Obama admin bans press from filming BP oil spill areas in the Gulf

All I know is I can't wait until 2012 because Obama is clearly and one termer.

Maybe now Mike Myers will go on a show and say "Obama doesnt care about black oil covered animals"

VendettaRed07

Good luck with that.

where are the anti war protesters? where is the outrage on increased drone strikes, continuation of the patriot act, assassination of Us citizens etc.

All I know is I can't wait until 2012 because Obama is clearly and one termer.

TheGreatOutdoor

why everyone h8ing on obama?

Wait... did Obama directly order this, or was it an action taken directly by the Coast Guard? Because if it's the latter then this topic is extremely misleading. And it looks like you only have to get permission from the captain of the New Orleans Coast Guard to get close...chessmaster1989

Cooper's report says, "The Coast Guard tried to make these exclusion zones 300 feet".

And in watching the report further, it actually contains the justification I was looking for from Adm. Allen:

"It's not unusual at all for the Coast Guard to establish new safety or security zones around any number of facilities or activities, for public safety, for the safety of the equipment itself - we've done this for marine events, fireworks demonstrations, ships going in and out of port."

Cooper further says,

"When asked why now, after all this time, Thad Allen said he'd gotten some complaints from local officials worried people might get hurt."

While questions still remain, it definitely sounds as though there are two sides to the story, and it also sounds as though this was not exactly an arbitrary executive order issued by Obama.

100% Politics. He's right, it'll be easier to hide mistakes. Luckily for the government, most of the Obama voters doesn't care anyway.supercubedude64

Coast Guard...

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Wait... did Obama directly order this, or was it an action taken directly by the Coast Guard? Because if it's the latter then this topic is extremely misleading. And it looks like you only have to get permission from the captain of the New Orleans Coast Guard to get close...GabuEx

Cooper's report says, "The Coast Guard tried to make these exclusion zones 300 feet".

And in watching the report further, it actually contains the justification I was looking for from Adm. Allen:

"It's not unusual at all for the Coast Guard to establish new safety or security zones around any number of facilities or activities, for public safety, for the safety of the equipment itself - we've done this for marine events, fireworks demonstrations, ships going in and out of port."

Cooper further says,

"When asked why now, after all this time, Thad Allen said he'd gotten some complaints from local officials worried people might get hurt."

While questions still remain, it definitely sounds as though there are two sides to the story, and it also sounds as though this was not exactly an arbitrary executive order issued by Obama.

In politics, facts are the least important thing.The mere though of Obama doing it is good enough.

I dont like the man's policies and would never vote for him, but its still sad.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Wait... did Obama directly order this, or was it an action taken directly by the Coast Guard? Because if it's the latter then this topic is extremely misleading. And it looks like you only have to get permission from the captain of the New Orleans Coast Guard to get close...GabuEx

Cooper's report says, "The Coast Guard tried to make these exclusion zones 300 feet".

And in watching the report further, it actually contains the justification I was looking for from Adm. Allen:

"It's not unusual at all for the Coast Guard to establish new safety or security zones around any number of facilities or activities, for public safety, for the safety of the equipment itself - we've done this for marine events, fireworks demonstrations, ships going in and out of port."

Cooper further says,

"When asked why now, after all this time, Thad Allen said he'd gotten some complaints from local officials worried people might get hurt."

While questions still remain, it definitely sounds as though there are two sides to the story, and it also sounds as though this was not exactly an arbitrary executive order issued by Obama.

Yes, I get the impression from the video that this is not a blatantly partisan move as so many people here are suggesting... especially since it was ordered by the Coast Guard and is not (apparently) an uncommon procedure...

[QUOTE="supercubedude64"]100% Politics. He's right, it'll be easier to hide mistakes. Luckily for the government, most of the Obama voters doesn't care anyway.IWKYB

Hes learning to be a better president :P

Hide it! People dont seem to care something that they cannot see.

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

What do you think he should do?

Silverbond

Not get political and thereby making people more suspicious and radicalizing opponents.

How does that solve the problem in the Gulf?

Cooper's report says, "The Coast Guard tried to make these exclusion zones 300 feet".

And in watching the report further, it actually contains the justification I was looking for from Adm. Allen:

"It's not unusual at all for the Coast Guard to establish new safety or security zones around any number of facilities or activities, for public safety, for the safety of the equipment itself - we've done this for marine events, fireworks demonstrations, ships going in and out of port."

Cooper further says,

"When asked why now, after all this time, Thad Allen said he'd gotten some complaints from local officials worried people might get hurt."

While questions still remain, it definitely sounds as though there are two sides to the story, and it also sounds as though this was not exactly an arbitrary executive order issued by Obama.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Wait... did Obama directly order this, or was it an action taken directly by the Coast Guard? Because if it's the latter then this topic is extremely misleading. And it looks like you only have to get permission from the captain of the New Orleans Coast Guard to get close...GabuEx

Cooper's report says, "The Coast Guard tried to make these exclusion zones 300 feet".

And in watching the report further, it actually contains the justification I was looking for from Adm. Allen:

"It's not unusual at all for the Coast Guard to establish new safety or security zones around any number of facilities or activities, for public safety, for the safety of the equipment itself - we've done this for marine events, fireworks demonstrations, ships going in and out of port."

Cooper further says,

"When asked why now, after all this time, Thad Allen said he'd gotten some complaints from local officials worried people might get hurt."

While questions still remain, it definitely sounds as though there are two sides to the story, and it also sounds as though this was not exactly an arbitrary executive order issued by Obama.

That takes care of the official statement, but I would not say either side is right until I see videos showing the average degree of difficulty when getting past security measures. Until then, the situation is still shady.

Ohh man, i guess at this point Obama is just giving up. The Tea party will eat this up and spin it so that Obama wiped his *** with the constitution. Which he did.

Should have just nuked the well after the 1st week.

Fizzman

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

Not get political and thereby making people more suspicious and radicalizing opponents.

TheGreatOutdoor

How does that solve the problem in the Gulf?

Coast Guard...

coolbeans90

Obama commander in chief....

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Coast Guard...

majwill24

Obama commander in chief....

People have already stated this is standard operating procedure..

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Coast Guard...

majwill24

Obama commander in chief....

People have gone over the President's head in the past...

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Coast Guard...

majwill24

Obama commander in chief....

majwill, please change the topic title, it is misleading. The Coast Guard took this action, it was not handed down directly by Obama. Not all actions by military branches are authorized directly by the president.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Cooper's report says, "The Coast Guard tried to make these exclusion zones 300 feet".

And in watching the report further, it actually contains the justification I was looking for from Adm. Allen:

"It's not unusual at all for the Coast Guard to establish new safety or security zones around any number of facilities or activities, for public safety, for the safety of the equipment itself - we've done this for marine events, fireworks demonstrations, ships going in and out of port."

Cooper further says,

"When asked why now, after all this time, Thad Allen said he'd gotten some complaints from local officials worried people might get hurt."

While questions still remain, it definitely sounds as though there are two sides to the story, and it also sounds as though this was not exactly an arbitrary executive order issued by Obama.

Ken_Masterz

just a nod and using the middle man as the scapegoat. Very juvenile and cliche, but its seem to be working well

[QUOTE="Ken_Masterz"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Cooper's report says, "The Coast Guard tried to make these exclusion zones 300 feet".

And in watching the report further, it actually contains the justification I was looking for from Adm. Allen:

"It's not unusual at all for the Coast Guard to establish new safety or security zones around any number of facilities or activities, for public safety, for the safety of the equipment itself - we've done this for marine events, fireworks demonstrations, ships going in and out of port."

Cooper further says,

"When asked why now, after all this time, Thad Allen said he'd gotten some complaints from local officials worried people might get hurt."

While questions still remain, it definitely sounds as though there are two sides to the story, and it also sounds as though this was not exactly an arbitrary executive order issued by Obama.

majwill24

just a nod and using the middle man as the scapegoat. Very juvenile and cliche, but its seem to be working well

Do you have some kind of evidence to suggest Obama or the administration are directly involved in this decision? If not, your speculation is worthless.

I can't imagine Obama would be that hands off in regards to this decision though. If that is the case I'm not sure which is worse. :?Ken_Masterz

Why would Obama directly intervene in and oversee routine security and safety procedures of the Coast Guard? That would be blatant micromanagement.

[QUOTE="TheGreatOutdoor"]

[QUOTE="dave123321"]Looks like they are getting closer to fixing it http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/12/bp-robots-assemble-undersea-oil-cap-gulf-coast-residents-watch-warily/chessmaster1989

Surely you jest. :P

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Coast Guard...

THE_DRUGGIE

Obama commander in chief....

People have gone over the President's head in the past...

When something that can make him look bad, the administration will jump all over it. This is proves helpful since their is a lack of coverage. Most of the media will be happy to comply because the oil spill was hurting obamas image

That's . . . bizarre. But how is this getting to GS 11 or 12 days after CNN reported it?scorch-62

CNN is part of the "liberal media" (anything on television that is not Fox News), after all.

why everyone h8ing on obama?

lVlonster_X

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

Obama commander in chief....

majwill24

People have gone over the President's head in the past...

When something that can make him look bad, the administration will jump all over it. This is proves helpful since their is a lack of coverage. Most of the media will be happy to comply because the oil spill was hurting obamas image

If he really wanted this situation to stop hurting his image, the press would be driven back much farther than 65 feet. Hell, they initially wanted 300 feet but scaled it down by more than half (as Anderson Cooper says in that video).

When something that can make him look bad, the administration will jump all over it. This is proves helpful since their is a lack of coverage. Most of the media will be happy to comply because the oil spill was hurting obamas imagemajwill24

[QUOTE="TheGreatOutdoor"]

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

How does that solve the problem in the Gulf?

IWKYB

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="TheGreatOutdoor"]I see you too watch the only news worth watching these days.

TheGreatOutdoor

Surely you jest. :P

No, as with MSNBC, Fox reports in a very noticeably biased manner and is not a good news source. CNN is a little better. If you want a good news show, watch The News Hour. Otherwise, read the news articles in The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times.

The OP left out what I think it is. BP wants to hide something.

Granted, it could really be for safety and it also could be to hide problems with the goverments role in the clean up. These options are completely possible. I just find it amazing how even the possiblity that BP is primarly the cluster f8Cker for some or most of this isnt even in your conciousness despite all the recient evidence of how various large company behaviors in the past 10 years.

SEANMCAD

Have you seen BP's approval rating? i think it was in the single digits last tiem i checked. They will be paying for this for a long time? Also BP trying to silence the media? Are you serious? that will hurt them even more and the hungry media would jump all over it

The person that was being hurt the most with the continued coverage was Obama, his numbers kept dropping with the intense coverage. something had to be done and this was it.

The person that was being hurt the most with the continued coverage was Obama, his never kept dropping with the intense coverage. something had to be done and this was it.

majwill24

If "his" is supposed to be "his approval", the only thing remarkable about his approval is how consistently unaffected it's been by these events.

[QUOTE="TheGreatOutdoor"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Surely you jest. :P

chessmaster1989

No, as with MSNBC, Fox reports in a very noticeably biased manner and is not a good news source. CNN is a little better. If you want a good news show, watch The News Hour. Otherwise, read the news articles in The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times.

[QUOTE="majwill24"]When something that can make him look bad, the administration will jump all over it. This is proves helpful since their is a lack of coverage. Most of the media will be happy to comply because the oil spill was hurting obamas imagescorch-62

Indeed.

I don't understand the purpose of this thread. The entire thing is a combination of a misrepresentation of what actually happened, piled on top of which is unsupported speculation about the Obama administration's role in the decision. And yet so many people are so quick to blame Obama when there's literally no evidence that he had any involvement.

:?

[QUOTE="majwill24"]When something that can make him look bad, the administration will jump all over it. This is proves helpful since their is a lack of coverage. Most of the media will be happy to comply because the oil spill was hurting obamas imagescorch-62

You have to be careful and not jump the gun. Doing a blackout from the start would have caused a massive outrage!

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="TheGreatOutdoor"]All the time, but not about this. Fox News is the only news worth watching if you actually want the truth. I am seriously surprised CNN reported on this. they like so many others normally want to cover everything up when it comes to Obama. That or simply not report on it at all.

TheGreatOutdoor

No, as with MSNBC, Fox reports in a very noticeably biased manner and is not a good news source. CNN is a little better. If you want a good news show, watch The News Hour. Otherwise, read the news articles in The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times.

Are you serious dude? You think that The News Hour, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times are bad sources of news but Fox News is not? This has got to be a joke. :lol:

[QUOTE="Ken_Masterz"]I can't imagine Obama would be that hands off in regards to this decision though. If that is the case I'm not sure which is worse. :?GabuEx

Why would Obama directly intervene in and oversee routine security and safety procedures of the Coast Guard? That would be blatant micromanagement.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="majwill24"]When something that can make him look bad, the administration will jump all over it. This is proves helpful since their is a lack of coverage. Most of the media will be happy to comply because the oil spill was hurting obamas imagemajwill24

You have to be careful and not jump the gun. Doing a blackout from the start would have caused a massive outrage!

Right, you have to give it 80 days so everyone knows exactly what's happening, and then you issue a media blackout, to ensure that no one knows what's happening.

Wait, what?

I don't agree with it, but I think some people are taking this too far. You don't hide something from the public at 65 feet. Even my crappy 2005 digital camera could zoom in from that far, if I can ever get it back from my mom.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Ken_Masterz"]I can't imagine Obama would be that hands off in regards to this decision though. If that is the case I'm not sure which is worse. :?Ken_Masterz

Why would Obama directly intervene in and oversee routine security and safety procedures of the Coast Guard? That would be blatant micromanagement.

Being "involved" does not equate to making every single decision. Allen made it sound as though the imposition of this boundary is very routine, and certainly not something that would fall under the banner of calls that a president would make. The president does not make every single decision at every single level of the federal government, nor should he, given that the entire point of having people under him is so he can delegate responsibility to other competent individuals. Any employee who has ever been micromanaged will tell you what they think about it.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Coast Guard...

majwill24

Obama commander in chief....

Not the direct decision maker of every single damned decision under his command/end of story.

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

[QUOTE="scorch-62"] Then, using your logic, he would've done this 80 or so days sooner.GabuEx

You have to be careful and not jump the gun. Doing a blackout from the start would have caused a massive outrage!

Right, you have to give it 80 days so everyone knows exactly what's happening, and then you issue a media blackout, to ensure that no one knows what's happening.

Wait, what?

Gabu, you forgot to switch to "Obama hate" mode, then it'll all start making sense. :P

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

[QUOTE="scorch-62"] Then, using your logic, he would've done this 80 or so days sooner.GabuEx

You have to be careful and not jump the gun. Doing a blackout from the start would have caused a massive outrage!

Right, you have to give it 80 days so everyone knows exactly what's happening, and then you issue a media blackout, to ensure that no one knows what's happening.

Wait, what?

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

[QUOTE="scorch-62"] Then, using your logic, he would've done this 80 or so days sooner.GabuEx

You have to be careful and not jump the gun. Doing a blackout from the start would have caused a massive outrage!

Right, you have to give it 80 days so everyone knows exactly what's happening, and then you issue a media blackout, to ensure that no one knows what's happening.

Wait, what?

More like the situation became so toxic for Obamas image a course of action had to be taken to stop the bleeding. A reactive action