Thursday, November 10, 2005

Revolting if True

The DSCC reports that Senate Republicans rejected Democrat efforts to make oil executives testify under oath.

What kind of testimony is that?

(The false kind?)


  1. I would have to agree: definitely revolting.

  2. What was the point of having them come in at all? A photo op?

    Why not just send Mister Bush on another trip to the Gulf states?

  3. so they could tell us that "if we compare apples and apples," their profits are on par with the rest of the industry.

    So are the consumer COSTS of the other industries on par as well?

  4. I'm certain they're talking abou profit margins.

  5. Senator Stevens of Alaska ACTIVELY BLOCKED attempts on the part of the Dems to call for the testimony to be under oath. It seems to me that having the oil execs testify under the same conditions as EVERYONE ELSE who stands before Congress would make them look guilty in the court of public opinion. It also seems to me that if they aren't under oath it gives them the perfect excuse if they're caught in a lie (well, it's not perjury, so it doesn't count....)

    I hate people.

  6. Stevens. Now THERE's a great American.