WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats asked the U.S. attorney general Wednesday to investigate whether top executives from big oil companies lied to Congress when they said their companies did not take part in Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force.
At a Senate hearing last week on record oil profits, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey asked five executives, "Did your company or any representatives in your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy force in 2001?"
Each executive answered the question in the negative.
However, The Washington Post reported Wednesday that a White House document showed some companies did in fact meet with the task force.
======
Huh! Imagine that! Bush and his cronies lying. Or, as they might call it, telling “their truth,” which is whatever words are most expedient to get what they want. It's Truth to them if they want it to be truth. Faith-based truth.
Or to quote Their Jesus: “You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make us rich.”
'Tis necessary for us to receive their truth. They can't give us the real truth because we just can't handle the truth. Requires lifestyle changes and who wants to do that?
Meanwhile, let's all bend over and say, “Thank you sir, can you give us another truth?”
======
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
There are two ways to be fooled: One is to believe what isn't so; the other is to refuse to believe what is so.
Soren Kierkegaard
14 comments:
I got blasted once for saying this, but I wonder if deliberate stupidity isn't the "sin against the Holy Ghost".
Most people would fall under Kierkegaard's second definition of being fooled. Even if confronted with the truth they refuse to believe it.
I've been thinking of outlining my presidential platform on my blog, ala Daniel L.. What do you think Dan? I mean, I have no intention of running; I have too many tattoos and piercings to even have a chance. But it would be fun to speculate, wouldn't it?
DT: "Imagine that! Bush and his cronies lying."
I searched the article for a reference to Bush answering Lautenberg's question, or even being at the Senate hearing last week. No such. So "Bush and..." doesn't fit the facts.
Curious to find this false (or ignorant?) statement preceding your bloviating on truth and ignorance. Why does the truth of that not matter enough to you to state it accurately?
I think the main issue is more about protecting what "the courts have upheld [i.e.] 'the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality.'" Protecting it from underhanded Democrat tactics like Lautenberg's.
Consider shedding your shallow, unbiblical Marxist stereotypes (e.g., all rich folks are "cronies" or believe in a different Jesus.)
And by the way, when this thread turns into rehashing the same tripe about Iraq, I'll lose interest like I did last time. (In case you thought your points actually stood to scrutiny.)
Have a great day. ;-)
I won't rehash why I think this administration is dishonest to the core. Others have already done it more thoroughly than I could.
As I'm sure you know, I wasn't saying Bush lied in response to Lautenberg's questions, just the he, in general is a liar.
That is, W believes, as did his daddy and Uncle Ron before him, that lying is okay as long as your heart is in the right place. (And yes, of course, Clinton was a liar as well - it's just that he was a liar over moronic issues instead of life and death ones.)
Scroot, et al, just between you and me: Do you honestly disagree that they think that lying is an acceptable tactic when the cause is just? "If we can stop those damned commies in Nica, then lying will be okay." "If we can just stop them damned terrorists in...wherever they are, then lying is okay..."
Do you think they DON'T think that?
Brandon: Speculate away. Your answers are bound to be more sensible than what the Republicans OR the Dems are putting out there.
And if you're not the first tattooed and pierced president, then who? You know it's coming one of these days.
Curious though, when you have important meetings with the Prime Minister of England, for instance, will they call you Brandon or just M?
Here, I'll start us off with a working platform:
1. If it makes sense, is sustainable and/or promotes peace and understanding, do it at all costs.
2. If it's illogical, unsustainable and/or does not promote peace and understanding, don't do it no matter how cheap it is...cause it's not.
3. And finally: Siestas every working day!
DT: "As I'm sure you know, I wasn't saying Bush lied in response to Lautenberg's questions..."
But that's exactly what your original post falsely claimed. Re-read it, then amend it.
The belief that lying is okay as long as your heart is in the right place? That's the very essence of the liberal tradition, from Walter Duranty to Michael Moore.
Lying isn't acceptable, even when the cause is just.
You seem to believe that since you're convinced Bush is a liar (i.e., your cause is just), you can distort this article to imply that Bush lied in this situation. Could your hypocrisy be more bald?
And to what extent is your belief influenced by falsehoods like these you tell yourself? If we undid each one, you might find yourself in a very different place.
****
DT: "If it ... promotes peace and understanding, do it at all costs.
But what counts as peace? Surrendering Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge? Surrendering Iraq to its most vicious players?
They can call me Mr. Robbins, thank you very much!
Actually, being called "M" is a bit too much like being addressed as the head of MI6, and while that would be exciting I'd much rather be out on the field as a 00 agent wooing women and knocking back martinis while occassionally saving the world from Bush...er, megalomanical villains.
So Brandon will do just fine.
Of course, since I plan on being the first American (to my knowledge) to be knighted then Sir Brandon will be the way I'm addressed by all.
President Sir Michael Brandon Robbins.
Has a nice ring.
Dan, I got to tell you, when Clinton was in office I was in Somalia operating under that particular 'Commander in Chief's' ridiculous rules of engagement....and it was indeed a matter of life and death!
I tell ya, I'm just plain sick to death of both sides of the aisle talking out both sides of their face but I will say this:
To put Bush in the same category of 'scumbag' as Clinton is quite the erroneous stretch!!!
The problem I see is that it was the Wasington Post, a newspaper that is quickly building a reputation as dubious as the New York Times' that reported the story. It makes me question whether the allegations are even true.
www.ravingconservative.com
Hey Dan,
You alright? no one has heard from you in days. It's not like you to go silent for so long.
www.ravingconservative.com
Thank you so much for asking, Daniel. In fact, I was laid up over the weekend feeling poorly. But I'm back now, just in time for Thanksgiving travels, so I'll probably be out again a few days.
Virtual friends are a fine and wonderful thing.
Scroot, I still say that my original post does not imply that Bush was lying in response to Lautenberg's question. I'm just implying that he's a liar in general, and that he believes lying for a just cause is correct in particular, and that, I'll stand by.
A case in point: When Bush began presidentin', he promptly hired at least two or three convicted and/or admitted liars. Elliot Abrams, John Poindexter and one other fella whose name I forget.
They both were convicted of lying to congress about the Iran/Contra scandal (about selling weapons to terrorists to raise financial support for terrorists!). They never repented of lying and were hired by Bush not because they were reformed criminals deserving of a second chance (which I might be okay with) but BECAUSE they were liars and loyal to Team Bush.
So don't suggest that lying for a just cause is a liberal thing, we've got plenty of lies in the Reagan/Bush/Bush administrations to invalidate that point.
Yes, Clinton did lie, but he wasn't doing it for noble, liberal reasons, he was covering his own idiotic butt. His lying was not part and parcel of liberal theology, I'd suggest overthrowing commies/terrorists/boogeymen using whatever means is necessary IS part and parcel of neocon solutions. You disagree?
I'm sure the lefties out there agree with me and need no validation and the righties out there will never agree with the suggestion, but here's a list of links to people who have outlined the lies of this administration more fully:
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/delavega
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20021125/alterman
http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html
Okay, waaay of topic here, but I just stumbled a bombshell for my prior debate with Elutheros on wheter or not George Washington was a Christian. He stated that George Washington Never used the word "God" in a speech or in writing. The following is the introduction to the speech where George Washington declared Thanksgiving to be national holidy:
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor -- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."
I normally wouldn't revisit something so far back, but this was too much of a blockbuster to leave unmentioned.
www.ravingconservative.com
Apparently so far back you've forgotten the particulars entirely. 'Almighty God' was the way Deists refered to God. No one ever said Washington never used the word God, although he didn't favor it and rarely used it. What was said was that Washington never used the word Jesus or Jehovah when he was refering to the Deity he believed in. You've got to tighten up, man. This is where those 'I heard it somewhere but can't quite remember' sotries of yours start.
Sorry, no bombshell. Except maybe this. The reason for the declaration to begin with was to give thanks to the (unspecified) deity mainly that they had managed to establish a government that was NOT based on a specific religion (namely Christianity).
Post a Comment