Carville Slams Obama on BP - 'Naive and Lackadaisical'

by Badabing

Community

(This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday, May. 21, 2010 Friday, May. 21, 2010 at 11:25:29pm PDT

James Carville, rightfully has slammed President Obama for his 'lackadaisical' response the the endless catastrophic oil spill that continues day after day, with no 'answers in sight.'

Good for you James, because I think that is exactly what most Americans are feeling too. How long is this going to allowed to go on, before President Obama plays some hardball with BP? Why hasn't President Obama instructed the EPA to cancel all contracts with BP, until further notice, and until these 'ecological terrorists' pull in their Super Tankers that are simply sitting in there, doing absolutely nothing to come in and clean up this mess?

How long is this going to be allowed to continue? Where in fuck is Obama's MOP? Did he forget he told the rest of us to pick one up, or does he own one himself?

Carville, the famously outspoken Louisianian who was a chief political aide to Bill and Hillary Clinton, told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday that the administration's response to the spill has been "lackadaisical" and that Obama was "naive" to trust BP to manage the massive clean-up effort.

"I think they actually believe that BP has some kind of a good motivation here," he said. "They're naive! BP is trying to save money, save everything they can... They won't tell us anything, and oddly enough, the government seems to be going along with it! Somebody has got to, like shake them and say, 'These people don't wish you well! They're going to take you down!'"

Carville also accused the White House of going along with what he called the "let BP handle it" strategy. "I'm as good a Democrat as most people, and I think this administration has done some good things. They are risking everything by this 'go along with BP' strategy they have that seems like, lackadaisical on this, and Doug is right, they seem like they're inconvenienced by this, this is some giant thing getting in their way and somehow or another, if you let BP handle it, it'll all go away. It's not going away. It's growing out there. It is a disaster of the first magnitude, and they've got to go to Plan B."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Yes, great idea, let's just let BP handle it, they are now using the 'Gulf as an experiment by throwing in deadly chemicals' that may end up killing the entire sea life, birds, fishing industry, human beings, and tourism for decades to come.

How many fucking chances does BP get before President Obama and the EPA 'get the message' that these people do not give a rat's ass as to what they are doing? And it is not like, President Obama does not have the power to demand all cancellation of BP's contracts until they pull in those Super Tankers (which is exactly what the Saudi's did in 1993-94 to clean up a similar spill). Why isn't that technique being employed? Was wasn't it being employed two weeks ago? Why are 'deadly untried chemicals being used instead of ecological friendly solutions that have worked in the past, not being used?' DUH....

Federal law allows agencies to suspend or bar from government contracts companies that engage in fraudulent, reckless or criminal conduct. The sanctions can be applied to a single facility or an entire corporation. Government agencies have the power to forbid a company to collect any benefit from the federal government in the forms of contracts, land leases, drilling rights, or loans. The most serious, sweeping kind of suspension is called "discretionary debarment" and it is applied to an entire company. If this were imposed on BP, it would cancel not only the company's contracts to sell fuel to the military but prohibit BP from leasing or renewing drilling leases on federal land. In the worst cast, it could also lead to the cancellation of BP's existing federal leases, worth billions of dollars.

Over the past 10 years, BP has paid tens of millions of dollars in fines and been implicated in four separate instances of criminal misconduct that could have prompted this far more serious action. Until now, the company's executives and their lawyers have fended off such a penalty by promising that BP would change its ways. That strategy may no longer work. In the past decade environmental accidents at BP facilities have killed at least 26 workers, led to the largest oil spill on Alaska's North Slope and now sullied some of the country's best coastal habitat, along with fishing and tourism economies along the Gulf. Meunier said that when a business with a record of problems like BP's has to justify its actions and corporate management decisions to the EPA "it's going to get very dicey for the company." "How many times can a debarring official grant a resolution to an agreement if it looks like no matter how many times they agree to fix something it keeps manifesting itself as a problem?" he said.

Days ago, in an unannounced move, the EPA suspended negotiations with the petroleum giant over whether it would be barred from federal contracts because of the environmental crimes it committed before the spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Officials said they are putting the talks on hold until they learn more about the British company's responsibility for the plume of oil that is spreading across the Gulf. The EPA said in a statement that, according to its regulations, it can consider banning BP from future contracts after weighing "the frequency and pattern of the incidents, corporate attitude both before and after the incidents, changes in policies, procedures, and practices."

http://www.propublica.org/...

So the EPA are 'putting the talks on hold'.....well, ain't that peculiar? Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that BP is the largest supplier to our Military would it? Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the EPA 'regulators' are just as much in bed with the Oil industry as the Wall Street 'regulators' are in bed with Wall Street?

As I stated earlier, the 'chemicals that are now being used in the Gulf' are deadly, and untried chemicals that may have consequences that could kill the entire Gulf region and the sea and wild life, that so many revere and depend on for their economy.

No one dares asked the obvious question, that I believe many of us are thinking. Is BP purposely destroying the Gulf? Yes, I know I am speculating, but that still does not answer the other vital questions, such as why BP has not brought in their Super Tankers, that have been used throughout history to clean up other similar oil spills, and are now using 'toxic chemicals' that may kill humans, wild life, the fishing industry, and thereby leaving the Gulf, only good for one thing:

THE DRILLING OF MORE OIL IN PERPETUITY. God forbid we should question or state the obvious that is staring us right in the face.

Oh No, BP wouldn't do that.....they 'love America' and they are really working hard to solve the problem. Oh No.....Obama is just 'giving them a chance to clean in up'...Oh No....James Carville is not a 'real Democrat' and is just a 'Clinton Person'....Oh No, the EPA is just 'waiting' to put their 'Contracts on Hold' until BP can prove that they really are 'honest businessmen' who just had 'another accident'.....

God....................wake up people...and smell the fucking chemicals and coffee and see what is happening here.

British Petroleum (BP) has even refused to use their own oil tankers, lying in the Gulf, to suck up most of the runaway oil, and possibly salvage it for sale later, as was done after a Saudi spill in the '90's. That method was so successful, it vacuumed up about 85 percent of that renegade oil. Nick Pozzi, a former oil pipeline engineering and operations project manager is puzzled why BP did not salvage perfectly good crude oil for later sale, and to thereby protect marine and wildlife. What Mr. Pozzi does not know is the oil companies are owned by the world's only legal counterfeiters the International Monetary/Banking Cartel - who can "print" all the money they want, so making money on Gulf oil was not important to them. Killing the Gulf of Mexico is, apparently, important to them, for their own cryptic and esoteric reasons.

If the Cartel had wanted to save marine life, any oil they had not vacuumed up could have been mulched with any number of non-toxic materials, such as "Oil Sponge," a name trademarked by Phase III, Inc. Rated as the "best performing" absorbent by the US Army Corp of Engineers, Oil Sponge is 100% organic, and is made from renewable resources. Oil Sponge is built using a microbial and nutrient package, capable of transforming oil hydrocarbons into a safe bi-product of carbon dioxide and water. But, the governmental bureaucrats of the Obama administration, and the Cartel's oil executives, had no interest in using an environmentally friendly product to clean up what is the greatest man-made environmental disaster of all time they seemed intent on making this unbelievable cataclysm far, far worse, and one that could never be cleaned up. It cannot yet be proven that the Monetary Cartel purposely blew up their own wellhead, but the crimes they have committed in their so-called "clean-up" efforts are well documented, in spite of no corporate media outrage. After the Exxon Valdez incident of March 1989, Mycelx of Georgia developed what looks like a paper towel to soak up to 50 times its weight in oil. And while this product is used from the Middle East to Europe to Canada it was of no interest to the parties Obama charged with cleaning up the Gulf of the floating oil those very same parties caused. Then there is the Aerohaz product manufactured by Sustainable Technologies, Inc. that encapsulates environmental contaminants, making crude oil and other oil like substances easy to retrieve.

Instead of using safe, non-toxic ways to gather up the rogue oil gushing from their incompetence, or planned cataclysm, the private Cartel is using an extremely toxic chemical dispersant, with the approval of the Obama administration. Alan Levine, the head of Louisiana's Department of Health and Hospitals, said: "We don't have any data or evidence behind the use of these chemicals in the water. We're now basically using one of the richest ecosystems in the world as a laboratory." As reported in Britain's Telegraph, Louisiana state Secretary of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Robert Barham reported: "We're very disappointed in their [EPA and oil company executives] approach. The federal procedures call for a consensus between federal authorities, the responsible party and the states involved. When we met and expressed our concerns [over the use of dispersants], apparently they decided to go without us." And go they did. Obama's Environmental Protection Agency allowed BP to turn our Gulf of Mexico into a toxic testing ground, instead of removing the crude oil.

http://www.rense.com/...

So BP is being allowed to use unknown chemicals in one of the richest ecosystems in the world as a laboratory, instead of using tried and true other methods, including pulling in their own Super Tankers to suck up and save some of that oil, which should have occurred in week one of this on going event. Where are the Super Oil Tankers? No where to be found.

Strange that 'Our really 'best friends, the Saudi Royal Family' knew exactly what to do in this same situation, which BP is not only ignoring, but so is out MSM, and the EPA, and President Obama:

JON KING: Well, we went down to the BP headquarters in Houma, Louisiana, and we didn't have an appointment so they wouldn't let us in. Then I called the president of BP and I talked to his secretary and she put me in touch with somebody, but the somebody she put me in touch with didn't know who we should talk to. Nick contacted a gentleman that he used to work with at BP, and he threatened to sue Nick for not going through channels. And I said, "Great. I'd love BP to sue us for trying to help them. That would be wonderful."

NICK POZZI: Keep in mind that what supertankers typically do is they sit in the middle of the ocean waiting for all the traders to come up with the right price. When they feel that the price is right, the tankers that are full, they take off, and they can be anywhere in the world in a few days. Right now there are probably 25 supertankers, waiting for orders, full of oil. So all they got to do is come to Texas, in the Gulf, unload the oil, and then turn around and suck up all this other stuff and pump it onto shore into on-shore storage. It's not rocket science. It's so simple. It's a Robinson Crusoe fix, but it works. This past Monday, Pozzi and King spoke with Captain Ed Stanton, who is commanding the United States Coast Guard for much of the affected coastline. Stanton requested a quick proposal in writing, and said he would "take it up the chain of command." Below is the proposal, to which Pozzi and King are still awaiting a response.

Here is the letter, which is 'public domain' so the diarist is printing it in total:

Dear Captain Stanton,

Per your request this morning, this is to confirm our conversation with yourself, Mr. Nick Pozzi, and I.

My colleague, Nick Pozzi, has worked for over 40 years in the energy industry the majority with Saudi Aramco in the Middle East. During that time, Nick's team was part of the first responders that successfully cleaned similar sized spills of sweet and sour crude with the best technology available from the late 1980's thru the 1990's when he retired.

The primary equipment that was used to remove the crude from the Arabian Gulf was Super Tankers. The Super Tankers were used to store everything, run thru on-shore three-phase separators and sent to on-shore tank farms for additional clean up using centrifuges. The more the oil spreads the more tankers will be needed. Nick would be willing to provide a conceptual non-technical drawing to visualize this process.

This process not only cleaned up the ocean but it saved the local environment, minimized shoreline damage, and recovered approximately 85% of the crude oil. (Nick may be required to get permission from Saudi Aramco thru the Houston, Texas office in Sugar Land to provide you with any further details as to what information he is allowed to disclose to you regarding the various projects that he worked on.)

Nick does not know what the appropriate channels are to effectuate this process but feels, if asked, the Saudi Government may be willing to assist as he believes, that with the right calls, tankers could be on the scene in 2 days.

Please feel free to call Nick or I, if you need any additional information or have any questions.

Sincerely,

Jon King
Nick Pozzi

UPDATED (11:47 A.M.): After our initial conversations earlier this week, John Hofmeister talked about the Saudi spill and potential supertanker fix for the Gulf this morning on the Today show....