So why did his administration take 12 days to take the gulf oil spill seriously and do something?
I thought Obama was suppose to be an environmentally friendly president. Can you imagine if this happened during the Bush presidency?
Obama is a great campaigner and activist, but not too good at "governing". He will, loving a good crisis, try to make good poilitical mileage out of the spill.
Also, today on Rush's radio show he went over the schedule of EPA Secretary Jaaaackson over the week or so AFTER the spill. She didn't do "Jack Diddley" squat! Lots of PR type stuff, ironically, surrounding "Earth Day".
I believe Limbaugh was the one who said a clean-up was unnecessary as this was completely natural and the ocean will take care of itself.
It sounds like he's speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
Guess he better lay off the drugs...
Originally posted by Tim W:
It takes a while to come up with something when only one month earlier you're on record promoting the expansion of off shore drilling.
Just curious your stance on off-shore drilling, Tim?
Also, today on Rush's radio show he went over the schedule of EPA Secretary Jaaaackson over the week or so AFTER the spill. She didn't do "Jack Diddley" squat! Lots of PR type stuff, ironically, surrounding "Earth Day".
I believe Limbaugh was the one who said a clean-up was unnecessary as this was completely natural and the ocean will take care of itself.
It sounds like he's speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
Guess he better lay off the drugs...
Originally posted by Tim W:
It takes a while to come up with something when only one month earlier you're on record promoting the expansion of off shore drilling.
Just curious your stance on off-shore drilling, Tim?
I don't know which drug is worse for you guys, whatever it is you're smoking or listening to an uninformed lying POS like Limbaugh.
Let's just look at the FACTS;
April 20, oil rig explodes/catches fire about 10:00PM
April 21, (not 12 days, but the next day) after a meeting between Obama and the secretaries of Homeland Security (Coast Guard), Inerior (minerals extraction) EPA and FEMA, several secretaries and/or their deputies headed to NO as well as 4 Coast Guard oufits. The CG started S&R operations that day as was reported by BP and reported on several media outlets.
April 23rd, CG and Interior announced that they were focused on mitigating the damage from the leak, but that neither they nor BP saw any release of subsurface oil.
April 25th, CG implements containment, hampered by high winds, rough seas.
April 28th, skimming operations resumed after seas calmed. On the same date CG reported that the release was much worse than BP had led them to believe.
April 29th, BP official said, "we can handle this" and HS Secretary called the spill one of "national significance".
I realize that Rush is incapable of telling the difference between LESS THAN 24 HOURS, and "12 days", but overuse of drugs and his hatred of Obama can cause that.
Easy enough to find the FACTS, if you're interested in looking. Of course if you just want to bash Obama then nothing I, nor anyone else can say will prevent you from spreading the same BS that Rush and Fox do all day long.
Also, today on Rush's radio show he went over the schedule of EPA Secretary Jaaaackson over the week or so AFTER the spill. She didn't do "Jack Diddley" squat! Lots of PR type stuff, ironically, surrounding "Earth Day".
I believe Limbaugh was the one who said a clean-up was unnecessary as this was completely natural and the ocean will take care of itself.
It sounds like he's speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
Guess he better lay off the drugs...
Originally posted by Tim W:
It takes a while to come up with something when only one month earlier you're on record promoting the expansion of off shore drilling.
Just curious your stance on off-shore drilling, Tim?
For it (like Obama) or against?
So are you saying you have evidence to show that Secretary Jackson did address this issue sooner than what Rush said? I'd like to see that evidence.
If the spill was on the 21st, and this was released on the 29th, my math tells me it was 8 days later.
Again, I'm sure there were earlier communications about this, but I just wanted to show that I could prove Rush wrong in less than 10 seconds. Perhaps Rush should spend at least 10 seconds doing his research...
Is that evidence good enough for you?
UPDATE:
This took another 20 seconds to find, and was a Press Release from the White House addressing the issue on April 22 (the day after the spill):
Just curious your stance on off-shore drilling, Tim?
For it....
Of course I'm for it, just like John McCain who was honest about his stance while campaigning, unlike Bo who lied about his position while campaigning, flip flopped a little over a month ago, and is now scrambling for his next position.
Oh wait, I forgot. He has a new position. Blame British Petroleum. :roll:
Wow, the measure of a "response" is a press release....9 days later.
And don't tell me that the response of the Coast Guard is indicative of the response of the administration (an expressly anti military administration).... The Coast Guard is already stationed there and is doing what they do....without waiting for directions. This should be praise for the Coast Guard and no one else.
Wow, the measure of a "response" is a press release....9 days later.
I never said that was the "measure of response"...
I just spent 10 seconds proving that Rush Limbaugh is a liar and/or an idiot, as Rich23 was looking for evidence.
It took another 20 seconds to prove that the White House took action at most the next day.
The OP said:
"So why did his administration take 12 days to take the gulf oil spill seriously and do something?"
The second link above indicates that the spill was taken seriously at most the day after the spill, and that the White House took action within 24 hours. In fact, it specifically says:
"The National Response Team has been activated and Unified and Area Commands have been established near New Orleans to coordinate search and rescue operations and oil spill response efforts."
Based on that, it sounds like they "took it seriously within 24 hours."
Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that both the original post and the claim by Limbaugh was flat out wrong.
Glad to once again dispel the idiotic claims by a druggie who doesn't know what he's talking about...
So, again, in summary, my link above proves that the OP was incorrect (the White House did respond within a day) and Rush was incorrect. Glad I can dispel false rumors...
Rush's claim was in regards to Ms Jackson, not the EPA in general.
even to her own admission, when she got there...
May 1st: "Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson (FINALLY) flew over the gulf oil spill Saturday, later telling people at a meeting in New Orleans that 'it's like all five of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes are oil sheen.' Jackson spent much of her time dealing with residents' memories about Hurricane Katrina and the slow federal response to that disaster."
Which druggie are you talking about? Barry was a cokehead and currently uses the drug nicotine.
Rush's claim was in regards to Ms Jackson, not the EPA in general.
Clearly senior EPA officials were taking action within 24 hours of the spill (Bob Perciasepe met with Obama on 4/22), and since Jackson is Perciasepe's boss, I think it's reasonable to conclude that she is the one who prompted Perciasepe to represent the EPA at these and other meetings.
So, unless those at the EPA are not following chain of command (and I have no reason to believe they're not), clearly Jackson was involved in cleanup discussions and efforts.
Rush's claim was in regards to Ms Jackson, not the EPA in general.
Clearly senior EPA officials were taking action within 24 hours of the spill (Bob Perciasepe met with Obama on 4/22), and since Jackson is Perciasepe's boss, I think it's reasonable to conclude that she is the one who prompted Perciasepe to represent the EPA at these and other meetings.
So, unless those at the EPA are not following chain of command (and I have no reason to believe they're not), clearly Jackson was involved in cleanup discussions and efforts.
I don't doubt the EPA was involved....if for no other reason than they're in bed with British Petroleum who was renting the oil platform and Transocean who built and owned the platform and was operating it with BP.
You've heard all about British Petroleum but you haven't heard much if anything about Transocean in the news have you?
I scanned the news sites and checked press releases. No one's really gone into the relationship between British Petroleum, Transocean and the EPA have they? I'm writing up something about my research and I'll post more tonight.
And people actually wonder why I don't watch TV news anymore.....
The growing consenus is that the Obama admin took too long to recognize the scale of the environmental impact the oil rig explosion posed. However on Rush's website, there is a long video of a NOAA meeting showing clearly that at least THAT agency knew the impact early on.
Ummm...I'm confused...
Rush Limbaugh has indicated that he doesn't really care about the environmental impact from this oil spill, so why would he care how long Obama waited?
They have part of the story, I have more about the relationship between Transocean and the EPA.
I would like to point out that Bigger Pockets beat the Dissociated Press on pointing out who the actual owner of the rig is. The fact that they released this story 2 hours after it was posted here makes me wonder if perhaps they were just waiting for the Bigger Pockets crowd to set them straight. :mrgreen: To any AP reporters who may be cruising Bigger Pockets for their next scoop, pm me and I'll point you in the right direction.
I have more about the relationship between Transocean and the EPA.
Wait a second...you're not going to suggest that the big oil companies are influencing our government, are you!?!?!
Surely, that can't be the case!!!
I just can't imagine that the tens of billions of dollars that big oil has spent on government lobbying efforts over the past 50 years is actually having an impact...
It's more than that. The EPA's actually a partner. And thank you. I beat the AP on pointing out the administration's attempts to deflect attention from Transocean. I will beat them to pointing out how the EPA's in bed with them through the Gulf of Mexico Foundation. Note to AP, there's your bread crumb.
I beat the AP on pointing out the administration's attempts to deflect attention from Transocean.
Where has the AP said anything about the administration attempting to deflect attention from Transocean?
I read the article you posted, but it didn't mention the U.S. government anywhere in it...let alone a conspiracy to cover anything up...
Was there another article I missed?
I will beat them to pointing out how the EPA's in bed with them through the Gulf of Mexico Foundation.
Is that all you plan to say, or is the "proof" coming?
Are you saying there is a relationship between the EPA and the Gulf of Mexico Foundation other than the joint clean-up efforts they are undertaking with NOAA?
Certainly there is a relationship between the two organizations, as evidenced by the EPA website who calls them a "partner":
Jason the whole basis of what I was talking about was what the AP was not saying. British Petroleum is being lampooned everywhere....when they're just the tenant, not the builder/owner of the exploding platform. Where's the scrutiny on Transocean?
...the whole basis of what I was talking about was what the AP was not saying.
There were an infinite number of things the article *didn't* say...I'm not sure how any of them are relevant.
Perhaps you can clarify how something that wasn't said in a news story validates your claim that you broke the story.
British Petroleum is being lampooned everywhere....when they're just the tenant, not the owner of the exploding platform.
Nobody (at least nobody that knows what's going on) has indicated that BP was at fault for the spill. In fact, it's still unclear what led to the blast, or whose fault it was.
That said, everyone acknowledges that BP owns the oil, BP owns the well, and BP is responsible for the cleanup.
Including BP.
There is no cover-up going on here...everyone knows that Transocean owned the rig, but that doesn't mean they're responsible for any disasters it causes...
Oh, and btw, Halliburton is a sub-contractor on this project, responsible for cementing the well (which may have been where the gas breach was that caused the blast).
So, feel free to pull Halliburton into the conspiracy as well... :)
Hmmm. Someone in the Obama regime (Me thinks it twas Interior Sec Salazar) was quoted as saying that they are going to "keep their boot on BP's throat".
Yes, and had you read my next sentence, I go on to say that BP is responsible for the oil, the well and the clean-up. Even BP admits this, regardless of who is at fault.
So, it's not surprising that the government would stay on top of BP to get things cleaned up...
Yes, and had you read my next sentence, I go on to say that BP is responsible for the oil, the well and the clean-up. Even BP admits this, regardless of who is at fault.
BP has committed to the cleanup without reservations, but they have not admitted liability. I made the mistake of assigning liability to BP too early in another conversation on Facebook before looking deeper. Of course BP will commit today to the cleanup. Every oil company of any sort has cleanup reserves set aside for something like this. That's the priority. On the other hand, tomorrow will begin a bit of research into liability and subrogation. Then you'll find out who's really responsible despite all the rhetoric of today.