Please send this
link to a friend. You may post any TENC article on the Internet as long
as you cite Emperor's Clothes as the source, credit the author(s), and state
the URL, which in this case is
http://emperors-clothes.com/briefing.htm
To receive Emperor's Clothes
articles by email, subscribe to the TENC Newsletter. Just send a blank
email with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line to
emperorsclothes@tenc.net
You will receive a confirmation email within a day. (If you don’t,
please check your email filter.) Please reply to that email and add
emperorsclothes@tenc.net
to your personal address book.
* Excerpt from transcript of May 21, 2010 White House
Press Briefing dealing with BP and the Gulf
*
Comments by Jared Israel, indented in blue
font, throughout the Press Briefing transcript
=============================================
Introduction
Apparently feeling some of the same anger and dismay
as most everyone else, at the White House press briefing on May 21,
2010 the press corps semi-rebelled.
"Semi" because, although they rose up against Obama's
policy of putting BP in charge of the Gulf disaster response, their
rebellion did not last. Nevertheless it was stunning. The
Washington press corps, comprised of leading reporters from leading
media, may be the least likely
group of rebels in the modern world; perhaps in
the ancient world as well. They depend on the good will of the
administration in power. White House press briefings are like formal
dances; if not always choreographed,
they certainly sometimes are,
and they are always demanding of protocol: one step
forward, one step back, never
step out of line and don't
step on the press secretary's delicate toes.
Not so on May 21.
The press corps rebellion did not go unreported, but it was
downplayed and misrepresented, as in the following excerpt from Fox News :
[Excerpt from "Gibbs Cracks Whip" begins here]
The tension may be reaching new heights. CBS
correspondent Chip Reid revealed on air Friday that White House
officials called reporters into the West Wing on Friday to scold
them for asking too many questions about the Gulf of Mexico spill.
One report identified [White
House press secretary] Gibbs as the one doing the scolding.
The dressing-down came after the press secretary faced a barrage of
questions about why the administration wasn't doing more to
ensure the leak is plugged and mitigate the environmental damage to
the coastline.
[My emphasis -- J.I.]
-- "Gibbs Cracks Whip as Administration Faces
New Criticism"[1]
[Excerpt from "Gibbs Cracks Whip" ends here]
Regarding the first paragraph, not only did Gibbs try
to silence reporters by calling them to the White House, as if they were
ambassadors from an offending state, but Chip Reid from CBS publicly
exposed this act of attempted repression.
So an intense struggle.
Regarding the second paragraph, it is striking that this description
of what happened at the press briefing is from Fox,
which is supposedly Obama's Enemy #1. Striking becausepress secretary Robert Gibbs would have
found the briefing a lot less nerve racking if, as Fox claims,
reporters had only asked "why the administration wasn't doing more."
In fact the
reason Gibbs called reporters into the West Wing and read them the riot
act was
that, as you will see from the transcript, the reporters had
demanded to know something very different: why the administration
put BP's managers
in charge of the disaster response and keeps them there. And Gibbs wanted the reporters to
drop the issue.
This is quite unusual. I have never heard of the White
House openly calling reporters in to reprimand them for asking a
question in a press briefing, which is after all their job. I am
not saying the White House doesn't ever bring pressure to bear on reporters, but this
open show of repressive power is remarkable. It means that keeping BP in charge of the ongoing disaster and not having
this questioned is extremely important to the Obama administration.
Which of
course
raises the question: why?
The government's reaction became even more striking
during the following week. Apparently the intensity and
persistence of the reporters at the briefing --
repeatedly demanding to know why BP
was in charge of oil removal, cleanup, drilling a relief well, the
always-about-to-work cappings, and
whether to use dispersant, and if so, how much and which and where -- and Gibbs' inability to
justify BP being in charge (and his
nervousness about sticking his neck out by lying,
as we shall see),
convinced the Obama administration that action was urgently needed,
and there followed an onslaught unique in this administration's history.
In the following week, three heavyweights -- top Obama
advisor David Axelrod, National Incident Coordinator Thad Allen, and President Obama himself -- did
aggressively what press secretary Gibbs had done half-heartedly:
argued that the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 required that the federal government put BP in
operational control of the disaster response, with the government
limited to oversight.
This heavyweight attack, plus direct pressure on
reporters by the Obama administration, and, I would imagine, by the
reporters' employers, seems to have silenced the semi-rebellion, at
least for now.
But in claiming that BP's current role was required by
federal law, Obama, Axelrod and Allen lied, as I prove below.
Why would the Obama administration lie about federal laws
that can easily be found and
read on the Internet, just for the sake of keeping BP
-- which ordinary people despise -- in charge?
By lying, these men took an extreme risk. In a matter
of hours, any researcher
can read the Oil Pollution
Act
[2] and the
associated Clean Water Act
[3]
, and thus discover that the claim that the law
requires BP to oversee all parts of the disaster response, with the federal
government limited to oversight, is a fabrication. Not a questionable interpretation, but a
pure fabrication.
Obama has made this false description of federal
pollution law the basis of his Gulf policy. Surely leading
Republican congressmen and senators know the contents of the law. For the past two months they could have exposed Obama's Gulf policy as based on a lie, thereby doing the Democrats serious
damage in a midterm election year. But they have not.
In effect if not by agreement,
Democratic and Republican leaders are acting in concert to misrepresent
federal law.
Why?
The obvious explanation is that, for its own reasons
(discussed below),
BP has wanted to control the disaster response, and leading politicians
in both parties have needed to give BP what it wants,
either because a) BP has a hold on these people (perhaps financial), or
b) because oil giants other than BP
want to establish the precedent
that when an oil disaster occurs, the perpetrating oil company is
allowed to take charge of the response, thus framing the disaster as an
unfortunate accident, rather than being barred from participation, which
would frame said disaster as a criminal act. And so the industry is using its immense
influence to make sure BP is kept in charge.
Perhaps both a) and b) are true, or perhaps there is some other
or additional explanation. Before we can profitably speculate, we must
get clear on some questions of fact, one of which is: what happened at this press briefing to cause the
White House to call reporters in for a dressing down, and then to send
three key figures -- the President, his most powerful advisor, and the
Gulf Incident Commander -- to lie to the public about federal law?
During the press briefing, secretary Gibbs
and reporters sometimes discuss issues other than BP and the
Gulf. In the transcript of the press briefing, posted below, I have deleted those discussions (which comprise about half the text), with
notes indicating the locations of the deletions. Other than that, every word dealing
with BP and the Gulf has been kept, just as in the original.
All notes and comments in brackets are mine.
-- Jared Israel
Emperor's Clothes
=================================================
Transcript of questions and answers about BP and the
Gulf, White House Press Briefing, May 21, 2010
With comments by Jared Israel
=================================================
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
May 21, 2010 12:57 P.M. EDT
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 5/21/10
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
Full text at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/...robert-gibbs-52110
[I have deleted the beginning of the transcript,
in which White House Press Secretary Gibbs discusses Obama's
schedule for the next week and answers miscellaneous questions.
Reporters are identified in the
transcript only as "Q" for "question." However, in the
briefing
Gibbs sometimes addresses reporters by name; I have highlighted those
names in red the first time they appear in each exchange.
The number of different names, and the way reporters return to their
own arguments and pick up and press arguments made by their
colleagues (both of which are good ways to get Gibbs to stop calling
on them), indicate the depth of the
rebellion of this highly tamed group, apparently so distressed
that the southeastern U.S. is being destroyed that they discover, to
their surprise, that they are vertebrates after all.
All comments in brackets and emphasis
are mine. -- J.I.]
Q So on BP, the President referred to it today as a
disaster, a disaster in the Gulf. And I’m wondering if -- well, I guess
if you could explain why the federal government isn’t treating it like
it would treat a normal disaster, where you should have come in and take
charge. I know you have the expertise at BP’s level and the other
companies, but why isn’t the federal government sort of taking over
this
operation?
MR. GIBBS: I think we’ve gone through this question. We went through
this question yesterday. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, for reasons that
were obvious in 1990, put the liability and the responsibility for
recovery and cleanup with the company rather than with the taxpayers.
That’s why--
Q No, I’m not asking a financial question. I’m asking a management
question.
[Apparently this reporter -- Gibbs
later identifies her as "Jennifer" -- has read the Oil Pollution Act
or has heard that while it makes polluters like BP financially
responsible
for the discharge of oil and other hazardous substances,
with the possibility of immense fines being levied on individual BP managers (BP managers could be
personally fined as much as $3000
for every barrel of polluting
oil, with equivalent charges for other pollutants, e.g. methane
gas!), it does not state that
BP must or even should be involved in cleanup or any other
aspect of disaster response, let alone be in charge. The law
only requires that they pay the bills and do as they are told.
Jennifer is at first confused by Gibbs' nonsensical explanation, then
stunned. Sensing the mood in the room, Gibbs realizes he is on thin
ice and tries to reassert authority and drown the issue in verbiage by pompously and rather ludicrously
listing government agencies and their functions, as if he were teaching an elementary
civics class. -- J.I.]
MR. GIBBS: No, no, no -- no, no,
but the management question is a
financial question. Understand --
Q How?
MR. GIBBS: Because they’re responsible for the cleanup and they have to
pay for it. They’re not two separate questions. So it is --
Q There’s no legal way to sort of separate that out and say, we send the
federal disaster experts --
MR. GIBBS: Again, the Oil Pollution Act
-- let’s be clear -- I’ve tried
to explain this many times. They are responsible for, and we are
overseeingthat response. That includes -- as I discussed yesterday,
there are many different departments and agencies that are involved
here. The Department of Interior and what used to be the Minerals
Management Service is in charge of regulation and drilling issues. NOAA
[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] deals with a series of issues including water sampling, detection of oil
inside the water. The Department of Homeland Security is where the Coast
Guard is housed. The Coast Guard obviously was on the scene right after
the original explosion, and Thad Allen, the head of the Coast Guard, is
the National Incident Coordinator. The Environmental Protection Agency
does air and water quality testing. And once oil hits land, they have
purview over that.
Q I just want to be clear that I understand what you’re saying, that
you’re legally not allowed to take sort of command and control of the
whole situation.
MR. GIBBS: No, no, again, we’re --
Jennifer, they are
responsible for and we are overseeing the recovery response. I will add
that SBA [Small Business Administration] is also in the area dealing with disasters for fishermen
because NOAA has closed 19 percent of the Gulf for fishing. And SBA is
there to provide low-interest loans for people that have had economic
damages as a result of that disaster.
But understand, Jennifer, as I’ve -- I think I’ve also said on a number
of occasions, the technical expertise to clean up and deal with the
equipment that is 5,000 feet below the surface of the sea, that’s
equipment that BP has; that’s the equipment that other oil
companies have. That is not based on equipment that the federal government has in
storage.
[Notice that the flustered
Mr. Gibbs has just stuck foot in mouth. Having retreated to
the argument that BP is needed for technical reasons, he talks too
much, saying, "that’s equipment that BP has; that’s the
equipment that other oil companies have." Aahh. Since
other oil companies have the equipment and would be perfectly
willing to work for the Feds (at BP's expense!), could you tell me
again why the
government needs BP?
In fact, according to BP, BP relies on subcontractors for
90% of drilling work [4].
BP's main function in drilling wells is to direct the work of these
subcontractors, which, as documented in the letter Congressmen
Waxman and Stupak sent to BP CEO Tony Hayward, means
forcing
them to a) work so fast that they can't possibly do things right (because time costs money) and b) violate
workplace and process safety laws (because
safe procedures cost money). As Waxman and Stupak wrote, even
though BP itself saw Macondo (or Deepwater Horizon) as a "nightmare
well" nevertheless:
"BP appears to have made
multiple decisions for economic reasons that increased the
danger of a catastrophic well failure."
[5]
So the government needs BP
because BP managers have the technical knowhow, which consists of
taking insane risks as long as said risks might benefit BP, and sure
this may produce
further disasters but don't worry because everything is being overseen by
the government, which relies entirely on BP's knowhow, which caused
the well to blow up in the first place.
Right. Gotcha. Makes sense
to me.
-- J.I.]
Q I understand, I’ll let this go because I’m using up my time.
That’s
not really the question I was asking, is whether you’re physically doing
the work. I’m asking why you don’t take control of the whole operation.
MR. GIBBS: Again, maybe I’m just not being -- over the course of several
weeks have not been clear on this. It is their responsibility. They have
the legal responsibility and the technical expertise to plug the hole.
Obviously Secretary Chu, Secretary Salazar, Secretary Napolitano, and
others, have been involved in efforts with other scientists, both
government and nongovernmental scientists, in conjunction with British
Petroleum, which has been working in conjunction with other corporations
and other oil companies.
So I guess -- I’m happy to try to sift through the question. I just --
they are responsible and we are overseeing to ensure that what they’re
doing is what needs to be done.
Q But if they’re not getting the job done, does the government just
stand there as a spectator and hope for the best?
MR. GIBBS:
Chip, there’s
nothing that would denote that the federal government has stood there
and hoped for the best. I mean, the premise of your question doesn’t
match any single -- hold on, let me finish this.
Q You’re confident they’re getting the job done?
MR. GIBBS: Hold on, let me finish this. That doesn’t match any single
action that our government has undertaken since the call came in that
this rig had exploded in the Gulf. So, you know, the premise of your
question doesn’t fit any of the actions that are currently happening on
behalf of the federal government in the Gulf of Mexico.
Q But Robert,
there’s a whole problem here with BP in that every piece
of information that they’ve delivered -- every piece of information
hasn’t been -- has turned out not to be true when it comes to the amount
of oil that’s spilling, how many leaks there were, I mean, and every
single -- so you guys are having to rely on them -- and I understand
you’re saying that they’re legally responsible.
MR. GIBBS: It’s not -- we are --
Q The government has to rely on them for the technical expertise, I
understand that, but do they have the credibility any more? I mean, why
not just say, you know what, we’re going to -- we’re running this thing;
you guys aren’t running this thing -- we’re running it.
MR. GIBBS: Again,
Chuck,
we are overseeing the response -- okay? I don't know what you think --
we are working each and every day. That's why Secretary Chu -- the
Department of Energy -- it sounds technical -- the Department of Energy
doesn’t have purview over oil, oil drilling. That's not in their
governmental sphere. But Secretary Chu has been down there working
through a whole host of ideas, including enhanced imaging to get a
better look at a disaster that's 5,000 feet underneath the water.
We have taken every step. We have pushed relentlessly for BP to do what
is necessary to contain what is leaking, to deal with both the
environmental and the economic impacts of what, as the President said
today, is unquestionably a disaster. One of the questions you asked,
Jennifer, was, this is
not something -- there’s not a -- you may have been -- be confused about
the notion of a disaster declaration that --
Q But I’m wondering if there’s something analogous to that, where you
could just -- like an AIG or a disaster where --
MR. GIBBS: There’s -- the Oil Pollution Act is where -- the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 is what governs how one responds to and who pays
for a spill.
Q But then when I asked if you’re legally non-able to step in and take
actual control, you said, no. So I’m just confused.
MR. GIBBS: Again, I don't -- I guess I’m confused at what are you --
what are you asking then.
Q If BP is not accomplishing the task,
why doesn’t the federal
government come in and take over and get the job done?
Q
So that they can --
Q Federalize it -- can you just federalize it?
MR. GIBBS: No.
Q Well, why?
MR. GIBBS: Well, we’re -- let me just -- I also want to address
Jake’s question. BP is
working -- and I would refer you to BP on the actual efforts that
they're undertaking and they will undertake as the course of this
weekend -- different ideas on how to stop the leak both out of the pipe,
which they’ve done through the insertion tube, as well as what’s going
on in the riser.
I would say relating to some of the earlier questioning, we’ve asked
them to provide more public data on air and water quality, and we asked
them 10 days ago and reiterated in a letter yesterday to provide video
footage of what’s happening 5,000 feet underneath the sea --
Q Why didn’t you order them to do that rather than ask them?
MR. GIBBS: Because it’s -- you can’t do that from a private company. We
-- the information -- first of all, the --
Q You had the authority to tell AIG what to do.
MR. GIBBS: Pardon?
Q You took over AIG.
MR. GIBBS: Well, we -- the company is largely in receivership. That's --
there’s a difference between --
Q Well, I know, but I mean, isn’t there a way to declare some sort of
emergency --
MR. GIBBS: I hate to -- let me just get through -- let me get through
Chip’s question.
[Gibbs never
answers Jennifer's
question, "isn’t there a way to declare some sort of emergency,"
which is her final attempt in this press briefing to get Gibbs to
explain why the federal government can't simply fire BP. In
trying to silence her, Gibbs has put forward several variations of
the following statement:
"Again, the Oil Pollution Act
-- let’s be clear -- I’ve tried
to explain this many times. They are responsible for, and
we are
overseeing that response."
[My emphasis -- J.I.]
-- To read this quote in context, go
here.
So according to Gibbs, the Oil
Pollution Act makes BP "responsible for" taking charge of the
disaster response, while the government is limited to "overseeing"
what BP does.
This is wrong on both counts.
First, engaging in verbal
trickery, Gibbs is misrepresenting how the Oil Pollution Act -- and
the Clean Water Act, with which it works in tandem -- use the word
"responsible," which can indicate duty (as in, 'You are the
surviving parent, so you are responsible for raising your daughter')
or liability (as in, 'You are the owner of the car, so you are
responsible for paying the parking ticket'). In the above quote, he
is claiming the law makes BP "responsible" in the sense of having
the duty to take charge of plugging the well and cleaning up the
mess. Elsewhere in the briefing he says BP is liable for various
expenses, as well. So he claims federal pollution law makes BP
"responsible" in both senses of the word.
But this is untrue.
The Clean Water and Oil Pollution
acts do use "responsible" in a way that applies to BP;
under both acts, BP qualifies as a "responsible party." What
do they mean by "responsible party"? In a nutshell, the owner
or lessee of a vessel, oil well site or port that might produce a
discharge of oil, gas or other pollutant. What is the
responsibility of the responsible party? To have sufficient
financial resources that, in case of a discharge, said party can pay
the recovery costs. Every reference to the "responsible party" in
both acts involves liabilities -- when the responsible party does
and does not have to pay and how much.
Gibbs repeatedly cites the Oil
Pollution Act, but in that act the term "responsible party" only
appears in the section "Oil Pollution Liability and compensations."
Neither law requires that the
responsible party be involved in (let alone take charge of) the
actual disaster response. Just that it pay.
So then who has the duty of taking
charge of a hydrocarbon disaster site? The President or his
designated representative(s):
{Excerpt from Clean
Water Act starts here}
(2) Discharge posing
substantial threat to public health or welfare
A)
If a discharge, or a substantial threat of a discharge, of
oil or a hazardous substance from a vessel, offshore facility, or
onshore facility is of such a size or character as to be a
substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United
States (including but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife,
other natural resources, and the public and private beaches and
shorelines of the United States), the President shall [note that this is
a requirement, not a possibility! – J.I.] direct all
Federal, State, and private actions to remove the discharge or to
mitigate or prevent the threat of the discharge.
(B) In carrying out this paragraph, the President may, without
regard to any other provision of law governing contracting
procedures or employment of personnel by the Federal Government--
(i) remove or arrange for the removal of the discharge, or
mitigate or prevent the substantial threat of the discharge; and
(ii) remove and, if necessary, destroy a vessel discharging,
or threatening to discharge, by whatever means are
available." [6] [My emphasis -- J.I.]
{Excerpt from Clean
Water Act starts here}
So, to answer Jennifer's question, in an emergency such
as the present one, indeed,
in any pollution emergency posing "a
substantial threat"
(meaning it could be a far less serious threat
than the Gulf disaster), all
relevant federal contracts are suspended, and the
president has total control, including the right to use deadly force
against vessels belonging to private companies if they are adding
to the pollution, for example by spraying the dispersant Corexit.
Three more thoughts:
1)
When one is arguing that
a law requires a certain action, the simplest way to prove it is to
quote the relevant text from the law. Defenders of the line that
federal law requires that Obama put BP in control of
the disaster response do not quote any such text because there is none
to quote. You know, it is the same awkwardness Mr. Lewis Carroll's Walrus and Carpenter
encountered when they
tried to have a chat with the Oysters after feasting on them, except Obama
and company did not eat the text of Title 33 of the U.S. Code,
(chapters 26 and 40); they made it up.
2) Regarding Lewis Carroll's poem
[7]about
the Walrus, the Carpenter and the Oysters, it seems to me that parts
of it shed light on present circumstance, so, without further ado,
here is Mr. Carroll:
On the Political Economy of Oysterhood
(i.e., the brotherhood of Oysters)
The Walrus and the Carpenter (that would
be Mr. Gibbs and his employer, Mr. Obama) brief the oysters:
The Walrus and the Carpenter Walked on a mile or so, And then they rested on a rock Conveniently low: And all the little Oysters stood And waited in a row.
The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing-wax -- Of cabbages -- and kings -- And why the sea is boiling hot -- And whether pigs have wings."
Some time later, W & C (or G & O) again address
said Oysters:
"I weep for you," the Walrus said.
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size.
Holding his pocket handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.
"O Oysters," said the Carpenter.
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?"
But answer came there none --
And that was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
Now here is the $64 question: Are we oysters?
3) It is amusing that when
Jennifer asks "isn’t
there a way to declare some sort of emergency,"
Gibbs suddenly discovers an
overwhelming urge to respond more fully to Chip, regarding whom Gibbs had
previously felt no urge to respond at all. -- J.I.]
MR. GIBBS: Chip, that's proprietary video that was in the Joint Information Center
and was working through -- the command had the video in order to see for
the response efforts that we were doing on -- in conjunction with them,
that video is now public.
Q Robert, can I ask --
Q Can I ask a question? Thank you.
[This reporter changes the
subject, allowing
Gibbs not to return to Jennifer's question. This
discussion, which I have deleted, ends with one of the reporters returning to BP. -- J.I.]
Q Thank you, Robert. On BP, there is an official who
said -- from BP -- who says that he expects that the leak would be
plugged some time next week, as early as next week. How much confidence
does the White House have in that timeline, that they could actually get
this --
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, they’re going to undergo -- and they can explain
the technical nature of this better -- the process of trying to clog
this leak with heavy mud, injecting that into the system I think
beginning sometime this weekend. I would point you to them in terms of
the degree to which they think that’s going to be successful. We
continue to work on with them ideas for how to both plug and contain
what is leaking, even as BP begins to drill a longer-term solution
through a relief well.
Q But obviously they’re telling you, this is what we think will work.
What is the confidence level from the White House? Do you think they’re
going to be able to stop this by next week?
MR. GIBBS: We’re certainly hopeful, yes.
Q And then back to Jennifer’s question -- I mean, if they can’t, does
there come a point when the White House has to say, listen, we need to
take charge of this -- not just from an oversight point of view;
we’re
going to step in and we’re going to bring in whatever --
MR. GIBBS: The National Incident Coordinator in [sic!] Thad Allen, agencies
throughout the government, have been working on the ground since right
after this explosion in the Gulf to do all that we can to plug this
leak; to contain what was leaking; to deal with what happens in the
event, and as we have seen, that that oil gets to land; we now know some
of that oil has begun to get into the loop current, and how do we deal
with that; sampling -- water quality sampling and how we deal with both
surface and subsea dispersants.
So we have -- we’ve been there every day of this crisis, and we will
stay there until this hole is plugged, until we deal with what is either
in the water or on the surface, and the impacts of that both
environmentally and economically, which will probably take quite some
time to sift through.
[Notice that Gibbs has answered
this crystal clear, succinct follow-up to Jennifer's question with a
filibuster: a lot of chatter that is tiring to read or listen to,
apparently a favorite rapier in Gibbs' debating arsenal. As
in: 'We have no argument, exhaust the opponent.' -- J.I.]
Q Robert, a follow --
Q Hang on a second, hang on -- but you will still just be essentially
assisting in any way possible as many times as they want to keep trying
something that doesn’t work? So you’re not going to walk in --
MR. GIBBS: Well,
Dan,
we’re focused on --
Q -- if that doesn’t work, well, we’ll wait and see, and they’ll try
something else.
MR. GIBBS: No, no, Dan, this notion that the government is simply
waiting and seeing -- again, Dan, if you’ve got an idea of how to plug
this hole, I'm happy to put you in charge of -- with John Holdren here,
with Secretary Chu, or somebody at the Joint Information Command.
Everything --
Q -- that the White House has, that this administration has --
MR. GIBBS: Everything that can be done is being done. That’s why we have
scientists here and throughout the administration that are working on
trying to make that happen.
Q Robert, the questions about federalizing --
[Apparently this reporter is
intending to ask about federalizing the disaster response, but another reporter
intervenes, changing the
subject. After the subsequent discussion, which I have deleted, a
reporter, apparently Chip Reid from CBS, tries to get an answer
once again on BP. Notice his tone, irritated and argumentative.
Definitely not the way reporters are supposed to talk to Mr. Gibbs at press briefings. -- J.I.]
Q I’d love to get at least initially a yes or no answer
to this
question. Is the President satisfied with BP’s response?
MR. GIBBS: The President is not satisfied that we’ve plugged a hole in
the floor of the ocean that’s leaking a barrel -- thousands of barrels
of oil a day and polluting the Gulf of Mexico.
Q Is the President satisfied with BP?
MR. GIBBS: We are continuing to push BP to do everything that they can.
Q So, no “yes” or “no” on whether you’re satisfied with BP.
MR. GIBBS: I thought I gave you a fairly fulsome answer.
Q Does he have full confidence in BP?
MR. GIBBS: Again, we are asking BP to do -- to take the steps that we
believe are necessary.
Chuck.
[Gibbs has called on someone else
but the reporter who has been arguing with him, apparently Chip Reid
from CBS, refuses to relinquish the floor. -- J.I.]
Q I have another question. You sent out that Tweet about -- it was 10
days between the time you first asked for the live video and when you
got the video.
MR. GIBBS: May 11th.
[As Chip Reid raised earlier, BP
dragged its feet letting the public see video footage of the oil
gushing up into the ocean. To universal disgust, the Obama
administration asked BP to make that footage available -- Obama
didn't order them to do it, or tell the Coast Guard to get some
other oil people or the engineer corps to do it.
Finally, after 10 days BP managers got tired of having to listen to
the government begging, and made the video image available. Truly a humiliating
moment for the Federal government, but the Feds appear to have a high
tolerance for humiliation, when the source is BP. --
J.I.]
Q And on the other hand, which sounds like you’re asking without any
kind of power behind it at all, and on the other hand you say you’ve got
your boot on their throat. That sounds like they’re wearing the boot if
they can just go along for 10 days. I mean, seriously, Robert, there’s
this growing perception that the United States, that the government is
somewhat powerless to make BP do what it wants them to do if it can’t
even get them to put a live feed of video up for 10 days.
MR. GIBBS:
Chip, we have
pushed them to make things more public. There are laws that govern the
proprietary information of companies.
[Permit me to interrupt Mr. Gibbs
so I can focus on what he has just said. Chip Reid is talking
about BP refusing to make a video camera available so the
people of the U.S. can see what is happening to their country; not BP's. But apparently, in Mr. Gibb's
delicate mind, U.S.
territorial waters in the Gulf have become the property of BP, and
therefore information about how BP is destroying those waters
is "the proprietary information of companies." -- J.I.]
[MR. GIBBS continues] We can’t change each and every one
of those laws, Chip. We will work every day to ensure that BP is doing
everything that it can do, everything that we believe it should do. We
asked again yesterday that they make more transparent their air and
water quality samples, that they update their website on that on a daily
basis, that they provide live video footage of what is happening on the
floor of the ocean 5,000 feet beneath it.
And we will continue to push any company, and the President and the team
here will continue to push all elements of the government, to get this
right. We are facing a disaster, the magnitude of which we likely have
never seen before, in terms of a blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. And
we’re doing everything humanly possible and technologically possible to
deal with that.
[Notice that Obama is now not only
unable to order BP to do anything
(let alone, to do
nothing), but he cannot order government
officials to do anything either. He is limited to "push[ing]
all elements of the government, to get this right." A chief
executive, but so little power.
What baloney.
Following Gibbs' sad tale, the
discussion goes off-topic, happily for Gibbs. Then,
relentlessly, it returns to BP. -- J.I.]
Q Quickly, you just said about the air and water quality, that they’re
doing the testing.
MR. GIBBS: No, no --
Q Why isn’t the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] doing the --
MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no -- again, EPA does air and water quality
testing. NOAA does water quality testing. They also do testing and we’re
asking them to make public their samples of that testing. The EPA --
Q So the EPA rechecks the tests, and does their own?
MR. GIBBS: And does -- they do their own testing, yes. It’s all up on a
website if you want to look at water -- air and water quality samples.
Q Secretary Napolitano is still the person I guess that’s overall in
charge. Is there any concern --
MR. GIBBS: No, the National Incident Commander has been for several
weeks Thad Allen and, again, as I said -- well, let me, because -- I’m
apparently not being clear. Thad Allen has postponed his retirement from
the Coast Guard to continue on as the National Incident Commander. A new
Commandant of the Coast Guard will be put in. They’ll be able to focus
on their job while Admiral Allen focuses on -- as the overall National
Incident Commander, as is required by law.
Q Are you guys confident that Secretary Napolitano is not being taken
too much away, considering the other part of her job at Homeland
Secretary?
MR. GIBBS: Again, the Coast Guard is part of DHS [Department of Homeland
Security] --
Q I understand.
MR. GIBBS: -- so there’s some equity there. Again, the National Incident
Commander is Thad Allen -- okay? Secretary Napolitano certainly has
equities in this based on the fact that DHS is there. Secretary Salazar
has equities because of DOI [Department of the Interior] and MMS
[Minerals Management Service]. The Department of Commerce is where
NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] sits -- they have equities in this. The Environmental Protection
Agency has equities.
Q No, I understand, but are you at all -- is there any concern here that
she’s being taken away --
MR. GIBBS: Based on what?
Q Just how much time she has to spend here, she had to testify on the
Hill, and considering the Times Square -- that she’s being taken away
from any of her duties having to do with --
MR. GIBBS: I have not heard anybody say that.
[Questions
unrelated to BP. Deleted. -- J.I.]
Q Okay. And on the Gulf oil spill, I want to ask it this way --
is there
anything that in the process of dealing with this, you have found in the
1990 law that limits the federal government’s authority in ways you wish
it did not? Anything incumbent?
MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of except what we’ve asked -- obviously,
we’ve set up -- we’ve sent up structures that change liability in order
to ensure that a disaster of this magnitude is not -- the economic
damages are -- that are going to be -- that our citizens are going to
suffer through are adequately compensated even if they're beyond the $75
million liability threshold that the law currently has.
[Notice two things. First,
increasingly nervous about "the law," meaning the Oil Pollution and
Clean Water acts, Gibbs has just taken six tries to complete one
sentence.
Second, the reporter has asked
Gibbs if there is anything "in the 1990 law that limits the federal
government’s authority in ways you wish it did not?" So the question
is about federal authority, not BP financial
liability.
Avoiding this question, Gibbs
talks about a supposed liability threshold. In fact, if the
"responsible party" causes a water-polluting disaster
through negligence or willful misconduct,
there is no liability cap under federal law. [8] But Gibb's
diversionary and misleading statement aside,
the key point is: he does not want to answer the question about the
extent of federal authority under the pollution laws. -- J.I.]
Q But the law itself has not created limitations that you wish did not
exist?
MR. GIBBS: I will look through the exact legislation that was set up and
see if there’s anything as a part that's in there.
[The
reporter has stuck to his or her guns. Unable to wriggle out
from under the issue, Gibbs pleads ignorance.
As I pointed out, earlier in the briefing
Gibbs said,
condescendingly:
"Again, the Oil Pollution Act
-- let’s be clear -- I’ve tried
to explain this many times. They are responsible for, and
we are
overseeing that response."
[My emphasis -- J.I.]
-- To read this quote in context, go
here.
And now he discovers he
doesn't know what is in "the exact legislation that was set up,"
and promises to study it?
What has he been trying "to explain [...] many times"? The inexact legislation that was not set
up?
Which Mr. Gibbs is lying? The one
who knows the law requires the government to put BP in charge, or the one who doesn't know what was in the exact
legislation that was set up? Or both?
I vote for both. My impression is
that Gibbs is competent, and that therefore, knowing the
administration is using federal pollution laws to justify putting BP
in charge, he has studied or been tutored about these laws. When the
briefing begins, he knows federal pollution law does not
really require that BP be in charge, but he does not
know the press corps is going to rebel. Now he is thinking, 'What if
one of them gets up during the evening news and says, 'The government is lying
about BP having to be in charge, and Gibbs is the liar'?
Gibbs is stating that
he is not conversant with the law so that he will have a defense --
ignorance -- if he is accused of lying.
Next a
reporter asks a question, changing the subject; I have deleted that
text. Then the discussion
returns to BP. -- J.I.]
Q Who runs the Joint Command Center down in the Gulf? Is that a federal
government --
MR. GIBBS: Yes, the Joint Information Center and the Command Center -- I
mean obviously it’s --
Q BP doesn’t run it?
MR. GIBBS: No. They have a center I believe in Houston.
[On July 3, I called the following contact numbers then listed
on the so-called "Unified Command" website,
www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
* Vessels of
Opportunity (boats) -- (866) 279-7983
* Environmental Hotline/Community Information (then listed on
another page on the website as Oiled
Shoreline) -- (8660 448-5816
* Wildlife Distress Hotline -- (866) 557-1401
* Joint Information Center -- (713)
323-1670
In every case but the last, the
713 number, the
person answering
the phone said, "BP Horizon
response, this is so-and-so, may I help you?" (I will explain
what happened at the 713 number shortly.)
Going to that website's home page, one is greeted by the following graphic, the website's
title:
Unlike the titles of every other government website
I have seen, the above title is neither straightforward nor
functional. Rather, this title, including the pretty image of marsh
grass with the word "Restore"in bold over it, makes a salesman's pitch, trying to sell us
two feel-good claims:
1) The
first is that
the disaster is basically over, so the only problem now is: to
restore.
As you may recall, BP has been putting forward
that line one way or
another from the start.
In
reality the deepwater well (actual name: "Macondo")
is still broken, and greater disasters may lie
ahead.
A)
Regarding possible disasters, we know we cannot rely on BP to tell
the truth. Or, more accurately, we know that if BP managers
see any benefit, and sometimes just to stay in practice, they will
surely lie.
B)
Being in control of the Gulf disaster site, BP may have taken or may
take measures, which we don't yet know about, which make sense in
terms of the goals of BP managers -- such as preventing criminal
prosecutions, preventing financial losses to themselves and BP, and
maintaining BP's stock price (critical for said managers to keep
control of BP assets) --
even though they knowthe measures in
question would pose immense risks for human beings and
the environment, now or in the future.
This is because, for them,
position is everything (their position); therefore they are
willing to take any risks (our risks).
Case in point: BP's current capping of the well. Experts have warned that if
the Macondo well (popularly known
as "Deepwater Horizon") has been damaged badly enough, capping it
can lead to
undermining the integrity of the ocean floor, thus causing
a bigger disaster. But
the operating
philosophy of BP managers is "working the risk/reward equation" (see email from
BP engineer Cocales, which can be read in Congressmen Waxman and Stupak's letter, footnote
[5]
). Given that the big risk here is to ordinary people and the
environment in the U.S. and other nations, BP managers apparently calculated that they were likely to lose big financially if
they did not put a cap the well, and hence, for the
second time, they have capped it. Our risk is a risk
they are willing to take.
Here is
an excerpt from a AP dispatch last week, which demonstrates
that the government is empowering BO's risk/reward philosophy:
[Excerpt from Associated
Press dispatch starts here]
The government's point man on
the disaster, retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, will decide
again later Tuesday whether to continue the test of the
experimental cap -- meaning the oil would stay blocked in.
He said Monday the amount of
oil leaking was so far inconsequential. But ever since the flow
of oil was closed off Thursday, engineers have been glued to
underwater cameras and pressure and seismic [! -- J.I.]
readings, trying to determine
whether the cap is displacing pressure and causing leaks
underground, which could make the sea bed unstable and cause the
well to collapse. [Please note that the well collapsing
would unleash staggering ocean forces. This is an
authentic BP game of Russian roulette: they pull the trigger and then learn
whether there is a bullet in the chamber. The bullet is immense;
the head is ours; we may or may not survive. -- J.I.]
"As a condition of
moving forward with the well-integrity test, BP has to report to
us any anomalies and act on those within four hours," Allen said
Monday. [My emphasis -- J.I.] -- Associated Press, July 20, 2010 [9]
[Excerpt from Associated Press dispatch ends here]
Some
thoughts about this:
First, in the recent past, government regulators have hit BP with
the largest and second largest fines in U.S. history for "willful" and
"egregiously willful" violations of U.S. worker safety laws,
which caused multiple fatalities,
and for refusing to eliminate those violation despite having
promised to do so in an agreement, based on which BP managers
escaped criminal prosecution [10]. According to Congressional Energy
and Commerce Committee leaders
Waxman and Stupak, BP managers perpetrated the current disaster by
pressuring subcontractors to violate safety laws (see footnote
[5]
),
meaning that when BP chief Hayward repeatedly told Congress that
safety was BP's main concern he was lying through his teeth (which,
by the way, constitutes perjury). And yet the government is relying
on this company, which Congress and federal regulators have found to
be both criminally reckless and wildly dishonest, to responsibly "report to us any anomalies and act on those
within four hours," even though what Mr. Obama's representative
Thad Allen is gambling with here is
nothing less than the stability of the seabed of the Gulf of
Mexico! Meaning, the possibility of unspeakable disaster.
Second,
based
on what occult powers could Thad Allen be sure that, even
if BP managers were to report "anomalies," there would be any
course of action they could adopt "within four hours" that would in fact prevent a disaster
they might already have set in motion? And even if there was some
such course of action, how could Thad Allen be sure BP managers
would know what it was? And even if they did know what it was, how
could Thad Allen be sure BP managers would not decide that, based on
BP-style reasoning, it would be in BP's interest not
to adopt it?
To get
some ideas of the risks we are taking, courtesy of BP and their
government enablers, take a look at this video, showing how
Jefferson Island in Louisiana, and a good deal more, disappeared
into a gigantic maelstrom in Lake Peigneur
caused by the mistaken position of an oil drilling operation using a
14 inch drill bit. And then, as you watch, remember that the
forces involved in the Gulf, given the weight of the water and
dimensions of the oil and gas reservoir,
are many orders of magnitude greater.
We can
see the operation of BP-style reasoning in BP's use of dispersant.
BP
has sprayed approximately two million gallons of Corexit
dispersant and who-knows-what-else in the air and on and under the
water surface of the Gulf. They have done this despite widespread
warnings from experts because: a) the financial liabilities of BP and BP managers should (according to law) be based on the measurable quantity of
polluting oil, and dispersants make it impossible to measure the
full extent of the oil; b) the less oil people can see, the less
upset they are, and dispersants make oil invisible; c) the spectacle of BP exercising control over the
disaster response -- for example, demonstrating its power by defying
the EPA's limp request that BP stop using Corexit -- promotes stock market confidence.
Corexit
use has already become a serious health problem and may become a
real health
disaster, affecting nobody-knows-how-many people. Below is a video of an
interview with Kerry Kennedy, head of the RFK Human Rights Center,
who talked to workers in BP-controlled clean-up crews, whom BP had
told not to wear respirators and not to see non-BP doctors when
they develop symptoms of chemical poisoning:
2) The second feel-good
claim implied by the title "RestoreTheGulf.gov" is that all the
damage can be undone, as when you restore an old car. But broken
lives, even the lives of the humblest creatures, not to mention the
lives of people, are not so easily restored.
On July 23, when I first
looked at RestoreTheGulf.gov , the home
page featured an automatically repeating slide show including a picture of a pelican identified as one of 21
rescued birds the Coast Guard had flown to a presently
uncontaminated coastal area in Florida:
Caption as it
appeared on RestoreTheGulf.gov: ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- A brown
pelican prepares to take flight after being released at Gulfside
City Park in Sanibel Island, Fla., July 12, 2010. Twenty-one
pelicans and 11 northern gannets were rehabilitated and then
transported to Southwest Florida aboard a Coast Guard aircraft after
being found oiled near the coasts of Louisiana and Alabama.
U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Nick Ameen.
The picture of the pelican
is charming, and I am of course glad for
the 21 birds, but this is hype. Like Hope, painted on a disaster.
What about the unknown number of pelicans
-- 21 hundred? 21 thousand? -- that have
already died,
quietly or at least out of earshot? Not to mention other
birds, fish, manatees, whales, alligators.
Are we not to be allowed
even the authenticity of loss?
And regarding the workers whom Ms. Kennedy interviewed,
will a future update of the RestoreTheGulf.gov homepage
showcase some worker, spanking clean, with a caption
identifying him as
part of a group of 21 the Coast Guard has just flown to new
jobs that they can perform despite disabilities caused by exposure
to hazardous substances?
The
new website has a notice on the top of every page, the like of
which I have never seen on a .gov website. The image below is
part of a screenshot from July 29:
Why
do they have this "Official Website of the
United States Government" banner on every page? Are
they trying to convince us? Or themselves?
The home page
runs a slide show, which, on July 23, included, besides the pelican,
a picture of
Obama
and one of a Coast Guard Lieutenant named Ernie Brown,
thus supporting the "Official Website of the United States Government" theme,
but if one
accessed any of the menu items on the right side of the page --
"File a claim," "Report a concern," "Volunteer," or "Make a
suggestion" --
the phone numbers offered were mostly the ones from BP that I
called four weeks ago;
you know,
"BP Horizon response, this is so-and-so, may I help you?"
I looked at the website today (July 29) and the slides have changed,
but the show goes on.
Below is a screenshot of the contact page, posted in two parts. (To
see the screenshot in one piece and full sized, with easier to read
text, go here
and click on the image to enlarge it.)
Below is left side of RestoreTheGulf.gov
contact page, July 29, 2010
Below is right side of RestoreTheGulf.gov contact page, July
29, 2010
The toll free numbers I called
July 3 are all there. Possibly they have updated the phone greeting
from "BP Horizon response," to "Unified
Command, may I help you?" Just so do we evolve: one nation, Unified, under BP.
But then again, perhaps they still
answer, "BP Horizon," because consider, if you will, the following
strange features of the Unified Command contact page.
On the one hand, there is the
'we-are-the-U.S.-government' banner at the top; the conspicuous ".gov"
in the website title; and all the government links at the bottom
right of the page, including Justice.gov, the website of the U.S.
Department of Justice, which does prosecute corporate criminals.
And then, on the other hand, very
prominently, "BP PLC" (BP's official name) and "BP Horizon
hotlines." BP, by far the worst criminal violator of U.S.
worker and process safety laws and the biggest environmental
criminal in U.S. history -- especially but not only because of the
deepwater disaster -- and there it is, on the same page as
Justice.gov.
It would appear the Obama
administration and the BP managers are aiming to achieve somewhat
different effects here.
Obama is telling people:
'See? That's my picture on the
home page, and it says "We are a government website," plus
there's a U.S. flag. So we arein charge!'
His goal is to prevent the people
from marching into Washington with pitchforks, as in the old
Frankenstein movie.
BP managers have problems of their
own. As Tony Hayward told a Stanford University audience in
May 2009:
"Our primary purpose in life
is to create value for our shareholders."
[11]
Which translates, maintain and if
possible increase BP's stock price. To achieve that, BP managers
need to reassure their stockholders that, far from any risk of being
destroyed:
'We are the dominant partner
in a new kind of partnership that includes even the U.S. Justice
department! Even disaster makes BP stronger! Everybody is
on board, under BP!'
Hence, on the contact page the
national toll free poison center number -- 2221222 -- is listed not
under the Joint Information Center's banner, but under
BP's. Health, booms, oiled animals, cleanup, suggestions, claims,
volunteers, training, you name it: Whatever the question, BP is the
answer.
We have come a long way since
reading Mr. Gibbs' claim that the Joint Information Center was not
run by BP, so let me return to said claim via the following route.
Four weeks ago, after calling the toll free numbers I listed
earlier, I called one of the two 713 numbers listed for the Joint
Information Center. A man answered, "Joint Information
Center," and I said, "You didn't answer 'BP'! You're not BP?"
"No," said he, "Coast Guard." "What a relief," said I. "Every
other number I call is answered 'BP.' I thought they had taken
everything over, like 'The Body Snatchers.' With BP taking almost
all incoming calls, can't they just handle them according to their
special interests?" "Oh no, no, no," he reassured me. "We are
all in the same room together. We share all information,
immediately."
The Coast Guard man sounded
anxious to be helpful, but my mother taught me not to take candy
from strangers, so I called all the BP numbers again and asked,
"Where are you located?" I was told Louisiana, Mississippi
and, several times, Texas. So unless the government has
rewritten the laws of physics, they are not all in the
same room.
And whoever it is that officially
runs any particular office, BP is not only controlling
whether to remove or disperse the oil,
the fate of cleanup workers, and decisions about what to do to
that hole they drilled with willful disregard for worker and process
safety, (see footnote
[5]
). They are also controlling interactions with the public concerning
everything from
suggestions on disaster response to reports
of animals covered with oil to claims. Which means they get to decide how
to handle every phone call. An awkward situation for us, since BP managers
have an extreme interest in what information
does and does not get
reported, what suggestions are and are not
followed, how financial claims are dealt with, and so on.
After
Gibbs' misleading remark that BP does not run the Joint Information Center, there
is some unrelated discussion that I've deleted. Then a
reporter named Margaret brings up BP. -- J.I.]
MR. GIBBS:
Margaret.
Q Thank you. On the BP oil spill, is the federal government exerting as
much control as legally possible --
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q -- in your oversight?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q Or -- I’ll just finish my question for the sake of finishing it
--
MR. GIBBS: Okay, I can say yes to the first part.
Q Are there any powers that the federal government has held off on using
either because you feel --
MR. GIBBS: None that I’m aware of.
Q -- that it would be disruptive or send the wrong message about
government interference in private business?
MR. GIBBS: Meaning what?
Q Is there any sort of level of control or oversight that you could
assume that --
MR. GIBBS: No.
Q -- you have not yet assumed?
MR. GIBBS: No. I mean, again, the premise of your question is somehow
the federal government is not doing everything that is humanly possible
to stop the leak.
Q It’s not -- okay, but I’m not trying to premise that in a political
fashion. I’m asking a technical question --
MR. GIBBS: No, no, I’m not reading it in a political fashion. I’m --
again, I’m not trying to be flip here, but that's -- inherent in your
question was that we’re -- that somehow -- you’re asking whether or not
we think we’re doing -- there’s something we could be doing that we’re
not --
Q That you’re not doing for a good reason, I mean, is what I’m asking.
The government doesn’t come at something with everything in the playbook
all the time unless you think it’s the right thing to do. I’m asking
because I don't know the answer. Are there powers that theoretically you
have that you have chosen not to exercise --
MR. GIBBS: Theoretical powers? (Laughter.)
Q Are there powers that you have chosen not to exercise yet because you
think it would be unwise, but that you have in your back pocket as
something additional you could throw out to clean up?
MR. GIBBS: No.No, again, we're doing everything humanly and
technologically possible. Obviously we follow the law. I think that's
inherent in -- or at least if it’s not, I'd like to make it overt --
obviously we're following the law.
[Unrelated questions. Deleted. -- J.I.]
Q And back on BP really fast. Back on the current
questions, basically are all federal options on the table -- going back
to that question.
MR. GIBBS: Such as?
Q Meaning, are you going to take more of an aggressive role in
oversight? I mean, like yesterday on CNN --
MR. GIBBS: Again, there’s nothing that -- there’s nothing
that we think
can and should be done that isn’t being done. Nothing. Absolutely
nothing.
Q Okay, well, will there be any efforts to try to change that? Because,
I mean, many people have been talking about this comment from the EPA
Administrator yesterday on CNN. She was asked by I guess Wolf that if
there is -- what’s the relationship with BP and the federal government.
She said, “Trust but verify.” And so many people are saying if you’ve
got to verify, there’s no trust. So with that, again, will you try to --
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that’s a monitor [i.e., "trust but verify" is a
mode of interaction -- J.I.] that follows our relationship
with countries around the world, not just with companies that do
business in the Gulf.
[Permit me to interrupt
Gibbs to point out that:
A) He has just justified U.S. relations with
BP in U.S. territorial waters in the Gulf by equating
them with U.S. relations with foreign states. So BP is a
sovereign entity when operating on U.S. territory!
B) BP signed a consent agreement (itself
outrageously lenient) to repair criminal safety violations that
caused the massacre of workers at its Texas City refinery in 2005
and then, according to the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), "willfully" (OSHA's word) kept the old deadly
violations and added many new ones. Regarding which, see
footnote [10].
So much for trusting BP. -- J.I.]
[MR. GIBBS continues] I'm not going to get into the explanation of
historical “trust but verify,” but again, we have -- BP has the
obligation and responsibility to plug the hole in the floor of the ocean
and to respond to the oil that has leaked out -- with our oversight, the
strong oversight and strong response that we'll continue to exercise.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, thank you. Coming back to BP, and not to be presumptuous about
some of the other questions.
MR. GIBBS: We didn’t leave. (Laughter.)
Q There’s sort of a -- BP’s response from the get-go. One of the first
things they did was they tried to buy people off with five grand if they
wouldn't pursue future liability. And there’s a lot of information --
MR. GIBBS: I think the Attorney General of Alabama and -- as well as we
communicated through this administration that trying to hire people to
-- trying to hire fishermen that couldn't fish anymore because NOAA had
closed part of it, asking them to help and paying them to lay boom but
then prohibiting them from, as fishermen, ever filing economic claims
was not the right thing to do.
[So BP uses its position of
control of the disaster response to blackmail the fishermen whom it
has put out of work, and the government nevertheless leaves BP in
charge of the disaster response. (But with a reprimand from Gibbs!)
Since according to press spokesman Gibbs, the Obama administration relates to BP
within the territorial U.S. as it does to foreign states outside the territorial U.S., perhaps the U.S. should
formalize this by giving BP what was called in late
19th century China a "concession area," a territory carved out of
the U.S. that BP managers would rule, enjoying full immunity from
prosecution. Perhaps the Southeast is available? -- J.I.]
Q I haven't gotten to the question yet. I'm saying that's the first
thing they did. And in general, there’s the sense that they provide
information with an eye-dropper. And then the video --
MR. GIBBS: Which is why
we've asked them to be more transparent about
air and water quality samples and about a video footage of what’s
happening 5,000 feet beneath the sea.
Q No, no, but the video on CBS the other night of Coast Guard officials
on that ship with what were described as BP contractors threatening to
arrest journalists for merely taking pictures -- all of this put
together --
MR. GIBBS: Are you talking about 60 Minutes?
Q No, I'm talking about it was on -- Chip would know -- it was on -- and
so all of this paints --
MR. GIBBS: I did not see the particular --
Q They threatened to arrest a CBS crew for taking pictures -- for daring
to take pictures --
Q And they said that BP had told them that they --
Q So all of this paints --
MR. GIBBS: Who was threatening to arrest?
Q There were two agents on the boat, too. It was a BP boat and BP had --
Q Why is the Coast Guard being co-opted with BP officials and
threatening the arrest of journalists for trying to take pictures?
[Perhaps because the concession
area has already been set up? --J.I.]
MR. GIBBS: I'd have to look at the story. Other than --
I'd have to look
at what CBS reported. I just haven't seen that story.
[Sure he hasn't. The threat to
arrest the CBS crew was big news. Assuming they are not
comatose, Obama's staff knew Coast Guard officers were filmed
threatening to arrest a CBS crew, avowedly on BP's orders. Gibbs was
surely briefed on the incident.
At this point
a reporter conveniently raises the important issue of
whether
a creature sighted on the White House lawn is a mole or a vole, and
light banter follows, immediately after which Gibbs says "thank you"
and ends the briefing on this light note, as if nothing had happened in the
briefing, or for that matter in the Gulf of Mexico.
[4] Regarding 90% of BP's drilling
work being done by subcontractors, the exact quote is:
" ‘Since service companies account for 90% of the
hours spent planning and executing wells, it is crucial that we take
their performance as seriously as we take our own,’ says Ahmed Hashmi, commercial director for drilling and completions."
-- "Drilling Beyond the Best," BP magazine Frontiers, Issue
11, December 2004
http://www.bp.com...2&contentId=7021453
[6]
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[www.gpoaccess.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]
[CITE: 33USC1321]
[Page 404-424]
TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS
CHAPTER 26--WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL
SUBCHAPTER III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT
Go to
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/...TYPE=TEXT and search for the
words "size or character"
The research on the Oil Pollution and Clean Water acts was done by my
colleague Samantha Criscione, who is expert in analyzing engineering
law.
-- J.I.
[7] "The Walrus and the Carpenter" is
a poem from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, a
marvelous book in which Carroll alas predicted the spirit of political life today.
The illustrations are by John Tenniel.
[8] According to the Oil Pollution Act the liability cap
"does not
apply if the incident was proximately caused by --
(A) gross negligence or willful misconduct of, or
(B) the violation of an applicable Federal safety,
construction, or operating regulation by,
the responsible party, an agent or employee of the responsible
party, or a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship
with the responsible party [...]."
[9] "Is experimental well cap
making disaster worse?" by Colleen Long and Matthew Daly, Associated
Press Writers, On Tuesday July 20, 2010, 12:14 pm EDT
http://www.tenc.net/archive/cache-ap-cap.htm
[10] In 2005 and again in 2009 BP
was hit with the largest fines in U.S. history for criminal safety
violations at its Texas City refinery. According to the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), over 90% of the 2005 violations
were "willfully egregious" (i.e., knowingly very bad) and most of the
remainder were "willful," meaning BP managers flaunted life-threatening
petrochemical safety requirements, which, by the way, caused the deaths
of 15 workers and wounded 170 others (many quite horribly) that year at
that one refinery alone. BP promised (in seemingly earnest tones)
to correct the violations, conditional on which the government halted
criminal action, but in 2009 OSHA levied even larger fines, charging
that BP knowingly refused to correct many old violations, and
created new ones.
And yet in a July 2 statement on cleanup work in the
Gulf, which you can read at
http://www.osha.gov/oilspills/interim-guidance-qa.html , OSHA
repeatedly refers to BP as if it were properly viewed as a partner
in guaranteeing worker safety and health. According to that OSHA
page, BP is acting entirely correctly. For this to be true, BP
would have to have made a 180 degree change in the way it treats
workers, in which case OSHA would merely be reporting a fact, a positive
fact. The immediate problem with believing this is that the
OSHA page does not refute (indeed, does not even mention) the charges made by
residents of the Gulf, by New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler (and
Nadler quotes Louisiana health officials) and by others that
BP's use of the dispersant Corexit is creating a health nightmare. Nor
does OSHA mention, let alone refute, the charge made by Kerry Kennedy (see video above)
and by cleanup workers that BP is again guilty of willfully egregious worker safety
and health abuses. The fact that OSHA entirely ignores these charges
concerning the company it has designated the worst violator of workplace
safety laws makes one wonder if OSHA officials have come under pressure
to present BP in a favorable light, and are complying. A most
disturbing thought.
[11] Tony Hayward, "Entrepreneurial
Spirit Still Needed," Speech at conference at Stanford University
Business School, May 12, 2009
Quoted text appears in youtube video, "BP's CEO Tony Hayward: 'We had
too many people that were working to save the world'"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b6J7LRUTFY
Video of entire speech is at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwQM00clxgM
==========================================
Make a donation to Emperor's Clothes
==========================================
Our work
depends on donations. If you find Emperor's Clothes useful,
please help us to cover our expenses. Every
donation helps, big or small!
* Send a check made out to Emperor's Clothes to: Emperor's Clothes P.O. Box 610-321 Newton,
MA 02461-0321 USA
* Or, call us at
1 617 858-0944
and make a
donation over the phone.
Please, if you get voicemail, leave your
number and we'll call you back.
Thanks for making a donation!
==========================================
Please send this
link to a friend. You may post any TENC article on the Internet as long
as you cite Emperor's Clothes as the source, credit the author(s), and state
the URL, which in this case is
http://emperors-clothes.com/briefing.htm
To receive Emperor's Clothes
articles by email, subscribe to the TENC Newsletter. Just send a blank
email with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line to
emperorsclothes@tenc.net
You will receive a confirmation email within a day. (If you don’t,
please check your email filter.) Please reply to that email and add
emperorsclothes@tenc.net
to your personal address book.