Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
i'm impressed you managed to avoid any response about the proof I offered of Obama's extremely terrible managment of the oil spill!
|
I agree the spill could have been managed better on the oil companies end, and perhaps the goverment could have done more, but Obama wasn't personally responsible for turning the valve and cutting off the flow, was he? I would hardly call the government's response "terrible".
Should he have accepted oil skimmer offers to help mitigate the damage? Sure.
My point was that to say the government, especially Obama, ignored the spill and didn't appear to give a darn for 53 days, is unfairly and completely false - the government was on the scene at day one.
Words have meaning, and those words do not talk about the quality of the response by BP/Halliburton/TransOcean, nor their inability to cut off their well, nor the governments participation, they say there was no government response. That's ridiculous and not true, even if taken as the superficial ODS snark it was intended to be.
In retrospect it's easy to say "something more should have been done". As the oil companies have the physical workers and equipment, what could that have been? Scream louder and more frequently at them for not being able to cut the spill off? For taking shortcuts and causing the spill in the first place?
That's already been litigated to death. And when Deepwater Horizon is mentioned, the very first thing - or second or fifth thing - that comes to mind about the response and the entire incident is not, "Obama sucks".
The question for me is what should be done now, that we are seeing evidence that the dispersant used by the oil companies (the one they refused to identify) has harmed Gulf wildlife.