Why didn't Frontline talk about Cheney's long denied meetings with oil executives to make policy?

[NNN0LHI]

I realize they only had four and a half hours but this part is kind of important isn't it? Kind of explains everything. But Frontline ignored it. Telling half the truth is the same as lying in my book.

Don

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

Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; Page A01

A 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 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.

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.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

Secret US plans for Iraq's oil

Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.




When this well known propagandist kept popping up on my screen during the show I knew something was up:


Former tennis partner of George Bush Sr. and the NYTimes’ longtime Baghdad bureau chief

http://www.indypendent.org/?p=812

Former tennis partner of George Bush Sr. and the Times’ longtime Baghdad bureau chief, Burns will be leaving Iraq in the summer of 2007 to serve as London bureau chief. In an interview with Charlie Rose of PBS in February 2007, Burns blithely moved from conversations about his own curly hair to the grim fact that nearly every barber in Baghdad was dead, the victims of unrelenting sectarian violence.




John Burns


In answering the question, ‘Was the Iraq war lost?’ Burns recently told CSPAN, “I think the honest answer is that we – that we don’t know, that the situation is extremely complicated, that it looks pretty dire, but all hope is not exhausted.”

[Parche]

1. Cheney's Energy Files

The fall of Enron, their scandal, along with the California crisis that they manufactured to
make more $$$, is all included in Cheney's energy files.
He needs to be prosecuted for conspiracy crimes in this case...:grr: :grr:

:hi:

[orleans]

2. i think they left a lot out of this. (weren't we protecting the oil wells

but allowing the rest of the country to be looted and burned?)

i didn't see part 1 yet--but i don't recall any mention of cheney & halliburton, and the fortune halliburton was making. i remember the stories/articles about trucks with flat tires being burned so halliburton could supply a new truck (on their cost plus contracts) rather than just supplying a new tire.

also, remember the stories about rumsfuck and his connection with gilliad science or whatever company he worked for -- the vaccines they were making the troops get before deployment that were making them so sick?

the poison water kbr was giving our troops

there seemed to be a lot missing in part 2

maybe if the narrator spoke a bit faster they could have put more information in.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Frontline never showed this photo

[annabanana]

3. I don't think he ever denied it.

I think he just refused to hand over the list of attendees.

[NNN0LHI]

4. Here is the first sentence from the first November 16, 2005 link

A 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.

[progressoid]

6. They left out a lot of the rationale for going to Iraq

They need to do another 5 hour show just on the energy link.
And another one on PNAC.

etc.

etc.

[Adsos Letter]

7. Well...

1. Why didn't FRONTLINE talk about our heavy dependence on mercenaries/contractors, and all of the trouble they have caused in "winning hearts and minds"

2. Why didn't FRONTLINE mention that the Iraqi Oil Ministry was the only state ministry secured by the military during the onslaught of looting?

3. Why didn't FRONTLINE raise the issue of millions of dollars in cash which simply disappeared into the ether over there?

4. Why didn't FRONTLINE mention the whole Jessica Lynch debacle, and its use in a rah-rah America propaganda play?

5. WHY DID FRONLINE PRODUCE THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF JOURNALISM???

[NNN0LHI]

8. They were told not to and they complied in answer to questions 1 through 4

For question number 5 it was a puff piece.

Don