Obama Corruption now tied to BP oil spill?

BP Oil rig explosion in Gulf 4-22-10 (AP Photo)

Of course, Obama gets a pass from the media and kool-aid drinking left when it comes to this BP oil spill.  The timelines of events surrounding the non-action of the Obama administration regarding the oil spill are well documented.

On a day when revelations that the president’s administration partnered with BP in withholding  from the American people damaging pictures/video of the amount of leakage, Obama is off playing basketball this morning (and not attending church, like the “good Christian” example that he is) a day after playing golf.

Would Bush have gotten such a pass?  NO.

Today it was revealed that the Obama administration worked with BP to withhold the video of the plume of oil being discharged into the Gulf.  Estimates for the amount of leakage apparently were clearly underestimated (on purpose?).   These videos have been available for over 3 weeks.

But is there more to this coverup than just withholding video?  Some suspected it shortly after the spill…and today’s information seems to lend credence to the idea that Obama has been colluding with BP to cover up the extent of the damage and hide the incompetence of the Obama adminstration on this issue.

From OilPrice.com’s article , The Cover-up: BP’s Crude Politics and the Looming Environmental Mega-Disaster“:

WMR has been informed by sources in the US Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Florida Department of Environmental Protection that the Obama White House and British Petroleum (BP), which pumped $71,000 into Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign — more than John McCain or Hillary Clinton, are covering up the magnitude of the volcanic-level oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and working together to limit BP’s liability for damage caused by what can be called a “mega-disaster.”

Obama and his senior White House staff, as well as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, are working with BP’s chief executive officer Tony Hayward on legislation that would raise the cap on liability for damage claims from those affected by the oil disaster from $75 million to $10 billion. However, WMR’s federal and Gulf state sources are reporting the disaster has the real potential cost of at least $1 trillion. Critics of the deal being worked out between Obama and Hayward point out that $10 billion is a mere drop in the bucket for a trillion dollar disaster but also note that BP, if its assets were nationalized, could fetch almost a trillion dollars for compensation purposes. There is talk in some government circles, including FEMA, of the need to nationalize BP in order to compensate those who will ultimately be affected by the worst oil disaster in the history of the world.

Nationalization of BP?  Makes one wonder, even at the risk of being accused of wearing a tin foil hat, just how accidental this spill was!  Especially considering that BP’s largest recipient of campaign cash was Barack Obama.

Either way, I guess Rahm Emanuel’s creed “never let a crisis go to waste” may very well be in play here.

More cover-up:

Plans by BP to sink a 4-story containment dome over the oil gushing from a gaping chasm one kilometer below the surface of the Gulf, where the oil rig Deepwater Horizon exploded and killed 11 workers on April 20, and reports that one of the leaks has been contained is pure public relations disinformation designed to avoid panic and demands for greater action by the Obama administration, according to FEMA and Corps of Engineers sources. Sources within these agencies say the White House has been resisting releasing any “damaging information” about the oil disaster. They add that if the ocean oil geyser is not stopped within 90 days, there will be irreversible damage to the marine eco-systems of the Gulf of Mexico, north Atlantic Ocean, and beyond. At best, some Corps of Engineers experts say it could take two years to cement the chasm on the floor of the Gulf.

And why hasn’t much of this been made public?  Some believe that it was declared a National Security Issue so that much of the information could be contained:

Only after the magnitude of the disaster became evident did Obama order Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to declare the oil disaster a “national security issue.” Although the Coast Guard and FEMA are part of her department, Napolitano’s actual reasoning for invoking national security was to block media coverage of the immensity of the disaster that is unfolding for the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean and their coastlines…..

…….There is other satellite imagery being withheld by the Obama administration that shows what lies under the gaping chasm spewing oil at an ever-alarming rate is a cavern estimated to be around the size of Mount Everest. This information has been given an almost national security-level classification to keep it from the public, according to our sources.

But that’s not all….Obama tries to blame Bush for all of the woes of the world, particularly where oil is involved.  But the Obama adminstration, approved the drilling plan for this rig and many others without proper permitting.  From the New York Times:

The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species — and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf.

Those approvals, federal records show, include one for the well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon rig, which exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers and resulting in thousands of barrels of oil spilling into the gulf each day…..

…… It (NOAA) has said on repeated occasions that drilling in the gulf affects these animals, but the minerals agency since January 2009 has approved at least three huge lease sales, 103 seismic blasting projects and 346 drilling plans. Agency records also show that permission for those projects and plans was granted without getting the permits required under federal law.

Who became President in January 2009?  Oh, yes, Obama….these plans were approved on Obama’s watch, not Bush’s!

So when you see Obama feign anger about the spill and chastise BP for the spill and damage, just remember the lack of permitting, video cover-up with BP, using “national security” to cover up the issues, and the cold, hard campaign cash Obama received from BP!

(H/T: Michelle Malkin)


7 Responses

  1. Yes! It’s Obama’s fault for not fixing the agency that Bush broke! Get a rope.

  2. Wow. Is EVERYTHING the EVILLLL Bush’s fault with you people?

    Obama’s government has approved the plans for these rigs WITHOUT issuing permits….including the rig that exploded. Bush didn’t approve those plans.

    Obama ran on “cleaning up” Washington….he’s had 16 months to correct anything Bush supposedly has broken. Why didn’t the Obama administration “fix” this issue instead of approving plans without federal permits?

    I pity those of you who have so much hatred for Bush that you can’t see the real mixture of incompetence and evil in front of your eyes.

  3. [Why didn’t the Obama administration “fix” this issue instead of approving plans without federal permits?]

    Good question. We voted for reform and what we got was a lot of more of the same.

  4. I love how you american’s stick up for bush, the biggest embarassment to the American people ever. Conservatives destroyed your economy with de-regulation, started yet another foreign campaign to protect it’s own energy intersts, and fixed an election in order to keep big business stuffing their greedy pockets. Or were you “unawares?”

  5. Dan Gish, you are simply a drummer on an overfilled bandwagon – your tunes have an interesting beat, but there’s no substance or chorus.

    Bush presided during a very difficult time. To state that Iraq was invaded because of “energy interests” is absurd, were ALL OF THE world’s intelligence agencies making the same mistake? or all telling the same lie? How quickly people forget that when it came to Saddam, we were as close to consensus as the hyper-partisan American political reality allows:

    “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

    “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
    Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

    “There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
    Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

    “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .”
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein… now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

    No elections were fixed…

    Bush kept AMerica safe and the economy did see steady growth under his leadership (except for last part), remarkable considering what 9/11 did to world markets… Consider this – if Obama was in power during 9/11, America might not have attacked Afghanistan (they’d threaten ‘harsh sanctions’ on a nation that still wipes its asses with their left hand; and after 4 years of wrangling they’d hold ‘promising talks’)…. The ramifications of sitting idlly by are not hard to predict for we have the Clinton administration to compare to. Under Clinton’s “approach” (of doing nothing) Al Qaeda targetted and successfully destroyed increasingly sophisticated targets. Yemen in 92, World Trade Center, the massive attack on US Embassy Africa, the USS Cole and then Sept 11th.

    Not suprisingly, when the leadership was allowed to live, recruit and plan in relative peace they did…’what they do… Bush took the fight to them. Instead of planning, they now had to fight for their lives. Beyond planning, it hurt their communications and ability to command the network and the Western World has been sparred another September 11th. It is very easy to attribute this to ‘luck’ but doing so is silly, a murderous network has told you what they want to do to you and then showed you they are willing and capable again and again and again.

    Another Sept 11th would have decimated world markets beyond repair (it’s been 10 years and we’re still feeling some of the after-affects), it would lend further credibility to Al Qaeda as a “giant killer”, which would act as a HUGE recruitment tool in much of the Muslim world where ‘strength’ is idealized above all

    Dan Gish – please explain the statement: ” big business stuffing their greedy pockets”… Do you realize that “Big Business” is responsible for your lifestyle? Do you realize that “Big Business” is what keeps most of the free world employed?
    I wonder Mr Gish, when does the “aspiring entepreneur’ become the “Greedy Evildoer”… The first million? The first 10 million? OR (more likely) the second he has more than you….

    ADVICE: Keep your eyes on your own plate and you won’t be offended with what I have in mine… Envy is very unbecoming.

  6. Wingless……spot on! I agree with you.

    and I love your “ADVICE”…I may have to use that one somewhere again.

    Thanks for reading and adding fact-based commentary!

  7. […] (5)  Obama Corruption now tied to BP oil spill? […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: