• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama's Katrina!

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/12...-team-blocks-media-from-oil-spill/#more-38538

Last week, CNN’s Anderson Cooper reported that the federal government was blocking media access to coastal areas around the Gulf, preventing them from taking photos and reporting on the environmental damage of the oil spill. You can watch the video and see Cooper is livid that the Obama administration is treating him and his colleagues this way.

Cooper of course compares this to Katrina when media were blocked from…well we’re unsure what the media was blocked from in Katrina, since the photos and video from the Superdome, the Convention Center, the overpasses, levees, streets and neighborhoods contributed to possibly the most photographed crisis in history.

… snip … The media should of course not be blocked by the federal government from safely reporting on the spill and its affects. The heartbreaking images of oil soaked pelicans, turtles, tarballs and destroyed marshes achieve one important goal – to remind Americans of the disaster the federal government is ignoring. To this day, the media continue to have unnecessarily limited and prohibitive access to the disaster area, including reporters being hassled on public streets. NPR reported yesterday on a reporter who was asked to reveal the images on his camera, and his social security number by members of the local police, FBI and BP.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh, transparency … :D
 
heritage said:
The heartbreaking images of oil soaked pelicans, turtles, tarballs and destroyed marshes achieve one important goal – to remind Americans of the disaster the federal government is ignoring.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

:dl:
 
I see the federal government has sent BP another bill, this one for about $100 million. BP has paid three such bills already. You rarely hear about that on the news, because the news doesn't like stories that make BP look like they are taking care of their responsiblilites. You also don't hear that Obama is doing something positive because that's boring news too. You don't hear that most of the gulf's seafood has been certified as safe. You don't hear that practically no-one has been injured by the spill since the first day.

In short, the disaster is proving to be one of the least disasterous disasters our country has ever experienced. Sure, it's good for news to show pictures of oil coming out of a broken well, but to compare this with Katrina? That's just ridiculous. They are different by orders of magnitude. BP is fulfilling its responsibilities. Obama is making sure they do. Left and right are equally frustrated by this efficiency.
 
thaiboxerken said:
So, Tricky, will you be spending time in Louisiana's beaches swimming?
Click to expand...

Louisiana doesn't have many of what you traditionally think of as "beaches", and those that it has are mostly in the west. The vast majority of the Louisiana shorline is marsh and mudflats.

But I'm not saying there is no damage done to the beaches. I'm saying it is not "disasterous", at least certainly not as disasterous as having a major city virtually destroyed by a hurricane.

Do you disagree with that?
 
Tricky said:
You also don't hear that Obama is doing something positive because that's boring news too.
Click to expand...

I never said that Obama is not doing something positive now. Bush did positive things too ... especially weeks and months after Katrina. And he still got Katrina hung around his neck by the democrats (to this day) because early on he didn't respond well. Because his administration was unprepared for the likes of Katrina. So, as per the OP topic, why isn't the same thing done here? Why shouldn't this be Obama's Katrina? Because he didn't respond well early either. And his administration was unprepared and, many would say, even complicit in causing it to happen.
 
BeAChooser said:
I never said that Obama is not doing something positive now. Bush did positive things too ... especially weeks and months after Katrina. And he still got Katrina hung around his neck by the democrats (to this day) because early on he didn't respond well. Because his administration was unprepared for the likes of Katrina. So, as per the OP topic, why isn't the same thing done here? Why shouldn't this be Obama's Katrina? Because he didn't respond well early either. And his administration was unprepared and, many would say, even complicit in causing it to happen.
Click to expand...
Because the situations are so very different. In the oil spill, there is no particular need for government intervention. BP had a fleet of ships on the way rig within hours of the explosion. There was no looting to prevent. There was no need to set up emergency shelters and hospitals. There was no need to find and rescue stranded people. Really, nothing Obama could have done would have made a significant difference. The complete reverse was true for Katrina, and though it is true the government under Bush did some good, if obvious things, it also gave the perception that it was very unprepared and ineffective in its efforts. Perhaps that is unfair, but it is silly and outrageously partisan to try to pin the same perception on Obama for something entirely different.

Now I don't like some of Obama's reactions, to be sure. The moratorium on drilling is short-sighted and may wind up hurting the country worse than the incident itself. However, I recognize that he had to make some sort of gesture to keep people from screaming about "doing nothing". I can see shutting down BP's drilling for several months, but this was a severe overreaction. However, I suspect that the average American is going to scream that he wasn't tough enough. I also predict that they will scream for cheap oil when gas prices have their next spike. That's just the way Americans are.
 
Tricky said:
Louisiana doesn't have many of what you traditionally think of as "beaches", and those that it has are mostly in the west. The vast majority of the Louisiana shorline is marsh and mudflats.

But I'm not saying there is no damage done to the beaches. I'm saying it is not "disasterous", at least certainly not as disasterous as having a major city virtually destroyed by a hurricane.

Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

It seems you have a subjective opinion contrary to what many reasonable have. I think the destruction of the wetlands is significant. I think the fact that sea-dependent businesses are going to be out of business is significant. The fact that the oil slick can be seen from space is significant.
The notion that seafood is safe is not a whole truth. Some of it is, some isn't. More will not be as the oil spread. I'm also skeptical of the claims that the seafood is safe, as the two major tests used to determine the safety of the food is taste and smell.

I think there is good reason to believe that the spill has been underplayed as significant, actually. BP has been hiding evidence by cleaning up the shores of dead animals and not allowing people to take pictures. The gov't may actually be trying to downplay it so as to not cause panic.

I get most of my information from the BBC and NPR.
 
Tricky said:
In the oil spill, there is no particular need for government intervention.
Click to expand...

Once the Obama administraton allowed BP to get away with not filing detailed environmental impact statements (as required by law) and allowed BP to get away with not having a adequate response plan in place (as required by law), that administration assumed considerable responsibility for dealing with the consequences for what might happen in the event of a large spill. And Obama certainly had a responsibility to the American people to not just wash his hands and point fingers but act to mitigate the bad effects of the spill as soon as possible. Especially when he got on TV and claimed that he and the government were directing everything that BP was doing from day one (you remember that, don't you?).

Furthermore, during Katrina, New Orleans had a response plan in place but it's democrat Mayor decided not to follow it. And THAT is what led to the problems with people stranded at the Convention Center and Superdome. That is what led to the looting. A democrat. Not Bush.

Tricky said:
Really, nothing Obama could have done would have made a significant difference.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. First of all, the Obama administration could have enforced the law as to detailed environmental statements, response plans and testing of the blowout preventer. Second, numerous experts say that early commitment of skimmers, a better approach to dealing with the leaking oil at the drilling site, and early creation of berms could have greatly mitigated the size of the oil spill that now has to be dealt with ... that now is killing birds and the economy of the region.

Tricky said:
However, I recognize that he had to make some sort of gesture to keep people from screaming about "doing nothing".
Click to expand...

So he's doing precisely what they are asking him not to do. That's make perfect sense. :rolleyes:
 
BeAChooser said:
Once the Obama administraton allowed BP to get away with not filing detailed environmental impact statements (as required by law) and allowed BP to get away with not having a adequate response plan in place (as required by law), that administration assumed considerable responsibility for dealing with the consequences for what might happen in the event of a large spill.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you agree proper oversight is important and that Businesses cannot be trusted to self regulate.


BeAChooser said:
Furthermore, during Katrina, New Orleans had a response plan in place but it's democrat Mayor decided not to follow it. And THAT is what led to the problems with people stranded at the Convention Center and Superdome. That is what led to the looting. A democrat. Not Bush.
Click to expand...
How funny. In one case, you blame Obama becuase the existence of a federal oversight system means government is ultimately responsible.

In the other Case, you absolve responsibility for Bush even though there is a federal system (FEMA) which is supposed to assume responsibility.

You are, once again, insanely inconsistent.
 
When it comes to the Obama administration, you just never know where the BP story will take you ...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/06/rahm-emanuel-bp-gul-oil-spill.html

The ties that bind. Remember Rahm Emanuel's rent-free D.C. apartment? The owner: A BP adviser

… snip …

Shortly after Obama's happy inaugural, eyebrows rose slightly upon word that, as a House member, Emanuel had lived the last five years rent-free in a D.C. apartment of Democratic colleague Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and her husband, Stanley Greenberg.

… snip …

Greenberg's consulting firm was a prime architect of BP's recent rebranding drive as a green petroleum company, down to green signs and the slogan "Beyond Petroleum."

Greenberg's company is also closely tied to a sister Democratic outfit -- GCS, named for the last initials of Greenberg, James Carville, another Clinton advisor, and Bob Shrum, John Kerry's 2004 campaign manager.

According to published reports, GCS received hundreds of thousands of dollars in political polling contracts in recent years from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Probably just a crazy coincidence. But you'll never guess who was the chairman of that Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dispensing those huge polling contracts to his kindly rent-free landlord.
Click to expand...

:D
 
BeAChooser said:
And here's the Voice of America (or are you claiming they lie too?):

http://www1.voanews.com/english/new...Oil-Recovery-with-US-Permission-96341579.html

The Dutch also offered assistance with building sand berms (barriers) along the coast of Louisiana to protect sensitive marshlands, but that offer was also rejected, even though Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had been requesting such protective barriers.

Click to expand...



But you are right about at least one thing, MM. I don't see one word in the NYTimes about this. Guess your precious *REAL* news source just forget to report it. :D
Click to expand...

As it turns out Jindal's sand barriers were a $200 million boondoggle
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/Gulf-oil-spill-boondoggle-capress-2984771436.html?x=0
In its stinging report, the commission said Thursday that its staff can "comfortably conclude that the decision to green-light the underwhelmingly effective, overwhelmingly expensive Louisiana berms project was flawed."
Click to expand...
 
You mean the plan that was approved by The Army Corp of Engineers:

“After careful consideration of the available information, and working closely with the state of Louisiana, the coastal parishes, and our federal partners, I have offered the permit under Emergency Permit NOD-20, with special conditions, authorizing the state to proceed with six reaches, E3 and E4 to the east of the
Mississippi River, and W8, W9, W10, and W11 to the west,” said Col. Al Lee, commander of the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers."

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/news/view.asp?ID=341


But hey, since it didn't work out as well as hoped blame Jindal.
 
applecorped said:
http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/news/view.asp?ID=341


But hey, since it didn't work out as well as hoped blame Jindal.
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Jindal was told it didn’t make sense but complained in the media until he got the go-ahead to do it anyway. This has nothing to do with the army corps of engineers. They are not the watchdog on wasteful spending and have no mandate to stop a Governor from wasting taxpayer money.
 
Hindsight....doing nothing was not an appealing option. Many people reviewed this, including at the Federal level and signed off on it. Pointing fingers seems petty, and for what exactly?
 
It seems petty unless the fingers are pointed at the hated secret Muslim President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom