton Calls for Privacy Bill...sm
Now I agree with Senator Clinton on this and I have said all along wire tapping should have checks and balances, goverment 101.
Also, living in an information society there has to be something in place to protect citizens privacy. This past week I read a blog with pictures of unknowing obese or tacky dressed people posted in the blog with comments about them. These people were enjoying a private day at the pool and this blogger was snapping their pictures. Not only was this downright evil and disrespectful but it should be illegal.
---------------
(AP) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, drawing on her experiences as a young Watergate lawyer who decades later was investigated as first lady, urged creation of a privacy bill of rights Friday to protect people's personal data.
Modern life makes many things easier and many things easier to know, and yet privacy is somehow caught in the crosshairs of these changes, Clinton said in a speech to a left-leaning legal group.
Clinton's speech on protecting consumers from identity theft and citizens from government snooping was the latest in a series of talks billed as major addresses by aides. Previous speeches were on energy and the economy.
A potential presidential candidate in 2008 whose eight years as first lady were marked by numerous investigations, Clinton noted her work on a House committee investigating the Nixon administration's illegal snooping and other abuses.
And she ruefully called herself an expert in the loss of privacy.
Having lost so much of my own privacy in recent years I have a deep appreciation of its value and a firm commitment to protecting it for all the rest of you, she said, prompting laughter from the audience of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.
Clinton wants to create a privacy czar within the White House to guard against recent problems like the theft of personal data from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
She also wants legislation to let consumers know what information companies are keeping about them and how it is used, and create a tiered system of penalties for companies who are not careful with consumer data.
Clinton also waded into the debate over anti-terror eavesdropping. For months Democrats have hammered at the Bush administration over the National Security Agency's program of domestic wiretapping without warrants from judges. The administration insists it is both legal and necessary.
Clinton said any president should have the latest technology to track terrorists, but within laws that provide for oversight by judges.
The administration's refrain has been, Trust us,' said Clinton. That's unacceptable. Their track record doesn't warrant our trust. ... Unchecked mass surveillance without judicial review may sometimes be legal but it is dangerous. Every president should save those powers for limited critical situations.
MMVI The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Name me one good thing Bill Clinton did as President
I voted for Clinton when he first ran agains Bush Sr. After six months of him as president and what I saw happening to the country I re-registered as republican. Every time that man or his wife had their face on the TV I muted it. I cannot tell you why, but hearing his voice or seeing his face literally made me nausous. (I should have invested in Pepto Bismol stock and would have made a fortune because of all the Pepto I went through). I still believe for 8 years we had no president. Just someone sitting in the office, but we didn't have a real leader.
Now I keep hearing how everyone praises Bill Clinton and what a great president he was (even though he was impeached). So I would like to hear from people and name one thing that was good that he did so I could possibly have a different opinion of him. The really odd thing is everytime his face is in the news I get that sick nauseous feeling again and still have to mute him and look away.
The hair just stands up on my neck and I really feel like I am looking at what evil is (and I'm not religious, but he just gives me a creepy feeling), so please tell me something good about him.
Bill Clinton praises Sen McCain ...see message
His words were "John McCain has the best record of any Republican running for President on the energy issue and on climate change".
And I was surprised to read that in the Huffington Post.
I have heard talk that bothh Clintons plan to vote for McCain this fall as well. As shocking as that may sound it makes sense.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure if Bill Clinton signed this into law, but it surely came to be
under his watch.
Unlike the "Bush supporters" of this day and time, I can and will admit when a president I admired (Bill Clinton) has done something I disagree with.
One question, does Able Danger prove that Bill Clinton is responsible for 9-11?
I don't think so. That is what the poster on this thread is suggesting.
Bill Clinton believed it, so did Hillary and so did John Kerry.
So did a great many in the congress else they would not have said so! How is it possible that you have such selective memory? I wish I could do that.
Bill Clinton gets part of the blame == refused to take out bin Laden...sm
when he had the chance.
Huh? Let's stay on topic here. Bill Clinton and his intern have no relevance to this thread??nm
x
What about Roger Clinton, Bill's drug addict brother. Or Billy Bob Carter, sm
Jimmy's alcoholic brother. Man, we could do this all day. You know you posted that article to make the Bush's look bad. If you judge people by their families, that says a lot about you.
Crooks are crooks....like Bill Clinton...
like Frederick Raines...Like jamie Gorelick....there are crooks on both sides. We all know that. the Dems Enron was coming, it was just a matter of time. It's here.
Bill Maher Takes On Bill O'Reilly
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.
You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.
How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?
BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.
But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...
O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.
MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?
You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.
O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.
But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?
All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?
MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.
O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.
MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.
O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...
MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.
In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.
We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...
O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.
MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...
O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.
MAHER: Whatever it costs.
O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?
MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.
O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.
MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.
O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.
MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.
O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.
MAHER: Thank you.
O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.
MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.
O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?
MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?
O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.
MAHER: Yes.
O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.
But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.
There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.
I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.
MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.
O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.
Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?
MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.
O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.
Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.
MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.
O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.
if abe is on the $5 bill & george is on the $1 bill, what is Obama on?
****censored****
Nah, this administration isn't in bed with
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; 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.
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.
Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Despite everything I know about this administration...
I am still stunned when I hear the next hairbrained scheme, the next faux pas, the next wrong-headed decision (a decision that is so blatantly flawed that my 10-year old neighbor can see and explain what is wrong about it), deliver the next we-will-do-whatever-we-want-and-don't- give-a -flip-about-what-you-people-think-Americans-or-anyone-else speech, then proceed to do it. The litany of wrongdoing surrounding this administration is growing exponetially; I don't know what to be more appalled at first. Last week Bush is offering help to the earthquake victims in Iran and this week he is going to nuke them...and pray tell, what is the rationale for this preemptive attack. WMD?, democracy for Iranians? or something else. I believe it is actually going to take a group of people, a coup, to just go in and remove these idiots from the White House...really. I agree with Harry Taylor, the guy in Ohio, I have never been so ashamed nor frightened of the administrators of my own country. God Help Us All and I cannot tell you how much I really really mean that.
Hug the former administration? I'm no
Bush supporter, but you can't blame Bush for this economic mess. Perhaps you should do a little more research before you go off like a screaming meemie. It was Bill Clinton who proposed everyone should have a mortgage in every pot, whether they could afford it or not, especially minorities, and the chickens came home to roost. Do a little research, kiddo.
LOL, you can't blame Bush for everything. I think the time is coming when all Americans will realize what a decent man he is, the last decent one we will have as a president. If Americans can vote in an illegal ursurper and think he is the Messiah, they sure won't vote for an honorable, Constitution-abiding successor, assuming we even have another election in this country with Comrade Obama in charge along with his Marxist cabinet.
and yet this administration is
going to make it harder for charities to get donations by not making donations tax exempt. They are going to tax people more and they will have less money to donate and contribute. It is sad really. The charities are already receiving less donations, etc. It will only hurt them more.
|
