Cheney accused of blocking Californian bid to cut car fumes | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited »
Posted By engineer 1 year, 10 months 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 »
182 Views Share Story 32 Comments Report
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 ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 47 (view all)
-
Neutral
engineer1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
Neutral
GrainOfSand1 year, 10 months ago
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
HomeGManComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
cowboygrandpa1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 10 months ago
-
-
Neutral
NelsonR1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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
-
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
Neutral
gamahuche1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
Neutral
spkguy1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"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
-
-
Neutral
kedirian1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
-
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"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-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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
-
-
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
vor1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
triizineComment removed: Hard Banned
More News
Daily Finance
No daily Viagra dose, no peace! Philly transit workers rise up in protest
Why 10% jobless rate means misery for many, buying opportunity for some
Walmart slams lid on customers' creepy online reviews of its caskets
Massucci's Take: Google Wave is email for the next generation
Just how dangerous are stimulus-driven deficits in the long run?
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
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.