While Oil Slick Spread, Interior Department Chief of Staff Rafted with Wife

[The_Dude 1,142]

facts speak differently.

Yes, they do, you would do well to actually show some.

This was an ABC news story. Since when is that a "conservative" news source?

I wasn't commenting on the news story. I was commenting on conservatives, like some in this very thread who seem hell bent on drawing some corollary on this situation to katrina.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yes, they do, you would do well to actually show some.

I wasn't commenting on the news story. I was commenting on conservatives, like some in this very thread who seem hell bent on drawing some corollary on this situation to katrina.

I've posted articles in a couple of different threads and started a new thread about the Government's failure to implement the plan that has been on the books. Don't think I need to do with at your beckon call if you're too lazy to read the other threads on this topic.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I've posted articles in a couple of different threads and started a new thread about the Government's failure to implement the plan that has been on the books. Don't think I need to do with at your beckon call if you're too lazy to read the other threads on this topic.

Paul, i know about the 1994 plan. I'm talking about your attempts to somehow link this to katrina. Despite Gov. Perry's claims, and the insistence of many conservatives, this is not force majeure, whereas Katrina was. Katrina was the sole responsibility of the government to handle. This is the fault of human error and is the responsibility of those who commited the error. No, I don't think the government should be idolent, but to suggest that they did nothing for 8 days is a flat out lie.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul, i know about the 1994 plan. I'm talking about your attempts to somehow link this to katrina. Despite Gov. Perry's claims, and the insistence of many conservatives, this is not force majeure, whereas Katrina was. Katrina was the sole responsibility of the government to handle. This is the fault of human error and is the responsibility of those who commited the error. No, I don't think the government should be idolent, but to suggest that they did nothing for 8 days is a flat out lie.

8 days to even 'begin' to do what they should have been doing all along is the problem. "Nothing" might be silly in the sense that the coast guard was out there and a couple of days later some officials were sent out there to 'look' at it. - When there's a plan in place though, to contain something like this, and you're not already preparing for it on day 1, then that is a problem. When you wait 8 days to begin to purchase the only fire boom available in the United States, that is a problem and a failure.

Saying they did 'nothing' at all might be silly, but saying they did the wrong things and failed to act appropriate for 8 days is quite right.

The spill reaches the shoreline and causes more damage because of the lack of action. Experts have pointed out that 95% of this spill could have been contained had action been taken immediately, yet here we are sitting and watching what's happening. It's ridiculous.

[The_Dude 1,142]

8 days to even 'begin' to do what they should have been doing all along is the problem. "Nothing" might be silly in the sense that the coast guard was out there and a couple of days later some officials were sent out there to 'look' at it. - When there's a plan in place though, to contain something like this, and you're not already preparing for it on day 1, then that is a problem. When you wait 8 days to begin to purchase the only fire boom available in the United States, that is a problem and a failure.

Saying they did 'nothing' at all might be silly, but saying they did the wrong things and failed to act appropriate for 8 days is quite right.

The spill reaches the shoreline and causes more damage because of the lack of action. Experts have pointed out that 95% of this spill could have been contained had action been taken immediately, yet here we are sitting and watching what's happening. It's ridiculous.

Yes, it is ridiculous that the CORPORATIONS whom are responsible for this mess took no action. Shame on BP and Halliburton.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yes, it is ridiculous that the CORPORATIONS whom are responsible for this mess took no action. Shame on BP and Halliburton.

We don't know how responsible anyone was yet or exactly what happened.

The fact of the matter is though, it was the government's job to get started immediately stopping the spill from expanding and they had a plan to take care of things and they failed to do so.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Exxon Valdez spill was also initially handled by Exxon in 1989. ( I guess the Obama haterz measure him with a different ruler)

The first cleanup response was through the use of a dispersant, a surfactant and solvent mixture. A private company applied dispersant on March 24 with a helicopter and dispersant bucket. Because there was not enough wave action to mix the dispersant with the oil in the water, the use of the dispersant was discontinued. One trial explosion was also conducted during the early stages of the spill to burn the oil, in a region of the spill isolated from the rest by another explosion. The test was relatively successful, reducing 113,400 litres of oil to 1,134 litres of removable residue,^[12] but because of unfavorable weather no additional burning was attempted. Mechanical cleanup was started shortly afterwards using booms and skimmers, but the skimmers were not readily available during the first 24 hours following the spill, and thick oil and kelp tended to clog the equipment.^[6]

Exxon was widely criticized for its slow response to cleaning up the disaster and John Devens, the mayor of Valdez, has said his community felt betrayed by Exxon's inadequate response to the crisis.^[13] More than 11,000 Alaska residents, along with some Exxon employees, worked throughout the region to try to restore the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The Exxon Valdez spill was also initially handled by Exxon in 1989. ( I guess the Obama haterz measure him with a different ruler)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill

That is partially why the plan was put into effect in 1994, was in case something big happened again, it could be controlled.

What's the point of having a plan if you're not going to use it?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That is partially why the plan was put into effect in 1994, was in case something big happened again, it could be controlled.

What's the point of having a plan if you're not going to use it?

They did send out response teams to assess the damage. Remember that for several days, the focus was on trying to find any survivors. Also, the initial reports estimated the seepage to be substantially smaller than it is, particularly when the BP said the cutoff safety mechanisms were triggered. This is deep water oil seeping from near ground level, creating a much different scenario and set of problem from a tanker spill. Notice how the oil is still pouring out - that's the real crisis which is now creating an environmental catastrophe.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

What's the point of having a plan if you're not going to use it?

You are kidding of course...

Its obvious, the point of having a plan you never intend to use is simply to get people to shut up!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash

While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

An Obama spokesman rejected the notion that the president took big oil money.

“President Obama didn’t accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign,” spokesman Ben LaBolt said. “He raised $750 million from nearly four million Americans. And since he became president, he rolled back tax breaks and giveaways for the oil and gas industry, spearheaded a G20 agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and made the largest investment in American history in clean energy incentives.”

In Congress, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who last week cautioned that the incident should “not be used inappropriately” to halt Obama’s push for expansion of offshore drilling, has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of BP’s largesse. Her comments created some blowback, with critics complaining that she is too blasé about the impact of the disaster, even though she was among the first lawmakers to call for a federal investigation into the spill.

As the top congressional recipient in the last cycle and one of the top BP cash recipients of the past two decades, Landrieu banked almost $17,000 from the oil giant in 2008 alone and has lined her war chest with more than $28,000 in BP cash overall.

“Campaign contributions, from energy companies or from environmental groups, have absolutely no impact on Sen. Landrieu’s policy agenda or her response to this unprecedented disaster in the Gulf,” said Landrieu spokesman Aaron Saunders. “The senator is proud of the broad coalition she’s built since her first day in the Senate to address the energy and environmental challenges in Louisiana and in the nation. This disaster only makes the effort to promote and save Louisiana’s coast all that more important.”

Several BP executives have given directly to Landrieu’s campaign, including current and previous U.S. operation Presidents Lamar McKay and Robert Malone. Other donors include Margaret Hudson, BP’s America vice president, and Benjamin Cannon, federal affairs director for the U.S. branch. Donations ranged from $1,000 to $2,300 during the past campaign cycle.

Environmentalists complain that Landrieu has played down the impact of oil spills.

“I mean, just the gallons are so minuscule compared to the benefits of U.S. strength and security, the benefits of job creation and energy security,” Landrieu said at a hearing last month on offshore drilling. “So while there are risks associated with everything, I think you understand that they are quite, quite minimal.”

“They own Mary Landrieu and the rest of the Louisiana delegation,” said Greenpeace Research Director Kert Davies. “They have more money, disposable income and a fleet of dispensable lobbyists to beat the band.”

Other politicians with ties to coastal states or states with BP refineries have also reaped benefits from the fourth largest company in the world.

The top congressional recipients of BP campaign cash include Republican Rep. Don Young of the oil-intensive Alaska delegation, who has received almost as much as Obama, raking in $73,300 during his congressional tenure. Also on the list is Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), whose state has a BP refinery in Toledo and who has raked in $41,400. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has received $44,899.

“Make no mistake: BP ranks among the most powerful corporate forces in U.S. politics,” said Dave Levinthal, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. “It donates hundreds of thousands of dollars every election cycle through its employees and political action committee and is routinely a seven- or eight-figure federal lobbying powerhouse each year.”

In 2008 alone, BP gave $37,000 to members of the House Energy Committee and $106,501 to members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which deals with security issues facing the nation’s oil supply.

BP has also evolved in its corporate giving over the past decade, shifting more money to Democrats. In 2000, the company gave almost 39 percent more to Republicans than to Democrats. But by 2008, Democrats had nearly pulled even with Republicans on BP donations.

Moreover, the company has nearly tripled the amount of money it has spent on lobbying, from about $5.7 million in 1999 to $15.9 million last year, according to lobbying disclosures.

BP has bulked up its K Street team by signing some of the biggest firms in Washington, several of which employ former Hill staffers with deep-seated ties to Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico coast.

BP representation within lobby shop Alpine Group alone includes lobbyist Bob Brooks, who served as chief of staff to former Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.), and lobbyist Rebecca Hawes, a longtime counsel for former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.). Jason Schendle worked for Landrieu for nine years, according to lobbying disclosures.

Former Rep. Jim Turner, now a lobbyist for BP with Arnold & Porter, formerly represented the 2nd District of Texas, which includes a large piece of Gulf shoreline. And at the Podesta Group, BP lobbyist David Marin was formerly the lead Hill staffer for Congress’s Select Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina.

“First, they are exceedingly competent. Second, they are [Democratic-centric]. I know the first will help enormously in the next few weeks. I am not so sure about the second,” said Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKen­na of MWR Strategies, who predicted that Landrieu would quite likely get “very wide latitude” on the oil issue. “That may not be the case with BP, whose record is a bit more spotty.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

[The_Dude 1,142]

Well, with the SCOTUS decision regarding limits on commercial political contributions, there won't be any end to spurious situations like this.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bill Maher said it best:

"Every a$$hole who ever chanted 'Drill baby drill' should have to report to the Gulf coast today for cleanup duty."

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Bill Maher said it best:

"Every a$$hole who ever chanted 'Drill baby drill' should have to report to the Gulf coast today for cleanup duty."

So when will you be parking your car and walking to work?

[DukeOfYork 28]

I've been wondering all day how this would have looked if this oil spill happened three years ago on Bush's watch. He responds the same way Obama has and it even comes to light that he got huge campaign contributions from BP. I could just imagine the relentless left-wing attacks on Bush, comparing this to his response to Katrina.

There is a huge double-standard here. In the media's eyes, Obama can do no wrong.

Except for fail to implement the 1994 disaster plan. It has already come out that if the fire booms had been available and ready to deploy when this first started, we would not be in the mess that we're in.

I don't care about finger pointing. The government could have easily taken over, then worried about the investigation and put the blame on BP after the fact. Instead, they couldn't resist the chance to criticize yet another "big business" and leave it to them. It was gross negligence on the government's part not to attack this sooner.

And yet, none of the lefty talking heads on the tv or radio are even being honest with themselves and acknowledging this huge double-standard.