Rubbish. You've simply been stupidly pointing out differences in "wording" of the approval. The government is fricking standing in the way. Get the danged skimmers to fricking WORK.
Right... Because the factcheck site said it only applies within 3 miles doesn't change that it is still there, standing in the fricking way. It's absurd to ignore the fact that even their own fricking charts show they aren't doing what they can to remove red tape.
You simply ignore the actual reports from the agencies in charge because you desperately want to believe something that isn't true. If you close your eyes tight enough and hope really hard, there will still be over 50 requests that are standing around waiting for "acceptance" proving me to be correct.
Why not check that other thread where it says directly that the Joint Information Center flat out states that there are vessels awaiting Jones Act Waivers?
Pay attention, Damo:
Hey, TCL, you need to pay attention. Later articles were posted where the people in charge actually spoke to the very real fact that there are ships awaiting Jones Act Waivers... factcheck appears to have it a bit wrong. I think where they went wrong was in assuming that all the ships available to us have even close to been "accepted"...
from FactCheck.org
The Deepwater Horizon response team reported in a June 15 press release that there are 15 foreign flagged ships currently participating in the oil spill cleanup. None of them needed a waiver because the Jones Act does not apply. The Jones Act is a trade and commerce law that was enacted in 1920 as part of a larger Marine Merchant Act. It requires all trade delivered between U.S. ports to be carried in U.S. flagged vessels constructed in the United States and owned by American citizens. The law states its purpose is to develop a merchant marine for national defense and commerce.
And here's what came from the horses mouth on June 15th, so to speak:
Admiral Allen Provides Guidance to Ensure Expedited Jones Act Waiver Processing Should It Be Needed
While we have not seen any need to waive the Jones Act as part of this historic response, we continue to prepare for all possible scenarios,” said Admiral Allen. “Should any waivers be needed, we are prepared to process them as quickly as possible to allow vital spill response activities being undertaken by foreign-flagged vessels to continue without delay.”
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/660195/
And had YOU examined YOUR link more closely, you'd have noticed the following:
Canada: Accepted 9,843 ft containment boom accepted June 4. Arrived on scene and now in the field for staging.
*More boom offered 14 June, under consideration.
Croatia: Proposed solution has been shown to engineers and technical experts, will be incorporated into response as needed.
International Maritime Organization: Accepted. Requested IMO to send communication to all 169 Member States and the maritime community generally regarding use of websites provided by the U.S. to assist in safe navigation in the Gulf of Mexico
Mexico: BP purchased 13,780 feet of boom and two skimmers in early May. Arrived in field and now on scene.
Netherlands: skimmers Accepted on May 23. BP purchased three rigid Koseq sweeping arms accepted May 23.
Norway: Eight skimming systems accepted in early May
Understand now, bunky? The urban legend that your neocon buddies have been bullhorning ISN'T TRUE. Had you THOROUGHLY read the FactCheck article with it's LINKS, you'd know this. Seems you have a serious case of research myopia (aka willful ignorance).
Next time you want to condescend to someone, know WTF you're talking about...makes you look less foolish.
Hey, TCL, you need to pay attention. Later articles were posted where the people in charge actually spoke to the very real fact that there are ships awaiting Jones Act Waivers... factcheck appears to have it a bit wrong. I think where they went wrong was in assuming that all the ships available to us have even close to been "accepted"...
I, in fact, used the chart provided in that factcheck "article" to point out that I was correct.
And as I pointed out, you got it wrong because you didn't read ALL the material availble, and only "selected" information from the chart that suited your viewpoint.
It seems you are up to the same "trick" of pretending that you cannot read the thread. I expect you to link back to another post that was already shown to be factually incorrect. Then you can, like Nigel, just cover your ears and pretend that the articles that I posted just are somehow "wrong" because you heard from one side rather than from the Joint Information Center...
Seems you're full of it as usual.....the information I put forth clearly shows that YOU WEREN'T AWARE OF WHAT THE ADMIRAL STATED, and that YOU selected parts of the "chart" that supported your statement. That you try to ignore what is in plain print makes your assertions all the more ludicrous.
Thanks for playing, you are an entertaining fellow.
Your inflated ego demonstrated in these statements is really sad, given how the factual evidence is against you. You really need to get your act together, Damo.
You again simply just ignore later posts and articles that showed that factcheck was just a "bit off"... It's okay. When factcheck takes its information from only one part rather than from the joint informational center for the response it is bound to have only parts of the information.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-accepts-international-apf-4104246595.html?x=0&.v=2
Does this article state that there wasn't aid from other countries regarding ships? 
Why has The Obama rejected private clean up efforts?