Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico - Historic Disaster

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:45 pm

danimal wrote:
NeilBlanchard wrote:Please stay on topic.
please look at the name of this forum, it's called "off topic" :D
Yea, I was going to mention that. Also, I did start the discussion about Madoff, someone else brought up the subject, and I just responded.

judge56988
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
Location: England

Post by judge56988 » Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:32 pm

NeilBlanchard wrote:I'm not sure where you are hearing anything "anti-Brit"?
Well, see for yourself. More here.
The truth of the matter is that this 'accident' has occured in American waters, American oil, American regulation, American crews, American components, American written procedures, American inspections with American ex-Amoco and Sohio staff running the operation.

Of course you may never have heard of Piper Alpha - a production platform in the North Sea that blew up killing 167 workers. Operated by Occidental - an American Oil Company. The North Sea is off the coast of Britain, for those Americans who are not even sure where Europe is.

I won't even mention the hypocrisy of the US government given their record of (not) cleaning up after Bhopal... Union Carbide is an American company as I recall? Oops. Just slipped out.

To me this attitude from the US is only to be expected and has been discussed in other threads on this forum. The US is only concerned with itself and doesn't give a flying f**k about the rest of the world unless their own interests are threatened. All the bollocks about being the world's policeman, keeper of democracy etc. etc. is just PR.
"Do as we say and we'll be your friend" - that's the US approach to foreign relations. Rather the same approach as Ancient Rome if I remember my history.
Last edited by judge56988 on Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

nutball
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:16 am
Location: en.gb.uk

Post by nutball » Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:15 am

judge56988 wrote:More here.
Heh. From that article:
As of December 2009, 40 per cent of BP’s shares were owned in Britain, but 39 per cent were owned in the US.

It has six British directors and six American, and employs 22,000 Americans against only 10,000 Britons

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7677
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:23 am

New Orleans Oyster Processor Runs Out Of Oysters
'It's All We Know'

About a dozen workers, almost all women, stand up on platforms splitting open the last of Jurisich's oysters with a hammer and knife. They pull out the meat and drop the shells on the ground below. Sunseri has told them this is probably their last day, maybe just for a while, maybe forever.

"This could mean the demise of our 134-year-old business if we have to be off 18, 24 months," Sunseri says.

For 42-year-old Wayne Gordon, it's the only job he's ever known. Sunseri's father hired him fresh out of high school.

"It's all we know. This is what it is, this is who we are," Gordon says.

This industry survived Hurricane Katrina and all the storms that came before it. But this man-made disaster could be more than these generations-old businesses can handle.
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:18 am

judge56988 wrote:
NeilBlanchard wrote:I'm not sure where you are hearing anything "anti-Brit"?
Well, see for yourself. More here.
The truth of the matter is that this 'accident' has occured in American waters, American oil, American regulation, American crews, American components, American written procedures, American inspections with American ex-Amoco and Sohio staff running the operation.

Of course you may never have heard of Piper Alpha - a production platform in the North Sea that blew up killing 167 workers. Operated by Occidental - an American Oil Company. The North Sea is off the coast of Britain, for those Americans who are not even sure where Europe is.

I won't even mention the hypocrisy of the US government given their record of (not) cleaning up after Bhopal... Union Carbide is an American company as I recall? Oops. Just slipped out.

To me this attitude from the US is only to be expected and has been discussed in other threads on this forum. The US is only concerned with itself and doesn't give a flying f**k about the rest of the world unless their own interests are threatened. All the bollocks about being the world's policeman, keeper of democracy etc. etc. is just PR.
"Do as we say and we'll be your friend" - that's the US approach to foreign relations. Rather the same approach as Ancient Rome if I remember my history.
Your quotes are from UK sources, not in the US. You seem to think BP is some kind of British government organization, as opposed to a private company.

Instead of providing any evidence of anti-British talk in the US, you instead attack the United States, and unjustifiably so. Your comments are unwarranted, inaccurate, and racist.

nutball
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:16 am
Location: en.gb.uk

Post by nutball » Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:35 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters ... ing_i.html
Should I be investing in a tin hat and boarding up my home? If I believe everything I read in the British press, it would be a wise move. According to them, there is a wave of anti-British sentiment sweeping the United States, on the back of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster.

It's news to me.
The comments from ex-pats, etc., are interesting.

judge56988
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
Location: England

Post by judge56988 » Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:48 am

m0002a wrote:You seem to think BP is some kind of British government organization, as opposed to a private company.
That's the last thing I think - how do you draw that conclusion? It's already been established that BP is a global multinational, 39% of it's shares are owned by Americans and that the majority of the BP employees on the rig were American, including the Company Man who called the shots.
m0002a wrote: Instead of providing any evidence of anti-British talk in the US, you instead attack the United States, and unjustifiably so. Your comments are unwarranted, inaccurate, and racist.
I am showing you examples from the British press of their interpretation of Obama's comments. Specifically his and others use of the name "British Petroleum" - one comment I heard on the news this evening was that he is considered to be using BP as a scapegoat to divert attention away from his own governments failings.

Regarding my other comments on Bhopal and Piper Alpha - if you consider them to be inaccurate, perhaps you could enlighten me with some facts... how many thousands died in India? Did the US government not protect Union Carbide?
As for being racist - that's laughable; I've got nothing against Americans, I know plenty and they are mostly great guys - it's your government and it's relationship with multinational companies that is the problem.
Last edited by judge56988 on Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:05 am

People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:18 am

Instead of providing any evidence of anti-British talk in the US, you instead attack the United States, and unjustifiably so. Your comments are unwarranted, inaccurate, and racist.
Racist, you have got to be kidding me..........

Anyway back on topic.

Because I wouldnt even know where to look for quality news in the US I have not bothered to find out if there is some kind of Anti-British torrent coming from America, would and Americans be kind enough to shed some light on the subject - not that I personally care at all, not unless the American Christian Taliban want to take the next step into terrorism, I really dont care what the Average American thinks of me or my fellow Brits.


Andy
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,400MHz, 512GB 850 EVO, 500 Extreme II, 2x 2.5" drives, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr.
Server, under reconstruction, 380W Enermax Pro82+, positive pressure only.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:56 pm

It's no more fair to say that Americans now hate the British anymore than blaming this debacle on the British.

We should be able to agree that both sides harbor more than their fair share of loud and annoying arses that do not represent the populace in general. Many in this loud group simply seize any and all opportunity to be noticed, and that's all.

And we both have more than our fair share of incompetents, idiots, and twits. Can't live with them. Can't shoot them.

Anybody care to share a Guiness?

Aris
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

danimal
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: the ether

Post by danimal » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:21 pm

judge56988 wrote: I am showing you examples from the British press of their interpretation of Obama's comments.
why quote the british version of foxnews? funny how they don't know that bp is largely owned by americans, isn't there anyone in england that does accurate news reporting??

danimal
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: the ether

Post by danimal » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:50 pm

m0002a wrote:Well, actually Obama is getting flak from Democrats as well, primarily for his slow and laid back response to the crisis.
that is a gross mis-generalization, but given that it's coming from someone who doesn't know what a racist is, i'm not surprised :roll:
m0002a wrote:I don't know much about the proposed MMS regs you mention above, but it sounds to me like if this was such a slam dunk then Obama could have reversed it within his first 18 months in office.
perhaps you have forgotten that obama has been having to deal with the bush invasion of iraq and the bush recession, among other things? the president that you voted for left this country in just about the worst mess that it's ever been in.
m0002a wrote:Of course, maybe the story you posted isn't exactly accurate... Personally, I would put much stock in what a heroin drug addict says.
i wouldn't put much stock in anything that a pro-bush voter says about politics, but the malfunctioning mms is a matter of history, for those who are better informed... perhaps you'd feel better arguing your neocon revisionist history with the nytimes?:

"For the Bush administration was, to a large degree, run by and for the extractive industries — and I’m not just talking about Dick Cheney’s energy task force. Crucially, management of Interior was turned over to lobbyists, most notably J. Steven Griles, a coal-industry lobbyist who became deputy secretary and effectively ran the department. (In 2007 Mr. Griles pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about his ties to Jack Abramoff.)

Given this history, it’s not surprising that the Minerals Management Service became subservient to the oil industry — although what actually happened is almost too lurid to believe. According to reports by Interior’s inspector general, abuses at the agency went beyond undue influence: there was “a culture of substance abuse and promiscuityâ€

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:44 pm

judge56988 wrote:I am showing you examples from the British press of their interpretation of Obama's comments. Specifically his and others use of the name "British Petroleum" - one comment I heard on the news this evening was that he is considered to be using BP as a scapegoat to divert attention away from his own governments failings.

Regarding my other comments on Bhopal and Piper Alpha - if you consider them to be inaccurate, perhaps you could enlighten me with some facts... how many thousands died in India? Did the US government not protect Union Carbide?
As for being racist - that's laughable; I've got nothing against Americans, I know plenty and they are mostly great guys - it's your government and it's relationship with multinational companies that is the problem.
OK, so it is only Obama who is anti-British? I think he is anti-BP, not anti-British. And for good reason, as it appears for eye witnesses on the drilling platform that BP forced the driller to use dangerous procedures to try and speed up completion of the well.

Regarding Bhopal, I don't know what you are referring to when you blame the US government. The US has no ability to control what happens in India. Foreign countries have no jurisdiction in US courts for events that happen outside the US (and the same is true of all other nations).

I am sure that the vast majority of the employees at that Union Carbide plant were Indians, just like most of the BP employees in the Gulf are US citizens.

IMO, your attack on the US, just because people are attacking a private company (BP), is infact racist.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:00 pm

danimal wrote:that is a gross mis-generalization, but given that it's coming from someone who doesn't know what a racist is, i'm not surprised.
Gross mis-generalization? Obama has been told by his own handlers that he needs to act more outraged about the oil spill, and not so laid back. This includes the liberal media. This is a fact.
danimal wrote:perhaps you have forgotten that obama has been having to deal with the bush invasion of iraq and the bush recession, among other things? the president that you voted for left this country in just about the worst mess that it's ever been in.
As I painstakingly document previously, the financial crisis (including de-regulation of the financial industry) was orchestrated by Bill Clinton and his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (later of CitiGroup). The Dems in Congress killed any attempts by Bush to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that poor people could get mortgages.

Regarding Iraq, the US agreed to a timetable to withdraw before Bush left office. The real problem is Afghanistan, a war which Obama has always supported from day one. So far 1,026 members of the U.S. military have died in the Afghanistan war since late 2001, and about 450 of those deaths have occurred since Obama took office on January 20, 2009.

Here is what US News and World Report says about Obama and the Afghan war"

"With his December decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, President Obama made the war his own. And what a war it has become: The U.S. military marked a grim milestone in Afghanistan this year with more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed there since October 2001. Roadside bombings are on the rise, causing double the number of fatalities in 2009 that they did in 2008. And 2010 is on track to be even worse by that measure."

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:13 pm

danimal wrote:[ wouldn't put much stock in anything that a pro-bush voter says about politics, but the malfunctioning mms is a matter of history, for those who are better informed... perhaps you'd feel better arguing your neocon revisionist history with the nytimes?:
Who said I was a pro-Bush voter? Just because I reject lies about the cause of the financial crisis, and I believe (at this point) that BP is primarily (if not exclusively) at fault instead of the MMS, and I don't have a lot of trust in any government regulation (not that I am opposed to regulation, but I think they are almost always incompetent), does not mean I am pro-Bush.

People are blame Bush for stuff that Clinton did are misinformed or psychopaths.

The Gulf oil spill is not the fault of Bush, Cheney, or the MMS. It is the fault of BP who was spending $750.000 per day for the drilling rig and was already $26 million over budget on the project, and wanted to take some short-cuts to complete the well-head. This has already been documented quite extensively by people who worked on the platform and witnessed the BP executive arguing with the drilling contractor until BP got its way and acted in a reckless and irresponsible manner.

BP is going to pay big time for this. I am not sure they will survive as a separate company, and will have a lot of difficulty in the US retail business. BP gas stations in the US are deserted (and for good reason).

judge56988
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am
Location: England

Post by judge56988 » Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:19 pm

aristide1 wrote:It's no more fair to say that Americans now hate the British anymore than blaming this debacle on the British.

We should be able to agree that both sides harbor more than their fair share of loud and annoying arses that do not represent the populace in general. Many in this loud group simply seize any and all opportunity to be noticed, and that's all.

And we both have more than our fair share of incompetents, idiots, and twits. Can't live with them. Can't shoot them.

Anybody care to share a Guiness?

Aris
Would that be alcohol-free Guiness? I'll go for a pint of bitter myself.

Your other comments are dead right.
Politicians can't help themselves - they will use any situation to further their own ends and to gain or retain power.

I don't think that the American public hate the British because of this incident.
I do think that Obama (or his administration) is attempting to misguide the American public, for whatever reasons, by repeatedly referring to "foreign companies and British Petroleum.
It is my feeling that Obama is seizing the opportunity to make an example of BP in order to make his name in the eyes of the American public as some kind of hero, standing up to the giant multinationals. His rhetoric has not been statesmanlike - the phrases he has used have been carefully chosen to strike a chord with the "average Joe".

In fact BP in America is essentially still AMOCO/ARCO in terms of it's personnel and operating practices. The "British Petroleum Company" that I used to know 25 years ago was an entirely different company to the "BP" of today and it's probably true to say that that memory has influenced my initial comments on this issue. For the record, the drilling contractors I used to work for also drilled wells for Amoco, Phillips and Shell so I do have first hand experience of them all, albeit out of date now.

In the longer term, the US has to develop these deepwater reserves if it is to achieve it's strategic aim of reducing it's dependence on Middle East Oil. All the easy to get stuff has already been had. These deepwater drilling operations are inherently risky and very expensive. If you want tight regulation then look to the Norwegian organisation - Det Norske Veritas or DNV - for guidance. Far stricter than the American Petroleum Institute (API). It used to be common to refer to a risky procedure or defective piece of equipment, with the ironic comment: "that's API"

One positive outcome of this may hopefully be that Americans start to think more about where the gas they put in their cars actually comes from and start to use less of it.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7677
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:01 am

Government doubles previous oil flow estimate for BP well

Image

Why Is Dick Cheney Silent on the Oil Spill? The former vice president is usually a vociferous defender of his time in government. But not on the disaster in the gulf.
The criticisms center on a possible conflicts of interest and cronyism. Cheney received a $34 million payout when he left Halliburton to join George W. Bush's ticket in September 2000. But the Congressional Research Service found that he "retained ties" to the company into 2003, while in government, through "unexercised stock options and deferred salary."
These links, the fact that Cheney's former campaign press secretary Ann Womack-Colton has recently become BP's head of U.S. media relations, and the general pro-oil, anti-regulation atmosphere in the Bush years have not escaped the attention of the pundits. MSNBC's Chris Matthews highlighted the Halliburton-Cheney connection in an interview with Jay Leno on the BP spill. Frank Rich, in The New York Times, pointed out that the Interior Department degenerated into a "cesspool of corruption," under Bush and Cheney, and that the pair bequeathed Obama "a Minerals Management Service as broken as the Bush-Cheney FEMA exposed by Katrina."
Last edited by NeilBlanchard on Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

frenchie
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:53 am
Location: CT

Post by frenchie » Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:04 am

I'll go for that pint of Guiness !!! One of the few decent commercial beer around !!

I just rented a "mid-size" car 2 days ago in the US... I got a Jeep Liberty (enormous 4 wheeler)... I did exactly 200 miles with it... and I had to put 10 gallons of fuel in it before returning it.... Do the math.

In France, for the same mid size category, I usually get a Citroen C4... And I get about twice the mileage (thanks Neil for your blog btw, and good luck for the car project)...

My point is just that while most european countries have more and more smaller and more energy efficent cars, it seems that this is not really an option in the US. Why ? Fuel companies own the politicians. That's all there is to it.
It's just that in some countries it's more obvious that in some other.
Main/gamming : Antec Solo|X-650|Asus P5Q-E|Intel Q9550@3.4GHz|HR-01 Plus 120mm Nexus @6V|Corsair 2x2Go XMS2 DHX cas 4 @4-4-4-12|Exhaust Nexus 120mm @9V|Intel X25M G2 160Gb|Samsung 1TB in SQD|2xGigabyte GTS450 OC (@900/1900/3800)|GPU fan 120mm Nexus @6V
HTPC/folder/Storage : Silverstone|E5300 with Samurai-Z|2Go RAM|GTX460@800|2x1To WD EARS|Intel X25M G2 80Go

Fold with SPCR

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:03 am

Anybody care to share a Guiness?
Certainly, I love Guinness (note the extra n ;) ).

http://www.guinness.com/


Andy
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,400MHz, 512GB 850 EVO, 500 Extreme II, 2x 2.5" drives, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr.
Server, under reconstruction, 380W Enermax Pro82+, positive pressure only.

danimal
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: the ether

Post by danimal » Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:24 am

m0002a wrote:
danimal wrote:i wouldn't put much stock in anything that a pro-bush voter says about politics, but the malfunctioning mms is a matter of history, for those who are better informed... perhaps you'd feel better arguing your neocon revisionist history with the nytimes?:
Who said I was a pro-Bush voter? Just because I reject lies about the cause of the financial crisis.
you didn't "reject" anything, you regurgitated the standard neocon lies about what caused financial crisis, which i patiently disproved... wrt your garbage about freddie mac/fannie mae causing the recession:

"For some reason I haven’t seen this: a comparison of commercial real estate prices from Moody’s/MIT with housing prices from Standard and Poor’s/Case-Shiller. Here it is:
Image
From my perspective, the CRE bubble is highly significant; it gives the lie both to those who blame Fannie/Freddie/Community Reinvestment for the housing bubble, and those who blame predatory lending. This was a broad-based bubble."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... struction/

danimal
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: the ether

Post by danimal » Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:46 am

m0002a wrote:Gross mis-generalization? Obama has been told by his own handlers that he needs to act more outraged about the oil spill, and not so laid back.
totally irrelevant.
m0002a wrote: The Dems in Congress killed any attempts by Bush to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that poor people could get mortgages.
more lies.

"The fact is that the entire Congress, especially Oxley, then Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, recognized the critical importance of Frank's bipartisan work on the FHFRA of 2005. Frank's name wasn't on it as a sponsor, but he contributed mightily to it, voted for it in committee, and lobbied his Dem colleagues to support it, which they largely did, which is why it passed.
...The bill passed the House but not the Senate, whose opposition was rallied because the Bush Administration opposed it, or as Oxley put it, "The Bush Administration gave it the one-finger salute." That's right: the GOP Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee blamed W in no uncertain terms for the bill's failure to pass. Barney Frank was Oxley's biggest Dem ally in getting it passed."
m0002a wrote:Regarding Iraq, the US agreed to a timetable to withdraw before Bush left office.
denial is not a river in egypt:

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

danimal
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: the ether

Post by danimal » Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:53 am

NeilBlanchard wrote:Why Is Dick Cheney Silent on the Oil Spill? The former vice president is usually a vociferous defender of his time in government. But not on the disaster in the gulf.
The criticisms center on a possible conflicts of interest and cronyism. Cheney received a $34 million payout when he left Halliburton to join George W. Bush's ticket in September 2000. But the Congressional Research Service found that he "retained ties" to the company into 2003, while in government, through "unexercised stock options and deferred salary."
These links, the fact that Cheney's former campaign press secretary Ann Womack-Colton has recently become BP's head of U.S. media relations, and the general pro-oil, anti-regulation atmosphere in the Bush years have not escaped the attention of the pundits. MSNBC's Chris Matthews highlighted the Halliburton-Cheney connection in an interview with Jay Leno on the BP spill. Frank Rich, in The New York Times, pointed out that the Interior Department degenerated into a "cesspool of corruption," under Bush and Cheney, and that the pair bequeathed Obama "a Minerals Management Service as broken as the Bush-Cheney FEMA exposed by Katrina."
some good detective work there!

but oh, wait, m0002a says it's not bush's fault :lol: :lol: :lol:

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:21 pm

danimal wrote:
m0002a wrote:Gross mis-generalization? Obama has been told by his own handlers that he needs to act more outraged about the oil spill, and not so laid back.
totally irrelevant.
It is exactly relevant to why Obama has started attacking BP with more vigor lately, and why the Brits are so upset. It is not relevant to solving the problem, but that is another matter.
danimal wrote:
m0002a wrote: The Dems in Congress killed any attempts by Bush to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that poor people could get mortgages.
more lies.
Nope, it is the truth. Here is the evidence. Bush and McCain each tried to reform Fannie Mae. Democrats Blocked them both times.

First, from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/busin ... nted=print
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
September 11, 2003– The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry,

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing
.


Next, from the Congressional Record:
FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATOR REFORM ACT OF 2005
The United States Senate, May 25, 2006

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically createdâ€

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7677
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:04 pm

Britons Bristle At American Attacks On BP

Coast Guard Tells BP To 'Speed Up' Oil Containment

Oh, there was another massive flood -- in Arkansas this time. All this extreme weather is directly tied to the ~5% greater evaporation and increased heat energy in the atmosphere -- because we are burning so frickin' much oil and coal!

Dozens Missing After Flash Flood Hits Campground
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:52 pm

BP is the largest company in Britain in terms of market capitalization (or at least "was", but not sure anymore), and it is tied to the British economy in many ways. Not just jobs, but also that many UK citizens and/or their pension funds or mutual funds have large holdings in BP stock. There are quite a few Americans and US stock funds who own BP stock (primarily the result of the Amoco and Arco mergers with BP), but not nearly to same extent percentage-wise as probably exists in Britain.

At first I did not realize that BP stock price is so tied to the well-being of British citizens. You don't see many people in the US defending large oil companies the way the British have. defended BP. But I believe that the British have been extremely sensitive about the criticism of BP as a result of the gigantic fall in BP stock prices. All of this is very unfortunate for British citizens who directly or indirectly own BP stock, or have some economic connection to BP, but BP is in deep trouble because it does appear that there is very strong evidence that BP took shortcuts that caused the oil spill, and they will be found to be primarily responsible.

It is also very unfortunate that some have taken to attack the US and dig up all kinds of completely irrelevant US history as if this will help BP or be able to deflect criticism away from BP for the oil spill. Criticism against BP is not going to stop (nor should it), and I would urge those in the UK to disassociate the fate of a private company (BP) with the UK or US governments or its people.

BP is a large multi-national energy company with many employees in the US and in the UK, so there is no reason to make this into a nationalistic debate when it is really about a private oil company. Americans don't care about the citizenship of those who worked on (or made decisions about) the BP deep-water oil drilling that ended in a disastrous oil spill. If all of those involved in the oil spill were Americans, it will not reduce the criticism, and even if BP was a 100% American company, it would not stop the criticism of BP in the US.

Michael Sandstrom
Posts: 606
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:03 pm
Location: Albany, GA USA

Post by Michael Sandstrom » Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:05 pm

Recent polls have shown that Americans despise a US firm, Goldman Sachs much more than they do BP. BP is not being trashed because it's British--It's being trashed because its management has no empathy for Gulf residents or Gulf wildlife.

I will never again buy BP gasoline.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:08 pm

Michael Sandstrom wrote:Recent polls have shown that Americans despise a US firm, Goldman Sachs much more than they do BP. BP is not being trashed because it's British--It's being trashed because its management has no empathy for Gulf residents or Gulf wildlife.

I will never again buy BP gasoline.
I agree with you. However, I will never say never regarding buying BP gas, but I am not going to buy any gas from BP for the time being unless they can persuade me otherwise.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7677
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:48 am

BP owns Castrol, as well.
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7677
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:08 am

Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

danimal
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: the ether

Post by danimal » Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:33 am

m0002a wrote:It is exactly relevant to why Obama has started attacking BP with more vigor lately, and why the Brits are so upset. It is not relevant to solving the problem, but that is another matter.
um, another one of the reasons that it's irrelevant is because your post was idle speculation that you totally failed to back up, as usual.

classic neocon logic, from someone who lacked the political acumen to vote no on bush in the first place :roll:
m0002a wrote:Nope, it is the truth. Here is the evidence. Bush and McCain each tried to reform Fannie Mae. Democrats Blocked them both times.

First, from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/busin ... nted=print
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae


nothing you posted there says anything about democrats blocking any legislation.

m0002a wrote:Regarding Iraq, the US agreed to a
timetable to withdraw before Bush left office.
danimal wrote:denial is not a river in egypt:

Amazing how you change the subject from my statement that a timetable for withdrawing US forces from Iraq was agreed to before Obama took office (true)


irrelevant as usual.

the original accusation that you ignored, and continue to ignore, was the gross incompetence of the bush neocons... i proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1)they lied about iraq, and 2)they de-regulated the hell out of everything.

you tried to change the subject to an irrelevant troop withdrawal proposal by a lame duck president, who was scorned both at home and by the world.

the bush administration de-regulated the oil industry, which means that they are directly responsible for this oil spill.

Post Reply