[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

Admit I'm right on this and try to regain a tiny amount of dignity.

[snarg]

Holy shit. Its a direct quote from the office of the Secretary of State. What the fuck spin shit do you listen to that you think its from Sarah fucking Palin?

there were actually reasons given,too
that is true as far as it goes, but there is more to the story

look it up yourself, you guys both have holes in the argument, so what??
tweety, you missed one right down the middle of the plate

[BIRD33]

Holy shit. Its a direct quote from the office of the Secretary of State. What the fuck spin shit do you listen to that you think its from Sarah fucking Palin?

Link to that?Sure it wasnt Fox and Friends?God I hope it was.

See below why I mentioned Sarah Palin.You're as misinformed as she is.Good thing is you're not the odds on favorite to be the GOP nomination for president in 2012.

http://factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-f...jones-act/

Q: Did Obama turn down foreign offers of assistance in cleaning up the Gulf oil spill? Did he refuse to waive Jones Act restrictions on foreign-flag vessels?

A: No to both questions. So far, five offers have been accepted and only one offer has been rejected. Fifteen foreign-flag vessels are working on the cleanup, and none required a waiver.

FULL QUESTION

Is it true that Obama blocked foreign help with cleaning up the Gulf oil spill because he refused to waive the Jones Act, which requires all boats to be American made and crewed by Americans to work in U.S. waters, even though it has been routinely waived for similar events?

FULL ANSWER

We’ve received several questions about the federal government’s response to the oil spill. This one claims that a provision of the Merchant Marine Act, called the Jones Act, has prohibited foreign vessels from entering U.S. waters and assisting in the cleanup.

Some critics have charged — falsely — that Obama’s refusal to waive the Jones Act has kept foreign vessels from assisting in cleanup efforts. In a June 23 interview on "Fox & Friends," Republican Rep. Charles Djou of Hawaii was asked by show host Gretchen Carlson about the Jones Act and why the administration was refusing foreign assistance. Djou answered:

Djou, June 23: It’s important that we take help from whomever and wherever they’re willing to offer it. … So why are we not waiving the Jones Act to allow international help to come in? … Why we’re not waiving it here … is baffling.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, both Republicans, have also claimed that the Jones Act, which was temporarily lifted by President Bush after Hurricane Katrina, is now standing in the way of foreign vessels bringing assistance to the United States. They are both incorrect. Palin stated this in an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren:

Palin, June 11: For one, there needs to be a waiving of the Jones Act so that we could have had many, many days ago, weeks ago, some help with skimmers from elsewhere, besides just U.S. flagships, come over and help in this tragedy. And that order needs to be given to [Coast Guard] Admiral [Thad] Allen right now. It’s amazing to me and to so many others that though President Bush had been able to waive Jones Act provisions for Katrina, President Obama hasn’t thought to do that yet? And yet surely, that has been suggested by those experts around him.

In reality, the Jones Act has yet to be an issue in the response efforts. The Deepwater Horizon response team reported in a June 15 press release that there are 15 foreign flagged ships currently participating in the oil spill cleanup. None of them needed a waiver because the Jones Act does not apply. The Jones Act is a trade and commerce law that was enacted in 1920 as part of a larger Marine Merchant Act. It requires all trade delivered between U.S. ports to be carried in U.S. flagged vessels constructed in the United States and owned by American citizens. The law states its purpose is to develop a merchant marine for national defense and commerce.

Why was the Jones Act waived as part of the Hurricane Katrina response, and why hasn’t it been waived now? Katrina inflicted massive infrastructure damage, which restricted the availability of key resources. According to the Deepwater Horizon response team: "A Jones Act waiver was granted during Hurricane Katrina due to the significant disruption in the production and transportation of petroleum and/or refined petroleum products in the region during that emergency and the impact this had on national defense." The Deepwater Horizon spill has yet to affect infrastructure or oil and gas availability; the damage is environmental, and foreign vessels are approved for delivering resources and conducting offshore skimming. Although the Jones Act is currently not applicable, the federal government has taken steps to expedite the waiver process should the oil spill response require a Jones Act waiver for trade and commerce.

Also, contrary to reports such as the one on "Fox & Friends," international assistance has been accepted. To date, 25 countries and four international organizations have offered support in the form of skimming vessels, containment and fire boom, technical assistance and response solutions, among others. A chart provided by the State Department shows that as of June 23 five offers had been accepted and 50 were under consideration — including multiple offers from a single country or entity. One offer had been declined: France offered a chemical dispersant that is not approved for use in the United States. President Barack Obama described this process in his May 27 press conference:

Obama, May 27: The job of our response team is to say, okay, if 17 countries have offered equipment and help, let’s evaluate what they’ve offered: How fast can it get here? Is it actually going to be redundant, or will it actually add to the overall effort — because in some cases, more may not actually be better. And decisions have been made based on the best information available that says here’s what we need right now. It may be that a week from now or two weeks from now or a month from now the offers from some of those countries might be more effectively utilized.

Each offer must be compliant not only with the needs outlined by the Unified Command, but also with U.S. safety regulations. The Unified Command provided us with this statement and information:

Unified Command, June 22: Those offers of international assistance that were not accepted, while greatly appreciated, did not meet the operational requirements of the Unified Command. These offers have not been declined because they may be needed in the future as response strategies change. Some challenges in accepting these offers included:

Equipment failed to meet US requirements/specifications (i.e. dispersant not on approved list/containment boom made of non-approved material)
Contingencies placed on the offers proved logistically impracticable when compared to other sources.
In one instance, the offering country’s export laws prohibited delivery of the assistance
Contingencies placed on the offers made it difficult for the Unified Command to meet the contingency
Also, all offers, except for a few, come with a serious price tag. The Associated Press compared these offers with recent aid that the U.S. gave to some of these countries. The AP reported:

Associated Press, June 18: U.S. disaster aid is almost always free of charge; other nations expect the U.S. to pay for help.

"These offers are not typically offers of aid," said Lt. Erik Halvorson, a Coast Guard spokesman. "Normally, they are offers to sell resources to BP or the U.S. government."

Reports claiming that the federal government has refused help are not only incorrect — foreign assistance has been utilized — but are also misleading: purchasing resources and expertise is vastly different from accepting "foreign aid."






Wow.What a total debunking of what you thought.That was fun.

[BIRD33]

there were actually reasons given,too
that is true as far as it goes, but there is more to the story

look it up yourself, you guys both have holes in the argument, so what??
tweety, you missed one right down the middle of the plate

What you and Flumper mentioned with the Secretary of state office was not true.So what were you saying again?

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

there were actually reasons given,too
that is true as far as it goes, but there is more to the story

look it up yourself, you guys both have holes in the argument, so what??
tweety, you missed one right down the middle of the plate

no, snarg there are no holes in it. The Secretary of State has received over 21 offers to help from other countries and organizations. They didn't go into specifics on what those offers were. Some were equipment, some were technical knowhow. But each offer was passed on to the Coast Guard and BP and only two were used so far.

What fucking hole is there in my argument? I just stated that he could have accepted help from other nations. That he could have built some type of coalition with other nations. And he hasn't. Then dumbass33 claims its some spin thing created by Sarah Palin.

[snarg]

"Reports claiming that the federal government has refused help are not only incorrect — foreign assistance has been utilized — but are also misleading: purchasing resources and expertise is vastly different from accepting "foreign aid."

there is also more to this story

[BIRD33]

"Reports claiming that the federal government has refused help are not only incorrect — foreign assistance has been utilized — but are also misleading: purchasing resources and expertise is vastly different from accepting "foreign aid."

there is also more to this story

Depending on what the "story" is.Flumper and I were debating the US turning down help.Obviously not true.

[BIRD33]

no, snarg there are no holes in it. The Secretary of State has received over 21 offers to help from other countries and organizations. They didn't go into specifics on what those offers were. Some were equipment, some were technical knowhow. But each offer was passed on to the Coast Guard and BP and only two were used so far.

What fucking hole is there in my argument? I just stated that he could have accepted help from other nations. That he could have built some type of coalition with other nations. And he hasn't. Then dumbass33 claims its some spin thing created by Sarah Palin.

Hi.I've already refuted the above.Link(crazy I know) if you missed it.

http://factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-f...jones-act/

[snarg]

no, snarg there are no holes in it. The Secretary of State has received over 21 offers to help from other countries and organizations. They didn't go into specifics on what those offers were. Some were equipment, some were technical knowhow. But each offer was passed on to the Coast Guard and BP and only two were used so far.

What fucking hole is there in my argument? I just stated that he could have accepted help from other nations. That he could have built some type of coalition with other nations. And he hasn't. Then dumbass33 claims its some spin thing created by Sarah Palin.

you're both dumbasses, but that's beside the point
they did explain in detail each offer and why they were accepted and rejected
the fact is, they accepted and rejected "aid"

[snarg]

Depending on what the "story" is.Flumper and I were debating the US turning down help.Obviously not true.

you are fucking blind and can't see things with which you don't agree
that's why i never bother

[BIRD33]

you're both dumbasses, but that's beside the point
they did explain in detail each offer and why they were accepted and rejected
the fact is, they accepted and rejected "aid"

I believe my link mentioned how they rejected the French's offer due to chemicals they use that would worsen the environmental impact.God damn you Obama!

[BIRD33]

you are fucking blind and can't see things with which you don't agree
that's why i never bother

If only you never bothered.Seriously thats funny.Anyway all I'm saying is we havent turned down help.

[snarg]

If only you never bothered.Seriously thats funny.Anyway all I'm saying is we havent turned down help.

you yourself quoted that we turned down help and the reasons why
over and out

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

Link to that?Sure it wasnt Fox and Friends?God I hope it was.

Goddamn you are a dumbass.

If you can figure out how, speed it up to around 15:15

[youtube]GbChl1rutfM[/youtube]


Here's the text.

QUESTION: Another topic, please? So much attention today on the oil spill. Can you bring us up to date on international offers of assistance?

MR. CROWLEY: We have received 17 officers – offers of assistance from countries, and we’ve received other offers of assistance from international organizations – the European Union – including the European Maritime Safety Agency, the environmental unit of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the United Nations Environment Program and the International Maritime Organization.

So there – as I understand it, the – something called the Unified Area Command, led by the Coast Guard, it makes the decisions on international support. My understanding is that two offers of assistance have been accepted thus far – I believe it’s Mexico and Norway. Those offers were actually accepted by BP as part of this Unified Area Command. But we also are working internationally. I think there’s assistance flowing in through private as well as public sources, so this is something that we continue to evaluate. But I would defer probably to the Coast Guard in terms of explaining the process.

QUESTION: But is the State Department being approached both by governments and corporations?

MR. CROWLEY: Our role is to accept offers by countries and international organizations, and then pass those offers of assistance through channels to this United Area Command[2]. The UAC is actually the entity that makes the decisions based on evaluating what’s being offered and what the immediate needs are. As I understand it, some of the early acceptance involved booms to try to contain the spread of oil away from the rig. But beyond that, these decisions are being made down in Louisiana.

QUESTION: Just one more follow-up. There does seem to be a disconnect, though, with some governors calling for more booms, for instance, and the refusal to accept some of these generous international offers of --

MR. CROWLEY: Sure. And let me be clear, we are grateful for the assistance that we have been offered internationally. It is something that we evaluate every day. But again, I would defer to others, particularly the Coast Guard, to go through where they are in the process of evaluating particular offers.

QUESTION: You haven’t shut the door?

MR. CROWLEY: Pardon me?

QUESTION: You haven’t shut the door?

MR. CROWLEY: Oh, no, not at all. Not at all. I mean, clearly, this remains a significant and formidable challenge for everybody.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

What you and Flumper mentioned with the Secretary of state office was not true.So what were you saying again?

You can apologize to me at any time.

[BIRD33]

Goddamn you are a dumbass.

If you can figure out how, speed it up to around 15:15

[youtube]GbChl1rutfM[/youtube]


Here's the text.

QUESTION: Another topic, please? So much attention today on the oil spill. Can you bring us up to date on international offers of assistance?

MR. CROWLEY: We have received 17 officers – offers of assistance from countries, and we’ve received other offers of assistance from international organizations – the European Union – including the European Maritime Safety Agency, the environmental unit of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the United Nations Environment Program and the International Maritime Organization.

So there – as I understand it, the – something called the Unified Area Command, led by the Coast Guard, it makes the decisions on international support. My understanding is that two offers of assistance have been accepted thus far – I believe it’s Mexico and Norway. Those offers were actually accepted by BP as part of this Unified Area Command. But we also are working internationally. I think there’s assistance flowing in through private as well as public sources, so this is something that we continue to evaluate. But I would defer probably to the Coast Guard in terms of explaining the process.

QUESTION: But is the State Department being approached both by governments and corporations?

MR. CROWLEY: Our role is to accept offers by countries and international organizations, and then pass those offers of assistance through channels to this United Area Command[2]. The UAC is actually the entity that makes the decisions based on evaluating what’s being offered and what the immediate needs are. As I understand it, some of the early acceptance involved booms to try to contain the spread of oil away from the rig. But beyond that, these decisions are being made down in Louisiana.

QUESTION: Just one more follow-up. There does seem to be a disconnect, though, with some governors calling for more booms, for instance, and the refusal to accept some of these generous international offers of --

MR. CROWLEY: Sure. And let me be clear, we are grateful for the assistance that we have been offered internationally. It is something that we evaluate every day. But again, I would defer to others, particularly the Coast Guard, to go through where they are in the process of evaluating particular offers.

QUESTION: You haven’t shut the door?

MR. CROWLEY: Pardon me?

QUESTION: You haven’t shut the door?

MR. CROWLEY: Oh, no, not at all. Not at all. I mean, clearly, this remains a significant and formidable challenge for everybody.

This is one of those up is down arguments.I bolded the part where he said we accepted help.

[BIRD33]

you yourself quoted that we turned down help and the reasons why
over and out

I think you know you're being a little intellectually dishonest and you know what I've been saying.Whatever.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

This is one of those up is down arguments.I bolded the part where he said we accepted help.

Which is EXACTLY what I said in my first post regarding this. I said we have recieved 20+ offers and so far only accepted 2 of them. My exact words. Then you tell me I'm quoting Sara Palin? Holy shit.

I'm waiting on your apology.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

Do you want one example of something that he should have done ...

How about not only his refusal to accept the dozens of offers of help from nations around the world, but his failure to put together a coalition of nations to help protect our shores. I think an easier question to pose and to answer would be "what the fuck is he doing"

Part I bolded is a Sarah Palin line and has been proven to be false..

I haven't heard or read a word that Sarah Palin has said in over a year. I generally get my news from the news or the news paper.

ABC News' Luis Martinez reports:

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said

What newspaper or news outlet.Will you print the retraction they must have posted

abc news. dumbass.

Link to that?

speed it up to around 15:15

[youtube]GbChl1rutfM[/youtube]

Apology please.

[BIRD33]

Which is EXACTLY what I said in my first post regarding this. I said we have recieved 20+ offers and so far only accepted 2 of them. My exact words. Then you tell me I'm quoting Sara Palin? Holy shit.

I'm waiting on your apology.

If the offers would have done more harm then good they werent accepted.Thats not us turning down help.Help that does harm is not help.Also we've accepted 5 which is not what you claimed.


Also, contrary to reports such as the one on "Fox & Friends," international assistance has been accepted. To date, 25 countries and four international organizations have offered support in the form of skimming vessels, containment and fire boom, technical assistance and response solutions, among others. A chart provided by the State Department shows that as of June 23 five offers had been accepted and 50 were under consideration — including multiple offers from a single country or entity. One offer had been declined: France offered a chemical dispersant that is not approved for use in the United States. President Barack Obama described this process in his May 27 press conference:

Obama, May 27: The job of our response team is to say, okay, if 17 countries have offered equipment and help, let’s evaluate what they’ve offered: How fast can it get here? Is it actually going to be redundant, or will it actually add to the overall effort — because in some cases, more may not actually be better. And decisions have been made based on the best information available that says here’s what we need right now. It may be that a week from now or two weeks from now or a month from now the offers from some of those countries might be more effectively utilized.

Each offer must be compliant not only with the needs outlined by the Unified Command, but also with U.S. safety regulations. The Unified Command provided us with this statement and information:

Unified Command, June 22: Those offers of international assistance that were not accepted, while greatly appreciated, did not meet the operational requirements of the Unified Command. These offers have not been declined because they may be needed in the future as response strategies change. Some challenges in accepting these offers included: