GOP ad slams Obama over Oil Spill (Video) & Who is REALLY to blame for this spill. (Sourced info)

First, i'd like to say that I do not have a specific political affiliation. If I had to choose, I would be on the fence between a Republican and a Libertarian. Therefore, I may come off as somewhat bias in my critique of President Obama, however I feel that regardless of if I like him or not, he is our president and nothing productive will come out of slamming and making fun of him (Unless he deserves it, which he does )

I have recently come across a new GOP ad showing Obama's activities during the course of the oil spill and it really makes me think, what secret agenda (if any) does he have that has taken him so long to help solve this oil spill. Even President Bush responded to Katrina quicker than Obama has responded to the oil spill, which in the future will cause much more ecological and financial problems than Katrina did.

This ad could be the downfall of Obama, check it out and give your opinion on it.

I am fully open to constructive, intelligent and fact based debate. However, please no aggressive arguing, name-calling or ignorant criticism of either our President or the problem at hand.





I personally feel that Obama does not care about this oil spill. I feel that the longer he lets this oil leak into our oceans, the easier it will be for him to pass his Cap & Trade bill, as well as ban all off-shore drilling in the United States.

The government and FAA has already established no-fly zones over many parts of the Gulf of Mexico (Probably due to the fact that this spill is alot worse than anybody wants to admit)

TheCoffinMan has already posted a link to a news article sourcing my statement that this has already happened:

FAA decalres a "No-Fly Zone" over a large area of the oil spill and hides the map

Props to TheCoffinMan for making this link readily available, thanks!



Why he wants to do this is a topic that would be better fit for the conspiracy forums, however it has already been proven that Obama wishes to ban all off-shore drilling. Luckily Martin Feldman, a US Federal judge from New Orleans, recently blocked Obama's proposal for a national 6-month ban on off-shore drilling. However, knowing the game of politics and how politicians work, this 6-month ban could have easily turned into a 5, 10, 20 year or even permanent ban on offshore drilling.

Source - Federal Judge blocks Obama's proposal for 6-month offshore drilling ban

According to the article:

In announcing the appeal, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president strongly believes, as the administration argued before the judge Monday, that continuing to drill at great depths without knowing what caused the current spill does not make any sense.

However, what Obama has failed to mention here, is that oil companies are equally, if not more opposed to deep-water drilling than he is. Oil companies have openly admitted that they did not like the idea of deep water drilling due to how un-safe it is to drill oil over a mile underwater due to the water pressure and the difficulty to contain a leak or spill.

However, Congress has several bans and environmental regulations which ban shallow-water drilling up to 200 miles offshore. These bans had existed since the late 1960's, when Santa Barbara suffered an oil spill on the coast of California.

Source - 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill Wikipedia




[MODS: Please move to Deepwater Disaster, I think this thread is more relevant there than it is here. Sorry! ]

Continued below, I have a point...I promise!

[edit on 26-6-2010 by DJLateralus]

As I said, these bans Congress enacted back then had been enforced throughout the years up until September 2008. In September of 2008, those bans from the late 1960's expired and shallow-water drilling was once again legal. However, since that ban was enacted in the late 60's, many presidents and congresses had been trying to lift that ban, all of which were unsuccessful.

BUT early in 2008 before the ban expired on its own, President Bush lifted the executive ban on shallow-water drilling and told the Mineral Management Service to prepare to start issuing leases to oil companies IMMEDIATELY, should Congress agree to lift the ban as well.

"If Congress doesn't back track (reverse Bush's uplifting of the ban), it will increase access, it will increase supply, and it will be good for the consumer," said Judy Penniman, a spokesperson for American Petroleum Institute. "But it's just a beginning..."

However, even with the ban uplifted in 2008, leases and drilling contracts could not be issued until 2011 at the earliest:

"Nothing's going to change short-term off our coasts," said Athan Manuel, director of lands protection for the Sierra Club.

That's because the government agency that regulates offshore drilling, the Mineral Management Service, says it needs until at least the middle of 2011 to conduct the necessary environmental reviews and public hearings before it can issue any permits in areas currently closed to drilling - which include almost every mile off the east and west coast.

Source - 2008 Article - "Shallow-Water drilling ban lifted"

Now

Since this shallow-water drilling ban had been in effect this whole time. Congress forced all oil companies to take their drilling either to:

A. The low-yield oil reserves on land (that were not protected by environmentalists)

or

B. The high-yield, but dangerous deep-water reserves. (Which I mentioned already that the companies were opposed to doing)

However, the oil companies were also banned from tapping into the HUGE oil reserves over Anwar, Alaska (Because of an animal refuge ) and many other reserves across the United States.

Therefore, since there are TONS of oil reserves in the United States and TONS of bans against tapping into many of them, the oil companies next best option was to turn to deep-water drilling.

Basically, Congress and OUR government forced oil companies to drill in deep-water oceanic oil reserves which tend to be at least a mile or more underwater and at least 35+ miles offshore. (The Deepwater Horizon - 40 miles away from the Gulf)

Deepwater Horizon explosion wiki

Now, I should have clarified better than the ban on shallow-water drilling varied per area in question. It banned drilling in certain areas UP TO 200 miles, not 200 miles everywhere. The average distance offshore for the banned drilling areas ends usually about 40-50 miles offshore. Companies can begin drilling after about 35-40 miles off the coast, in very deep water, but are banned from moving any closer to the shoreline.


Now, if the environmentalist groups had not lobbied heavy against drilling across the US Land as well as drilling in shallow-water (Which could EASILY be cleaned up in the case of a spill), then the Mineral Management Service would have been able to issue leases and drilling contracts all over the US Coasts IMMEDIATELY after President Bush lifted the 1969 Shallow-Water ban. If enviromentalists did not demand (and receive from Congress), a ban on companies being able to tap into Anwar, Lake Erie, Ohio State Park and COUNTLESS other oil reserves across the LAND of the United States, there is a strong possibility that deep-water drilling platforms would be un-necessary and too expensive compared to the cost of drilling on land in the states.

The whole issue of Obama's response is a creation of the Republican party. Foxnews has a complete timeline of the Whitehouse response HERE and you can see that Obama was involved within the first 48 hours and several times a week since the April 20 explosion.

What more can be expected is beyond me, unless you think he should be down there sucking up the oil with a straw. Other things still have to be done to run the country, and yes that includes events and 'golfing'. More serious stuff is discussed by Presidents when socializing, golfing, fishing, hunting, than you will ever know.

In Summary

This oil spill could have been easily prevented if oil companies were able to drill in the "environmentally protected" areas across the United States which holds a huge amount of oil, as well as in shallow-waters off the coast.

Since they were forbidden from drilling in these high-yield, safe areas...they were forced to turn to deep-water drilling in order to get the most oil legally possible. However, this style of drilling was unsafe but it was the best option business-wise.

Now that there has been a huge oil spill and it has become a world problem, I feel that there should be less drilling bans on our land reserves and more bans on deep-water drilling.

The environmentalists are mainly the ones to blame for this oil spill, not to mention the people who created the materials that FAILED on the rig as well as the people paid to INSPECT the materials used to construct the rig. Somebody should have caught the defect that led to this oil spill, however, the oil companies should never have been forced to drill that far out when we have perfectly good oil right underneath us

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


It doesn't seem to me that he's doing much anything except threatening people and pointing fingers. If I were in his position I would have airspace over Washington DC so congested due to the fact that I would be flying experts from all over the world into DC to find a solution to this problem as soon as possible.

BP followed all US regulations and laws and an accident happened, therefore they should not be held legally responsible. Right now Congress and BP are fighting one another over this to save face and play the political game, they should be working together to clean this mess up.

blaming the environmentalists for the oil spill (they nearly didn't exist in the early 60s!) is like blaming anti war protesters for the vietnam war. pointless.
if you need, go build a drilling well in your garden.

Originally posted by DJLateralus

In Summary

This oil spill could have been easily prevented if oil companies were able to drill in the "environmentally protected" areas across the United States which holds a huge amount of oil, as well as in shallow-waters off the coast.

Since they were forbidden from drilling in these high-yield, safe areas...they were forced to turn to deep-water drilling in order to get the most oil legally possible. However, this style of drilling was unsafe but it was the best option business-wise.

Now that there has been a huge oil spill and it has become a world problem, I feel that there should be less drilling bans on our land reserves and more bans on deep-water drilling.

The environmentalists are mainly the ones to blame for this oil spill, not to mention the people who created the materials that FAILED on the rig as well as the people paid to INSPECT the materials used to construct the rig. Somebody should have caught the defect that led to this oil spill, however, the oil companies should never have been forced to drill that far out when we have perfectly good oil right underneath us

Originally posted by mutante
blaming the environmentalists for the oil spill (they nearly didn't exist in the early 60s!) is like blaming anti war protesters for the vietnam war. pointless.

First of all: I was speaking of the time period of 1969-1970's, not the early 60's. I'm not sure if you remember a large group of people that were quite popular in that era, the term was "Hippies". It might just be me going crazy, but i'm pretty sure they were big on environmental protection. However, they were not the environmentalist that I am holding (partially) responsible.



Second of all: That was a terrible analogy

Anti-War protesters formed during the draft and once the war began.

The environmentalists groups that I am talking about, successfully stopped the drilling of ANWR in the 1960's and have continued to lobby Congress and fight legal battles against oil companies ever since. Although there are many environmentalist groups involved in the defense of protecting these places, I can name a few off-hand.

Defenders of Wildlife - Established in 1947, this group was one of the main organizations which helped ban oil companies from drilling in ANWR, Alaska.

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency - Established in 1970. Although they did not have a large effect on drilling bans, they are a government bureaucracy which has the power to pass acts and regulations that require businesses to make certain changes and adjustments to their assets (factories, products, etc...) which can cost significant amounts of money which is paid at the businesses expense. We all know that when a business is forced to take on more expenses from the government, we the consumer pay for it with a price increase in our goods and services. On their site is a list of laws they have created so far.


Greenpeace - Established in 1971, they are one of the largest Congressional lobby groups in the United States. Heck, they even claim it on their "About Us" page.

Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace, Inc.) is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501 (c) (4) entity and furthers its mission of protecting the environment through research, advocacy and lobbying.

Although Greenpeace has done good and stopped companies that have been dumping toxic chemicals, they have also gone after oil companies and been a part of many idiotic campaigns against law-abiding companies.

Now, if you look closely at their pages on the BP oil spill...they claim:

A ban on all new oil drilling is the only way to avoid another spill disaster.

Source: Greenpeace oil spill coverage


So they want to ban ALL new drilling, they also have one of the LARGEST Congressional lobbyist groups (Having a large presence in over 40 countries and boasting 2.8 million+ supporters) I'd say they have a good amount of say in the environmental issues that are brought before Congress.


National Resources Defense Council. Founded in 1970, they are the most influential environmentalist group with 1.3 million members in the US and an army of 300+ lawyers at their disposal. They play a huge role in lobbying Congress and scaring citizens into getting their way.

Scare Tactic Ultimatums:

North America stands at an energy crossroads. As cheap, plentiful conventional oil becomes a luxury of the past, we now face a choice: to set a course for a more sustainable energy future of clean, renewable fuels, or to develop ever-dirtier sources of transportation fuel derived from fossil fuels at an even greater cost to our health and environment.

From Dirty Fuels Page

And you say environmentalists didn't exist back then

reply to post by mutante


I don't get what some of you Americans have against Obama golfing, every now and then. Even a President has a right for some days off.

have you ever tried working like 14 days in a row? I guess one could go crazy, especially with a multiple task job like a president has.

reply to post by nagabonar


I'm not opposed to having days off at all, I work a full-time job 3rd shift(M-F) and a part-time job 1st shift (M-W-F) at the same time. Last night was my first day off in 3 months. It's definitely necessary. However, it doesn't matter if you're a CEO of a major corporation or the President of the United States. When you have a day off, you don't simply ignore all of your work...your business (or country) doesn't ever have "the day off". Before you go on your leisure time, you make sure that all of your affairs are in order and you have an assistant or someone else that is fully capable of handling your duties already prepared and briefed on what they will be doing to ensure your duties are fulfilled when you are gone. In Obama's case, that would be VP Joe Biden...notice how you haven't heard his name in the news in quite some time? Matter of fact, the news already talking about Obama's re-election campaign in 2012 and Joe Biden's name hasn't came up once in regards to being his running mate. Obama simply did not manage his time wisely. Most importantly, you don't take time off when your business or country is in crisis and needs your full attention, you take time off when things are running smoothly, which they currently aren't.


Also, a day off is EARNED not granted...in the list that "mythatsabigprobe" has provided that lists the activities of President Obama during the oil spill

From April 20th to June 25th, President Obama spent 20 days (non-consecutively) golfing, on vacation with his family, at DNC banquets, At MLB baseball games, having the NY Yankees over to the White House, etc...)

He also spent up to 5+ days where no news came from the White House of his actions during that day. Keep in mind, whenever Obama makes any decision or speaks with anyone (whether foreign leaders, families of fallen soldiers, laid off workers, ANYONE) the White House press correspondents report that, in those 5+ days his correspondents reported NOTHING AT ALL.

He did however spent I believe 10 or so days (give or take) on issues regarding the oil spill, as well as make 3 trips to the Gulf to see what the damage was like. The rest of his time was spent visiting the families of the coal mine workers that died in the recent tragedy, attending summits, speaking on healthcare and taking care of other needs of our country (Very understandable, he still has other issues to take care of)


But the majority of his time on the oil spill was spent in meetings with his advisors, BP execs, etc. However no action has resulted out of these meetings to this day. BP and volunteers across the country are the only people actually taking action. Obama was not even fully briefed on the oil spill until April 28th.


Go ahead, check out his activities for yourself. Thank mythatsabigprobe for the link.
Obama's Presidential "activites' since the BP oil spill



[edit on 26-6-2010 by DJLateralus]