home

Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress?

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 11:15:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

It’s a crime to lie to Congress (although, sadly, it isn’t a crime for Congress to lie to us). Will anything happen to the oil executives who apparently lied when they testified (albeit not under oath, for reasons that are now obvious) that nobody from their companies met with Vice President Cheney’s energy task force?

[A White House] 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.

The weasel words used by the CEO’s of BP and Shell may have saved them, although “Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work.”

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.

Here’s a summary of the testimony:

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.

< Bernie Kerik's Misconduct Allegation | Is Bob Woodward the Next Judy Miller? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? | 36 comments (36 topical)
    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    If I lived under the threat of unwilling nationalization (my alarmist term for price controls), I'd feel justified in lying, too.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    Well duh. Why do you think they refused to be sworn? File under dog bites man, to quote Whizzy.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    If I lived under the threat of unwilling nationalization (my alarmist term for price controls), I'd feel justified in lying, too.
    OK, so we know your morals are just 'situational ethics', now we're just haggling over price;-)

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#5)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    (my alarmist term for price controls)
    I’ll go one further and call it theft.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#6)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    To get this where it's going just a bit quicker, an exchange with Tampa from another thread ...
    “as in record oil profits immediately following a manufactured energy crisis. As in record oil profits,”
    This means nothing; well, nothing other than Americans use a lot of oil. The profit margin, which is really the meaningful metric of profiteering, wasn’t unreasonable. That is, unless you are an investor; unfortunately for those folks oil profit margins were lower than the S&P industry wide average. But, I do agree that the US military shouldn’t be a tool of economic/energy policy.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    The profit margin, which is really the meaningful metric of profiteering, wasn’t unreasonable.
    up 68 percent!!! Name any business (outside of drugs and drug running) that posts a 68% profit margin.
    oil profit margins were lower than the S&P industry wide average
    from biz week "The Standard & Poor's 500 index was down 4.75 points, or 0.39%" So bigoil's 68% is lower than .39% for the S&P.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    Sailor, UP 68%, not=68%. And the reference, I believe, was to big oil's profit margins relative to the average profit margins of the individual co's that make up the S&P 500, not the S&P index itself...

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    pw said:
    oil profit margins were lower than the S&P industry wide average.
    suo said:
    I believe, was to big oil's profit margins relative to the average profit margins of the individual co's that make up the S&P 500, not the S&P index itself
    suo, are you calling pw a liar!?

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    Why would anyone think they could lie in front of a Congressman? Everyone knows that politicians are the consumate liars so if anyone could descern when someone was lying it would be politicians or thier enablers. It takes one to know one. As far as price gouging is concerned? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't but either way you paid the price they were asking because you needed the petrol. You are the enabler of this nonsense. If you want to go after the oil companies for the prices they charge go ahead. You should probably go after the Feds and States for thier fuel taxes that are way high. Funny how politicians steal money from everyone on a daily bases but let some privateer do the same and there is holy hell to pay and a bunch of foolish psuedo-iconaclasts singing in the choir.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#11)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    The Oil Execs can't be prosecuted for perjury because the Republicans refused to swear them in during their (false) testimony before Congress (despite the request of Dems that they be sworn in).

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    I find it interesting that PiL believes the Oil Corporations didn't sign off wholeheartedly on the PNAC Iraq agenda. I guess to be a status-quo Democrat, you have to give Corporations the benefit of the doubt, eh Paul? Exactly what profits were at risk, Paul? Show me some earnings data where losses were realized from activity in Iraq. Contracts to run and consult Iraq oil and oil pipelines have everything to do with Iraq -- both lucrative and requsite for the major U.S. oil interests to be intimately involved. The money flow from Iraq to U.S. oil corporations, from Iraq to Saudi Arabia. That was the Neocon wet dream -- that and U.S. forces entrenched in the middle east. Military Industrial complex -- aligned goalsetting. Right, PW. I and countless others will all just give up our jobs since public transportation doesn't run in the suburbs, property values are inflated, and I am required to move every 3-5 years to find a new job just so that my income will outpace inflation. Living within biking distance of your employer is always feasible, right PW? Oh I know, I shouldn't complain - I should become a martyr before I have the moral standing in a Libertarian perspective to criticize U.S. energy policy. Alternative fuels come first, alternative fueled automobiles come quickly thereafter. Ethanol cars don't market very well if consumers can't easily obtain ethanol (etc.) Corporate smokescreens have everyone fooled into thinking it's the Automaker's fault -- truth be known, they are both responsible. Their profit incentive is the problem, Americans want to have the ability to get to work and shuttle their children to school. Some Americans are greedy short-sighted insecure morons who must have a Hummer to do so -- but they would just as quickly pump Ethanol into those Hummers as they would Petrol. Serving the current demand with current technology is the path of least resistance -- both the Automakers and the energy concerns will run that train all the way into the ground before they flip the switch. There are other incentives beyond immediate profit taking and the market is anything but free.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    (although, sadly, it isn’t a crime for Congress to lie to us).
    Wow, TChris, you might be on to something pretty profound there.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Sold Out So Long Ago) is the one who prevented the normal swearing in as YET ANOTHER unusual R committee chair corrupt behavior. They rule with a (bulging) iron wallet. Posted by Tampa Student: "I find it interesting that PiL believes the Oil Corporations didn't sign off wholeheartedly on the PNAC Iraq agenda." A belief based on the statements of a Conoco (Shell?) CEO who ADMITTED THAT AN IRAQ INVASION WAS ON THE TABLE IN EARLY 2001, Tampa. What about direct testimony of CONSPIRACY don't you value? You have the weirdest idea of what is useful and useless. "I guess to be a status-quo Democrat, you have to give Corporations the benefit of the doubt, eh Paul?" And that's how you blind yourself, with a slur that makes you sound like a jilted lover. "Exactly what profits were at risk, Paul?" The wrong question. The point is that the status quo was (and is) enormously profitable, and a conspiracy to turn Iraq into a giant oil pump (and smoldering embers) risks rocking a profitable boat. GHWB was a Saudi-oriented oil man. Hussein pushed through OPEC, and that galled a lot of sheiks in SA. Using the US military in 2001 was very much about damaging Hussein's control of OPEC, WITHOUT setting off a terrorist race war across the whole planet, as GWB has done. GHWB was more conservative than his pigheaded son, and his "Crazies" co-conspirators. Rumor is that now the two don't talk -- relations have been strained for years anyhow. There's a lot more to that ACTUAL history of the Saud-based oil economy vs. the Tajik/Iraq USPNAC Pipelinestan which GWB is trying to bring into existence (and mostly succeeding). Tampa, you draw your gun and shoot your foot off. Are your feelings really that hurt?

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#15)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Sailor-
    “suo, are you calling pw a liar!?”
    No, he understood what I was saying. The S&P index is a measure of the market value of the companies that comprise the S&P 500. We are talking about profit margins, of which stock value is not so peripherally related, but certainly not equivalent. This is what I mean; take Exxon Mobile for example, the whipping boy of Daily Kos and the like. Their revenues for 2005 were 270.7 billion, their profits 25.3 billion; a profit margin of ~9%. This is a real measure of their profitability; essentially, the relative amount of money they need to spend to make money. Take Citigroup, one of the S&P financials; their margin was ~16% this year. Or Microsoft, I believe their posting over 25%. So, this 68% BS; whenever someone start talking percent changes in percent measures, they are always full of $hit. For example, lets say the President had an approval of 5% last month and 10% this month; you could say the Presidents support doubled, up by 50% over the last measure. The agenda of someone pushing that line wouldn’t be any more transparent than the agenda of the folks pushing this 68% BS. But what burns me the most is those f*cking hypocrites in congress. How dare they pass judgment on oil company profits considering state and federal governments made far more? Take the FY04 oil company profits of $42.6 billion, state and federal governments made 58.4 billion. Big Oil? How about Big Government. TS-
    “Alternative fuels come first, alternative fueled automobiles come quickly thereafter. Ethanol cars don't market very well if consumers can't easily obtain ethanol (etc.)”
    It is trivial to distribute ethanol or methanol. The infrastructure for delivering a volatile liquid is already in place and distributing gasoline. Alternative fuels simply aren’t economically viable right now.
    “I and countless others will all just give up our jobs since public transportation doesn't ... 3-5 years to find a new job just so that my income will outpace inflation.”
    I’m sorry it is so difficult for you to get to work. But it simple isn’t right to force folks to pay for your ride. Why don’t you force your neighbors to heat your home while you’re at it? Yah, people make sacrifices to live close to work. I’m a one-car family so I pay double for half the house just to be within a few miles of my job. So what?

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    TS-I have to agree with Paul here. Oil companies, like farmers, like stability. The oilcos are not interested in owning the wells in the Mid east, but in distribution, as it is much more profitable and lacks the risks. Most corporations are not in favor of the neocon/pnac agenda. PNAC thrives on instability and failed stated while corporations thrive on stability. Cows that are spooked do not produce milk. The main corporate interests behind the war are reconstruction (haliburton) and military. Sadly those corporations have uber-lobbies (Carlyle Group) aka elected officials and as a result have tremendous influence. The conservatives (republicans and dems), lapdogs of corporate america, are horrified by Bush's extremism.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Sailor, you are a character.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    pw, you said the S&P index, not a cherry picked company within it.
    Nationwide, the average gross profit margin at the pump was 37.2 cents per gallon for the week ending Oct. 17, compared with 7.9 cents per gallon a year earlier, according to the Oil Price Information Service of Wall, N.J.
    But of course this has nothing to do with the fact that the execs lied before congress.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#19)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Sailor,
    Nationwide, the average gross profit margin at the pump was 37.2 cents per gallon for the week ending Oct. 17, compared with 7.9 cents per gallon a year earlier, according to the Oil Price Information Service of Wall, N.J.
    They're referring to profits by retailers, not Big Oil companies. You didn't even include the last sentence in the paragraph you excerpted:
    OPIS said this sweet spot for retailers would only last "another week or two."
    Not accusing you of misleading us; it's an AP article so maybe you worked from a badly-edited version to begin with.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Sailor, you might want to give this one up...
    [Exxon/Mobil's] $9.92 billion profit on $100.7 billion in revenues is 9.8% profit -- less than the S&P 500 average of 12.7%


    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    good points suo, I concede the arg re profits. Now how 'bout them liars?

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    pigwiggle:
    But what burns me the most is those f*cking hypocrites in congress. How dare they pass judgment on oil company profits considering state and federal governments made far more? Take the FY04 oil company profits of $42.6 billion, state and federal governments made 58.4 billion. Big Oil? How about Big Government.
    What burns me most is hypocrites who claim as a debating point that they do not understand the difference between a private company and state and federal government. When an oil company makes $10 billion in profits, how much of that is spent on running the country, maintaining infrastucture, public services, defense, etc.? See the difference now? See how irrelevant your comparison is? If you really can't tell the difference, then I'm sorry to be so harsh on you. But if you can, then please don't try to bolster your argument, whatever it is, with such nonsensical comparisons. It just causes us to dismiss the rest of your post altogether.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Sailor, I've conceded that arg long ago...

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#24)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    When an oil company makes $10 billion in profits, how much of that is spent on running the country, maintaining infrastucture, public services, defense, etc.?
    About $4,000,000,000. That's my best guess, anyway. I've had a hard time figuring out whether the $10B profit figure is pre- or post-tax. I've read that Exxon pays 40% tax, but I don't know if that number is current. As an Exxon shareholder (through a S&P index fund), you're welcome.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#25)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Oops, I'm an idiot. It didn't dawn on me that publicly-traded companies financial reports are, well, public. Exxon paid $6.1B in income tax in the quarter ending September 30.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#26)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Cymro-
    “What burns me most is hypocrites who claim as a debating point that …”
    I don’t think you understand what a hypocrite is. A hypocrite excoriates another for behavior they indulge in openly. If your position is that I am a hypocrite for putatively ‘acting dumb’ about the difference between public and private institutions you need to show me where I abused another for the same.
    “See how irrelevant your comparison is?”
    No. Congress is holding hearings ostensibly to investigate potential profiteering by companies that made less from their product than the federal and local governments. The comparison is apt. I guess your argument is it’s not price gouging or profiteering when these profits are spent a certain way. What most folks consider profiteering, or the common sense understanding, is an unreasonably large profit on necessary products, especially during an emergency. I don’t think most folks would distinguish between the profit going into someone’s 401k or to pay for a sports stadium or grants to wannabe Olympic athletes. Further, oil profits are up all around due to increased sales. If you consider it a windfall for oil producers then it is a windfall for government as well; an unexpected surplus in revenue. Governments budget expenditures and revenue and in this manner pay for the things you mentioned. Extra revenue is a miscalculation, a mistake. Tax revenue shouldn’t be spent simply because it’s on hand; this should have been avoided by corrections in the gasoline tax. But I don’t believe the profits are from gouging or profiteering. Congress is simply holding these hearings because the topic is fashionable. Sooner or later they’ll get back to the business of picking on professional sports or something as inane.
    “It just causes us to dismiss the rest of your post altogether.”
    Suite yourself; but you’ll be ignoring the best posts on the site.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#27)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    And if I'm doing my math right, a 16% decrease in revenue would make Exxon nonprofitable. This says that "Oil companies ... usually collect 3 out of every 4 cents spent for a gallon of gasoline", so a 16% decrease in revenue leads to about a 12% decrease in the price of gas at the pump. Would that make everyone happy? Not trying to deflect the subject away from execs' lies. The profits are what lead to the congressional conversation so I figure it's fair game.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    pw:
    A hypocrite excoriates another for behavior they indulge in openly.
    If you want to claim that your comparison of Big Oil and Big Government is valid then isn't it hypocritical of you to insist that Sailor understand the distinction between corporate revenue and profits, while you conveniently ignore that distinction with respect to government taxes and deficits in order to make your rhetorical point? I agree that your clarifications about how to calculate profit margins were valid ones. But since you obviously understand financial accounting, I expect you therefore to be honest and see the total fallacy of your argument about Government, just from an accounting standpoint. That's setting aside the fact that a private company and a government are institutions that cannot be compared anyway, because they serve completely different purposes. But you now say:
    I don’t think most folks would distinguish between the profit going into someone’s 401k or to pay for a sports stadium or grants to wannabe Olympic athletes.
    Isn't this another example of you deliberately missing the real point, in an attempt to score debating points? Government taxes are not used primarily to fund sports stadia or grants to olympic athletes. That is just a red herring that you are throwing in to distract from the real point. Taxes are used for the things I listed previously -- "running the country, maintaining infrastucture, public services, defense, etc." -- and I think you know very well that "most folks" would have no problem at all distinguishing between those things and profit going into someone's 401K. If your arguments are examples of the "the best posts on the site", I don't think I'll be missing that much.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#29)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Cymro-
    “while you conveniently ignore that distinction with respect to government taxes and deficits in order to make your rhetorical point?”
    The point doesn’t rest on the distinction you want to make between the Big Oil and Big Government. For the consumer it matters little who gets what portion of their gasoline dollar. Gasoline isn’t any more affordable if a larger portion of the bill is tax.
    “That's setting aside the fact that a private company and a government are institutions that cannot be compared anyway, because they serve completely different purposes.”
    In my perfect world they do. Unfortunately what you may consider ‘public infrastructure’ I may consider goods and services. I guess “running the country” is an omnibus for property insurance, retirement planning, agriculture, and so forth. From my naive perspective I would consider paying the judiciary’s, executive’s, or legislature’s bills running the government. But, from the FY05 federal budget one might get the impression that agriculture is an order of magnitude more important to government machinations than these three combined. I guess corn is critical to government operations, more so than courts and the like.
    “… that "most folks" would have no problem at all distinguishing between those things and profit going into someone's 401K.”
    Maybe not, but they should. It’s their 401K after all.
    “If your arguments are examples of the "the best posts on the site", I don't think I'll be missing that much.”
    And yet you come back for more. Come on, there’s no need to be coy.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    What I wrote was badly stated: "GHWB was a Saudi-oriented oil man. Hussein pushed through OPEC, and that galled a lot of sheiks in SA." By 'pushed through,' I meant this (from wikipedia):
    Leading up to the 1990-91 Gulf War, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein advocated that OPEC push world oil prices up, thereby helping Iraq, and other member states, service debts. But the division of OPEC countries occasioned by the Iraq-Iran War and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait marked a low point in the cohesion of OPEC. Once supply disruption fears that accompanied these conflicts dissipated, oil prices began to slide.


    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    et al - the thread is about whether the oil execs lied to congress. They did.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#32)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    et al - the thread is about whether the oil execs lied to congress. They did.
    Well, good. Problem solved. Let's move on to something more interesting.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    I’m sorry it is so difficult for you to get to work. But it simple isn’t right to force folks to pay for your ride.
    Thanks for your mock sympathy. I'm sorry you're a smart allick. How about this, you're an opportunist that picks and chooses which market forces to harp upon and which ones to ignore in order to make a point. The point is that consumers are dependent on the oil economy. The source of energy isn't important to the consumer, only the supplier. The fact that it is the path of least resistance for energy concerns to cash in on an easy buck doesn't make it right -- especially since we're having to kill people and occupy their lands to insure it's continued "growth". But then, you apparently deny that the handful of American energy corporations are in on the deal. Yes PiL, I'm hurt. I'm hurt that Democrats voted for the Patriot Act. I'm hurt that Democrats voted for the Iraq resolution. I'm hurt that Democrats voted for the Bankruptcy bill. I'm hurt that Democrats voted for the Clear Skies Act. Etc, etc. It's a trend, PiL, not a singular tactic. Paul disagreed with me, but then turned around and said that the energy concerns were conspirators. PiL disagreed with me, but then agreed about the motives for the war. PiL posed the point that Oil Corporations wouldn't sign off on Iraq in fear of losing short-term profits, but then said it is irrelevant that their profits, in fact, continued to increase concurrently with the Iraq war. Beyond that, I am sorry to see that more than just Paul honestly believes that energy corporations are innocent bystanders and that GWB and his immediate circle are the sole extremists of the bunch - in fact, that Oil Corporations are "put off" by Bush's extremism. Just don't call yourself Progressive PiL, because you apparently have no interest in anything other than the 1999 status quo. As if all was well in America prior to GWB's appearance. Hey PiL, remember that whole "Reagan" era? Conservatives have been re-making America for decades now. Decades, not 5 years.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    pw, you are very slippery. You don't stay on the point long enough to deal with a counter argument. When I dispute your point you respond by sliding off into some new proposition that conveniently allows you to avoid addressing the original challenge. It is tiresome to try to deal with this style of debate, because you know the other party is always going to avoid the real issue in favor of some new line of argument. If we were married, I would work at it more. But because I don't care about trying to make our relationship work, I'm not going to bother. So go ahead, believe that companies and governments do the same things and can be measured by the same standards. Believe that company profits are analogous to government revenue. Whatever makes you happy. Just don't blame me if poeople think you're smoking dope. Well, for all I know, maybe you are. I'm not going to care. And I'm not being coy, just bored.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#36)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    TS-
    “How about this, you're an opportunist that picks and chooses which market forces to harp upon and which ones to … The source of energy isn't important to the consumer, only the supplier.”
    Am I right that you are accusing me of ignoring demand? There is a strong demand for all kinds of products; food, medicine, and so forth. It seems to me that you think you are somehow entitled to these things simply because someone has more than you. For most folks the source is irrelevant; ignoring green minded folks, what concerns consumers is price. I’m skeptical that any alternative fuels could compete even if we paid the true price of oil.
    “especially since we're having to kill people and occupy their lands to insure it's continued "growth".”
    Like I said before, the military shouldn’t be and energy policy. In fact I don’t think there should be an energy policy. Folks should pay the true price of gasoline at the pump, not through taxes.
    “But then, you apparently deny that the handful of American energy corporations are in on the deal.”
    I don’t know if they are directly involved or not; likely not. I don’t think totalfinaelf conspired with the French or Russian governments to thwart the invasion of Iraq. I think these governments did so in there own interest, which were parallel with totalfinaelf, etc. And if concerns over stable oil supply was a significant contribution in the US decision to invade Iraq it was about security not profit. I know some unholy nexus between the evil oil companies and a corrupt Republican administration fits your worldview, but the simplest explanation is most likely the correct explanation.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#37)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Cymro-
    “When I dispute your point you respond by sliding off into some new proposition that conveniently allows you to avoid addressing the original challenge.”
    You are wrong. This is how it has gone. I claimed that congress was being hypocritical for accusing the oil companies of profiteering when they in fact had made considerably more money from gasoline sales. You have consistently argued that Big Government and Big Oil are too different to compare. I’ve tried to show you that it is a fair comparison and further the hypocrisy doesn’t rest on the differences you mention. No change of subject; I’ve taken each of your points and addressed them.
    “It is tiresome to try to deal with this style of debate, because you know the other party is always going to avoid the real issue …”
    My style of debate is to take from your post the exact phrasing of your argument, repost it, and then respond. Apparently your style of debate is to mix in unsubstantiated accusations, hypocrisy or not answering your points, with the interesting stuff. That is truly tiresome; then not only do I have to answer your main point but also this peripheral ad homonym nonsense.
    “Whatever makes you happy. Just don't blame me if poeople think you're smoking dope.”
    I guess this is probably a good point to end this. You’re more interested in insults than a good debate.

    Re: Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    pigwiggle: "accusing the oil companies of profiteering when they in fact had made considerably more money from gasoline sales" Another good point. Gas prices in LA have slid FIFTY CENTS since the execs 'testified.' Amazing how 'supply' improves as soon as the heat is on. We should have them in the hotseat every few weeks for the rest of the decade, so they will stop profiteering on gasoline prices. Let's swear them in next time -- like a REAL Congress.

    Did Oil Execs Lie to Congress? | 36 comments (36 topical)