Exxon Mobil, huh? Interesting coincedence.

Tony Atkiss, an Exxon Mobil VP of Public Affairs (now retired) was also a major Bush donor. Atkiss' son, Steve, started out the Bush Administration in the White House Advance Office, then became Director of Operations of the White House (where he shared a West Wing office with Rove protegee Susan Ralston) and then finally landed at DHS as Chief of Staff of Customs and Border Protection. Atkiss is 31 or 32.

Along the way, Steve Atkiss admitted that the White House had a policy of keeping dissenting citizens out of Presidential events at all costs (see the Denver Three case).

Point being, Exxon sure gets its way with this administration.

But back to Rouse, here's more info about him:

"Jim Rouse, a 1962 industrial management graduate, is vice president of ExxonMobil and the world's largest energy company's senior official in Washington, D.C. A former Memphis, Tenn., resident, he previously was a vice president of the Exxon Corp., for which he now has worked some four decades. He is a member of the board of directors of the MSU Foundation and the College of Business and Industry's Senior Executive Advisory Council."

http://msuinfo.ur.msstate.edu/msu_memo/2002/11-11-02/alumfellows.html

The Democrats on the Hill should have hearings about the task force. If Cheney won't produce the meetings minutes and roster of attendees, citing executive privelege, they can call the oil and energy company executives to testify. I'd be particularly interested in knowing whether Cheney gave them a heads up by telling them in April 2001 that we were invading Iraq, and asking how they could make the Iraq war a lucrative business opportunity. As I understand it, the Iraq petro-sharing law they want so badly gives over something like 80 percent of revenue to the oil companies--all of whom would probably have attended these meetings.

well it took only 6 1/2 years to get this info made public, thinking with all the other crap going since then we should be reading about W & Co. for 20 years

I would have been personally floored had Ken Lay's name not appeared on the list of meeting participants. However, the list still sheds no light on who was actually on the task force.

The presence of a lot of oil and gas folks is somewhat telling. I'd be very curious to know if the topic of Iraq's oil reserves came up in any of the meetings.

Subpoena time?

Aw, what's the use. All of them would either ignore the subpoenas or flat out lie. The exec's have already been caught in that one (lying before a congressional subcommittee), and nothing happened.

I think the reason Cheney is so secretive with everything he does is because he doesn't want any investigators to reverse engineer his crimes based on available information. The fewer data points Cheney makes available to his detractors, the smaller the probability anyone will be able to make any of the myriad charges against him stick.

Using what is called the mosaic theory, researchers could make assumptions based on what information we do know. In other words, Cheney knows that there are a lot of us out here (we're called "citizens") who would like to see him hang. The more we know about what he's been up to, the greater the likelihood we'll get to see Cheney "Saddamed", for lack of a better term.

Hence Cheney's absolute secrecy.

So who stuck this shiv in Big Time? Dick had to beg Nino to keep this out of the papers in 2001- but it's coming out now?

Is this a further sign of the anti-Cheney push within the Republican party, or is this some private citizen with an axe to grind, or is Cheney airing his own dirty laundry as an attempt to distract from Harriet's criminal absenteeism?

Inquiring minds want to know, WaPo. Who gave you the doc, and what was their motive?

Maybe this will put to rest the idea that Italia Federici's power and access came from her relationship with Steve Griles, verses her own well-cultivated connections. CREA got a meeting February 22, 2001, the same day as Ken Lay. Steve Griles nomination wasn't announced until the first week of March, 2001, and his confirmation was four months later, in July.

We need to stop thinking of her merely as some second-string blonde bimbette.

The very issue of corruption is defined by these fellows very well indeed . They truly are the comic book figures they rail against .

"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."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

Seems we have some contradictions?

JEP:

It is certainly possible that the CEO of Exxon Mobil did not know that Mr. Rouse attended -- same with BP America Inc. -- but, I did not see any names of Chevron, ConocoPhillips, or Shell Oil people in today's article, did you?

JEP:

Remember that at the 2005 hearings the executives testifying were NOT SWORN IN by the chairman. Democrats were not pleased.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9970294/

So is it lying if you're not under oath?

Whether they were under oath or not, lying to Congress is a crime.

"But considering the list of "consultants" he spoke to, is thee any wonder that California got blacked-out,"

That was my thought...besides screwing CA rate payers it destroyed a CA-D governor, loosened (destroyed) many environmetal regulations, etc.

It was a winner all around for the R's.

Italia is no second-string bimbette. She's a full-fledged, card-carrying neocon whore. Maybe Griles helped come up with the idea of having her be Abramoff's bagman in the selling-access-to-Gale-Norton scam, but she was a willing participant in the crime and she was more than willing to lie to the Indian Affairs Committee to cover it up, although frankly she's a better crook than she is a liar.

This 'administration' has had two principal objectives:

One, to project American power in the world by removing a former tame dictator in the center of the Middle East through an undeclared, aggressive war; trying to obtain almost exclusive access to Iraq's oil reserves; and using the meme of spreading democratic ideals and "freedom" to counter radical Islamic movements; and

Two, politicizing the Federal government (from Interior and EPA to NASA; most importantly the DoJ) with the intent of advancing the agenda of a fundimentalist christian base -- but more directly, establishing effective one-party rule of the United States, covered by selective enforcement of law or the reversal of others through a packed Supreme Court.

Part of both points is the overweening stench of corruption -- because in the Republican world, the spoils are for the swift, and the strong -- the weak culls will have to fall by the wayside, as Nature intends. Their enemies must be crushed by air strikes, or swiftboating.

They'll tell you it's really about "spreading freedom" -- and that people who disagree with them or their actions "hate freedom" and "hate America", and are "traitors".

The simple version is, they're behaiving like pigs. They just *want*, and want more, and they will engineer the deaths of 650,000-plus people, destroy a national economy, and discard the soldiers wounded in mind and body who fought for their enrichment -- whatever it takes, if necessary to get more, and more, of what they want. That, to them, is "winning".

Why reveal this now, indeed, as previous posters have wondered. It will surely be the heart of the matter...
It isn't that nobody knew there was a pile of dung in the corral.
I love these posts; great information.

"So were the CEO's that testified in the 2005 hearing coached or advised by the White House or the GOP majority that their unsworn answers regardless of accuracy would not be illegal?"

I think this suggests some more support for that "Cheney energy conspiracy" framing... if everyone on the blogs starts referring to it as "the Cheney energy conspiracy" it will only be a matter of time before the MSM stumbles onto it...

Does this smack of a criminal conspiracy? I'm no lawyer, but isn't this a RICO violation?

"Graham Ban-[sic]" is actually Graham Barr, who was Vice President, International Regions for BP in 1999. His area of expertise was Central Asia. He testified to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of the UK Parliament on April 13, 1999 in a hearing about what could be done to enhance the UK's relationship with countries in the Transcaucasus and Central Asia. Barr speaks to the interests of BP in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Georgia:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmfaff/349/9041307.htm

He was named in the WaPo article of November 16, 2005 about the energy task force that first listed the names of some of the participants. Barr is identified in that article as BP "company employee." I've long wondered why a high level BRITISH vice president of BP with ties to the oil & gas business in Central Asia was part of Cheney's energy task force for the US.

In retrospect, I'd like to see the acutal minutes. Hiding the names of the participants/attendance records is insignificant compared to the issues discussed and decisions made.
Maybe these meetings really did pave the way for the Iraq oilthirst? The corporatization of Iraq's national resources seems to be the only real objective of the illegal occupation.

The question of the day is why this leaked now. My guess? It's a red herring.

Energy scandals are notoriously difficult to explain to the public. They involve a large cast of characters, multiple countries and corporations, and they take years to properly investigate. This doesn't give enough info for a proper scandal investigation, but I'll bet Cheney hopes that Dems grab the bait and start holding hearings. He knows that he can stall hearings, he's done it before. And at a time when a large number of other charges are coming his way, Dems begin to look more and more like witchhunters if they follow up on this one (especially since hearings probably won't produce anything).

I don't think there's anything here that can significantly hurt Cheney (the public doesn't understand energy scandals, Dems look like vengeful fanatics if they follow-up too closely), and if journalists or Congress takes the bait, it's a distraction from all the other crap he's embroiled in. That's the best I could come up with to explain the timing.

If the Dems delagate authority properly, they ought to have the human resources to do more than one investigation at a time. But can the public take it all in? Just more support for a Cheney Impeachment, as an umbrella over all the misdeeds.

It would prove to be a very efficient procedure, considering all the satelite issues now spinning through the courts and Congress, that would come under a single investigative authority, especially if those investigators are unfettered by the miususe of executive privilege. And only impeachment transcends that limitation.

We need to recall there has already been a blanket protection provided to Cheney by the Supreme Court when it first refused to allow oversight, based on executive privilege, which was the beginning of this administration's profane abuse of that precious separation-of-powers clause. Any course but impeachment will only get caught in the constitutional crisis conundrum created with Bush V. Gore and complicated by Bush's extremist appointments.

Impeachment is the only answer. And a Cheney impeachment would assure that all the guilty parties can be questioned.

And, unlike Bush, Cheney can't claim natural ignorance, we all know better.

Hi, Norm. Do you have a source for "Groups influencing this report include: Chevron Corporation . . ." as there's no one from Chevron on the list linked to above?

NYFM:

If you, tekel, or anyone at DailyKos had read the article, the list came from a FORMER White House official.

To follow up on the anthrax idea. They (Cheney) always went on about Iraq's chemical/biological weapons capability. Blah, Blah, blah.... So they could have just as easily pinned the anthrax attacks on him if they (he) wanted to.

Unless there's some other theory, NYFM, I would have to assume from when he/she worked IN the White House -- most logically having access to the calendar since dates and times are precisely noted, although said official could be a whistleblower and not had legitimate access to the information -- prior to becoming a FORMER White House official.

These must be the true owners of our country.

Maybe Scooter did it...

Hi, This ENERGY TASK FORCE MEMO had to have been leaked by an INSIDER--probably someone in White House who wants to get rid of Cheney right after the VEEP'S new PACEMAKER Operation. It was probably some traditional GOP patriot who also wants to "save" the GOP as Ford did after Nixon's forced departure. The Democratic Congress should call up the "SECRET ENERGY T.F." to find out what was recommended re IRAQ! Recall The "Merchants of Death" Hearings in the 1930s?

And of course THE ANTHRAX PLOT was also a White House "approved" BLACK BAG JOB. Why? To pin it on Saddam Hussein. Thus giving the White House the casus belli to "take out" Saddam under THE AUTHORITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION OF 15 SEPT. 2001. Therefore, there would be no need to create a WMD Hoax of 2002-2003. The ANTHRAX TERROR ATTACKS would serve nicely as a new "TONKIN BAY INCIDENT" for a President with 90% Public Approval to attack Saddam Hussein in late 2001. Why don't the Democrats hold hearings on this? Where are the "patriotic leakers" to help save our DEMOCRACY--before Cheney attacks Iran? Very worried in Nova Scotia. George E. Lowe

I have long suspected that the real reason that Mr. Cheny wants to keep the notes and topics secret is because at those meetings they discussed and more or less guaranteed that they would eventually control output from the middle east. They promised war in Iraq. The smoking gun.