...And in fact should have done it a long time ago. First off, I'm not a Right winger, far from it. I'm not a racist, I never wanted Obama to fail, I don't get pleasure out of criticizing the man, I'm actually a huge fan, so can we just get all that stuff out of the way and deal with substance? We'll see. But in spite of being a fan of Obama I'm also utterly horrified at what I'm seeing in the Gulf right now and have been completely disappointed by Obama's response thus far. I dont care if he gets 'angry' as the MSM seems to want, in fact, I don't care if I see one speech or ten speeches. I care about the actual on the ground response.
Why Obama can and should take over BP below the crawl
Illusion #1: It's Tyranny to Take Over BP
For some time now I have been thinking and then blogging and then taking alot of heat for saying Obama should take over BP. I've been called all sorts of names but I'm not sore about it. I understand. I hate this situation too but the fact of the matter is, according to both Robert Reich and the now famous article in this months Rolling Stone, Obama indeed can take over BP.
"the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan – the federal regulations that lay out the command-and-control responsibilities for cleaning up an oil spill – makes clear that an oil company like BP cannot be left in charge of such a serious disaster. The plan plainly states that the government must "direct all federal, state or private actions" to clean up a spill "where a discharge or threat of discharge poses a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States."
That's right. It's not tyranny. It's not Socialism or Fascism or any other type of 'Ism. It's part of the operating procedure when you want to trade in hazardous materials like oil or hazardous practises like Offshore Drilling. It's not Tyranny to step in, remove the incompetent liars that caused the mess in the first place, it's actually incompetence not to.
Here's an excerpt of an interview with Robert Reich:
Q: Under what legal authority could the President take control of BP’s North American operations?
A: Obama has implicit authority through laws and regulations dealing with offshore drilling, especially the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. By analogy, if a nuclear reactor were melting down, the President would use his regulatory authority over nuclear energy to take temporary control over the plant and the relevant parts of the corporation that ran it. President Truman seized the nation’s steel mills in 1952, arguing that the emergency of the Korean War necessitated it. (The Supreme Court ultimately blocked him but according to Justice Jackson, whose opinion was essentially the majority’s, that was because Truman had no statutory basis for the seizure, not even an implicit one. That isn’t the case here.)
To me the logic there is irrefutable. Anybody that makes the claim that Obama can't take over BP has to explain why the worst environmental disaster in American history is somehow wholly dissimilar to nuke meltdown. Good luck with that. You seen the size of this thing?
So yes, he can indeed take over, now why shouldn't he? The really pertinent question is why didnt he do it from Day 10 if not Day 1? You tell me.
Illusion #2: But BP is British Petroleum. How can an American President take over a foreign company?
Turns out it's pretty easy. Here's Reich
The nationality of a corporation’s shareholders has nothing to do with it. If it is operating within the jurisdiction of the United States and poses a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of Americans, a president would take control of its operations and assets in the United States.
The whole idea that the American government and specifically the President is powerless but to allow BP to keep Effing things up is simply untrue and should be counterintuitive. It's you and your country's safety versus a bunch of assholes overseas and you think they have to bow to the assholes on this? "Sure. Turn our coast into a toilet. Wish I could do something about it but you do have offices waaaaaaay over there so..." Nope. Not a legitimate point. Not at all.
Illusion #3: But the Government doesn't have the Equipment/Knowhow/Whatever
True on it's face, false in substance. When you take over BP you take over their equipment, manpower, engineers, knowhow etc. They all continue to get paid by BP but the effort is directed by the government. All the smart guys in labcoats are still on the clock. You take over the expertise. You direct the response doesnt mean you kick them out on their asses, it just means you are in charge of their assets until they are no longer endangering your Gulf.
In addition to that, there are many different oil companies out there with the same expertise in Deep Drilling as BP, who could assist in the government in directing this response, in fact, I'm pretty sure BP was one of the very worst deep drilling companies prior to any of this happening. Am I wrong? I don't think I am. For that reason alone, claiming BP is the only entity that has the expertise would be laughable if the situation weren't so shit terrible, which it is. Due to BP. Are you getting the picture yet?
Illusion #4: What the hell else is the government going to do differently than BP?
How about reporting things honestly so we know how much the bill oughta be at the end?
How about accepting the offers from other drilling companies with their megatankers to darn the torpedoes for the Gulf and start sucking up slick like they did in the Gulf of Arabia? Former Shell Oil President John Hofmeister has been forecfully suggesting this for some time now
Which is all to say that were BP to get supertankers into the Gulf of Mexico to pursue a suck and salvage strategy (which The Politics Blog has written about extensively) to get the oil out of the water before the worst of it comes ashore — or before it contaminates the sea floor — it is not as if the company would have a difficult time finding tankers. In fact, it's not as if it would even have to divert tankers from its own fleet, and remove them from their regular runs picking up and delivering oil.
How about ensuring the bloody boom is actually installed and maintained properly as opposed to the ongoing clusterfuck we're seeing on Maddow every night?
How about ensuring that you have a number of shoreline cleanup workers that's even remotely close to what's required for the size of this spill?
How about ensuring that those shoreline cleanup workers have adequate safety gear so they don't get sick cleaning up BPs mess?
I'm sure if we think about it we can come up with all manner of things that could be done better by nearly anybody other than BfuckingP.
Illusion #5: Then it becomes Obama's Spill
Sorry baby. It's his anyways. Yes, the original fault was BPs but for them to continue to F things up and lie about it means somebody else should step in and there is one person on earth that is both legally and morally obligated to do so. That's the President. Besides, this is worrying about the politics of things as opposed to doing what is right and best in the face of a massive disaster.
So there it is. What other illusions are standing in the way of an informed dialogue on the powers of the American govnernment when dealing with a private corporation in a time of National Emergency? You tell me. I'll be right here and will refute it in this space and in the meantime I'll leave you with the following: It's not Tyranny to step in, in fact, as the days go by, it looks more and more like INCOMPETENCE to NOT step in.
Drill baby. Drill.