Looks like yet another head of a federal agency has been exposed as an incompetant boob in response to a national disaster . . . but this time it's one of Obama's incompetant boobs. What I can't figure out is how an administration of liberals who supposedly care about the environment allowed this massive oil spill to happen. Heck of a job, Brownie! http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100518/D9FP7DD80.html
Tell it to the New York Times. They recently wrote an editorial strongly criticizing the Obama administration for its slow response to the oil spill.
Did you see 60mins last Sunday? If not you should watch it, I'm sure it's on their website. Also what's with the Brownie crap?
I read the quote in the original post as saying he was promoted under the Bush administration (they were in charge in 2007, right?) to head offshore drilling programs. So yeah, shame on Obama for not weeding out incompetent Bush leftovers.
That was an great report. It's shameful how BP is pushing the blame on Transocean. Obama should take some heat on this one IMO. He took a lot of campaign money from the industry and he should have pushed for a faster response.
So now shooter is quoting the New York Times . . . when they dis republicans he calls it a liberal newspapaer with no credibility.
ok, no one answered the question about who is "Brownie." I think it demands an answer from the OP because without clarification it sounds like a racial slur, one which I think warrants a ban. Seriously, WTF!?
"Browine" refers to a saying by Bush about one of his people in charge. During the Katrina diaster, Brown was put in charge of dealing with the disaster (or man made catastrophe if you watch treme). At one point Bush gave his endorsement to Brown saying something like "you are doing a heck of a job Brownie." This line was of course mocked by anti-Bush posters because as it turned out not only was Brownie not doing a heck of a job, he did a terrible job and the gov't response tothe disaster is one of the bigger embarassment in US history.
The NYTimes is a staunch supporter of Obama, so when they accuse him of a slow response to the oil spill, you know there's got to be merit to the story. The NYTimes hates reporting anything negative about Obama, but they felt they had to in this instance.
The Left had no problem blaming Bush for Katrina, so why shouldn't Obama take the heat for the oil spill? It happened on his watch, and he is responsible for the slow federal response.
Here's what the NY Times had to say about Obama's delayed response to the oil spill . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/opinion/01sat1.html
Fucking sound logic. Gridlock at it's finest. It's this kind of horse shit logic that is ripping this country apart, and gridlocking our government. Nice work. Fuckin' A..... FWIW, I voted for Bush both times. So this is not a Lib vs Pub thing for me. It's a get something done or gridlock thing for me. You're just an example of every thing that is wrong with this country right now. So frustrating...
In case you hadn't noticed, the president is the chief executive, and the guy who makes the tough decisions in times of emergency. Just as it was Bush's call on Katrina, it was Obama's call on the oil spill. If Obama screwed up, the NY Times is obligated to report it (even if it pains them mightily). Why should we give Obama a "pass" when he let us down? I couldn't care less if the facts are painful to you. The facts are the facts.
Possibly . . . or maybe the NYT is more credible than you give them credit for. So as I understand your logic. If the NYT says anything negative about the Republican party, well just disregard that becauser they are bias. If they say anything negative about Democrats, well it must be true. Do I have that correct?
