Fox's attack on Obama's oil spill response rests on falsehoods
Fox & Friends guest hosts falsely suggested that there was a "lack of cleanup going on" in the Gulf Coast oil spill and falsely suggested Louisiana's barrier plan had been ignored. In fact, cleanup of the oil spill has been ongoing for more than a month, and the Army Corps of Engineers responded to the barrier plan -- the effectiveness of which is being questioned -- and raised concerns that it would push oil into Mississippi.
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.
Fox & Friends attacks Obama's oil spill response with falsehoods
Fox & Friends attacks Obama's response to spill by falsely suggesting there has been a "lack of cleanup." On the May 28 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, guest host Dave Briggs claimed the president "should be taking some accountability for the lack of cleanup going on." Co-guest host Clayton Morris added: "We all know that it's BP's fault. I mean, there's no discounting that. But what's at blame now is the cleanup process and the government's reaction to it."
Fox & Friends accuses Obama administration of ignoring Louisiana's request for resources by falsely suggesting it hasn't responded to the state's barrier plan. Briggs also suggested that the administration is ignoring Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's request for resources, saying, "The people in Louisiana are saying, hey, we want you to give us some resources. We've been asking for them for weeks and not getting them." Co-guest host Alisyn Camerota later added: "Thirty-eight days. I mean, had they done anything -- just try anything, even if it didn't work. We've seen other examples here on the show, even, of people with little gadgets, little ideas for sponges, for hairnets -- for anything. Bobby Jindal has been down there saying, just help me build some barrier islands -- man-made barrier islands to keep it from coming ashore. Anything that could have been done in the past 38 days."
In fact, there have been significant cleanup efforts ongoing for more than a month
Interior Department estimates 11 million gallons of oil-water mix have been recovered and has an ongoing list of its cleanup efforts. According to the Department of the Interior, as of the morning of May 28:
- Personnel were quickly deployed and approximately 20,000 are currently responding to protect the shoreline and wildlife.
- More than 1,300 vessels are responding on site, including skimmers, tugs, barges, and recovery vessels to assist in containment and cleanup efforts -- in addition to dozens of aircraft, remotely operated vehicles, and multiple mobile offshore drilling units.
- More than 1.85 million feet of containment boom and 1.25 million feet of sorbent boom have been deployed to contain the spill -- and approximately 300,000 feet of containment boom and 1 million feet of sorbent boom are available.
- Approximately 11 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been recovered.
- Approximately 840,000 gallons of total dispersant have been deployed -- 700,000 on the surface and 140,000 subsea. More than 380,000 gallons are available.
- 17 staging areas are in place and ready to protect sensitive shorelines, including: Dauphin Island, Ala., Orange Beach, Ala., Theodore, Ala., Panama City, Fla., Pensacola, Fla., Port St. Joe, Fla., St. Marks, Fla., Amelia, La., Cocodrie, La., Grand Isle, La., Shell Beach, La., Slidell, La., St. Mary, La.; Venice, La., Biloxi, Miss., Pascagoula, Miss., and Pass Christian, Miss.
The response and cleanup effort has been ongoing for more than a month. According to White House records of the cleanup attempt, response vessels have been engaged in cleanup activities continuously since April 23. Since that time, the following resources have been employed:
Total active response vessels: more than 1,200
Containment boom deployed: more than 1.75 million feet
Containment boom available: more than 380,000 feet
Sorbent boom deployed: more than 990,000 feet
Sorbent boom available: more than 1.07 million feet
Total boom deployed: more than 2.74 million feet (regular plus sorbent boom)
Total boom available: more than 1.45 million feet (regular plus sorbent boom)
Oily water recovered: more than 10.83 million gallons
Surface dispersant used: approximately 700,000 gallons
Subsea dispersant used: approximately 115,000
Total dispersant used: approximately 815,000
Dispersant available: more than 300,000 gallons
Overall personnel responding: more than 22,000
Army Corps reportedly responded to Louisiana's barrier plan with concerns that it would drive oil into Mississippi
AP: Army Corps documents say barriers "could instead funnel oil into more unprotected areas and into neighboring Mississippi." The Associated Press reported on May 26 that the Army Corps of Engineers released documents that day that "signaled support for parts of the state plan, including berms that would be built onto existing barrier islands," but stated that parts of the plan "could inadvertently alter tides and end up driving oil east -- into Mississippi Sound, the Biloxi Marshes and Lake Borgne." From the article:
A wall of sand that Louisiana officials have requested to block the Gulf of Mexico slick could instead funnel oil into more unprotected areas and into neighboring Mississippi, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said in documents released Wednesday.
Gov. Bobby Jindal and leaders from several coastal parishes want to ring the state's southeastern coastline with a $350 million, 86-mile network of sand berms. However, the corps says the barrier could inadvertently alter tides and end up driving oil east -- into Mississippi Sound, the Biloxi Marshes and Lake Borgne.
[...]
Eager to build the berms before the damage gets worse, Louisiana officials said they were willing to delay construction on parts of the barrier to avoid swamping Mississippi with oil.
Millions of gallons are still swirling in the Gulf. Supporters of the sand berms say oil could keep hitting Louisiana's coastline for months.
In documents released Wednesday by the state, the corps signaled support for parts of the state plan, including berms that would be built onto existing barrier islands.
The agency said that if the 6-foot-high sand barriers worked, they could capture oil and allow skimmer boats to more effectively scoop floating crude.
The section highlighted as a possible hazard to Mississippi would connect from the Chandeleur Islands to the marshes in eastern Plaquemines Parish.
AP: Army Corps previously said it was "working as quickly as possible" on permit request "but still has to follow" federal law. The AP reported on May 24 that "the Corps said it is working as quickly as possible on the emergency permit request -- but still has to follow various steps required by federal law." From the article:
In a statement, the Corps said the state's application is being processed as an emergency permit. The agency said that under federal law, the Corps had to comment on the proposal, leading the state to file a revised plan on May 14. The agency said the information is now being evaluated for potential environmental impacts.
The Corps said it is working closely with the state -- and will make a decision as quickly as possible.
Experts have questioned the effectiveness and long-term impact of Jindal's barrier plan
AP: "[E]xperts and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have questioned whether the barrier system could be completed in time." The May 26 AP article also quoted Len Bahr, who "served as a coastal adviser to five Louisiana governors, including Jindal," saying, "The horses are already out of the barn. The oil is already out there." From the article:
Some independent experts and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have questioned whether the barrier system could be completed in time to keep out the oil.
"The horses are already out of the barn. The oil is already out there," said Len Bahr, who served as a coastal adviser to five Louisiana governors, including Jindal.
Adm. Allen: Building barriers of that scope "is going to take a very, very long time" and "significant amount of resources" that "might be applied elsewhere." During a May 24 press conference, Adm. Thad Allen was asked about Jindal's "frustrat[ion] that the federal government was not being responsive to the requests." Allen responded that the Corps was working on a review of "cost and the schedule, the feasibility, the engineering issues associated with" the plan and that "building a set of barrier islands and berms that large is going to take a very, very long time even by the state's own estimate -- six to nine months in some cases -- and a significant amount of resources associated with that that might be applied elsewhere."
Times-Picayune: Plan "raises considerable financial and ecological questions." The Times-Picayune reported on May 21 that "while Jindal and the state's congressional delegation have waged an us-vs.-them battle with the federal government over what they term a slow, bureaucratic response, the state's plan itself is a work in progress that raises considerable financial and ecological questions." From the article:
But while Jindal and the state's congressional delegation have waged an us-vs.-them battle with the federal government over what they term a slow, bureaucratic response, the state's plan itself is a work in progress that raises considerable financial and ecological questions.
[...]
Though less objectionable to the scientific and environmental community, the new plan would require dredges to transport sand from a borrow site to the island creation spot -- adding significant additional time and costs to the project.
[...]
While many scientists and environmental groups applaud Jindal's efforts to deal with a potentially catastrophic threat to the state's ecosystem, there are fears about using the state's precious sand resources to build berms that are destined to be fouled by oil.
Weathers: Barrier plan is "not going to get completed" in time. The Times-Picayune quoted Dallon Weathers, a geologist at the University of New Orleans, saying, "This thing is not going to get completed in a timeframe that's on the same schedule as this spill."
Lopez: "Need to make sure" barriers are "something that you're not going to regret later." The Times-Picayune quoted John Lopez, a coastal sustainability director for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, saying, "I think you have to consider these islands as much as possible in this emergency situation, but you really need to make sure you're doing something that you're not going to regret later. ... Obviously this is an emergency situation, but quality sand for barrier islands is not an unlimited resource in Louisiana, and we would not want to see depletion of the quality of sand that could be used down the road."
Stone: "Foolish to embark on a project of this scale without establishing potential negative impacts." The Christian Science Monitor reported on May 24 that according to Gregory Stone, a professor of oceanography at Louisiana State University, "[s]tate leaders are not ... considering questions about its long-term effects on the coastal environment." Stone reportedly added: "This is a mammoth engineering project, and it can be done, but it's being done willy-nilly. It's foolish to embark on a project of this scale without establishing potential negative impacts on currents, on coastal erosion, on wildlife habitat, on whole range of environmental issues."
NY Times: Experts "concerned" that using "scarce sand" for temporary gain could compromise long-term restoration. The New York Times reported on May 21 that "many experts say it is not at all clear whether dredging companies could build up the barrier islands quickly enough to save the marshes. They are also concerned that the kind of sand berms envisioned in the plan might wash away quickly after a couple of storms, wasting scarce sand in the region." The Times reported that Stone "said that dredging and pumping large amounts of sand amid Louisiana's complex inlets and bays could harm ocean life" and that "any plan required closer study before it is put in place." It also reported:
The governor's plan would not permanently rebuild degraded coastal islands -- a delicate and complex process that has been planned for years. A temporary sand barrier could wash away in a matter of months, experts said. And the type of sand necessary for long-term coastal restoration is in short supply along Louisiana's shoreline.
"If we use the good sand that we have for this quick-and-dirty berm, and a storm comes in and spreads it around, we've lost the major sand resource that we wanted to use for barrier-island restoration," Dr. Reed said. "We could compromise the long-term restoration of the coast for a short-term gain."
Right now, the chain of barrier islands has very little protection. Asbury H. Sallenger Jr., an oceanographer with the United States Geological Survey, said the Chandeleur Islands lost the majority of their surface area during Hurricane Katrina. Even a strong wind can push a surge of water over the island, he said.
But Dr. Sallenger, like other experts, noted that the dredging project would take months to complete, and the oil is already showing up in the marshes. "My first question is whether such a thing could be done, from a scientific basis, quickly enough to be useful," he said.
Gov Bobby Jindal suggested that new barrier islands be built.
Many well-thought out objections to that idea were uncovered in the couple of weeks that the idea was examined by people who know what they're talking about.
And so, a fair and balanced look at this issue would conclude that Gov Jindal jumped to a solution without thinking about the potential risks and costs of that solution. More thoughtful people actually took the time to examine that solution, and they found tragic flaws with that idea. There may be ways to implement this idea on a smaller scale or in alternative configurations, but as suggested by Jindal, it's pretty shortsighted and non-conforming to the needs of the whole Gulf Coast.
---------------------------------------------
IMHO
That isn't what James Carville thinks: "It just looks like (Obama) is not involved in this. Man, you got to get down here and take control of this, put somebody in charge of this thing and get this moving. We're about to die down here.". It's a good thing a democrat is speaking out, or NOTHING would get done. 40 days later Obama chooses to respond to the disaster.
I said that what Gov. Jindall said about "not hearing back about the barriers" was false. Carville's statement says nothing about this. It has nothing to do with it. (Why do you always try to change the subject?!) And what I sadi is true: Gov. Jindall did hear back. Gov. Jindall's proposal was SHOT DOWN. He's not "waiting to hear back" he was told "NO" because it was basically a $#!tty idea. (Go figure.) OK, fine, maybe he said he's "waiting for permission to proceed" but he'll be waiting a very long time, seeing as how HIS IDEA SUCKS.
What's more, I don't see how Obama, or the federal goverment, personally taking the lead on this would help, or even should happen. (Funny how you lot only seem to think they SHOULD when you can use it as an excuse to paint them as ineffecive.) (1) This was not a natural disaster, nor the direct result of government action (like if we'd BOMBED someone.) It's a purely MAN-MADE disaster. Which leads me to... (2) What makes you think the COAST GUARD (or any other part of the federal gov't) knows more about CAPPING AN OIL WELL that the OIL COMPANY does? What more could they possibly do?
Yell? Scream? Look tough?
And what would that accomplish?
I'm actualy pretty willing to concede that BP's probably doing everything it can - to both fix the leak AND to limit it's liability in court. (So yeah, they're working both sides.) But if you accept that, I think it's pretty clear that there's no such thing as "safe" of shore drilling. And if the best experts in the world can't figure how to do it without something like this happening, and then not be able to deal with it...
Well, clearly we shouldn't be engaged in off shore drilling at all, and we need to start moving towards REAL energy independence, which means AWAY FROM THE OIL / GAS / COAL / BURNING $#!T model of generating energy. And we're here because Republicans have stalled that effort for 30 years now. Never forget that.
Reagan took down the solar panels on the WH Roof that Carter had installed. That was only symbolic, of course, but it's demonstrative of the next three decades worth of energy policy, written either by Republican Presidents or driven by Republican Congresses. The Democrats have only had both for four of the past 30 years, including THIS year. And in every case, as soon as they DID have both, the Right-Wing Lobbies doubled their efforts to return to the previous status quo. Thrity years of THAT has ended first with the Mortgage Meltdown, and now what is shaping up to be the worst environmental disaster EVER.
Nice going.
Maybe NOW we'll stop listening to you reckless luddites.
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry... Did you have a POINT?
Gov Bobby Jindal suggested that new barrier islands be built.
Many well-thought out objections to that idea were uncovered in the couple of weeks that the idea was examined by people who know what they're talking about.
I'll bet those objections were that some 3-eyed frog would have been environmentally challenged. I wonder how many of those objections are made mute by the devastation created by this disaster. At least Jindal was willing to do something. More than can be said for anyone in the Obama administration.
One problem with the barrier islands, that seems rather insurmountable, is that it would dry out the wetlands. In venacular, it would destroy what it was supposed to protect.
I read the article, not much to say there. Bobby J dosn't like the partial plan. Mitigation by other means stumbles along at BP's direction. Check out firedoglake.com for deeper reporting on the clean up and the problems therein.
Tell us again how confusing the basics of the American progressive tax system is. Or how thankful we should all be to Exxon for paying taxes internationally, while using Caribbean tax shelters to avoid paying any US taxes. You are priceless.
Explain again how Biden was able to pay less taxes than the tax table YOU keep referring to?
Of course not - you're simply pushing a baseless ad hominem attack.
On top of that, you're making a fool of yourself by demonstrating that you're too uneducated on this topic to even TRY to have a discussion on this subject!
Just answer the question and move on to the next one. Oh, wait, this is dell I'm talking to, you never actually answer a question. You just divert to some name-calling and personal attacks.
As with most things Republicans want to try to solve problems with: IT WOULD MAKE MATTERS WORSE.
That's all you people can do, isn't it? It all you EVER do! ACT, without any consideration of the consequences.
GOV. JINDAL'S IDEA SUCKED. That what the ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS concluded. It would accomplish nothing in the big picture and waste a precious resource that woudl be needed elsewhere in the weeks and months ahead. MMFA laid out, very clearly, what the Government is doing, and why Jindal's idea was shot down by the ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. (Harldly a bunch of tree huggers, moran!) Other than illiteracy, stupidity or balnatan intellectual dishonestly, I can see no other plausible explanation for you're apparent ignorance of these facts.
An idea isn't good just becuase a Republican came up with. If you're a betting man, and you don't really feel like THINKING about things - the opposite is far more likely to be true. But you really should try THINKING before you speak.
---------------------------------------------------------
OTOH, don't. Blowing your posts out of the watter DOES make for some fun sport.
Which would explain why Obama thinks it may work, now. Ah ha ha ha. You people are really off your rockers. First you say it won't work and is the worst idea of all time, then you say it's a good idea and will try it to help save the ecology. Just admit the idea was a good enough idea to do what it was intended to do, instead of ripping it because a republican thought of it. That's what you people are doing, but you can't admit it because ... well, who knows why. Perhaps because it would make you look like the total idiots you are.
eddie-- GOV. JINDAL'S IDEA SUCKED. That what the ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS concluded.
The idea sucked becuase the armey corps of engineers concluded it sucked and eplained, in a very detail manner, delineated in the above article, WHY it sucked, HOW it sucked, and HOW HARD its sucked. And THAT is why I say it sucks. They're judgement and no other.
You, sir, are the one conlcuding it's GOOD just because a Republican came up with it. (Which is pretty typical of how conservatives think - see my blog post, "Four Levels".) On what basis do you conclude that (1) It WOULD do what it was intended to do, and (2) that there are not better uses for the resources that it would consume? The ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS say otherwise on BOTH COUNTS. What do YOU [think you] KNOW that they don't, huh? What... does the military have an anti-republican bias now? I mean... we know you fools don't listen to scientists, but do you not trust engineers now either?
The idea sucked. And there's nothing at all partisan about the group, upon whose judgement I'm basing my own.
And as for the "basics of the American progressive tax system?" OK, I'm not sure if that was the world's worst cut-and-paste error, or if you were trying to make a point, but I've taken that on in my blog as well. And you know what? It really ain't all that hard, dude. The mechanics of it are perfectly clear to me. (And that has nothing to to do with being liberal, I'm simply not a complete math-moron.) As for the LIBERAL part - that would be the JUSTIFICATION of doing things that way - I'd love to see you take that on in my blog as well. A month or two back I wrote a piece called "In defense of progressive taxation." Should be easy enough to find in the archives. You should check it out. I'd love to see you try and refute it. Seriously.
And... since you took us WAAAAAY off topic in what I can only assume was a PATHERTIC attempt at misdirection (again - something you lot do all the time when you're getting absolutely schooled) why don't you you leave you're comments THERE, instead of HERE, and preferably under the relevant blog posts.
----------------------------------------
Thanks you, come again.
eddie-- You, sir, are the one conlcuding it's GOOD just because a Republican came up with it.
I don't like the plan "just" because a republican came up with it. I think it is better to protect the area from a MASSIVE oil spill (and getting larger by the minute) any way you can, quickly. If you're idea of protecting that area is to let the oil soak in then clean it up afterward, then you go ahead and think that is a good idea. Maybe you would like to let it get soaked with oil then they can burn the oil away. Wow, another brilliant thought.
WHAT, pray tell, do you think would work better than to block the oil from reaching land? Oh, wait, let me guess. You would prefer to whine that the oil not be spilled in the first place and you will whine and whine about who caused the spill and who ignored regulations and who should pay for the repairs. Hey, nimrod, the oil IS spilled. Time to act is NOW, not after you finish whining about WHO caused it.
Yeah you schooled me alright. You schooled me into seeing how idiotic liberals are when they whine and whine about who caused the largest oil spill in decades while ignoring that something NEEDS TO BE DONE. That is classic liberalism... whine about what caused it, but refusing to actually DO something to fix it.
Where was CLinton's massive solar panel deal? Where was Clinton's super EV plans? Where were Clinton's great 'take us off oil dependancy' plans? Typical liberal, blame a republican when no democrat did anything to correct the problem you whine is present. What regulations were put in place when the democrats took control of the political system in 06? Did any regulations appear when Obama took over in 08? Geee, NO ... NONE. But, liberalism tells you it is ALL Bush's fault. Even when he was out of office for a year before any drilling even started on that platform. OBAMA called for further off-shore drilling, OBAMA WANTED to allow BP and others to drill any way they wanted to. Bush did too, but so does OBAMA. Obama IS president, he is in charge, he is NOW responsible for regulations that oversee those platforms. Too bad it takes a major disaster for him to wise up and see he should have done something a little earlier. And all you can say is: Bush caused it.
Go back to your blog and continue whining to your liberal cohorts. Go to mmfa and continue reading and believing their constant lies and misinformation. You're a sheeple in sheeple's clothing. You don't fool anyone.
This quote clearly demonstrates that you have NO interest in facts only inflammatory statements framed in your right-wing-world-view. Facts be damned as long as it FEELS correct to you.
Next.
-------------------------------------------------
I'm starting to think "Floyd" was named for Brad Pitt's stoner character in True Romance, the way my handle was taken from Chris Penn's in Reservoir Dogs. LOL
Why did it take so long to do anything? Why did he take so long to visit the area? Those are the key questions you all asked 4 days after Katrina. I don't hear ONE of you asking those questions now. I do hear constant excuses and continued blaming of Bush, even though he's been out of office for 1 year 4 months. Bush had nothing to do with this. If regulations are upsetting you, then the democrats (who ruled the house AND senate since 2006) should have brought them to the table. Were any further regulations brought? I don't think so, either. But, you're welcome to prove me wrong.
Progressive complaints against Obama are remarkably easy to find in them ole intertubes.
Shurb's administration had much to do with this. Not acknowledging this dosn't do much for your argueing position.
The democrats wouldn't even put impeachment on the table. The party of NO isn't being run over today by the majority party. The smaller majorities the dems had after 06 were even less likely to be able to pass such regulation reform. Certain members of the democratic party may be guilty of enabling oil companies. Through out some names and proof and we'll see how the situation might be changed.
That's not OUR M.O.
Obama didn't JUST say that it was his ultimate responsibility though. That's cropping his comment OUT OF CONTEXT, another thing YOUR side is terrifically bad and hypocritical at, and it distorts the true meaning of all that he said.
It didn't take "so long" to do anything. The Obama Administration IMMEDIATELY sent people to the Gulf! And it didn't take Obama too long to visit the area - he's been there twice. AND, since Obama clearly had a great idea of how catastrophic this event was, he didn't HAVE to be educated by travelling to the area. Bush, on the other hand, clearly didn't understand what was going on - that's why his staff HAD to compile a bunch of video clips to convince Bush of how bad Katrina was!!!!
So, that's why we aren't asking those questions, because they're bogus strawman arguments!
It's not possible to fix ALL the things that Bush messed up in less than 2 years, especially when there were so many mess ups by Bush AND there were significant OTHER things that had to be addressed at the same time! So, for you to object to Bush getting called to account for his failings is unfair AND politically partisan to the extreme! So, for YOU to accuse US of the imaginary behavior that YOU are demonstrating right here in front of God and everyone is really rich!
What a tool!
I've never seen so many people be so blinded by, and devoted to, such a failure as G. W. Bush. I will at least criticize President Obama for things he has done that I don't agree with and will email and call the White House, but the right-wingers will never admit to the fact that Bush, Jr. has flung excrement over everything he has touched his entire life, from his endeavors in oil, as governor of TX, in sports (baseball,) and as POTUS. Almost every time he failed, either his father or his father's friends were there to bail him out.
This does not mean he is a bad person, but it does mean that he wasn't well suited for these jobs. I never hated Bush, but I always thought that he was in over his head, and that he made the mistake of surrounding himself with people who took advantage of him when it came to giving him good, reliable advice.
The author says 4500 people could have been moved an hour with the 60+ buses that were available and never used.
In light of this evidence are you still asserting that the meme was created to "poison" the public consciousness? I'd say the "poisoning" and "politicizing" of Katrina lay at the feet of the democrats and the left.
The right wind media saw pictures of buses like yours and all of a sudden blame for the tragedy shifted to the victims. "oh what a shame...but you know they had 3,0000 buses so I guess it's their own damn fault" sound familiar?
Don't believe me...look it up!
(too tired to hyperlink)
you can get with this or you can get with that
http://www.brookesnews.com/061505fontova.html
As for you second link. It seems to promote off shore drilling as another source for a third of this nations seafood supply. Which is being destroyed by the inactions of Obama and the democrats over the past 4 years.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1984338,00.html
Are we done?
No, you attack private individuals and private companies till you get your political motives completed.
dell-- So, that's why we aren't asking those questions, because they're bogus strawman arguments!
Yeah, they were then and they are now. Thanks for at least admitting that you're as much a hypocrite as you call me.
I am guiltily and morbidly interested in seeing any example you might have of, completed political motives.
You're projecting again, Floyd. Proving to us that this is exactly what you would do.