If Bush would have responded to this leak EXACTLY like Obama has, we would be outraged!

[KansasVoter]

Is this Obama's fault. Absolutely not!!!

Will I support and vote for Obama in 2012? Absolutely!

Will I defend the Administrations response when I think they were slow to respond! Absolutely NOT!!!

Wow, I do not want this place defending everything Obama does, especially when it could have been better!

Especially the EPA approving dispersant's with absolutely NO questioning or investigation. Just taking BPs word for it! And once scientists started to complain, the EPA caved and ordered them to stop! Wow! Maybe ask the scientists before approving them???

NOAA being extremely slow to start investigating the damage done!

NYTimes: NOAA had not made public a single test result on water from the deep ocean, scientists said. They also questioned why the administration had not demanded an accurate analysis of the flow of leaking oil, given doubts about BP’s initial estimates. N.O.A.A. said it was moving to get better information.

Complaining about Obama does not equal thinking Obama is not a good president. And this place should not take complaints as meaning someone hates Obama.

Wow, I imagine Freeperville was defending the Katrina response also. And they were wrong!

[Ian David]

1. Why didn't Obama send the busses? n/t

[jefferson_dem]

25. Ha! +1.

Now just look at 'em!

[Kerrytravelers]

2. For me, the starting place for each one is so different.

Whenever something happened under Bush, since he was already proven a liar, I instantly figured he was gaining something out of it.

With Obama, I start on such a higher standing. There is no reason to think Obama is gaining from this disaster, so my whole mindset is different.

[KansasVoter]

3. And they felt the same way about Bush. Bid deal!

[Kerrytravelers]

8. Well that was rude. I certainly didn't attack you. But ok.

:shrug:

[mkultra]

31. dont mind him, His mission is to slander Obama and us

Obama for being Obama and us for supporting him. He is still upset that Bush was treated "badly"

One edit: I guess it would technically be libel :)

[jefferson_dem]

26. President Obama should get the benefit of the doubt, as the starting place.

He's a good man, well-intentioned, and competent...at the very least.

[RoyGBiv]

4. I think you missed a few exclamation marks.

You can combine them with question marks for greater effect.

Like this: !?!?!?

Cool, eh?

[KansasVoter]

6. Wow, amazing insight!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RoyGBiv]

11. Ah, that's better ...

I understand you now. You have used the requisite number of exclamation marks to get your point across.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Was it over when Obama bombed Pearl Harbor?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

9. Have a timeline:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201004300053

[KansasVoter]

10. The EPA failure is enough to be mad about!

[boppers]

12. Somebody's been spinning that angle hard, too.

As I currently understand it:
1. An EPA *approved* dispersant was already being used.
2. Some scientists complained about it.
3. EPA asked BP to stop, and investigate alternatives
4. BP came back and said "this is the best option at this point".
5. EPA let BP resume

More background/perspectives would help me, of course.

[scheming daemons]

13. Justifiably so, since Bush's policies and his buddies caused the disaster

The outrage at Bush wouldn't be at a response like Obama's... it would be because Bush caused it with his policies.

[sandnsea]

14. EPA Facts

Here's the list of dispersants the EPA has approved, long before this accident.
http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/ncp/product_schedule.htm

Here's the directive from the EPA to BP requiring them to implement a monitoring and assessment plan, as well as a plan for more thorough oil analysis.

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants/subsurface-dispersant-summary-final.pdf

Here are the sampling results between 5/15 and 5/20

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/data/bp-subsurface-data.xls

What was the problem with the specific dispersant in question, again?

[KansasVoter]

15. Wow, a little behind I see.....

The agency on Saturday released a 12-page document from BP, representing only a portion of the company's full response. Along with several dispersant manufacturers, BP claimed that releasing its full evaluation of alternatives would violate its legal right to keep confidential business information private.
But in a strongly worded retort, the EPA said that it was "evaluating all legal options" to force BP to release the remaining information "so Americans can get a full picture of the potential environmental impact of these alternative dispersants."

[sandnsea]

16. Yes, but what was the dispersant you have a problem with

Your comment is where the EPA is at at this point. Your comment sheds no light on everything the EPA did prior to getting to this point, the point where BP has been required to release data and the EPA is pressuring them to release the redacted CBI.

But again, what dispersant are you having a problem with, and is the EPA up to speed now that you have seen what they are actually doing?

[KansasVoter]

17. yes.......

They only got TOUGH after public and scientific pressure!

Wow, you act like day one they were questioning the plan!

They were not!

[sandnsea]

18. Well yes they were, the facts are right there

This is the Directive dated May 10. Read it yourself. This is when BP began putting the dispersants in the water.

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants/subsurface-dispersant-directive-final.pdf

[amborin]

21. Corexit is very toxic, with short- and long-term harmful effects on humans & wildlife

Nalco, which makes Corexit, is owned by Goldman Sachs

[boppers]

24. "Rice is bad."

"All rice."

That's the intellectual substance of your argument.

Good luck with that.

Here's a hint: a brand name is not a product.

[amborin]

20. Corexit is so toxic, it's banned in Britain; the fact it's on our EPA's accepted list proves zip

our EPA has finally agreed to scientists complaints and told BP to use a less toxic dispersant

and in any case, scientists say the dispersant is mainly serving only a cosmetic function

[vaberella]

23. can you guys create a separate thread on this?

I'm getting the Obama is as bad as Bush threads dominating here.

[meowomon]

19. Agreed. His action (or lack of) on the BP disaster has been horrible.

I am very disappointed in Obama's presidency. The passion he showed during his campaign is lacking. I understand that he wants to be bipartisan, but he is giving way too much away to the right. Will I vote for him again? probably. But probably not in the primary.

[craigmatic]

22. He should've brought in the Army corp of engineers on this one.

Instead he's relying on the so called private sector to fix it and they're not getting the job done.

[Recovered Repug]

27. Exactly how much experience

does the COE have in this sort of thing?

[craigmatic]

41. I'm guessing at least as much as BP.

[zulchzulu]

40. Army Corps Of Engineers were at least partially responsible for Katrina damage

Bring them into the Deepwater Oil Disaster?

[Aramchek]

28. you are outraged at everything, apparently

[Forkboy]

29. And you by nothing.

[treestar]

39. If there is nothing to be outraged about, one does not need to be

Your post reveals it to be a necessity.

[Phx_Dem]

30. Sending the Dept Int. Sec downhours after it happened was unacceptable!!

They should have predicted exactly when it would have happened and sent him there BEFORE!

Damn it. That pissed me off.

:eyes:

When you say "we," I assume you're talking about yourself and that mouse in your pocket.

[phleshdef]

32. We would be outraged and it would still be unreasonable, even if it was Bush.

[donco6]

33. It's a shame you have to place all those disclaimers at the beginning of every post.

But I guess establishing bona fides is what it's all about on DU these days. Sad.

[Drunken Irishman]

34. Nope.

[Autumn]

35. Nothing Obama can do, OR he is doing it in secret.

Take your pick. I don't give a flying fuck who is President, this pisses me off and I expect more from a Democrat. I think our Navy should be out there.

[tranche]

36. Actually it would be an improvement on Bush. I think Obama's handled this pretty well.

[JoePhilly]

37. Bush would be claiming the ocean can clean itself.

[treestar]

38. Bush would not have been able to do anything about it either

Some of us are reasonable and not insisting on being outraged about everything all the time.

I was more worried about the unitary executive claims and the use of terra to scare everyone into giving up the right to privacy.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

42. I feel the difference with outrage from Bush is we knew he was negligent. If Pres. Obama isn't ...

responding, then we know there is little he can do personally. He's was there in pirate hostage crisis, the Korean hostage rescue. The simple reality is if there is something Barack could be doing he sure would be doing it, and so it means there is little to be done, but hope BPs quest for oil gives them enough incentive cap it and pipe it. Definitely we'd prefer they weren't going to try and syphon more oil but if it's enough for them to keep trying to hold back that gusher I'm good with that.

[AtomicKitten]

43. Maybe he should have set himself on fire to call attention to his response to the Gulf oilcano.

It's such a bother to click on a link for that information.

[chowder66]

44. Assumption...

If Bush would have responded to this leak EXACTLY like Obama has, we would be outraged!

This disaster is absolutely frustrating, however, IF Bush had done exactly what Obama has done I would not necessarily be outraged. NOT if he followed the same steps! It "could" have been a moment in which Bush seemingly tried to do the right thing which is what I see Obama doing. My outrage is with BP and oil companies in general, my outrage is with the agencies that have looked the other way, my outrage is directed at the shitty policies that were put in place prior to this mess.

Bush actually did do something positive in regards to AIDS, he screwed up everything else he touched but that does not mean we should equate Obama with Bush or assume that just because Bush sucked at nearly every turn he couldn't have stepped up to the plate, the most likely scenario is that he would not have or at least not in the way Obama and his administration have.

Assuming Bush would have screwed this up is one thing but to assume Obama is doing this like Bush would have is another.