Skip to main content

Cheney Loses In Court
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2003


A federal appeals court rebuffed Vice President Dick Cheney, refusing to intervene in a lawsuit delving into the role of business executives and industry lobbyists in formulating the Bush administration's energy plan in 2001.

The administration won only three votes in favor of rehearing the request to step into the case in which Cheney and his energy task force are being ordered to turn over a large number of documents to the conservative group Judicial Watch and the environmental group Sierra Club. The request for a rehearing went to nine appeals court judges.

The rejection Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit leaves the Bush administration two choices.

The first is to ask the Supreme Court to consider the case. The other is to return to U.S. District Court where Judge Emmet Sullivan says the administration must comply with requests for documents or give detailed explanations about the materials it intends to withhold from disclosure.

The administration argues that the constitutional need for the president to receive candid advice demands confidentiality.

Documents from the task force already handed over to Judicial Watch include maps of Middle Eastern countries "” including Iraq "” and catalogues of current oil exploration and extraction projects, including one document titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts."

The General Accounting Office in February dropped a suit aiming to force Cheney to hand over the documents after a federal court indicated it did not wish to intervene in a dispute between two branches of government.

Last month, the GAO said it was unable to determine how much the White House's energy policy was influenced by the oil industry because they were denied documents by Cheney.

Some Democratic congressmen had requested information in the spring of 2001 about which industry executives and lobbyists the Cheney task force was meeting with in creating the Bush administration's energy plan.

Investigators also came up short trying to find out how much money various agencies spent on creating the national energy policy, the GAO report said.

The unwillingness of Cheney's office to turn over records and other information "precluded us from fully achieving our objectives" and limited its analysis, the GAO said.

The National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed by President Bush in January 2001 to develop a national energy policy.

The task force submitted its final report in May 2001. Congress is now considering the energy-related legislative proposals.

The Cheney energy plan called for expanded oil and gas drilling on public land and easing regulatory barriers to building nuclear power plants. Among the proposals: drilling in the Arctic wildlife refuge and possibly reviving nuclear fuel reprocessing, which was abandoned in the 1970s as a nuclear proliferation threat.

The GAO said the task force's report was the "product of a centralized, topdown, short-term, and labor-intensive process that involved the efforts of several hundred federal employees government wide."

In the few months between the start of the energy task force and its presentation of the final report, the vice president, some Cabinet-level and other senior administration officials and support staff controlled most of the report's development, according to the GAO.

They met frequently with energy industry representatives and only on a limited basis with scholars and environmentalists, the GAO said. The extent to which any of these meetings or information obtained from the energy industry influenced policy can't be determined, based on limited information made available to the GAO, the report said.


©MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.


There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life
that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela

© MBM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The recent 'blackout' of the power grid now demonstrates exactly what Cheney and the energy execs were meeting about and discussing regarding energy policy. Shame the democrats blocked the energy legistlation formed in those meetings, and now we are susceptible to 'blackouts'.

Also a shame that intelligent folks aren't spending more time on the energy legistlation and needs of the nation, rather than requesting a list of energy execs, who everyone already knows anyway.

I recall MBM asking, "what you think those energy meetings were all about?" And when the blackout hit, I smiled thinking about how foolish mbm must feel, since obviously the energy policies proposed in 2001, and blocked by democrats, to address the grid and fuel problems we see today were what they were all about.

How ironic its just these stupid 'notes' that dems are interested in, rather than dealing with actual energy policy. Typical however.
quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:

The recent 'blackout' of the power grid now demonstrates exactly what Cheney and the energy execs were meeting about and discussing regarding energy policy. Shame the democrats blocked the energy legistlation formed in those meetings, and now we are susceptible to 'blackouts'.



LOL - why then is the administration opposed to any action on modernizing the power grid for at least three years?

Further, what do oil execs know about the power grid??? rotflmao

quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:

I recall MBM asking, "what you think those energy meetings were all about?" And when the blackout hit, I smiled thinking about how foolish mbm must feel, since obviously the energy policies proposed in 2001, and blocked by democrats, to address the grid and fuel problems we see today were what they were all about.


Glad I hold such an important place in your life sergeant! Roll Eyes


There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life
that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela
You have answered this yourself mbm:

"The Cheney energy plan called for expanded oil and gas drilling.." (to fuel electricity production obviously, and no, electricity does not come from 'corn' mbm)

"easing regulatory barriers to building nuclear power plants" (sorely needed here, just like Europe does now)

"They met frequently with energy industry representatives"( Who else is better prepared to deal with production than the producers themselves? What do so-called environmentalist lobbyist know about increasing the availability of energy? wink)

"catalogues of current oil exploration and extraction projects" (planning for both present and future concerns)

That was just 2 years ago. Obviously its not the republicans who are against keeping up with energy needs of the nation mbm. Sorry, but you are arguing a losing point.

Do we forget California's blackouts so quickly? California, the bastion of liberalism and liberal thinking, set the example for what liberalism and liberals can do to a state. Lets hope liberalism is defeated before MORE blackouts hit the nation itself. Trust your eyes folks, California is the example to learn from.

Theres noone here who can viably argue that liberals and environmental lobby organizations are the ones gonna save us from energy shortages and power outages like we've just experienced last month. It will get worse unless more attention is payed to energy policy, and less attention is paid to alarmist self-proclaimed environmentalists, some of who have expressed a desire to turn back to the stone age.

Seeing is believing folks. You just saw the blackouts. You saw how democrats refused to pass energy legistlation in 2001. You saw the effort that was made by Cheney to draft a cohesive policy with all the industry experts in order to deal with the energy problems and issues.

Nothing surprising here, just believe what your eyes tell ya folks.

(I mean, obviously environmentalists did a great job on all these forests, never seen so much wasted nature go up in flames ever before in American history as they have in the last 5 years. Talk about Environmental Damage!! Yeah, thanks to those 'non' policies and lack of forest management knowledge from the liberal elitist environment fruitcakes, we have now seen more trees just go up in flames than ever before. They are WAY WAY too powerful for the good of the nation, and that has to stop)

Trust your eyes folks.
quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:

"The Cheney energy plan called for expanded oil and gas drilling.." (to fuel electricity production obviously, and no, electricity does not come from 'corn' mbm)


LOL - Ever heard of hydroelectricity? rotflmao Did you know that the electricity that was run on the system that had the blackout came from Niagara Falls? I didn't think so. fool

quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:

Do we forget California's blackouts so quickly? California, the bastion of liberalism and liberal thinking, set the example for what liberalism and liberals can do to a state.


LOL - Ever heard of Bush's boy Ken Lay and Enron??? rotflmao

There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life
that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela
Can anyone say d-e-regulation? Did you forget about that Sargeant? Man some people do have very short memories around here. Roll Eyes
Stop equating liberalism with a racial group of people! Liberalism and this so-called new softer kinder face of Conservatism aka NeoConservative are the same thing. No one would be hollering if Bush deregulated energy, as a matter of fact it was the Republican controlled house and senate that did it during the 2nd Clinton Administration. I wonder if Sarge forgot about this as well?

Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods, or tactics, or strategy. We have to keep in mind at all times that we are not fighting for separation. We are fighting for recognition as free humans in this society
Malcolm X, 1965
Yes, I am fully versed in de-regulation. Care to try an connect that with the total lack of energy policy during the clinton regime? No, didn't think you could.

De-regulation is not a problem. Socialist theories have been tried before, but come up lacking. The recent blackout was caused by an under production of energy and lack of energy infrastructure, like in nuclear plants and more sources of oil, for example. THAT is what infrastructure means.

And you didn't see any other state going dark like you did in California either. De regulation is a positive thing, not a problem.

Remember, Bush and Cheney TRIED to deal with the energy issues by proposing energy policy legistlation in 2001, and were blocked from doing so by the democrats who serve whacked up environmental interests rather than the people of the nation. I'm sure you can find the text of most that policy, and in it you'd see that it was comprehensive and superbly thought out.

Can you say 'liberalist failures' yssys? Can you say 'obstructionist democrats' yssys? Just think 'california', it will become clearer.
Lordy, the lack of education round here is frightening.

The blackout occurred mbm, not because Niagra Falls stopped falling or dried up. The blackout occurs because the grid is set up to share energy production based on regional needs, switching occurs regularly. The problem arises when the grid is maxed out of its capacity by having too little energy to meet demand, no reserve or backup energy production, and when there are two few sources of energy on which to rely on in the first place. Thus whenever any one grid exceeds its capacity, it shuts down to preserve itself and not blow up.

The tragedy here is that no grid anywhere should ever be stretched to its capacity. But thanks to the powerful UNELECTED environmental money pushers, politicians who are bought off are prone to object and protest to meeting the energy needs of the nation each and every time someone proposes we need do so.

YOU"VE seen them hollaring and crying and whining on TV!!! Who do you think these people really are???? They aren't responsible, they aren't accountable, and they have no interest in serving anyone's energy needs. They are NOT the voice of responsible energy production policy and maintenance, and thereby wield WAY too much power over all of our lives, and we hardly even know who they really are, we didn't elect them to buy off democrats and liberals in exchange for votes.

Reminds me of the head of the Sierra Club, drives around everywhere in a HUGE SUV, all by himself, his 'vehicle of choice'. Guess these elitist environment power brokers only mean that its 'we' that should conserve energy, not they themselves. Bet he got a huge Mansion to go along with his big SUV. Damn hypocrit. So typical of these liberalist orgs, but that would take up too many pages here.

Anyone who thinks the power of environmental money pushers over the last decade has been good for any of us must have lived on the moon during the recent blackout. We are faced with about a 25% under production level right now, with huge growth forecast in the near future. Tell me, how many blackouts will it take before we all agree that more production is important? Why aren't we drilling in the arctice wastelands, and everyone knows current technology leaves a very small footprint anyway. This isn't the technology of the 1970's anymore folks. Energy can be produced cleanly, it just requires a little attention.

Why are you arguing about this? Did your eyes SEE what happened? The country does not produce enough energy, and EVERYONE knows why that is!!!

GET REAL, you SAW what lack of energy does.

And no, Ken Lay never served in the California legistlature, and never voted to limit production of energy in California to ridiculously inadequate levels.
quote:
A The blackout occurred mbm, not because Niagra Falls stopped falling or dried up.

B The blackout occurs because the grid is set up to share energy production based on regional needs, switching occurs regularly. The problem arises when the grid is maxed out of its capacity by having too little energy to meet demand, no reserve or backup energy production, and when there are two few sources of energy on which to rely on in the first place. Thus whenever any one grid exceeds its capacity, it shuts down to preserve itself and not blow up.


You might start by educating me how you points in A and B even relate to each other...

First _A_ you say the hydroelectric energy source - aka Nigara Falls - was fully function.

Then _B_ you say there were "[too] few sources of energy on which to rely on in the first place..."

I'm trying to see what your point was???
You seem to suggest that MBM thought the Niagara energy source was disrupted (though I think he was merely citing the type and location of the energy source that was the supply to the system that had the problem... LoRdY!! Eek I would think you would be smart enough to figure that one out.)

Then on top of that after you seemed to suggest or tried establish that the energy source from Niagara was fine, you go on to say that there was/is need for more energy sources - other than Niagara - to meet demands. Not that I disagree but you sure do a Piss Poor job of support your own argument or rather you make some DUMB-A$$, irrelevant statements based on wacko, mis-understanding of common freakin' English - aka you have NO Reading Compre-freakin-Hension - just to try to discredit points made by others.

"Niagra Falls [didn't] stopped falling..."

No freakin' sh|t SHERLOCK! sleep

Use your freakin' mind...
It's terrible thing to waste! Razz

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×