Skip to main content

View Diary: OBAMA: "It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills," (177 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Having read the article (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miriam

    I'm not sure what elements you are claiming are or are not factual. How do you want to balance this? I am a fan of Obama but like this diarist I am not impressed with the administration's actions or strategy to this point.

    "If that's what Fallujah is, then what's that band with all the Mexican kids in it?"

    by iSenseChange on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:42:00 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Balance (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Diogenes2008

      would be to admit that his admission of fault, is an admission of fault, not a sign of stupidity.

      That many of the original responses have been modified, ie, Coast Guard has gone from saying its BP rules to admission that no press should be kept out and to report problems to the top if some journalist thinks he or she is being excluded.   That a moratorium on deep water has been imposed, that new rules are being written for both offshore and on land drilling because of these problems.

      This is not like Bush saying, I approved waterboarding and I'd do it again.  Its not Cheney saying "So."   This may be less than perfect, it may not be all cessation of all drilling forever (legally very iffy to accomplish even if a desirable policy), etc.   Not liberal enough is not the same as no improvement or change in a positive direction.  

      Some of the criticisms made are in and of themselves unrealistic.  Criminal probes start off unofficially in many cases.   Enough information was gathered by the Coast Guard and MMS to be referred to justice for criminal investigation, that's a pretty typical pattern for matters that have both civil and criminal penalities depending on the underlying actions.  Some stay civil, some get moved to criminal.

      So, while not impressed, how much of that reaction is based in the real world nuts and bolts of how the government functions versus how you would want the government to function.  For me that is what unbiased review of actions requires.  Setting aside our druthers for the actual rules and processes in place.  There can be criticism of process, its ineffective, wrong presumptions, etc. that need improvement.  There can be criticism of the substance, the rules aren't well written, tough enough.   There can be criticism of enforcement, there is an adequate process, good rules, and nobody did anything.   Effective critique and calls for action need to identify the problem accurately and assess where action can and should be taken, and hopefully the nature of the action or alternatives will be presented.   That makes the difference between a rant and a constructive discussion of policy, its enactment and enforcement.  

      •  Hey, listen (0+ / 0-)

        I would much rather see an American president admit his faults where applicable as opposed to ever having a Bush prez that lies every time he opens his mouth and never admits any wrongdoing even in the face of obvious proof.

        Obama taking responsibility is a courageous act, too bad his actions arent on the scale that this will redeem him. Yet

        "If that's what Fallujah is, then what's that band with all the Mexican kids in it?"

        by iSenseChange on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 02:20:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site