Obama is in complete control of Deepwater Horizon

This is his administration. The Coast Guard is under him. He is the CiC.
So what does the Coast Guard and White House say?

"If anybody is frustrated with this response, I would tell them their symptoms are normal, because I'm frustrated, too," said Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen.

....

He and Coast Guard Adm. Mary Landry, the federal onsite coordinator, direct virtually everything BP does in response to the spill — and with a few exceptions have received full cooperation, Allen said.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was even more emphatic.

"There's nothing that we think can and should be done that isn't being done. Nothing," Gibbs said Friday during a lengthy, often testy exchange with reporters about the response to the oil disaster.

There are no powers of intervention that the federal government has available but has opted not to use, Gibbs said.

Obama has taken control. It is now his baby. So quit your bitching, Obama has this.

Good. That, at least, is as it should be.

unfortunately.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :woohoo: :sarcasm: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :patriot: :woohoo: :sarcasm: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Whew... Thanks for the laugh...

:rofl:

The CIC seems to be letting a very bad corporation give orders to the United States Coast Guard.

Change? I wish.

...not a smart comment, and certainly not sufficient to assume that BP controls the Coast Guard.

Of course the tin foil hatters will say it's proof the Coast Guard is under BP control.

The Coast Guard has clearly stated, they direct BP.

The fact that an officer mentioned "BP rules" about a boat approaching an oily beach doesn't change that.

And that bird is likely dead by now, so nobody will be telling it anything anymore.

This will eventually affect you directly, and I am certain, when this time comes, you will not be concerned with politics as usual.

You will be wondering how you will survive, literally.

It's a cop-out is all it is.

Simple enough for you?

It always does with the boss.

Still, the USCG did not say it was following BP rules.

That simple enough for you?

You should pay attention and start worrying about how this is going to affect you.

Me - "So, did you think it was a USCG officer that told the CBS boat they were 'BP rules'?"

You - {holds up picture of oily bird]

Me - "You do see the sense of keeping boats out of oily water, unless there's an urgent need for them to be there, don't you?"

You - {holds up picture of oily bird]

Me - "I mean, whatever that dunderhead contractor might have said, it's probably the USCG rule also, and for obvious reasons, right?"

You - {holds up picture of oily bird]

Me - "And if it's a USCG rule as well, which it bloody well better be, then a threat of arrest from the USCG makes sense, right?"

You - {holds up picture of oily bird]

Me - "And if the rule seems logical, for safety and damage mitigation reasons, then it's obviously a rule for all, not just the media. Like, this is obviously not media censorship, huh? LOL! What a dumb idea, hey? I mean, there's oil for the media to photograph everywhere! Why would they try to hide a beach which is so obviously oily even from a short distance? funny, huh?"

You - {holds up picture of mother-in-law]

Me - "Nice talking to ya, professor. Yer a real smart dude."

he said "not OURS," meaning the rules were those of BP, not of the Coast Guard.

Even if only this one CG officer was under the command of BP (which he implied was not the case; rather that the CG was implementing/enforcing BP's rules), where does BP get the authority to tell even one CG ship what to do?

officer who said it.

I am in contact with scientists and environmental assessors involved with the situation (my colleagues), who say BP is calling the shots and giving orders the Coast Guard, who is then used to threaten them when they want to take samples and investigate bad areas.

A colleague was fired 2 days ago for simply warning BP officials in the field that they were deploying the booms incorrectly, which we now know as a fact.

is there anyone we can believe?


what was the date of these remarks?

...if you agree those comments by the head of the Coast Guard clearly state that the Coast Guard calls the shots?

Whether you agree that it's true or not is another thing, but the Coast Guard is clearly saying there that they direct BP in virtually everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttC7o3JxsxE















I'd have to say NO. Now, controlling the press conferences -- they've got THAT covered.....

:rofl:

Of course he could disregard the law or have it repealed by Congress (swell, more paper pushing, hearings, press conferences, CBO analyses, more hearings, subcommittee meetings, etc.), and then the teabaggers would scream bloody murder about "government takeovers".

Just to elaborate: that thread cites the National Emergencies Act, which states among other things:

"Under the Powers delegated by such statute, the President may seize property, organize and control means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the means of free enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens."

Obviously he would not need to use every power in the Act (e.g. it does not seem necessary to invoke Martial Law).

In other words: we do already have at least one law that could be used in this situation.

I am not commenting on whether he should invoke this particular law; however, I am of the opinion that the Administration should be exerting a lot more control than they have been, and the above puts the lie to the statements that there is nothing they can legally do short of new laws, or declaring martial law.

(on edit: added quotes)

The Oil Pollution Act http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opaover.htm#key that places responsibility for coordination this type of spill on the federal government.

complete control of making the worst decision ever made by a US president. who is in control anyway?

So what if the dispersants may be as bad as the oil. At least the oil isn't on the beach. The dispersants maybe on the beach. It is sprayed and air could easily carry the materials landward.

MR. GIBBS: I think we’ve gone through this question. We went through this question yesterday. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, for reasons that were obvious in 1990, put the liability and the responsibility for recovery and cleanup with the company rather than with the taxpayers. That’s why --

Q No, I’m not asking a financial question. I’m asking a management question.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no -- no, no, but the management question is a financial question. Understand --

Q How?

MR. GIBBS: Because they’re responsible for the cleanup and they have to pay for it. They’re not two separate questions. So it is --

Q There’s no legal way to sort of separate that out and say, we send the federal disaster experts --

MR. GIBBS: Again, the Oil Pollution Act -- let’s be clear -- I’ve tried to explain this many times. They are responsible for, and we are overseeing that response. That includes -- as I discussed yesterday, there are many different departments and agencies that are involved here. The Department of Interior and what used to be the Minerals Management Service is in charge of regulation and drilling issues. NOAA deals with a series of issues including water sampling, detection of oil inside the water. The Department of Homeland Security is where the Coast Guard is housed. The Coast Guard obviously was on the scene right after the original explosion, and Thad Allen, the head of the Coast Guard, is the National Incident Coordinator. The Environmental Protection Agency does air and water quality testing. And once oil hits land, they have purview over that.

Q I just want to be clear that I understand what you’re saying, that you’re legally not allowed to take sort of command and control of the whole situation.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, again, we’re -- Jennifer, they are responsible for and we are overseeing the recovery response. I will add that SBA is also in the area dealing with disasters for fishermen because NOAA has closed 19 percent of the Gulf for fishing. And SBA is there to provide low-interest loans for people that have had economic damages as a result of that disaster.

But understand, Jennifer, as I’ve -- I think I’ve also said on a number of occasions, the technical expertise to clean up and deal with the equipment that is 5,000 feet below the surface of the sea, that’s equipment that BP has; that’s the equipment that other oil companies have. That is not based on equipment that the federal government has in storage.

Q I understand, I’ll let this go because I’m using up my time. That’s not really the question I was asking, is whether you’re physically doing the work. I’m asking why you don’t take control of the whole operation.

MR. GIBBS: Again, maybe I’m just not being -- over the course of several weeks have not been clear on this. It is their responsibility. They have the legal responsibility and the technical expertise to plug the hole. Obviously Secretary Chu, Secretary Salazar, Secretary Napolitano, and others, have been involved in efforts with other scientists, both government and nongovernmental scientists, in conjunction with British Petroleum, which has been working in conjunction with other corporations and other oil companies.

So I guess -- I’m happy to try to sift through the question. I just -- they are responsible and we are overseeing to ensure that what they’re doing is what needs to be done.

Q But if they’re not getting the job done, does the government just stand there as a spectator and hope for the best?

MR. GIBBS: Chip, there’s nothing that would denote that the federal government has stood there and hoped for the best. I mean, the premise of your question doesn’t match any single -- hold on, let me finish this.

Q You’re confident they’re getting the job done?

MR. GIBBS: Hold on, let me finish this. That doesn’t match any single action that our government has undertaken since the call came in that this rig had exploded in the Gulf. So, you know, the premise of your question doesn’t fit any of the actions that are currently happening on behalf of the federal government in the Gulf of Mexico.

Q But Robert, there’s a whole problem here with BP in that every piece of information that they’ve delivered -- every piece of information hasn’t been -- has turned out not to be true when it comes to the amount of oil that’s spilling, how many leaks there were, I mean, and every single -- so you guys are having to rely on them -- and I understand you’re saying that they’re legally responsible.

MR. GIBBS: It’s not -- we are --

Q The government has to rely on them for the technical expertise, I understand that, but do they have the credibility any more? I mean, why not just say, you know what, we’re going to -- we’re running this thing; you guys aren’t running this thing -- we’re running it.

MR. GIBBS: Again, Chuck, we are overseeing the response -- okay? I don't know what you think -- we are working each and every day. That's why Secretary Chu -- the Department of Energy -- it sounds technical -- the Department of Energy doesn’t have purview over oil, oil drilling. That's not in their governmental sphere. But Secretary Chu has been down there working through a whole host of ideas, including enhanced imaging to get a better look at a disaster that's 5,000 feet underneath the water.

We have taken every step. We have pushed relentlessly for BP to do what is necessary to contain what is leaking, to deal with both the environmental and the economic impacts of what, as the President said today, is unquestionably a disaster. One of the questions you asked, Jennifer, was, this is not something -- there’s not a -- you may have been -- be confused about the notion of a disaster declaration that --

:mad:

The predicament having private business puts the government in, or the complete lack of objective information on what is going on and why.

And if you want to make a separate thread, go ahead. That is public information, a white house transcript.

He seems to have worn out the pair he was wearing during that presser.

BP has the financial responsibility so they've got the operational responsibility. The government has all agencies in place that can contribute, from the Coast Guard to the SBA. They're overseeing the BP operation, they can't do any more than BP because the government doesn't have the expertise. It's the same thing that happens when there's a mine collapse. Mining companies ultimately do the work because they're the ones with the equipment. It's not like a roadside gas spill where they send out the local hazmat.

I don't understand why so many people are having such a difficult time comprehending. I'm not saying I don't think BP has considered profits in this disaster and have made mistakes because of that, or that a preferable method would be for the government to be more in front of the disaster just for the sake of unfettered information. I am saying I understand what Gibbs said and why it's being done the way it's being done. It isn't dancing one bit, makes very logical sense.

Because they have the right toys? It makes NO logical sense whatsoever.

Sorry, but I find the whole argument to be specious.

It's a total clusterfuck and its getting worse by the minute.

But the point is: The Coast Guard claims they are in control, and we all know who the CiC of the Coast Guard is.

The fed is responsible for coordinating efforts to contain large oil spills.

The law was written so that we don't have to depend on corporations to clean up their own accidents.

Nor has those things been done in other parts of the world. I think there are still organizations even electing officials with money not popular consent.

And even some media that is not being honest.

So as far as everything they can do, that might be an assumption of some limitation they are not under, but choose to be under.

Note when I think about government, I am not talking about elected government but other forms that claim some right to control society without having better motives that get them where they are.


Unless they were talking about the corruption in the oil spill, not the corruption that has been going on for decades.



On a side note, I commented on a personal issue of owed, that of coarse would not apply to people that have less or even in moderate living style, only to those with far more then they need, and that got it by free will actions that were not the best, by using ways most people would think of as wrong.

Just pointing out that the Obama administration owns this.
BP will pay for this screwup and when it eventually goes broke doing so, the rest of the tab will then be picked up by taxpayers and we'll finish the job.

But as for ownership, it's Obama's, so he must take control and put BP in its place as the criminal who has to reimburse.