How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 What Obama Admin SHOULD have Done in Gul   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ]
 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What Obama Admin SHOULD have Done in Gulf Oil Crisis

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


150 posted 06-20-2010 02:09 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

What did it cost the U.S., Grinch?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


151 posted 06-20-2010 02:38 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Unfortunately we’ll have to wait and see Denise, one thing’s for sure whatever BP got out of the deal it was worth more than $20 billion – in my opinion there’s absolutely no chance whatsoever that they offered the money out of the goodness of their heart.

This is pure speculation on my part but I’d guess that at the very minimum they’ll have got promises of future grants and preferential access to future oil development rights. Being Obama’s whipping boy isn’t going to come cheap and BP isn’t likely to do it for nothing.

Here’s a conspiracy theory for you Denise – Wouldn’t it be ironic if the government, and not BP, actually funded the $20 billion, using your money to do it.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


152 posted 06-20-2010 03:25 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

We'll have to see if Holder follows through on those threatds of criminal prosecution. Maybe that is what they got in exchange, a pass on the prosecution. But that would be too much like extortion, wouldn't it? We'll just have to wait to see.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


153 posted 06-20-2010 05:43 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:


Bob, that Democrat ploy is getting real old. "You're against unemployment benefits? You want people to starve? You want to lose police officers and firefighter, making you communities unsafe? How heartless can you be??"



     I like your logic there, Mike.  Old equals wrong.

     That would make both of us wrong, wouldn't it?  And yet here we are, pretending that we actually have something to say and that the other person should pay attention.  Since my reasoning doesn't feel particularly old, perhaps that means I shouldn't pay attention to you, or you shouldn't pay attention to me.  

     Truth is that you're simply trying to find a way of disposing of the observation without having to grapple with it in a meaningful way, aren't you?  You've got perhaps a million people whose money has run out through no fault of their own, and your solution — the best solution you can come up with — is let them starve.

     Let me see, what might be a better idea?

     The Republicans have voted the bill down.  Have they offered a budget neutral way of dealing with it in return?  That would be a nice thing, don't you think?  It would be a compromise that would move things along.  Where might such a bill be.  

     Apparently you harbor the notion that the Democrats are the only people who can offer legislation or offer amendments so the whole thing is on the backs of the Democrats.  My observation is that the Republicans and their tame friends are pretty much voting down everything they can and blocking any solution.  

     You wouldn't actually want people who can't afford to eat actually to survive long enough to vote would you?  What sort of example do you think that would set to the fiscally responsible of the next generation, who need to understand that the government money should go to the wealthy and not to those who actually need things like shelter and food.  

     Power to the Porsches!


quote:

No, Bob, they simply want to know where the money will come from to extend those benefits. That is a question that Obama apparently never even considers and that's why we are so mired in debt. Hey, why not just make unemployment benefits unlimited? People still getting paid not matter how many years it takes them to find a job? No one would starve that way, would they?



     Perhaps you might go on another rant against another proposal I didn't make, Mike.  They're very tangential, but I must admit, entertaining.  

     People would also not starve so often if we encouraged more birth control or subsidized the cost of some food crops or made it much more economically advantageous to be vegetarian or went to soylant green.  I haven't put any of those options forward either.  Should I put you down for the Soylant Green option, though it does seem in the rough direction of allowing people to starve,  or might that be just a little bit of a distortion of what you're saying.

     When you won't allow people to eat or have shelter because of budgetary concerns and still allow tax cuts for the very wealthy, you are being silly.  I've pointed this out to you before, with references from both the Economist and the Department of the Treasury.  Cuts for the very wealthy cost the country money, about 25 cents on the dollar, while money grants to the poor actually function as an economic stimulus, about 25 cents on the dollar.  Check through your old posts because I ain't gonna post that stuff again.  

     You do the work this time, I've done it twice.

     Extension of the benefits is not only budget neutral, it's a stimulus.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


154 posted 06-21-2010 12:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"Obama is dreamer in chief: He wants to take us to this green future 'even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet precisely know how we're going to get there.' Here's the offer: Tax carbon, spend trillions and put government in control of the energy economy -- and he will take you he knows not where, by way of a road he knows not which. That's why Tuesday's speech was received with such consternation. It was so untethered from reality. The gulf is gushing, and the president is talking mystery roads to unknown destinations. That passes for vision, and vision is Obama's thing. It sure beats cleaning up beaches." --columnist Charles Krauthammer
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


155 posted 06-21-2010 12:24 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"This whole oil spill mess just sort of highlights the fact that Obama has no idea what a president is supposed to do. He's been constantly vowing to take swift action but doesn't seem to have a clue what that action should be. ... So people look at Obama and how he doesn't seem to know what he's doing with the oil spill, is flailing around trying to stimulate the economy, and is forcing a poorly thought out and unread health care bill on America and say he's doing a bad job as president. But as I said, we're being unfair to him. What was Obama before all this? He was a community organizer -- pretty much a made up job with unknown responsibilities, as far as I can tell. I doubt Obama even knew what he was supposed to do in that job. And after community organizer, he was a legislator who voted yes, no, and present on things -- a pretty simple job at which he reportedly was average. So what in his resume gives anyone the idea he would know how to do anything about a huge environmental disaster? What in his previous experience gives us any inkling he knows the first thing about economics? Why are we angry at him for not knowing things there was no reason to ever think he would know? ... It's like we took a fry cook from McDonald's and decided to make him a neurosurgeon because he looked good in a surgical mask and then got mad at him when he killed his first patient. Who is really to blame here?" --humor columnist Frank J. Fleming
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


156 posted 06-22-2010 05:29 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Part of appropriate action is the gathering of data.  Another part is timing.

     Not to take away from the urgency which my Republican friends are urging on us here, but some of the actions urged, such as the use of a nuclear bomb or conventional explosives from some of the more frantic sounding voices on the Right and, for all I know, possibly on the left as well, though I haven't heard of any specifics on that, are plainly a bit out of touch.  For references and entertaining sound clips, Ms. Maddow in her Monday show ran some wonderful ones.  That would be Monday, June 21, 2010, for those of you who are interested.

    Explosives, especially nuclear explosives are a very bad idea, for those of you who aren't up on the matter, because of the unstable nature of the sedimentary rock on the ocean floor at that point, which in Geological terms is, I'm told, only about 35,000,000 years old and not much more tenacious than highly compressed sand or sandstone.  For those who are even more up on this than I am, I'm sorry to be inflicting excess information on you.  It's new to me.

     Apparently, also according to Maddow, new documents came out from BP today saying that the worst case disaster estimates figures by BP were not the 1000 barrels per day originally bruited about, but were in fact one hundred thousand barrels per day.

     It seems to me that the notion of unleashing industry without regulation seems less and less responsible as we find out more and more.  Disposal of chemical and industrial waste is also a very large issue.  The industry, which one would like to imagine would self-regulate in the spirit of "enlightened self-interest" does not in actuality do so.  The balancing factors that would have helped that happen, a strong government regulatory system and a tenacious system of unions looking out for those who actually do the work, have been under attack by the better funded business folk for over a hundred years, since the Sherman anti-trust act, and many of the gains that the country has made since that landmark legislation seem to have been rolled back, including the system of protective tariffs.

     There is an old saying among psychoanalysts that addresses what is frequently the more important reaction to crisis, or one of the most important elements, at least.

     "Don't just do something, sit there!"

     Most important is the rejection of the invitation to panic which is so frequently issued.  Leadership is not about panic.  My friends on the right might remember their advice in the face of the President's push to pass healthcare last August, and their insistence on this very point.  While it can be over-extended, and it has been from time to time, effective action will frequently benefit from at least a bit of consideration.  As you said.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


157 posted 07-01-2010 07:27 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Very informative interview with Bobby Jindal on the Gulf oil cleanup efforts:
http://www.therightscoop.com/bobby-jindal-gives-most-blistering-comprehensive-report-on-federal-response-to-gulf-oil-spill
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


158 posted 07-01-2010 07:54 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:
Right after the disaster struck, 13 oil producing nations around the world, plus the U.N., offered the services of their dredges and large skimming ships, capable of removing hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil. They were turned down by the Obama administration because of the Jones Act, a piece of labor union-inspired legislation that forbids foreign vessels or foreign crews from working in U.S. waters. Republican legislators have called for President Obama to waive the act as President Bush did during the Katrina disaster, but so far he has declined.

The lack of skimmer vessels becomes more critical each day. All the boom in the world cannot contain an oil spill without something to quickly skim it up. Waves, wind, and current soon push the oil over or under the boom. When that large slick was allowed to enter Mobile Bay, promises were made by BP and the Coast Guard that the mouth and other entrances would be protected by skimmers. Part of the slick went 25 miles north to the Mobile-Tensaw Delta, one of the largest wetlands systems in the nation. There were no skimmers available to deal with it.

According to the Coast Guard there are 400 skimmer vessels working along the affected coast—which, depending on how its measured, is somewhere between 500 miles (the linear measure) and 5,000 (if you measure every cove and creek). There are said to be 2,000 skimmers available in the United States. Gulf Coast residents are wondering just what the other 1,600 are doing. Apparently many of them are required by government regulation to remain right where they are in case of emergency. The mayors of a number of small towns along the coast are seeking to purchase their own skimmers instead of relying on the effort by BP and the government, but that leaves open the danger of government regulators insisting on weeks of training and testing before they can be put to use. When the oil is upon you, it is not a matter of weeks, but of hours, even minutes. The cleanup effort is drowning in the proverbial sea of red tape. The interesting contradiction here is that the entire response is turning into one of the greatest arguments against government regulation that could possibly be imagined.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/oil-messed

And as of Day 71:
quote:
"We are currently working out the particular modalities of delivering the offered assistance. Further details will be forthcoming once these arrangements are complete," the press release said.
Twenty-seven nations have offered clean-up assistance to the U.S., including Canada, China, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Russia and the United Arab Emirates.

Many of the offers are still under consideration, according to a document posted to the State Dept.’s website.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


159 posted 07-01-2010 08:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Defies belief or understanding, doesn't it, Denise?
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


160 posted 07-01-2010 09:12 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

"Over seventy countries pledged monetary donations or other assistance. Notably, Cuba and Venezuela (both hostile to US government themselves) were the first countries to offer assistance, pledging over $1 million, several mobile hospitals, water treatment plants, canned food, bottled water, heating oil, 1,100 doctors and 26.4 metric tons of medicine, though this aid was rejected by the U.S. government"
-Wiki

Rejected by the Bush Administration after Katrina. I wonder how many lives might have been saved had that aid not been rejected.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


161 posted 07-01-2010 09:18 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

We have our answer, Denise. Bush rejected help after Katrina so it makes perfect sense that Obama would refuse help with the oil spill. We can now stop wondering......
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


162 posted 07-01-2010 09:33 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

It's been mentioned a few times, now, that Bush waived the Jones Act during the Katrina disaster. I wish I had more time to investigate than I do, but perhaps someone here already knows the answer to a question that immediately came to mind for me.

I didn't know the President could "waive" legislation that has been passed by Congress. Does he have the power to "waive" any legislation he wants? Or was something built into the Jones Act specifically to give him that power?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


163 posted 07-01-2010 09:45 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'll check into it, Ron, but I think I remember hearing something that there actually IS something written in the Jones Act that allows for it to be waived during emergencies? It would make sense to me if there were...
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


164 posted 07-01-2010 09:50 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


Requests for waivers of certain provisions of the act are reviewed by the United States Maritime Administration on a case-by-case basis. Waivers have been granted in cases of national emergencies or in cases of strategic interest. For instance, declining oil production prompted MARAD to grant a waiver to operators of the 512-foot Chinese vessel Tai An Kou to tow an oil rig from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska. The jackup rig will be under a two-year contract to drill in the Alaska's Cook Inlet Basin. The waiver to the Chinese vessel is said to be the first of its kind granted to an independent oil-and-gas company.[7]

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff temporarily waived the U.S. Shipping Act for foreign vessels carrying oil and natural gas from September 1 to September 19, 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


165 posted 07-01-2010 09:53 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/07/01/experts-agree-jones-act-has-no-effect-on-gulf-oil-response/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


166 posted 07-01-2010 10:01 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Yes, it defies all comprehension.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


167 posted 07-01-2010 10:17 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I had offered the thread earlier from the Norwegian newspaper indicating that the provisions of the Jones Act was keeping them from participating. They would have no reason to lie about that.

So, either the Jones Act kept Obama from accepting immediate assistance (if he did not request a waiver) or it didn't, in which case the question is....then why didn't he accept it?

I tend to believe he wanted to be able to handle it himself and thus receive all of the accolades for doing so. Since it has gotten to the point where he knows he can't handle it and the publicity is turning against him, NOW he is accepting help.

N0 worries. Even by accepting help, should the problem be resolved, he will find a way to assume all of the credit. It's a shame that that seems to be his primary concern, over the welfare of the victims involved.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


168 posted 07-01-2010 10:38 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

"From former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to Arizona Sen. John McCain to junior members of the House of Representatives, conservative Republicans have accused President Barack Obama of failing to do all he can to help clean up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill because he hasn’t waived a U.S. maritime law called the Jones Act….

Maritime law experts, government officials and independent researchers say that the claim is false. The Jones Act isn’t an impediment at all, they say, and it hasn’t blocked anything….

In a news briefing last week, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said he’d received “no requests for Jones Act waivers” from foreign vessels or countries. “If the vessels are operating outside state waters, which is three miles and beyond, they don’t require a waiver,” he said.

On Tuesday the State Department announced that new offers of aid would be accepted from 12 foreign countries and international organizations, but spokesman P.J. Crowley noted that booms donated by Mexico, Norway and Brazil had been in use since May 11, and that 24 foreign vessels from nine foreign countries already have been helping with the cleanup.

FactCheck.org, a nonprofit website operated by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, analyzed claims that failure to waive the Jones Act is blocking foreign-flagged vessels from assisting in the Gulf. It concluded last week that “In reality, the Jones Act has yet to be an issue in the response efforts.”

The Deepwater Horizon response team reported in a news release June 15 that 15 foreign-flagged ships were participating in the oil spill cleanup, FactCheck.org said. “None of them needed a waiver because the Jones Act does not apply,” it said…

Michael Sacco, the president of the 80,000-member Seafarers International Union, called claims of organized-labor interference in the cleanup efforts “ridiculous.”

“It is offensive for anyone to suggest that American maritime labor would hinder cleanup operations in the Gulf, in any way, shape or form,” Sacco said in a statement on the union’s website. “Speaking with one voice, U.S maritime labor and management have said that we wouldn’t try to stand in the way of using foreign-flag assistance if no qualified, viable American-flag tonnage was available.”

Those are the facts. The facts contradict the preferred GOP narrative. So will the narrative now be changed or even dropped in order to account for those facts?"
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-bl og/2010/07/01/experts-agree-jones-act-has-no-effect-on-gulf-oil-response/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

“If the vessels are operating outside state waters, which is three miles and beyond, they don’t require a waiver,” he said.

How far out is the Deepwater?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


169 posted 07-01-2010 10:43 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Michael Sacco, the president of the 80,000-member Seafarers International Union, called claims of organized-labor interference in the cleanup efforts “ridiculous.”

Wow...I'm shocked....not.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


170 posted 07-01-2010 11:06 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The bottom line, aside from all attempts to evade it, is that scores of countries offered immediate assistance and were either put on hold or rejected for weeks.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


171 posted 07-01-2010 11:12 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Just as Bush rejected help during Katrina. What was he waiting for, a chance for another photo op?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


172 posted 07-02-2010 05:05 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:
  Mike tells us:
The bottom line, aside from all attempts to evade it, is that scores of countries offered immediate assistance and were either put on hold or rejected for weeks.



     It would be useful for Mike to offer the names of these scores of countries whose offers of help were "either put on hold or rejected for weeks."  

     The implication that I read from Mike's comments was that these offers were put on hold because of problems created by The Jones Act.  

     If this is not exactly what Mike intends for us to understand from his statement, then it would be useful for my understanding of what Mike really means to be saying here for him to clarify his statement.

quote:

      Jennifer quotes Admiral Thad Allen:
In a news briefing last week, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said he’d received “no requests for Jones Act waivers” from foreign vessels or countries. “If the vessels are operating outside state waters, which is three miles and beyond, they don’t require a waiver,” he said.



     Jennifer's information is in apparent contradiction to Mike's, and is sourced to Admiral Allen himself, whereas Mike's source is unclear at this point, as is the actual content of what that source is trying to say.

     To evaluate the relative merits of these two pieces of information, I need more details about Mike's source.

     In the Light of the Republican Party's standard position about unions in general, it is not surprising that Republican sources would attempt to say that unions are making things difficult here.  The fact that the assertions are not well backed is not surprising either.

     One would wonder if the work on the oil platform itself was union work.  Management in that case seemed to find a way around some serious safety concerns on the rig itself; one might wonder if there was union representation on the rig.  Was that rig a union job?  If it was, would such a set of violations have been permitted to happen?  One would hope not, since safety is one of the major concerns in union workplaces, and the violations that BP was apparently getting away with would certainly have been cause for major complaints.

     My Republican friends will no doubt speak of how such complaints might stifle entrepreneurial spirit and the entrepreneurial spread of large amounts of oil not only through the marketplaces of the world but, possibly, through its oceans and ecosystems as well.  It is the latter with which we are struggling at present, however.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


173 posted 07-02-2010 06:07 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The bottom line is help was offered as of day 3. As of day 71, we are just getting around to considering the modalities of delivering the assistance offered while the shorelines are being assaulted by this oil, and jobs destroyed. It is a disgrace.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


174 posted 07-02-2010 06:42 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

“P.J. Crowley noted that booms donated by Mexico, Norway and Brazil had been in use since May 11, and that 24 foreign vessels from nine foreign countries already have been helping with the cleanup.”
Sounds to me like Obama did indeed accept offered help, lots of it.

Was it a “disgrace” when Bush refused help during Katrina when people were drowning in their homes,dying in the dome? Why didn’t we see posts here in the Alley about that?

Balladeer sourced his material in #86, Bob. Don’t have much confidence in that source myself, but you decide for yourself how credible you think it is. If waivers aren’t needed outside the three mile limit, wouldn’t you think a credible source would know that? Maybe they didn’t care about facts, the truth, or maybe they were simply trying to discredit the President by intentionally spreading misinformation?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> What Obama Admin SHOULD have Done in Gul   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors