The White House just released a letter from oil spill czar Thad Allen to the chairman of BP inviting him and other appropriate company officials to a meeting at the White House next Wednesday with the President.
I'm not sure what Obama meeting directly with BP officials is supposed to accomplish, but at least we won't have to keep hearing about Obama's failure to meet with them and how that's a huge mistake.
Even Boehner is spouting off about how BP is on the hook for ALL damages and cleanup for the oil spill. Wow.
6 comments:
"I'm not sure what Obama meeting directly with BP officials is supposed to accomplish."
Wow. At least this is an honest admission, albeit revealing that that the writer is clueless about how to get things done.
Unfortunately, getting things done requires more than just talking about getting things done and blaming others for not getting things done and threatening others with penalties for not getting things done.
Obama's own words on May 27: "I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure this thing is shut down. The federal government is fully engaged and I am fully engaged."
"Fully engaged," but has never spoken with the CEO of BP to discuss the oil spill in the Gulf.
And now the cool liberals defend Obama's inaction.
Here's one reason for why Obama should speak to the BP CEO: You must verify. That means you must meet with Hayward. Demand answers.
P.S. There is nothing in Obama's resume that shows he ever made highly difficult decisions that depended, at the end, on his own personal reservoir of wisdom and experience. So he does not tackle the inbox because its contents are above his competence. He tends instead to lesser matters that match his lower level of competence and protect his ego.
Meeting with Tony Hayward is symbolic. Like most meetings.
As for resumes, do most candidates have oil spill management? Maybe George Bush 41 and 43 had it. Exxon Valdez was pretty much a disaster. Katrina was a disaster. How was their handling of those two situations?
Do you ever think how gutting the oil drilling regulations has made this current situation more plausible?
As for tackling the inbox? Get your head out of your ass. Passed stimulus bill, passed health care reform. Successfully bailed out US car industry. Has handled all domestic threats responsibly.
Was Bush's resume full of war experience? Military experience? He started 2 wars. Spent and borrowed trillions. No biggie for you, I'm sure.
Re-read my post.
Meeting in person may be symbolic. Obama has never even SPOKEN to the CEO of BP! Is that symbolic too?
"Do you ever think how gutting the oil drilling regulations has made this current situation more plausible?"
No, I think the BP situation was caused by three things:
1. Caving in to environmental activists by not drilling for oil where it is much safer to do so (on land and closer to shore). Deep water drilling is more risky.
2. The Obama administration was lax in approving and inspecting BP's deepwater drilling operations.
3. Obama has not done enough to try and clean up the oil. Instead he blames BP. He implies that BP committed a crime, and then relies almost completely on BP to stop the leak and clean up the oil.
And unlike cool liberals, I will not blame Obama because he accepted campaign donations from "Big Oil" (even though he surely did), because I don't think that matters much.
I never mentioned lack of experience, I mentioned competence. What is Obama's core competence other than talking about doing things and strong-arming his own party?
So his major accomplishments were passing legislation. How tough is that, when he when he did not need to obtain one Republican vote to do so?
And let's just agree to disagree on the handling of domestic threats.
So Obama should take over BP? I think the oil industry has too much power, but I don't think it's only activist who prevented drilling close to shore. Most people don't want rigs on their beaches. And environmental activists do a lot of good work
Passing legislation is hard. Dems are not monolithic retards who are under the thumb of AM radio hosts. Repubs played a bunch of hardball, some of it dubious. But it passed.
A lot of Bush's goals failed when he had majorities. Marriage amendment? Social Security? Harriet Myers SCOTUS?
As for handling domestic threats, is Obama directly dealing or is the FBI and CIA involved?
How have Bush's prosecutions gone? How many in jail for 9/11? How did the Gitmo cases go?
Underpants guy is talking. Times Sq guy is talking.
You talk like the previous Administration has this glowing record. Slow your roll.
Who says Obama's only choices are(1) taking over BP or (2) having no contact with the BP CEO? Therer is a middle ground.
I agree that environmental activists do a lot of good work, but don't you find it ironic that trying to accommodate their wishes led to doing riskier things like conducting deepwater drilling that ended up being far worse for the environment than less riskier drilling closer to shore (or in Alaska)?
There is no free lunch.
The original post was how this meeting with the CEO was taking place.
It's a move in the right direction. If you want to say it took too long, fair enough. But it's happening which is good.
Do you know BP had a massive oil spill in Alaska in 2006?
"In 2006, over 250,000 gallons of oil spilled through corroded sections of the BP pipeline in Alaska across the North Slope, leading to a partial shutdown of the company's Prudhoe Bay field and a costly cleanup."
Oil companies are in business to make money, not protect the Earth.
Less riskier is a term we have to re-examine.
Post a Comment