The Obama Administration thread

[freedom78]

Damn it, D. 

i was pointing out how Bush can't control the levees or the weather

I'm fairly certain that no serious person made such a criticism.  If they did, it was ridiculous.  My criticism of Bush RE: Katrina is more about getting in massive amounts of manpower to get people out and to get them things needed to survive.  For a while there, NO was more like Mogadishu than a major American city.

same situation here

obama can't snorkel down and fix the pipe

Bush couldn't go to NO and hold the levees in place with his 24inch pythons while help arrived to repair it.
. I am comparing the exact same thing.
Obama's admin dropped the ball Bush's people dropped the ball
sure people aren't on their roofs but tons of sea creatures are completely fucked and God knows what else this does to our ecosystem.. but u are right.. Humans and other living things totally different. fuck those dolphins and fish. they don't deserve to live anyway.

Of course those animals deserve to live.  Problem is, they won't.  That would have been the case, to some extent, no matter what.  Do you think the left is happy to see oil leaking into our oceans day after day after day?  No!  But, again, this isn't like Katrina.  It's a very localized problem (a leak in ONE pipe, 5000 feet down).  The only place it can be worked on is from right above it.  This isn't a "massive amounts of manpower" issue.  It's a "one idea at a time" issue.

Pilferk mentioned the gas prices which is irrelevant cause they can't up them now but u wait down the road after this shit is over and cleaned up.

 

I suppose that may be right, but since when is the good answer a guess at what the future holds?  Someone said gas prices were rising; others pointed out they were not and that it was just a Memorial Day bump.

for 7 years it was a bash fest left and right over Bush... so now the board have their chosen one as President, the tone of the board has changed dramatically even when mistakes are made they are just brushed off cause "that guy is so damn charismatic"

Bush won a second term in office, so your "7 years" seems a bit much.  That said, I'm sorry to see that, once again, someone who dislikes Obama can't resist this fucking retarded "chosen one" meme.  "Chosen one"?  Really?  He fought a long, bitterly contested primary which nearly split the Democratic Party.   Do you think all the Hillary supporters saw him as the "Chosen One" while campaigning and voting against him? 

Also, who the fuck has said mistakes don't matter because of charisma?  I can't think of anyone who believes that.

[pilferk]

Would love to read this thread if Bush were still Pres. it would be a lynch mob in here crucifying Bush

Not from me it wouldn't.  Just like it wasn't immediately following 9/11, when I thought he actually did a good job handling the aftermath.  Actually, my only criticism of Bush at that point was his amazing amount of vacation time.  Otherwise, I thought he was doing OK.  It wasn't until WELL after that he earned my ire...mostly during the early rumblings preceeding the Iraq war and going forward.

Of course, the contrary is that Obama has handled things MUCH better than Bush has, in some respects, but the Conservatives give him no credit and give him grief for everything he does...even if it means being hypocritical to their own positions on the issues.  If you want to be fair, you might want to point that out, too.

At least the Libs/Dems were consistent in their principals when making their criticisms, for the most part.

[pilferk]

Obama's administration waived the EPA protocols and restrictions.. so lets don't act like he is some innocent poor guy in this that happened to have some uncontrollable thing happen on his watch.

if this were Bush and he waived that shit... man, u guys would be going ape shit and don't deny it.


i am proudly neither a democrat or a republican, i think both parties are why the country is in the toilet. I just call shit how i see it.

Again, and I've asked this a bunch of times:  What more could Obama do?  Please be specific.

With Bush, and Katrina, I'd be happy to outline exactly where his response, and Fema's response failed.  I'd be happy to outline exactly what, within the federal government's mandate, actions could have been (and, actually, SHOULD have been according the the fed's own policy) taken during that response which would have helped the situation much quicker, and much more directly, than what occurred.  Disaster response (and coordination of such) is somewhat close to me, professionally speaking.  And while I'm no expert in the field, you don't have to be to see the GLARING issues with Bush's coordination and response efforts leading up to, and following, Katrina.

I honestly can't see what more Obama can do, here, given the Fed's mandate and agencies.  That's not being an apologist....that's facing stark reality.  I'm not saying I LIKE it...but the way things are now, that's the way it is.  He hasn't been perfect..but I think terrible (with Bush's response to Katrina being the litmus test amongst American President's responses to disasters for "terrible) is a bit over the top.   I think, knowing what we know (about both BP's initially "information blockade", the special nature of the issue, and the makeup and resources of our government), he's been "mes a mes".   I think he should have ratcheted up the rhetoric a little eariler, I think he should have gotten his own people "on the ground" quicker and not relied on BP for information, and I think he should be much more forceful in "reminding" BP that they will be responsible for the costs (ALL of them, including legal if there is any evidence of wrongdoing or negligence) of this cleanup.  He should also endeavor to tell the oil companies that if they are not 100% certain they can stop a spill in their operations, they shouldn't be drilling there.  AND, if there is a spill they can't stop......that companies tax breaks go "Kaput" for a period of 5 to 10 years...money that would then go toward ongoing environmental cleanup to return the area, as much as possible, to it's original state.

So no, he hasn't been perfect.  But he hasn't cost people their lives in the way he's handled the response, either.  In fact, his RESPONSE hasn't even cost those fishies and birdies and mammal(ie)s their lives...the spill did that.  Nothing in his POSSIBLE response options would have stopped that...only BP's actions/reactions could have minimized that damage.

[pilferk]

i was pointing out how Bush can't control the levees or the weather

same situation here

obama can't snorkel down and fix the pipe

Bush couldn't go to NO and hold the levees in place with his 24inch pythons while help arrived to repair it.
. I am comparing the exact same thing.
Obama's admin dropped the ball Bush's people dropped the ball

Not close to the same situations.

Yes, Bush can't control the weather.

Yes, Obama can't be clairvoyant and stop oil spills before they happen.

The difference:

Bush had the resources, agencies, federal mandate, and FOREWARNING (they knew the storm was coming...you CAN predict storms) to respond.

Obama doesn't.  The resources of the fed don't include oil spill cleanup specialists, and throwing massive amounts of humanity, quikcly, at this problem won't solve it.  He has no "Oil Cleanup" agency.  And even if he did, he doesn't have a federal mandate behind him that tells him he can swoop in and take over the site cleanup.... which, FYI, the government isn't equipped (in terms of ACTUAL equipment and knowledge) to do. Certainly, you'll also agree, that no doppler radar exists which gave him 2 to 3 days warning that an oil spill was imminent?

You're comparing apples to oranges, and forming an erroneous comparison/conclusion based on that.  I don't know how it can be made any clearer to you.

And please point out, given federal law and resources, exactly how Obama dropped the ball.  Because I suspect if you come up with any real criticism founded on reality (and not what you want to, or think should happen), you'll realize they're pretty minor in comparison to those leveled at Bush's response to Katrina.

sure people aren't on their roofs but tons of sea creatures are completely fucked and God knows what else this does to our ecosystem.. but u are right.. Humans and other living things totally different. fuck those dolphins and fish. they don't deserve to live anyway.

Maybe a bit of hyperbole, but...lets face it.  Our species primary concern is with our own.  And while the impact on other wild life IS tragic...in terms of societal perception, it's not ever going to be the same as PEOPLE dying. 

And, so far, has anyone gotten a handle on just what the ecological impact has been, in terms of die off rate?  I haven't seen anything reported about mass casualties amongst the eco system.  I'm sure they'll occur...but I haven't heard of even a large fishkill, yet...but acknowledge I might have missed it.

also, its a rule on HTGTH that every single time someone quotes your post u have to keep talking even if they state their side and it really requires no rebuttal? Pilferk mentioned the gas prices which is irrelevant cause they can't up them now but u wait down the road after this shit is over and cleaned up.

I'm not clairvoyant.  I can only tell you that the market, and market speculators, disagree.  They think Gas will stabilize, through the summer, around 2.59 to 2.69 a gallon.  And the current driver of the market is the economy, not supply/demand, so one oil well in one area of the country is unlikely to have a huge market effect.

2nd he said is there a govt agency in charge of cleaning up oil spills... i took that as a rhetorical question but if u want me to quote em back and say "No, u right"  there is no agency that cleans up oil spills but that isn't the point i was trying to make.

for 7 years it was a bash fest left and right over Bush... so now the board have their chosen one as President, the tone of the board has changed dramatically even when mistakes are made they are just brushed off cause "that guy is so damn charismatic"

I have seen, from at least 3  "left leaning" posters, legit criticism posted concerning Obama's handling of this situation. I've just posted my own (after earlier acknowledging his response hadn't been great).  That it's not as vehmenent or as caustic as the criticism leveled at Bush likely equates to the explanation of the differences between the situations in question, explained above.

[Smoking Guns]

The only other thing he could have done was taken over this thing earlier, demanded real answers earlier, maybe get the military down there to over see everything.  Maybe BP would be less likely to like with a battle ship hanging out... I am not saying my theories would have worked, but maybe.  Another thing is the the Gov. of LA wanted some sand barriers built, and I think the administration took a while to get back with him on that.  Also these clean up crews are a fucking joke.  2 hour lunches.  15 minutes on, 15 minutes off... Terrible.  Obama is on it now, and doing his best, but BP is looking like major fucking idiots right now.  And this would have happened regardless of Bush.  Oil Companies just don't pay Republicans or Bush, a lot of people take their money on both sides.  And now they say their is another rig leaking oil... amazing.

[freedom78]

The only other thing he could have done was taken over this thing earlier, demanded real answers earlier, maybe get the military down there to over see everything.  Maybe BP would be less likely to like with a battle ship hanging out... I am not saying my theories would have worked, but maybe.  Another thing is the the Gov. of LA wanted some sand barriers built, and I think the administration took a while to get back with him on that.  Also these clean up crews are a fucking joke.  2 hour lunches.  15 minutes on, 15 minutes off... Terrible.  Obama is on it now, and doing his best, but BP is looking like major fucking idiots right now.  And this would have happened regardless of Bush.  Oil Companies just don't pay Republicans or Bush, a lot of people take their money on both sides.  And now they say their is another rig leaking oil... amazing.

Hell, some people wanted to nuke it...glad we didn't go that route!

But you're right about the money.  In politics, money is the root of most problems.  Take away the influence of money and you get better policies, better implementation of those policies, and a generally better government.  And yes (D...I'm talking to you!) it applies to both sides.

[pilferk]

The only other thing he could have done was taken over this thing earlier, demanded real answers earlier, maybe get the military down there to over see everything.

The problem, ultimately, on that front was timely information.  The administration took what BP was telling them at face value.....which admittedly, maybe, wasn't very smart.  But that's the genesis of pretty much all of the criticism with Obama lies:  Believing BP.

Should he have known better?  Probably. 

  Maybe BP would be less likely to like with a battle ship hanging out... I am not saying my theories would have worked, but maybe.

You have to be VERY careful about what you do in terms of bringing the military to bear for the purposes of influencing corporate activity.  Even the perception of "military threat" could be both politically and practically dangerous to ANY administration....so, I can understand why he didn't order a battleship to cruise around and make sure BP's info was correct.  But, in principal, I agree:  They should have sent SOMEONE to oversee things quicker than they did...maybe not a battleship, but certainly an "advisor".

Beyond that, though...there's not much precedent, and not much backing in terms of federal mandate, for him to swoop in and take over the clean up operation.  And even if he did.....as I've said over and over....he's got NOTHIN', in terms of expertise, equipment, etc, that would lead you to believe the Fed would be better at this than BP SHOULD.

  Another thing is the the Gov. of LA wanted some sand barriers built, and I think the administration took a while to get back with him on that. 

I was reading up on that.  Apparently the issue was two fold.  First, and foremost, those on the ground relayed to the administration that the need wasn't as "urgent" as the Governor was making it out to be.  Second, the administration was trying to wrangle that type of support to be "costed out" to BP....so they had a bit of time to negotiate before they HAD to deploy.  And, apparently, the Governor was basically TOLD that, prior to him making a larger issue of this. 

And, in the end, they got the sand barriers before oil was really threatening the coast and coastal wetlands.

Again, I agree in principal:  Maybe not the time to play "money games" around this issue.  Get the barriers out and THEN worry about getting paid.  But I also see this administration's mind set that....if you deploy those barriers, trying to get BP to pay for them AFTER the fact (which is what they're going to have to do, ultimately, anyway) would be tough.

Also these clean up crews are a fucking joke.  2 hour lunches.  15 minutes on, 15 minutes off... Terrible.  Obama is on it now, and doing his best, but BP is looking like major fucking idiots right now.  And this would have happened regardless of Bush.  Oil Companies just don't pay Republicans or Bush, a lot of people take their money on both sides.  And now they say their is another rig leaking oil... amazing.

Labor "control" is always an issue in these types of deployments.  You have a majority who are pretty good, and then a minority who are visually, and obviously, not.  Guess which subsection gets trotted out?  Which isn't to say that the hammer shouldn't come down.  It absoltuely should.

I've seen it first hand, when helping our institution coordinate our Haiti Relief efforts.....and the odd part is, that same subsection of people are the ones who come back crowing about how much they helped, and basking in the relative glory. 

And, once again, we find a point of agreement:  At the end of this, BP looks like fucking idiots....as well they should.  Hopefully (and it won't) this leads to them being financially crippled.  I know I flatly refuse to use their gas stations, now.......hopefully other consumers will follow suit.  That, combined with cleanup costs, will hopefully end with them falling, catestrophically, on their asses (and, I'm sure, getting bought by Exon or some other huge oil company).

[polluxlm]

The only other thing he could have done was taken over this thing earlier, demanded real answers earlier, maybe get the military down there to over see everything.  Maybe BP would be less likely to like with a battle ship hanging out... I am not saying my theories would have worked, but maybe.  Another thing is the the Gov. of LA wanted some sand barriers built, and I think the administration took a while to get back with him on that.  Also these clean up crews are a fucking joke.  2 hour lunches.  15 minutes on, 15 minutes off... Terrible.  Obama is on it now, and doing his best, but BP is looking like major fucking idiots right now.  And this would have happened regardless of Bush.  Oil Companies just don't pay Republicans or Bush, a lot of people take their money on both sides.  And now they say their is another rig leaking oil... amazing.

Hell, some people wanted to nuke it...glad we didn't go that route!

But you're right about the money.  In politics, money is the root of most problems.  Take away the influence of money and you get better policies, better implementation of those policies, and a generally better government.  And yes (D...I'm talking to you!) it applies to both sides.

Yeah, like if we just took away murder from society the world would be a more peaceful place. Hell, why not just take guns away from the military. Let's just do that.

[D]

True pilferk the storm was forewarned, they had an evacuation plan right and how many people REFUSED to be evacuated? once again, what is Bush suppose to do? Threaten to jail those that don't comply.

and correct me if i am wrong but the actual Hurricane isn't what caused the most massive destruction, it was the levees breaking correct? so who could predict the levees were gonna collapse and cause that kind of mayhem?

My parallel was how Bush has a Govt team in place and they dropped the ball, it reflects on Bush. Not excusing Bush, he did a horrible job, wasn't denying or saying otherwise.

Obama has a Govt team to oversee EPA regulations etc.. they relaxed those standards we get this.

not Obama's fault and like i said, there isn't anymore he can do, but its on his watch so he takes the blame.

I can bring up old examples as well on this forum.. the John Edwards baby thing etc.. i mean for years on this forum, ive read so many posts crushing Bush and rightfully so, don't deny it.. but when the otherside does things.. u don't hear a peep. that is my whole rant on how Id love to see this forum is Bush were Pres right now.

Guarantee it would be brutal and i wonder how many would give him the same benefit of the doubt. thats all i was tryin to convey.

[polluxlm]

I'd assume the engineers who blew them up could predict them breaking, as a consequence of the explosion.

[Smoking Guns]

True pilferk the storm was forewarned, they had an evacuation plan right and how many people REFUSED to be evacuated? once again, what is Bush suppose to do? Threaten to jail those that don't comply.

and correct me if i am wrong but the actual Hurricane isn't what caused the most massive destruction, it was the levees breaking correct? so who could predict the levees were gonna collapse and cause that kind of mayhem?

My parallel was how Bush has a Govt team in place and they dropped the ball, it reflects on Bush. Not excusing Bush, he did a horrible job, wasn't denying or saying otherwise.

Obama has a Govt team to oversee EPA regulations etc.. they relaxed those standards we get this.

not Obama's fault and like i said, there isn't anymore he can do, but its on his watch so he takes the blame.

I can bring up old examples as well on this forum.. the John Edwards baby thing etc.. i mean for years on this forum, ive read so many posts crushing Bush and rightfully so, don't deny it.. but when the otherside does things.. u don't hear a peep. that is my whole rant on how Id love to see this forum is Bush were Pres right now.

Guarantee it would be brutal and i wonder how many would give him the same benefit of the doubt. thats all i was tryin to convey.

Bush didn't know the Planes were going to fly in to the WTC on 9/11, but he DID handle that brilliantly. 

[pilferk]

True pilferk the storm was forewarned, they had an evacuation plan right and how many people REFUSED to be evacuated? once again, what is Bush suppose to do? Threaten to jail those that don't comply.

Actually, yes, they could have.  That national guard has that right.

But in addition...they KNEW people were refusing to evacuate.  So, knowing that....you can't (under the federal mandate) just ignore them.  You have to prepare to assist them.  And Bush knew, going into the storm, what the situation on the ground was.  You don't place resources in harms way......but you can have them outside the storms radius and ready to respond...certainly faster than they did.  And while, yes, not evacuating increases those peoples risk/danger level DURING and JUST after the storm and levee breaks.....that doesn't mean you leave them to their fate once it's safe to help them.

Again, by comparison...did Obama know the situation on the ground BEFORE the oil leak happened?  Did he have 2+ days to plan a response, brainstorm, prepare, and place resources at the ready to deal with the crisis? 

and correct me if i am wrong but the actual Hurricane isn't what caused the most massive destruction, it was the levees breaking correct? so who could predict the levees were gonna collapse and cause that kind of mayhem?

First, you're playing semantic games....the Hurricane caused the increase in water flow, which caused the levee's to break (conspiracy theories aside).  So, ultimately, yes...the Hurricane caused the massive destruction.  No Hurricane...no levee breakage.

Second, the US Army Corp of Engineers had been saying for years that the levees likely could only withstand a Cat 3 storm.  They had, in fact, been requesting money since the Clinton era (and perhaps longer than that)  to reinforce/rebuild them to be stronger.   So, yes...the government had some knowledge that the levees might fail.  And, in disaster planning, you try to account for every reasonable eventuality.  Considering the NEWS OUTLETS were reporting the risk, leading up to the storm....I'm pretty sure the government and government agencies were aware of the risk.   In any case, Bush CERTAINLY had more forewarning, knowledge, and better risk assessments than Obama had in the days before the oil spill began.

My parallel was how Bush has a Govt team in place and they dropped the ball, it reflects on Bush. Not excusing Bush, he did a horrible job, wasn't denying or saying otherwise.

Obama has a Govt team to oversee EPA regulations etc.. they relaxed those standards we get this.

This has zippo to do with EPA regulations, actually, or any recent changes. That rig has been out there for quite some time (9 years) and their drilling method hasn't changed.  BP might have been negligent (there were workers warning the foremen that they were worried about well control), but that's not because of any changes in regulations.

Now, this certainly should make them rethink the "consideration to lift the ban on offshore drilling"...and I think you'll find it has.  But this isn't, by any stretch, the result of those actions.

So your only real argument is that this is an act of "Cosmic Karma".....which it very well could be, I suppose...but that's sort of tough to prove or quantify (or discuss).

not Obama's fault and like i said, there isn't anymore he can do, but its on his watch so he takes the blame.

Again, apples to oranges.

He takes the blame with no real recourse....unfairly.  There's some minor criticism there (which I laid out) but placing blame on him, almost entirely, is a political hatchet job, and unrealistic.  It may be the feeling of some of the American People....but that' doesn't mean it's right.

Bush takes the blame when he had a WHOLE lot of recourse, and...as you said above...did a horrible job, considering.

I can bring up old examples as well on this forum.. the John Edwards baby thing etc.. i mean for years on this forum, ive read so many posts crushing Bush and rightfully so, don't deny it.. but when the otherside does things.. u don't hear a peep. that is my whole rant on how Id love to see this forum is Bush were Pres right now.

I'd be interested to see some old examples.

I distinctly remember questioning the source (as I did with other, Republican/Conservative scandal stories) when it was the Enquirer.

After it was proven true....I don't recall much of a discussion.  Not because the guy didn't deserve to be taken to task for his lapse, but because, at that point, he was politically irrelevant....and his actions didn't really effect any current political issue.

Edwards acted like a scumbag...plain and simple.  I don't think you'll find a whole lot of argument from many people on the left (which is what made him politically irrelevant), and certainly you'll get little argument from the indies.

I think your memory might be a bit "slanted" on this one.

Guarantee it would be brutal and i wonder how many would give him the same benefit of the doubt. thats all i was tryin to convey.

Not being clairvoyant, or having any ability to see into an alternate universe where this happened on Bush's watch, I don't know.  It would probably depend on when in his presidency it happened and what his response had been.  If it had been precisely Obama's (which is unlikely, all things considered)...I doubt it would be all that much louder than it is, now.  Maybe a bit...but only because his past issues (aka Katrina response) would likely get brought up again. 

You have to remember....the Bush criticism BUILT over 8 years.  It wasn't simply based on one incident.....so "history" tended to elevate the volume.  So do the differences of severity.

[pilferk]

Bush didn't know the Planes were going to fly in to the WTC on 9/11, but he DID handle that brilliantly. 

He did handle it very well. 

There were some minor lapses (continuing to read to the kids while getting national security updates) during the events, and some major ones prior (ignoring the forwarings, etc...and yes, Clinton bears some of the blame, too).

"Brilliant" might be a bit much, IMHO.  But he handled the aftermath as well as anyone could have, I think.  No response is going to be perfect...and the 9/11 commission highlighted some foibles.  But, by and large, as the events unfolded, I thought he did very well.  It was only AFTER we stormed the caves and came up empty that things...really from that point forward...started to break down for me. 

[GeorgeSteele]

I have to agree with D, the left has been very hypocritical in not calling out Obama, as he clearly should not have ignored Republican demands for tougher regulations on the oil industry or an outright ban on offshore drilling.  To now further ignore Republican demands to expand the size of the federal government and increase the deficit to create a watchdog  agency equipped to handle massive underwater oil leaks further illustrates Obama's radical laissez-faire ideology. 

[pilferk]

This is an interesting read (if a bit heavy handed):

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/10/why-haven-t-we-heard-from-dick-cheney-on-the-oil-spill-.html

As is this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575214593564769072.html

[freedom78]

I have to agree with D, the left has been very hypocritical in not calling out Obama, as he clearly should not have ignored Republican demands for tougher regulations on the oil industry or an outright ban on offshore drilling.  To now further ignore Republican demands to expand the size of the federal government and increase the deficit to create a watchdog  agency equipped to handle massive underwater oil leaks further illustrates Obama's radical laissez-faire ideology. 

I see RIGHT THROUGH your sarcasm!   

[GeorgeSteele]

I have to agree with D, the left has been very hypocritical in not calling out Obama, as he clearly should not have ignored Republican demands for tougher regulations on the oil industry or an outright ban on offshore drilling.  To now further ignore Republican demands to expand the size of the federal government and increase the deficit to create a watchdog  agency equipped to handle massive underwater oil leaks further illustrates Obama's radical laissez-faire ideology. 

I see RIGHT THROUGH your sarcasm!   

Ha, either that or I'm an idiot, complete toss-up.  Or all of the above!   

[Axl4Prez2004]

I have to agree with D, the left has been very hypocritical in not calling out Obama, as he clearly should not have ignored Republican demands for tougher regulations on the oil industry or an outright ban on offshore drilling.  To now further ignore Republican demands to expand the size of the federal government and increase the deficit to create a watchdog  agency equipped to handle massive underwater oil leaks further illustrates Obama's radical laissez-faire ideology. 

Now that was hilarious...thank you for the comic relief Steele. 

D, the Edwards thing is kinda funny.  If ya go way back to the old threads, I never liked the guy.  He didn't handle himself well debating Cheney back in '04 and honestly, he came off as disingenuous.  I believe I used the word "used car salesman" (no offense meant to any of you who sell used cars).  I don't remember a huge groundswell of support for the guy even before his personal shananigans were made public...that part of your post struck me as odd, just sayin'.

By the way...I asked before, who the heck is referring to the president as "The Chosen One?" or, "The Messiah?"  Who here hasn't discussed issues in which they differ with the president?  D, if you think there are kool-aid drinkin' yes-men here who believe the president can do (and has done) no wrong, I believe you are mistaken. 
I've gone on record here stating I don't think carbon taxing/cap and trade/etc. is a good option at this time.
I've stated my disagreement with the president over his defense of capital punishment.
I've disagreed with his stance on school vouchers.
I'm disappointed there hasn't been a massive overhaul of the food stamps system.
I'm not overjoyed with the handling of NASA's future endeavors...
The list goes on D. 
Nobody here that I have read thinks the guy is perfect. 
To compare the BP oil spill with Katrina is quite a stretch, as Pilferk and Freedom explained.

Now, a little bit more on-topic and moving forward, I am interested in seeing how the president will respond to the eventual Israeli bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities.  I just read an article the other day that stated Saudi Arabia will allow Israeli bombers to fly over a small path of their airspace to help allow for the attack.
A lot of folks were worried about Iran becoming a nuclear power, (some mentioned we the U.S. should take out the Iranian facilities) and many times I responded we shouldn't because Israel will never allow that to happen.  Israel will destroy any Iranian facility that comes close to producing nuclear weaponry.
My prediction?  Israel will do what it needs to do (take out the Iranian facilities), and the majority of the world will condemn their actions...the interesting question is how will President Obama handle the situation?  My guess would be an official condemnation...but no support of sanctions.  The far right will be outraged he agrees to condemn the act, and the far left will be outraged he doesn't support sanctions against Israel.
Any other thoughts out there? 
 

[freedom78]

Now, a little bit more on-topic and moving forward, I am interested in seeing how the president will respond to the eventual Israeli bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities.  I just read an article the other day that stated Saudi Arabia will allow Israeli bombers to fly over a small path of their airspace to help allow for the attack.
A lot of folks were worried about Iran becoming a nuclear power, (some mentioned we the U.S. should take out the Iranian facilities) and many times I responded we shouldn't because Israel will never allow that to happen.  Israel will destroy any Iranian facility that comes close to producing nuclear weaponry.
My prediction?  Israel will do what it needs to do (take out the Iranian facilities), and the majority of the world will condemn their actions...the interesting question is how will President Obama handle the situation?  My guess would be an official condemnation...but no support of sanctions.  The far right will be outraged he agrees to condemn the act, and the far left will be outraged he doesn't support sanctions against Israel.
Any other thoughts out there? 

I've heard it said that, if there's ever a "major" (whatever that means) war in the region, the US will be glad to have Israel as such a staunch ally.  Fair enough.  But this also neglects the obvious, that the unfailing support that the US has of Israel makes it FAR more likely that such a war will occur and that we'll be drug into it.  So, yeah...sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, that. 

As far as Iran goes, I wonder how we (Americans) would feel about this if we didn't have a troubled past with Iran.  We didn't stop India or Pakistan from going nuclear and only slapped them with economic sanctions after the fact...sanctions that have been lifted.  Yes, Ahmadinejad seems a little nuts at times, but since he doesn't control the military that seems inconsequential.  The ruling clerical regime has behaved in a largely rational manner, with the preservation of their control of the state as their topmost concern.  Iran hasn't aggressively acted against another state for a long time.  Their only war in recent memory was against, and started by, Iraq.  Despite all our rabble rousing to the contrary, Iran has been a more responsible member of the international community than many other states.  Their primary malfeasance has been in support of Hezbollah, and that is worth noting.  Some feel that, if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon, they would transfer it to Hezbollah (or perhaps another organization).  This is EXTREMELY unlikely.  NO country or its leaders would voluntarily take a weapon of that magnitude and give it away.  If Iran had nukes, wouldn't they prefer to use them when THEY want to, and not at the whims of Hezbollah?  Wouldn't the leaders of a state consider the possibility that, in giving away their nukes to another power, that power might then use them, at some future date, on those who originally produced them?  Isn't it also worth noting that we've had only two instances of these weapons being used aggressively and both were by the US and at a time when no other states had them.  It isn't unreasonable to assert that, with regard to nuclear weapons, deterrence works and has worked since the Soviets tested theirs in 1949.  It's common knowledge that Israel has nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs.  I certainly hope they're smart enough to never use them.     

Anyway, regardless, Israel will do it.  They already did it to Iraq in the 80s, so I can't imagine why this could be any different.   

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Ahmadinejad, while not having the final say ( the supreme leader does), has make some provocative and threatening statements. So they are considered more of a threat to the region. And any government that is run by a religious theocracy usually twists ad warps the meaning of their religious writing to justify whatever goal they are looking to accomplish. God says we need to do this carries a lot of weight.

This scares the crap out of Israel.

In related news, Iran to attempt to run ships through Gaza blockade. This should end well.