Hannity again falsely suggested Obama ignored oil spill, TN flooding
Sean Hannity again falsely suggested that President Obama ignored the floods in Tennessee and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. In fact, Obama responded quickly to both disasters.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the May 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: But this president never mentioned the largest flood in Nashville in 500 years. To this day he's not mentioned this. He didn't speak publicly about [the oil spill] for eight long days. Now, there is a political aspect to this, especially in light of the massive criticism that George W. Bush received in light of a two-day-slow response to Katrina.
Fact: Tennessee's governor praised the administration's flood response
Declaration provides federal aid. In a May 4 release, the White House stated that Obama "declared a major disaster exists in the State of Tennessee and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local recovery efforts in the area" affected by "severe storms, flooding, straight-line winds, and tornadoes beginning on April 30, 2010, and continuing." The statement said that aid includes "grants for temporary housing and home repairs, low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses, and other programs to help individuals and business owners recover from the effects of the disaster." [Whitehouse.gov, 5/4/10]
Fox News.com: Tennessee governor said he has "never seen this kind of response." Hannity's own network reported that Gov. Phil Bredesen stated: "I've never seen this kind of response ... and we've had our share of tornadoes and so forth." Bredesen reportedly further stated, "FEMA and the White House could not have been more helpful in this thing." Fox also reported that Obama spoke with Bredesen on Monday, May 3, and that FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate had been to the state twice since the storms. [FoxNews.com, 5/6/10]
Bredesen: "The President was on the phone to me before the sun came up practically on Monday morning." In another White House statement, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs posted Bredesen's description of the federal response:
I have to say that FEMA and the White House have been absolutely supportive. Very quickly FEMA was on the ground here before the raindrops started falling. ... The President was on the phone to me before the sun came up practically on Monday morning. Slightly after it came up, other people from the White House had called and checked in with us and helped. ... I've never seen this kind of a response to things that have happened. We've had our share of tornadoes and those kinds of things. ... I'm very, very pleased with the response we've gotten from the administration. [5/6/10]
Fact: Administration responded immediately to rig explosion, oil spill
White House immediately dispatched officials, Coast Guard to work on response. As Media Matters detailed, the same day the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 21, the White House held a briefing with top administration officials, and Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes was dispatched to the region. The same day, the Coast Guard announced that four units were responding to the fire, with additional units en route.
Coast Guard began containment efforts on April 23. On April 23, the Coast Guard stated:
The Department of the Interior, MMS [the U.S. Minerals Management Service], and the Coast Guard continue to support the efforts of the responsible parties to secure all potential sources of pollution. Both federal agencies have technical teams in place overseeing the proposals by BP and Transocean to completely secure the well. Until that has occurred and all parties are confident the risk of additional spill is removed, a high readiness posture to respond will remain in place.
Although the oil appears to have stopped flowing from the well head, Coast Guard, BP, Transocean, and MMS remain focused on mitigating the impact of the product currently in the water and preparing for a worst-case scenario in the event the seal does not hold. Visual feed from deployed remotely operated vehicles with sonar capability is continually monitored in an effort to look for any crude oil which still has the potential to emanate from the subsurface well.
"From what we have observed yesterday and through the night, we are not seeing any signs of release of crude in the subsurface area. However we remain in a 'ready to respond' mode and are working in a collaborative effort with BP, the responsible party, to prepare for a worst-case scenario," Landry stated early Friday morning.
April 26: Oil recovery and cleanup were to resume after adverse weather passed. On April 25, the unified command team responding to the spill stated:
The unified command is implementing intervention efforts in an attempt to contain the source of oil emanating from the wellhead at the Deepwater Horizon incident site Sunday.
The unified command has approved a plan that utilizes submersible remote operated vehicles in an effort to activate the blowout preventer on the sea floor and to stop the flow of oil that has been estimated at leaking up to 1,000 barrels/42,000 gallons a day.
Also, BP is mobilizing the DD3, a drilling rig that is expected to arrive Monday to prepare for relief well-drilling operations.
Additionally, the oil recovery and clean-up operations are expected to resume once adverse weather has passed. These efforts are part of the federally approved oil spill contingency plan that is in place to respond to environmental incidents.
April 28: Federal officials realize spill was far more severe than BP led them to believe. An April 28 New York Times article reported, "Government officials said late Wednesday night that oil might be leaking from a well in the Gulf of Mexico at a rate five times that suggested by initial estimates." The Times further reported:
In a hastily called news conference, Rear Adm. Mary E. Landry of the Coast Guard said a scientist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had concluded that oil is leaking at the rate of 5,000 barrels a day, not 1,000 as had been estimated. While emphasizing that the estimates are rough given that the leak is at 5,000 feet below the surface, Admiral Landry said the new estimate came from observations made in flights over the slick, studying the trajectory of the spill and other variables.
An April 30 Associated Press article reported, "For days, as an oil spill spread in the Gulf of Mexico, BP assured the government the plume was manageable, not catastrophic. Federal authorities were content to let the company handle the mess while keeping an eye on the operation."
Hannity made these false claims before
Hannity previously suggested Obama did nothing on flooding, oil spill. On May 6, Hannity claimed that "[w]e have a massive flood in Nashville, the president, as of now, has yet to comment on it." Hannity asserted on April 30 that the Obama administration "sat back for 9 days and they did absolutely nothing" about the oil spill"; on May 25, he said of the administration's oil spill response, "they did nothing from day one ... they haven't done a thing."
-- The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort....make no mistake: BP is operating at our direction -- Pres. Obama
That's simply a load of baloney from Pres. Half-True Obama. The federal response was active from the jump with lots of talk and typical meetings and briefings but little action concerning the leak...their immediate actions mostly concerned search and rescue.
As recently as Monday, the top federal official in charge of dealing with the oil catastrophe, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, declined to broadly say the federal government was "in charge."..."I would say it's less a case of 'in charge'".
Pres. Obama then takes a ludicrous step by announcing "we will suspend the planned exploration of two locations off the coast of Alaska...we will suspend action on 33 deepwater exploratory wells currently being drilled in the Gulf of Mexico."
What the heck does "suspending exploration" have to do with fixing the current production leak or preventing future ones?
From day one the feds leapt into action with search and rescue efforts...of which they have lots of experience and are quite good at. Yet, concerning the leak, they did a lot of hand-wringing and hoped that BP would get the leak fixed and take them off the hot seat.
It's a tough situation for any administration but their actions are beginning to look more and more like a typical door-slamming Marx brothers skit.
Although I disagree substantively on many of your points above, I tip my hat to you for arguing the issues. Much of the scorn for Fox News and others on the Right that you read on this site originate from the shared perception that Fox is nothing more than a propaganda machine, and facts be damned.
That's why I watch very little cable news.
Regardless we should have learned from Ixtoc 1 and had things prepared for this.
Exactly! Mr. Obama just tied our one good hand behind our back. We get 30% of our oil out of the gulf. By suspending our drilling there (six months) it just increases our dependence on foreign oil even more. China, Venezuela, Nigeria, Cuba, India, England, Russia and I'm sure I'm missing a couple of more all still are DRILLING in the gulf. State owned national oil companies own 80% of the market. Investor owned account for just 6%.
Of course we need to develop clean and renewable energy sources...we need to develop ALL types of energy sources to provide for our growing energy needs.
Yet, claiming that we can satisfy our energy needs with 100% clean energy is beyond naive...it's stupid. Our need for carbon based energy (read oil) will not be eliminated anytime in the near future.
We need to find and drill for more oil and increase the number of nuclear plants...and yes, develop clean, renewable energy sources. It's not an either/or proposition.
Of course you're right on every point, but I want highlight your last bullet.
The left has no one to blame but themselves for the corner we've been backed into. They led the charge for the moratorium on new nuclear energy plants, they lead the charge on anti drilling efforts. Between the untapped deepwater in the Gulf, Atlantic and Alaska there is 22 billion barrels of oil. Thats billion with a B.
The infrastructure for clean energy just isn't here yet. That doesn't mean stop research and tweaking the technology though. Renewable energy plants tend to be very expensive and remote also. We just can't depend on green energy to fuel our cars, heat our homes and especially run our industries. Renewable energy works on a small scale, but doesn't address our energy needs of 12.3k kWh per capita consumption.
The president said, "I continue to believe what I said at that time, which was that domestic oil production is an important part of our overall energy mix. It has to be part of an overall energy strategy."...and then he promptly halts offshore exploration.
Typically true of Pres. Half-True Obama's all hat and no cattle personna in which he talks a good game out of both sides of his mouth.
You can't be for more oil production and suspend exploration at the same time. You can't express support for more drilling and then suspend drilling...except for political expediency.
But that's what you get when leadership is suspended and replaced by policy wonks...whose main goal in life is to have lots of meetings that generate lots of talk and little meaningful action.
"While the commission performs its work to determine how to prevent this from ever happening again, the moratorium on permits to drill new deepwater wells will continue for a period of six months."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100527/ts_nm/us_oil_rig_obama_months_3
"First, we will suspend the planned exploration of two locations off the coast of Alaska...we will suspend action on 33 deepwater exploratory wells" -- Pres. Obama
You say that as if you expect TBag Slickens to know this. Clearly, you are not familiar with his posts. They rarely contain anything of truth or substance.
And it might never be because we have built the foundation of modern civilization on a limited resource - fossil fuel. Fossil fuel is like your rich daddy's inheritance. Its a one shot deal. Its the accumulated solar energy of millions of years. Once its all extracted we go back to relying on current solar imput which means we need to go on a serious diet if we want to be clean.
Nuclear energy is potentially very dirty and countries like Iran like it for reasons that have nothing to do with keeping the lights on.
Of course we will stay dirty, climate be damned and environment be damned. Being responsible for ones messes and having a concern for future unborn generations are quaint ideas when our modern comforts and wealth are at stake. We look down on heroin and crack addicts but future generations might see us in a similar way. Our legacy will be that our sense of entitlement will create a huge planetary debt that we will dump on future generations.
What is your solution in the face of such a problem?
Nuclear power is definitely an option, but not a quick solution to such a large problem. Wind energy could easily provide 20% of our electricity needs within the next decade. Nuclear power plants can take years to get approved, and the logistics surrounding it are challenging to say the least. No private industry will insure nuclear power and it's very hard to find communities willing to have them built near their residences and places of work.
Thermal energy is another great sources of energy which is limitless in it's potential. Solar energy is a no brainer. Natural gas has less polluting carbons than oil, so it's definitely part of the equation. There are many new technologies out there just waiting to hit the market on a massive scale. Many ideas out there.
The left is not living in a fantasy world, it is you global warming Denialists and clean energy pessimists living in the fantasy world thinking we can continue to gain the majority of our energy needs through fossil fuels for the near future in face of all the challenges out there.
This just isn't true. Nuclear IS the quick solution because it ALREADY provides 20% of power to the US. Wind energy has been PROPOSED to be able to provide that much, but the infrastructure isn't there. Bird in the hand sound familiar? Even Tony Blair told Parliament in May 2007 "We are not going to be able to make up through wind farms all the deficit on nuclear power". How about getting wind farms up to the 20% threshold before we disperse with proven techniques?
Nuclear power can take years to get approved. Want to guess why? Here are two $reasons$:
As stated elsewhere in this thread, you can't have it both ways. You either embrace clean energy which Nuclear power will be a big part of, or you settle for the status quo.
One thing I can assure you of is we (The global economy and emerging economies) aren't going back to the stone age. Move forward libs not backward.
Nuclear Power is pretty close to being reliably safe, and there are sufficient ways to deal with radioactive waste right now.
It HAS to be the next best choice for us. We don't have another better option.
http://www.durangobill.com/RolloverPics/RolloverGap.jpg
We have known since the 1970s when US production peaked that we had a problem but we have done next to nothing. The very fact that such expensive and risky methods are required to maintain production shows that we will do anything to maintain an unsustainable lifestyle based on petroleum and fossil fuel.
With world population heading toward 9 billion, there are not enought resources to give everyone access to our way of life. Imagine if everyone in China and India had a car and air conditioning. Somebody needs to tell them they can't have all that stuff. Maybe the IMF, maybe Sean Hannity.
Since the high energy / high polluting lifestyle we have can only be available, by definition, to a select minority of the earth's people (and still cause incredible damage), the idea that economic growth alone can give us all a bright future is a joke.
So keep on drilling and try to put a nuke plant in every town if it makes you feel better because there is no way we can squeeze enough blood out of this turnip. Its a fanatasy to think that all of our modern comforts don't come at a price. We think its a birthright but really its the biggest entitlement that is creating the deepest deficit of all.
Interesting statement. If it's true...what is the outcome or alternate course of action?
We have to give up on the idea that economic growth for the sake of economic growth will solve all our problems. We will have to give up on the fantasy that the market alone, or corperate decision making alone can provide us with the best long term solutions.
Instead we have to engaged in democratic processes that lead to problem solving and accept that everyone's basic needs must be met before we worry about all those things that we think we are entitled to but come at a price to those far away and those in the future. In a sense we have to grow up and take responsibility for what we do and how we live.
I seriously doubt we will do anything. We can't even agree that our president is a US citizen.
I appreciate your concern for humanity and the environment...with no snarkiness intended. But what are you specifically advocating after the feel good rhetoric?
Seriously, where do you see feel good rhetoric? What I am saying is that being responsible is not really on the agenda because there is a conflict of interest with our lifestyle that we feel entitled to. I thought it was admirable to be responsible for ones actions by facing hard decisions and making sacrifices .
I also expressed serious doubt that we will do anything but continue with business as usual.
What I am advocating is a process of hard decisions, sacrifice, honest dialog and maturity in order to solve problems. I can't exactly say what the outcome of all that would be other than that we use less energy, create less waste and consider the effects of our actions on others far away in distance and time.
With no snarkiness intended, how are you expecting billions of people to react when it is clear that the good life was never intended for them and they have to pay the costs for our actions without getting the benefits? Do the math. How many oil platforms or nuke plants will we need to give everyone in China, India and Africa per capita GDP of around $40,000 as in the USA?
-- What I am advocating is a process of hard decisions, sacrifice, honest dialog and maturity in order to solve problems --
Why don't we start with your example that we can't provide air conditioning to every one in the world. Plug that into your rhetoric and tell me how that works...what is the process, what is the sacrifice, what is the honest dialog?
I enjoy air conditioning and I have spent long hot summers without it. However is it always necessary? Are there alternatives to building construction and other lifestyle decisions that make it such a necessity. Healthy people used to live without it. I am sure unhealthy people need it. Maybe we can get by and only use it in rare circumstances or maybe we should make it an entitlement, regardless of the consequences.
Honestly, if there are negative consequences to its use, is it so necessary? Is your need for comfort worth any negative side effects from its use? Maybe you feel that your comfort is the sole priority. Maybe future generations will enjoy that fact when they live in a coal starved, climate warped environment.
Is there enough coal and clean air available to give every human being in a hot area air conditioning? How does that work? Build thousands of nuclear power plants in the mid-east and Africa? Level the appalachean mountains? Give everyone a gas mask? Crank up the AC more because the CO2 wacked out the climate?
Well, I guess that's a start...you've identified the sacrifice.
Now let's get to that process...including the honest dialog about accomplishing your goal of only providing air conditioning "world wide" as an entitlement.
That is not my goal. That is the default result of just assuming that if you can affort it and its available, then its the right decision.
Read again:
Maybe we can get by and only use it in rare circumstances or maybe we should make it an entitlement, regardless of the consequences.
My goal is before the OR. because it is the responsible thing to do.
You can't be this naive eb. As much as you wish, the US or ANY OTHER country for that matter is not going to pitch the last 100yrs of technological advancement in the name of sacrifice. I know it's a hippy-commune dream that lurks in the deep recesses of the left mentality but let's face facts shall we.
There is a finite amount of oil. Depending on your source it anywhere between 40 - 70 years. Coal reserves run well over 300 years. Nuke's only drawback is the disposal of the waste. We're going to have to maximize what we have and what we have the TECHNOLOGY to do now, while bringing along the renewable energy sources. You just can't go cold turkey on one to expand the other especially when the other hasn't been proved on a macro scale.
As for us "giving" China and Africa a quality of life, maybe if those countries would step into the 21st century, drop the communist and socialist regimes they could take care of themselves.
You don't get it. Unless we work together and create new technologies and new modern arrangements, the foundation of the last 100 years of technological advancement is toast. It will collapse under its own weight.
As for us "giving" China and Africa a quality of life, maybe if those countries would step into the 21st century, drop the communist and socialist regimes they could take care of themselves.
Ok - assume they all become pro corporate capitalist de regulated economies and all of the sudden they experience rapid economic growth. Tell us where all the resources and energy is going to come from that will enable them to live even half way like us. Taking care of themselves should require using resources wisely and responsibly but modern business as usual is differnt. Instead taking care of themselves is using economic growth to use as many resources as quickly as possible and dumping the pollution and other side effects elsewhere.
Sorry to tell you but nothing grows forever without hitting limits and there is no free lunch, even if there is a free market. If they live like us, there is not enough... sorry!
Whoa nelson...when did we get the authority to tell other nations how to live and prosper?
The only "sorry" part to your philosophy is that it only works when sitting in the grass under the shade of a spreading oak outside the classroom.
Is your tenet noble? Certainly, in the world of academia.
Is it possible? In the real world...not so much.
When we use it all up first!
Theres more sitting at the table but the pie might not be getting any bigger. What if its getting smaller?
Is your tenet noble? Certainly, in the world of academia.
What is more unrealistic - assuming we have unlimited resources and unlimited economic growth just because we wish it so or to face reality and understand that our current set up does not leave enough room for most people on the planet.
You still haven't explained how you are expecting billions of people to react when it is clear that the good life was never intended for them and they have to pay the costs for our actions without getting the benefits?
Why do so many conservatives assume negative stereotypes on people because they have ideas they fail to understand. Ironically my logic is conservative. Resources are limited, there is no free lunch for entitlements, we need to take responsibility for our actions... My values are liberal - we need to share the burden and be fair about the rewards.
I'm sorry you are so emotionally attached to much of the civilization around you that you can't see that it can only transition to something else because for most people now and especially in the future it will not work. Look at the Gulf! Its just a little side effect unless that's your neighborhood and your livelyhood.
You've written lots of words but failed to address how any of your principles can be enacted or the consequences of such actions.
You preached about advocating "a process of hard decisions, sacrifice, honest dialog and maturity in order to solve problems"...and the only thing you connected on was sacrifice...taking called strikes on the rest of your requirements for problem solving.
If you care to revisit your "air conditioning" issue with the specifics of your position...I'll be interested.
Otherwise I won't bother to read more circular, feel-good pablum.
So in order to identify a problem you have to come up with the solution first?
Look if I were king for the day I would say no cars in urban areas except for emergency vehicles and a crash course to implement mass transit and walkable communities. I would require that all transactions include external costs as well as immediate costs. I would work to create more local food production...
Since I am not advocating anyone being king, I am saying we use our democratic constitutional government to work toward solving these problems the best way they can without undue interference from vested interests.
We need to pay a little more for gas today and save as much of our locally available oil for the future.
Your "the sky will be falling if we suspend drilling" nonsense is ridiculous.
We don't get 30% of our oil out of the Gulf. We get 1/3rd of all the oil we use from the USA - MOST of that comes from land sites, not drilling in the Gulf. According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), over one-fourth of the crude oil produced in the United States is produced offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
The fact that no new drilling is going to happen for 6 months is not going to affect the supply now at all or the future supplies in any substantive ways!
That moratorium is a GOOD idea - they'll figure out what can be done to better ensure that problems are less likely to happen in the future. They won't just believe it when a company like BP assures them that they know how to fix a problem if it occurs. They won't have the same issues with with potential conflicts of interest in the MMS after they separate that group into component parts!
But all of this is an avoidance on YOUR part so you can choose to not address the issue that MMFA raises - that Hannity is LYING when he claims that Obama ignored the oil leak or the flooding in Tennessee!
If the same people who approved the Gulf rig, its safety precautions, environmental impact, etc., approved the new exploration, I'd like a third-party study the viability of the new projects before they are approved.
Its obvious someone dropped the ball in that area. If that same person gave the same easy tacit approval to the new exploration, someone else should review the new projects before I feel comfortable. Don't you think?
President Obama's administration was fully involved to the extent possible, necessary and wise with respect to this catastrophe from the very start. It's undeniable, yet you deny it anyway, because you aren't out here to be honest - you're here to distract us from the fact that Hannity LIED yet again!
Dude. Pass the Kool-aid...I need a hit...
To blame the left for our predicament is disingenuous and short sighted. It was Ronald Reagan who stopped Carter's plan to decrease the U.S.'s dependence on oil. He took the solar panels off the W.H. and stopped all investments into alternative energy production. So blame Reagan for our dependence on oil and may just maybe if we had followed Carter's plan or had he been re-elected 9-11 would not have happened as we would not have to defend our oil interests in the gulf.
Hmmm, I fish in a river that is right beside a Nuclear power plant. Have caught many a striper in that area...
Believe it or not I'm fairly sensitive to this sort of matter.
Good. I would advocate for using TBag Slickens as a guinea pig for all questions of safety. Next up, watch TBag eat a duck soaked in oil. Mmmmm.
As for the cooling water, it actually warms the water around the cooling dam. The fish there are THRIVING. We also have Hydro-electric plant that has a lake that they use for cooling their equipment. There are trophy sized bass in that lake.
If anything I'd say they cooling water is helping the environment not hurting.