ssj4wolverine
10-07-2010, 04:21 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100603082.html
I'm not sure what to believe in this scenario.
MSNBC and CNN had actual visual footage of the spill being larger than estimated and lasting longer than reported, so I always figured they were low-balling it, and I doubt too many other people believed these crazy low figures that the media sold to us during the first weeks of the spill either..
What I don't get, is why (if true), the White House would feel the need to sugar coat it.
I don't see what they (the WH officials) would have to gain, by fudging the numbers.
If it's actually a larger spill, blame BP and those contractors. Simple as that. The spill was their fault, not this Administration's, so why the (possible) cover-up?
I'm not sure what to believe in this scenario.
MSNBC and CNN had actual visual footage of the spill being larger than estimated and lasting longer than reported, so I always figured they were low-balling it, and I doubt too many other people believed these crazy low figures that the media sold to us during the first weeks of the spill either..
What I don't get, is why (if true), the White House would feel the need to sugar coat it.
I don't see what they (the WH officials) would have to gain, by fudging the numbers.
If it's actually a larger spill, blame BP and those contractors. Simple as that. The spill was their fault, not this Administration's, so why the (possible) cover-up?