Contact Meet The Press via Twitter

The following is a fact-check from the June 27, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:  


SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ) | No military adviser recommended to President Obama that he set a date of mid-2011 for begin the withdrawal of coalition forces from Afghanistan – LIKELY FALSE

SEN. McCAIN: Look, I, I’m against a timetable. In wars, you declare when you’re leaving after you’ve succeeded. And, by the way, no military adviser recommended to the president that he set a date of the middle of 2011. So it was purely a political decision, not one based on facts on the ground, not based on military strategy or anything. Now…

MR. GREGORY: All–Senator, is that fair? All of his military advisers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Petraeus, General McChrystal, they all signed onto the idea…

SEN. McCAIN: They signed onto it…

MR. GREGORY: …of July. 2011. Well, isn’t it their obligation to say…

SEN. McCAIN: It’s not their idea.

MR. GREGORY: …that this is wrong?

SEN. McCAIN: In my view it is.

MR. GREGORY: Well, they didn’t do that, though.

SEN. McCAIN: In my view it is. They didn’t.

MR. GREGORY: So they were for it.

SEN. McCAIN: They didn’t do it. They didn’t do it, and they should have because they know better.

According to the New York Times, both Admiral Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates signed onto the date of mid-year 2011 to withdraw forces from Afghanistan, though, they both said withdrawal will hinge on “conditions on the ground.” But Gates and Mullen reiterated that mid-year 2011 will mark the date to start the transition of control to Afghan government. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, former commander of the war in Afghanistan, was “absolutely supportive” of the withdrawal date.

To judge whether the withdrawal date was purely political, we looked over Obama’s statements, including focusing on campaign promises to see if he ever mentioned the withdrawal date on the campaign trail. Obama did pledge to send additional brigades to Afghanistan on the campaign trail, but never mentioned a date of withdrawal from Afghanistan. The first mention of the specific withdrawal date was on December 1, 2009, in President Obama’s speech at West Point.

As Mr. Gregory rightfully pointed out, it is unlikely that Sen. McCain’s point could be true when President Obama’s military advisers indicated they supported the timetable. Although, it’s worth acknowledging that it is unlikely that a presidential military adviser would publicly contradict the President, that assumption cannot provide a factual basis for McCain’s statement. In addition, we could find no evidence that the Obama administration determined the withdrawal timetable for political reasons, though, we admit it is obviously impossible to confirm at this time what happened behind closed doors regarding the matter.  We rate Sen. McCain’s statement LIKELY FALSE.


The following fact-check took a combined 2.75 hours..


The following is a fact-check of the June 27, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:


SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ)

1) A police chief in Nogales, Arizona said that his police officers are being told they will be murdered by the Mexican drug cartels – TRUE

2) As a result of violence and the influence of the Mexican drug cartels, the government has installed signs in the southern part of Arizona warning people they are in a drug and human smuggling area – TRUE

SEN. McCAIN: Why is it that the police chief in Nogales reported that his police officers are being told they’re going to be murdered by the drug cartels on the other side of the border? The, the rise of violence and the influence of the drug cartels and the human smugglers have made our government put up signs in the southern part of the state of Arizona warning them that they are in a drug smuggling and human smuggling area of this country.

1) According to both CNN and ABC News, police officers from Nogales, Arizona were threatened by a Mexican drug cartel.  Informants told the police department that off-duty officers should ignore illegal drug drug shipments or face retaliation. Although, there is no specific indication that retaliation would include murdering the officers, it is reasonable to assume that that is what the threats were meant to imply. Thus, we rate Sen. McCain’s statement TRUE.

It is worth noting, however, that Sen. McCain made the statement to indicate the increasing danger in the area. While the Senator’s statement is TRUE in and of itself, included in the same CNN story referenced above was this point as well which we feel is relevant to the context of his overall point:

And while the region is a major drug corridor, Nogales has an extremely low crime rate. There has only been one murder in the past three years. By contrast, the police chief says, just across the border there have already been 126 drug-related murders this year.

One thing made clear in both articles, however, is that the violence on the other side of the border is significant, and often especially targets Mexican police officers. And again, there is no question the threatening of US police officers is a sign of escalation.

2) According to the Associated Press, signs have been placed along Interstate 8 in southern Arizona by the federal government to warn visitors to the Sonoran Desert National Monument that drug and human smuggling may be occurring south of the highway. Therefore, we rate Sen. McCain’s statement TRUE.

This sign is one of eight that were recently placed along Interstate 8 in southern Arizona by the federal government.


This fact-check took a combined 2 hours.

The following is a fact-check of the June 27, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:


SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ) | Phoenix, Arizona averages the second highest number of kidnappings in the world – FALSE

SEN. McCAIN: Not until we get the borders secure. By the way, on that issue, why is it that Phoenix, Arizona, is the number two kidnapping capital of the world? Does that mean our border’s safe?

Politifact already checked McCain’s assertion that Phoenix, Arizona is the number 2 kidnapping capital in the world. The key part of their check:

Neither the FBI nor the U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol, an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice that serves as the United States’ representative to Interpol, could confirm that Phoenix has the second-highest frequency of kidnapping cases worldwide.

Phoenix has experienced hundreds of kidnappings over the past few years. However, we couldn’t find reliable around-the-planet evidence to confirm that only Mexico City experiences more of them. In fact, experts advise that such rankings can’t be made based on available information. If they could, they speculate, other cities would prove to have more kidnappings than Arizona’s capital.

After reviewing Politifact’s work, we agree. Therefore, we find Sen. McCain’s statement FALSE.


This fact-check took a combined 30 minutes.

The following is a fact-check from the June 27 2010, episode of Meet the Press:


REP. BARBARA LEE (D-CA) | General Jones said that there are less than 100 members of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan – TRUE

REP. LEE: David, General… MR. GREGORY: Yeah, yeah. REP. LEE: …Jones actually indicated that, I believe, less than 100 members of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

According to ABC, the Washington Times and an interview of General James Jones by Wolf Blitzer, Gen. Jones did say there were fewer than 100 members of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Here is Gen. Jones:

The al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.

Therefore, we will rate Barbara Lee’s statement TRUE.


This fact-check took a combined 20 minutes.

The following are the statements to fact-check from the June 27, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:
VIDEO/TRANSCRIPT

If you can help us research them please either email us or (preferably) post your work in the comments below. (Anonymity is fine) Also let us know how long you spent researching each fact, we will be tracking it. The success of Meet the Facts depends on the crowd-sourcing of people like you, please help if you can!

Statements are listed in chronological order


SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ)

1) White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel appeared on Meet the Press on June 20, 2010.

2) Last week White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reiterated the Obama administration’s plan to begin withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in mid-2011.

3) The president’s spokesperson [Robert Gibbs?] said, regarding the date for the beginning of withdrawal, “It’s etched in stone, and he has the chisel.”

4) US Troops are “in some ways” confused about what the long term strategy is in Afghanistan.

5) A high ranking Taliban prisoner said, “You’ve got the watches, and we’ve got the time.”

SEN. McCAIN: I think that that’s a fairly accurate description of the situation in Afghanistan. I think that it’s pretty obvious that the effort in Marjah did not achieve the elements of success certainly quickly enough. The offensive into Kandahar has been delayed–which, by the way, argues against this setting a date certain for beginning the withdrawal. A lot of the behavior that Karzai is displaying, a lot of the things that are going on right now are a direct result of the president’s commitment to beginning withdrawal–whatever not turn “out the lights” means. That’s an indecipherable statement. Rahm Emanuel on your program last, last Sunday reiterated the commitment to leaving middle of 2011. The president’s spokesperson said, “It’s etched in stone, and he has the chisel.” So people in the region, they can’t leave. They have to adjust and they have to accommodate. And Karzai is doing some of the things he’s doing because he’s not confident that we’re going to stay. The troops on the ground are, are in some ways confused about what the long-term strategy would be. And I guess the best example I can tell you is a high-ranking Taliban prisoner said, “You’ve got the watches, and we’ve got the time.” And that’s what is, is pervading this entire environment, the fact that they think we’re–that we’re going to leave. And if they believe that, then they are going to act very differently.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ) | No military adviser recommended to President Obama that he set a date of mid-2011 for the beginning of withdrawl of coalition forces from Afghanistan.

SEN. McCAIN: Look, I, I’m against a timetable. In wars, you declare when you’re leaving after you’ve succeeded. And, by the way, no military adviser recommended to the president that he set a date of the middle of 2011. So it was purely a political decision, not one based on facts on the ground, not based on military strategy or anything. Now…

MR. GREGORY: All–Senator, is that fair? All of his military advisers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Petraeus, General McChrystal, they all signed onto the idea…

SEN. McCAIN: They signed onto it…

MR. GREGORY: …of July. 2011. Well, isn’t it their obligation to say…

SEN. McCAIN: It’s not their idea.

MR. GREGORY: …that this is wrong?

SEN. McCAIN: In my view it is.

MR. GREGORY: Well, they didn’t do that, though.

SEN. McCAIN: In my view it is. They didn’t.

MR. GREGORY: So they were for it.

SEN. McCAIN: They didn’t do it. They didn’t do it, and they should have because they know better.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ) | The US timetable for withdrawal from Iraq was established after the “surge.” [or “after it was succeeding”]

SEN. McCAIN: We may need more troops. We may need more as we did…

MR. GREGORY: But did we do that in Iraq? Didn’t we set a timetable…

SEN. McCAIN: After.

MR. GREGORY: …after we surged up…

SEN. McCAIN: After we succeeded, after we were succeeding, yes indeed. And we should.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ) | US allies in the war in Afghanistan have not contributed the 10,000 troops as part of the overall 40,000 troop increase.

SEN. McCAIN: I think there should be constant reviews. And that review, by the way, will show that we have not seen the pace of success. And, by the way, we have not seen our allies contribute the 10,000 troops that were part of this overall strategy of 40,000 troops that would be engaged in this surge.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ) | [Not sure this is a check so much as an exchange in need of clarification]

MR. GREGORY: What are the consequences of success? Tom Friedman wrote in his column this week something very poignant, and I’ll put it up on the screen. “What do we win if we win? At least in Iraq, if we eventually produce a decent democratizing government, we will, at enormous cost, have changed the politics in a great Arab capital in the heart of the Arab Muslim world. That can have wide resonance. Change Afghanistan at enormous cost and you’ve changed Afghanistan-period. Afghanistan does not resonate.”

SEN. McCAIN: Well, I have the greatest respect for Tom Ridge, I think both books…

MR. GREGORY: Tom Friedman.

SEN. McCAIN: Excuse me, I’m sorry, Tom Ricks I have the greatest respect for.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

SEN. McCAIN: Mr. Friedman was wrong about Iraq. He said we couldn’t succeed in Iraq. He said we’d fail, we had to withdraw. Enough said.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ) | The Afghan Army consists of excellent fighters and is functioning properly.

SEN. McCAIN: It’s, it’s gauge–no, no. It’s, it’s again, like other counterinsurgencies, and this is a counterinsurgency based on the same principles but very different conditions than we had in Iraq. And that means that gradually we will clear, hold, make the people that support the government and against the Taliban, which they already are, an Afghan army–and, by the way, they are very excellent fighters that is functioning, and the corruption is a huge problem.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ) | Elena Kagan showed “steadfast” and “zealous” opposition to military recruiters while at Harvard University.

SEN. McCAIN: I want to look at–watch the hearings. The hearings, I think, are always very important. But I’ll tell you one thing I’m disturbed about was her obvious steadfast and even zealous opposition to military recruiters, to the presence of military on the campus of the most prestigious university, in, in the view of many, in America.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ)

1) Phoenix, AZ averages the second highest numbers of kidnappings in the world.

2) A police chief in Nogales said that the officers are being told they will be murdered by the Mexican drug cartels.

3) As a result of  violence and the influence of the Mexican drug cartels, the Arizona [or US?] government has installed signs in the southern part of Arizona warning people they are in a drug and human smuggling area.

SEN. McCAIN: Not until we get the borders secure. By the way, on that issue, why is it that Phoenix, Arizona, is the number two kidnapping capital of the world? Does that mean our border’s safe? Of course not. Why is it that the police chief in Nogales reported that his police officers are being told they’re going to be murdered by the drug cartels on the other side of the border? The, the rise of violence and the influence of the drug cartels and the human smugglers have made our government put up signs in the southern part of the state of Arizona warning them that they are in a drug smuggling and human smuggling area of this country. That’s not, that’s not how America should…

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ)

1) The Mexican drug cartel movement across the border has “dramatically” increased.

2) 23,000 thousand people have been killed in Mexico in the last 3 years.

MR. GREGORY: Do you agree with the governor of Arizona who says that most people who come across the border illegally are actually drug mules?

SEN. McCAIN: No. I think that there’s a large number and I think she’s right in that the drug cartels movement has dramatically increased and the violence. Twenty-three thousand people, Mexicans, have been killed in the last three years in Mexico.

GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY (Ret.)

1) There have been 7,000 US casualties from the war in Afghanistan.

2) The war costs $5.4 billion a month.

3) The American public does not support the war.

GEN. McCAFFREY (Ret.): Sure. Look, this is a political dilemma, not a military one. There’s 7,000 killed and wounded, $5.4 billion a month, the American people don’t support the war. We have a goofy, incompetent Afghan government. We’re trying to build an Afghan security force and get it largely done in a very short period of time. None of this is going to work the way we’re going about it. So, again, back to, I think, the congresswoman’s remarks, you either got to pull out in, in a stated time frame with huge negative consequences, potentially, to Pakistan, the Afghans themselves, U.S. foreign policy; or you, you announce that we’re in there until we have achieved a stable political system in Afghanistan.

WES MOORE | During his deployment in Afghanistan, there were 19,000 US troops in the country.

MR. MOORE: Well, I think it’s important to understand that we are going on close to 10 years. But this war has not been a priority for close to 10 years. I mean, in the time when I was over there, we had around–a little over 19,000 troops on the ground to cover a land mass that is 50 percent larger than Iraq.

WES MOORE | There has been a 30% increase in Afghan security force participation.

MR. MOORE: Well, I think the indication that we have right now is that the system that we have in place and the systems that we put in place over the past few years are actually starting to show some results. We have a 30 percent increase in Afghan security force participation. We now are finally seeing complete integration between the civilian side and military side.

SEBASTIAN JUNGER

1) According to the Human Rights Watch organization, 16,000 Afghan civilians have died during the US war in Afghanistan.

2) According to the Human Rights Watch organization, 400,000 Afghan civilians died during the time of Taliban control.

MR. JUNGER: I’ve been reporting from Afghanistan since ’96, for the first 10 years of that, from the perspective of the civilian population. It’s of incredible concern to me. I mean, human–these are human rights watch figures. Since NATO has been there, 16,000 Afghan civilians have died in combat operations. It’s a horrifying number. That ended a period of violence in Afghanistan under the Taliban where 400,000 Afghans were killed.

REP. BARBARA LEE (D-CA) | The American public does not support the war and would like it to end.

REP. LEE: The American people are war weary. This [Afghanstian] is an endless war, and they want it to come to an end.

SEBASTIAN JUNGER | According to polls in early 2002, 90% of Afghans supported the US invasion of Afghanistan.

MR. JUNGER: Let me just jump in. I was in Kabul in ’01 after Kabul fell, after the Taliban were toppled. I was getting hugged by Afghans because I was American, because they hated the Taliban so much. Ninety–I don’t know who does these surveys, 90 percent of Afghans–after 9/11, in early ’02, 90 percent of Afghans supported the U.S. military action that, that destroyed the Taliban. So you really–the word occupation really is not accurate.

REP. BARBARA LEE (D-CA) | General Jones said that there are less than 100 members of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

REP. LEE: David, General…

MR. GREGORY: Yeah, yeah.

REP. LEE: …Jones actually indicated that, I believe, less than 100 members of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

TOM RICKS (Foreign Policy) | Military personnel make up 1% of the US population.

MR. RICKS: Yeah. It reminds me of something Ryan Crocker, the ambassador in Iraq, used to say, “Just because you walk out of a movie doesn’t mean it’s over.” Just because you walk out of Afghanistan doesn’t mean it’s over. We’re all sick of the war in Afghanistan. Nobody’s sicker than the U.S. military. I actually think one reason McChrystal blew up on the launching pad was because he and his guys are tired. They’ve been doing this for years. The U.S. military is 1 percent of this country, and it’s carrying 99 percent of the burden of the war.



Did we miss something? Let us know!

If you can help us research them please either email us or (preferably) post your work in the comments below. Also also let us know how long you spent researching each fact.

THANKS!


Identifying and posting these statements took 3 hours.


POST YOUR RESEARCH HERE



The following is a fact-check from the June 20, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:


GOV. HALEY BARBOUR (R-MS) VS. REP. ED MARKEY (D-MA) | Obama energy plan quote & cap and trade costs

1) GOV. BARBOUR | Rep. Markey’s cap and trade bill would drive up energy costs – TRUE

2) GOV. BARBOUR | President Obama told a San Francisco newspaper that under his cap and trade plan, electricity plans [rates] would necessarily skyrocket. – TRUE

3) REP. MARKEY | The Obama quote Gov. Barbour mentioned was from three years ago – FALSE (2+ years)

4) REP. MARKEY | The Obama Cap and Trade plan is not the same as the bill the House passed last year – TRUE

GOV. BARBOUR: Now, there are people like Congressman Markey whose bill in Congress, the–that mostly effects electricity, would drive up, up energy costs.  As President Obama said, under–he told a San Francisco paper, and I quote, “Under my cap and trade plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.” One of the things President Obama and I agree on.

While there is still mostly partisan-delineated debate regarding the actual cost to American households of the cap and trade bill passed by the House last year, the non-partisan CBO estimated that yes, the cost of electricity would rise under the plan. Thus, we determine Gov. Barbour’s statement to be TRUE.

Thanks to a similar fact-check by PolitiFact, it is clear that Gov. Barbour’s statement is TRUE. Obama made the statement during a January 2008 meeting (video) with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle.

Gov. Barbour’s statements are somewhat misleading, however, since he is attempting to link then Senator Obama’s quote regarding his plan at the time to the plan that the House passed last year, something Rep. Markey then responded to:

REP. MARKEY:  The governor is wrong.  And the governor is using something that then Senator Obama said three years ago, not the Waxman-Markey Bill along with senator–along with Speaker Pelosi that we passed through the House last year.  What we do is we create a, a program of market-based incentives so that we move towards wind and solar, towards geothermal, towards biomass, towards plug-in hybrids, towards all-electric vehicles; efficiency, doubling the efficiency of the homes and the, and the buildings that we work in; moving in a way that captures the innovation, captures the science lead that we have on the rest of our country.  And over time it will actually lead to lower electricity, lower energy bills for our country.

As mentioned above, the Obama statement referenced by Gov. Barbour was made in January 2008, which means Rep. Markey is incorrect that it was three years ago. It was instead two years and five months ago. Because we are doing our best to look at statements in a technical sense, Rep. Markey’s would thus be FALSE.

Also, in their fact-check from June of 2009, PolitiFact neatly summed up how the debate and plan had changed since Obama made his statement:

It is worth noting that the climate debate has changed substantially since Obama sat down with the Chronicle nearly a year and a half ago. Legislators have opted to give 85 percent of the polluting permits away for free instead of putting them up for sale, as Obama pledged to do on the campaign trail. In theory, this approach should reduce costs to consumers. Furthermore, revenue from auctioned permits will help consumers pay for increased energy prices, according to Obama’s first budget.

From what we have read, we agree, making Rep. Markey’s statement that Obama’s plan in January 2008 was not the same as the House bill passed last year TRUE.

We are also looking into Rep. Markey’s claim that electricity costs will eventually go down as a result of his plan, but as of right now that research is inconclusive.


This fact-check took a combined 2 hours.

The following is a fact-check from the June 20, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:


GOV. HALEY BARBOUR (R-MS) | The $20 billion BP put in escrow will be paid in $5 billion increments over a period of four years – TRUE

GOV. BARBOUR: Right. Well, I thought that they were talking about taking $20 billion from BP all at once, and my fear was if you took $20 billion from them all at once, put it in an escrow account, then they wouldn’t have the working capital to generate the revenue to pay us. I think the president was smart, and I congratulate him and BP that they reached an agreement. Instead of $20 billion taken out of that working capital all at once, it’s actually going to be $5 billion this year, $5 billion the next year, $5 billion the following year and $5 billion the fourth year.

According to both a Washington Post and CBS news article, under the deal, BP will put $5 billion annually into escrow for the next four years to pay damage claims from the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, we rate Gov. Barbour’s statement TRUE.


The following fact-check took a combined 1 hour.

The following is a fact-check from the June, 20, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:


REP. ED MARKEY (D-MA) | There is a BP document stating that oil flow may go up as high as 100,000 barrels per day – TRUE

REP. ED MARKEY (D-MA): Right now, again, we’re dependent upon BP and the execution of their capacity to be able to put a cap over this well. I actually have a document that shows that BP actually believes it could go upwards of 100,000 barrels per day, which would be about four million barrels a day.

According to an internal BP document which was released by Rep. Ed Markey, the oil flow rate on the Deepwater Horizon rig could get as high as 100,000 barrels per day (bpd). Here is what the document says:

Note: If BOP and wellhead are removed and if we have incorrectly modeled the restrictions – the rate could be as high as – 100,000 barrels per day up the casing or 55,000 barrels per day up the annulus (low probability worst cases)

Therefore, because the document clearly states the oil flow rate could go as high as 100,000 bpd, we will rate Rep. Markey’s statement TRUE.


This fact-check took 30 minutes.

Here are the statements to fact-check from the June 20, 2010 episode of Meet the Press.
Transcript | Video

If you can help us research them please either email us or (preferably) post your work in the comments below. (Anonymity is fine) Also let us know how long you spent researching each fact, we will be tracking it. The success of Meet the Facts depends on the crowd-sourcing of people like you, please help if you can!

Statements are listed in chronological order


REP. ED MARKEY (D-MA) | [Confirm existence of document]

REP. ED MARKEY (D-MA):  Right now, again, we’re dependent upon BP and the execution of their capacity to be able to put a cap over this well.  I actually have a document that shows that BP actually believes it could go upwards of 100,000 barrels per day, which would be about four million barrels a day.

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA) | Canada deliberately spills oil in water to practice their clean up efforts.

SEN. LANDRIEU: I learned this week that Canada and–as one country, for instance–does spills into their water to practice in the event that this would happen.

JOHN HOFMEISTER | Jones Act prevents use of foreign ships from assisting with the oil spill cleanup.
REP. ED MARKEY (D-MA) | Jones Act does not prevent use of foreign ships from assisting with the oil spill cleanup.

MR. HOFMEISTER:  Well, there’s a Jones Act that gets in the way.  The Jones Act, decades-long enforced, prevents foreign ships from operating in domestic waters.
MR. GREGORY:  Mm-hmm.
MR. HOFMEISTER:  It would have to have a waiver.  There was a waiver after Katrina to help do whatever needed to be done.  There should be a waiver now. This is a unique, unprecedented situation.  The U.S. hasn’t made supertankers in–ever.  Supertankers have always been made in foreign shipbuilding yards.  And we need to bring that kind of scale to bear, in my opinion.
MR. GREGORY:  Congressman, you’re shaking your head.  You don’t…
REP. MARKEY:  The, the Jones Act, the Jones Act does not apply to situations like this, emergency situations, relief situations.
MR. GREGORY:  You should be able to get those ships in there right away.

GOV. HALEY BARBOUR (R-MS)

1) The Mississippi government recruited 1163 vessels to help with spill cleanup.
2) Coast Guard communications issues prevented the use of those vessels [ED NOTE: is that what he was saying?]

GOV. BARBOUR:  Yeah, David, I was just, I was–well, I was just going to say, Senator Landrieu made a point earlier about command and control, which has been a huge problem.  We recruited 1,200–1,163 vessels to work on our spill, designed a multilayered plan to start defending our shores 20 miles south of the barrier islands.  And then, unfortunately, the Coast Guard told us weeks later, “Well, we don’t have a way to communicate with those vessels.  We don’t have a way to identify even where they are, and so we’ve been relying for about three weeks on a system that existed but couldn’t be executed.” To their credit, in the last two weeks the Coast Guard has, has, has corrected that or begun the correction of that.

DAVID GREGORY (NBC) | Obama made a promise to leave the Gulf Coast (of Gulf of Mexico) in better shape than it was before the oil spill. [ED NOTE: Statement is listed because it seems possibly unclear, from the quote used, whether Obama was actually promising or making a statement of belief.]

MR. GREGORY:  Can I have you respond ultimately, Governor, to the sense of what government is capable of here?  Because that’s what people are really thinking about in the long term.  Here’s what the president said.  He issued a promise when he was in Alabama, Theodore, Alabama, this week.  Let’s listen to that.
(Videotape, Monday)
PRES. BARACK OBAMA:  We are going to do everything we can 24/7 to make sure that communities get back on their feet.  And in the end, I am confident that we’re going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY:  “In better shape than it was before.” That caught my eye and my team because we went back to 2005, President Bush speaking in New Orleans, and this is among the promises he made.

GOV. HALEY BARBOUR (R-MS) | The $20 billion BP has promised is broken up into $5 billion increments over a period of four years.

GOV. BARBOUR:  Right.  Well, I thought that they were talking about taking $20 billion from BP all at once, and my fear was if you took $20 billion from them all at once, put it in an escrow account, then they wouldn’t have the working capital to generate the revenue to pay us.  I think the president was smart, and I congratulate him and BP that they reached an agreement.  Instead of $20 billion taken out of that working capital all at once, it’s actually going to be $5 billion this year, $5 billion the next year, $5 billion the following year and $5 billion the fourth year.

REP. ED MARKEY (D-MA)

1) Oil industry had said that the risks of an oil rig ever sinking were zero [%].
2) Oil industry had said that they had the capacity to handle a spill of up to 250,000 barrels a day.

REP. MARKEY:  I, I agree with you.  When an agency responsible for safety turns into a lapdog and not a watchdog, then, unfortunately, boosterism creates complacency, and complacency leads to disaster.  It happened in the financial sector.  Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns and AIG, they all said, “There’s no risk with derivatives and credit default swaps.  Don’t worry.” And it created a financial disaster.  The same thing was true here.  The industry said that the risks of a rig ever sinking were zero.  Their capacity to handle a spill up to 250,000 barrels per day was absolute.  None of it was true.  And so, if you allow this risk to be built into the system, then it’s ordinary families’ financial and health and well-being which is affected, and the government has to play the role of protecting ordinary people against the short-term financial goals of companies that are going to assure the public that everything is safe.

GOV. HALEY BARBOUR (R-MS)

1) 30% of US domestic oil production comes from Gulf of Mexico.
2) 80% of Gulf of Mexico US oil production comes from deepwater wells.
3) 25% of US domestic oil production comes from deepwater wells in the Gulf of Mexico.

GOV. BARBOUR:  Well, the moratorium.  The skill–the spill’s a terrible thing, but the moratorium is a, is a terrible thing that’s not only bad for the region, it’s bad for America.  Thirty percent of the oil produced in the United States comes out of the Gulf of Mexico, and 80 percent of that is from deepwater drilling.  So that’s a fourth of all of our oil.

GOV. HALEY BARBOUR (R-MS) | President Obama told a San Francisco newspaper that under his cap and trade plan, electricity plans [rates] would necessarily skyrocket.

GOV. BARBOUR:  As President Obama said, under–he told a San Francisco paper, and I quote, “Under my cap and trade plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.” One of the things President Obama and I agree on.

REP. ED MARKEY (D-MA) | Gov. Barbour’s Obama quote was from three years ago.

REP. MARKEY:  The governor is wrong.  And the governor is using something that then Senator Obama said three years ago, not the Waxman-Markey Bill along with senator–along with Speaker Pelosi that we passed through the House last year.  What we do is we create a, a program of market-based incentives so that we move towards wind and solar, towards geothermal, towards biomass, towards plug-in hybrids, towards all-electric vehicles; efficiency, doubling the efficiency of the homes and the, and the buildings that we work in; moving in a way that captures the innovation, captures the science lead that we have on the rest of our country.  And over time it will actually lead to lower electricity, lower energy bills for our country.  We only have 2 percent of the oil reserves in the world, and we consume 25 percent of the world’s oil on a daily basis.  That is nonsustainable.  Either we have this technological revolution going forward while we keep the oil and gas and coal that we have, but unless we unleash this market-based revolution and make it possible for us to back out the oil from OPEC, make sure China isn’t selling all of these new products to us…



Did we miss something? Let us know!

If you can help us research them please either email us or (preferably) post your work in the comments below. Also also let us know how long you spent researching each fact.

THANKS!

Identifying and posting these statements took 2 hours.


POST YOUR RESEARCH HERE

Tomorrow on the June 20, 2010 Meet the Press:


Interview:

Kenneth Feinberg
Independent Administrator, BP Oil Spill Victim Compensation Fund

Roundtable:

Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS)
Chair, Republican Governors Association

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Energy and Natural Resources Committee

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)
Chair, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming

Katty Kay
Washington Correspondent, BBC World News America

John Hofmeister
Former President, Shell Oil Company
Author, “Why We Hate the Oil Companies”

This Sunday,  Crisis in the Gulf‬‪ – a special discussion for the full hour examining the many facets of the Oil Spill disaster: clean-up efforts, restoration, containment, the government’s response, and of course accountability as BP officials met this week with the President and faced tough questioning on Capitol Hill. Plus how will this crisis impact our energy policy and the future of off-shore drilling? We will ask Governor Haley Barbour (R) of Mississippi, Senator Mary Landrieu (D)  of Louisiana, Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) of the Energy and Commerce Committee, fmr President of Shell Oil Company and author of “Why We Hate the Oil Companies,” John Hofmeister and Katty Kay of the BBC.

Also, we’ll speak exclusively with Ken Feinberg, the man who will implement and administer the $20 billion fund BP established to compensate victims of the disaster.  How will claims be processed and how soon will victims see relief?