Interesting stuff... <I> <B>GAO: Cheney stifled energy probe Congress' investigative arm says vice president refused to turn over key documents. </B> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional investigators said Monday that Vice President Dick Cheney had stymied their investigation into his energy task force by refusing to turn over key documents. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said it was impossible to tell how much energy companies or industry groups may have influenced the task force's 2001 report because the administration withheld important records. "The extent to which submissions from any of these stakeholders were solicited, influenced policy deliberations or were incorporated into the final report is not something that we can determine based on the limited information at our disposal," the GAO said. Administration officials did not account for much of the money spent on the task force and could not remember whether anyone took official notes during the 10 Cabinet-level meetings the group held in 2001, the investigators said. The report came more than eight months after a federal judge rejected the GAO's demand that the administration turn over task force records. Cheney spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise advised critics to put the dispute behind them. "Now that the courts have dismissed the GAO lawsuit and GAO has issued its final report, we hope that everyone will focus as strongly as the administration has on meeting America's energy needs," she said. Instead, the GAO report provoked a new round of complaints from Democrats in Congress. "This report is a sad chronicle of the efforts of the office of the vice president to hide its activities from the American people," said Michigan Rep. John Dingell, the senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The task force issued a report to President Bush in May 2001. The administration announced an energy policy shortly afterward, calling for more oil and gas drilling and a revival of nuclear power. The policy was then bogged down in Congress. Critics of the administration, including environmentalists and some Democrats in Congress, said they suspected the energy industry had undue influence on the task force. White House officials argued that the GAO had overstepped its bounds and forcing them to turn over the records would hamper their ability to get "unvarnished" expert advice. The GAO's final report confirmed that administration officials met with a procession of lobbyists and executives from the energy industry, including coal, nuclear, natural gas and electricity companies. But it did not shed much new light on the task force's deliberations, beyond information already shaken loose by private lawsuits against the administration. Those suits forced the release of records from agencies such as the Energy Department, but not from the White House. According to the GAO report, administration officials said no outside groups attended the 10 meetings in Cheney's ceremonial office in the White House complex. "However, no party provided us with any documentary evidence to support or negate this assertion," the GAO said. "Agency officials could not recollect whether official rosters or minutes were kept at the meetings." Cheney's office turned over 77 pages of documents relating to money spent on the task force, but all were either irrelevant or useless, the GAO said. </I>
More democrat lies. You guys are all a bunch of pessimists. The rest of the country has moved on, wake up. If what these guys are saying is true, I'll be mildly concerned, and then I will vote for them again. SQWAAAAK
How can anyone take the word of the GAO. These were the same people who found out that nothing out of the ordinary happened in the transition between the Clinton whitehouse team and the Bush whitehouse team. We all know that in reality there was incredible vandalism, and that Cheney didn't do anything wrong.
I guess the fact that a Federal Judge through the GAO out of court for requesting this information doesn't matter?
I guess the fact that a Federal Judge through the GAO out of court for requesting this information doesn't matter? All that means is that Cheney had the legal right to stifle the investigation. Still doesn't jive with the idea of an open government or show that the administration was at all upfront about the process.
Should the public be allowed to witness military planning, or CIA covert operation planning? Of course not! We don't have an absolute right to access all of the President's and Vice President's notes on all subjects. Our government is "open" to an extent, and the judges tell us where that line exists. Everybody knows anyway, that this whole witchhunt was an effort to further link Cheney and Bush to Enron. At least this administration, unlike the last administration, has an energy policy. Who should the administration turn to for advice in formulating these policies? University professors? Lifelong government employees? No, the White House needed to access the most influential people in the energy industry at that time. They must be allowed to speak candidly, frankly, and freely for our benefit, and if any of these conversations are public record then the content will change. The judge ruled for Cheney against the GAO for a reason. Cheney had precedent on his side, meaning that these conversations have been protected in the past. Let the leftist lunatics like Sam Fisher and Roxtxia mutter Halliburton, 9-11, etc. under their breaths all day, it won't change the reality of this situation. The GAO was part of a witchhunt that would have lead nowhere, and the courts properly shut the GAO down.
Who should the administration turn to for advice in formulating these policies? University professors? Lifelong government employees? No, the White House needed to access the most influential people in the energy industry at that time. They must be allowed to speak candidly, frankly, and freely for our benefit, and if any of these conversations are public record then the content will change. I would argue that the content would change for the better. You can't give blanket access to people who will profit from a policy to develop that policy with absolutely no oversight. Corporate America has one goal - making money (and rightfully so). Their goal is NOT to formulate the best overall policy for America, but the best policy for their company. There's absolutely no way they should have the ability to influence policy with no oversight from even Congress - that's just ludicrous. Worse yet, we don't even know WHO met with Cheney - for all we know, Cheney and his best friends developed our energy policy, but they won't even reveal that. I'm a big believer in open government (outside of national security issues) - oversight is how fraud is kept in check. Imagine for an instance that there was some unethical going on and that Cheney was developing a policy to benefit friends in the energy business. I think we all agree that would be wrong, right? How in the hell would we ever know with these standards? This is just inviting fraud, whether or not anything improper happened in this particular instance.
God john, you are stupider than you post. The GAO is a non partisan organization that reports to congress. It's job is to investigate government agencies; It's about as partisan as the federal reserve. As for your legal analysis, not surprisingly, you are dead wrong once again. "The judge ruled for Cheney against the GAO for a reason. Cheney had precedent on his side, meaning that these conversations have been protected in the past." Sorry, john, but that statement couldn't be more wrong. The judge ruled that the GAO didn't have standing because they couldn't allege a concrete injury. He didn't reach the question of privileged conversations at all. Instead, the inquiry focuses on justiciability of the question and the ability of Article III courts to intervene in such disputes Read the decision in Walker v. Chaney if you don't believe me. http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs/pdf_inves/pdf_energy_cheney_gao_decision.pdf Either you were lying here, or you were too lazy or ignorant to figure out the truth, so you posted what you pretended to be the truth instead, or what you read was the truth on National Review online. And you wonder why people call you a jackass?
I understand your sentiment completely, but the fact is that Congress still has oversight. Also, we are talking about fact finding conversations that led to the development of an Energy Policy, not the actual Policy making meetings. We know who eventually made the actual policy, and it wasn't Cheney and a group of oil execs. It was Cheney, Powell, Whitman, Mineta, and 5 or 6 other cabinet members. Everything was done in the open, except for private conversations that have always been protected in the past. I think you are overreacting, because Congress will be watching closely. If Cheney somehow suckered the rest of the Cabinet members into implimenting an Energy Policy that benefitted BIG OIL (cue menacing music) instead of our People, that would become apparent quickly. One more thing. Think how damaging an Energy Policy designed to increase Oil Company profits would be to our economy. Some of the brightest people I know point the lack of an Energy Policy in Clinton's second term, and the inflationary effect of oil supply shortages, that led to the last recession. For Bush to be reelected, he needs to turn this economy around and get Iraq under control. He has known his economic challenges from day 1, and a skewed Energy Policy would work against everything the Republicans need for success during the next election cycle.
This probe was requested by Henry "Pigface" Waxman, and John Dingell. The GAO was being used as an instrument for these two men (aka THE FORCES OF EVIL). Ultimately, however, equally fundamental separation of powers concerns relating to the restricted role of the Article III courts in our constitutional system of government ordain the outcome here. The parties agree that no court has ever before granted what the Comptroller General seeks – an order that the President (or Vice President) must produce information to Congress (or the Comptroller General). Geez, I am not a lawyer, but here is the ruling, and precedent is certainly on Cheney's side. From Cheney's standpoint, his conversations don't have to be turned over to the GAO. You are correct on two points though. One, I didn't read the actual ruling- I only read press accounts. Two, I was wrong to use the term "privileged conversation" when I should have pointed to "separation of powers". I can't tell you how happy I am that your ilk considers me a "jackass". I would not have it any other way.
Hmmm. Judge John D. Bates... Appointed by G. W. Bush. Contributed to the G. W. Bush Campaign. Served 2 Years as Deputy for the Office of Independent Counsel under Kenneth Starr. Draw your own conclusions.
You should have just let the crickets chirp and then you wouldn't have drawn more attention to it. No, you said that the GAO lost because precedent says that these "conversations" were "protected." That's not what the judge said at all. You are wrong. Admit it. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. And it burns you up, doesn't it? Why don't you just admit that you are wrong every once in a while, and that you shouldn't just mindlessly parrot Ann Coulter's opinion as if it were fact? Maybe you could avoid situations like this.
This is exactly what I said, and if you want to play semantics, I was 100% correct. The judge ruled for Cheney against the GAO for a reason. Cheney had precedent on his side, meaning that these conversations have been protected in the past. Cheney DID have precedent on his side, and the conversations ARE protected from the GAO. Of course, I am here to learn, so I admitted that I was not precise in my language, and I did learn something new when you posted the link to the actual court. Thanks for that. You, on the other hand, have proven that you are here to vent like a spoiled child. On this point, I am right right right right right right. The ironic thing about this topic, is that you are on record stating that Ken Lay wrote up the Energy Policy, which IS a lie, yet you are willing to attack maliciously for inprecise language. That is a testament to your character.
Well, I don't know if its semantics or not, but that looks like John Heath admitting that he doesn't know everything, and that he was wrong. A pig just flew by. The only thing you were right about was that Cheney won his suit. (based on the cop-out standing argument that courts apply illogically in order to get rid of cases when they don't have any other good reason, but that's another matter). The reason that you gave for this was wrong, as you frequently are. Remarkably I seem to have gotten under your skin, and to admit that you were wrong, with just a few posts. I'll see you tomorrow.
LOL little man. You have exposed yourself. You are not here to argue facts, but are here to elicit reaction. You will never "get under my skin" btw. I recognized you for what you are early in the game. See you tomorrow.
But JH, you know this doesn't fit in well with the Democrats' plan to propagate negative information about our nation's leaders. Thanks for shedding light on yet another attempt at twisting and distorting facts by the Democrats. EXPOSED
I do know one thing TJ, the older I get, the worse my spelling has become. ..through out of court??? OUCH.