What did the president know? Richard Wolffe: Obama knew within 24 hours the spill was hopeless

I saw the link to this at correntewire.com. The poster there asks, "Why, then, did <Obama> not take action sooner to protect the at risk marshes? Why did he let BP mislead the public?" Pretty good questions.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-04/obama-briefed-in-april-by-carol-browner-on-how-bad-bp-spill-was-/2/

Obama Knew the Spill Was Hopeless
by Richard Wolffe

Critics have bashed President Obama for being slow to seize the political initiative in combating the BP oil spill in the Gulf Coast, now widely believed to be the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. The White House has battled back, releasing a timeline of events showing that Obama was briefed—and deploying the Coast Guard—within 24 hours of the Deepwater Horizon blowout.

What has not been previously disclosed: The president was not only briefed on the real-time events of the spill, but also on just how bad it would be—and how hard it would be to plug the hole.



Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, told Obama at one of the earliest briefings in late April that the blowout would likely lead to an unprecedented environmental disaster, senior White House aides told The Daily Beast. Browner warned that capping a well at such depths had never been done before, and that they ought to expect an oil spill that would continue until a relief well was drilled in August, the aide said.

That early briefing on the scope of the spill—and enormous technical challenges involved in fixing it—might help explain the sense of fatalism that has infused Obama's team from the start.

more...

http://www.correntewire.com/what_did_president_know_and_when_did_he_know_it_when_24_hrs_after_blowout_richard_wolffe

Watch the video, and believe in Dawn (I've been washing dishes with it for 30 years or so).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/how-to-clean-an-oil-coate_b_601741.html

It's great that it will be cleaned but no doubt more will die before they are discovered. It is still a tragedy.

I know that is not what you meant though, and thanks for the link. It is good to know that we can do something about the ones we are aware of.

some conflicting numbers, 50% to 80% that make it to cleaning stations get saved, other post says 95% of oiled birds die. That might be correct if not very many birds are captured.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8326867

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8332530

:eyes:

If you could see it walking into a 7-11 anywhere in the country, I think it can be posted without warning here.

Not that it didn't make me ill when I saw it at the public library today. I'm just sayin'... this disaster is fucking ugly. That's the reality, as painful as that is to witness.

too bad they didn't immediately work on getting booms in place (see Palast on how BP stalled and scrimped on booms), allowing foreign skimmer ships, etc.......

WASHINGTON — In the days after an oilrig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico , the White House faced not only a looming environmental catastrophe, but also a potential public relations disaster.

Aides feared that a story line would take hold that President Barack Obama had responded too slowly to the spreading oil slick, which could damage him politically much as the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 discredited former President George W. Bush .

So as the federal government began reacting to the spreading oil, the White House message machine swung into action, too.

Within hours, it was cranking out a sustained barrage across the broad spectrum of modern media — statements, reports, e-mails, tweets, photos and videos — all punctuated by a high-profile presidential visit to the Gulf followed by an incendiary speech at the White House and a video recap with exclusive behind-the-scenes views of Obama in "West Wing Week," the White House's new online program at www.whitehouse.gov .

Whether it's Obama sitting with one reporter or a statement sent via Twitter, nothing happens by accident. The White House message machinery is a crucial element of the ever-expanding presidency, and like his recent predecessors, Obama uses it to shape public opinion, drive the mainstream media's agenda and minimize political blowback.

The White House bureaucracy devoted to managing public imagery has been growing since President Richard Nixon created the first office devoted to broad communications strategy in 1969. Obama's version uses a blend of old and new techniques and technology in an effort to cut through a polarized partisan landscape and a dizzying array of modern mass media that abbreviate attention spans and fracture public attention.

Obama's White House message machine employs more than 60 people directly, at a cost to taxpayers of at least at least $4.3 million a year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100514/pl_mcclatchy...

Which is bad, because I would like to google the author.

It doenn't "Prove" anything other than the author knows how to spin negatively.

to people complaining the WH wasn't doing anything. BFD

btw your link doesn't work

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/14/94191/white-house-message-machinery.html

White House message machine spins faster than ever

By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — In the days after an oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, the White House faced not only a looming environmental catastrophe, but also a potential public relations disaster.

Aides feared that a story line would take hold that President Barack Obama had responded too slowly to the spreading oil slick, which could damage him politically much as the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 discredited former President George W. Bush.

So as the federal government began reacting to the spreading oil, the White House message machine swung into action, too.

Within hours, it was cranking out a sustained barrage across the broad spectrum of modern media — statements, reports, e-mails, tweets, photos and videos — all punctuated by a high-profile presidential visit to the Gulf followed by an incendiary speech at the White House and a video recap with exclusive behind-the-scenes views of Obama in "West Wing Week," the White House's new online program at www.whitehouse.gov.

more...

Negative spin and misrepresentation seems to be in his bag of tricks.

http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/steve_thomma

Contradicting own reporting, McClatchy repeated McCain's claim that Obama would raise taxes on business Joe the Plumber wants to buy
October 29, 2008 6:32 pm ET filed under Research

McClatchy uncritically reported McCain claim that Obama "would raise taxes" on Americans like "Joe the Plumber"
October 22, 2008 11:12 am ET filed under Research

McClatchy's Thomma misrepresented Obama's tax plan
October 11, 2008 3:40 pm ET filed under Research

MSNBC's Witt aired McCain ad without noting misleading claims about visiting wounded troops, Afghanistan hearings, military funding
July 27, 2008 5:40 pm ET filed under Research

Media figures claimed McCain would avoid issue of Obama's pastor -- but McCain campaign had already circulated op-ed
March 14, 2008 8:15 pm ET filed under Research

did`t he think that we deserved to know just how bad it was when he found out?

i know i`m an adult that can handle the truth. but try to hide the truth from me just pisses me off..

The White House bureaucracy devoted to managing public imagery has been growing since President Richard Nixon created the first office devoted to broad communications strategy in 1969. Obama's version uses a blend of old and new techniques and technology in an effort to cut through a polarized partisan landscape and a dizzying array of modern mass media that abbreviate attention spans and fracture public attention.

Obama's White House message machine employs more than 60 people directly, at a cost to taxpayers of at least at least $4.3 million a year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100514/pl_mcclatchy...

And the article is still not a news story, it is negative spin.

Internet 101.

the White House is allowing BP to hide as much as possible, and agencies like the Coast Guard are helping BP to hide, and repeating BP talking points and downplaying the spill.

Why not call a press conference right away and TELL everyone it's hopeless?

If he was hiding that fact while the Coast Guard was claiming the Top Kill worked, then he's a liar too.

If hopeless, then an immediate all out effort to contain should have been called. people hired right away (not more than a month later), permanant sand barriers erected, spill collection points built.

This is as bad as Bush during Katrina.

Answer that.

We were pretty much told that from day one.

DId anyone use the word "hopeless"

I doubt it because the word implies "Giving UP".

And nobody is giving up.

I live on the gulf coast. I read EVERYTHING coming from the administration and Coast Guard from the first day.

Google the news archieves if you want to see what was being said at the time since you obviously haven't been as intimate with this disaster as those of us living here.

Go on, give me the quotes. For any quote you can spin, I can post dozens that did not give that impression.

I see you are Obamas cover guy in this thread, but some of us are living with this disaster and it's not time for political spin.

give it a rest.

As far as Googling the archives I am not your research assistant. If you want to "prove" Obama is an "asshole" it is up to you to do it.

As far as Googling the archieve, if I'm trying to spin history, I wouldn't want to do that either.

Note that I am not the one calling you names or claiming you are some kind of "operative" So that is why I say "give it a rest"

You claim (not very effectively) that he was. You are spinning history or this article wouldn't even have been necessary.

The time for political spin is over here on the Gulf Coast. I have no time for your bullshit.

This is your "spin" of Wolffe's article.

Why was this article even printed if Obama was forthcoming? Nevermind. I'm off to take pictures my local beaches while they are still uncovered with oil. You sit here and spin. I know your type, you will.

Why was this article even printed if Obama was forthcoming? Nevermind. I'm off to take pictures my local beaches while they are still uncovered with oil. You sit here and spin. I know your type, you will.

The devolution of DU.

You have no clue about "my type." My heart is breaking over this disaster, I've lived what seems like a long time I have never seen anything this bad. The footage of wildlife makes me sick to my stomach, The stories of what's going on with people there are truly awful.

I understand we are all emotional, that is no reason to accuse people of being "Operatives."

In the meantime, take those pictures, I'm really sorry that is all you will have to remember your beach . . .

is often far more important than reality. Explains how Obama got elected. He created the perception that he would bring change and hope. But it seems like the more things change the more they remain the same. Nothing new about Obama being a fucking liar.

Since I don't believe a word he utters (or any other elected official for that matter) I will judge him by his actions. Or lack thereof.

Seems to me that Obama could have been far more proactive in responding to the Gulf Gusher. Once again his is the administration of lost opportunities. This time the innocents pay with their lives and livlihoods.

Do you really think the government has just been ignoring this for a month? It is true that it isn't responding to every screaming, uninformed demand for action that is probably useless and possibly detrimental. I think Obama is handling it like an intelligent and informed leader should. I believe reactionary people who let themselves get jerked around by misinformation are the assholes.,

of the wellhead

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x326907

i still think we can do it quickly and effectively

Sid

Shouldn't we expect better of Dems?