« What we think about when we think about Islam | Main | American Piety »

Thursday, November 11, 2010


Donald Pay

Hmmm. This post appears to be mostly fiction. You stated the administration overstated the severity of the accident. The fact is the administration underestimated the severity of the spill, relying on BP's estimates, which were an order or two of magnitude low. I'm not sure how it works in ocean-based oil spills, but severely under reporting the size of spills of hazardous wastes under other authorities is a criminal offense. Because of how federal law on offshore oil spills is structured, BP is responsible for spill clean up response, not the federal government. The federal government plays an oversight role. You really need to get your facts correct.

When it became apparent that the spill was a lot larger than initially reported and that key elements of the drilling system/process had failed, it was reasonable to have a moratorium, during which time a more complete assessment of regulations/enforcement could be completed. The only fault by the administration was in misstating that the moratorium had been part of the peer-review panels recommendations. That, by the way, was corrected. I hope you will have the honesty to correct your post.


yeah Donald, they "misstated" something in a way that dramatically strengthened their case for a moratorium. What are the odds! If this had been Bush you'd not have believed it for a moment. They lied.

George Mason

The Obama administration committed what should be considered a criminal act by refusing the use of Dutch and Norwegian skimmers and support craft in the early days of the spill because they are not operated by U.S. based union crews. Just as they would not purchase sorbent materials produced by non-union shops and then claimed there was a shortage. Meanwhile Bobby Jindahl, who received near universal praise for his handling of the situation, was constantly asking why the Obama people couldn't just provide the OK (which they finally did after most of the damage was done).


So read the IG'a report KB. Three of those listed in the peer review were interviewed by the OIG. All concluded the implication they had peer reviewed the moratorium was unintentional. That is also alluded to in the Politco piece. Read more and you find all three were upset because the moratorium was not peer reviewed. When the Interior Department reports came out, they did not complain directly to those who drafted it. Instead, a letter of complaint was sent to some Republican members of congress who in turn asked for the IG investigation which found little and wasted much on what appears to have evolved into nothing more than a partisan witch hunt.

So you are claiming Obama is a liar based on the idea a report he likely never saw was intentionally written to mislead when even the principle critics of the report agree there was no such intent. Come on KB, you can do better that that--or can you?


All seven experts asked to review the Interior Department's work expressed concern about the change made by the White House, saying that it differed in important ways from the draft they had approved.

"We believe the report does not justify the moratorium as written, and that the moratorium as changed will not contribute measurably to increased safety and will have immediate and long-term economic effects," the scientists wrote earlier this year to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter. "The secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions."



If your gonna talk about Obama lies....pick some whoppers, because there are alot of them. This little white lie about the drilling moratorium is small beans. And "yes" Obama must take responsiblity for the deeds of his administration just like Bush did...that's why he is refered to as President and Chief Executive Officer.

Here is a good one from the Health Care Debate:

"The federal government has recently approved $160 million for the Pennsylvania Insurance Department to set up a high-risk insurance plan for thousands of Pennsylvanians with pre-existing conditions. But while the announcement did not mention abortion specifically, it did say "elective abortions" would not be covered by this plan. But according to Fox News, "the National Right to Life Committee claimed it would cover abortions in almost every circumstance because the "elective abortion" restriction in the Pennsylvania policy is not a legal term and so any abortion procedure legal in Pennsylvania could be covered under the high-risk plan."

Donald Pay

No, KB, your piece is a lie. You fabricated virtually the whole thing. Now the question I have is from what right wing fool did you plagiarize this?



The point of the moratorium was part of a political agenda. Your trying to justify the issue of the moritorium based on the original flawed Obama Administration recommendation, which you then have already admitted that it was flawed. The question is.....if there was no scientific basis to issue the moritorium, then why was it issued?


Donald Pay

Answer. There doesn't have to be a scientific basis for a moratorium. A moratorium, by definition, is to allow time to assess the current science/engineering, to review procedures and activities at other drilling sites, and to put in place any emergency rules or enforcement guidelines. That is what happened.


A.I.: First, was the rewriting of the report to include the false statement "unintentional"? Sure. The writer unintentionally typed the letter "T", then "h", then "e", all the way through "peer-reviewed" to the end. Okay.

But first you rely on the critics (the real experts) to bolster the claim that the rewriting was unintentional. How the Hell would they know? They aren't Administration insiders. Then you impeach their testimony by stating that they were upset that the report wasn't peer reviewed and they went to Republicans first. So are they reliable or not? This is the best you can do?

They complained to someone who would raise a stink instead of someone who had every incentive to ignore them. That was sensible. They had every right to complain: they were misrepresented as having endorsed the policy. Their own reputations were on the line.

Finally you question my claim that "Obama is a liar based on the idea a report he likely never saw." What part of "Chief Executive" do you not understand? Has the President criticized the Interior Department for the fraudulent claim? Has he fired anyone for telling a bald faced lie without his knowledge? He directed the Interior Department to make that report and, on the strength of it, announced the policy. Is anyone in the Obama Administration every responsible for anything in your eyes?


Earth to Donald: The Administration obviously thought they needed a peer-review, otherwise they wouldn't have lied about having one.


They put a paragraph in the wrong place during the wee hours of the morning KB, nothing more. You are making the proverbial mountain out of a mole hill. The error was corrected in six days--after the author came back from a short leave and realized a reasonable reading of the report implied the peer review pertained to the moratorium as well as safety recommendations because of the placement of the paragraph, not because the wording was inaccurate as it pertained to just the safety recommendations.

I did not speculate on why Republican members of congress were contacted before the author or anyone else at the White House or DOI. I was merely pointing out there were other options and the matter might have been cleared up quite simply by making either or both of those contacts. It seems reasonable to assume that would have been the case since Salazar was quick to clear up the misunderstanding.

As to your assertion that the administration desperately wanted or needed the backing of a peer review to initiate--and maintain--the moratorium, apparently not. No policy was changed as a result of this little episode.

As for the insinuation the administration tried to lie, that's ridiculous. It would be obvious in advance that no member of the peer group would allow such a misrepresentation to stand, so why misrepresent them in the first place--unless it was an honest mistake.

And as for what I understand about being chief executive, I know you don't let yourself get drug into the weeds over trivial, honest mistakes made by staff. President Obama decided a moratorium was the right thing to do and so ordered--without a peer review. He made a decision he had the power to make and enforce and stuck by his decision in the face of controversy. That, among other things, is what I understand about being a chief executive.

I also understand a thing or two about trumped-up, partisan, hit-piece blog posts. No need to speculate on that score, I know them when I see them and sad to say, yours was a classic example.

Donald Pay

Making it all up, embellishing the meme, and repeating it over and over---that's what we have with the right. There are no original ideas here. Most of it is copy and paste. I give KB some credit because he does put his spin on some of the copy and paste jobs. There is no arguing with them, because they fabricate their own facts and proceed to copy and paste them over and over until they forgot they made them up. This issue was dealt with months ago. The Adminstration admitted it made a mistake in the writing the draft. It was corrected, but still we have KB and the rest of the echo chamber simply repeating their fabricated truth ("truthiness"}. What's really frustrating with this is that such truthiness requires a wilfull ignorance, and a contempt for the readers' intelligence. That's not a good quality in a professor.


And still no new permits and at least 12,000 jobs and 1.8 billion dollars of economic activity lost... If the moratorium were not simply a ruse to further Obama's political agenda, it would have been called off once the "mistake" was acknowledged and new permits would have been issued by now.

Donald Pay

"And still no new permits..." And thank God, and the Administration's moratorium for that. You have no understanding of anything related to permitting of oil and gas, or really of anything. Eleven people were killed during the rig explosion, and you want the feds to just go back to rubber stamping the permits as was done in the past. Unbelievable. Do you actually think that permits should be issued without any oversight? Several permit applications have or are about to be submitted under the new guidlelines. There will be greater scrutiny of the applications than in the past. Do you want the federal government to rubber stamp these applications like they did prior to the accident? If there is one lesson to be learned it's that federal oversight of these operations must be much tighter.



A.I.: if you walk out of a store with an unpurchased item stuffed into the cuff of your pants, a reasonable person will conclude that you were shoplifting. Just saying it was an honest mistake is unlikely to fool anyone. It is up to you to prove that it was an honest mistake.

If you rearrange the paragraphs of an official document to make it appear, falsely, that a very expensive and dubious policy was peer-reviewed by experts, a reasonable person will conclude that you knew what you were doing. Claiming that it was an honest mistake done "in the wee hours of the morning" will not fool anyone who is not in a mood to be fooled. I admit that I am suspicious of the Administration. You, by contrast, will believe anything that these people tell you.

The comments to this entry are closed.