American Morning

Tune in at 6am Eastern for all the news you need to start your day.
July 6th, 2010
05:50 AM ET

LIVE Blog: Chat with us during the show

Editor's Note: Welcome to American Morning's LIVE Blog where you can discuss the "most news in the morning" with us each week day. Join the live chat during the show by adding your comments below. It's your chance to share your thoughts on the day's headlines. You have a better chance of having your comment get past our moderators if you follow our rules: 1) Keep it brief 2) No writing in ALL CAPS 3) Use your real name (first name only is fine) 4) No links 5) Watch your language (that includes $#&*).

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/US/07/06/gulf.oil.disaster/t1main.blimp.navy.jpg caption="A massive, silver-colored blimp is to arrive in the Gulf Coast on Tuesday, where it will fly over the region to track where the oil is flowing and how it is coming ashore."]

Blimp to fly over Gulf to track oil, aid response efforts

(CNN) – A massive, silver-colored blimp is expected to arrive in the Gulf Coast on Tuesday to aid in oil disaster response efforts.

The U.S. Navy airship will be used to detect oil, direct skimming ships and look for wildlife that may be threatened by oil, the Coast Guard said Monday.

The 178-foot-long blimp, known as the MZ-3A, can carry a crew of up to 10. It will fly slowly over the region to track where the oil is flowing and how it is coming ashore.

The Navy says the advantage of the blimp over current helicopter surveillance operations is that it can stay aloft longer, with lower fuel costs, and can survey a wider area.

The Coast Guard has already been pinpointing traveling pools of oil from the sky.

"The aircraft get on top of the oil. They can identify what type of oil it is and they can vector in the skimmer vessels right to the spot," Coast Guard Capt. Brian Kelley said. Read more

Full coverage | LIVE: Undersea view Video

Sound off: We want to hear from you this morning. Add your comments to the LIVE Blog below and we'll read some of them on the show.


Filed under: LIVE Blog • Top Stories
soundoff (48 Responses)
  1. Gregor Krisulewicz

    Hey John maybe you could say
    How impressed you are with her entrepreneurial prowess
    Gregor

    July 6, 2010 at 8:55 am |
  2. art

    I wonder what style of hat a Queen would have to wear to ward off 102 degree temperatures?

    July 6, 2010 at 8:51 am |
  3. MeLoN

    And Americans wonder why they are some of the most hated people in the world. Go figure that one out.

    Even the citizens of our "greatest" allies – Great Britian and Israel – dislike America.

    Go visit a British or Israeli chatroom/forum ... and see what opinions they have of Americans.

    July 6, 2010 at 8:48 am |
  4. Pauly

    Yes, a 2/3 majority would be hard to do in today's political climate. If not totally impossible. However, Congress ratified NAFTA in a different political climate. It would have been a slap in the face to Congress, as well to the Bush I administration for Clinton to veto NAFTA!!! remember, it ewas negotiated & signed by Bush I & 2 other countries & ratified by the Congress before ever reaching Clinton's desk!!! A President doesn't pass laws!!! That's Congress's job. A President can only sign or veto a law after Congress passes it!!!

    If a President could pass laws, a lot of reforms would have passed w/o all the drama during the last 2 years. Those reforms would have been stronger & benefitted Americans more. Unfortunately, they had to/are going through Congress!!!

    July 6, 2010 at 8:40 am |
  5. carl grooms

    Kiran

    i watch you all every morning for a couple of hours here in los angeles. my favorite news show. you and John have a great chemistry.

    i tivo the show so whenever i wake up i can watch. i usually watch more or less in real time.

    i love what you are wearing today. it is nice to see a more elegant yet casual look.

    i barely finished watching "it's complicated" and i turned you on and there was the wonderful piece about Alec Baldwin. serendipity

    thank you CNN and the morning team.

    July 6, 2010 at 8:37 am |
  6. MeLoN

    Ask yourself a simple question ... why did 9/11 occur? Can you fathom the reason behind it?

    You are still missing the point.

    July 6, 2010 at 8:33 am |
  7. Pauly

    AFTER? After they chose to give safe harbor to those who were responsible for 9/11? That makes them accomplices after the fact!!! If you aid & abet the enemy, you ARE the enemy!!!

    And I wish you could & would smack me in the face. It wouldn't mattter if you were American or not, vengeance would be swift & drastic!!!

    July 6, 2010 at 8:25 am |
  8. Randall of Texas

    6 American soldiers dead and made a by-line? Is that correct? And we get more about Lindsay Loha than about them!

    ou never hear guys like Alec Baldwin saying they wished they had gotten an honorable discharge from the country's military. Ever hear Bill Gates or Donald Trump say that they wish they had served the company that gave them so much?

    July 6, 2010 at 8:25 am |
  9. MeLoN

    Sorry Pauly... a President passing of any law isn't ceremonial and is as important as Congress passing a law. In your words.. the President has no power .... lol... how very unrealistic. Congress can over-ride a President's veto... with a 2/3 vote of both the Senate and Congress..... which would be hard to accomplish.

    July 6, 2010 at 8:20 am |
  10. art

    MeL says-"And it is certainly not the US's duty to police the world with two different sets of standards. If the US is going to attempt to police the world they would have to be fair and open with everybody and they have never achieved that."

    Well, I feel we're a helluva lot closer to being fair and open with everybody having Obama in office than we were with the Bush/Cheney crowd, or having the McCain-McConnell-Boehner crowd interpreting our world for us.

    It's just my perspective in this moment of- Now, and like everything else, is subject to- Change.

    July 6, 2010 at 8:20 am |
  11. Dave Bell

    Hi I just wanted Kiran to know that dress she had on 7/6 looked amazing i couldnt stop looking at her . i watch every mrng from 6-8 and you all do an increadible job.

    July 6, 2010 at 8:19 am |
  12. David

    Hard to imagine, but Kiran Chetry is looking even more beautiful than usual this morning.

    July 6, 2010 at 8:18 am |
  13. MeLoN

    America is supposed to stand for truth and justice for all people – not just the ones willing to be puppets of the US.

    The US can't police the world with one standard for their "friends" and one standard for the rest of the world.

    Let's bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time ignore what is going on between the terrorist state of Israel and the Palestinians or totally disregard whats been happening Africa for decades or over-throwing an elected Government in South America or supporting two bit dictators who kill their own citizens because they are an enemy of an enemy. That is what the US foreign policy has been for the last century and anybody that supports that kind of thinking isn't a true American but is a moron and should be put down for the good of the whole of America.

    July 6, 2010 at 8:15 am |
  14. Franklin Pasko

    Good Morning, John and Kiran!
    Happy to have Her Majesty visiting NYC today. With all the craziness surrounding politics right now, it's nice to have a royal visit!

    July 6, 2010 at 8:07 am |
  15. Jimmie Adams

    Richard Roth's comment "they take who they can get" regarding the Queen and her appearance at the UN was uncalled for. What is that guy thinking? Ugly Ugly/

    July 6, 2010 at 8:02 am |
  16. John Adams

    Don't forget that the queen was in Jamestown in 2007 to celebrate the oldest permanent colony in the Americas and to celebrate the 400 anniversary of The College of William and Mary, the only USA college to receive an official coat of arms from the privy council of England.

    July 6, 2010 at 8:02 am |
  17. John Adams

    Don't forget that the queen was in Jamestown in 2007 to celebrate the oldest permanent colony in the Americas and to celebrate the 400 anniversary of The College of William and Mary, the only USA college to receive an official coat of arms fro from the privy council of England.

    July 6, 2010 at 7:53 am |
  18. MeLoN

    AFTER the US invaded their country. AFTER. You do understand what the word AFTER means, don't you? You think the US has the right to invade any other country and not suffer the consequences of that action?.... That is what is wrong with having the attitude that the US can inflict whatever they want to on anybody else but how dare they want to do anything to the US!

    So .. in your opinion Pauly.... I can smack you in the face and there is nothing you can do to me ... because I am an American..... lol... what an insane wway of thinking. As long as there is stupid people with that kind of thinking – never will ever get better or solved for the US.

    July 6, 2010 at 7:41 am |
  19. Pauly

    Congress is the legislative branch!!! All laws must be passed through Congress. Therefore, all Presidential signings are ceremonial!!! Congress can even override a Presidential veto when a President doesn't agree w/ them!!!

    July 6, 2010 at 7:38 am |
  20. Bruce A Carter

    so what your are reporting is that foster chrildren are only good to brang money in to a foster home and that they are not taught no skills along the way about how to survive and that at the age of 18 they are throwen to the wolfs of our society

    July 6, 2010 at 7:38 am |
  21. Pauly

    With the Gulf moving father along in this hurricane season, is it a wise idea to send in a blimp? Especially when all eyes are on a disturbance that could enter the Gulf as a major storm in the next day or two? If this storm becomes a hurricane, Bonnie, how long would it take to get the blimp out of harm's way? Blimps aren't the fastest aircraft.

    July 6, 2010 at 7:28 am |
  22. Dale

    Responding to your summer jobs to of a price tag story.

    Scott Brown (R) Massachusetts: Takes his high horse sanctimonious stance to say, “of course we would like to help the unemployed but we have to live with in our means”. I bet he lives pretty well on his $174.000 a year salary along with getting 75 percent of his health care premium paid, that is of course, funded by taxpayers, the same taxpayers he would dare tell we can’t help you, in so many words.

    July 6, 2010 at 7:26 am |
  23. Pauly

    MeLoN says- "The Taliban has never bombed anything in the US. The taliban is only fighting the US because the US invaded THEIR country."

    The Pakistani Taliban, which is closely affiliated w/ the Afghanistan Taliban & Al Qaeda, was involved w/ the attempted Times Square bombing!!! They also warn of future bombings in the US!!!

    July 6, 2010 at 7:20 am |
  24. MeLoN

    Signing anything into law is not a "mere ceremonial act".

    As if bringing up jobs lost to China takes away from NAFTA.

    One American job lost either to China or Mexico – under one scamming agreement or another is wrong.

    July 6, 2010 at 7:20 am |
  25. mike sey

    If seven maids had seven mops....
    While sympathizing with Billy Nungesser's plaintiff cry to do "something, anything" about the oil, it seems most of his ideas don't pan out.
    Now we've got the monster Whale Oil skimmer being tested. Before it gets entirely 'nungassed' for arriving too late and taking too long to test, maybe CNN could give us some background instead of spreading his nungasserisms.
    We know its big (you told us that) but where did it come from? It was retrofitted- where,why and how long did that take? When was this ship developed and has it ever been used successfully anywhere before?
    We at least deserve to know these things before jumping to the conclusion that everyone involved (except Billy) is lazy , incompetent, and overlooking instant solutions.

    July 6, 2010 at 7:16 am |
  26. Peter Lusk

    In light of the new "Whale" skimmer ship that is soon to be introduced to the gulf crisis, I would like to ask all of my theistic friends and alike to say a silent prayer for the whales affected by the oil. May their oily deaths be forever remembered.

    July 6, 2010 at 7:13 am |
  27. art

    MeL- Interesting response. So, you're for looking the other way, or enabling these guys?

    July 6, 2010 at 7:13 am |
  28. FRANK SAGE

    Less than four months after President Barack Obama took office, his new administration received a forceful warning about the dangers of offshore oil drilling.
    The alarm was rung by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., which found that the government was unprepared for a major spill at sea, relying on an "irrational" environmental analysis of the risks of offshore drilling.
    The April 2009 ruling stunned both the administration and the oil industry, and threatened to delay or cancel dozens of offshore projects in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.
    Despite its pro-environment pledges, the Obama administration urged the court to revisit the decision. Politically, it needed to push ahead with conventional oil production while it expanded support for renewable energy.

    July 6, 2010 at 7:12 am |
  29. MeLoN

    And it is certainly not the US's duty to police the world with two different sets of standards. If the US is going to attempt to police the world they would have to be fair and open with everybody and they have never achieved that.

    July 6, 2010 at 7:09 am |
  30. Pauly

    You're the one who said Bush had nothing to do w/ NAFTA!!! You want to blame Clinton for signing an agreement that was negotiated & signed by the previous administration & ratified by Congress. His signing the agreement into law was a mere ceremonial act.

    Besides, as I've told you before, NAFTA has nothing to do w/ all the jobs that are going overseas. From '01-'07, the US lost 2.3 million industrial jobs to China, which has nothing to do w/ NAFTA!!! From the time NAFTA was signed in '93 thru '02, a total of 879,000 jobs were lost to Mexico. Fre trade is a GOP mantra, which like most of their policies, have severe consequences for the American worker!!!

    July 6, 2010 at 7:09 am |
  31. MeLoN

    What does one thing have to do with another?

    It's not the US's duty to police the world.

    July 6, 2010 at 7:04 am |
  32. art

    MeLoN says- "The Taliban has never bombed anything in the US. The taliban is only fighting the US because the US invaded THEIR country."

    So, MeL, how do you feel about the Taliban's treatment of females?

    July 6, 2010 at 7:01 am |
  33. MeLoN

    Could've... would've... should've.... Exactly.

    We can only go by what ACTAULLY happened not by what might have happened if something different happened. My point exactly. Thank You for proving my point.

    You should really stop bringing up Bush – like he ever did anything that I agree with.

    July 6, 2010 at 6:55 am |
  34. Dale

    Could CNN give us five Ideas a day to create jobs? There must be some economists out there willing to share an idea. Why couldn’t we subsidize entry level internships while people are being educated in that field?

    July 6, 2010 at 6:50 am |
  35. Pauly

    Yes, Clinton could have vetoed it. Congress could also have overruled the veto!!! Bush II could have repealed it but didn't!!! Could've, should've would've!!!

    President Bush: "These agreements are important to enhance our friendship, but these are good for our
    economy." "[O]nce Congress approves the free trade agreement with Colombia, then they can approve one with Panama.
    And once they finish one with Panama, then they can do one with South Korea."

    July 6, 2010 at 6:48 am |
  36. MeLoN

    Clinton didn't have to sign it. It was his choice to. Clinton... like any other President has the power of the veto – if he had the backbone to use it.

    July 6, 2010 at 6:42 am |
  37. Pauly

    Bush signed the agreement w/ the leaders of Mexico & Canada. All that was left to do was to get the lawmakers of the 3 countries to ratify it. Clinton signed it after Congress ratified it. Really, giving Clinton all the blame or credit is really stretching the historical facts!!!

    July 6, 2010 at 6:38 am |
  38. MeLoN

    Dec 8, 1993:

    NAFTA signed into law

    The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Clinton said he hoped the agreement would encourage other nations to work toward a broader world-trade pact.

    July 6, 2010 at 6:36 am |
  39. Michael Armstrong Sr.

    $75.00 to $45.00 left to spend a day like I said before Christien is out of touch with little America the people where I live would love to have $10.00 a day to spend .

    July 6, 2010 at 6:32 am |
  40. MeLoN

    Bush didn't sign NAFTA into law. Clinton did. Learn something. It doesn't matter if Gone Wrong Bush liked it or not – he didn't sign it into law. You can not change the facts.

    July 6, 2010 at 6:31 am |
  41. Bruce A Carter

    it was reported on ch 13 abc that the had reached the bolivar peninsula east of galvesten tx

    July 6, 2010 at 6:27 am |
  42. art

    MeLoN

    What did you file your "Bush had nothing to do with NAFTA" comment under?

    July 6, 2010 at 6:22 am |
  43. Lorraine

    President Obama is so right to not hurry back to Louisiana. How ungrateful they are t go to ajudge to have his decision overturn. I say to Jindle take control leave the federal government alone. Remember he does not want the fedearl gov't invovled until he need them. He has thousands og guards sitting around. He does not know what to do with them.

    July 6, 2010 at 6:16 am |
  44. art

    Upon reading this morning's introduction to the MZ-3A, I was immediately reminded of the LZ-129.....The Hindenburg.

    I really miss George Carlin...

    July 6, 2010 at 6:14 am |
  45. MACK

    Ok here is a stupid question! when we pump out all that oil whats suppose to fill the hole that the oil use to occupy?

    July 6, 2010 at 6:11 am |
  46. MeLoN

    GOOD MORNING CNN!

    Al Qaeda abondons Afghanistan.... is almost a win for them – in terms of what it costs the US – 500 billion and 3000 dead in New York then add to that the lives and money spent so far on the war in Afghanistan.

    Al.ca July 5th, 2010 8:35 am ET

    They know its a "No Win" Melon. If they dont fight the Taliban in Afghanistan then the Taliban will come to the US again and bomb/destroy something else...maybe the White House this time. Fight them over there or fight them over here. Definitely a No Win situation.

    The Taliban has never bombed anything in the US. The taliban is only fighting the US because the US invaded THEIR country.

    Here's a news flash for you – it was Al Qaeda that attack WTC on 9/11 – not the Taliban. They had nothing to do with it.

    File this comment of yours under Marion Brady.

    July 6, 2010 at 6:10 am |
  47. MACK

    So with all of this thats going on concerning the oil issue whouldn't it be a good idea for our country to start lookin to alternative energy sourceses?

    July 6, 2010 at 6:09 am |
  48. Peter Lusk

    It's good to see the oil spill is at least prompting authorities to use more fuel-efficient methods of monitoring the spill. Anything to cut down on consumption.

    July 6, 2010 at 6:06 am |