Obama lashes BP chief, media over oil disaster - Yahoo! Newsby Stephen Collinson – 1 hr 44 mins ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama said he would fire BP CEO Tony Hayward for flippant comments and lashed out at media "talking heads," ratcheting up his rhetoric on the 50th day of the US oil disaster.
As Obama Tuesday sought to contain further political damage over the greatest environmental calamity in US history, his top disaster aide reported more progress capturing oil spewing from a ruptured undersea well.
Hayward, whose sardonic English tones and comments, including a prediction that the Gulf spill would be "very, very modest," have irked some Americans, found himself directly in Obama's cross-hairs.
"He wouldn't be working for me after making any of those statements," Obama said on the NBC "Today Show," after being criticized for what pundits said was a too tepid reaction to the disaster.
Hayward has since apologized for his remarks.
Obama revealed he had not spoken to Hayward, since an explosion on the BP-operated Deepwater Horizon rig on April 20, saying there would be little point.
"When you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he's going to say all the right things to me. I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions."
Obama lashes BP chief, media over oil disaster - Yahoo! News
Someone slap him, he's President of the USA, not CEO of the World.
Obama lashes BP chief, media over oil disaster - Yahoo! News
Someone slap him, he's President of the USA, not CEO of the World.
He's not stating that he is in fact going to fire him. He's stating that if he was working for him, he would fire him.
You can't blame him for that.
Standard conservative extrapolation-into-strawman.
Standard Deuce rushing to defend all things Obama.
It's not eh place of the US President to say something like that. The point is he's not being Presidential at all. It's okay for a Jr. House member to shoot of remarks like this, even a rookie Senator. Leader of the Freeworld? No.
Why not? Presidents have said far more bold things.
It's not eh place of the US President to say something like that. The point is he's not being Presidential at all. It's okay for a Jr. House member to shoot of remarks like this, even a rookie Senator. Leader of the Freeworld? No.
"President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians."
Yeah I'd say that borders on insanity,
Source or it didn't happen...
And I'm sure that you would never dream of criticizing Obama for being too soft if he HADN'T made those remarks, right? Of course not. The purpose of this thread is obviously a principled objection to a president commenting on a business' affairs, rather than retarded partisan hackery. Carry on. :roll:
I don't think the Gov't should be involved as it is with the "Oil Spill". So far all that's done is muck things up even worse.
First off, never said that. Secondly, "morons who caused disasters in the first place". Do you know the CAUSE of the rig going down? Was it the fault of the BP Officials or an error on platform? Did I miss where the "Cause" was found??So you believe that we should rely solely on the morons who caused disasters in the first place to clean them up?
I realize that at this late stage in the game, we might not have any choice for this oil spill. But as a general matter of policy, that's crazy. The government needs to be involved, and it needs better contingency plans for these sort of things...because for all we know, the same thing could happen again tomorrow.
First off, never said that. Secondly, "morons who caused disasters in the first place". Do you know the CAUSE of the rig going down? Was it the fault of the BP Officials or an error on platform? Did I miss where the "Cause" was found??
MrVicchio said:Note I said "I don't think Gov't should be involved as it is" That does not say "I think Gov't should stay out of this entirely".
Strawman meet Kandahar... oh you two are dating, I see.
MrVicchio said:It could happen tomorrow, and the more we look to Gov't to solve the problems, the more they'll screw it up.
It's not eh place of the US President to say something like that. The point is he's not being Presidential at all. It's okay for a Jr. House member to shoot of remarks like this, even a rookie Senator. Leader of the Freeworld? No.
He's not stating that he is in fact going to fire him. He's stating that if he was working for him, he would fire him.
You can't blame him for that.
Standard Mr. V attacking Obama no matter what he doesHe could personally come and save you from a burning building and you'd probably still find a way to spin it against him
Just kiddin buddy I luv yah :mrgreen:
If it was caused by an error on the platform, then it is still BP and/or Halliburton's fault. Workers are agents of the company that employs them.
How did I misrepresent what you said? You complained about Obama being the "CEO of the world," implying that his involvement is a bad thing. But OK, let's unassume for a moment: You don't want the government out entirely...you just want them LESS involved. So then I have the same question, just replace "rely solely" with "rely primarily."
So then your solution *is* to rely primarily on the companies that create disasters to clean them up in the future? They are not motivated by preventing as much harm as possible; they are motivated by saving as much money as possible. Those two goals do not always overlap.
I will point out that this was simply "alleged" by a Palestinian official. If he said it or not is up for debate I suppose.
Rumor is as good as fact to a Liberal.
And war on false pretenses is absolutely acceptable to a conservative
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?