Originally Posted By gadzuux Do you think that perhaps the oil CEOs walked in to the capitol that day without any idea of what they were going to be asked? It wasn't them who determined that they would not be placed under oath, it was congress themselves. And of course it's a GOP congress. And for that matter, why do you suppose the bush administration has been so secretive about the formation of OUR energy policy - to the point of refusing to submit to court-ordered subpeonas for the records of who attended?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Do you think that perhaps the oil CEOs walked in to the capitol that day without any idea of what they were going to be asked?> My understanding is that they were to give testimony in response to charges of price gouging in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. It's quite possible that they did not expect any questions about the energy task force, since that happened three or four years ago. <why do you suppose the bush administration has been so secretive about the formation of OUR energy policy - to the point of refusing to submit to court-ordered subpeonas for the records of who attended?> The reasons they have given were fairly convincing to me. <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007885" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/feature.html?id=110007885</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<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.> In other words, you can't say that I misrepresented anything.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <In other words, you can't say that I misrepresented anything.> Yes, I can. I already did, and if you say the same thing again, I will claim it again.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<In other words, you can't say that I misrepresented anything.>> <Yes, I can. I already did, and if you say the same thing again, I will claim it again.> Okay, you can say it, but you can't show it. As usual.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Okay, you can say it, but you can't show it.> The evidence does that. All someone has to do is read it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Okay, you can say it, but you can't show it.>> <The evidence does that. All someone has to do is read it.> I read all your posts. You didn't show it.
