• 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!

The Bush Oil Spill? Hardly!


Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Aug 27, 2005
Reaction score
Houston, TX
Political Leaning
Since the blowout in the Gulf happened, I have seen hyperpartisans on both the right and the left blame the other guy for the mess we are in, that is, either Bush or Obama. Neither extreme is ever going to admit that their guy was responsible. So, what do the rest of us have to say about it? I admit, I do not like taking the side of the birthers, deathers, and other crazies on the right, but in this instance, I have no choice. Why? Because the crazies on the left don't see the forest for the trees.

First, for background, check out this article from Rolling Stone, which is completely unbiased and unpartisan in it's scathing condemnation of the Obama administration, when it comes to the BP blowout. Note that this is the same magazine that bashed the Bush administration when he was in office, so I really do appreciate the equal treatment given to both the Bush and Obama administrations by this publication.

Now to the meat of the matter. Yes, Bush does own 8 years of this spill. He installed oil company officers in the MMS. He kept his hands off the oil companies and allowed them to do whatever they wished. He gutted regulations. But guess what? Bush is no longer in office. It is a year into the Obama administration, and due to his giving the green light to the oil companies, and accepting their reckless conduct, Obama now owns this catastrophe, lock, stock, and barrel.

Screw Bush. He is irrelevant. That is what I have heard from Liberals from day one of the Obama administration. I agree. Bush IS irrelevant. On the other hand, what about Obama? He is very relevant. Hell, he is the one who has been the president for almost a year and a half. Thus, the blame for what happened is his. Did Obama attempt to restore regulations that were gutted by Bush? NO. Did he attempt to restaff MMS with real scientists instead of oil industry shills? NO. Did he even raise a finger to reign in the oil companies? NO. Now the big question - Is Obama at fault? You are damn right he is. Remember, "The buck stops here". Too bad we haven't seen a Truman or Reagan in decades. But the buck DOES stop at the Oval Office, whether or not the occupant of that office wants it to. To you Liberals who want to blame this all on Bush, get real, will 'ya? Is Bush only relevant when it suits your own selfish political purposes? It seems that way to me.

Finally, for those who call this spill Obama's Katrina, I disagree with you in the strongest terms. Bush's problem was inaction, while telling Brownie what a hell of a job he was doing. What could be worse than that? How about putting in charge of the aftermath of the blowout the very same people who created it, instead of taking charge from the start? IMHO, that is orders of magnitude worse, and shows me that, when it comes to America, Obama doesn't really give a damn. He needs to be replaced. Whether it is by another Democrat, a Republican, or even Bozo the clown, doesn't matter. He has done enough damage already. He needs to go, and the sooner the better.

Last edited:
I agree. Obama appears to completely not give a damn other than to calculate what gain it could be to his agenda, while Bush was slow to respond to a catastrophe he did not initially grasp the magnitude of.
Top Bottom