Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<This guy doesn't like their conclusions so he says it's "biased.">> <Or their conclusions are faulty because of their bias.> One man's meat...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<In the case of the oil execs, each one to a man said that they did not meet with the white house to discuss the formation of the new energy policy. Yet the entry logs clearly show that each one entered the white house on the days that the energy policy meetings took place.>> <That may be how you are interpretting it, but that's not what the record shows. > The record doesn't show the executives visiting the white house on the days in question? (I'm not sure what it shows, since this is in response to Gadzuux, but I'm curious as to what you're saying. It would seem that either they did or did not visit the white house on the days in question).
Originally Posted By gadzuux First link I could find quickly - there are better ones, but this gets the point across just fine. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/23/MNGSDFSQ151.DTL&hw=oil+executives+testimony&sn=001&sc=1000" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/23/MNGSDFSQ151.DTL&hw=oil+executives+testimony&sn=001&sc=1000</a> Meaning of 'participate' is key to task force flap GOP offers definition to support testimony of top oil executives Justin Blum, Washington Post Wednesday, November 23, 2005 >> Washington -- It all depends on how you define the word "participate." While that may seem as silly as bickering over the definition of the word "is," the implications for some oil company executives who testified at a Senate hearing could be significant. Based on how the word is parsed, some executives either told the truth or did not when they were asked about their participation in the 2001 energy task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. The dispute stems from a question raised by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. At a hearing two weeks ago, he asked five oil executives whether they or representatives of their companies participated in meetings with Cheney's energy task force. The chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co. and Chevron Corp. answered no. The president of Shell Oil Co. said his company did not participate to his knowledge, and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know. The Bush administration has refused to identify who participated in the task force meetings. But the Washington Post reported last week that a White House document shows that in 2001, officials from Exxon Mobil, Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil and BP America 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. <<
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>The Bush administration has refused to identify who participated in the task force meetings<< We're told over and over again that we have nothing to fear from increased government surveillance of our lives and airport security checks if we don't have anything to hide. What is the Administration worried about? I've never seen a White House as opaque as this one.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The record doesn't show the executives visiting the white house on the days in question?> I don't believe the entry logs have been released to the public, so what they "clearly show" is a matter of speculation.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What is the Administration worried about?> My guess? Unscrupulous opponents that leak half truths in order to discredit the Administration's policy positions. It seems a well founded fear.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The record doesn't show the executives visiting the white house on the days in question?>> <I don't believe the entry logs have been released to the public, so what they "clearly show" is a matter of speculation.> From gadzuux's post in 142, it looks like the Post got a hold of a white house document that showed what happened. Something doesn't have to be officially released to the public to be clear.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Let's follow your theory through to it's conclusion. The oil execs were completely truthful in their testimony to congress, even though the GOP arranged for them to provide their testimony without taking an oath. They weren't actually present with cheney's staff. They didn't actually enter the white house on the days in question. The documents that show otherwise don't actually exist. The news reports are completely wrong. The mealy-mouth hairsplitting on the part of the GOP about the definition of "participate" is for nothing. The bush administration refused to respond to the subpeonas to reveal the attendees of the formulation of the US energy policy not because they have anything to hide, but because ... well just because. Are you comfortable with your position?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Something doesn't have to be officially released to the public to be clear.> Sure, but it's a stretch to assert it as fact. We simply don't know what the record says. The Post writers don't state that it "clearly" shows anything.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Are you comfortable with your position?> That's not my position. My position is that you are leaping to conclusions that the facts don't support.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Something doesn't have to be officially released to the public to be clear.>> <Sure, but it's a stretch to assert it as fact. We simply don't know what the record says. The Post writers don't state that it "clearly" shows anything.> No, it's a stretch to assert that when this white house document says that these energy execs "met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy" and those same energy execs claimed that they didn't - that there isn't a disconnect there.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, it's a stretch to assert that when this white house document says that these energy execs "met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy" and those same energy execs claimed that they didn't - that there isn't a disconnect there.> You're misrepresenting what the document says, and the question the energy executives were asked, and what they answered.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<No, it's a stretch to assert that when this white house document says that these energy execs "met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy" and those same energy execs claimed that they didn't - that there isn't a disconnect there.>> <You're misrepresenting what the document says, and the question the energy executives were asked, and what they answered.> How so? What do you think the document said, what do you think the executive were asked, and how do you think they answered?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What do you think the document said, what do you think the executive were asked, and how do you think they answered?> I think the document shows that some oil company executives met with some White House officials. Does that make them participants in the energy task force? I don't know, and that's what Senator Lautenberg asked, so I don't know that they answered truthfully. I also think that they did not all answer the same. Some said no, some said they didn't know, so some of them may have lied and some probably did not.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I guess that depends on how you define "participate". That's the slender thread that GOP argument is hanging on. And you're buying into it all the way.> No, I'm not. It's quite possible those oil executives were trying to deceive. But maybe they weren't, or at least some of them weren't. I just don't see it as black and white as you do. I don't think the evidence is conclusive that all of them lied, as you stated. <One (BP America) said "I don't know" - which itself is pretty disingenuous, since they knew before they arrived what the questions were going to be.> I haven't heard this asserted before. What's your source? <Are you so undiscerning that you cannot tell when you're being so obviously lied to?> I poke holes in your posts all the time.
