NBC's Mitchell again failed to challenge false assertion that Katrina didn't result in oil spills
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, Andrea Mitchell again failed to challenge the false assertion that Hurricane Katrina did not result in any oil spills, despite a report prepared for the U.S. Minerals Management Service that found 5,552 barrels of oil and petroleum products were spilled from Outer Continental Shelf structures as a result of damage caused by Katrina.
On the July 15 edition of MSNBC Live, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell once again failed to challenge the false assertion that Hurricane Katrina did not result in any oil spills, despite a report prepared for the U.S. Minerals Management Service that found 5,552 barrels of oil and petroleum products were spilled from Outer Continental Shelf structures as a result of damage caused by Katrina. Mitchell was interviewing former senators and current energy industry lobbyists Trent Lott (R-MS) and John Breaux (D-LA) when Lott falsely asserted: "[W]e didn't have one drop of oil spilt when we had the biggest hurricane in, you know, recent history, Hurricane Katrina."
As Media Matters for America noted, Mitchell previously failed to challenge Sen. Richard Burr's (R-NC) false assertion that "there wasn't a drop" of oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico due to Category 5 hurricanes, which he made on the June 24 edition of MSNBC Live. In fact, the 2007 report prepared for the Minerals Management Service by the international consulting firm Det Norske Veritas found that in the case of the two most recent Category 5 hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, "124 spills were reported with a total volume of roughly 17,700 barrels of total petroleum products."
The report included the following chart of statistics on spills from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) structures related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita:
Further, while Mitchell did say of Lott and Breaux, "I know both of you now lobby on energy issues -- full disclosure there," she did not note that both lobby on behalf of oil companies, nor did she interview anyone representing environmental or consumer interests, who can also be said to "lobby on energy issues." Lott and Breaux are registered to lobby Congress on behalf of Shell Oil Co. on "offshore oil and gas development" issues, while advocating that the ban on offshore drilling be lifted. They are also registered to lobby on behalf of Plains Exploration & Production Co. (PXP). According to its website, PXP "is an independent oil and gas company primarily engaged in the activities of acquiring, developing, exploring and producing oil and gas in its core areas of operation: California, Rockies, Haynesville/North Louisiana, Gulf Coast, Gulf of Mexico, Texas Panhandle, South Texas and the Permian Basin of the United States." As Media Matters noted, Mitchell previously interviewed Lott and Breaux on the June 9 edition of MSNBC Live without disclosing their ties to oil and gas companies.
Mitchell ended the July 15 interview by saying, "All right. Trent Lott, John Breaux, from the oil patch."
From the 1 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on July 15:
MITCHELL: So, let's bring in former senators Trent Lott and John Breaux -- political adversaries, at one point, but partners, business partners now. Thanks for joining us.
[...]
MITCHELL: Now, energy is a big area of disagreement between the two candidates. I know both of you now lobby on energy issues -- full disclosure there. But what about Barack Obama's opposition to offshore drilling? The American people seem to be moving more in that direction, and I suspect he personally would as well.
BREAUX: Well, I would strongly recommend that he reconsider that position. I disagree with it obviously coming from an energy-producing state, the Gulf of Mexico. We've shown that for the last 60 years, you can do it safely. You can develop all natural, domestic resources here in the United States, and it can be done safely. The last spill they talk about was in 1969, the Santa Barbara oil spill. Technology is totally different.
So I would hope he would recognize you have to have a balanced approach. Alternatives, yes, but you also have to develop our own resources here in this country.
LOTT: Well, and, you know, one point, since we're both from the Gulf area. We didn't have one drop of oil spilt when we had the biggest hurricane in, you know, recent history, Hurricane Katrina. And some people say, "Oh, we shouldn't drill, or we shouldn't build more refineries, we shouldn't build more nuclear plants because it would take seven years, 10 years." Well, yeah, and we should get started. We should have started 10 years ago.
We passed a bill that would have opened up ANWR 10 years ago, and President Clinton vetoed it. So, I think that the American people now are saying, "Look, do whatever's necessary. Do it all, and do it now." But do it safely and environmentally wisely. Nobody wants to, you know, unnecessarily endanger pristine areas. But I think the feeling is, we are very much at risk in the energy area to foreign oil, and we've got to do something about it.
MITCHELL: All right. Trent Lott, John Breaux, from the oil patch. Thank you very much.
Sure, I agree, that they should be honest.
They should say that ...
"Hurricane Katrina consisted of oil spills that amassed roughly 5500 barrels, or 0.006% of the worlds daily oil consumption."
See, you said the right word: "misleading".
Everything has to be taken into the correct context in order for it to be properly understood in real world terms. My 0.006% remark was meant as an attention getting, much like your 5500 barrel remark would be by itself.
To put it into perspective, dating as far back as 1992, its estimated that over 120,000 barrels of oil flow into the Gulf of Mexico by natural seepage. That should also be mentioned at the same time when mentioning that 5500 barrels spilled during Katrina. This way, the peopel can make a judgement for themselves on how bad it really was - actually, lack there of.
Is it worse than zero barrels? Sure, no one will debate that. But to come off like this is a huge deal when 20 times that seep naturally every year, then it proves not to be.
Heres an old abstract from the AGU (American Geophysical Union) talking about this exact subject.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1993/93JC01289.shtml
I agree Trent Lott should be truthful. Fat chance of that and all the other degenerates who have repeatedly told the same lie. Bottom line, it's not the total or the percentage of anything that matters, it's your party's consistent, institutionalized lying. How can you ever trust them again? OK, silly question. Whatever they say tomorrow, you'll buy.
If you ever get framed for murder by a perjurer, just think what percentage of the world's lies that represented that day as they take you to the Chair.
As to natural seepage (ignoring good points about that made here), wouldn't that make it even more prudent to avoid spills? Where's the payoff in compounding the problem? If your tub is leaking, would turning up the faucet not matter? OK, another silly question.
How can you ever trust them again? OK, silly question.
Who said I trusted them? I don't trust any politician.
As to natural seepage (ignoring good points about that made here), wouldn't that make it even more prudent to avoid spills? Where's the payoff in compounding the problem? If your tub is leaking, would turning up the faucet not matter? OK, another silly question.
I know you're ignoring the points, but that IS the point. The point is that this also occurs naturally so much all over the world, that the amount induced by a single hurricane is proven to be null at best. Given that the small amount that leaked once during that hurricane, and then factoring in how none, or barely anything at all, leaks during drilling, there is no reason to worry about it. But i'm sure that we can keep improving technology to try and deter it in the future.
Hey guys
I appreciate the honest comments, and not trying to bash me for what I consider to be actual scientific data. Please not that I am not defending Lott, or any party, or the media. I'm merely just claiming what actually happens, and what the facts are. I wish they would have portrayed the entire argurment in the media factually by saying what really spilled and putting it into the correct context so people can understand what it really means, and what really happens naturally.
I am by no means a fan of Lott, the Republican party, or the Democrat party. I would rather like to see the actual scientific data represented in cases, and put into real world contexts that make sense to the average person.
Of course you're not a fan of Lott, the Republican Party or the "Democrat" party.
Even though your posts are supportive of Republican policies, full of administration talking points and dismissive of the DEMOCRATIC Party.
We all know that you're a Libertarian who accidentally happens to use the same terminology of the Bedwetters in the right wing media.
Doesn't it bother you that in literally every instance of the government removing rules and regulations, the industry has blown itself up with its greed and short-sightedness, only to come back to the gov't whining for a handout? I can't imagine more clear examples of the error of deregulation than what has happened in the energy market, the banking industry, the mortgage industry, etc.
Ah, so you're a Democrat! They're the ones telling the truth about the actual amount of Katrina oil spills! Show me ONE Dem who said "[W]e didn't have one drop of oil spilt when we had the biggest hurricane in, you know, recent history, Hurricane Katrina."
Put your vote where your mouth is.
The upside of your case is that if the "actual scientific data" were presented in the media, the rad right would have to admit that there were spills during Katrina. Ouch! Can't have the truth displacing false talking points!
They're the ones telling the truth about the actual amount of Katrina oil spills! Show me ONE Dem who said "[W]e didn't have one drop of oil spilt when we had the biggest hurricane in, you know, recent history, Hurricane Katrina."
If they were telling the truth, they would also include the fact that 120,000+ barrels naturally seep into the Gulf every single year. They don't because it would distort their talking point regarding 5500 barrels.
Neither side tells the truth - they both skew the data to represent their agenda. Don't come off as innocent when you know you do not represent the truth.
It's not a Democratic talking point about the 5500 barrels though. It's a repeated Republican talking point about ZERO barrels.
They aren't equivalent, and one of the big reasons Media Matters exists is the false argument that all politicians are equal, and all lies and distortions by both sides of the political fence are equivalent. That faulty argument gets pulled out here by those on the right all the time.
That's not the "truth," it's at best tangentially related. We have seen many things here that also could be listed. Where do you stop? Maybe we should dump sewage in your water since billions of fish pee and poop in the ocean every day, and our "percentage" would be tiny by comparison. Sound silly to you? Well, that's how you sound to rational people. Saying there were no spills is something entirely different, but that fact is beyond you. But keep grasping at straws, it's amusing.
Maybe when Reagan talked about that woman (which he never produced) with a "welfare Cadillac" he should have also said what "percentage" of the national budget that was. And so on, no limit to the examples you could make up.
Where have we heard that before? Preceding every spill disaster, you can find similar language from the pollution lobby. "We have improved the technology, it can't happen again." Yeah, right. Yet, after being let down time after time, you are still "sure." What is the best medical term for that, someone?
For some perspective on spills the corporate establishment media apparently will not give you, consider this from Geotimes, February 2006:
When Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast in August, no one was immune from its rage. The hurricane hit oil and gas infrastructure particularly hard. More than 100 platforms were destroyed or lost, major pipelines were shut down, and refineries and oil storage sites lost power and were flooded and heavily damaged. While thousands of people rushed out of the area, struggling to avoid rising flood waters, some folks were rushing in. They were hoping to prevent — or at least quickly clean up — what would become America’s largest oil spill since the 11-million-gallon Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989 [emphasis added].
Damage to oil facilities from Hurricane Katrina caused four medium spills (more than 10,000 gallons) and 134 minor spills, in which 8 million gallons of oil leaked onto the ground and into waterways from Louisiana to Alabama [emphasis added]. The largest single spill was at the Bass Enterprises Production Company site in Cox Bay, La., where 3.78 million gallons of oil spilled. Another large spill was at the Chevron Empire oil terminal in Buras, La., where the roof of one storage tank was ripped off and the foundation of another ripped out, leaking 1.4 million gallons of oil.
What stunning logic. By this definition of what is significant, we could release 200,000,000 pounds of elemental chlorine into the Gulf because it represents only 0.006% of world daily production. Or, we could give al Qaeda 120 nuclear warheads because it represents only 0.006% of the world arsenal.
How on earth does the percentage of usage have anything to do with whether something was a significant spill?
As usual, it would be difficult for you to be more disingenuous in your argument. Yet again, you post some random, illogical point and pretend that you made some grand scientific argument. In the rare event that you even link to some "evidence" of your argument, it either disproves your point or has very little to do with it.
The difference between natural oil seeps and oil spills from drilling operations are multi-faceted. For one, you conflate (intentionally?) annual seeps and this one time spill. Natural seeps average 30 barrels per day in the gulf, so that is 5% of this one time spill. Second, the seeps occur in predictable locations on the sea floor where the local ecosystem has adapted to the environment. A spill occurs on the surface and in much larger quantity, causing damage to ecosystems. Third, the natural seepage is fresh crude and not petroleum byproducts and processed oil, like much of what was spilled.
Do you actually think that a spill of 5500 barrels of oil does not harm marine ecosystems?
You're right (for once). I missed the decimal. It is 330, but my 5% number is the correct one.
As for your misunderstanding of natural seepage and the claim that a spill of 5500 barrels does not have negative effects on ecosystems, well you just proved my point that you have no idea what you are talking about.
As for your misunderstanding of natural seepage and the claim that a spill of 5500 barrels does not have negative effects on ecosystems, well you just proved my point that you have no idea what you are talking about
Please explain in scientific data how the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico has suffered. I would really like to see this - especially seeing as how previous comments on this topic have noted that the wildlife and ecosystems have actually adapted to what occurs naturally.
OK. Like I said, natural seepage of fresh crude from the sea floor is something that marine ecosystems in the area can and have adapted to. The crude disperses as it moves away from the source and does not cause any significant effect on ecosystems further away.
A spill is a large amount of product dumped all at once that includes other, more toxic chemicals besides crude. The damage caused from pipelines and storage facilities was more extensive than the damage caused by crude spills.
Here is a link talking about the extensive environmental damage. I'll give you some highlights:
Reports from the Coast Guard indicate that at least 193,000 barrels of oil and other petrochemicals have been spilled in wetlands and coastal areas in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
The ecological damage to the region's marshlands is believed to be significant but a full assessment is likely months away. Already the Louisiana Department and Wildlife and Fisheries' have estimated a potential $1.1 billion loss in retail fisheries revenue over the next year.
Here is another article.
Along Louisiana's coastal marshlands, home to a large population of birds and wildlife, scientists say the damage caused by oil and other chemicals could be disastrous.
More than 193,000 barrels of oil -- some 7 million gallons -- spilled along the Louisiana coastline in August 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit, the largest oil spill in the state's history and the biggest since the Exxon Valdez crashed off the coast of Alaska in 1989.
Specific data on the ecological damage is still being researched. Here is a link for more info if you are interested.
I'm talking about oil spilled in the Gulf from Katrina. It came from drilling rigs, pipelines, and storage facilities. They are all part of a drilling operation. Your original point was that the amoutn spilled was small compared to what we use, which makes no sense. Your second point was that it was small compared to natural seepage, which I have tried to explain was a strawman argument not based in actual science. You have ignored that, as shown by your bringing it up again in a response to someone else. Your third point was that there was no ecological damage, which is not true.
What it your ultimate point here? Everything you say is either unrelated or patently false. Why do you have such an interest in misrepresenting a topic? You do the same thing with every issue you get involved with here, whether it be SS or taxes or the environment or energy. Why?
"5,552 barrels of oil and petroleum products were spilled from Outer Continental Shelf structures as a result of damage caused by Katrina"
I think in all fairness to Science he was referring to oil spilled from outer continental shelf structures as a result of damage caused by Katrina. Was that no the topic first addressed by MMFA as they pointed out the 5,552 barrels of oil and not the 193,000 you point to? I believe that Science was asking for specific evidence that the 5,552 barrels of oil spilled as documented by MMFA has caused damage to the ecosystem. Throughout this conversation you are the only one who has brought up spills by land rigs and refineries. Science has always been referring to spills out in the gulf.
Also, how does comparing an oil spill to oil usage have anything to do with comparing an oil spill to natural seepage?
I think you got your prepared talking points mixed up.
As i stated above, my comparisonof oil spilled to oil usage meants as an opposite way to represent factual data like in this article.
For example, just saying "omg, 5500 barrels spilled into the ocean!" at first seems huge. Then by saying "omg, only 0.006% of the daily usage spilled into the ocean" seens like nothing. Its just an argument from the opposite spectrum.
To fully put into the correct context when explaining spillage, you need to also show representation for natural seepage in the same area. If you dont, its like complaining about man-made CO2 being released right next to an active volcano, but completely ignoring the amount being dispersed from the volcano.
I think Trent Lott misspoke: He should have said "We had ONE drop of oil spill" as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
Meanwhile 50-70 barrels seep into Santa Barbara Channel off California every day, naturally.
The larger point is that the leftists and Enviro-Marxists use negative environmental impact as an argument against drilling offshore by claiming the hurricanes will cause all this oil spillage and wreck the oceans. It's not true and is one of the many unsupported arguments against drilling -- which the people are beginning to see through.
This was the largest oil spill since the Exxon Valdez in 1989.
The largest of the Katrina spills lost 3.79 million gallons alone. There were also 4 medium spills. 134 minor spills leaked 8 million gallons into the ground.
He said none spilled. Some spilled. It's a lie. It' a lie that multiple people on the right have tried to push.
It's not the people on the left that are pushing a false meme. It's people on the right pushing a false meme that no oil had the potential to affect the environment after Katrina.
Luckily it wasn't a bad environmental event. The risk is not non-existent, though, and that's the point that people on the left make, and a point honest people on the right don't shy away from. Dishonest people on the right say that no oil spilled so they can argue that drilling is 'safe' nowadays. It is safer, but not without risks. Honest people on the left will admit that it's safer now. Dishonest people on the right pretend that natural seepage is equivalent to commercial oil spills. They aren't.
Perhaps these nuckleheads would get it if it's reported in gallons rather than barrels...
More than 500 specialists are working to clean up 44 oil spills ranging from several hundred gallons to nearly 4 million gallons, the U.S. Coast Guard said in an assessment that goes far beyond initial reports of just two significant spills.
The report comes nearly three weeks after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, and reflects the fact that the Coast Guard and other agencies are able to only now tackle environmental problems since the search and rescue effort is winding down.
The Coast Guard estimates more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled from industrial plants, storage depots and other facilities around southeast Louisiana.
Major spills (over 100,000 gallons)
Bass Enterprises Production Company (Cox Bay): About 3.78 million gallons discharged, of which 960,000 gallons were recovered, 2 million gallons were contained and 982,000 gallons evaporated.
Shell (Pilot Town): About 1.05 million gallons discharged, of which about 718,000 gallons were recovered, 129,000 were contained and 105,000 gallons evaporated or dispersed. Some 87,000 gallons have not been contained.
Chevron (Empire): About 991,000 gallons were released, of which 983,000 gallons were naturally dispersed or evaporated, 4,000 gallons were recovered and 3,600 gallons were contained.
Murphy Oil Corporation (Meraux): About 819,000 gallons discharged, of which 305,000 were recovered, 196,000 gallons were contained and 312,000 gallons evaporated. Some 6,000 gallons were not recovered.
Bass Enterprises (Point a la Hache): About 461,000 gallons of oil discharged, of which half was contained and half evaporated.
Medium spills (10,000 to 100,000 gallons)
Chevron (Port Fourchon): About 53,000 gallons were released, of which 21,000 gallons were naturally dispersed, 26,000 gallons were recovered and 420 gallons were contained.
Venice Energy Services Company (Venice): About 840,000 gallons of potential discharge are enclosed in bermed and boomed area, but only 25,000 gallons were actually discharged, of which 4,800 gallons were recovered.
Shell Pipeline Oil (Nairn): About 13,440 gallons discharged, of which 126 gallons were recovered, 2,940 gallons were contained and 10,500 gallons reached shoreline.
Sundown Energy (West Potash): About 13,000 gallons discharged, of which 153 gallons were recovered, 2,000 gallons were contained, and 5,000 gallons reached shoreline.
I also recommend sending them some pictures...
Along with a few statements...
The oil pollution in the wake of Hurricane Katrina could be among the worst recorded in North America, officials trying to coordinate the clean-up say. The US coastguard, which is responsible for the marine environment, said yesterday more than 6.5 million gallons of crude oil had been spilt in at least seven major incidents. The previous worst spill in US waters was the 11m gallons in Alaskan waters from the Exxon Valdez in 1989.
Or some other facts...
Table 3 – Platforms Destroyed by Hurricane Katrina
Katrina Destroyed Platforms
Operator
Map Area
Block Number
Facility
Water Depth (Feet)
BP America Production Company
GI
40
B
83
BP America Production Company
GI
40
F
86
BP America Production Company
GI
47
C
88
BP America Production Company
GI
48
D
86
BP America Production Company
GI
41
A
91
BP America Production Company
GI
32
J
106
Newfield Exploration Company
MP
138
A
158
Southern Natural Gas Company
MP
298
B-Valve
222
Noble Energy, Inc.
MP
306
D
255
Apache Corporation
MP
312
JA
248
Energy Resource Technology, Inc.
PL
20
39
30
Apache Corporation
SP
62
A
340
Apache Corporation
SP
62
B
322
Marlin Energy Offshore, L.L.C.
ST
21
1
37
Marlin Energy Offshore, L.L.C.
ST
21
22
36
Marlin Energy Offshore, L.L.C.
ST
21
25
40
Marlin Energy Offshore, L.L.C.
ST
21
27
40
Marlin Energy Offshore, L.L.C.
ST
21
31
36
Marlin Energy Offshore, L.L.C.
ST
21
66
45
Marlin Energy Offshore, L.L.C.
ST
21
67
46
Marlin Energy Offshore, L.L.C.
ST
21
71
48
Marlin Energy Offshore, L.L.C.
ST
21
75
47
Marlin Energy Offshore, L.L.C.
ST
21
E
40
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
ST
135
M
116
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
ST
151
I
128
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
ST
151
O
137
Apache Corporation
ST
161
A
117
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
ST
176
A
140
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
ST
151
G
137
Apache Corporation
ST
161
B
120
BP America Production Company
WD
69
C
121
BP America Production Company
WD
69
K
134
Apache Corporation
WD
103
A
223
Apache Corporation
WD
103
B
228
Apache Corporation
WD
104
C
228
Anglo-Suisse Offshore Partners, LLC
WD
117
C
214
Anglo-Suisse Offshore Partners, LLC
WD
117
D
195
Anglo-Suisse Offshore Partners, LLC
WD
117
E
208
Anglo-Suisse Offshore Partners, LLC
WD
117
F
200
Anglo-Suisse Offshore Partners, LLC
WD
117
QRT
214
Apache Corporation
WD
133
B
285
El Paso Production GOM Inc.
WD
137
A
310
BP America Production Company
WD
94
G
153
BP America Production Company
WD
70
H
141
Why? So conservatives can run around saying "it's ok if manmade structures leak because nature leaks."?
Really? Why is that? 17,700 doesn't sound like zero? Isn't 0.006% (whatever) roughly the consumption of Rhode Island? How is that NOTHING? NOTHING is NOTHING. NOTHING else is NOTHING.
(You ever multiply by anything other than 0 and gt 0? You are an insult to scientists.)
excuse me, but that was a post production spill, not a spill as a result of production. that can happen anywhere with tankers plying their trade worldwide.
spillage as a result of katrina which affected depots were also post production, not as a result of production.
I'll bet more seafood is consumed in a day than were killed by the Katrina oil spills.
LOTT: "[W]e didn't have one drop of oil spilt when we had the biggest hurricane in, you know, recent history, Hurricane Katrina."
In the real world that is known as a lie...regardless whether the amount spilt is considered statistically insignificant.
Because 0.006% of our daily consumption is basically considered zero.
Would you eat it in one sitting, ScienceGuy?
Because 0.006% of our daily consumption is basically considered zero.
By whom...and for what purposes?
By whom...and for what purposes?
Republicans and the Oil Lobby
and for the purpose of confusing the populace. ;)
Using that same logic, not one person has been killed by terrorists.
Why isn't Andrea Mitchell's e-mail posted here? I really don't think Steve Capus or Phil Griffin gives a s(&%. But if Ms. Mitchell received 50,000 e-mails....this is an aggravating situation when she continues to say something blatantly incorrect, but she doesn' give a s**() either. If she cared, she would have done her research. But she doesn't care because she's selling a product.
I don't think it's just Mitchell. I do not get Fox News so I cannot comment on it but on CNN and MSNBC most female reporters/anchors/analysts appear to be Right Wing shills. Don't know why. May be it is true of male anchors too but the way they frame their statements, the females stick out more.
Examples are Mitchell, Borger, Crowley, Yellin and another lady on MSNBC whose name I do not know but she appears on Morning Joe.
Once again, Media Matters (for very little) has shown its ability to enlarge its irrelevance in the political forum, mostly this site engages in a futile search for the magic bullet that will save neo-liberalism/socialism/marxism from the dung heap of civilization. Here, it its presumed that if we run from the cheapist and most reasonable way of securing our energy security, (Egad, we spilt a drop in the bucket, a bucket the size of the ocean, Oh how shall we and the little sea urchins ever live!?!) we will save the dreams of the left to return to the stone age and therby save Mother Earth or Mother Sheehan or whatever.
One might hope that since the site was spanked regarding this topic several weeks ago, they might have seen the incandescent light. But you must like the spankings, I guess.
The amount of oil spilt compared with the amount of water in the gulf is @0.0000006%. (I would have cited myself from a previous posting but MM(vl) removed the thread from the archive, imagine that?)
The amount of oil spilled is negligible, nil, nada, bupkis! But the minds behind MM(vl) are just praying for the American public to agree that we must never enlarge our carbon foot-print, unless you are one of the 'special people' like Algore and his $4.00 gas line and jet setting on behalf of Mother Nature.
If the point of this is about Lott lying, why not focus on the flips that Obama has made regarding financing for campaigns, support of DC gun laws, agreeing that the death penalty is appropriate in some cases? This isn't about lying, it's about the ecofringe of the left wanting to stop economic activity, increasing the price of gas to $9.00 or more and making us ride bikes to and from work.
MM(vl), how about getting back to the important things you need to focus on?.....Like how you hate it when McCain is called a 'Maverick', or attack those who call Obama a liberal and then are silent when his changes in political views goes counter to his leftisit base or when you talk about the Pelosi plan to lower gas prices back in 2005 (oops, never talk about that one)
C'mon MM(vl), get back on point, this one's a loser for you!