Kelly - posted on 06/05/2010 ( 24 moms have responded )
Kelly - posted on 06/05/2010 ( 24 moms have responded )
Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.Join Circle of Moms
Pamela - posted on 06/25/2010
Found this in Media Matters. One of the problems with this whole "Obama didn't do anything - or when he did, it wasn't enough or it was the wrong thing - shakedown anyone?" narrative, is that it ain't so. But our happy friends at Fox News keep telling us different. Remember, a lie is still a lie even if it's told to us over and over again. So for everyone's reading pleasure and hopeful illumination, I present Media Matters "Fox News is BP Oil Spill Misinformation Clearinghouse:
Myth: Obama waited weeks before responding to the oil spill.
CLAIM: Obama "waited 50 days, 55 days to really begin" responding to Gulf oil spill. On the June 17 edition of Fox & Friends, Rudy Giuliani said of the federal government's response to the oil spill: "The government has played a big role in letting us down here as well. And who the heck is -- you know, criticizing President Obama, President Obama's response? I mean, the president waited 50 days, 55 days to really begin a resp- -- he told us in his speech that the federal government was in charge from the very beginning."
REALITY: Timeline of events indicates Obama administration responded almost immediately to the spill. The Coast Guard began responding to the spill hours after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded at 10 p.m. on April 20. Obama was briefed on the incident and dispatched officials to the region the next day.
Gov. Barbour: "The federal government's done more right than wrong" on BP cleanup. On the June 20 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, asked for his "assessment of how well coordinated the federal, state, and local officials are," former RNC chairman and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour said that while "nothing's satisfactory until the well's shut" he thinks "the federal government's done more right than wrong," and "appointing Ken Feinberg, who's got a great reputation that's well deserved, is good for BP and good for the government."
Myth: Moratorium is not needed because oil companies are equipped to handle spills
CLAIM: No need for moratorium to "ensure ... safety," Obama should "undo the harm that he's already done" and lift it. On the June 12 edition of Fox & Friends Saturday, anchor Alisyn Camerota asked Palin: "[T]he administration has called for a moratorium on deep-sea drilling until that safety can be ensured. Given all of the problems that we now know, how BP overlooked safety measures, do you support a moratorium until we can ensure the safety?" Palin replied, "No, but we do need to ramp up the oversight" of offshore drilling." Likewise, on the June 15 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes urged Obama to "undo the harm that he's already done and lift the moratorium on the existing drilling that was going on in the Gulf."
REALITY: All five major oil companies reportedly share similar spill response plans written by same company, and admit aspects of their plans are an "embarrassment." According to The Washington Post, "the same tiny Texas subcontractor" authored the Gulf spill response plans for BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell Oil, and Exxon Mobil. Additionally, execs for both Exxon Mobil and Conoco Phillips called an error in both plans embarrassing.
FACT: All five companies reportedly rely on the same companies to draft their response plans and provide containment equipment. According to a June 16 Washington Post report, "the same tiny Texas subcontractor" authored the Gulf spill response plans for BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell Oil, and Exxon Mobil:
The spill response plans for all five companies were written by the same firm, the Response Group. Although it has operations in at least seven cities nationwide, the Houston-based firm's Web site says the company has about 35 employees. (One current assignment: calling 50,000 people who have visited BP offices and getting their e-mail addresses and emergency contact information.)
Additionally, the Post reported that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) stated that oil companies all rely on one company, Marine Spill Response, to provide containment equipment.
FACT: Three spill plans reportedly listed the phone number of a deceased marine science expert. According the same Post report, three of the five major oil companies operating in the Gulf "listed the phone number for the same University of Miami marine science expert, Peter Lutz, who died in 2005" in their spill response plans.
FACT: Exxon Mobil CEO: "We are not well-equipped to handle" major oil spills. In testimony before the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee on June 15, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson stated repeatedly that his company is "not well-equipped to handle" major oil spills.
FACT: Responding to criticism of having a dead expert's info in his company's oil spill response, Tillerson admitted "we need expertise." When Markey questioned Tillerson on the Exxon Mobil plan's inclusion of contact information for a "technical support person" who had been dead for four years, Tillerson acknowledged that it was an "embarrassment" and stated that "we admit that we need expertise." He further stated that just because "Dr. Lutz died in 2005 does not mean his work and the importance of his work died with him."
FACT: ConocoPhillips CEO: "Obviously it is embarrassing" that Lutz's contact information is in the report. At the same hearing, ConocoPhillips CEO, James Mulva, said of the response plan's obvious flaws: "Obviously it is embarrassing." He further acknowledged that "the plans need to be updated more frequently."
Myth: BP was only drilling "out there" because environmentalists and the federal government "made them" do it
CLAIM: BP's deepwater drilling due to environmentalists, federal government "pushed us out there." Several Fox News figures, including Sarah Palin, Charles Krauthammer, Steve Doocy, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly, have claimed that, as Hannity put it, BP "should have been in ANWR and shallower waters, and environmentalists pushed us out there." Similarly, Fox News contributors Andrew Napolitano and Bill Kristol, and Fox guest and BigGovernment.com editor-in-chief Mike Flynn have blamed the federal government for, in Flynn's words, "ma[king] them drill in water that deep."
REALITY: Deep-water regions feature vast oil reserves that make such drilling potentially lucrative. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service, the "best source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water." The deepwater region of the Gulf has also been identified as "probably the most promising area in United States-controlled territory."
FACT: MMS said "remarkable increase" in deep-water drilling due in part to "finding of reservoirs with high production wells." According to the MMS: "The deepwater portion of Gulf of Mexico has shown a remarkable increase in oil and gas exploration, development and production. In part this is due to the development of new technologies reducing operational costs and risks, as well as the finding of reservoirs with high production wells."
FACT: Bush MMS reported that the "best source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water Gulf of Mexico." In a 2004 report -- titled Deep Water: Where the Energy Is -- the MMS stated that "our best source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water Gulf of Mexico and other frontier areas." MMS reported that due to "declining production" in "near-shore, shallow waters" in the Gulf of Mexico, "energy companies have focused their attention on oil and gas resources in water depths of 1,000 feet and beyond." MMS estimated that "the deep water regions of the Gulf of Mexico may contain 56 billion barrels of oil equivalent, or enough to meet U.S. demand for 7-1/2 years at current rates."
FACT: Bush MMS reported deepwater drilling is "America's Offshore Energy Future," "significant proved reserves" discovered in recent years. In a 2008 report titled "Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2008: America's Offshore Energy Future, MMS reported:
The deepwater GOM has contributed major additions to the total reserves in the GOM. Figure 40 shows the proved reserves added each year by water-depth category. Additions from the shallow waters of the GOM declined in recent years but, beginning in 1975, the deepwater area started contributing significant new reserves. Between 1975 and 1983, the majority of these additions were from discoveries in slightly more than 1,000 ft (305 m) of water. It was not until 1985 that major additions came from water depths greater than 1,500 ft (457 m). From 1998 to 2001, significant proved reserves were added in the 5,000- to 7,499-ft (1,524- to 2,286-m) water depth range. The year 2002 saw the first substantial addition from water depths greater than 7,500 ft (2,286 m).
FACT: NY Times reported BP discovery of "giant oil field" in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico indicated area was "probably the most promising area in United States-controlled territory." A September 2, 2009, New York Times article reported that "BP announced on Wednesday the discovery of what it characterized as a giant oil field several miles under the Gulf of Mexico," which the Times stated "was another indication that the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico are probably the most promising area in United States-controlled territory to bolster domestic oil production." The Times further credited BP's deep-water rigs with having "stabilized domestic production after almost two decades of yearly decline."
Myth: Obama, unlike Bush, "was off on vacation" during crisis
CLAIM: Obama "was off on vacation twice" during oil spill, but Bush did not go on vacation "in the middle of a crisis." On the June 17 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Giuliani asserted that he didn't think the spill was Obama's "job number one" because Obama was "off on vacation twice" during the cleanup. Giuliani contrasted Obama's vacations with President Bush's and Giuliani's own purported refusal to take vacations during times of crisis. Giuliani made similar arguments on the June 17 edition of Fox & Friends.
REALITY: Bush vacationed during the aftermath of Katrina; Giuliani reportedly spent more time at Yankees games than at WTC after 9-11. Despite Giuliani's suggestion, Bush reportedly made at least three trips to Camp David in the two months after Katrina, and Giuliani himself reportedly spent "roughly twice as long" at, or flying to, Yankees games than at ground zero between September 17, 2001, and December 16, 2001. The Obamas visited Asheville, North Carolina, the weekend of April 23. During that trip, Obama eulogized the 29 workers killed in the West Virginia mine explosion and "met with the workers' families privately before the ceremony," according to CNN. During Memorial Day weekend, Obama traveled to Chicago and was scheduled to deliver his Memorial Day address at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery. Due to a thunderstorm, he spoke at Andrews Air Force Base instead.
FACT: Bush vacationed during aftermath of Katrina. In the two months after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, Bush reportedly made at least three separate weekend trips to the presidential retreat at Camp David. Bush visited the Camp David retreat in September 2005 and again during two weekends in October 2005. Three months after the hurricane, news outlets reported that hundreds of thousands of people were "still at loose ends in provisional housing -- many in isolated trailer parks"; "thousands of people were "still unaccounted for"; and "[m]ore than 80 percent of New Orleans's population has not been able to return home."
FACT: Giuliani reportedly spent more time at Yankees games than at ground zero following 9-11. In an August 18, 2007, Salon.com article, Alex Koppelman examined Giuliani's schedule in the 90 days following the attacks and found: "By our count, Giuliani spent about 58 hours at Yankees games or flying to them in the 40 days between Sept. 25 and Nov. 4, roughly twice as long as he spent at ground zero in the 90 days between Sept. 17 and Dec. 16."
Hope this provides some information to help clarify.
Gianina - posted on 06/13/2010
Pamela said, "Let's face it - no matter what the Obama administration does, the conservatives will almost always find something with it wrong. This guy can't win. Lol "
Vise versa with the liberals with Bush administrator too !!
I don't blame Obama with the oil spill, nor do I blame Bush for Katrina. It is BP's fault, end of story. What I got annoyed is the SLOW reaction. Obama should have cancelled all appointments and concentrated on the oil spill. He should have met with BP board from day 1, he should accept the Dutch's help and all those other people's devices that could be helpful. I pray for the end of it all and start cleaning up the gulf.
Just for your information, Jindal wasn't the governor back when Katrina came, not until I believe in 2008. It was the former Governor Kathleen Blanco who acknowledged the failure lies on her administration, but FEMA was blamed for slow responses and poor management.
Jenny - posted on 06/11/2010
I know! It drives me nuts. Why doesn't anyone give a fuck? We are disposable. We are totally capable of killing life on this planet and are WELL on our way. WE are terrorists to humanity itself, not to mention every other living being unfortunate enough to "share" space with us.
Can you eat money? Can you drink it? Will it build shelter? That is where we should find worth. My god, we are stupid.
Pamela - posted on 06/11/2010
Sadly, the Dept. of Minerals Management has been pretty corrupt. They've been taking money from oil companies in return for not holding to stringent regulations. But then, the regs weren't that stringent after the Bush administration removed some of them.
Pamela - posted on 06/11/2010
Let's face it - no matter what the Obama administration does, the conservatives will almost always find something with it wrong. This guy can't win. Lol
Jenny - posted on 06/11/2010
That's because they only want goverment to follow through with THEIR beliefs and have forgotton about the rights, needs and wants of others in the country. Screw Capitalism, save the planet!
Rosie - posted on 06/11/2010
i think it's odd that people who want less government involvement, and trust corporations to do what they are "supposed" to do, freak out when the government has to much faith in the corporations in the first place to fix this disaster.
i do agree that by now the government should have stepped in, should've in the first place, but then the republicans would've cried there was to much federal intervention! but how about putting the blame for this where it belongs -with bp.
Pamela - posted on 06/08/2010
Thanks for sharing your link, Kelly. I'll have to check it out. The problem with the oil spill is I'm not sure anyone really knows how to effectively deal with this - federally or otherwise. The impact of this oil spill surpasses Valdez and will be disastrous to people's livelihood in the Gulf and to the environment for years to come.
Kelly - posted on 06/08/2010
I do get my news from multiple sources. (Although I did gag a bit when you mentioned NPR, sorry) Another good site is realclearpolitics.com for anyone interested in checking it out.
In both Katrina and this mess, it is the responsibility of the local government to handle response to disaster. Blanco did a good thing by requesting that Bush declare a major disaster for Louisiana, which he did. (before the hurricane hit) The difference is what happened next. During Katrina it was utter failure of local response and direction, especially in New Orleans. In this instance, Jindal has responded quickly and has attempted to protect his state's coastlines and wetlands. He needs Federal approval to build barriers however, and has requested equipment as well. Why on earth should it take over a month to get a response?
When I compare the two, I am not comparing death tolls. I am comparing Federal response to requests for assistance, and the overall damage caused by the disaster. We don't yet know how far reaching this oil spill will be. It has the potential to cause decades of damage to multiple sectors of the economy, and the wildlife in the gulf. Katrina certainly devastated Louisiana and part of Mississippi, and it displaced a bunch of people. However, 5 years later shows great progress in rebuilding and reconstruction. This may not be lucky enough to have the same resolution timeline.
Johnny - posted on 06/07/2010
"The fact is Obama has mismanaged this oil fiasco. How long did it take him to even get involved? I mean what is more important, giving graduation speeches and hosting parties at the WH or going to the problem itself and doing something. Obama is traveling to Michigan to give a high school graduation speech...and he has yet to do one damn thing in Arizona. He should fly out here and go down to the border."
Oh dear. I think I need to go back to high school geography class. I thought that Arizona was about 1500 miles from the Gulf Coast. Oops.
Pamela - posted on 06/07/2010
Let's look at some facts from various news organizations regarding the Obama Administration's handling of the BP oil spill (such as the Associated Press and ABC). My information here is from www.mediamatters.org (a media watchdog organization).
"For days, as an oil spill spread in the Gulf of Mexico, BP assured the government the plume was manageable, not catastrophic. Federal authorities were content to let the company handle the mess while keeping an eye on the operation" (April 30, Associated Press).
April 20: Oil rig explosion. On April 21, ABCNews.com reported the explosion.
April 21: Deputy Secretary of Interior and the Coast Guard were dispatched to region.
April 22: White house statement noted that following a briefing with President Obama, Department of Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano, Admiral Thad Allen, US Coast Guard Commandant, Dept. of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe, and FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate, "Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes was dispatched to the region yesterday to assist with coordination and response." The Coast Guard announced that 4 units were responding to the fire, with additional units en route.
April 21: Search & rescue efforts begin for the 11 missing.
April 23: Search & rescue efforts called off.
BP confirms US Coast Guard was "leading the emergency response. The Dept. of the Interior, MMS, and Coast Guard continue to support the efforts of the responsible parties (i.e. BP, and Transocean) to secure all potential sources of pollution. Both federal agencies have technical teams in place overseeing the proposals by BP and Transocean to completely secure the well. Until that has occurred and all parties are confident the risk of additional spill is removed, a high readiness posture to respond will remain in place.
So, if the complaint is that President Obama wasn't personally down there enough, making his presence known - fair enough. But! The administration did have the proper federal agencies (as noted above) down there, doing what they are supposed to do.
I'm sorry but I fail to see how on earth this compares to Katrina. While any death is tragic (as in the 11 workers lost in the explosion) - there were over 1500 deaths from Katrina alone - some of those deaths (not all, of course) were due to a slow reaction time from the federal government. Private helicopters from the state of Arizona went and literally removed people from rooftops. 100's of thousands were left homeless; an entire region was destroyed. A Senate report concluded that the DHS "failed to lead an effective federal response to Hurricane Katrina." The report also stated: "Secretary Chertoff failed to make ready the full range of federal assets pursuant to DHS's responsibilities under the National Response Plan (NRP)" and "failed to appoint a Principal Federal Official (PFO), the official charged with overseeing the federal response under the NRP, until 36 hours after landfall."
If by chance you get your information from only one source (Fox News perhaps?), they are notorious for poor quality information. The information they provide is often deliberately misleading for political purposes. No matter what people's politics are, it's unwise and inadequate to get it from but one source.
Some sources that give a more in depth analysis of current events are: National Public Radio (npr.org), The Economist Magazine (a conservative, but thoughtful magazine), UK's The Guardian. There are others - and if anyone has suggestions, please share!
Diane - posted on 06/07/2010
The fact is Obama has mismanaged this oil fiasco. How long did it take him to even get involved? I mean what is more important, giving graduation speeches and hosting parties at the WH or going to the problem itself and doing something. Obama is traveling to Michigan to give a high school graduation speech...and he has yet to do one damn thing in Arizona. He should fly out here and go down to the border.
He is simply a joke.
ME - posted on 06/07/2010
I have to agree with the point on the dept. of MM! Every person there should be replaced immediately! That agency is equally to blame for this mess, they should require the environmental safety checks to be done, and not accept bribes! It IS President Obama's responsibility to address this fiasco, and put an end to the mess that is the Dept. Of Minerals Management! He should have addressed this immediately after the spill! Ethics people...Ethics...what the hell is going on around here?!?!?!
Kelly - posted on 06/06/2010
This could arguably be worse than Katrina. People were absolutely out of their minds with anger over how the Bush white house "mismanaged" the government reaction to that act of God.
I am not arguing that this is all Obama's fault. BP and Transocean are culpable. Haliburton, not so sure of, but that is a different topic all together..... The reaction to the spill and the government's responsibility to protect our country however rests completely on Obama's shoulders. We will never know if the damage would have been less if he had gotten off his butt and coordinated a response.
And the point Carol brought up about the MMS is a good one too. Obama doesn't even know what's going on in his own agencies. Now it might be hard for him as one man to stay on top of everything, but it is Congress's job to make sure their agencies are running the way they should. MMS reports to THEM. What are they doing exactly? There is plenty of blame in this situation to spread around, that is for sure.
Pamela - posted on 06/06/2010
Actually, the National Guard has been sent down to the coast to assist in clean-up. So the government is responding to the problem - however late or inadequate is always up to debate. Though sadly, I fear you are correct, Carol, when you point out how the oil lobby "still holds remarkable sway in the Obama White House." And I also agree that the government is responsible to respond to national disasters and to this I concede. Frankly, BP and the other two companies responsible for this mess should be sued into oblivion. I hope this administration makes it so. I also pray that the stranglehold corporations have over our politicians and government will be erradicated. A girl can only dream, you know.
Isobel - posted on 06/06/2010
Is there really no clean up going on?
Johnny - posted on 06/06/2010
I would agree with that Pamela. BP, Transocean, and Halliburton are the ones responsible for this mess. However, I think that part of the role of a President (or any leader) is to take responsibility for cleaning up messes that they did not have a hand in creating. I think that is why people voted for Obama. Not only should there be action taken to force BP to get this spill managed NOW, but if they don't do it, the government should be sending in military, FEMA, whoever and sending BP the bill for it. And it appears that despite the clear sign that there is a complete lack of oversight in the MMS, no action has been taken to clean it up and change the way business is being done there. It is quite clear that the oil lobby still holds remarkable sway in the Obama White House. I personally don't care how he appears publicly, his emotional reaction is not important and who gives a rat's ass if he "looked concerned". I believe that he has the capability to direct resourceful people to get this situation attended to promptly, and he isn't doing it because the oil lobby is simply too influential.
Pamela - posted on 06/06/2010
Well actually, BP misrepresented the severity of the oil spill originally. So again, I hold BP, Transocean, and Halliburton responsible for this mess.
Krista - posted on 06/06/2010
Yes, because "looking concerned" would have DEFINITELY helped.
Diane - posted on 06/06/2010
He should not have waited that long to get involved. This spill affects our country. He could stop traveling around the country giving graduation speeches and at least looked concerned.His social calender is still full of things that have nothing to do with the job he was hired to do.
Isobel - posted on 06/06/2010
I don't really understand this (and I'm not an Obama worshiper...there are plenty of things I don't agree with) but what should he be doing? He's not an engineer, nor does he have any experience with deep sea drilling. He's paying people (I assume) to figure out what to do...what else CAN he do?
Pamela - posted on 06/06/2010
Actually, I hold BP, Transocean and Halliburton responsible for this mess. How many violations of regulatory law does BP have? 700+?
Johnny - posted on 06/05/2010
Yeah, I've got to agree. He seems to be doing his best W imitation. Although you can still see that hint of the "campaign Obama" in all the vehement speeches he's making on the issue. Perhaps filling up the atmosphere with hot air is his plan for stopping the spill.
Kelly - posted on 06/05/2010
Maybe John Stewart is finally on to something?