I think it’s important for us to look on U.S. businesses as a valuable national asset, not just as an activity we tolerate, or a practice that we do not want to get too close to because it involves money. Far better for us to understand that the drive of American firms to be involved in and shape and direct the global economy is a strategic asset that serves the national interest of the United States.One of the problems we face, I think, is that we have far too many policymakers who lack any real understanding of what the modern world economy is all about or how it actually functions. I am concerned that we have a lot of policymakers who may be wise in the ways of Washington, but are, frankly, naive about the way the world economy works. I think they tend to still view international commerce as a process by which nations trade a few agricultural commodities and some manufactured goods and that is it. They believe that commerce is easily controlled and regulated by national governments, and that, if necessary, the United States can isolate itself from the rest of the world’s economy and remain prosperous.…National boundaries simply do not mean what they used to mean economically. The vast flows of capital and technology, the internet, the tremendous growth in services moving back and forth across international borders and between centers of economic opportunity and activity around the globe, have dramatically transformed what we think of as the world’s economy. We need enlightened political leadership that understands and comprehends the complexities of the world economy. All too often these days that leadership appears to be lacking.
Again, in his 1999 speech at the London Petroleum Institute in London, he spoke to the assembled oil barons about the some of the problems in oil acquisition:
Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.
So his Energy Task Force was suspect from the start. Initially, he wouldn’t even say who he met with. It was years before the participants were known:
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
Washington Post
By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum
November 16, 2005A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney’s energy task force in 2001 – something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco [before its merger with Phillips], Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Conoco Phillips 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.
Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP’s chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force’s work; that meeting is not noted in the document.
The task force’s activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records…
Vice President Cheney’s energy task force had a busy spring in 2001. While drafting a national energy policy, the group, chaired by Cheney, met with approximately 300 groups and individuals, ranging from the American Petroleum Institute to Defenders of Wildlife. Below, a list of individuals and organizations who met with the energy task force, as detailed in a document provided to The Post by a former White House official.
Name Affiliation Date Greg Moredock Cabot Energy March 14 Jim Rouse Exxon Feb. 14 Ralph J. Goehring Berry Petroleum Co March 6 John Martini Cal Independent Petroleum Assn March 6 Red Cavaney American Petroleum Institute March 6 Graham Ban– BP March 22 Deb Beaubien BP March 22 Peter Davies BP March 22 Bob Malone BP March 22 Eli Bebout Nucor Oil & Gas March 22 William Terry Smith Tidelands Oil Production Co March 22 Steen Parker Tidelands Oil Production Co March 22 William Dozier Vintage Petroleum Inc. March 22 Larry Bates Vintage Petroleum Inc. March 22 Wayne Gibben CONOCO April 12 Alan Huffman CONOCO April 12 Alby Modiano CONOCO April 12 Archie Dunham – March 21 Kevin Brown Sinclair Oil March 21 Clint Ensign Sinclair Oil March 21 Kathi Wise Sinclair Oil March 21 Willie Hensley Alyeska Pipeline Service Co March 7 Lindsay Hooper Small Refiners Group March 15 Paul Freer Marathon Oil, Conoco, Amerada March 29 Rick Shelby AGA Leadership Council March 26 Sir Mark Moody-Stuart Shell Oil April 17 Steven Miller Shell Oil April 17 Jerry Halverson Interstate Natural Gas Assn March 9 Rick Roldan National Propane Gas Assn April 20 Lisa Bontempo National Propane Gas Assn –
|
Cheney Energy Conference
|
-
The President and Vice President were heavily involved with the oil industry.
-
The VP’s first act was to convene an energy conference with heavy representation from the oil industry.
-
The result was a policy that obviously eroded our oversight of oil drilling, which became increasingly lax.
-
Another result was the Invasion of an oil-rich country [Iraq] based on trumped-up reasons.
-
One result was the largest environmental disaster in our history.
-
Another result was the largest military disaster in our history.
I appreciate this report and fail to understand why this has not been an ongoing concern to journalists in this country. I have been making the points you make for years now and wonder why when even a conservative organization like Judicial Watch has called for answers, the press looks the other way. Thanks for your work.