Dear Reader,

This is Part 1 of the July 30, 2010 Emperor's Clothes Newsletter.
You should receive Parts 2 and 3 within a day.

Please make sure emperorsclot...@tenc.net is in your address book
to guarantee you receive future Newsletters.

To donate to Emperor's Clothes or to subscribe to the Newsletter,
please go to the end of this email. Thank you!

Best regards, TENC

=============================================

The reporters demanded: 'Why doesn't the government remove BP from
control?'

The Great White House Press Corps Semi-Rebellion

Research and commentary by Jared Israel Legal research and editing
by Samantha Criscione

* Introduction

* Excerpt from transcript of May 21, 2010 White House Press Briefing
dealing with BP and the Gulf

* Comments by Jared Israel, indented in blue font, throughout the
Press Briefing transcript

=============================================

Introduction

Apparently feeling some of the same anger and dismay as most everyone
else, at the White House press briefing on May 21, 2010 the press
corps semi-rebelled.

"Semi" because, although they rose up against Obama's policy of
putting BP in charge of the Gulf disaster response, their rebellion
did not last.  Nevertheless it was stunning.  The Washington press
corps, comprised of leading reporters from leading media, may be
the least likely group of rebels in the modern world; perhaps in
the ancient world as well. They depend on the good will of the
administration in power. White House press briefings are like formal
dances; if not always choreographed, they certainly sometimes are,
and they are always demanding of protocol: one step forward, one
step back, never step out of line and don't step on the press
secretary's delicate toes.

Not so on May 21.

The press corps rebellion did not go unreported, but it was downplayed
and misrepresented, as in the following excerpt from Fox News :

[Excerpt from "Gibbs Cracks Whip" begins here]

The tension may be reaching new heights. CBS correspondent Chip
Reid revealed on air Friday that White House officials called
reporters into the West Wing on Friday to scold them for asking too
many questions about the Gulf of Mexico spill. One report identified
[White House press secretary] Gibbs as the one doing the scolding.

The dressing-down came after the press secretary faced a barrage
of questions about why the administration wasn't doing more to
ensure the leak is plugged and mitigate the environmental damage
to the coastline.

[My emphasis -- J.I.]

-- "Gibbs Cracks Whip as Administration Faces New Criticism" [1]

[Excerpt from "Gibbs Cracks Whip" ends here]

Regarding the first paragraph, not only did Gibbs try to silence
reporters by calling them to the White House, as if they were
ambassadors from an offending state, but Chip Reid from CBS publicly
exposed this act of attempted repression. So an intense struggle.

Regarding the second paragraph, it is striking that this description
of what happened at the press briefing is from Fox, which is
supposedly Obama's Enemy #1. Striking because press secretary Robert
Gibbs would have found the briefing a lot less nerve racking if,
as Fox claims, reporters had only asked "why the administration
wasn't doing more." In fact the reason Gibbs called reporters into
the West Wing and read them the riot act was that, as you will see
from the transcript, the reporters had demanded to know something
very different: why the administration put BP's managers in charge
of the disaster response and keeps them there. And Gibbs wanted the
reporters to drop the issue.

This is quite unusual. I have never heard of the White House openly
calling reporters in to reprimand them for asking a question in a
press briefing, which is after all their job. I am  not saying the
White House doesn't ever bring pressure to bear on reporters, but
this open show of repressive power is remarkable.  It means that
keeping BP in charge of the ongoing disaster and not having this
questioned is extremely important to the Obama administration. Which
of course raises the question: why?

The government's reaction became even more striking during the
following week.  Apparently the intensity and persistence of the
reporters at the briefing -- repeatedly demanding to know why BP
was in charge of oil removal, cleanup, drilling a relief well, the
always-about-to-work cappings, and whether to use dispersant, and
if so, how much and which and where -- and Gibbs' inability to
justify BP being in charge (and his nervousness about sticking his
neck out by lying, as we shall see), convinced the Obama administration
that action was urgently needed, and there followed an onslaught
unique in this administration's history.

In the following week, three heavyweights -- top Obama advisor David
Axelrod, National Incident Coordinator Thad Allen, and President
Obama himself -- did aggressively what press secretary Gibbs had
done half-heartedly: argued that the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
required that the federal government put BP in operational control
of the disaster response, with the government limited to oversight.

This heavyweight attack, plus direct pressure on reporters from the
Obama administration, and, I would imagine, from the reporters'
employers, seems to have silenced the semi-rebellion, at least for
now.

But in claiming that BP's current role was required by federal law,
Obama, Axelrod and Allen lied, as I prove below.

Why would the Obama administration lie about federal laws that can
easily be found and read on the Internet, just for the sake of
keeping BP -- which ordinary people despise -- in charge?

By lying, these men took an extreme risk. In a matter of hours, any
researcher can read the Oil Pollution Act [2] and the associated
Clean Water Act [3] , and thus discover that the claim that the law
requires BP to oversee all parts of the disaster response, with the
federal government limited to oversight, is a fabrication. Not a
questionable interpretation, but a pure fabrication.

Obama has made this false description of federal pollution law the
basis of his Gulf policy. Surely leading Republican congressmen and
senators know the contents of the law. For the past two months they
could have exposed  Obama's Gulf policy as based on a lie, thereby
doing the Democrats serious damage in a midterm election year. But
they have not.

In effect if not by agreement, Democratic and Republican leaders
are acting in concert to misrepresent federal law.

Why?

The obvious explanation is that, for its own reasons (discussed
below), BP has wanted to control the disaster response, and leading
politicians in both parties have needed to give BP what it wants,
either because a) BP has a hold on these people (perhaps financial),
or b) because oil giants other than BP want to establish the precedent
that when an oil disaster occurs, the perpetrating oil company is
allowed to take charge of the response, thus framing the disaster
as an unfortunate accident, rather than being barred from participation,
which would frame said disaster as a criminal act. And so the
industry is using its immense influence to make sure BP is kept in
charge.

Perhaps both a) and b) are true, or perhaps there is some other or
additional explanation. Before we can profitably speculate, we must
get clear on some questions of fact, one of which is: what happened
at this press briefing to cause the White House to call reporters
in for a dressing down, and then to send three key figures -- the
President, his most powerful advisor, and the Gulf Incident Commander
-- to lie to the public about federal law?

During the press briefing, secretary Gibbs and reporters sometimes
discuss issues other than BP and the Gulf. In the transcript of the
press briefing, posted below, I have deleted those discussions
(which comprise about half the text), with notes indicating the
location of the deletions. Other than that, every word dealing with
BP and the Gulf has been kept, just as in the original.

All notes and comments in brackets are mine.

-- Jared Israel Emperor's Clothes

=================================================

Transcript of questions and answers about BP and the Gulf, White
House Press Briefing, May 21, 2010

With comments by Jared Israel

=================================================

The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release
May 21, 2010 12:57 P.M. EDT Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert
Gibbs, 5/21/10 James S. Brady Press Briefing Room Full text at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/...robert-gibbs-52110<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/press-briefing-press-secre...>

[I have deleted the beginning of the transcript, in which White
House Press Secretary Gibbs discusses Obama's schedule for the next
week and answers miscellaneous questions.

Reporters are identified in the transcript only as "Q" for "question."
However, in the briefing Gibbs sometimes addresses reporters by
name; I have highlighted those names in red the first time they
appear in each exchange. The number of different names, and the way
reporters return to their own arguments and pick up and press
arguments made by their colleagues (both of which are good ways to
get Gibbs to stop calling on them), indicate the depth of the
rebellion of this highly tamed group, apparently so distressed that
the southeastern U.S. is being destroyed that they discover, to
their surprise, that they are vertebrates after all.

All comments in brackets and emphasis are mine. -- J.I.]

Q So on BP, the President referred to it today as a disaster, a
disaster in the Gulf. And I'm wondering if -- well, I guess if you
could explain why the federal government isn't treating it like it
would treat a normal disaster, where you should have come in and
take charge. I know you have the expertise at BP's level and the
other companies, but why isn't the federal government sort of taking
over this operation?

MR. GIBBS: I think we've gone through this question. We went through
this question yesterday. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, for reasons
that were obvious in 1990, put the liability and the responsibility
for recovery and cleanup with the company rather than with the
taxpayers. That's why--

Q No, I'm not asking a financial question. I'm asking a management
question.

[Apparently this reporter -- Gibbs later identifies her as "Jennifer"
-- has read the Oil Pollution Act or has heard that while it makes
polluters like BP financially responsible for the discharge of oil
and other hazardous substances, with the possibility of immense
fines being levied on individual BP managers (BP managers could be
personally fined as much as $3000 for every barrel of polluting
oil, with equivalent charges for other pollutants, e.g. methane
gas!), it does not state that BP must or even should be involved
in cleanup or any other aspect of disaster response, let alone be
in charge.  The law only requires that they pay the bills and do
as they are told.

Jennifer is at first confused by Gibbs' nonsensical explanation,
then stunned. Sensing the mood in the room, Gibbs realizes he is
on thin ice and tries to reassert authority and drown the issue in
verbiage by pompously and rather ludicrously listing government
agencies and their functions, as if he were teaching an elementary
civics class. -- J.I.]

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no -- no, no, but the management question is a
financial question. Understand --

Q How?

MR. GIBBS: Because they're responsible for the cleanup and they
have to pay for it. They're not two separate questions. So it is
--

Q There's no legal way to sort of separate that out and say, we
send the federal disaster experts --

MR. GIBBS: Again, the Oil Pollution Act -- let's be clear -- I've
tried to explain this many times. They are responsible for, and we
are overseeing that response. That includes -- as I discussed
yesterday, there are many different departments and agencies that
are involved here. The Department of Interior and what used to be
the Minerals Management Service is in charge of regulation and
drilling issues. NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]
deals with a series of issues including water sampling, detection
of oil inside the water. The Department of Homeland Security is
where the Coast Guard is housed. The Coast Guard obviously was on
the scene right after the original explosion, and Thad Allen, the
head of the Coast Guard, is the National Incident Coordinator. The
Environmental Protection Agency does air and water quality testing.
And once oil hits land, they have purview over that.

Q I just want to be clear that I understand what you're saying,
that you're legally not allowed to take sort of command and control
of the whole situation.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, again, we're -- Jennifer, they are responsible
for and we are overseeing the recovery response. I will add that
SBA [Small Business Administration] is also in the area dealing
with disasters for fishermen because NOAA has closed 19 percent of
the Gulf for fishing. And SBA is there to provide low-interest loans
for people that have had economic damages as a result of that
disaster.

But understand, Jennifer, as I've -- I think I've also said on a
number of occasions, the technical expertise to clean up and deal
with the equipment that is 5,000 feet below the surface of the sea,
that's equipment that BP has; that's the equipment that other oil
companies have. That is not based on equipment that the federal
government has in storage.

[Notice that the flustered Mr. Gibbs has just stuck foot in mouth.
Having retreated to the argument that BP is needed for technical
reasons, he talks too much, saying, "that's equipment that BP has;
that's the equipment that other oil companies have." Aahh.  Since
other oil companies have the equipment and would be perfectly willing
to work for the Feds (at BP's expense!), could you tell me again
why the government needs BP?

In fact, according to BP, BP relies on subcontractors for 90% of
drilling work [4]. BP's main function in drilling wells is to direct
the work of these subcontractors, which, as documented in the letter
Congressmen Waxman and Stupak sent to BP CEO Tony Hayward, means
forcing them to a) work so fast that they can't possibly do things
right (because time costs money) and b) violate workplace and process
safety laws (because safe procedures cost money).  As Waxman and
Stupak wrote, even though BP itself saw Macondo (or Deepwater
Horizon) as a "nightmare well" nevertheless:

"BP appears to have made multiple decisions for economic reasons
that increased the danger of a catastrophic well failure." [5]

So the government needs BP because BP managers have the technical
know-how, which consists of taking insane risks as long as said
risks might benefit BP, and sure this may produce further disasters
but don't worry because everything is being overseen by the government,
which relies entirely on BP's know-how, which caused the well to
blow up in the first place.

Right. Gotcha. Makes sense to me. -- J.I.]

Q I understand, I'll let this go because I'm using up my time.
That's not really the question I was asking, is whether you're
physically doing the work. I'm asking why you don't take control
of the whole operation.

MR. GIBBS: Again, maybe I'm just not being -- over the course of
several weeks have not been clear on this. It is their responsibility.
They have the legal responsibility and the technical expertise to
plug the hole. Obviously Secretary Chu, Secretary Salazar, Secretary
Napolitano, and others, have been involved in efforts with other
scientists, both government and nongovernmental scientists, in
conjunction with British Petroleum, which has been working in
conjunction with other corporations and other oil companies.

So I guess -- I'm happy to try to sift through the question. I just
-- they are responsible and we are overseeing to ensure that what
they're doing is what needs to be done.

Q But if they're not getting the job done, does the government just
stand there as a spectator and hope for the best?

MR. GIBBS: Chip, there's nothing that would denote that the federal
government has stood there and hoped for the best. I mean, the
premise of your question doesn't match any single -- hold on, let
me finish this.

Q You're confident they're getting the job done?

MR. GIBBS: Hold on, let me finish this. That doesn't match any
single action that our government has undertaken since the call
came in that this rig had exploded in the Gulf. So, you know, the
premise of your question doesn't fit any of the actions that are
currently happening on behalf of the federal government in the Gulf
of Mexico.

Q But Robert, there's a whole problem here with BP in that every
piece of information that they've delivered -- every piece of
information hasn't been -- has turned out not to be true when it
comes to the amount of oil that's spilling, how many leaks there
were, I mean, and every single -- so you guys are having to rely
on them -- and I understand you're saying that they're legally
responsible.

MR. GIBBS: It's not -- we are --

Q The government has to rely on them for the technical expertise,
I understand that, but do they have the credibility any more? I
mean, why not just say, you know what, we're going to -- we're
running this thing; you guys aren't running this thing -- we're
running it.

MR. GIBBS: Again, Chuck, we are overseeing the response -- okay? I
don't know what you think -- we are working each and every day.
That's why Secretary Chu -- the Department of Energy -- it sounds
technical -- the Department of Energy doesn't have purview over
oil, oil drilling. That's not in their governmental sphere. But
Secretary Chu has been down there working through a whole host of
ideas, including enhanced imaging to get a better look at a disaster
that's 5,000 feet underneath the water.

We have taken every step. We have pushed relentlessly for BP to do
what is necessary to contain what is leaking, to deal with both the
environmental and the economic impacts of what, as the President
said today, is unquestionably a disaster. One of the questions you
asked, Jennifer, was, this is not something -- there's not a -- you
may have been -- be confused about the notion of a disaster declaration
that --

Q But I'm wondering if there's something analogous to that, where
you could just -- like an AIG  [American International Group] or a
disaster where --

MR. GIBBS: There's -- the Oil Pollution Act is where -- the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 is what governs how one responds to and who
pays for a spill.

Q But then when I asked if you're legally non-able to step in and
take actual control, you said, no. So I'm just confused.

MR. GIBBS: Again, I don't -- I guess I'm confused at what are you
-- what are you asking then.

Q If BP is not accomplishing the task, why doesn't the federal
government come in and take over and get the job done?

Q So that they can --

Q Federalize it -- can you just federalize it?

MR. GIBBS: No.

Q Well, why?

MR. GIBBS: Well, we're -- let me just -- I also want to address
Jake's question. BP is working -- and I would refer you to BP on
the actual efforts that they're undertaking and they will undertake
as the course of this weekend -- different ideas on how to stop the
leak both out of the pipe, which they've done through the insertion
tube, as well as what's going on in the riser.

I would say relating to some of the earlier questioning, we've asked
them to provide more public data on air and water quality, and we
asked them 10 days ago and reiterated in a letter yesterday to
provide video footage of what's happening 5,000 feet underneath the
sea --

Q Why didn't you order them to do that rather than ask them?

MR. GIBBS: Because it's -- you can't do that from a private company.
We -- the information -- first of all, the --

Q You had the authority to tell AIG [American International Group]
what to do.

MR. GIBBS: Pardon?

Q You took over AIG.

MR. GIBBS: Well, we -- the company is largely in receivership.
That's -- there's a difference between --

Q Well, I know, but I mean, isn't there a way to declare some sort
of emergency --

[The White House press briefing, with Jared Israel's comments,
continues in Part 2 of this article, which will be mailed within a
day. If you want to continue reading now, you can access Part 2 at
http://emperors-clothes.com/briefing.htm#part2 ]

==========================================

Footnotes and Further Reading

==========================================

[1] "Gibbs Cracks Whip as Administration Faces New Criticism," May
26, 2010, FOXNews.com, at
http://www.foxnews.com.../gibbs-cracks-whip...<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/26/gibbs-cracks-whip-administ...>

[2] Oil Pollution Act of 1990, at http://epw.senate.gov/opa90.pdf
or
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/...TITLE=33USCC40...<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=3...>

[3] Clean Water Act, Section 1321, "Oil and hazardous substance
liability," at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/...TYPE=TEXT<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=...>

Full text at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/....TITLE=33USCC26...<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=3...>

[4] Regarding 90% of BP's drilling work being done by subcontractors,
the exact quote is:

" 'Since service companies account for 90% of the hours spent
planning and executing wells, it is crucial that we take their
performance as seriously as we take our own,' says Ahmed Hashmi,
commercial director for drilling and completions."

-- "Drilling Beyond the Best," BP magazine Frontiers, Issue 11,
December 2004
http://www.bp.com...2&contentId=7021453<http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9013612&contentId=7021453>

[5] The letter from Congressmen Waxman and Stupak to BP CEO Hayward
can be read at http://tenc.net/a/ltr-to-hayward.pdf

==========================================

Make a donation to Emperor's Clothes

==========================================

Our work depends on donations. If you find Emperor's Clothes useful,
please help us to cover our expenses. Every donation helps, big or
small!

Our best is yet to come!

Here's how to make a donation:

* At our secure server
https://emperor.securesites.com/transactions/index.php

* Using
PayPal<https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&business=emperors1...@aol.com&item_name=Donation%20to%20Emperor%27s%20Clothes&no_shipping=1&cn=M essage%20%28optional%29&no_tax=0&currency_code=USD&bn=PP-DonationsBF&charse t=UTF-8>
https://paypal.com/xclick/business=emperors1...@aol.com<https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=emperors1...@aol.com>

* Mail a check to:

Emperor's Clothes P.O. Box 610-321 Newton, MA 02461-0321 USA

* Or, call us at 1 617 502-2067 If you get the voice mailbox, please
leave your phone number and we will call you back.

Thank you!

==========================================

Please send this
link<mailto:ENTER%20ADDRESS?subject=Here's%20an%20interesting%20article%20f rom%20Emperor's%20Clothes&body=It's%20at%20http://tenc.net/briefing.htm>
to a friend. You may post any TENC article on the Internet as long
as you cite Emperor's Clothes as the source, credit the author(s),
and state the URL, which in this case is
http://emperors-clothes.com/briefing.htm

Subscribe to the TENC Newsletter -- receive articles from Emperor's
Clothes. To join, send an email  with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line
to emperorsclot...@tenc.net<mailto:emperorsclot...@tenc.net>  You
will receive a confirmation email within a day. (If you don't,
please check your email filter.) Please reply to that email and add
our address emperorsclot...@tenc.net<mailto:emperorsclot...@tenc.net>
to your address book, so the Newsletter will get past the filter.