• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: BP Oil Spill Response Rated Worse than Katrina

LOL...... nice try. For some odd reason, I trust the Coast Guard logs more than I trust the self serving time line from this inept administration.

Let’s compare the log with the statements from the admin.

This a nice little interactive graphic that shows the lies.

Coast Guard Logs Reveal Early Spill Estimate of 8,000 Barrels a Day - The Center for Public Integrity

First off, the timeline I linked to (Timeline A) was done by private citizens, not the White House. Second, even the timeline you linked to clearly states that the 110K bpd were "worse case scenario" estimates by the Coast Guard and not factual data. Moreover, even the Coast Guard believed that oil was leaking from the rig and not the well-head. Therefore, nothing you've provided contridicts what was initially reported except that neither the Coast Guard nor the White House provided worse-case scenario estimates. What was provided, however, where the original "best-guess" estimates based on what BP knew at the time.

As to federal responsibilities per the NCP, even section 300.105(a)(3) states that the fed is to coordinate cleanup efforts w/state, local and private agencies. Nonetheless, I'll conceed that since this spill happened in coastal navigational waters across multiple states that the fed should be in charge here. I have no problem falling on my sword when the facts bare fruit contrary to my initial position. My problem here, however, was everyone jumped on the government for not being involved from the start or not doing enough to contain the situation when by all accounts they've been involved from the beginning and the law clearly states who the first-responders are in a situation like this. Logistics might be another issue. You can argue whether or not the fed should keep more boom on-hand or release funding for berms more readily, etc., etc., but exactly where would they keep the resources and equipment? This is why it falls on the local and state governments to act as first responders, not the fed.

IMO, I believe our government is doing everything humanly possible to effect a resolution to this problem.
 
Crunch,

All that shows is that the CG/White House were still brainstorming trying to determine the size and scope of exactly what they were dealing with. It falls directly inline with RADM Landrey's initial comments while assessment of the situation from day-1. Everyone at the federal level including BP believed that residual oil was leaking from the oil rig and not the well-head. It wasn't until day-3 when they got ROVs down to the seabed did anyone know for sure that the problem was worse than expected. Just look at Timeline A.

Washunut,

I can't speak to the reason for the delay except to say if all entities where truly following their emergency oil spill contingency plans - BP and each affected state particularly LA - and being honest about what was happening alot of the initial response lag time could have been avoided.

Per the EPA NCP, the federal government is suppose to have this superfund available just for oil spill containment, recovery and cleanup. I'm sure Gov. Jindal requisitioned for some of those funds to erect berms along LA's coastline and/or inlets. My question, however, would be why didn't the state already have their own superfund available? Did they use it up responding to Katrina? If so, it's certainly justifiable that they requested for more federal financial assistance. And even if they did have such funds available, it still would have been justifiable for them to ask for more. Nonetheless, my point here is if they had, in fact, incorporated their own superfund into their NCP chances are they could have begun erecting those berms alot faster and not relied on the government to disburse funds for them to do so - atleast not initially. Thus, the question I have based on what I've read of the NCP is why wasn't the state of LA rather than the federal government more prepared to tackle this problem? Where's the state's responsibility in their level of preparedness in this matter?

Again, all entities have a role to play here. Let's not put the blame just on BP or the fed where preparedness is concerned.

I agree that other entities could/ perhaps should have been better prepared. It has been mentioned to me that LA did ask for to build the berms around their marshland a year earlier. I am sure sure if that is correct.

That does not really excuse the Feds from taking 3/4 weeks to OK the building of the berms when we found ourselves in an emergency situation. Also I am surprised the coast guard did not have some better contingeny plans for a major spill in U.S. waters. The militrary usually has plans in case of just about anything.

Let's face it there is plenty of blame to go around. The President as leader of the Federal government, can't in one breath say we are in charge and the next, don't blame me. Talk about kicking someone's a**, to me just makes him sound like a bully. It is easy to kick BP around the room, g-d knows that they deserve it, Obama wanted to be president. He knows that leaders get too much credit when things go right and too much blame when things go wrong. nature of the job. Just another sign to me that he was not emotionally ready to have this job.
 
I guess you are not aware that by law, the coast guard and the EPA are also responsible for cleanup. :shrug:
Of course the Government should clean it up, why on earth would anyone trust BP to do so? Haha, I think you've missed my point. In my view, this disaster is a result of a policy that allows too much deregulation, which was initiated by Bush and continues into Bush 2.0's current administration. So yes, government is partially at fault here, but it's still BP's mess and we have to ask ourselves whether this oil addiction is really worth it.
 
In a way it is sad to read the excuses coming out of the " I love Obama " crowd.

The above I find among the most intellectually dishonest talking points. People who advocate small government are not the same people who want NO government. Protecting the nation is something that small government people consider to be one of the things it should do.

Thus protecting our seabeds, beaches etc and doing all possible to stop it from hitting land should be a fundemental chore of government in my view.

What it should not do for example is delay for weeks the state's ability to build defenses that is an abuse of an out of control Federal government.

That's right. All that falls under that, "general welfare", part of the Constitution.
 
Of course the Government should clean it up, why on earth would anyone trust BP to do so? Haha, I think you've missed my point. In my view, this disaster is a result of a policy that allows too much deregulation, which was initiated by Bush and continues into Bush 2.0's current administration. So yes, government is partially at fault here, but it's still BP's mess and we have to ask ourselves whether this oil addiction is really worth it.

What kind of regulation could have prevented this blowout?
 
Of course the Government should clean it up, why on earth would anyone trust BP to do so? Haha, I think you've missed my point. In my view, this disaster is a result of a policy that allows too much deregulation, which was initiated by Bush and continues into Bush 2.0's current administration. So yes, government is partially at fault here, but it's still BP's mess and we have to ask ourselves whether this oil addiction is really worth it.





Does it have to do with the failure of outfitting the 1994 plan or the environmentalists pushing these rigs past the shelf into dangerously deep waters? Foes it have to do with the current admin's slow respinse to requests and offers as well or is this anothe "its always bush's fault" post?
 
Of course the Government should clean it up, why on earth would anyone trust BP to do so? Haha, I think you've missed my point. In my view, this disaster is a result of a policy that allows too much deregulation, which was initiated by Bush and continues into Bush 2.0's current administration. So yes, government is partially at fault here, but it's still BP's mess and we have to ask ourselves whether this oil addiction is really worth it.

Bush initiated ??? Are you sure, or could it have been Clinton... or Bush I..., or Reagan..., or Carter.

I just love it when libs claim everything is Bush's fault. I guess they forget that Bush wasn't the first President of America. :roll:
 
Of course the Government should clean it up, why on earth would anyone trust BP to do so? Haha, I think you've missed my point. In my view, this disaster is a result of a policy that allows too much deregulation, which was initiated by Bush and continues into Bush 2.0's current administration. So yes, government is partially at fault here, but it's still BP's mess and we have to ask ourselves whether this oil addiction is really worth it.


Aside of the already pointed out finger of blame firmly pointed to a target other than that should be taking real responsibility here, the highlighted portion is the real crux of the liberal agenda. And, the portion that is most important in understanding why it is that the Obama administration has been so inept with the handling of this disaster.

One spill that has been allowed criminally by both sides to foul our waters and wetlands, one out of overwhelming ineptness, and one out of the purpose of advancing an agenda of some sort of 'green' movement is a travesty.

Terms like 'oil addiction' is the speak of propaganda designed to further this agenda, and thrust this country backwards.


j-mac
 
Well, considering this is a man made disaster for which BP is solely responsible, i'm not surprised. The Katrina comparisons kind of fall flat, a natural disaster has different implications then one made by a global corporation.

I would think that since a natural disaster is far less predictable than a disaster in a regulated industry the governments actions are far more condemnable in the latter than for former.
 
Bush initiated ??? Are you sure, or could it have been Clinton... or Bush I..., or Reagan..., or Carter.

I just love it when libs claim everything is Bush's fault. I guess they forget that Bush wasn't the first President of America. :roll:

well, considering i'm not a "liberulll" I can't really comment, but yes Bush did deregulate oil companies and was a big supporter of offshore drilling. Was he the first? Of course not, but I think some people like to act like the last 8 years didn't happen. I think if the activities of The Energy Task Force under Bush were disclosed there would be even more people blaming him (even though he's not totally responsible).

I also love how conservatives are so quick to denounce "Bush's fault" allegations, but blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11! Totally different circumstances there
 
well, considering i'm not a "liberulll" I can't really comment, but yes Bush did deregulate oil companies and was a big supporter of offshore drilling. Was he the first? Of course not, but I think some people like to act like the last 8 years didn't happen. I think if the activities of The Energy Task Force under Bush were disclosed there would be even more people blaming him (even though he's not totally responsible).

I also love how conservatives are so quick to denounce "Bush's fault" allegations, but blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11! Totally different circumstances there

When you become president, you inherit the ood and the bad. I think Bush did a terrible job. As a matter of fact I thought that his rein wold allow democrats to govern for a generation.

Saying that, Obama and his supporters crying about the mess they were left by the last guy makes them sound like a bunch of not ready for prime time players.

It is sad but this administration has turned what should have been a generational change in direction to one where people can't wait to switch back after only 16 months in office.
 
I am not suprised by this at all. Many of us have been saying this for a while. It seems that we are spinning wheels here with this oil spill. I am particularly disturbed by bubs thread where we could have been a month into building the berms that a ducth company says could be done in 4 months not 9. /facepalm

Question for you: Do you support the government requiring Relief Wells being dug simultaneously as is required by Canada, Norway, and the UK?
 
Well, considering this is a man made disaster for which BP is solely responsible, i'm not surprised. The Katrina comparisons kind of fall flat, a natural disaster has different implications then one made by a global corporation.

Aren't there a whole group of American companies that were also involved in running the oil rig that blew up?

I'm just wondering whether BP is being used as "Johnny Foreigner" so that those US companies and American involvement also involved in this disaster can be excused from the public anger that is felt?
 
well, considering i'm not a "liberulll" I can't really comment, but yes Bush did deregulate oil companies and was a big supporter of offshore drilling. Was he the first? Of course not, but I think some people like to act like the last 8 years didn't happen. I think if the activities of The Energy Task Force under Bush were disclosed there would be even more people blaming him (even though he's not totally responsible).

I also love how conservatives are so quick to denounce "Bush's fault" allegations, but blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11! Totally different circumstances there

Did I call you a "liberulll"??? No, didn't think so.

You are right, some people do act like the last 8 years didn't happen... and some like you pretend there was no federal government BEFORE 2000.

You would be better served to list the deregulations Bush supposedly implemented rather than posting platitudes.
 
Did I call you a "liberulll"??? No, didn't think so.

You are right, some people do act like the last 8 years didn't happen... and some like you pretend there was no federal government BEFORE 2000.

You would be better served to list the deregulations Bush supposedly implemented rather than posting platitudes.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 allowed oil companies to exploit numerous loopholes in regulatory laws, and it is widely believed that this bill was a result of Dick Cheney's infamous "Energy Task Force" meetings. Don't believe me though, go read the House Energy and Commerce Committee's investigation on the matter.
 
Question for you: Do you support the government requiring Relief Wells being dug simultaneously as is required by Canada, Norway, and the UK?

Still waiting for an answer to this question from the Rev or anyone else who'd like to answer it.
 
Where are the skimmers, and other assistance that 17 other countries offered, and were turned down by Obama?


j-mac

That would come under the Jones Act of 1920. The offer is still on the table, will require Obama to sign a waiver allowing foreign flagged ships to participate. The last waiver signed was by Bush in the wake of Katrina. By signing a waiver he (Obama) may consider it stepping on Union toes.
 
Last edited:
Question for you: Do you support the government requiring Relief Wells being dug simultaneously as is required by Canada, Norway, and the UK?

Canada, Norway and the UK require relief wells to be drilled along side the primary well?

You're going to have to prove that one, friend. I'm calling bull****!
 
That would come under the Jones Act of 1920. The offer is still on the table, will require Obama to sign a waiver allowing foreign flagged ships to participate. The last waiver signed was by Bush in the wake of Katrina. By signing a waiver he (Obama) may consider it stepping on Union toes.


Wow! Union concerns? Really? This isn't the time to be playing politics with the Union destroyers of this country. :doh

So far, what I see is nothing but Obama wanting to take credit for any successes, and finger point all the inaction, and criticism.

If this were any other President, he would be pilloried in the press by now.


j-mac
 
That would come under the Jones Act of 1920. The offer is still on the table, will require Obama to sign a waiver allowing foreign flagged ships to participate. The last waiver signed was by Bush in the wake of Katrina. By signing a waiver he (Obama) may consider it stepping on Union toes.




Oh and while the Gulf is destroyed, the priority is to not step on Union toes! :doh
 
Back
Top Bottom