Cheney accused of blocking Californian bid to cut car fumes | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited »
Posted By engineer 9 months, 1 week ago in Business & FinanceThe US vice-president, Dick Cheney, was behind a controversial decision to block California's attempt to impose tough emission limits on car manufacturers, according to insiders at the government Environmental Protection Agency.
Read Full Story at guardian.co.uk »
Submitted By:
engineer
Hi My background is Biomedical engineering with an MBA As you know from all my comments where I almost stand politically. I have loads of ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 47
-
0%
engineer9 months, 1 week ago
Staff at the agency, which announced last week that California's proposed limits were redundant, said the agency's chief went against their expert advice after car executives met Cheney, and a Chrysler executive delivered a letter to the EPA saying why the state should not be allowed to regulate greenhouse gases.
EPA staff members told the Los Angeles Times that the agency's head, the Bush appointee Stephen Johnson, ignored their conclusions and shut himself off from consultation in the month before the announcement. He then informed them of his decision and instructed them to provide the legal rationale for it, they said.
Reply -
-
0%
ETproductions9 months, 1 week ago
Cheney is the ultimate proof that simply having a great resume and tons of Executive and governmental service does NOT make someone a great leader.
Reply
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
HomeGManComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
cowboygrandpa9 months, 1 week ago
You know all Cheyney would have to do is come out here on a hot smoggy summer day.
See all the filthy smoke being spewed out of cars driven by illegal aliens. Going to jobs that should be held by legal tax paying voting citizens.
Breathe this in day after day, fight the traffic, the cost of living, the frustration of overcrowded roads with no relief in sight and be told that your government knows best.
To get the answer I would love to give him personally. I'm flying my middle fingers in a double barreled salute to you Cheney. Long may they wave, as long as you a free man who belongs in prison.
Thanks engineer.
Reply -
-
0%
Endoscopy9 months, 1 week ago
This story is the best rant that money can buy??? It stinks. Allegations, no dots connected, etc. etc.
He stated that he did not want a patchwork quilt of regulations. We had a different California standard for years. That was a pain in the rear for anyone going there to live. Regulations like that should be nationwide not stat by state. This affects anybody moving to a different state if that state has a different law.
Reply
-
-
0%
scriblerus19 months, 1 week ago
Want to know who the oligarchy is? It's the energy execs who met with Cheney early on in the first term of the Bush dictatorship. We the people have never been given their names.
Reply -
-
-
0%
AnteUp9 months, 1 week ago
Endoscopy ~
Follow this link Endo - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
George McGovern is no newbie to world affairs, nor is he
a whiner. What he is - is an honorable man, like Pres. Carter,
who fears for our country. I do not feel making these comments
in the Washington Post was an easy task for him - but I thank him for for it. For trying to HELP us as a nation.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
NelsonR9 months, 1 week ago
I cannot fathom why Halliburton gets no bid contracts for billions. Halliburton moves off shore when investigations are in the air, yet the Democrats have been silent. I can understand the corrupt Republicans not getting involved but where are our elected representatives?
Why no outcry from the public. Cheney is involved, we all know it, our government knows it, yet silence. Is our nation this corrupt? The second point, why would you continue to give no bid contracts to a company who moves offshore?
How low have we sunk. You neo cons sink this post since it will offend your war hawkish stance which shows no common decency. Repugnants you are to accept Bush/Cheney.
Reply-
0%
1-2-Oscar9 months, 1 week ago
Nelson, I'm sinking it because it's poor journalism. The article says that a group of auto execs met with Cheney--that's not improper. It says that a Chrysler exec delivered a letter to the EPA (but doesn't specify to WHO)--that's not improper. It says that EPA chief Stephen Johnson issued a decision contrary to what "his staff" advised. It doesn't say what staff or at what level these staffers operate. It quotes no one and provides no substantiation for any of these allegations. It doesn't even try to connect A, B, and C.
Hell, Nelson, YOU could have written the same article without ever talking to anyone in Washington or at the EPA--it simply reinforces what you thought you already knew. It's not good journalism and it deserves to be sunk.
Reply-
0%
NoWayMan9 months, 1 week ago
from the story: "California met every criteria ... on the merits," an anonymous member of the EPA staff told the Times. "The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years ... We told him that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts."
thats an actual quote from an EPA staff member. or are you saying the LA Times doctored this story and just made sh*t up?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-epa21de...
-----
I'll look for your sinks every time a story shows up on propeller thats from the washington times or fox.
Reply -
0%
mesodude9 months, 1 week ago
What rock have you been living under for the last decade? There's nothing "improper" about secret meetings during which Big Oil is allowed to write energy policy? You can't possibly be serious...
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html
Reply
-
-
0%
1-2-Oscar9 months, 1 week ago
Incidentally, Nelson, since you haven't figured this out--the reason that the Democrats are "silent" about no bid contracts is because they're on the payroll, too. Sure, the Republicans are rotten, but so are their "loyal opposition." Maybe you should check to see how many "no-bid contracts" Speaker Pelosi's husband has received during this administration.
Reply
-
-
0%
1-2-Oscar9 months, 1 week ago
In keeping with The Guardian's high journalistic standards, no actual source is named in the article. The article also fails to provide any direct connection or evidence of communication between Cheney and EPA chief Stephen Johnson.
The Guardian is aware of the laws regarding libel and rarely provides enough substance to prevent it from denying that any improper influence was inferred.
Reply-
0%
gamahuche9 months, 1 week ago
So you're complaining because the Guardian behaves "judiciously" to avoid being sued? British libel laws are particularly draconian. This os p[resimably the reason why they avoid naming names, which you complain about above.
Its not realistic to expect a newspaper which has relatively low sales to risk on a daily basis a judicial finding against it which may not even be based on the merits of the case at all.
Reply-
0%
dissent9 months, 1 week ago
I gave you a pos, gamahuche, but I don't agree with your summary of the Guardian. It's Britain's leading left-wing newspaper and it's the UK's leading online newspaper. It's also respected for its high standards of journalism. Meanwhile, the numero uno rag in the UK is the Sun. Full of naked tarts, trash, tabloid tattle tales and no journalistic standards, period, oh, and it's one of Murdoch's.
Reply -
0%
1-2-Oscar9 months, 1 week ago
Good reflexes there, gamahuche. As member dissent has pointed out, your defense is inaccurate and avoids dealing with the question of journalistic standards, but you were quick in responding to a perceived attempt to introduce objectivity and balance to the discussion. After all, the article accuses CHENEY of wrongdoing, and it must be defended whether it is accurate or not.
You guys can trade positive ratings all day, and neg anyone who actually reads and thinks. That will boost your Propeller ratings, but it won't make this article or any other true, and it won't elevate it to good journalism.
Reply
-
-
0%
spkguy9 months, 1 week ago
"In keeping with The Guardian's high journalistic standards, no actual source is named in the article."
This article is pretty much the same as a story in the Seattle
Times of which was originally run in the Washington Post.
And to quote a line in original story "The sources spoke on condition of anonymity."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationwor...
Reply
-
-
0%
kedirian9 months, 1 week ago
From the very beginning of his campaign for the Presidency, when Gov. Bush announced the creation of a Commission (around 1999) to "help him search for a runningmate", especially when that Commission was to be headed by Dick Cheney, I have smelled a rat in the form of a conspiracy... a conspiracy by frightened, elderly tycoons against the American People!
Misleading Congress into an illegal War against the wrong country, diminishing our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms "in the name of fighting terorism, wrecking our treasury,and on and on, and finally this action by his EPA-flunkie have convinced me that my earlier suspicions proved sadly correct....
Reply -
-
0%
unome29 months, 1 week ago
IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE TABLE BECAUSE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THREATENED THEY WOULD BOMB IRAN AND START WW111.
Reply -
0%
1-2-Oscar9 months, 1 week ago
"thats an actual quote from an EPA staff member. or are you saying the LA Times doctored this story and just made sh*t up?
No, Nelson, I'm saying exactly what I said--that the article does not identify its sources and it fails to connect the three separate actions which it implies are part of a conspiracy. You can attend remedial reading classes at your local high school--they're free.
Reply-
0%
IanFraigun9 months, 1 week ago
The press mostly need not even identify their sources in a court of law. What makes you think that the journalism is poor because they do not identify sources.
In cases such as these where political retribtuion can ruin careers I expect the press to keep the sources confidential. This is both to protect the source at this point and keep the source willing to speak on future critical issues.
That sources comment is not a valid reason for sinking any published article.
Reply
-
-
0%
mmrhe9 months, 1 week ago
Hey Oscar...Even circumstantial evidence is allowed in a court of law.
If I go to bed at night and wake up the next morning to find snow on the ground, I can logically conclude it snowed even though I never actually saw it.
Reply -
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
vor9 months, 1 week ago
Anything to keep the corporate base happy. He could care less what the public thinks of him. In fact he seems to revel in his gruffness. Let's hope that come Jan. '09 the man is gone from the upper echelons of Washington never to return. Don't count on that happening. Why can't he just go rule Dubai (new Haliburton headquarters) or something? Would be glad to put the boot to him!
Reply -
0%
triizine9 months, 1 week ago
Bottom line... Cheney Sucks! Impeach the whole damned lot of those Bushies.
Reply
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.