HEADLINE: Month after oil spill, why is BP still in charge?

[Bluebear]

WASHINGTON – Days after the Gulf Coast oil spill, the Obama administration pledged to keep its "boot on the throat" of BP to make sure the company did all it could to cap the gushing leak and clean up the spill.

But a month after the April 20 explosion, anger is growing about why BP PLC is still in charge of the response.

"I'm tired of being nice. I'm tired of working as a team," said Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana.

"The government should have stepped in and not just taken BP's word," declared Wayne Stone of Marathon, Fla., an avid diver who worries about the spill's effect on the ecosystem....

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was even more emphatic.

"There's nothing that we think can and should be done that isn't being done. Nothing," Gibbs said Friday during a lengthy, often testy exchange with reporters about the response to the oil disaster.

There are no powers of intervention that the federal government has available but has opted not to use, Gibbs said.

Asked if President Barack Obama had confidence in BP, Gibbs said only: "We are continuing to push BP to do everything that they can."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_bp_in_charge

[leftstreet]

1. Good grief. Gibbs should NOT be getting testy with reporters

Who hires these people?

[Bluebear]

4. Well, ya know, challenge the crown and that's what you get.

The Press Secretaries can be a haughty bunch, yes?

[gateley]

2. I've heard we don't have the necessary equipment, but I think we could still grind

that boot on the throat a lot harder.

[aquart]

3. Yeah. Like we've been saying.

Name me one inch of coast that's been saved by the Obama approach to this.

[amborin]

5. K&R

[virgogal]

6. Obama comes across as weak-----and detached.

[joeybee12]

9. Exactly...n/t

[dgibby]

13. And ineffectual.

Once again, the Dems have lost control of the message. Epic communications fail.

[cilla4progress]

18. Agreed

Sadly. Perhaps THIS is his Waterloo?

[gateley]

7. I think these are telling:

There are no powers of intervention that the federal government has available but has opted not to use, Gibbs said.

- We may be between a rock and a hard place about what can and can not be done (no doubt due to some gives implemented by Reagan or Bush)

Asked if President Barack Obama had confidence in BP, Gibbs said only: "We are continuing to push BP to do everything that they can."

- I'd take that as a "no"

[Bluebear]

8. Agreed.

Time for some emergency legislation, in case anybody in DC is halfway interested in this!

[amborin]

11. so many reasons why BP should NOT be in charge

including, dumping >600,000 gallons of toxic Corexit dispersant....

suppressing info concerning the true size of the flow (and NOAA is complicit in this)

et.................

[Bluebear]

14. And the White House press sec'y gets "testy" when pressed about it.

Holy cannoli.

[lonestarnot]

19. And as you pointed to in another thread, lack of independent testing of dead animals.

[Bluebear]

26. indeed

[dgibby]

12. Translation:

We are screwed. No one knows how to fix this. The Gulf is all but gone.

[amborin]

22. just read

in boston bean's op that BP is now defying our EPA, which belatedly (yesterday) said no more toxic Corexit dispersant

but BP says it will, too, use Corexit

turns out GS and Blackstone own Corexit, if I read the OP correctly

[Kablooie]

25. So there are no laws that allows the US government to get involved? Is that why it's going to hell?

[JuniperLea]

10. There's nothing anyone can do...

I have this sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach... there's nothing that can be done. The pooch is screwed... the horse is out of the barn... there's no putting the toothpaste back into the tube... these oil asswipes don't have a clue what to do... they're making it up as they go along.

[amborin]

23. some articles have suggested

the gush could be stopped more quickly but BP seeks to preserve the well (and its $$$$)

don't have time to read up on this, and lack the background to comprehend the tech details, but this would not surprise me

at minimum, our gov't needs to seize BP (put it into immed trusteeship), and gather independent experts to brainstorm this; surely, these experts are out there

look how wks ago, the Dutch sent skimming ships to suck up and cleanse the water....our EPA said NO

the skimmers could skim off 95% of the oil, then dump the filtered water back, still w/ 5% oil

our BP said NO, 5% oil not acceptable!

:banghead:

[gateley]

24. Randi Rhodes had a caller who said BP probably wants to make sure that (oil

rich) area is so devastated the ONLY think it will be good for is oil drilling. They're probably licking their chops.

[Nikki Stone1]

15. Because Big Petroleum is in charge of the administration?

Like last time?

[Individualist]

16. K&R

[cilla4progress]

17. Yeah, at least a decent explanation

Sheeit - I hate being talked down to. How about some transparency, if not some real action. I'm losing my patience here.

[Bluebear]

20. So is the "testy" White House Press Secretary

You are wearing his patience thin asking for answers. :silly:

[marions ghost]

21. from the article: "Apollo 13"

"Allen, the incident commander, said the main problem for federal responders is the unique nature of the spill — 5,000 feet below the surface with no human access.

"This is really closer to Apollo 13 than Exxon Valdez," he said, referring to a near-disastrous Moon mission 40 years ago."