Let the Gulf Drilling Bids Begin

One would think this news would be welcome in a bad economy.. 

The US government offered up new areas of the central Gulf of Mexico for drilling for the first time since the 2010 BP oil spill and received $1.7 billion in winning bids, officials said Wednesday.

One might also think such news would deflate the conservative view of Obama as a socialist/environmentalist focused more on promoting oil fields off Brazil than our own.  Yet for some reason there seems to be almost zero national coverage. Hmmm.

The al-Megrahi Saga Continues

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!

That's about the size of the al-Megrahi story.

Briefly put, events can be summarized as follows, with a dash of blogger speculation of course:

...it started with the Brit-American joint venture to shut down Gaddafi's nuclear program a few years after 9/11. Part of that deal was to open Libya to some joint business ventures, and obviously oil is their biggest export. But getting BP access to the oilfields was still not free--it apparently required prisoner swaps to appease the nutball dictator. This eventually led to the highest profile Libyan terrorist of all time being sent back to Tripoli for a hero's welcome, a cream pie crammed in the face of the UK and the USA. Is the west really so desperate?

Reports tonight have finally shown what many figured in 2009: people lied about the health of the terrorist. People were dishonest about what was known of the whole sordid affair. Megrahi did, and still does, have prostate cancer, but he wasn't 'months away from death' as reported first back in 2008 then again repeatedly in 2009. Wiki details say the Brits tried to 'coach' the Libyans on how to get him freed, undoubtedly based on this criteria (from 2008):

Prisoners thought to have less than three months to live in Scotland can apply for early release on compassionate grounds.

That was over two years ago, when it was reported he had weeks to live. Last March we got this. This year the truth came closer. Cameron is still trying to pretend. Meanwhile under the surface BP's deal with Gaddafi was cruising right along without a snag until the Deepwater Horizon bumped it into a holding pattern. At some point the coast will clear, though.

Through it all the Pan Am 103 victims' families--like the Cole bombing families--are left to wonder what happened to justice.

Which is a tough question. As you read this the Libyan nuke program still sits securely in Tennessee. The terrorist will soon be dead and the oil will soon be extracted, perhaps within view of his villa. So maybe that's the answer.

What About the 20 Billion?

So Holder is suing BP and several other oil companies in civil court for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill for "unspecified damages", although the Times speculated on specification--tens of billions.

Hmm.

Why would BP agree to a 20 billion fund to help victims if they thought they would later be sued for billions?

And wasn't the MMS (gov't) accused of engaging in corruption with the oil companies they were regulating? Weren't they in charge of making sure such blowouts didn't occur? Can the government sue itself?

Well OK, these oil guys are rich (evil), which means they never commit accidents or suffer from human error--it's always an intentional screwing of the little guy even if it means losing billions to do it. Which makes it very strange that Halliburton wasn't named in the suit, especially when they've already admitted some fault. Or maybe they saving Halliburton for the criminal prosecution. There's always room for a Cheney card!

Meanwhile the Times decided not to mention this tidbit:

Wednesday's move by the Justice Department follows the Obama administration's decision not to open new areas of the eastern Gulf and Atlantic seaboard to drilling. That marked a reversal from an earlier decision to hunt for oil and gas, an announcement the president himself made last spring three weeks before the spill.

Remember all that stuff about energy security? All nullified by that one blowout, evidently. Meanwhile--shockingly--crude and pump prices keep rising, jeopardizing any notion of a recovery by perhaps nullifying a payroll tax cut. Apparently Obama's "magic wand" is actually a subpoena. Of course there's no outrage in the media or from Pelosi about this, but one can always retain hope the story will get legs around January 5th when John Boehner is sworn in.

MORE 12/16/10

Speaking of Halliburton, lefties are giddy over this Guardian story revealing a settlement between Cheney's former company and the country of Nigeria over charges of bribery. Recall Nigeria had threatened to sick Interpol on Darth (and if that didn't work, thousands of emails). Quoting one of the Fire Dogs..

“So, Cheney Halliburton is bribing Nigeria to drop bribery charges?”

That, or a notoriously corrupt African government was shaking down Halliburton for a bribe in return for stopping a bribery charge and using Dick Cheney as a high-profile lever. If they really cared about justice why would they settle? Which was sheer disappointment around the globe:

Campaigners in the Niger delta expressed disappointment at the plea bargain. Celestine AkpoBari, programme officer at Social Action Nigeria, said: "I would have loved to see Dick Cheney in chains in our court and facing justice in our prisons. That would have been a very big point that would have lifted Nigeria out of its woes."

Maybe they can go after Karl Rove next. Or maybe even some alleged criminals in their own country. And there's always politics to consider:

There could be political calculations at play in the new charges. Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan faces a coming primary election in the nation's ruling party against former Vice President Atiku Abubakar.

Critics have tried to connect Abubakar to this bribery case in the past and the charges come as the election looms. Abubakar has denied any involvement.

That would be the same Abubakar loosely connected to William Cold Cash Jefferson, who maintained a mansion in DC with one of his four wives. How about that.

Hey, not to say ole CEO Darth didn't know about this bribery scheme the Nigerians were running as a pay to play for gas and oil companies, but doesn't everyone pay to play these days?

Obama and the Deal

The al-Megrahi to Libya story took a turn this afternoon as this revelation appeared, then disappeared off Drudge:

The United States told Scotland it was "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than have him transferred to a Libyan jail, leaked documents showed Sunday, amid renewed US criticism of the release.

Of course the administration has been saying they had nothing to do with the release, so if true this amounts to yet another event lacking the promised awesome transparency that BushCheneyburton denied us (Air Force One, Sestak, Sherrod among others). But it's also not much of a bombshell. They admit to not wanting him released and if so, not wanting him going back in Libya.

Total WAG--this was a payback leak from Downing Street. Several UK leaders have recently snubbed the Senate dog and pony inquiry while Obama has been standing on the sidelines acting as shocked as Captain Renault about everything. So maybe they're mad because maybe everyone was thumbs up on the deal when it was arranged and now we're welching on our end for political theater. And maybe Quedaffy is laughing the loudest.

Still, the idea our State Dept had such little leverage over the UK in such a situation is hard to believe. Almost 200 Americans died, and troops are dying in Afghanistan fighting terror. Which is why BP is probably still in play here. We'll see where the inquiry goes this week.

MORE 7/26/10

Here's British British Foreign Secretary David Miliband on August 21, 2009 responding to Libya's giant FU to the west regarding al-Megrahi:

"I think it's very important that Libya knows, and certainly we have told them, that how the Libyan government handles itself in the next few days after the arrival of Mr. Megrahi will be very significant in the way the world views Libya's re-entry into the civilized community of nations," Miliband said.

"It is in our interests to stand up for our own principles in the interests of international relations," he said. "Where Libya is willing to abide and engage in the international system in a way that does the right thing for those international principles, we will engage with Libya."

And here's Obama press flack Robert Gibbs the same day:

Q Despite official protests from this government, on every level, the Scots released the Lockerbie bomber. The President yesterday said he hoped that they would place him under -- in Libya under house arrest. Instead he gets a hero's welcome; people are outraged.
MR. GIBBS: Rightly so. I think the images that we saw in Libya yesterday were outrageous and disgusting. We continue to express our condolences to the families that lost a loved one as a result of this terrorist murder. We communicated with the Libyan government, and we continue to watch what they do in the days going forward about this individual, and understand that the video that you saw yesterday is tremendously offensive to the survivors that, as I said, lost a loved one in 1988.
Q They're like blowing off the President. I mean, the guy who shook the President's hand at the G8, who runs Libya, is basically thumbing his nose at the President.
MR. GIBBS: Well, we're watching the government to see how they respond.

...and, here's Britain Prince Andrew having a noted Libyan cabinet member over to St. James Palace just this past week while his PM David Cameron was meeting in Washington with Obama:

A senior Libyan minister was entertained by Prince Andrew at St James's Palace as David Cameron prepared to hold talks with Barack Obama over the Lockerbie bomber, it has emerged.

The official, a key figure in Colonel Gaddafi's cabinet, led a delegation of Libyans who also held talks with a Tory defence minister and with senior Scotland Yard counter terrorism officers.

Abdel-Fatah Yunis al- Obeidi also met a Foreign Office minister during his UK trip.

Heh, looks like they tried to sneak him in.

So, what can the average Joe glean from any of this, assuming he cares? Perhaps this: it's likely the Obama administration--if they were really so outrageously opposed to Megrahi's release--could have threatened to leak it to the press beforehand should Scotland consider acting unilaterally. After all, this was a terrorist convicted of killing nearly 200 Americans. Surely they considered the blow back for not strongly opposing such a move would be akin to what we're seeing right now. So one would think the US would have used their power or at least gotten their CYA story more in order.

As to the line from Downing Street and Washington about really watching Libya's actions going forward, well, they must have found nothing wrong with them because it would seem that absolutely nothing has been done to them in reply to their outrageous actions. The US has done nothing, that we know of at least. And the Brits are having them over for tea.

To be fair, if there was a deal it might have been about more than a BP oil deal, perhaps some cooperation on terrorism as well (that cannot be released publicly other than through Wikileaks) as the Libyan minister was discussing joint terrorism operations with Prince Andrew. Qaddafi seemed to ruin that notion with his hero's welcome in Tripoli but judging from the non-reaction from the aggrieved parties one has to question whether Megrahi's kabuki theater was also part of the deal--something they insisted on in order to placate their own masses. Such can be the machinations of realpolitik.

CAPTAINS QUARTERS 7/26/10

Ed Morrissey has a summary, the gist of which is that we didn't care all that much. So consider the following scenario--the UK comes to Washington and says they've got a chance to get Libya back into the league of sane nations and they'll drop terrorism and allow BP oil exploration if we allow them more open trade and swap back some prisoners--including Megrahi. Our State guys say, "sounds good, but don't send him back, give him house arrest in Scotland because a hero's welcome would look really bad for us", etc (assumes those officials believed the doctor's report on his upcoming demise, of course).

And then Scotland unilaterally sends him back to Libya against our wishes? Sounds implausible, or Clinton is more inept than anyone figured (remember the Secretary of State--she's getting a complete pass on this one). Recall the initial outrage was that he got a hero's welcome, not was sent back. So the only thing that makes sense is that Libya busted the agreement (the Brits won't release the letter between Downing and Tripoli urging Qudaffi to downplay the return) on the hero thing but otherwise stuck with the deal, and the west is stuck with pressing on because they need the oil rights. Of course if they all knew the doctor's report was phony that takes it to another level.

MORE 7/27/10

Mediaite is all over Fox and Dana Perino for continuing to question the release after the full contents of the letter from US Charge' d'affaires Richard LeBaron was given the press; they seem to think it was a slam dunk, and while it does say the US government is not in favor of the release under any circumstances (but if so, he should remain in Scotland) it also says this at the very end:

– We appreciate the manner in which the Scottish Government has handled this difficult situation. We recognize that the prisoner transfer decision is one that the Scottish Government did not invite, but now must take. We hope that the Scottish Government would consider every available alternative before considering the granting of Megrahi’s prisoner transfer application.

So Scotland holds all the cards as to releasing prisoners yet their hands are tied? Presumably this means by London, and presumably this would involve a package negotiated by Libya that would contain some goodies for the UK. Overall the letter makes it sound better for the Obama folks; they set up the proper CYA and never really lied about it after the fact despite Obama making it sound as if the decision came out of the blue.

The question this letter doesn't answer is whether the US was in any way involved with the pressing deal that was tying Scotland's hands on the release--clearly State knew about the deal beforehand. Yet the letter sent to John Kerry from Hague, the UK home secretary, stated that Scotland made the decision independently and without pressure. So somebody is still lying.

A Terrorist for Oil

Somehow BP's name has finally come up regarding the supposed deal made between the UK and Libya in freeing the recovering terrorist formerly serving life for blowing Pan Am 103 out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland back in 1988. The problem--this is old news:

When asked in the interview if trade and BP were factors, Mr Straw admits: “Yes, [it was] a very big part of that. I’m unapologetic about that... Libya was a rogue state. “We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal.”

Straw's admission was made in the fall of 2009 but our American press is a little slow so let's charge on ahead as if brand new! Theory upfront--Dems in Congress probably figure they can dredge this up again for the first time to help Obama link an even more sinister BP to an even more embarrassed Rep Joe Barton in their hopeless quest to re-take Congress, basically from themselves. The admin is already on record as planning to focus on Joe Barton and the failed policies of the past (that began before 2007), so what better way than to write a letter to the press addressed to Hillary F. Clinton in an effort to spur the bullhorns over at the New York Times into action?

The acknowledgment came after American legislators, grappling with the controversy over the company’s disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill, called for an investigation into BP’s actions in the case of the freed man, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi.

Outrageous and everything, but isn't at least some critical thought warranted? First, is it really plausible to believe an American president would get rolled by Scotland for no reason? They claim to have had no connection to any oil deals and just released the man because he was almost dead. In other words, no.

What about the UK Labor Party as the potential rollers? Well, OK, they rolled a newly-elected socialist-leaning US president who took lots of donations from BP, just to help BP? The downsides were huge--an American aircraft, full of Americans, with Obama currently escalating troops in Afghanistan to stop terrorists- that's a lot of potential blowback for a man after their own hearts. The world would be left to believe their president had no leverage or any vested interest in the fate of someone who at one time was the equivalent of bin Laden. And could the press possibly be that friendly (actually, yes)? Or are we left to seriously to believe it was all about Obama's royal snubbery?

The only other plausible card is of the Chicago variety- or Obama got something from the deal; that he quietly agreed to go along in hopes Q'daffy would hold up his end of the bargain and not throw a parade on the tarmac at Tripoli for the homecoming. It would all go down quietly as planned, and if not, bring on the mock outrage. Still, a definite appearance of weakness for the ass-kicker and world uniter in chief, all for essentially looking the other way so BP could score some light sweet Libyan oil. Ok, do the four Senators really want to pursue this to conclusion? Or the media? Right here before the mid-terms? They may find something more troubling than Joe Barton.

Meanwhile, the one who did the real rolling, the thug still smarting from Reagan's attack on his palace compound and who no doubt has enjoyed every minute of this fubar despite the victims' families, is good ole Moammar. He's the one who set this up by initially insisted on the trade, setting up the west. The terrorist-enabler with whom we used to avoid negotiating has made fools of us all because we tried to negotiate and, as Straw said, "bring them into the fold".

For some reason we knew better with Saddam, yet this nut actually had an active nuke program and they plowed ahead anyway. Aside from the possibility they're all just a bunch of clueless buffoons the UK must really need the oil. BP pensions, perhaps? Meanwhile, Hillary has been told to put on her sheriff's badge and investigate but the investigation needs to occur in her office first. Perhaps they might find some teachable moments in there.

Odds and Ends

Happy July. Here's a few random comments on various stories..

FROM RUSSIA WITH NOTHING

Notice how enthralled the media is in this story above others? Here's the dumb headline of the day award [see update], and here's a Wall St. Journal article that points out strange and funny things about Metsos, the suspect nabbed in Cyprus (then amazingly given bail):

"After he failed to show up at the police station by 8:00 p.m., we sought him at his hotel to see if he was okay, and there we determined that he had fled," said a senior Cyprus police official speaking on condition of anonymity.

Surely this keystone cop was shocked, shocked that a spy would jump bail.

Mr. Metsos was one of those who fielded Mr. Murphy's complaints. In 2002, for example, the FBI says it recorded a testy exchange between the two suspects.

In 2002. So they've been tracking them since 2002 with no damage done but the FBI is going to make a scene over catching them with Obama in the middle of a reset? Or are the Russians right?

One of the Murphys' neighbors, who asked not to be named, also noticed "unusual" traits. "He clearly was Russian with a name of Murphy—I thought it was weird," said the neighbor, who lived near their home in Montclair, N.J., which records show the Murphys purchased in August 2008 for $481,000.

When news broke of their arrest, this person said, "I just wasn't that surprised."

It's easy to see how some Yakov Smirnoff guy using the name Murphy might stand out just a tad. Hey, when the know-nothing neighbors aren't even buying the cover story why would anyone think the FBI would? So just what the hell were these people doing here?


JAFAR THE PILOT

The name Adnan Shukrijumah has resurfaced in connection with Zazi the would-be WMD subway bomber. Not real surprising (here's a good source of info on him). Actually, the only surprise is the feds mentioning him in a news story at all. As stated a few years ago he's the most dangerous terrorist who's never done anything yet--at least that we know of--but he's always had potential according to KSM. But isn't this just playing the fear card? The man is probably harmless and certainly innocent until proven guilty, unless we blow him up with a hellfire first.


MORE TERRA

Shukrijumah has a photo on the Rewards for Justice terror list but so does this guy. According to Wiki he was appointed by bin Laden to operate for AQ out of Iran. I repeat, operate out of Iran. Please disregard those reports about bin Laden hiding in Iran. And while doing so, here's some previous thoughts about others on the list in case you're interested in some cocktail party fodder other than sexy red-headed spies or Poodles.


THE STATUE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?

Obama decided to attack Jan Brewer today with an immigration speech:

Being an American is not a matter of blood or birth, it's a matter of faith..

And he called America a "beacon of hope" where people come to live in peace, making America the engine of the global economy. Blasphemy! That's an unfair advantage over other nations who actually enforce their border laws. And repeat, we are not exceptional, we are a nation of laws! A nation where illegal alien Russian spies come to pursue their dreams. Captain Fantastic:

He argued the border was now more secure than at any time in the past 20 years and that reform in other areas was now needed.

And the economy is rocking, baby! Seriously, if he thinks the border is already secure, meaning there's no reason to include more security in any amnesty bill, then there's no reason for the GOP to play ball. Which in reality is probably the point of his speech since there's no way in hades a bill will be passed before November.


CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT--FOR BP

I'm no BP defender--they blew it, literally, in the Gulf and if that means bankruptcy in paying for the cleanup, such are the breaks. But this, this, is just too much:

"In order to put a bit of public pressure on them, we plan to buy 100 vuvuzelas and hire 100 vuvuzela players off Craigslist to play in front of BP's International Headquarters in London for an entire work day," Quirk wrote on the project's fundraising page on microfinance site Kickstarter. "Ideally, the players will keep coming back every day until they fix the gusher."

I believe the Geneva Conventions has already banned this treatment on captured terrorists so they'll be lucky not to get arrested for war crimes, unless the local limeys kill them first. Or maybe an out of control double decker bus.

UPDATE 7/1/10

Just checked the link to 'dumb headline' and noticed they've completely changed the story, including the dumb headline. I'd like to think Fore Left gets results but I know better.

Politicking the War

So McChrystal is out and we're screwed, but Petraeus is in, and he's the hero who brought Iraq back from the brink when guys like Obama had lost all faith. How bitter the irony for the "Betrayus" set.

This feels like a wash but then again you're not reading words being written by an expert on the matter.

But there is something every citizen has a right to ask--is Afghanistan worth pursuing anymore? If we are mainly staying just to save face and not let the terrorists 'win' is it really worth the lives lost? And if we're only staying to fulfill a political campaign promise with intentions of leaving when the first opportunity arises, win or lose, shouldn't we pick up our toys and come home ASAP?

Imagine KSM sitting in court bragging about whose ass he kicked. Could we stand it? Or would the loss of leadership in the global struggle against terrorism be so irreparable as to threaten further lives down the line, making it a never-go-there choice? After all, the commander-in-chief has said as much.

Yet under the cover of the McChrystal thing Obama could certainly have made the case, at least to some people, for pivoting out right now. Things are not looking good, Karzai is an idiot, there are people besides him to blame and the major media will cover him on it.

But if we leave and the next 9/11 comes will any politico have the stones to go back and really finish the job? To coin a phrase, make no mistake, another big attack will come if we leave without some kind of victory. And if we leave AfPak is there any reason the mujahideen won't simply flood back to Iraq waving our paper tiger flag and take down that country as well?

Not to forget Iran who, like the terrorists, would also feel they defeated the United States if we were to draw-down without a win. Their nuke days are coming and without a massive US presence in the region Israel will feel compelled to act singularly to de-nuke them; yet without our forces the likelihood of a massive counter-attack leading to regional conflagration seems more sure. Then we'd have to return anyway.

In the past few months we've learned that the leader of Jund'allah is in the hands of the Mullahs; that Mullah Omar might be in captivity in Pakistan; that Osama might even be in Iran. Strange leverage situations might be in play, among other things not ready for the brutal honesty that Obama foolishly promised America. I'm left with hoping and praying General Petraeus can do some wonderful things again, but Afghanistan is not Iraq.

MORE 6/23/10

Obama's speech in the Rose Garden was perhaps one of his better ones on national security yet. He showed resolve, said all the right things, and honored the service of a great soldier whom he had very little choice but to fire. It would have been better had Biden stayed on the opposite lawn and played with his super soaker (his fidgeting was a distraction), but all in all, a decent speech.

A Toast to the Wee Irishman

An Irishman has won the US Open golf tourney. It's almost like the Cubs winning the world series, except that Chicago didn't invent baseball. Well then again, neither did Ireland. It was Scotland. Maybe. Whatever, a great accomplishment by a steady Mr. McDowell, whose father embraced him on the 18th green after the victory putt. For those with fond memories of playing golf with their father, it's always a touching scene, especially today.

So thank heaven we have a president who understands the historical importance of the sport and it's uncanny non-partisan ability to bridge cultural gaps, reduce stress, and stop oil leaks, if one is a Democrat. I mean, at least he didn't go sailing for crying out loud. Just imagine the terrible image if the first golfer was a Texas oilman. Whew. It's hard enough having to endure Johnny Miller.

Anyway, hope all the fathers had a happy father's day. Hit 'em straight--and not in the lake!

BP's Inside Lawyer

Almost completely lost in the shuffle of the great Obama/Biden BP shakedown for the small people extravaganza was this factoid:

The oil giant brought its top brass and even came armed with a top Clinton administration Justice Department official, Jamie Gorelick, whose name was floated as a possible attorney general pick for Obama.

Yes, that's the same Jamie Gorelick famous for increasing the 'wall' between law enforcement and intelligence cited as a failure by the 9/11 Commission, helping lead the failed Fannie Mae, and defending Duke University from the wrongly accused Lacrosse players. The noted civic leader must have experienced some deja vu sitting across the table from her former Justice associate Eric Holder.

Her influence notwithstanding, the team was bullied by Don't Mess with Joe into agreeing to over 20 billion even though US law only calls for millions.

But wait, don't we small people have the right to see the transcript of this secret oil meeting? If Cheney were present wouldn't Henry Waxman be rapping his gavel somewhere and demanding it? For instance, it might be nice to know if BP agreed to anything else in return for their cooperation on the escrow fund, or whether it was just a down payment to keep the pitchforks away.

MORE 6/19/10

Cap'n Ed on the revelation they were having trouble with the well as far back as February (and had informed MMS thereof):

This may not change anything in terms of addressing the disaster in the short run, but it’s certainly good context to keep in mind when assessing the long-term consequences of this catastrophe and the potential solutions to prevent a repeat of it.

OK, but it also goes towards Obama's recent statement that he was told that deep water drilling was "absolutely safe". Byron York is asking "who told him", which opens some questions.

Based on the Hot Air story it would appear MMS knew there were problems with the rig before Obama made his drill-baby-drill announcement in late March. Did the former chief, Liz Birnbaum, know about any of this? Was she the one who told the administration it was safe? Not to say BP wasn't constantly reassuring MMS it was safe, but Obama's new crop of watchdogs was supposed to be leery of the oil companies.

Hmm. Well, this could explain the sacking of Ms. Birnbaum. Perhaps she was not passing concerns up the chain and kicking enough a** in her industry-friendly agency, as everybody seems to think Interior Sec Salazar instructed her to do. Well, not everybody:

Friends of Birnbaum countered that she was never instructed by Salazar to clean house. Instead, she spent much of her nine months on the job promoting renewable energy, particularly the contested issue of putting a wind farm off Cape Cod.

“She still doesn’t get it,” an acquaintance of Birnbaum told Greenwire. “She still doesn’t understand she’s being made the poster child for all this. She thinks [her firing is] on the merits.”

In retrospect it might have been interesting to hear her testimony to Congress--the testimony that was scuttled on the very same day she was fired resigned. Perhaps Waxman can find some time on his kangaroo court schedule to call her back.

On Cozy Relationships

From this CBS story it would appear the MMS had a far too cozy relationship with those they were assigned to inspect:

Marcus Mouton inspected Deepwater Horizon June 9, 2009. Mouton told federal investigators he participated in skeet-shooting fundraisers where "various offshore companies sponsored a five person team.

"He said he had thought participating in the events was acceptable because many MMS employees including senior managers attended and participated in them. He explained he did not think offshore companies received any favors in exchange for inviting MMS inspectors to these events."

This is never a good idea, and management officials running MMS (and their Congressional overseers) should have developed a strong culture of avoidance. For Pete's sake, wining and dining the inspectors is the oldest trick in the book. So there is legitimate outrage over MMS's apparent failure to maintain that divide.

But if folks are outraged about that cozy relationship, why are they not equally outraged about behavior such as this from the people assigned to provide oversight on our federal government? These same folks seem to have lost interest in pursuing the potential bribes offered to Sestak or Romanoff and haven't the faintest bit of curiosity as to whether the president lied about the departure of his appointed chief of the MMS, Liz Birnbaum. The CBS story linked above doesn't even mention her.

Instead they see no problem frolicking at White House pool party with some of the people they're assigned to cover. As Dana Milbank recently alluded, despite her clear lefty biases and anti-semetism at least Helen Thomas was a professional reporter in the White House pool due to her adversarial style. Now even she's gone.

President Kick-A......

Well, we finally got the other half of the "taking names" thing...



Guess he took Spike Lee seriously. But will anyone take his false bravado seriously? I mean, just the other day they were running around the White House lawn playing with super soakers.

Strange Things about the MMS Firing

A funny thing was inserted in the CNN article entitled "Charge to Obama: Go off!" (about Spike Lee telling Obama to get mean with the spill). About 2/3rds of the way through the article this paragraph appeared:

The president has been actively engaged in the crisis -- firing the head of the Minerals Management Service, extending the moratorium on further offshore drilling and increasing the federal presence in the region.

Interesting they say he fired Ms. Birnbaum. When asked at last week's presser he appeared to not know exactly how she came to be terminated. One might think if he actually 'fired' someone, he'd know. But now, according to the New York Times (who asked the question at the presser, btw), the MMS Director supposedly fired herself:

Minerals Management Service Director Liz Birnbaum might have kept her job a little longer if she'd stayed in her office and kept her phone on the hook yesterday...

...Someone from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's office called and said the secretary did not want her to attend the House hearing. Following a harsh New York Times profile that highlighted her low profile in the crisis, that might have seemed like a bad omen.

But Birnbaum, the former veteran congressional staffer, was worried more about stiffing a committee chairman than what this meant for her job. She called Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, where she was supposed to testify, to tell him she would not be appearing.

Moran called Salazar, who then walked out of his sixth-floor hallway with Deputy Secretary David Hayes. They went one floor down and four hallways over to Birnbaum's office in 5400 corridor of Main Interior and asked her to resign.

Hmm. So summarizing, "someone" from Salazar's office called and told Birnbaum not to testify; she, apparently being a conscientious type, called the Congressional chair to notify him of her no-show; he then called Salazar, who walked down the hall and fired her? Presumably for not testifying? Or was it in general? Bizarre.

Then, later that day at the presser Obama feigned dumbness about the whole thing while simultaneously declaring himself fully in charge from sunrise to sunset and in between. Odd. It would be interesting to know why CNN said Obama fired Birnbaum.