Slashdot Mirror


White House Edited Oil Drilling Safety Report

bonch writes "The Interior Department inspector general has released a report stating that the White House edited a drilling safety report by reordering paragraphs to make it appear as though a seven-member panel of independent experts supported the six-month ban on offshore drilling. The IG report states, 'The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,' but the panel had only reviewed a draft of safety recommendations and not a drilling ban. The White House has issued a statement saying that there was 'no intentional misrepresentation of their views.' This follows complaints from scientists and environmentalists that the administration has not been holding to its promise of policy guided by science and not ideology."

37 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Politicians screw things up again, confuse issues, try to get a certain spin on things!

    EXTRA! EXTRA! Read All About it!

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, and for all of you that thought the dems would be different, I really will respect you in the morning. Really.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. by dhall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Meet the new boss
      Same as the old boss

      Cue CSI: Miami intro?

    3. Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. by Feyshtey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right. Because its forgivable when the Presidential administration lies and decieves you so long as the last administration had bigger lies and deceptions.

      Frankly this particular deception is small compared to others from this administration. But it still pisses me off.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    4. Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>>you do realize that you're comparing things which aren't of similar magnitude, right?

      They appear to be similar magnitude to me. Let's count the ways that I hate BOTH the republicans and democrats

      - Democrats - Clinton's White House created a "no person shall be turned down" policy in 1997 which directly led to the housing boom
      - Republicans - passed the damnable Patriot Act
      - Democrats - passed the Patriot Renewal Act when they should have killed it
      - Republicans - started a damn war
      - Democrats - won congress and could have ended the war, but instead expanded its scope
      - Republicans - Failed to clean-up the mess caused by Katrina
      - Democrats - Failed to clean-up the mess caused by BP oil spill
      - Democrats - passed that damn Banker Bailout Bill of 2008, despite 80% opposition by americans
      - Democrats - passed the Healthcare NON-reform Bill of 2010, despite 70% opposition by americans
      - Democrats - passed a 800 billion stimulus that has done anything but; in fact ~100 billion of that cash was mailed overseas
      - Republicans - Won back the house, and now they want to go to war against Iran (rumor)

      Only a fool trusts either of these two parties.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. by Feyshtey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're making an assumption that any one political group is any less deceitful than any other. You're basing that on who happens to benefit from a particular lie and if you think the ends justify the means for the people you happen to agree with more. That makes you as much of a problem as the collective crooks and liers that make up Washington politics.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    6. Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...despite 70% opposition by Americans

      Similar numbers were/are convinced that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

      Only a fool trusts either of these two parties.

      Wikipedia tells me that in the 2008 presidential election, Obama and McCain took 98.6% of the votes.

      I think we agree that most people are fools, but then you hold their opinions up as a reason why healthcare reform and the bailout were bad? Interesting.

    7. Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. by selven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Preventing a depression? All I see is delaying.

    8. Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. by Totenglocke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but when did the Bush administration take a report written by non-government people, do a cut and paste job to make it say what they want, then get caught and say "Oh, well we didn't do it on purpose"?

      As for your comments regarding war and large amounts of money going to corporations, I suppose you missed when Obama said it was necessary to give billions of dollars to GM and Chrysler after they ran themselves into the ground or we he decided to continue the very war he claimed to be against.

      I'm with you - the war is pointless and a huge waste of money. However, wasn't the Messiah supposed to have ended this war that he's continuing to fight?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    9. Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. by Totenglocke · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm with you on everything except Katrina. That was a State level issue and the Governor and Mayor of New Orleans were responsible for dealing with it - after they proved utterly incompetent, they tried to claim it was a Federal issue (when no hurricane has ever been labeled as such) in order to shift the blame to someone else.

      Sorry, but even if it's someone I dislike (such as Bush) I hate when people blame them for something that was not their fault in any way.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    10. Re:EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it. by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but when did the Bush administration take a report written by non-government people, do a cut and paste job to make it say what they want, then get caught and say "Oh, well we didn't do it on purpose"?

      Yellowcake

      It started a war that killed 10s of thousands and crippled many Americans.

      As for your comments regarding war and large amounts of money going to corporations, I suppose you missed when Obama said it was necessary to give billions of dollars to GM and Chrysler after they ran themselves into the ground or we he decided to continue the very war he claimed to be against.

      I'm with you - the war is pointless and a huge waste of money. However, wasn't the Messiah supposed to have ended this war that he's continuing to fight?

      Yes, because if he had taken office and yanked them out the next day you would hold him faultless. You would have been 100% behind that as two nations crumbled

      Want to get modded down? Promote liberty, personal responsibility, or sound economic policy.

      Here is some personal responsibility for you. You voted these assholes into office, you pay for their wars. Moreover, you send YOUR sons to die for this bullshit.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  2. Damn you George Bushitler!!! by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait a sec.....wrong administration.......

    Never mind.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!! by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Funny

      Damn right its Clinton's fault! If she had been elected we wouldn't have had to deal with this mess!

    2. Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!! by couchslug · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Wait a sec.....wrong administration......."

      I'll just leave this here:

      http://i40.tinypic.com/11tqy52.jpg

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Damn you George Bushitler!!! by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you've got it all wrong. If she'd won the primary, McCain would have won, and everyone could go on blaming Republicans. This whole incompetent Dem in office is throwing a wrench into the whole works.

  3. Politicians Lie by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Funny

    Film at 11:00pm

    Obama lied, fish died.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  4. Most transparent administration ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Even their lies are obvious!

  5. Is this a surprise? by Aquitaine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Was there really any doubt that the ban was a purely political decision in the first place?

    1. Re:Is this a surprise? by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>>Had we pushed for alternative energy in the 70s

      We'd still be in the same spot, because alternative energy doesn't work. Correction: It works but doesn't produce anywhere near the energy oil/coal does. For example if we switched to Solar energy, we'd need to pave over Nevada with light-sensitive silicon. And that still wouldn't provide a way to fuel cars or freight trucks.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Is this a surprise? by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 3, Informative

      For example if we switched to Solar energy, we'd need to pave over Nevada with light-sensitive silicon. And that still wouldn't provide a way to fuel cars or freight trucks.

      Nonsense. If we switched to solar PV, we'd need roughly 70,000 km^2 of panels. That's based on US energy consumption, taking in to account clouds, day/night, all the stuff solar deniers like to pretend is an issue. Now, 70,000 km^2 sounds like a lot, but it really is about 270 km on a side. Convert that to miles, get 165 miles on a side. Big, but not as big as Nevada. Expensive as hell, sure. But not too big.

      Now of course, we could build those cells on our roofs, and cut that by a major number.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    3. Re:Is this a surprise? by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is why places like Schleswig-Holstein, at 5% of the size of Nevada, have active plans to satisfy the entire electric energy demand of their entire population through wind power by 2020. Yes, that doesn't yet power cars, but that's just wind power as well.

      Alternative energy isn't just one form, it's a combination of them all. And fuck the "it doesn't satisfy 120% of our demand" attitude. Do you always wait until you have a perfect and complete solution before you start implementing it?

      If we had pushed stronger for alternative energy in the 70s, our use of oil and coal today would be considerably less than it is, which means we would require less, which means prices would be lower, less dangerous fields would be exploited and we'd have shifted peak oil out a decade or two. Heck, we may have even fought a war or two less over it. Yes, we likely wouldn't be living in Hippie paradise. But we would be having more alternatives, more options, and likely a better world.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  6. One more level of abstraction ... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Interior Department inspector general has released a report stating that the White House edited a drilling safety report ...

    So now we're getting a report about a report. That's just grand. I personally am waiting for the report about the report about the report. Add a few more levels of abstraction, and we will all forget what the original issue was anyway.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  7. Intern by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Somewhere, at some time in the past, some underpaid, over-motivated intern had a brilliant idea to help save the world by fighting the evil oil companies first hand! He or she was more than excited just to get an internship at the white house, under the Obama administration no less! And then, this! He or she was given the opportunity to audit a world-changing report regarding one of the most publicized environmental disasters in history for typos and grammatical correctness. Being an over-achiever and one who is full of gumption, the intern took it upon him or herself to rearrange some paragraphs and really stick it to BP, knowing that they were doing the right thing to protect the world from eco-terrorists! Captain Planet would be proud, yesiree!

    A few months later, a report about the report reveals the tampering, the public becomes outraged, Obama has to answer for it all, and the intern is currently shitting his or her pants in fear of the Pandora's box that they unlocked, perhaps,even developing a nasty cocaine addiction in the process....

    Either that or the politico douchebags in the white-house just fucked everyone over again out of sheer boredom.

    Either way, it's times like this that make me proud I went to school to become an engineer, rather than getting muddled about in that dark world of hurt that is politics!

    1. Re:Intern by pipelayerification · · Score: 3, Funny

      After Clinton I think that perhaps some of the 'excitement' at becoming a white house intern might be tempered just a little bit :)

  8. Anybody got a diff? by Revvy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All this hullabaloo and we don't even have a diff of the two versions. Lots of hot air being blown around, but nobody's seen what the real cause of the problem is. Two words got moved, should be a simple thing to diff.

    -----
    Who needs proof when they have a hot air balloon?

    1. Re:Anybody got a diff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      we don't even have a diff

      'We' don't need it. The published version deliberately attributed the peer review of scientists to something they did not analyze. These are the facts; they are not in dispute. Of what use is the revision history?

      The only question is whether the claim of 'no intent to mislead' is credible. It isn't. It's a second lie heaped upon the first.

    2. Re:Anybody got a diff? by RingDev · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a shame really. It could be so clear. Every comment about the moratorium starts off with "The Secretary recommends..." where as all of the peer reviewed stuff starts off with "The Report recommends..."

      The problem though, is the word "This". A paragraph immediately following one of the paragraphs that states "The Secretary recommends ... a 6 month moratorium ... " starts off with the following:

      The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts
      identified by the National Academy of Engineering.

      The "this" in that sentence is suppose to be referencing the report that the peer-review group passed. But since the paragraphs have been re-ordered, it appears to reference the report that we are currently reading. And thus implying that the Secretary's recommendations have been peer reviewed.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    3. Re:Anybody got a diff? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Insightful

      'We' don't need it. The published version deliberately attributed the peer review of scientists to something they did not analyze. These are the facts; they are not in dispute. Of what use is the revision history?

      I don't think you know what a "fact" is.

      A fact would be the two versions, side by side.

      And inference or a conclusion would be why it was done and what effect it had. Not the same as a fact.

      I can't think of a single reasonable reason why you wouldn't want to see the two versions published. You might be right that this was shady business, but if you are, the actual evidence would support your case so let's get it out there.

      The only question is whether the claim of 'no intent to mislead' is credible. It isn't. It's a second lie heaped upon the first.

      You've offered zero evidence of this. Proof by strident claim isn't proof, it's pundit hocus-pocus. Please stick with the facts. (But first, learn what that term means.)

  9. Re:Where's Kanye? by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shouldn't the blame be placed on the Governor?

    After all he's the one who, when Bush called to send troops to help, refused to allow them entrance: "It's okay. Louisiana can handle this alone." A president is powerful, but per the constitution still not allowed to overrule a Governor during peacetime. I think we sometimes forget the US is a lot like the EU..... the EU president would not be able to send help either if, for example, Greece's PM refused entrance.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  10. policy guided by science and not ideology by RichiH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dunno, when the largest oil blowout (it was not a spill!) happens, most people would think it prudent to stop and check all other similar endeavors. Maybe they misrepresented stuff on purpose. Yet, the _end_ to which they did it sounds scientific to me.

    Though the real question is why you can drill in the US waters without a cement-clad drill hole and a ready-made emergency sarcophagus already in place before you even start drilling. We have those requirements in Europe and people still make gobs of money with oil.

  11. I'll give ya half credit by RingDev · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm mostly okay with what you're saying, maybe not to the degree you are taking it, but largely I would agree. Save for one point:

    - Democrats - Clinton's White House created a "no person shall be turned down" policy in 1997 which directly led to the housing boom

    The "no person shall be turned down" policy of 1997 only effected a very specific subset of banks. Specifically, of the top 20 sub prime mortgage lenders in the build up to the 2008 blow out, 2 we under the regulations applied by that law. And they were (IIRC) 18th and 20th for the total amount of money lent to sub-prime loans.

    No, the underlying cause of the housing bubble is a standard free-market behavior couple with greedy people willing to lie. You had a whole lot of upper-middle and upper class individuals with money to invest. They gave their money to investment firms (and banks, which after the repeal of the GS act, could behave like investment firms). These investment companies had too much liquidity, too much money in the pocket, and not enough out in the market earning interest. So they pushed for more loans. Business loans, construction loans, home loans, personal loans, etc...

    Well then it becomes a supply and demand issue. There are a finite number of "good bets" on the market at any given time. And with the excess liquidity in the credit market, all those were snatched up first. From there, we had loads of "pretty good bets". And those too got snatched up.

    Then we started getting into the "completely crap bets." Ideally, there shouldn't be enough liquidity in the credit market that these loans are ever going through. But between the huge amount of demand for investments, and the completely bogus CDL vehicles misrepresenting the risk, they were selling like hot cakes.

    Now, had the GS Act still been in place, all of this would have happened to investment firms, which should have known better, should have protected there investments, and if they neglected the signs, gone bankrupt. The problem though, is that banks were in on the deals. And when a bank loses hard like this they have insurance through AIG and if things get bad enough, FDIC. And that's when everything went to crap.

    So yeah, the dismantling of GS opened the tax payers and economy to this risk, but it wasn't the cause. Nor was Clinton's affordable housing initiative.

    The underlying cause is the exact same thing that lead up to the great depression: The excessive consolidation of wealth. I'm not a bleeding heart commie, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that when we have too much money in too few of hands, the economy suffers significantly.

    Tax the wealthy. Not because it's right. Not because they can pay. Not because they have some obligation. Do it because it promotes a stronger middle class and leads to economic stability. The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, no matter how rich.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  12. Re:I hope you like your change. by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is always the libertarian party - which is a party our Founding Fathers would most likely approve of (libertarianism is NOT about "anything goes" despite what many claim). However since they don't have a chance of being elected, I generally vote against the candidates most likely to beat the incumbents. Unfortunately that is usually the GOP, which at this point may as well merge with the Democratic party and name the newly formed party "Republicrat."

    What we need is more people like Ron and Rand Paul in office - fiscally conservative, against a nanny state, and believe that government exists to protect the borders, punish evildoers, and maybe build roads (since roads are essential for national security).

    We don't need a nanny state. Want to stuff your face with twinkies and hohos? You should have the right to do so and become a fatty without government telling you that you can't, and without my and everyone else having to pick up the tab when you fry your pancreas and become a diabetic.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  13. Re:I hope you like your change. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about the people, who through no fault of their own, get cancer? Who is supposed to pay for that? All these behavioral-based health issues are largely strawmen. The fact is there are a lot of very sick people, and the sickest with least probability of return on productivity are the most expensive to fix. So no matter how you slice it, either we have to get together and share the pain of these individuals or we have to just let them die.

    I'm not discounting fraud as a method to reduce cost, but I guarantee it is maybe 10% at most of the cost of health care that needs to be covered.

  14. Re:Wait a minute! by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    President Chocolate Jesus

    I am so terribly sorry, you were looking for the racism thread. Despite you low ID number I feel that I must tell you that here on Slashdot we don't really go in for the whole "Negro Bashing" thing. It might have been different when you started, and I really don't think it was, but now a days we don't actually bother with people's color because, well it has nothing to do with anything.

    To help you understand my message I will use prejudicial terms so you can understand.

    I know Kikes that are poor, Spics that dont pick fruit, Niggers that suck at sports and Faggots that don't like show tunes. See? Prejudice sucks - it doesn't help anyone at all.

    Interestingly though - I now know someone that thinks 'Chocolate' is a special word for people who have dark skin. And I guess I also know someone that thinks the President is the Messiah. No one in the Theological world ever thought he was the Second Coming.

    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  15. How did it get to be such a perversion? by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is always the libertarian party - which is a party our Founding Fathers would most likely approve of

    Fuck no, they would probably try them as traitors. Consider the royalist overtones of them advocating "small government" of a few with no checks and balances but close to absolute power. Listen to what is actually being said by people that call themselves "libertarians" at "tea parties" instead of what you think they stood for in 1970.
    Half the time it's advocating feudalism with the extremely rich as the nobility but wrapped up in a patriotic sounding title.
    I don't think Washington, Franklin and others were advocating a system where the rich nobility could do what they pleased, that is what they were fighting against!

  16. Re:I hope you like your change. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, if you quote latin names for logical fallacies to sound superior, you should perhaps learn to identify said fallacies first. There is not a single ad hominem fallacy in there. Just a bunch of plain old - and much needed - insults. Not to speak of the fact that an argumentum ad hominem is first of all a rhetorical figure, but not necessarily in all cases a fallacy.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  17. Re:I hope you like your change. by Feyshtey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While I agree we don't need a nanny state... it is really fucking hard to eat healthy in the US. EVERYTHING that is readily available, like fast food or most of the premade stuff in grocery stores, falls under the category of "probably unhealthy."

    So your argument can be boiled down to: "It's too hard for me to spend 10-20 minutes preparing meals that dont even need refrigeration or cooking that I can easily carry with me and eat throughout the day. Especially considering that doing so would save me money. I'm so fucking lazy that I need the government to force private business to give me healthy fast food so that I can be healthy while being lazy... "

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi