We’ve just spent years listening to ungenerous, miserable people excoriate President Bush for calmly taking 7 minutes, after learning of the attacks of 9/11, to allow his Secret Service to do their thing and to–with a great deal of composure–take his leave from a classroom without managing to scare the children or give an impression of fear that would be put before the nation and the world.IN THE COMMENTS: Fred4Pres said: "My Pet Pelican."
After watching President Obama take six weeks to process the terrible news he was given–pressing forward with golf, vacations, parties and fund-raisers in order to not scare the nation–even if that it meant he seemed a little disengaged from the BP Oil disaster, I never want to hear another sneering, idiotic My Pet Goat joke, again.
ADDED:
Posts
99 comments:
She's right, you know.
No, she's not. It's not the same, not even close. A terrorist attack of massive proportion-- larger than any other terrorist attack in the modern world, and so destructive to life and living-- is a whole different animal than an oil spill.
Do you conservatives really think these two events are equivalent?
If so, perhaps we ought not to take the continuing threat of Muslim terrorism so seriously after all!
Well, the two things are different, but it does remind me (again) of the complete unhistorical nature of modern "liberalism."
FDR had very close to a nervous breakdown on Pearl Harbor.
Pause.
Right.
-XC
Expecting a sneering idiot not to sneer idiotically is — well, it's like that whole 'scorpion and frog' thing.
Dead Julius,
Are you really that Obtuse?
Worst terrorist incident in our nation's history.
Worst man caused disaster in our nation's history.
(See what I did there?)
This isn't hard.
Bush told the military to get ready. Barry told his contributors to write him checks and ignore a disaster that only helps prove the wind mills of his mind is all the energy we need to defund the military and surrender quicker.
This leaking of "it wasn't my fault" documents from underlings like Browner indicates that Washington thinks this is a political disaster.
Assuming that it's true that the President was briefed on the likely extent of the tragedy, that fact will make him a lame duck.
It's inexcusable under any circumstances that he didn't mobilize immediately absolutely every available resource for containment. If he understood that the spill was likely catostrophic, his inaction is inexplicable, perhaps, even criminal.
I wonder how Rahm and the boys will try to walk this back?
Dead Julius said...
No, she's not. It's not the same, not even close. A terrorist attack of massive proportion
To be fair, the piece Ann clipped was about the Pet Goat. At that point, it wasn't a terrorist attack of massive proportion. It was an aweful acident where 1 plane hit 1 building. Compare that to 4 months of oil leak.
inexplicable, perhaps, even criminal
I think we've just stumbled across THE pitch-perfect Obvama/Biden campaign slogan, come 2012! ;)
inexplicable, perhaps, even criminal
I think we've just stumbled across THE pitch-perfect Obama/Biden campaign slogan, come 2012! ;)
I'm so confused. I thought you wanted less government involvement in private industry, less regulation of the environment, and to have the national government focus primarily on national defense (e.g. when one of our cities gets attacked by an outside force). Shouldn't you be calling on the CEO of BP to step up and own this one? Or maybe you're obfuscating - secretly hoping our head of government will butt in and do someone else's job so he can't do his own?
Clearly Obama should have entered some sort of iron maiden when he heard about the spill, not to emerge until the last drop of evil had been purged from the world.
In what year does "some people were mean to Bush, now we get to act like jackasses with impunity" expire? Let me guess-- when Republicans are in power everywhere and for eternity. Because they do such a great job. Can't wait. My whole life is about vindicating that poor nice man, George W. Bush, and telling off all the people that were mean to him. Poor, sad, sweet, misunderstood George Bush, who never hurt a fly and just wanted to be the best pwesident he could be.
Obama should have plugged the leak with his fingers, and short of that, he should just immediately resign, and possibly commit suicide. November november!
My whole life is about vindicating that poor nice man, George W. Bush, and telling off all the people that were mean to him. Poor, sad, sweet, misunderstood George Bush, who never hurt a fly and just wanted to be the best pwesident he could be.
There, there. [::strokes Montagne's colicky little head::] There, there. Shhhhh.
I never could figure out how W could be Beelzebub & Boob at the same time.
Dead Julius, please review everything again including your own comment before your post.
Shouldn't you be calling on the CEO of BP to step up and own this one? Or maybe you're obfuscating - secretly hoping our head of government will butt in and do someone else's job so he can't do his own?
Did you miss the Obama's statement that the he and the Federal Government owned this from day one?
Confusing, I know.
Libs used the Pet Goat as an indication of Bush's inability to act...something he then proved he could do. By acting. By leading.
Obama has done nothing. No action, no leading. What he has done instead is stamp his impotent little feet and shrieked "They'll pay for this!" I don't understand the people who think he needs to show more emotion because I've seen quite enough of his one-track emotion--petulant little bullying prick that he is.
He is a small, small man and the next election cannot come soon enough.
"to have the national government focus primarily on national defense (e.g. when one of our cities gets attacked by an outside force)."
Like oil?
BP's job is to stop the leak. Obama and the government have the role of doing everything possible to mitigate damage and protect the shores from the effects.
Just like if, say, a hurricane hits. I think it's very, very fair to ask if all the possible Federal response was made to help protect the countless varieties of concerns that are affected by this spill. I don't want BP to be in charge of civil response. I want them to stop the leak. The leak is BP's fault, the effects of the leak are a big part of the responsibility of government coordination and leadership. This is one of those clear reasons why we have government--to protect and respond to massive invasions that affect millions of people and several states.
Phoebe,
Your "argument" is ridiculous. The President should have employed all available resources for containment. No one is suggesting that he should have formed a secret clean up corps ready to deploy in 2020 at a cost of a trillion. How about giving Governor Jindal a greenlight to protect his coastline? How about giving the good citizens whose lives and property might be ruined a little heads up so that, oh I don't know, they might plan ahead? The list goes on, but I know you don't care. You're too busy drinking Obama-ade.
Montagne whined: "In what year does "some people were mean to Bush, now we get to act like jackasses with impunity" expire?"
I'd say when irresponsible incompetents stop blaming him for their own problems.
Again, this shit isn't hard.
Obama should have plugged the leak with his fingers, and short of that, he should just immediately resign, and possibly commit suicide. November november!
There are really 3 parts to the problem. You like Obama like to put up strawmen to shift the focus.
BP (insurer Jupiter?) has to pay for all three parts. Let's make that clear, but the Fed response has seemed slow.
Part 1. The Leak. BP and similiar Big Oil have the only expertise available. The own this 100%
Part 2. The spill. The USCG and the EPA have expertise that doesn't seem to have been mobilized instantly. Split blame here
Part 3. The Clean-up. Lots of players. EPA, FEMA, State, Local, BP, etc. Again, I haven't heard of FEMA contracting for equipment or bringing in workers to protect / clean. Again, I haven't seen a massive mobilization by the Feds.
The left also pilloried Bush for his response to Katrina. Because he stopped at one scheduled event and there's a picture of him with a guitar in his hand, the left lambasted him as not caring and playing guitar while THE WORST NATURAL DISASTER was occuring. Meanwhile, Obama is out playing golf, singing songs with Paul Mccartney taking vacations voer the course of a month.
Why do people like Dead Julius feel that somehow it's inappropriate to call Obama on what they called Bush on? And for the record, Bush actually was there on day one and sent more resources than any president previously did for any natural disaster, yet got zero credit for the effort. Meanhwile Jindal has been asking for equipment for this spill and after a month has gotten like 20% of what he asked for.
Where is the sense of urgency from Obama? I remember when he was trying to get health care passed you couldn't turn the tv on without obama being there making a speech. Now it's lke he's persona non grata.
This is the great, competent leadership the left was talking about?
Bush reacted to 9/11 by INVADING IRAQ.
Perhaps Obama should react to the oil spill by blowing up the moon.
Men of action!
MM wrote:
"Bush reacted to 9/11 by INVADING IRAQ."
No dumbass, it was AFGHANISTAN. It's a different place and spelled differently and everything. Does your Junior High have an atlas? You can look it up. Ask teacher to help.
My Pet Pelican.
"I'm so confused. I thought you wanted less government involvement in private industry, less regulation of the environment..."
See? This is the foundation of the (shaky) argument that Obama's failures are somehow the failures of the GOP/conservatives.
And, short answer, people who think there's too much government don't mean they'd like none at all. We want things done well. Don't make things worse. They want government to concentrate on the things that need to be done by government.
So Bush and Cheney never linked Iraq to Al Qaeda? WM who? Saddam who?
This is what is called Post-Obama induced amnesia. Nothing ever happened before november, 2008. The country was formed by the founding fathers, frozen in a gauzy, good-feeling amber, and then the Kenyan came and started to destroy it. End of story.
It's ok old dad-- the dementia has beneficial effects. It's restful, for one.
"I'm so confused. I thought you wanted less government involvement in private industry, less regulation of the environment, and to have the national government focus primarily on national defense (e.g. when one of our cities gets attacked by an outside force)."
A stupid snark. The rig blew up in Federal waters. Small government conservatives are not "no" government conservatives. They just want the fed to attend to what is properly federal business, and let the states and markets attend to themselves. In this case, unlike Katrina, the Fed was responsible from the outset.
Small government conservatives have also pushed for less regulation of business including the oil industry. This since the Reagan revolution at least. Not only have conservative legislators and executors pushed to deregulate, they have staffed the regulating bodies they were not able to kill with industry insiders who used the regulating bodies for the opposite of their intended purposes. And somehow this had nothing to do with the spill, and somehow it will be fixed by electing more conservatives?
Not to mention, offshore oil drilling itself was a main plank in the Republican platform! It even had a slogan-- can't for the life of me remember what it was. Some kind of chant that was used to ridicule the idea of finding alternative sources of energy to oil. That pansy enviro-lib idea.
Well I see Montagne/Alpha is here; can his other personalities be far behind?
They may want to read (if they can see through the faux outrage) this before they make complete fools of themselves.
This would appear to be the good crisis that will allow The Zero to put the Feds in the oil business the way they've muscled themselves into automobiles and finance.
Read the link and it's a lot different from 'Goat'. Dubya was trying to be a decent guy and not scare the Hell out of a bunch of 5 year olds; note in the original tape he kept his cool.
The Zero appears to be using this as another excuse to turn the country into the United Soviet Socialist States of America. Consider, also, this from one of Insta's commenters - I hate to be a cynic, but have you looked at how the affected states have voted? How many of them did Obama carry?
"I'm so confused. I thought you wanted less government involvement in private industry, less regulation of the environment..."
In addition to what Ann just wrote, I'd like to point out that the people (Obama and you) who believe in big govermnet and more government haven't really done much to mitigate the damage from the leak, spill or even the clean-up efforts.
MM dropped this floater: "So Bush and Cheney never linked Iraq to Al Qaeda? WM who? Saddam who?
This is what is called Post-Obama induced amnesia."
No, it was called correcting your mistake. Bush responded to 9/11 by invading Afghanistan. It's a shame you can't seem to grasp basic historical facts.
The Iraq thing came later, and while Bush attempted to link Saddam to AQ and 9/11, there were also something to the tune of 22 additional reasons, going back to the Clinton Administration and also supported by UN Security Council resolutions (beginning with 660) that justified the use of force.
Again, basic facts.
"So Bush and Cheney never linked Iraq to Al Qaeda? WM who? Saddam who?"
Really? This is sad. This is all you have as a response, to try to change it to not even a connected issue, but try to pull the conversation back to where you've sorted out all kinds of arguments that have been rehashed for years?
"Oil spill? Look over there! Republicans think Saddam caused 9/11! "
Obama is in trouble if this is what his supporters are left with.
This really was a time in which Obama could have shown leadership, and in an easy sort of way which involves using Presidential power to cut through red tape and let people do what needs to be done. This is a "just get obstacles out of the way" issue, and he's not showing a lot of leadership on that. He's saying "I'm leading" but there's not a lot of substance behind it.
Which is precisely the disagreement about him from the very beginning. Words versus action. If you believed his words, he's the greatest ever. So, of course, someone who believes him would support him and vote for him.
If you watch his actions, he hands off actual responsibility to others. In the health debate, it was all Congressional leaders, with him providing strong words of intent, but not getting into the specifics. He just wanted "something" done, just as he now wants "something" to be done.
The more people see his actions don't match up with his strong words of action, more people are going to lose trust in anything he says--both on domestic and on international issues.
I do, though, wish he steps up, learns, and becomes a strong leader. Even if I disagree about specific issues, there are times we need a strong President who people can trust to act when action is needed. I honestly don't see that happening.
I don't know what Althouse and Obama's critics in general expect Obama to have done differently, but I know one thing: they would have criticized that too.
Something like, And right on cue here's Obama immediately taking advantage of not letting a crisis go to waste. Look at him trying to score cheap political points and further his far-left agenda.
Actually they’re saying that now anyway too.
MM,
Time is a hard concept. Can you tell time yet? Ask Mommy for a watch. But let's try to understand.
The US invaded Afghanistan in Oct. 2001. That's real close in time to Sept. 11, 2001, right? The US invaded Iraq in May 2003. That's not so close, right?
Let's say I pick up a hot pan. I react by putting it down. Two years later I might go to Starbucks for coffee. It would be silly to say I reacted to the hot pan by getting a Starbucks. Sometimes it's not polite to be silly when adults are trying to have a serious conversation.
Mikio: "I don't know what Althouse and Obama's critics in general expect Obama to have done differently, but I know one thing: they would have criticized that too."
What you're enjoying is what the left degenerated political discourse to during the Bush administration and has exacerbated by continuing to blame Bush and by vowing to continue to blame Bush.
Enjoy the fruits of the left's labor.
"Not to mention, offshore oil drilling itself was a main plank in the Republican platform!
Yes, but it was the DEMOCRATS and the Environmentalists who insisted that the drilling could only take place so far out into the water that capping gushers and containing the spills is a near-impossibility.
Thanks, enviros! Thanks Dems!
Old Dad: You may have missed the fact that I made no comment whatever about actions or comments President Obama may have made or not made. I am simply pointing out that it is irrational to profess on one hand that you support individual rights, responsibilities, and freedom from government interference, and on the other hand to expect the executive branch of government to bail you out when you do something stupid or get in the way of someone else who did. (More on the nature of that stupidity below.)
Yes, we're all irate that BP botched the drilling and ended up dumping enough oil and dispersants into the Gulf to ruin it for a generation. And perhaps you have more naïve idealism than I do to think that early Presidential involvement would have somehow changed the outcome. But if you want to place blame somewhere, take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself how your own demand for petroleum products is at the root of this disaster. Then ask yourself which leaders have been trying to make alternate energy and conservation priorities.
Yes. It's true folks. Environmentalists caused this environmental disaster. It was not the oil company who drilled the well. It was environmentalists, followed closely by Obama. Because they hate America, especially the south. I read it on Sarah's Facebook page, so it must be true.
Neither conservatives nor corporations have ever been at the source of any mistake or wrong action. By definition, anything that a corporation or a god-fearing, small government conservative does is right. Only liberals and the devil ever create harm in the world.
Oops, I read that too fast. Althouse was quoting someone, so not necessarily of the same opinion. I thought it was her saying it. My bad. I tentatively retract her name from my previous post.
I've always thought that the "My Pet Goat" meme was rubbish. As The Anchoress says, it showed composure in extremis and "ungenerous, miserable people" is a good description of those who hurl this particular pile of feces. Having watched the left embarrass themselves for years yelling "My Pet Goat!", I have no wish to emulate them now.
MM, you and Alpha are in full strawman ass whoopin' mode today.
Well Gmay, you said yourself. Democrats degraded political discourse during the Bush years. Republicans never did such a thing. The Clinton years were a model of political decorum. The right is never responsible for anything. Only liberals and democrats want to destroy the country. Wouldn't you agree?
Montagne Montaigne said...
...
It was environmentalists, followed closely by Obama. Because they hate America, especially the south.
Nice to see he can admit it.
WV "uncult" (no kidding) The process Montagne/Alpha/HD/garage/Freder has just begun.
When global warming finally becomes an inescapable fact, liberals and environmentalists will be next to be blamed. Being a conservative, it's just so easy.
Phoebe,
My apologies. I didn't realize that you were attempting to hijack the thread. I naively assumed that you were attempting to comment on Prof. Althouse's post.
Please continue, although the straw you're consuming might be better off deployed in the Gulf.
As everybody has been told, Obama is the smartest President we ever had.
He let the oil spill become to Greatest Catastrophe Ever because he wants us to understand how very dangerous it is to depend on oil and gasoline.
Thank you Mr Genius President!
Now He will lead us to a brave new world where no one uses petroleum products of any kind, where man lives in harmony with nature, where no one profits from another person's need, and where Love rules the stars.
First we in the USA will lay down our gasoline engines and throw out all petroleum products. We have the Sun! We have the Wind! But most of all WE HAVE OUR DEAR LEADER OBAMA!!!
Then the rest of the world will see the Rightness of our actions, throw down their petroleum chains and find the freedom that only true harmony with nature can bring.
Obama can bring us back to the perfection we lost as men when we first came down from the trees and started playing with fire.
As everybody has been told, Obama is the smartest President we ever had.
If you think he could have stopped this oil leak, something nobody in the world knows how to do apparently, you must think he is the smartest president we've ever had.
MM tried:
Maybe if Republicans as a whole continued to blame and campaign against Clinton well after he was out of office, then yeah, I'd agree.
Maybe if Republicans were as acidic, hateful, and utterly irrational as the left was during the Bush admin, I'd agree.
But they weren't. So, no, I don't agree.
garage mahal: "When global warming finally becomes an inescapable fact..."
...we can have Kevin Costner swim to our rescue.
garage mahal said...
When global warming finally becomes an inescapable fact, liberals and environmentalists will be next to be blamed. Being a conservative, it's just so easy.
Well, all right-thinking people know to blame the left for sunspots, or the lack of them--whichever one is causing this disaster.
I was really surprised that when Obama said "plug the damn hole”, that it didn't immediately get plugged.
Liberals here and everywhere can ride the past all they want.
The facts show Obama has proven himself to be incompetent - another Jimmy Carter. And nothing they say can change that fact. Only Obama can.
Anyone holding their breath?
Small government conservatives have also pushed for less regulation of business including the oil industry.
Historically, "small government conservatives" have argued for less price regulation, those interventions by the govt (e.g., price controls, "windfall" taxation) that distort the price of goods and services in the market.
As far as safety and environmental regulation, it's been a push for regulation that is bounded by cost benefit analysis. I'm not sure that is necessarily "less" regulation as opposed to cost-effective regulation.
Specifically, in the case of oil, they have been for regulated production and opposed to abolition in the guise of regulation, which can occur when regulatory costs are imposed that exceed the benefit derrived.
Old Dad: Don't want to hijack the thread, just can't resist identifying logical fallacies and unacknowledged causal factors where I see them.
Hilarious to see the lefties squirm with the shoe shoved firmly on the other foot. Not that I ever expected an ephiphany that their 24/7 carping of G.W had a corrosive effect on public discourse. Enjoy libtards!
Yet another attempt by the right to find an Obama equivalence of one of Bush's many screw-ups. That's all.
gk1: nice try. But I was alive during the 90s. I listened to the radio during the 90s.
Does anyone know the extent to which "greater environmental regulation" pushed oil drilling into deeper waters?
MM oh you poor baby. You had to endure the echo chamber of low powered AM stations in fly over country. How did you ever survive?
gk1. low powered AM stations that were the starting point for the second impeachment in american history.
impeachment. that is republican civility. I fully expect a Republican congress, should it emerge in november (if it doesn't, that will be a republican disaster, let's agree) to impeach Obama for something. Witness the criminalization of all the administration's actions by the right. Sestak, ordinary politics, it's all a scandal. everything has been a scandal, every day, since january 09.
Given the quantity of straw lying around on the ground, I hope nobody is smoking in this thread.
I have a hard time believing that safety regulations, for the express purpose of preventing disasters like this, are not already in place. However, in point of fact, I have no idea, so I'd like to be educated on what gaps in regulations currently exist and why they were not enacted.
Phoebe? Monty? Garage?
Dead Julius,
they are different, but it sounds like you don't understand the gravity of the oil disaster at all.
It's going to ruin a lot of lives. Obama said he was ready for this job, and he was lying. That sucks. Bush said he was ready, and he was telling the truth, after years of executive experience. His pause of minutes made a lot of sense, because he wasn't dumbfounded, he was letting his subordinates prepare, without letting panic fill the air. The Drill Sgt has a point too, as Bush was pausing, he didn't know what was happening yet to the degree we know now. His near term reaction to 9/11 was brilliant, altogether. Many aspects to criticize of his administration, but he did a terrific job in this particular area.
Obama, on the other hand, is barely showing up to work half the time, let alone doing a good job. He continues to see this through the lens of political consequence. He doesn't really understand that he's the US President, and has a responsibility that goes beyond political calculation (he's not Bush). And what about the disaster in Tennessee? All these red states have problems Obama doesn't care about. Too busy complaining about the Bill Ayers affiliated flotilla Israel had to thwart.
Two disasters, only one leader.
Clint said...
Yet another attempt by the right to find an Obama equivalence of one of Bush's many screw-ups. That's all.
Actually, in this discussion the concept of equivalence is out the window. If we are to put it in mathematical terms, the functional relationship being talked about here is exponential with respect to the delay time involved (seven minutes versus weeks) and the relevance of that delay to mitigation and potential outcome.
In fact, "My Pet Goat" was of really limited relevance at the time, and never really entered the public perception until Iraq, when Bush's motives and loyalties (indeed his potential complicity) needed to be assailed.
The speed of Bush's departure from that classroom really had nothing to do with severity or mitigation.
My Pet Goat never caught-on with any but true believers on the left.
Most sane people would have a hard time keeping the dithering (MPG) Bush in their head at the same time as wild cowboy--Axis of Evil Bush.
impeachment. that is republican civility. I fully expect a Republican congress, should it emerge in november (if it doesn't, that will be a republican disaster, let's agree) to impeach Obama for something. Witness the criminalization of all the administration's actions by the right. Sestak, ordinary politics, it's all a scandal. everything has been a scandal, every day, since january 09.
You know, I expect Obama to be impeached and convicted... although I'm not sure what will be the charges. And, I don't agree that it's a Republican witchhunt.
Where did that 3/4 of a billion bucks in campaign funds come from? Now, here's a Rhetoric 101 lesson that Democrats have conveniently forgotten. Big money corrupts. Evidently that only applies when Republicans are in power.
I'm really curious about where that 3/4 of a billion bucks came from.
As time passes, and as personal interparty grudges accumulate, I think we'll find out where the money came from.
And, I don't think the result will be so good for Obama.
He isn't the clean hands-off magic negro of the PR press.
The Daley machine fought with the Jesse Jackson machine for decades until both discovered that they were better off joining forces. The reason: the quota system is a sources of endless political payoffs.
What was needed was a black figure head at the top of the racket. His name is Obama.
We'll find out as time passes. Blagojevich holds a lot of the cards.
I'm prefectly happy to see this jimmy carter in black face drag the democrats into the minority. Impeachment would only interfere with the spectacle of this presidency. You don't need low powered AM radio stations to prove how over his head obama is.
We want things done well. Don't make things worse. They want government to concentrate on the things that need to be done by government.
I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.
I do not want the Govt cleaning up BP's mess. I've said this before. The Govt goes in a presto, BP can claim limited liability. (It's not our fault the beaches are messed up! The Government bungled the clean-up! We at BP were ready to fix things and we got called off!)
The blame for the Government lies in the lack of regulatory oversight. Alas, for most, because this blame falls on the shoulders of both Presidents Bush and Obama -- and those before them -- it's not very enabling for a partisan argument.
One thing I do wish the Government would do here: Get out of the way. Although Regulatory Oversight was lacking and I think that helped allow the spill to happen, now that oil is spewing, clean-up and mitigation would be helped if the President Executive Ordered the Bureaucracy to do less to stand in the way.
Unfortunately, I think that a "cerebral" President might be overthinking/overanalyzing what to do.
I have no quibble with the statement that regulatory oversight was lacking. I think that charge needs little elobration. But I want to know if this is poor performance by the regulatory agency or a lack of regulations on the books. I think the distiction is crucial. Did the politicians not pass sufficient laws or did the regulators not use the tools at their disposal? I'm still waiting for Phoebe et al. to provide the analysis to implicate conservative principles as the root cause of this disaster.
And yes, I know I'll never get an answer. They know no more about oil drilling regulations than I do.
"The blame for the Government lies in the lack of regulatory oversight. Alas, for most, because this blame falls on the shoulders of both Presidents Bush and Obama -- and those before them -- it's not very enabling for a partisan argument. "
The government is also to blame for failing to live up to their legal responsibilities under the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, etc.
Your assertion that the responsibility for the cleanup lies solely with BP contradicts decades-old, bipartisan legislation.
Althouse wrote:
people who think there's too much government don't mean they'd like none at all. We want things done well. Don't make things worse. They want government to concentrate on the things that need to be done by government.
Exactly! One would be hard pressed to suggest that the financial markets or the environmental markets ha no regulations. Deregulation is about removing regulation that would be considered harmful to business, not removing all regulation. And supposing you remove regulations that effect one aspect of the financial community. Why then, additional regulation has to be witten so that those who conduct business know what they can and cannot do. There is no such thing as no regulation.
Everytime I hear lefties argue that the current crisis is caused be deregulation, I have to wonder if they even know what they're talking about.
What deregulation in particular was the cause of the crisis exactly? Not all deregulation is bad, unless you like inefficient markets, yet lefties keep suggesting that "deregulation" is the cause.
Some deregulation opens markets and allows markets to soar. Just ask Bill Clinton. Lbs keep poitning to Clinton as the time when we had a good economy (that Bush squandered) yet how did he achieve such results. By deregulation. All that deregulation crap that libs suggested caused our housing market failure was signed into law by Clinton.
AC245: Can you perhaps clarify which "clean water" laws apply to an oil leak in international waters? Since the Deepwater Horizon was outside the territorial seas of the United States (although within our "Exclusive Economic Zone" for whatever that's worth), the US is not exclusively responsible or entitled to take action to stop the oil spillage at the source.
Monta wrote:
So Bush and Cheney never linked Iraq to Al Qaeda? WM who? Saddam who?
This is what is called Post-Obama induced amnesia. Nothing ever happened before november, 2008.
Hmmmm. Explain to us again why Clinton ordered the bombing of the El Shifa Pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan in 1998. Something about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda? It seems you have the selective amnesia.
And can you tell us about the Iraq Liberation Act also passed by Clinton which called for the regime change of Iraq and a transition to a democratically elected Iraqi govt. Did these two things occur before or after George Bush took office? .
It's ok old dad-- the dementia has beneficial effects. It's restful, for one.Plus, if you have lefties on your side you can completly ignore history as recent as two year prior forget that you ever passed such resolutions or that you had overseen a containment of Iraq which had been cited 16 times for failed resolutions for non compliance. And you can forget that your side suggested there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq long before Bush took office.
Now THAT is some serious dementia. I could see if you were forgetful or lying about ancient history, but Bush was literally the next president after Clinton. How could one side forget so much so quickly? (Other than the fact that they are demagogic liars who only want power of course and will say anything, no matter how determinetal to our security to get that power)
Obama lied, pelicans died
She stole my idea (see my comment at 5:58)
So, Phoebe, still waiting to be educated on the regulations currently in place and what regulations need to be enacted in the future.
Phoebe,
I'm pleased to see that you've ceded the point that President Obama has miserably failed to meet his responsibilities vis a vis the catastrophe in the Gulf.
Continue your hand waving.
AC245: Can you perhaps clarify which "clean water" laws apply to an oil leak in international waters? Since the Deepwater Horizon was outside the territorial seas of the United States (although within our "Exclusive Economic Zone" for whatever that's worth), the US is not exclusively responsible or entitled to take action to stop the oil spillage at the source.
Sure, Phoebe/Paula/whatever fake name you're posting under today:
§ 1321. Oil and hazardous substance liability
(a) Definitions
For the purpose of this section, the term—
(1) “oil” means oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil;
...
(11) “offshore facility” means any facility of any kind located in, on, or under, any of the navigable waters of the United States, and any facility of any kind which is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and is located in, on, or under any other waters, other than a vessel or a public vessel;
...
(b)(1) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that there should be no discharges of oil or hazardous substances into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, or in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.] or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 [33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.], or which may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States (including resources under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act [16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.]).
...
(c) Federal removal authority
(1) General removal requirement
(A) The President shall, in accordance with the National Contingency Plan and any appropriate Area Contingency Plan, ensure effective and immediate removal of a discharge, and mitigation or prevention of a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance—
(i) into or on the navigable waters;
(ii) on the adjoining shorelines to the navigable waters;
(iii) into or on the waters of the exclusive economic zone; or
(iv) that may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States.
(B) In carrying out this paragraph, the President may—
(i) remove or arrange for the removal of a discharge, and mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of a discharge, at any time;
(ii) direct or monitor all Federal, State, and private actions to remove a discharge; and
(iii) remove and, if necessary, destroy a vessel discharging, or threatening to discharge, by whatever means are available.
(same link)
(d) National Contingency Plan
(1) Preparation by President
The President shall prepare and publish a National Contingency Plan for removal of oil and hazardous substances pursuant to this section.
(2) Contents
The National Contingency Plan shall provide for efficient, coordinated, and effective action to minimize damage from oil and hazardous substance discharges, including containment, dispersal, and removal of oil and hazardous substances, and shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(A) Assignment of duties and responsibilities among Federal departments and agencies in coordination with State and local agencies and port authorities including, but not limited to, water pollution control and conservation and trusteeship of natural resources (including conservation of fish and wildlife).
(B) Identification, procurement, maintenance, and storage of equipment and supplies.
(C) Establishment or designation of Coast Guard strike teams, consisting of—
...
(D) A system of surveillance and notice designed to safeguard against as well as ensure earliest possible notice of discharges of oil and hazardous substances and imminent threats of such discharges to the appropriate State and Federal agencies.
(E) Establishment of a national center to provide coordination and direction for operations in carrying out the Plan.
(F) Procedures and techniques to be employed in identifying, containing, dispersing, and removing oil and hazardous substances.
(G) A schedule, prepared in cooperation with the States, identifying—
(i) dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be used in carrying out the Plan,
...
(M) A fish and wildlife response plan, developed in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other interested parties (including State fish and wildlife conservation officials), for the immediate and effective protection, rescue, and rehabilitation of, and the minimization of risk of damage to, fish and wildlife resources and their habitat that are harmed or that may be jeopardized by a discharge.
All of you "cleanup is solely the responsibility of BP" bobbleheads need to educate yourself.
I suspect there will be more than just BP execs facing a "full and vigorous accounting" of what laws weren't followed, especially if Republicans regain control of one or both chambers of Congress this November.
Well AC245, that was a real thread killer. Nicely done.
Sorry, Gmay. I guess I could have cut out even more of the non-bolded text and compressed that all into a single comment.
I hadn't intended to crush the conversation with a wall of text, but I've reached the end of my patience with the mindless repetition that Obama and the federal government are only responsible for writing regulations and have no obligation to actually take action to help with the clean up when a spill occurs.
And we still haven't heard what regulations that would have prevented this leak from ocurring were stymed by the Republicans in Congress.
I'm not saying it didn't happen. I have no idea. But I'm certainly not prepared to believe people who's only knowledge seems to come from a New York Times editorial.
I love a lot of Adult Swim programming. It's some of the only truly creative stuff on TV anymore. It's low brow and low budget, but the only stuff on TV that makes me laugh out loud anymore since the tube has been taken over by unrealistic reality shows about how ugly pretty people can be.
I even hooked up TV to my computer so I could watch it via Internet at will.
What,s needed is a little regulation, a little technology and a lot of common sense to prevent this in the future. It's really not necessary to throw out any babies with the bath water. Some simple things could make this kind of drilling safe enough to do routinely. That is if there wasn't so much religion involved.
In addition, simply allowing drilling in safer areas could greatly reduce the need for it. If we want the oil and we want it safely we can do it. Some people don't want that though.
Let's see here. Obama blows far more money than bush. He can't close gitmo. He secretly plans for preemptive war. He hires national intelligence guy who thinks saddam had WMDs and they were in syria. And now Obama manages to blow another dem meme out of the water.
Its enough to start suspecting that Obama's secret agenda is really to completely rehabilitate the bush years in the public's mind.
AC245,
Don't get me wrong, I loved it. It was very effective. Reminds me of when I used to link PDFs of UNSC resolutions on Iraq to lefties who loved to talk about "International Law", or "UN Resolutions" without having the first clue of what they were talking about. Just spouting off shit they heard from the news.
Linking the source docs tends to shut up the clueless. Unfortunately they never seem to keep the clue.
Well of course more regulations can help! If the government writes enough regulations they can print them all out and then use the resulting gigantic wad of paper to plug up the hole and soak up the extra oil.
Do I have to think of everything?
(Sits back to wait for someone to humorlessly lecture her on being just another stupid Obama supporter or that of course paper wouldn't work.)
wv: "diggae" -- reggae for miners.
I do not want the Govt cleaning up BP's mess. I've said this before. The Govt goes in a presto, BP can claim limited liability. (It's not our fault the beaches are messed up! The Government bungled the clean-up! We at BP were ready to fix things and we got called off!)
Unfortunately, that leaves the Gulf residents thoroughly fucked. BP and the feds both are playing chicken under that paradigm, while the coasts, the birds, the fish and shellfish, die. (yeah, My Pet Pelican is funny, but every one dying smothered in oil is tragic.)
I'm way past any interest in liability and looking at this like an interesting thought experiment. The containment/clean up needs to be managed smartly, and if BP won't do it, the government should take them over. Let the courts sort it out later.
Andrea, we want to fix the gulf, not fill it in.
Libtard: So Bush and Cheney never linked Iraq to Al Qaeda?
Nope.
This is what is called Post-Obama induced amnesia
9-11 taught us that we cannot allow rogue nations who sponsor terrorist proxies to develop WMDs.
I know the concept is hard for you to comprehend. Best you just stay away from things you don't understand, like foreign policy.
And stay away from recent reports of Syria taking in Iraqi WMDs while we were dancing with the UN.
Just like the Verona papers, it'll only make your head explode.
Libtard: I am simply pointing out that it is irrational to profess on one hand that you support individual rights, responsibilities, and freedom from government interference, and on the other hand to expect the executive branch of government to -
we expect Obama to do his job, as proscribed in the 1990 Clean Water Act: requires the President to ensure effective and immediate removal of an oil discharge and, where there is substantial threat to public health or welfare, requires the President to require all Federal, State and private actions to remove the oil discharge or mitigate it.
I don't see anything in there about playing golf, taking two vacations, Cali fundraisers for Boxer, etc.
"Just to remind people of the unofficial count:
•Two days of media events (White House Correspondents Dinner and a tête a tête with Bono)
•Three days of fundraising
•Four commemorations (graduations, Cinco de Mayo, etc)
•Six days of vacation
•Six days of campaigning
•Six sports events
•Seven days of golf
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/04/video-how-obama-showed-his-singular-focus-on-the-gulf-spill/
I fully expect a Republican congress, should it emerge in november (if it doesn't, that will be a republican disaster, let's agree) to impeach Obama for something.
Bribery is an impeachable offense.
Its why Obama's WH is stonewalling questions re the Blagojevic/Sestak/Romanoff pattern. They know it could cripple Obama.
"Andrea, we want to fix the gulf, not fill it in."
LOL.
"We’ve just spent years listening to ungenerous, miserable people excoriate President Bush for calmly taking 7 minutes, after learning of the attacks of 9/11..."
And all this time I thought he was thinking about what he was reading...
Post a Comment