Angry Obama Seeks to Deflect Blame for Gulf Oil Spill Crisis

AP

The president seemed genuinely angry today, on a beautiful spring afternoon in the Rose Garden. Having watched him on a daily basis for about a year and a half, I'm confident he wasn't faking it.

He seems deeply upset about the growing calamity in the Gulf, about the environmental damage, about the irresponsibility of the companies involved, and about their efforts to shift the blame.

"I did not appreciate what I considered to be a ridiculous spectacle during the congressional hearings into this matter," he intoned. "You had executives of BP and Transocean and Halliburton falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else."

Washington Unplugged: Tough Words From Obama - But no Good Options
Oil Flow Rate Questioned as BP Tries 2nd Fix
Complete Coverage: Disaster in the Gulf

President Obama may have decried finger-pointing today, but he also did a fair amount of it himself. Not only at the three companies, but at previous administrations.

Here's what he said today when he turned the finger at the federal government:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

"For too long, for a decade or more, there has been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill. It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies. That cannot and will not happen anymore." (watch the video at left)

"A decade or more" clearly encompasses the Bush Administration, and may include the Clinton years too. But Mr. Obama's been president for nearly 16 months. Does he get at least a little piece of the blame?

Not a bit, he made clear. He portrayed his administration as valiantly fighting the good fight against the oil companies from day one:

"Now, from the day he took office as Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar has recognized these problems and he's worked to solve them. Often times he has been slammed by the industry, suggesting that somehow these necessary reforms would impede economic growth. Well, as I just told Ken, we are going to keep on going to do what needs to be done."

So while the president is pointing the finger of blame, he's also working hard to make sure that over time the finger doesn't do a 180.

The defensive tone was clear right from the top of his remarks today when he said: "The potential devastation to the Gulf Coast, its economy, and its people require us to CONTINUE our RELENTLESS efforts to stop the leak and contain the damage." (Emphasis added.)

And who can blame him. The potential political downside to a disaster is huge. Just ask George Bush. The White House, and most who have closely compared the responses, say this spill has little similarity to Katrina.

As Robert Gibbs told me today, "Katrina happened because no one was there to help, it was a non-response."

With the Gulf spill, he said, the response was "comprehensive and fast" and the Coast Guard and Interior Department were on the scene almost immediately.

This disaster is going to play out over a very long time, and as it gets worse there certainly will be efforts by others -- out of frustration over lost livelihoods and environmental damage, and for purely political purposes -- who will try to shift blame to the administration.

And eventually some of it may stick. The president is already working hard to make sure that doesn't happen.

More Coverage:

Oil Leak Stop At Least a Week Away, BP Exec Says
Obama Slams BP, Transocean, Halliburton Over Gulf Oil Spill
Oil Spill: Missing Data Mire Blast Investigation
BP Says Its Gulf Oil Spill Costs Now $450M
Gulf Oil Rig Plagued by Problems, Probe Finds
2nd Oil Containment Box Reaches Gulf Seafloor
BP Will Keep Trying to Plug Leak
BP's Gulf Coast Mess
Oil Rig Captain Tells His Story
Complete Coverage: Disaster in the Gulf

---

Chip Reid is CBS News' chief White House correspondent. You can read more of his posts in Hotsheet here.

[greco99-2009]

Humor turns the page. For anyone interested in following the long thread below, here are some highlights...

Marks wrote: "And another battle cry the use: "the science is settled." Since when is science 'settled?' It is by definition the process of challange and discovery. It can't be settled. Unless you 'want to believe it.' "

-- Does the earth revolve around the sun? I guess if that is not settled science, then you may think the sun revolves around [insert-name-of-blog-poster-here-to-avoid-ad-hominem-humor].

Marks wrote: " More carbon weathers from the Himalayan mountains each year than we burn in a century. "

-- but, that would only be if [insert-name-here] put the Himalaya in his gas tank to burn them.

Marks wrote " "Obama is a ghetto-rousing socialist pig."

-- I guess that means [insert-name-of-birther-here] no longer thinks that he is a Muslim.

And, later from Marks:

"I tend to mix inflammatory remarks, facts, politics, science, and my opinion together in a sort-of verbal stew. Am a very skeptical and cynical. And these blogs are a great way to rant w/o risk. I don't concern myself with what others think for the most part. I should probably spend less time doing this."

Also this from Marks, below: "And I apologize to you greco for being such an as_."

Thank you Marks for the apology, it is sincerely appreciated. And, this was a very interesting session?.

[8razman]

Obama has no right to point a finger at anyone. This man has flip-flopped on every issue he's been faced with. Open up the Gulf for drilling was one of his ideas. Now, he wants everyone else to be at fault. Finger pointing? Obama is the king of finger pointing.

[marks6806]

Dear Gecko: I posted the facts about the spill and who is responsible - Congress/Obama and BP. I would say the blame is 50/50. The feds' job is to enforce the laws and regs and assure the safety of people and property. They failed. No excuse. As green as EPA has been from the day Obama was sworn in - they should have been all-over BP's drilling application. The only explanation is political.

It appears BP took control of the rig and made some decisions that may have contributed to the spill - but that isn't yet verified. They are not a US company.

If you continue to post lectures on proper debate, etc. please stop insulting others and discounting the information they post. Either refute it with facts or move on.

[greco99-2009]

I would allocate the blame as follows:

1. Primary responsibility (called proximate causation): 100% to BP/Transocean/Halliburton. In legal jargon this liability is shared joint and severally, meaning each of the parties is potentially liable for the full amount and it is up to them to allocate costs/blame among them selves.

2. There is significant secondary fault, but not direct responsibility or liability, with the Federal Government with respect to lax oversight. Of this, significant fault lies with MMS, and to the extent there was corruption (e.g. payoffs, travel/free meals, job offers) these should be exposed and prosecuted. There is some fault laying with the Obama administration, primarily for not moving fast enough to clean-up these agencies in the past 18 months. However, Bush/Cheney also have some fault here given their push to deregulate generally, and Cheney's energy task force (and conflicts of interest) specifically. Blaming Obamas personally is hollow rhetoric. Palin signature chant of Drill, Baby, Drill is now deeply ironic, and her chances of elected office slim at best...

[marks6806]

What about EPA? They exempted BP from the permit process, required no spill response plan, and no impact statement. Not the same EPA I have to work with. Something smells. EPA normally climbs all over these applications. If it walks like a duck....

Offshore drilling has not been a source of major oil spills and is a proven technology used all over the world. It appears the high pressure natural gas was unforseen or a mistake was made. It may end -up putting BP out of business. They have too much at stake in the US to try to default on the cost of clean-up.

But to give Obama no more than a 'acted to late in response' is waaaayyy to easy on him. A president with character would have told the American people that he was in part to blame for not requiring the proper permit and response plans to be in place. And frankly, it would have put him in a better light than to point fingers at everyone else - as he demanded they stop pointing fingers ! That was the most absurd speech I have ever heard! It demonstrated his dishonesty and poor character. The first rule in being a person of character is to admit when you make a mistake, openly and without excuse.

At this he failed. This president is a great cheeleader - but a failure as a leader.

[marks6806]

Gecko - you are a self-serving EE who would transform our energy grid into thousands of square miles of bird-chopping 'green' windmills and 'solar farms' - which would require thousands of new transmission lines and still not replace most of the conventional coal-fired plants because of variations in wind patterns, weather, transmission losses, and zero storage capacity. Even a 'smart grid' would not be capable of handling these ridiculous variations - and they would result in the public paying 3-4 times as much for electricity: 30-40 cents/per Kw - not including the billions in taxpayer funded subsidies - and be as reliable as a Yugo.

All so some EE can keep a job. Look at Spain. For every 'eco-job' they lost 2.2 'other' jobs. Green jobs in Spain cost tawpayers $1.5MM per job. Unemployment there is 18%. Some success story, eh?

Got anymore great ideas Gecko?

As per public debate - you seem to have a sense of decency except for your own posts - which include insults, personal attacks, and many statements that indicate you are telling lies, or just plain ignorant. (I still think 8 oz of light sweet crude would help cleanse you colon so you could think better).

Why not post some actual facts, eh? You being an EE and all - you must know SOMETHING!

[greco99-2009]

Marks, look at most of your previous posts. They seem to fit this model:

Let's all take a look at the above statement by Marks.

1. A hateful, personal attack,

2. Devoid of intellectual content,

3. Not Intended to further an intellectual point or add to the dialog,

4. Possibly intended to bully or intimidate another person.

5. Harmful to the Republican cause (or whatever anti-Democratic cause Marks is trying to support).

6. Irrelevant and distorted facts.

Marks, would you say these things in a public setting or at work? Would you put your name on this? Is this your ideal of public communication?

Marks wrote: "This administration and progressive congress is a plague on our nation. They have the charater of scorpions. We will begin applying the 'pesticide' this fall. They will run like roaches (many of them already are"

You have identified yourself as a Ph.D. in Biochem, and the above statement could easily be considered a thinly veiled threat. Let me ask: do you stand by the plain meaning of this statement?

[greco99-2009]

Marks Wrote: Look at Spain. For every 'eco-job' they lost 2.2 'other' jobs. Green jobs in Spain cost tawpayers $1.5MM per job. Unemployment there is 18%. Some success story, eh?"

Spain is largely irrelevant to the issue here which is the federal response to an oil spill . Most developing countries use oil, do not use alternative energy and they also have high unemployment.

If your point is to let BP spill or we will end up like Spain. Or, is your point to avoid alternative energy because all alternatives are bad? Certainly some alternatives are better than others, but the blanket hatred of all-that-is-not-oil is downright silly. And, your obsession with insulting the President seems irrational, antisocial, and downright crude...

[greco99-2009]

Dear Marks and Forum Participants:

A note on public debate:

Generally, competitive debates are evaluated on two grounds (1) logical argument proceeding from well-supported fact (and citations where needed) through logical axiomatic reasoning to support a specific proposation being advocates and (2) style, which is the way the logical reasoning is presented and also includes adherence to the rules of the forum and generally accepted norms of behavior (decorum).

I have found the debate below fascinating, but I have a particular note on the style aspect of the debate below.

Specifically, the use of (1) personal (ad hominem) attacks and (2) veiled threats.

1. Ad hominem attacks are usually considered disqualifying as well as antisocial behavior. They are against the rules of many debate forms including this one. Ultimately, such personal attacks are considered to hurt the person making the attack and are seen as an admission that the attacker has lost control of facts or rationality.

A quick review of your posts below show that much of yor content is in this category, with little presentation of cited fact or axiomatic argument. Moreover, when presented with cited fact and axiomatic argument, you respond mostly with personal attacks, and at times, with worse (see below).

2. Veiled threats, hate speech, racism and bullying are much worse. They not only undermine the argument being made, they are contrary to basic norms of society.

Marks, I will specifically call out one of the threats you seem to be making below:

Marks wrote: "This administration and progressive congress is a plague on our nation. They have the charater of scorpions. We will begin applying the 'pesticide' this fall. They will run like roaches (many of them already are"

You have identified yourself as a Ph.D. in Biochem, and the above statement could easily be considered a thinly veiled threat. Let me ask: do you stand by the plain meaning of this statement?

[greco99-2009]

Marks wrote: "Ignorant minds think alike. You and Osama - both fools. ", "Gecko is a silly eco-loving bimbo. ", "Osama fits in one of 2 places in this world: Ghetto activist, or dictator in a banana republic. ", and "Obama is a ghetto-rousing socialist pig."

Do you stand by these statements, and believe this is appropriate language for public debate? Would you put you name to thses statements for republication (which I believe is allowed under BBS Terms of Use)?

[FauxNews]

Agreed, but this is a debate for the masses, so "same to you only double", lol.

[Fr8logix]

stop the leak from THE inside... stuff v - shaped super strengh wire one AT A TIME IN THE HOLE AND PLUG IT.

[marks6806]

Obama knew or should have known BP was a risk because his own OSHA administrator - in 2009 - tagged BP with one of the biggest fines in history ($89MM) for failing to correct process safety problems that caused more than a dozen deaths in BP's TX City refinery in 2005. These errors had still not been resolved in 2009. So Obama's EPA lets them drill off our coast. Just offshore of one of the most productive fisheries in our nation. With no permit, no response plan, and no impact assessment. Screw the safeguards and the regs - drill BP-drill!

That makes him responsible. He is where the buck is supposed to stop. This isn't a 'big oil' or 'how we obtain energy' (oil) issue. It is a 'who is to blame' issue. When was the last major spill from a drilling platform off our shores?

This is a political corruption issue. All fingers point to the congress, the feds, Obama.

If he had any charater or cahonies - he would take the blame. The regulations WERE in place. His EPA gave them a complete pass. Everyone in industry knows about BP's safety record and so did the EPA.

That is the subject of this article and this blog: who was at fault? Two entities are clearly to blame: Obama and BP.

[marks6806]

Don't bother reading Gecko's silly posts. He drank WAY too much kool-aid and cannot discern anything beyond what Obama and the dinosaur media tell him.

[greco99-2009]

I agree that Obama administration did the right thing by levy BP with the largest fine in history. If anything the administration did not do enough to continue monitoring and regulating BP - perhaps because of political resistance which as come primarily from the republican party.

Obviously, the Obama administration inherited executive agencies with bureaucrats from other administrations. The administration is now acting more swiftly to clean these up. The resignation of the former head of MMS is a start. An investigatory committee is also welcome.

To say that Obama is responsible for the disaster personally is an obvious fallacy. It makes it sounds like he swam out there himself to sabotage the rig. Clearly, BP and other companies bear direct responsibility (what is called proximate causation). There are good arguments that the federal government, particularly under Bush/Cheney bear secondary responsibility. Specifically the energy task force headed by Dick Cheney. The secondary causation link to the Obama administration, and to the President personally, is weak at best.

The Obama administration and the Federal and State governments - including Coast Guard, National Guard, NOAA, Law Enforcement and the Justice Department - have been activated rapidly despite apparent misinformation from BP (e.g. only 1000 barrels leaking per day). To say it in a single phrase 'the Federal government has now taken its share responsibility for the follow-up to this manmade disaster". Primary responsibility for causation of the disaster clearly does not fall on President Obama or his administration. Personally, I think the Federal and State governments should step up their activity further and quickly. And, I think that is happening...

[greco99-2009]

Now, it seems like there is a congressional committee that will conduct a criminal probe into this matter. And, rightly so.

If BP had knowledge that there was going to be an explosion and did not take steps to evacuate...and if 11 people died as a direct result of BP's willful misconduct...that would be murder would it not ?

Seems BP has 'lost' a bunch of data from close to the time of the initial explosion. Willful cover-up ?

Fish out of season or kill one protected species and face criminal sanctions. Set a forrest fire recklessly and go to jail. What about someone who by deliberate and reckless acts kills all the fish in a region, extinguishes a species, or damages the property and businesses of tens of thousands of people across four states ?


Appropriate to see that Obama, Jindal and others are angry. Hope they have the backbone to pursue justice for the tens of thousands of Americans whose property and businesses are being destroyed by the spill.

And, I hope that Obama and other political leaders have the vision and fortitude to launch an Apollo program for alternative energy (and to regulate big oil, coal, nuclear so this does not happen again)...This should be the real lesson of the BP spill. Sure there will be opposition (see below), but inaction and the status quo are not a solution here...

Truly a tragic situation with no real winners. Lets seek also justice for those who are being harmed by this manmade disaster, prevent those who are doing harm from continuing, and work to deter such tragedy in the future...

[marks6806]

Wow. Gecko can cut and paste. Where did you learn that, in EE school? Impresive indeed. How many offshore oil rig spills have we had in the last 3 decades gecko? Name some others for me. I can tell you workers have been over-exposed to toxic metal salts including arsene gas from producing solar cells. Arsenic isn't good for people.

[marks6806]

Congressional committee? They should investigate those thieving basta_ds in congress. That's where this tragic accident started - with those money-grubbing jerks taking the payoff to look away and exempt all the regulations and safeguards putting our coast at risk. The same as when Chris Dodd and Barney Frank took money from WS to look the other way as derivatives trading destroyed 1/2 of most of our 401k's. They too, should be in jail. What has government done to deserve our trust? What a joke.

[marks6806]

gecko and alpha-person: What no reply? Can't get both neurons to fire simultaneously?

I understand.

[marks6806]

alpha-dog-dude wrote: :Most of us reading this exchange find a great deal of poorly-controlled combustion from poster "marks6806". "

Oh - now we have the eco-elitist giving advice on how to post. And just early this morning his bud - gecko - was claiming to be 'worlds best troll.'

Got news for you both: YOU are combustible. Not clean, nor well-controlled, but combustible nonetheless.

What you neo-green-eco-idiots fail to nderstand is that life on this earth is based on carbon chemistry and the carbon cycle. All of life's chemistry is based on it's 4 bonds. To think we can manipulate it or affect it - and even more ridiculous - to talk of carbon emissions as 'pollutants' is much like when the Pope condemned Galileo for pointing out the truth in the sky. Al Gore and the carbon traders stand to make trillions as governments re-distribute global wealth and control economies with this lie - but the facts remain: the earth has been gradually cooling for about 60 million years punctuated recently by periodic ice ages. Belching a few ppm of CO2 from dead dinosaurs ain't gonna change nothin. More carbon weathers from the Himalayan mountains each year than we burn in a century. This 'climate change' crap is a ruse. Look at the actual data - not the spin-crap from the UN - manupulated with hockey-puck-generating-curve-fitting programs and cherry-picked data. The middle ages were warmer. Too many monks farting in the praying position perhaps? It was warmer when the Vikings first settled Greenland - then it was really green! Never been that warm since. Must have been all that rowing and farting they did - eh?

It takes more than science and faith to believe this GCC stuff - it takes idiots who WANT to believe in it. Hence the term 'deniers.' Like a religious zealot crying out against the apostosy: "DENIER!"

And another battle cry the use: "the science is settled." Since when is science 'settled?' It is by definition the process of challange and discovery. It can't be settled. Unless you 'want to believe it.'

What a bunch of crapola.

[greco99-2009]

Your posts are full of twisted junk.

Take this example: " More carbon weathers from the Himalayan mountains each year than we burn in a century. "

Do you have any scientific citation for this? Actually, your posts are not ridiculous..they are tragic...The spirit of vigorous debate is fun and can produce truth and amusement...but, your recent posts are something else...Finally, you may just want to take some time off...you may ultimately be hurting your cause.

[marks6806]

gecko: Read-up on the carbon cycle. It is primarily a function of limestone weathering (input) and sequestration by the oceans and plant life. Twisted? Just reality. The science of the carbon cycle is well established. GCC advocates have injected politics into the science and 'twisted' it. Cause? I have no dog in this fight. Do some reading. I'm not going to do your research for you. EE's can read, right?

You are the tragedy. An intelligent college educated person who drinks the kool-aid and follows the crowd. All those neurons going to waste. What a poor way to use organic carbon.