# GAO reveals Bush-Cheney Energy policy for sale
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [August 26, 2003, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728 "2003-08-26T12:54:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/1 "2003-08-26T12:54:32Z")
[http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=energy\_policy](http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=energy_policy)
> [@](#):
>
> (Reuters) - Congressional investigators said on Monday that Vice President Dick Cheney had stymied their investigation into his energy task force by refusing to turn over key documents. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said it was impossible to tell how much energy companies or industry groups may have influenced the task force’s 2001 report because the administration withheld important records.
How Nixon-like of them.
Gee what did the money and access buy them- what does Cheney want to cover up?
> [@](#):
>
> The task force issued a report to President Bush (news - web sites) in May, 2001. The administration announced an energy policy shortly afterward, calling for more oil and gas drilling and a revival of nuclear power. The policy bogged down in Congress.
Full report link:
> **[gao-03-894.pdf](https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-03-894.pdf)**
>
> 413.49 KB
From the NRDC (who sued to get the documents released"
> [@](#):
>
> In the spring of 2002, under order from a federal judge, the U.S. Department of Energy released to NRDC roughly 13,500 pages relating to previously secret proceedings of the Bush administration’s energy task force. (President Bush formed the task force in early 2001 to develop a national energy policy, with Vice President Cheney at the helm.) Even though the government heavily censored the documents before supplying them to NRDC, they reveal that Bush administration officials sought extensive advice from utility companies and the oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy industries, and incorporated their recommendations, often word for word, into the energy plan.
more details:
> **[Cheney Energy Task Force](https://www.nrdc.org/resources/cheney-energy-task-force)**
>
> The Natural Resources Defense Council works to safeguard the earth - its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends.
Feel the sleaze:
> [@](#):
>
> The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said in the report that Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham privately discussed the formulation of Bush’s policy “with chief executive officers of petroleum, electricity, nuclear, coal, chemical and natural gas companies, among others.”
>
> An energy task force, led by Vice President Cheney, relied for outside advice primarily on “petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas, electricity industry representatives and lobbyists,” while seeking limited input from academic experts, environmentalists and policy groups, the GAO said.
Like who in particular:
> [@](#):
>
> Among the previously disclosed meetings were private sessions for Kenneth L. Lay, then the chairman of Enron Corp., the Texas energy trading company that collapsed in the nation’s largest accounting scandal. Lay was given a 30-minute meeting with Cheney and a conference with a top aide for the task force.
Gee, what a surprise. Of course, Bush later tried to distance himself from his extensive ties to Enron.
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44891-2003Aug25.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44891-2003Aug25.html)
> [@](#):
>
> Of the 77 pages Cheney’s office provided the GAO, two-thirds contained no cost information, and the remaining third included “miscellaneous information of little or no usefulness,” the report said.
>
> The vice president’s office “stated that it would not provide any additional information,” the investigators wrote. An unusually caustic GAO news release complained of the office’s “persistent denial of access” to task force records.
Like we should be surprised.
Those crazy liberals at Forbes list the hogs at the troth:
> [@](#):
>
> The administration formed the National Energy Policy Development Group, as the task force is known, shortly after taking power and assigned it the job of developing energy policy. Cabinet secretaries, agency heads and senior presidential aides were members. A lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, later joined by the Sierra Club, alleged that private executives and lobbyists were also invited to consult. The list of nongovernmental advisors allegedly included Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute; Marc Racicot, chairman of the Republican National Committee and a lobbyist; Haley Barbour, a former Bush campaign advisor and a lobbyist for Southern Company (nyse: SO - news - people ); and, most ominously, Kenneth Lay, former chairman of Enron (otc: ENRNQ - news - people ).
[http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/2003/07/09/cx\_da\_0709topnews.html](http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/2003/07/09/cx_da_0709topnews.html)
Nothing on FoxNews website yet- what a shock.
:rolleyes:
ps. First Apoligista in gets points towards their official stick pin.
---
### Author:  [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/2 "2003-08-26T13:29:08Z")
Come one Apologista’s get your points in towards that official stick pin\*. Extra points for using “liberal media”, writing in all lower case, or using a baseless personal attack as the entire basis of your post.
* * *
- Which is the likeness of an ostrich sticking his head in the sand, fashioned out of fool’s gold, with “In Rush We Trust” inscribed on the front, and a medic alert tag on the back stating “In Case on Independant Thoughts Please Place In Front of TV tuned to Fox News Channel for Reeducation”
---
### Author:  [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/3 "2003-08-26T13:31:20Z")
Holy fuck! Cheney talked to the people who actually know about the practical issues involved with providing our nation with power! Curse him for a thousand years! How dare he not set our national enery policy based on what Greenpeace or Sierra Club have to say?!
In other words, whoop-dee-fucking-doo.
---
### Author:  [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/4 "2003-08-26T13:32:57Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by elf6c \*
> \*_Come one Apologista’s get your points in towards that official stick pin_. Extra points for using “liberal media”, writing in all lower case, or using a baseless personal attack as the entire basis of your post…" \*\*
Damn, if I saw that you were intentionally trolling, I would have opted out.
---
### Author:  [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/5 "2003-08-26T13:40:04Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Brutus \*
> \*\*Damn, if I saw that you were intentionally trolling, I would have opted out. \*\*
Baseless personal attack (and wildly unaccuarate)-- bonus points.
Let’s see a lengthy post with five independent Cites (you should try them) about a major recent news event is trolling now? Oh wait, I added a joke about your oh so predictable response. That must be it.
:rolleyes:
ps. you forgot “liberal media” or a lament about Clinton. Getting sloppy.
---
### Author:  [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/6 "2003-08-26T13:44:17Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by elf6c \*
> \*\*Baseless personal attack (and wildly unaccuarate)-- bonus points.
>
> Let’s see a lengthy post with five independent Cites (you should try them) about a major recent news event is trolling now? Oh wait, I added a joke about your oh so predictable response. That must be it.
>
> :rolleyes:
>
> ps. you forgot “liberal media” or a lament about Clinton. Getting sloppy. \*\*
Don’t be such a retard. Your first post, senseless though it was, was not trolling. Your second post was nothing but brazen trolling. Come to my OP and post! Pleeeeaaaaassse! I wrote this big OP, and damnit, you need to post! POST NOW!
---
### Author:  [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/7 "2003-08-26T13:47:11Z")
If you hadn’t used the “apologista” term, you’d actually have a debate of substance here.
Good work on the OP, though. Except for the “apologista” thing.
---
### Author:  [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/8 "2003-08-26T14:03:16Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Brutus \*
> \*\*Don’t be such a retard. Your first post, senseless though it was, was not trolling. Your second post was nothing but brazen trolling. Come to my OP and post! Pleeeeaaaaassse! I wrote this big OP, and damnit, you need to post! POST NOW! \*\*
“retard” how charming. I hardly need make an effort to expose your ingorance and stupidity, as your repuation here and your posts seem to do a fine job of it.
As to your use of the “T” word I will not Junior Mod that use in any way.
As this is this is the Pit, and not Great Debates making a quite accurate joke about the predicted response from the loyal opposition hardly seems to be out of the ordinary. The fact is was reflective of 90% of your posts must have been annoying though.
**Brutus** if you can come up with a cogent argument with regards to this matter, please surprise me and do so.
* * *
Now to more serious matters:
**spooje** I made the joke later in expectation of the same 3 responses I have received over and over from the far-right. It was sarcastic in nature as I was hoping to be proven wrong. Sadly I wasn’t. However, do you think it was too heavy-handed a gibe?
---
### Author:  [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/9 "2003-08-26T14:22:28Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by elf6c \*
> \*\*"I made the joke later in expectation of the same 3 responses I have received over and over from the far-right. It was sarcastic in nature as I was hoping to be proven wrong. Sadly I wasn’t. However, do you think it was too heavy-handed a gibe? \*\*
Personally, I detest the whole “ista” tactic. Clintonista, Bushista, apologista - just another lame way to try to categorize and insult people who argue against you.
A real shame when your OP asked some interesting questions.
---
### Author:  [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/10 "2003-08-26T14:58:34Z")
**elf6c** , what are you trying to achieve here? This is an interesting topic to discuss, and while I do think that of course energy companies need to be consulted on energy matters, the question of how much influence they can purchase is an essential one. However, the “apologistas” and “usual suspects” jibes are really pissing me off, just like the “leftist” and “saddamite” crap. It just pre-ruins any potentially interesting thread by immediately eradicating any willingness to find middle ground. Please, stop it, I beg you. Relying on **Reeder** to make you look moderate or serious is not going to be a reliable tactic.
---
### Author:  [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/11 "2003-08-26T15:05:43Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat \*
> **Personally, I detest the whole “ista” tactic. Clintonista, Bushista, apologista - just another lame way to try to categorize and insult people who argue against you.**
Just the sort of post I’d expect from a member of the Kumquatista.
---
### Author:  [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/12 "2003-08-26T15:48:42Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Brutus \*
> \*\*Holy fuck! Cheney talked to the people who actually know about the practical issues involved with providing our nation with power! Curse him for a thousand years! How dare he not set our national enery policy based on what Greenpeace or Sierra Club have to say?!
>
> In other words, whoop-dee-fucking-doo. \*\*
As usual, **Brutus** reduces a complex situation to an either/or proposition. No-one is suggesting that environmental groups be the only ones having input into the decision-making process. You conveniently left out another important group that the GAO said was omitted from the discussion–academic experts. You’ll probably start ranting on about ivory towers and such, but the fact is that there are plenty of scientists, environmentalists, engineers etc. who are informed on issues of energy policy and resource extraction, but whose paychecks are not signed by the very companies seeking to get their hand on the resources.
You also conveniently ignore the fact that, while energy companies might “actually know about the practical issues involved with providing our nation with power,” the fact that they are in the energy business means that they are likely to employ this knowledge to their own benefit wherever possible, even at the expense of the public good, There’s nothing conspiratorial or illegal about this, per se; profit maximization is simply standard business practice. But that self-interest is the very reason that governments, in formulating energy policy, should not consult exclusively with those who make their money producing and providing power.
What’s even more important in this whole scenario, in my opinion, is the need for openness and accountability, two things that Republicans often harp about, but that the current Administration seems determined to avoid at all costs on all fronts. I concede that it is logical for a government that is formulating energy policy to consult with representatives of the energy industry, but such meetings should be open or, at the very least, attended by third parties (academics, environmentalists, whatever) in order to remove the appearance of, and the opportunity for impropriety. This becomes even more crucial when the President and Vice-President both have extensive ties to the industry in question, and are soliciting advice from people and companies with whom they have worked. As the old saying goes, justice should not simply be done, it should be seen to be done.
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Gary Kumquat_
> \*\*Personally, I detest the whole “ista” tactic. Clintonista, Bushista, apologista - just another lame way to try to categorize and insult people who argue against you.
>
> A real shame when your OP asked some interesting questions.\*\*
Well, how about being the bigger man and actually taking a stab at addressing the issue, then? I agree that a couple of **elf** ’s jibes were unnecessary, but just complaining about them doesn’t make the original problem go away.
The only thing more disheartening than seeing jibes of the “-ista” variety (and i’ve used them myself at times) is seeing how quickly posters like **Brutus** rush to prove that there is some truth to every generalization.
---
### Author:  [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/13 "2003-08-26T16:21:49Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by mhendo \*
> **Well, how about being the bigger man and actually taking a stab at addressing the issue, then? I agree that a couple of elf’s jibes were unnecessary, but just complaining about them doesn’t make the original problem go away.**
I would take a stab at it, but on the grounds that I’m highly critical of the current US administration’s energy policy I find myself not in the best position to do so.
That’s why I disagreed with the 'ista name calling. I think the OP asks valid questions, and I’d like to see someone defend these points. Starting off with name calling doesn’t encourage that though.
---
### Author:  [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/14 "2003-08-26T16:37:34Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat \*
> **I would take a stab at it, but on the grounds that I’m highly critical of the current US administration’s energy policy I find myself not in the best position to do so.**
That’s very noble of you, but declining to participate because you are highly critical of the policy simply leaves the field open to Administration defenders. Just because you’re critical doesn’t mean you aren’t informed or intelligent.
I’m highly critical of the policy also, but i flatter myself that i can (and did) make a decent argument in support of **elf** ’s position without coming off as irrational or obsessive. In the end, of course, others have to be the judge of that. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/15 "2003-08-26T18:12:46Z")
I’d be disgusted by this state of affairs, except it’s already shown to be _de rigeur_ for the Bush Administration.
---
### Author:  [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/16 "2003-08-26T18:19:59Z")
All right, given the serious nature of the possible influence brokering within the Bush Administration and the apparant attempts by Cheney to cover up some of what happened (especially in light of the California energy crisis which was found to be due in part to Enron et al, the power line fiasco, and the general corporate governance disaster which resulted from deregulation please consider my jibe at the **Brutus** and **december** ’s of the world cheerfully withdrawn.
That being said, I do challenge them to come forth and provide an argument on the merits.
**Gary Kumquat** I would like to hear your take.
---
### Author:  [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/17 "2003-08-26T18:20:33Z")
Frankly, I don’t think that meetings with industry leaders should be considered inherently improper, and subject to scrutiny by anybody other than the meeting members. As far as the decision making process goes, it is the responsibility of the gov’t officials to come up with the policy, and they have the right to consult (or not consult) anyone they wish. The only reason impropriety comes up is that anti-big business and anti-Bush people want something to scream about.
If you disagree with the policy, feel free to attack that point by point, however you like. Attacking the decision making process is just silly. You act as if Cheney would have done a big 180 on policy if he could just have heard the Sierra Club’s point of view :rolleyes:
Bush and Cheney are pro energy company, we all knew this LONG before the election, why is it a surprise that they would consult heavily with them on policy? I suppose the _right_ thing to do would be to give equal time to the enviro-groups and just ignore what they have to say.
Pretend to listen to their arguments and make them feel good before making policy directly opposing them. Just like we should have pretended to ratify Kyoto when there was a snowball’s chance in hell of it actually being implemented.
---
### Author:  [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/18 "2003-08-26T18:36:48Z")
Update to the OP:
Here is a FoxNews link on the story:
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95702,00.html](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95702,00.html)
More on the impact of the closed door panel:
> [@](#):
>
> The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lacked hard data to support its revision last year of clean-air rules in favor of utility plants and oil refineries, the General Accounting Office said.
>
> The GAO delivered its report to Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and James Jeffords, a Vermont Independent, who requested the study. “This independent report reinforces what nonpartisan experts have been saying for months - that the Bush administration’s rollbacks of the Clean Air Act have no analytical basis,” said a statement from presidential candidate Lieberman.
>
> The report said the EPA “relied primarily on anecdotal information from the industries most affected” in rewriting the rules, a step suggested by Vice President Dick Cheney’s 2001 energy task force.
> **[Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source](https://www.newsday.com)**
>
> Breaking News, data & opinions in business, sports, entertainment, travel, lifestyle, plus much more. Newsday.com is the leading news source for Long Island & NYC.
How can they possibly cover this issue up- simple:
[http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0813noprobes13.html](http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0813noprobes13.html)
> [@](#):
>
> Now, some things have changed. The law that provided for special counsels has expired. President Bush’s fellow Republicans control both houses of Congress. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, has stepped back from challenging the White House after losing a court case that sought to open the records of Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force.
The result of which is:
> [@](#):
>
> But Bush’s Democratic critics now face a much steeper challenge to force the administration’s hand or drive the capital’s agenda than Republicans had during the Clinton administration. As the minority party in Congress, the Democrats can’t schedule a congressional hearing, issue a subpoena, demand a special counsel or rely on the GAO to get information that the White House doesn’t want to give.
>
> Predictably, the parties disagree on whether this a good thing.
>
> “When the Republicans ran the Congress and Clinton was in the White House, there was no accusation too small for them to pursue,” said California Rep. Henry Waxman, senior Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee. “Now that President Bush is in power, there’s no scandal so large that they have any interest in examining it.”
>
> He said he’d like to have hearings on the no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton, Cheney’s former company, to rebuild oil fields in Iraq, for example.
and additionally:
> [@](#):
>
> During the Bush administration, several special counsels have been requested: Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., asked for a special counsel to investigate campaign contributions to Republicans by Westar Energy, a Kansas utility seeking exemption from some regulations. Environmental groups wanted an inquiry into whether the No. 2 official at the Interior Department violated ethics laws to help his former lobbying firm. Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., requested one to pursue possible conflicts of interest in the administration’s inquiry into Enron’s collapse.
>
> Each time, the Justice Department declined.
You dont have to be “Anti-big business” and “anti-Bush” to wonder what they are working so hard to keep from disclosing do you?
---
### Author:  [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/19 "2003-08-26T18:50:18Z")
**Cheesesteak** thanks for responding.
As I stated in the end, merely attributing suspision towards Cheney solely due to some sort of inherent bias against business or Bush seems simplistic.
How would you respond to these questions:
> [@](#):
>
> Two Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Bob Graham of Florida, on Tuesday criticized the administration for failing to release the energy task force documents and called on Cheney to produce the records.
>
> ``As gas prices reach historic levels and the nation’s energy infrastructure is pushed beyond its limits, the Bush administration has decided their energy policy will be of the special interests, by the special interests and for the special interests,’’ Kerry said in a statement.
>
> Said Graham: ``If the Bush-Cheney team has nothing to hide, then why are they hiding documents? There can be only one answer - they don’t want the American people to know just how much influence the big oil companies have over U.S. energy policy.’’
> **[News, sport and opinion from the Guardian's US edition | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/us)**
>
> Latest US news, world news, sports, business, opinion, analysis and reviews from the Guardian, the world's leading liberal voice
If nothing is wrong, why the cover-up? The GAO has never sued before this, a rather frightening fact if you think about it.
Details of the quite contraversial plan for those interested (from the same link):
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
---
### Author:  [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2003, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728/20 "2003-08-26T19:16:05Z")
I just want to make sure I got this right, Cheney wants MORE oil drilling and MORE energy production. Kerry claims that this should be investigated because gas prices have gone up and our energy infrastructure is over taxed? Seems to me that Cheney’s plan would have relieved pressure on gas and energy production.
To me, it boils down to people saying “Bush and Co are scum, and they need to prove to us they aren’t” From your Foxnews link about the rejected GAO lawsuit:
> [@](#):
>
> The judge said the lawsuit filed by Comptroller General David Walker (search) against the vice president was an unprecedented act that raised serious separation-of-powers issues between the executive and legislative branches of government. The comptroller general runs the GAO.
What this tells me is that the legislative branch doesn’t have the right to know HOW the executive branch comes to its decisions. That would be why Bush and Co are resisting, so that the GAO doesn’t stick its nose into every single one of their policy decisions.
When a cop asks to search your trunk, you say no, not because you have something to hide, but because he doesn’t have the right to search in the first place.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gao-reveals-bush-cheney-energy-policy-for-sale/197728.md?page=2)