Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Earth Politics

White House Edited Oil Drilling Safety Report 368

Posted by timothy
from the first-time-for-everything dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Edited Oil Drilling Safety Report

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 11, 2010 @05:36PM (#34201736)

    Nothing really ever changes.

  • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @05:37PM (#34201744) Homepage
    Politicians screw things up again, confuse issues, try to get a certain spin on things!

    EXTRA! EXTRA! Read All About it!
  • by Vinegar Joe (998110) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @05:38PM (#34201752)

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

    Never mind.

  • by dhall (1252) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @05:43PM (#34201800)

    Meet the new boss
    Same as the old boss

    Cue CSI: Miami intro?

  • by Aquitaine (102097) <samNO@SPAMiamsam.org> on Thursday November 11, 2010 @05:51PM (#34201872) Homepage

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

  • Re:Where's Kanye? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hedwards (940851) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @06:04PM (#34201998)
    Except that Kanye was actually onto something for once. The Bush administration didn't take hurricane Katrina seriously, and previous administrations hadn't taken the levee situation seriously. But ultimately, Bush failed to provide the sort of leadership during that which was necessary.

    As opposed to the gulf spill during which there was little that any sitting President could do, as virtually all the experts on offshore drilling work for oil companies. But, I'm sure that you'd be perfectly fine with President Obama ordering around private sector entities which aren't employed by the government, right?
  • by Feyshtey (1523799) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @06:08PM (#34202038)
    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.
  • Intern (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @06:15PM (#34202082) Homepage Journal
    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!
  • by Revvy (617529) * on Thursday November 11, 2010 @06:16PM (#34202090) Homepage
    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?
  • by blair1q (305137) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @06:18PM (#34202106) Journal

    You just issued it.

  • by Danse (1026) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @06:18PM (#34202110)

    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.

    Not forgivable, no. But certainly not a reason to elect the bigger crooks and liars again either, which is what tends to happen. Until we have fundamental reforms to our election system, it will continue to happen. We'll keep bouncing from one set of crooks to another. Unfortunately, the ones who have to make those reforms are the ones that benefit the most from the status quo.

  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @06:20PM (#34202128) Journal

    >>>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.

  • by Feyshtey (1523799) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @06:23PM (#34202150)
    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.
  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @06:28PM (#34202196) Journal

    >>>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.

  • Re:Where's Kanye? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @06:32PM (#34202220) Journal

    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.

  • Re:Where's Kanye? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chibi Merrow (226057) <mrmerrow@monkeyinfinity . n et> on Thursday November 11, 2010 @06:36PM (#34202250) Homepage Journal

    Except there was nothing a sitting president could do about utter incompetence and corruption of local officials during a natural disaster, as virtually all disaster response resources are not controlled by the federal government and Federal powers are extremely limited in that regard. But I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine with President Bush suspending posse comitatus and unseating state and local government officials, right?

  • by Dunbal (464142) * on Thursday November 11, 2010 @06:38PM (#34202266)

    Yeah, just like sports fans. Or religious zealots. Wait a second, could there possibly be a connection?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 11, 2010 @06:45PM (#34202328)

    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.

  • by master0ne (655374) <emberingdeadN05P4M@@@gmail...com> on Thursday November 11, 2010 @07:07PM (#34202516)

    >>>Ultimately it was, but mostly because it's inevitably going to be a political decision when there's a large number of powerful politicians pushing for the other option.

    The only reason that there was an oil rig out there in the first place was a matter of politics. Had we pushed for alternative energy in the 70s and not lost focus that oil rig wouldn't have been in such a risky locale.

    That implies we could have developed better more efficient means than we currently have, possibly solar that uses more of the spectrum, or more portable options that could replace gas/diesel fuels. Your assumption that we would still be at the current level of R&D is flawed.

  • Re:Surprised by /. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @07:09PM (#34202542)

    Communists and Corporatists are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. You need to start taking your meds.

  • by CannonballHead (842625) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @07:14PM (#34202570)

    Ah, but you see, Bush was president while most of that happened. Therefore it is his fault. [please disregard "Congress" majorities when complaining about politicial parties, kthxbye]

    ;)

  • by tizan (925212) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @07:23PM (#34202632)

    I am sure majority of American voters (of the time) would have opposed civil rights law or abolishing slavery or vote/equality for women.
    That is why referendum on every major decision is a bad idea.
    You vote for what you think is the best leaders and let them make decision popular or unpopular and kick them out if you want
    later...i think that is better than making decision by popular acceptance which would mean daily electioneering already its terrible every 2 years.

    Run for power if you think you'd do a better job than is being done. But the question is: ow come every libertarian or small govt person that gets into power morphs into yet another protect wall street person ? Is Wall St the center of liberterianism ?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 11, 2010 @07:36PM (#34202702)

    Thus reveals the illusion of choice. Two different colored vehicles with different music driving to the same place. Dont like the music or the color of the one? Get on the other! Hey, it's YOUR choice!! YOU have a voice!!! the third option is to drive in a circle and accomplish nothing. Welcome to america, land of the predetermined outcome. Grade school -> college -> job or more school + family = success. ...The only way to win is not to play...How 'bout a nice game of chess?

  • by RightwingNutjob (1302813) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @08:00PM (#34202840)
    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.
  • by CheshireCatCO (185193) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @08:05PM (#34202866) Homepage

    '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.)

  • by selven (1556643) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @08:06PM (#34202874)

    Preventing a depression? All I see is delaying.

  • by gujo-odori (473191) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @08:12PM (#34202900)

    Absolutely. I'm a Tea Partier, more or less, but one who believes we are wasting our time with the GOP. It can't be salvaged. We're better off making a fresh start with a new party and forming alliances with other fiscally conservative individuals or groups. I don't mind if they are socially liberal or whatever; sound economic policy and maximum liberty are what matter.

  • by kimvette (919543) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @08:33PM (#34203016) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 11, 2010 @09:11PM (#34203216)

    This time it wasn't the white house changing reports in support of industry.

    Are you sure?

    In general, reducing the supply of something increases prices. Now who do you suppose wants higher oil prices?

  • by Totenglocke (1291680) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @09:21PM (#34203290)

    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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 11, 2010 @09:40PM (#34203396)

    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.

  • by Foolicious (895952) on Thursday November 11, 2010 @10:36PM (#34203740)
    If I had a quarter for every time some guy unnecessarily kissed Ron (and now Rand) Paul's fiscally-self-satisfied ass on Slashdot, we wouldn't need fiscally conservative politicians because I could just pay for everything the country needs out of my quarter-for-every-time-someone-kissed-Ron-Paul's-ass-fund. I could be the nanny state you've always dreamed of. And all because of your figurative leg humping of the Paul family. Vote for Paul!
  • Re:Wait a minute! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Seraphim_72 (622457) on Friday November 12, 2010 @12:37AM (#34204242)

    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.

  • by dbIII (701233) on Friday November 12, 2010 @01:37AM (#34204442)

    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!

  • by Tom (822) on Friday November 12, 2010 @02:43AM (#34204622) Homepage Journal

    Which is why places like Schleswig-Holstein [wikipedia.org], 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.

  • by Mindcontrolled (1388007) on Friday November 12, 2010 @05:47AM (#34205168)
    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.
  • by Feyshtey (1523799) on Friday November 12, 2010 @08:39AM (#34205964)

    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... "

Everyone can be taught to sculpt: Michelangelo would have had to be taught how not to. So it is with the great programmers.

Working...