Bush's Potemkin Energy Policy

[headscratcher4]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1644581

Aleternative energy lab jobs restored just prior to President's speech.

Well, at least they got their jobs back for the moment, even if there isn't enough money for them to do their work.

While I've been hoping for some broader thinking on energy issues by this Administration, the craven nature of how it has manifested itself in the last month is nearly breathtaking. I suppose I should give them the benefit of the doubt..conversion on the road to Damascus...but they've been fighting tooth and nail for nearly 6 years against anything that would undermine our national dependence on oil. Remember when the VP said that conservation was a quaint idea?

 

[Mark]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1644581

Aleternative energy lab jobs restored just prior to President's speech.

Well, at least they got their jobs back for the moment, even if there isn't enough money for them to do their work.

While I've been hoping for some broader thinking on energy issues by this Administration, the craven nature of how it has manifested itself in the last month is nearly breathtaking. I suppose I should give them the benefit of the doubt..conversion on the road to Damascus...but they've been fighting tooth and nail for nearly 6 years against anything that would undermine our national dependence on oil. Remember when the VP said that conservation was a quaint idea?

They're just paying lip service. Bush, Cheney, and Rice are ALL oil executives...why would they undermine their own wealth? Certainly not for love of their country...

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Isn't this kinda mundane?

Charlie (hail our great leader) Monoxide

 

[Ziggurat]

They're just paying lip service. Bush, Cheney, and Rice are ALL oil executives...why would they undermine their own wealth? Certainly not for love of their country...

And you've got evidence that their future economic well-being is directly tied to the continued profitability of oil companies? Stuff like SEC filings showing Cheney still invested heavily in Halliburton, right? You wouldn't just be throwing around accusations without anything to back them up, would you? No, of course you wouldn't...

 

[Mark]

And you've got evidence that their future economic well-being is directly tied to the continued profitability of oil companies? Stuff like SEC filings showing Cheney still invested heavily in Halliburton, right? You wouldn't just be throwing around accusations without anything to back them up, would you? No, of course you wouldn't...

When Cheney left Halliburton to be Vice President, they shoved 33 million dollars up his bum. But, of course, that doesn't bother you one bit. The Bush family is totally involved with oil...even a city council member would not get away with that kind of HUGE conflict of interest. But for people like you, it's no big whoop because...well, just because. Maybe if a Democrat gets in?

Integrity in the White House? Not today.

 

[headscratcher4]

Isn't this kinda mundane?

Charlie (hail our great leader) Monoxide

I was hoping it was propane...to fuel the fire


Everything this Administration is saying now about the need to change the way we use oil, our relience on foriegn sources, its impact, etc. was, essentially being said 6 years ago when Cheney met secretely with oil company executives to plan out the Administration's energy policy.

I'm betting dimes to dollars that the oil execs. that Cheney listened to never mentioned our addiction to oil or the need for alternative sources and new sources of energy in their recommendations...we will likely never no as Cheney and the President don't want to talk about it.

Just another instance where the "gut" of this Administration has lead us down precarious paths in the face of contrary evidence. Evidence about what would happen in Iraq was overlooked in favor of questionable evidence that proved wrong about Saddam, his army, our reception, cost, etc.

Evidence that has subsequently proved pretty accurate about what a big strom would do to the Gulf Coast and New Orleans in particular was ignored in the face of cost cutting efforts, inattention and inefficiency.

For six years, they've been promoting an energy policy that makes us more dependent on Oil -- and foriegn oil at that -- in the face of evidence that has been there all along that such dependence posed significant issues to the continued development of our economy, or national security, little less the global environment.

Waiting now for the conversion over green-house gasses...oh, my, did you hear that glacier breaking-up?

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

The Bush administration (IMHO) is the worst example of leadership that I can imagine. Everyday we are assailed with stories of corruption, ineptitude, cronism, etc.

It's like some super-ingenius strategy created by Rove. "Just keep doing bad things, but smile and look stalwarty, the American public will soon become inured to the evil and consider it normal politics."

Another news story in the papers today is the re-sealing of a number of "secrets" released since 1999. A lot of this information is now out in the public domain. In these times of internet disclosures, it really seems pointless. But then again, another stupid policy of the Bush administration....

Charlie (waiting for the Bush apologists to wade in) Monoxide

 

[headscratcher4]

waiting for the Bush apologists to wade in

Funny there are so many when the Administration never admits to any mistakes...Head(Mission Accomplished)scratcher4

 

[Ziggurat]

When Cheney left Halliburton to be Vice President, they shoved 33 million dollars up his bum. But, of course, that doesn't bother you one bit.

Unless you're going to claim that their hand is still inserted (which is the kind of evidence I'm asking for), I'm not sure why Cheney would care about their continued future profitability. Isn't he supposed to be an evil selfish bastard who puts his own greed above the good of others? Isn't that really the charge being leveled here? If so, then why would he care about how well they do, now that he's not financially tied to them? What difference does it make to him now if they crash and burn?

The Bush family is totally involved with oil...even a city council member would not get away with that kind of HUGE conflict of interest.

"is" or "was"? Is there to be some sort of purity test for the office, where if you were ever in the past associated with a business which didn't meet some sort of purity standards (wonder who would decide those) can't serve even if you divest all interests? Are you not allowed to be friends with certain people because they're in the wrong business? You've really got to be more specific about both your accusations and your standards. For example, what exactly are the current conflicts of interest? It's not enough to say Bush was involved with oil, how is he NOW tied to it in unaccceptable ways? And how can one, given past involvement in any particular business, ensure they don't have unacceptable future conflicts of interest? Do you propose standards which can actually be met, or are the standards you would like to see instead intended to keep anyone with certain business involvement from ever going into government? If the standards you would like to see for avoiding conflicts of interest haven't been met by Bush and Cheney, HOW have they not been met, and what would they have to do to meet them? And your answer cannot be based upon their actions AS government officials, because that's the RESULT of a conflict of interest, not the cause of it. That's the kind of specificity that I'd like to see, Mark. That's what I wanted from you. Maybe that's asking more than you can provide, but without it, I really can't get myself worked up into a nice huff about this.

 

[Mark]

Unless you're going to claim that their hand is still inserted (which is the kind of evidence I'm asking for), I'm not sure why Cheney would care about their continued future profitability. Isn't he supposed to be an evil selfish bastard who puts his own greed above the good of others? Isn't that really the charge being leveled here? If so, then why would he care about how well they do, now that he's not financially tied to them? What difference does it make to him now if they crash and burn?



"is" or "was"? Is there to be some sort of purity test for the office, where if you were ever in the past associated with a business which didn't meet some sort of purity standards (wonder who would decide those) can't serve even if you divest all interests? Are you not allowed to be friends with certain people because they're in the wrong business? You've really got to be more specific about both your accusations and your standards. For example, what exactly are the current conflicts of interest? It's not enough to say Bush was involved with oil, how is he NOW tied to it in unaccceptable ways? And how can one, given past involvement in any particular business, ensure they don't have unacceptable future conflicts of interest? Do you propose standards which can actually be met, or are the standards you would like to see instead intended to keep anyone with certain business involvement from ever going into government? If the standards you would like to see for avoiding conflicts of interest haven't been met by Bush and Cheney, HOW have they not been met, and what would they have to do to meet them? And your answer cannot be based upon their actions AS government officials, because that's the RESULT of a conflict of interest, not the cause of it. That's the kind of specificity that I'd like to see, Mark. That's what I wanted from you. Maybe that's asking more than you can provide, but without it, I really can't get myself worked up into a nice huff about this.

I knew you wouldn't care. You never will.

A 33 million dollar windfall for Cheney from a company who was soon after awarded rebuilding contracts in Iraq for sites before we even bombed them! A person would have to be brain dead not to see a connection. And you make excuses. No, I don't think I will waste any more time with you. Cheney could shoot someone and you wouldn't care.

 

[Ziggurat]

I knew you wouldn't care. You never will.

As is so often the case, Mark, you confuse not buying into your hysteria as some sort of moral callousness on my part. But that's never been the case.

A 33 million dollar windfall for Cheney from a company who was soon after awarded rebuilding contracts in Iraq for sites before we even bombed them! A person would have to be brain dead not to see a connection.

How many other companies were lining up to do that kind of work? How many other companies were capable of doing that kind of work? If you can't come up with answers to that, why should I believe your unstated premise that such contracts wouldn't have been awarded to Halliburton if some pristine democrat were in office? Is there any evidence that other companies wanted to and could do that same work, but were denied the contracts? Without such evidence, then your accusation collapses. I keep asking for specifics, for evidence, and all you can provide are more accusations which you still don't back up.

Cheney could shoot someone and you wouldn't care.

I cared. It made for some great zombie/vampire speculation.

 

[Mark]

A

How many other companies were lining up to do that kind of work? How many other companies were capable of doing that kind of work? If you can't come up with answers to that, why should I believe your unstated premise that such contracts wouldn't have been awarded to Halliburton if some pristine democrat were in office? Is there any evidence that other companies wanted to and could do that same work, but were denied the contracts? Without such evidence, then your accusation collapses. I keep asking for specifics, for evidence, and all you can provide are more accusations which you still don't back up.



I cared. It made for some great zombie/vampire speculation.

How many other companies knew about---and were awarded contracts to rebuild---strategic bombing sites before they even happened? Isn't that information classified?

You honestly don't think a 33 million dollar pay out to Cheney, along with that fact at least should raise questions? How much more specific would you like me to get? How much more specific would it even be possible to get? Cheney has closed door "energy policy" sessions with the same people who gave him 33 million dollars and you don't even question that?!?!?!

All I can say is, I expect more from my elected officials than you do, regardless of party affiliation.

Your shooting/vampire comment was pretty funny, though.

 

[Ziggurat]

How many other companies knew about---and were awarded contracts to rebuild---strategic bombing sites before they even happened? Isn't that information classified?

Are you alleging that Halliburton was given access to classified information that other companies did not have access to before it was awarded a contract? Were there companies which wanted to bid on such contracts but weren't able to because of information they did not have which Halliburton did have? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to argue here, but it might help if you could at least start with another US company which was capable of doing the job that was contracted to Halliburton.

You honestly don't think a 33 million dollar pay out to Cheney, along with that fact at least should raise questions? How much more specific would you like me to get?

Well, was that kind of payment actually different than the normal golden parachutes offered to departing executives from large companies? How about that for a start? How does Cheney's compensation actually compare to industry norms? If that's the kind of money that's usually paid out, then why would I OR Cheney think that the money was given with the expectation of any special treatment? Do you KNOW? Or are you just going to assume? Do you care if you might be jumping to unfounded conclusions?

Do I care about that large payout? Only in the abstract - I think executive compensation is frequently too large. But it seems to me that it's so frequently done WITHOUT any expectation of future rewards (and occasionally without even adequate past performance on the job) that I need to see a little more than just the large number waved in my face to think that any impropriety beyond that actually took place.

All I can say is, I expect more from my elected officials than you do, regardless of party affiliation.

Well, I'd like you to be able to say what exactly you expect from them. Do you expect them to divest all investments in specific companies? Do you demand some maximum amount of contact between a politician and former contacts of his? You say you expect more, but I'd like to hear what that more actually consists of. THEN you can tell me all the myriad ways that Bush/Cheney have failed to live up to your standards.

Your shooting/vampire comment was pretty funny, though.

I do what I can.

 

[Mark]

Are you alleging that Halliburton was given access to classified information that other companies did not have access to before it was awarded a contract? Were there companies which wanted to bid on such contracts but weren't able to because of information they did not have which Halliburton did have? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to argue here, but it might help if you could at least start with another US company which was capable of doing the job that was contracted to Halliburton.



Well, was that kind of payment actually different than the normal golden parachutes offered to departing executives from large companies? How about that for a start? How does Cheney's compensation actually compare to industry norms? If that's the kind of money that's usually paid out, then why would I OR Cheney think that the money was given with the expectation of any special treatment? Do you KNOW? Or are you just going to assume? Do you care if you might be jumping to unfounded conclusions?

Do I care about that large payout? Only in the abstract - I think executive compensation is frequently too large. But it seems to me that it's so frequently done WITHOUT any expectation of future rewards (and occasionally without even adequate past performance on the job) that I need to see a little more than just the large number waved in my face to think that any impropriety beyond that actually took place.



Well, I'd like you to be able to say what exactly you expect from them. Do you expect them to divest all investments in specific companies? Do you demand some maximum amount of contact between a politician and former contacts of his? You say you expect more, but I'd like to hear what that more actually consists of. THEN you can tell me all the myriad ways that Bush/Cheney have failed to live up to your standards.



I do what I can.

As I said, you don't care what these people do. Let's stick to exchanging Cheney/vampire jokes...we'll never agree about this.

 

[Beerina]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1644581

Aleternative energy lab jobs restored just prior to President's speech.

Well, at least they got their jobs back for the moment, even if there isn't enough money for them to do their work.

While I've been hoping for some broader thinking on energy issues by this Administration, the craven nature of how it has manifested itself in the last month is nearly breathtaking. I suppose I should give them the benefit of the doubt..conversion on the road to Damascus...but they've been fighting tooth and nail for nearly 6 years against anything that would undermine our national dependence on oil. Remember when the VP said that conservation was a quaint idea?

Well, you don't think the politicians for conservation were doing it out of the kindness of their hearts or out of actual scientific understanding or caring for the environment, do you?

It's all about the power, and jumping on this or that bandwagon is all about garnering "useful idiots" in your quest for power, left or right. The idiots care about the issues, the politicians just want the power.

 

[Dr Adequate]

When Cheney left Halliburton to be Vice President, they shoved 33 million dollars up his bum.

I believe the correct term is "golden enema".

 

[Mark]

I believe the correct term is "golden enema".

Careful...you have now ventured into enema territory!

 

[davefoc]

Before the Iraq war several companies were given the opportunity to get no-bid contracts for Iraq reconstruction as I recall.

If these had been short term contracts placed at a time around the heat of battle it sounds like something that might be justified by circumstance. However I don't think they were short term contracts at least in the case of Haliburton.

Even more suspicioous, Haliburton was caught bribing Kuwati officials and yet continued to get contracts without any significant penalties.

And even more suspicious the US government has farmed out lots of jobs to contractors that would have been done by the military in previous wars. This might seem like a good idea if it reduced costs but it seems to have inflated costs greatly.

My own cut at all this is that the Bush administration together with a big chunk of the Republican congress has seen the federal treasury as a source of funds to reward their benefactors. I don't think we entered the war to create opportunities for corruption but once the decision was made to go to war using it as a way to reward the connected and the corrupt was looked upon as an opportunity that shouldn't be passed up.

A look at the Katrina mess shows the same pattern. Haliburton becomes the biggest contractor with, you guessed it, no-bid contracts. By the time congress got around to griping the claim was that most of the money was already spent so there wasn't much advantage to renegotiating the contracts.

One little strangeness about the Katrina disaster was the company that FEMA had on retainer to supply buses. The problem was they didn't have any buses. The company was put together by a Republican lobbyist to get buses when they were needed. So during the Katrina disaster major bus companies were calling up and offering buses and nobody at FEMA was returning their calls.

On the topic of this thread, the Bush administration energy policy, it is hard to find an issue where the president has been more hpocritical. His administration put through the tax break for small trucks and SUV's which is still partially in effect today. So while Bush is claiming that he wants energy independence he actually pursued policies to accomplish the opposite.

If Bush isn't the worst president in the history of the US, he is sure doing his best to achieve that goal before he leaves office.

 

[Mark]

Before the Iraq war several companies were given the opportunity to get no-bid contracts for Iraq reconstruction as I recall.

If these had been short term contracts placed at a time around the heat of battle it sounds like something that might be justified by circumstance. However I don't think they were short term contracts at least in the case of Haliburton.

Even more suspicioous, Haliburton was caught bribing Kuwati officials and yet continued to get contracts without any significant penalties.

And even more suspicious the US government has farmed out lots of jobs to contractors that would have been done by the military in previous wars. This might seem like a good idea if it reduced costs but it seems to have inflated costs greatly.

My own cut at all this is that the Bush administration together with a big chunk of the Republican congress has seen the federal treasury as a source of funds to reward their benefactors. I don't think we entered the war to create opportunities for corruption but once the decision was made to go to war using it as a way to reward the connected and the corrupt was looked upon as an opportunity that shouldn't be passed up.

A look at the Katrina mess shows the same pattern. Haliburton becomes the biggest contractor with, you guessed it, no-bid contracts. By the time congress got around to griping the claim was that most of the money was already spent so there wasn't much advantage to renegotiating the contracts.

One little strangeness about the Katrina disaster was the company that FEMA had on retainer to supply buses. The problem was they didn't have any buses. The company was put together by a Republican lobbyist to get buses when they were needed. So during the Katrina disaster major bus companies were calling up and offering buses and nobody at FEMA was returning their calls.

On the topic of this thread, the Bush administration energy policy, it is hard to find an issue where the president has been more hpocritical. His administration put through the tax break for small trucks and SUV's which is still partially in effect today. So while Bush is claiming that he wants energy independence he actually pursued policies to accomplish the opposite.

If Bush isn't the worst president in the history of the US, he is sure doing his best to achieve that goal before he leaves office.

Could you be more specific?

 

[Mark]

Could you be more specific?

Sadly, the Bush apologists just don't care. They will never care. Nothing matters except supporting Bush.