« Big Apple Boom Bust | Main | It's time for an oil rig beer summit »

"Obama's Katrina" is not a metaphor

Certainly the biggest blemish on the legacy of George W. Bush is the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina on the city of New Orleans. He was held directly responsible for the seemingly unorganized and slow disaster response by FEMA. He was further criticized for seeming aloof and unconcerned during the weeks following the disaster.

But unlike Hurricane Katrina, where the bulk of disaster preparedness and first responder tasks were specifically assigned to state and local governments, the response and cleanup efforts following the recent deadly explosion and oil spill at a BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico are directly in the hands of the Federal government, specifically the Department of Homeland Security as the managing agency, and the US Coast Guard as first responders.

A Coast Guard veteran emailed Hugh Hewitt after his Friday radio program, and stated:

"You are correct about the BP spill. The response has been grossly inadequate. This is inexplicable. The National Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300) and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) put the federal government in charge of an oil spill. Yes BP is the responsible party (RP) but the RP pays for the spill response. The NCP requires the use of unified command with the RP, the affected state and the federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) as the Incident Commanders. In this case the Coast Guard is the OSC. You don't waste time pinning everything on the RP. The NCP requires one response organization and the RP is a part of that. You can't separate the RP from the OSC. For the DHS Secretary to blame them shows her ignorance of the policies her own department is supposed to follow.

"The type of things we're seeing go wrong with this spill are the types of things that used to happen prior to OPA 90. This is simply inexcusable."

According to a former oil spill manager at NOAA, the government should have acted immediately after the explosion:

The Mobile Register reports that Ron Gouget, who formerly managed the oil spill cleanup department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as a similar unit for the state of Louisiana, is criticizing the Obama White House's failure to act according to existing government plans in the event of a spill in the area now being deluged with thousands of barrels of crude oil every day.

Gouget said when he was at NOAA, the agency created a plan that required burning off an oil spill in the region in its earliest stage, if the prevailing winds would not push the smoke and soot from the operation inland. The plan is still in effect, but was not activated last week by NOAA.

"They had pre-approval. The whole reason the plan was created was so we could pull the trigger right away instead of waiting ten days to get permission," Gouget told the Register. "If you read the pre-approval plan, it speaks about Grand Isle, where the spill is. When the wind is blowing offshore out of the north, you have preapproval to burn in that region. If the wind is coming onshore, like it is now, you can't burn at Grand Isle. They waited to do the test burn until the wind started coming onshore."

When the Register asked Gouget why federal officials waited for a week before conducting even a test burn, he said, "Good question. Maybe complacency was the biggest issue. They probably didn't have the materials on hand to conduct the burn, which is unconscionable."

And there's a lot more from Doug Ross, who writes:

...the White House response has consisted of dispatching lawyers to New Orleans and shutting down other rigs that have nothing to do with the BP disaster. On April 30th -- ten days after the catastrophic explosion -- the oil and gas news site RigZone reported that the White House had forbidden new drilling.

Ross has also put together a nice illustrated time line that chronicles the disaster as it unfolded over the last two weeks, and President Obama's complete detachment from it.

We should be reminded that when Hugo Chavez took over Venezuela's state-owned crude oil production company and began sacking its long-time managers and engineers, replacing them with his own cronies, the number of breakdowns, spills, and fires in Venezuela's oil fields increased dramatically. That's not surprising, because bureaucrats and political toadies are magnificent at creating bigger bureaucracies and funneling cash into their own pockets, but they are very inept when it comes to solving real world problems.

And so it is with the Obama Administration, even to a greater extent than the cronyism-plagued Bush White House. So far, the DHS and Coast Guard's slow and uncoordinated responses seem to be right in line with the bumbling efforts of FEMA's Michael Brown after the Katrina disaster. But don't expect other Democrats or the press (pardon the redundancy) to pillory the Obama White House about the performance of its appointees or Cabinet members.

...

Note: My colleague HughS already quoted Gouget in an earlier piece, but I felt the quote was worth repeating in this context as well. And make sure you read Shawn Mallow's excellent piece as well.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38953.

Comments (47)

Thank you for posting this!... (Below threshold)
Steve:

Thank you for posting this! I find you blog VERY interesting!!

Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

ps. Link Exchange???

Re the burnoff - I'm not su... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Re the burnoff - I'm not surprised that the preapproved plan wasn't implemented. One thing that's totally emblematic of a bureaucracy is a CYA mentality, which requires approval for ANYTHING out of the norm - even if the procedures are already in place to take care of the out of the norm stuff.

So local NOAA guy likely dragged out the emergency checklist, saw "Burning" on it, then called his boss just to make sure it was okay. His boss, seeing his own career going up in flames if he made the wrong call (possibly having visions of being called up before Maxine Waters and lectured about how irresponsible it was for him to torch off the oil and cause air pollution) bucked it up another level.

Repeat scenario up through the food chain, until finally someone goes "Damn! We've got to do something about this oil - I wonder if it would burn?" The message gets sent down - torch the oil.

Bureaucracies are not noted for quick repsonse times...


I blame Barry!<br ... (Below threshold)
914:

I blame Barry!


All Barry knows how to do i... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

All Barry knows how to do is BLAME. Has he ever taken responsibility for anything? Bueller? Bueller?

Local/Regional USCG command... (Below threshold)
epador:

Local/Regional USCG commanders have a lot of authority unless someone pulls the rug out from under them. There's more to this story.

Bush had a good week to pla... (Below threshold)
SteveP:

Bush had a good week to plan before Katrina hit the shores. He chose to sit in on a meeting and give lip service. You could tell he was disengaged. That hurricane was like Godzilla - moving slowing but no doubt on it's way. He IS Responsible because his laziness and disregard created the problems we had there.

Say what you want about this issue (and you people do in a grasping-at-straws kind of way anyway), but this accident happened quickly and controlling the spread is like trying to catch leaves in your arms during a windstorm.

Furthermore, I don't know about you, but I'm not aware of any machine not in science-fiction that is created purely for the purpose of going 5,000 ft. under the ocean to cap an oil leak from the earth's core.

This is a disaster that pretty much puts a lid on your "drill, baby, drill" idiot mantra. It was a disaster waiting to happen.

It's also BP's disaster. Our government will not sit by. It'll do what it can. Your effort to brand this as a Katrina like event for Obama is futile. It's a different animal. I know you folks hate this man, but be a little more intelligent in choosing your "branding" issue. This one will just make you look even more stupid than you already do.

Stop defending these idiots who's profits soar at our expense - then create this kind of disaster because they've taken everything they can from us and are too cheap to buy a functioning valve from KBR.

Barry shoulda put... (Below threshold)
914:

Barry shoulda put down the beer and smokes and "flicked his bic" a little earlier on this one instead of doing a fly by and trying to appear concerned. Barry owns it and like everything else he screws up, it will be up to the U.S. taxpayer to cover his ass.

Gee, 914, you really convin... (Below threshold)
SteveP:

Gee, 914, you really convinced me there. What an intelligent assessment of this situation.

"Barry owns it and like everything else he screws up, it will be up to the U.S. taxpayer to cover his ass."

Wow. Pure genius. How can anyone refute that...well, except with facts or common sense.

Was President Obama flying ... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Was President Obama flying around to photo ops getting his picture taken with guitarists, and eating birthday cake with John McCain?

Answer: no.

So come on now. Its fine to criticize Obama. But we all know GWB did a worse job.

Oh, and the requirement for offshore drills to have a plug in place that could have been triggered when such a spill happened? Most other nations require this. Cheney did away with this regulation when he was in office. You know, protecting our nation from that horrible regulation that's stopping business from bringing us Utopia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/may/03/usa-dickcheney

Thanks, Dick.

SteveP -"Bush h... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

SteveP -

"Bush had a good week to plan before Katrina hit the shores."

So did the governor of Louisiana. And the mayor of New Orleans. Who are the FIRST people who should have done something. It was THEIR responsibility to implement the contingency plans that THEY had. They had more than time to plan, they had plans aready drawn up for emergency response and evacuations.

But I think they were too worried about making a mistake. Of causing a lot of worry and expense, afraid of the chaos that would have naturally ensued. (It would have been messy, of course, but nothing that couldn't have been managed.)

They dithered, did nothing until it was almost too late - and it was THEIR responsibility to ask for help from the Feds, not the Fed's responsibility to shove 'em aside because they were stupidly dithering.

They were BUREAUCRATS. They got where they were by promising, not doing - and the thought of actually taking the plans that were already there and waiting to be implemented was enough to throw them into near paralysis. Why?

Because they might be wrong to take such expensive action!

And if the government HAD pushed them aside - you'd be screaming just as much about how Bush totally trampled on the state and city structures for handling a crisis of this order!

I'm not blaming Obama for the slow response - I'm blaming the entire system which he's tacitly co-opted. You don't dare make a decision to do something controversial without first making sure it's approved by the level above you. It just takes a long time to work through the levels of syncophants, incompetents, yes-men, and advisors to get the ultimate sign-off.

To that other jim - on blam... (Below threshold)
jim2:

To that other jim - on blaming Cheney:

In your Guardian link, the commenters noted that the plug requirement cited as being in place in certain other countries became effective in 1993. They also noted that the Clinton administration did not make it a requirement here then and that Clinton held office from 1993 to 2001.

Probably the biggest irony ... (Below threshold)
Caesar Augustus:

Probably the biggest irony with this story is that young liberal idiots on the Internet won't be able to grasp the irony.

On a different point, the elephant in the room is that this is just the sort of 'crisis' the far left needs to put the kabosh once and for all on further offshore drilling. $5.00 per gallon gasoline, here we come....

On new Orleans evacuation, ... (Below threshold)
jim2:

On new Orleans evacuation, etc., the more time you assert that Bush and the Feds had to prepare and act to usurp State and local governments' responsibilities, the more damning the below becomes:

http://www.snopes.com/katrina/photos/buses.asp

Theres the link.. Not Bush ... (Below threshold)
914:

Theres the link.. Not Bush but blame Cheney. Yeah that works. Gee, Barry sat on his ass for 10 days trying to outsmart his self and now his slick ens' are comin home to roost.

This will be way worse then Katrina with or without the waves it will affect the whole gulf. What happens when a hurricane or tropical storm form? You got it! man made disaster that will have to be named after Barak

"Wow. Pure genius. How can anyone refute that...well, except with facts or common sense."

Tell it to Barry! He has no common sense, the He owns it. The facts show that he never lets a crisis go to waste and its always at our exspense.

jim x -By all acco... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

jim x -

By all accounts, there is/was a blow-out preventer on the rig. It failed.

Why?

Nobody knows for sure. The ram-type (which seems to have been the one here) should have basically sheared off the excess drill pipe and crimped it closed. However, if the connection between two segments of drill pipe is in the way, that might have prevented it from closing. That would, if I recall correctly, just about triple the amount of steel it would need to cut through to shut things off.

The lack of a BOP wasn't a problem here. Why it didn't function as it should have is the question.

As far as solutions go - (shrug) double-stack the blowout preventer. If there's a joint in the way of one, the other one would take care of the closure.

For those interested, <a hr... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

For those interested, here is a spec sheet for a ram-type blowout preventer.

From the Guardian article:<... (Below threshold)
SteveP:

From the Guardian article:

The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well.

The U.K., where BP is headquartered, doesn't require the use of acoustic triggers.

The Journal's report doesn't come out and say this, but the environmental lawyer, Mike Papantonio, said on the Schultz show in an interview... that it was Cheney's energy task force - the secretive one that he wouldn't say much about publicly - that decided that the switches, which cost $500,000, were too much a burden on the industry. The Papantonio segment starts at around 5:00 in and lasts three minutes or so.

Yeah. Who can believe any of this. It must all be a conspiracy against Cheney and his oil friends. That's what I believe, because I'm a gullible, easily manipulated republican who's never been right about anything so far.

Steve P,1. Replace ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Steve P,
1. Replace "Katrina" with "January 2009 Central Plains and Midwest ice storm" and Bush with Obama.
2. Read then summarize the FEMA rules of engagement.
3. Compare FEMA response to other disasters, and to other counties/states that were hit during Katrina to the NOLA response.
4. Unrelated to 1-3, but since you've brought up profit again...
What is the right profit margin for a business?
What is your profit margin on your business?

Will you answer, or will you just slink off as usual?

So yes, the Clinton adminis... (Below threshold)
jim x:

So yes, the Clinton administration apparently didn't specifically specifically whether to put this into place.

The Clinton administration also didn't push for increased offshore drilling.

Whereas the Cheney/Bush administration pushed increase offshore drilling, *specifically* considered this possibility and then rejected it.

In any case - any time you hear about how corporations should have government regulation because it "oppresses them" - consider this spill situation as a prime example of what happens, when they're left to regulate themselves.

What is the right p... (Below threshold)
SteveP:

What is the right profit margin for a business?
What is your profit margin on your business?

These are the only two questions worth answering in your stupid post.

What is the right profit margin for a business? Lets rephrase that: What is the right profit margin for a business that is reckless and has just destroyed gulf coast business and wildlife for the forseeable future? Nothing. They should drown. Go bankrupt. Cease to exist. Some things are actually more important than profits, but don't let reality get in the way of your stupid mantra.

What is my profit margin? Around 15%. We do just fine on that. If I could destroy wildlife and pollute the environment, but get an extra 20% profit on top of it, would I do it? Me. No. BP. Probably.

Not every issue in this world is measured by a 100% profit margin. If you think so, you need to change your priorities. But, then again, self-centeredness is a valued republican trait.

jim x -I'm sorry, ... (Below threshold)
jim2:

jim x -

I'm sorry, but that's a silly argument. There were lots of wells drilled in the leased areas in the eight Clinton years. The requirement was fresh and topical for all those same eight years.

Consider this excerpt from your friend the NY Times:

"From 1992 to 1997, the company acquired dozens of new leases from the government, spurred by a new royalty relief program that provided extra incentives to encourage deepwater exploration."

BTW, that "company" in BP. I wonder if one of those wells is the one leaking.

Jim2, I'm sorry but there i... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Jim2, I'm sorry but there is a difference between administrations here. The Clinton administration didn't push for offshore drilling to anywhere **near** the degree that the GWB administration did.

The GWB administration used the White House as a bully pulpit to push for more of it.

It's the difference between a town's government increasing the number of strip club's that can be built in your town, and your town's mayor launching a campaign to try and *force* the rest of the town to build more strip clubs than ever before.

And JLawson - yes, there were backups that didn't work. It appears at least likely that this acoustic switch would have worked. Therefore, in the face of this catastrophe that's going to pummel our coastline - not just environmentally but economically - this is a **colossal** mistake.

SteveP, Jim X -Hon... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

SteveP, Jim X -

Honestly, guys, I don't get what you're arguing here re Cheney, Clinton, who said what and when and so forth.

There WAS a blowout preventor on the rig. It failed.

Here it is, even..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uscgd8/4551846015/in/photostream/

From the comment - Horizon37 seems to know what he's talking about.

From what little I can gather the well had been completed and they were preparing to temp abandon the well, there would not have been liner gear in the BOP Stack, Just a wild guess but they were pulling the drill string, and swabbed in the well, or circulated up an oil slug from a previous drill stem test. It could have been any of hundreds of things that cause the initial fire.hopefully they can recover the rigs computer logs and see exactly what was happening at the time.

The fire probably damaged the surface controls for the BOP stack, or rendered them inaccessible to the crew, and when the rig finally sank the riser broke off and damaged the stack control lines, and the stacks on-board emergency accumulators lost all of their pressure to close the shear rams or blind rams, probably all rams, depends on how the stack was programmed to respond. There is also on these stacks a battery operated sonar activated system to close the rams, evidently it failed or was damaged. And I doubt if the ROV has enough power to operate the hand wheels on the rams either. It would be nice if someone had gotten some footage of the area under the moonpool to see if the riser was still hanging after the initial fire, if its compensator wires had burned through the riser would have dropped before the rig sank, taking the drill string with it. this drill string is probably 4-1/2" as 6-5/8" as stated earlier would not fit inside a 9-5/8 casing the tool joints are to big.

WHY it failed is a good question, as well as what caused the need for the BOP to work in the first placed. Horizon37, Deepwater Engineer and SubSea1Engineer seem to know what they're talking about.

BTW, SteveP, check out BP's financials. Their profit margin is 7.57% for 2009. Aren't you happy to see it's well below what you'd allow them?

Jim2, I'm sorry but ther... (Below threshold)
RealRepublican:

Jim2, I'm sorry but there is a difference between administrations here.

Not if it doesn't support my facts.

The Clinton administration didn't push for offshore drilling to anywhere **near** the degree that the GWB administration did.

But that doesn't matter. As long as I can use the name "Clinton" in a sentence, I've won.

And JLawson - yes, there were backups that didn't work. It appears at least likely that this acoustic switch would have worked. Therefore, in the face of this catastrophe that's going to pummel our coastline - not just environmentally but economically - this is a **colossal** mistake.

What are you, a socialist? You can't regulate oil. To do so would be un-American. If we lose a few birds in the name of profits, who cares?

jim x -Didn't you ... (Below threshold)
jim2:

jim x -

Didn't you read my post's cited text from the link? BP drilled a lot of their Gulf Wells due to incentives that largely came into being during the Clinton Administrations.

Your impressions or recollections of the comparative press releases of the Bush versus Clinton Administrations seem of far less weight than the actual practices during those years as cited by the hardly-right-wing NY Times.

"It appears at least likely... (Below threshold)
engineer:

"It appears at least likely that this acoustic switch would have worked." Hindsight is allows 20/20. However, you don't and nobody knows if the acoustic switch would have worked either. The other systems in place were supposed to work and didn't. As far as I know, cite an example if I'm wrong, the existing systems have not failed in the past.

Placing cutoff valves every couple hundred feet on the piping with a self contained manned control station at each of these locations could have cut off the flow of oil. Why don't we have them? You could think of a hundred different ways to cut off the oil supply, how many is enough?

Jim2 - are you actually, se... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Jim2 - are you actually, seriously disputing that the the GWB administration was more friendly to oil and offshore drilling than the Clinton administration?

I mean, honestly. Is there any real question about this? OK.

Exhibit A:
Clinton administration extends moratorium on offshore drilling in 1998 -

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9806/12/offshore.drilling.pm/

Please find any link of the Bush administration EVER willingly extending a moratorium on ANY drilling, anywhere.

The only info that shows up for this, is for the Bush administration ending the Clinton moratorium.

Exhibit B:
Bush pushes offshore drilling:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26574040/

Please find any link of the Clinton administration EVER demanding more offshore drilling occur.

"And JLawson - yes, ther... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"And JLawson - yes, there were backups that didn't work. It appears at least likely that this acoustic switch would have worked. Therefore, in the face of this catastrophe that's going to pummel our coastline - not just environmentally but economically - this is a **colossal** mistake."

I'm sorry, Jim X - but I think I'll trust the opinions of folks who actually do this for a living, not someone looking to score political points as you seem to be doing.

The real issue, which I think we can all agree on, is something happened that the safety equipment in place was unable to handle. The folks who actually work with this stuff don't know what happened. Safety equipment like the blowout preventer stack here failed, and it shouldn't have.

Time will tell what actually happened - and whether or not an acoustically activated ram would have been of help or not. It's easy to say "Yes, it would have!" from our vantage points, and I won't say you're wrong - or right - because we don't have enough info. I'll leave such speculation to the folks who're doing the work.

BTW, Jim X - no snark was i... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

BTW, Jim X - no snark was intended in the previous post.

Except for the part about the political points. ;)

But I'm not arguing with you about that either way, seeing it's not really relevant in the first place.

However, you don't and n... (Below threshold)
jim x:

However, you don't and nobody knows if the acoustic switch would have worked either.

No, I don't. And now we'll never no.

However, if Cheney had required the acoustic switch in place, he would at least have tried something closer to the utmost.

Instead he let BP and other drillers skate on a $500,000 cost - which is nothing compared to the billions these companies reap from these wells.

Therefore I consider him at fault for not doing this, and Bush for allowing it to happen. And I hope that this at least a lesson that regulation is necessary, should be firm, and that the less dependent we are on fossil fuels the better.

I'm sorry, Jim X - but I... (Below threshold)
jim x:

I'm sorry, Jim X - but I think I'll trust the opinions of folks who actually do this for a living, not someone looking to score political points as you seem to be doing.

Well, some of the people who "do this for a living" seem to think an acoustic switch would have been a good idea.

But in any case, we'll just have to hope for the best in general.

BTW, from what I've been ab... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

BTW, from what I've been able to find, the acoustic device is simply another way to activate the rams. (Using power stored at the wellhead to make them function if the connection to the surface failed.) If the rams had been activated, and then failed, it wouldn't have mattered if there were an acoustic switch or not.

We simply don't have enough info. I've been trying to find if the rams actually fired or not - and there's nuthin' but speculation.

Do you think it is possible... (Below threshold)
Philip:

Do you think it is possible that Obama gamed the oil spill "crisis"? Perhaps hoping it would be just bad enough to discredit "Drill baby, drill" but being surprised to learn of the extent of potential damage? Did he sit on an immediate response as per the plan? Never let a crisis go to waste - their own words, isn't it?

jim x -I rebutted ... (Below threshold)
jim2:

jim x -

I rebutted your criticism of the Bush Administration (Cheney) for not requiring something that two Clinton Administrations had not previously required even as they expanded Gulf drilling. I have no intention of arguing your morphed strawman, or strawperson.

"Do you think it ... (Below threshold)
914:


"Do you think it is possible that Obama gamed the oil spill "crisis"?"


With the assclown in chief its all things politics all of the time so yes.


So to recap Wizbang today..... (Below threshold)
Jake:

So to recap Wizbang today.... Michael is saying that the person at the top of the ladder is ultimately responsible, while Rick is saying in the latest post that BP may or may not be responsible. Maybe you guys should get together and compare notes?

But the best part of this post is the blame placed at the federal level. I thought you guys were anti-Federal government? I thought that the Republican/Tea Party position today was that the Federal government needs to go away?

Hey Jake,Who don't... (Below threshold)
RealRepublican:

Hey Jake,

Who don't you shut up, JUST SHUT UP!

We can say, think or do whatever we want. We're free Americans. Our President is the one who's not an American. He's the one who can't fix anything in this country because he could care less about it.

And, yes, I want the federal government out of my business unless they're to blame for a disaster like this. And I think they are.

Moby Sock in aisle 37. Cle... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Moby Sock in aisle 37. Cleanup report to aisle 37.

SteveP,I only asked ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

SteveP,
I only asked you 2 questions.

If BP is so reckless, how and why did they get a safety award for this rig in 2009, and were about to get another?

Good to see your profit margin is well above the average of the Eeeeevil health insurance industry and the Really Very Eeeeeevil oil industry.

Jim2, you did not rebut my ... (Below threshold)
Jim x:

Jim2, you did not rebut my criticism at all. Perhaps you misunderstood it. Let me track it for you.

In post 9, I mentioned that Cheney could have required an acoustic trigger, and then did not.

In post 11, you responded that Bill Clinton could have done this too, and he did not.

In post 19, I pointed out to you the important difference that the Clinton administration did not push for offshore drilling to the degree that the Bush/Cheney administration did.

This has been my point, in my response to your first response to me - post # 11. It has not changed or morphed.

Perhaps you don't see this as an important difference. I do. I consider that when an administration pushes for something a lot more than any previous administration, that it assumes more responsibility for when that something goes horribly, horribly, awfully wrong.

And as a side note, it amazes me that you attempted to argue that the Clinton administration and Bush administration were basically the same regarding oil and offshore leasing. This simply is not true.

The only tragedy from Katri... (Below threshold)
ck:

The only tragedy from Katrina was exposing the worthless/criminal local leadership.Not to mention the totally worthless inhabitants. How about Sierra club/greenies blocking the fortification of the levees several years prior.

jim x -Yes, per yo... (Below threshold)
jim2:

jim x -

Yes, per your post #19, you created the new strawperson.

The Clinton Administration was greatly encouraging Gulf drilling by tax/royalty incentives in 1993 when that foreign plug thingy requirement - the one that you said the Bush Administration should have adopted - came into existence overseas. I showed that with a cite from - of all places - the New York Times! Go google. The Clinton Administrations continued for another 7+ years into 2001 and still did not make it a domestic requirement.

There's no way that any new strawperson of yours that the later Bush Administrations should be held responsible makes any kind of sense.

That is rebuttal, and your comparative hand-waving will not make it any different.

Jim2 - well there you have ... (Below threshold)

Jim2 - well there you have it. You came at me with a new argument in # 11, and so I responded to that new argument with # 19.

That's not a "new strawman" - its a response to your new argument.

Your new argument is apparently, to paraphrase, "If Bill Clinton could have done it earlier, and didn't, then Bush and Cheney can't be blamed for failing in the same way."

This fails on two basic levels:

1. as previously explained and shown, Bush and Cheney pushed for oil in general and offshore drilling far more than Clinton did.

2. But let's say for the sake of argument, that Clinton and Bush were equally responsible. That only means that they are both, at worst, equally guilty.

Disagree.I pointed... (Below threshold)
jim2:

Disagree.

I pointed out the fallacy in your blaming the Bush Administration for doing something that the previous two Clinton Administrations had failed to do.

You then tried to argue, essentially, that the Bush Administration should have the blame because they pushed Gulf drilling, but I proved that those same Clinton Administrations had also pushed Gulf drilling and, in particular, by BP.

If anything, the Clinton Administrations should bear whatever blame there might be, because that overseas device you touted and the requirement arose in 1993 and the Clinton Administration apparently rejected it. You have offered nothing but handwaving by a strawperson that the Bush Administration should have revisited that decision and reversed it.

@RealRepublican said: ... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@RealRepublican said:

"Who don't you shut up, JUST SHUT UP! We can say, think or do whatever we want. We're free Americans."

Hey, cool! Me too! Which means I don't need to shut up any more than you do. But to be clear, I didn't tell anyone that need to "shut up". I guess freedom of speech is only applicable if you like what I'm saying?

"Our President is the one who's not an American. He's the one who can't fix anything in this country because he could care less about it."

Yep, I totally agree. He *could* care less. I think the phrase you meant to use is "couldn't care less". Which is to say that he cares so little now, he couldn't possibly care less than he does.

I love this line of argument though: If you don't agree with me, you're not an American. Yep, THAT'S what the founders had in mind.

"And, yes, I want the federal government out of my business unless they're to blame for a disaster like this. And I think they are."

So if they cause a disaster, you want them in your life? You don't like the Fed, yet you want them close to you when they screw up? Whaaaa?

Feed not trolls, especially... (Below threshold)
jim2:

Feed not trolls, especially false flag ones.

Jim2: 1. You are r... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Jim2:

1. You are refusing to acknowledge the difference between allowing legislation that can encourage drilling to happen (Clinton), and using the Presidency as a bully pulpit to push for something as much as you possibly can.

2. You are now attempting the mental gymnastics of saying that, because Clinton didn't require an acoustic switch before Cheney also didn't require an acoustic switch, it really is Clinton's fault and not at all Cheney's.

3. Please go ahead and revisit the original link. It contains information on how Cheney faced that decision afresh, and decided against it.

If you want to suggest equal responsibility for the Clinton and Cheney/Bush administrations, that's stretching it - but I'll go along with it.

But if you're suggesting that Clinton should be blamed for a bad decision made by Cheney, because Clinton made the bad decision earlier - that's just silly.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy