Obama Decried, Then Used, Some Bush Drilling Policies: Relied on "irrational" environmental analysis

[Karmadillo]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704699604575342843359124882.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Less than four months after President Barack Obama took office, his new administration received a forceful warning about the dangers of offshore oil drilling.

The alarm was rung by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., which found that the government was unprepared for a major spill at sea, relying on an "irrational" environmental analysis of the risks of offshore drilling.

The April 2009 ruling stunned both the administration and the oil industry, and threatened to delay or cancel dozens of offshore projects in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

Despite its pro-environment pledges, the Obama administration urged the court to revisit the decision. Politically, it needed to push ahead with conventional oil production while it expanded support for renewable energy.

<edit>

The 2007 document said "large oil spills associated with activities are low-probability events." The "most likely size" of a serious spill, that report concluded, would total 4,600 barrels—a fraction of what the Deepwater Horizon continues to allow into the water every day.

Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, which brought the original lawsuit, said their court victory wound up changing little. "Salazar, and by extension Obama, have pursued the same offshore program as the Bush administration, even while playing a smoke-and-mirrors game," he said.

more...

[amborin]

1. why hasn't the Interior Dept been held accountable, by the way....

[Karmadillo]

2. Obama: "I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences."

Oh. Wait. That's for teachers. Stupid me. I keep mistaking little people accountability ("you're fired!) and big people accountabiliy ("look forward, not backwards!").

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/10/obama-calls-accountability-education/

Obama wants teacher 'accountability'

<edit>

Calling for a "new culture of accountability" in schools, Mr. Obama proposed building on rather than replacing the No Child Left Behind education law signed by President Bush. But Mr. Obama said it's time to put more money, better tracking of teachers' performance, higher standards and real accountability behind the law.

"Let me be clear: If a teacher is given a chance, or three chances, but still does not improve, there is no excuse for that person to continue teaching," the president said. "I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences."

[jaxx]

4. Rupert's WSJ and the Moonie Times,

that's quite a combo.

[Karmadillo]

5. Anything inaccurate in either report?

nt

[jaxx]

6. Just plenty of bias and twists.

There are good news sources out there, neither of those qualify.

[Karmadillo]

7. Could you identify the bias & twists in the cited articles? Thanks.

nt

[jaxx]

8. I'm not playing.

Neither of those sources are good, they have one objective and that is to dis the Democratic Party and it's leaders.

[frylock]

16. you ain't playing because you don't have game..

kill the messenger.

[Karmadillo]

21. The sad things is they're able to dis the Dems using the Dems' own words & actions.

nt

[NorthCarolina]

41. Clever way of disguising a "No" response.

:eyes:

[Radical Activist]

22. How about the title of the article?

The article is pretty decent, and it includes many examples of how Obama's policy and actions differed from Bush's. But, I know some people will only read the headline and assume that Obama continuing "some" Bush policies means he was continuing "all" Bush drilling policies. Headlines are where editorial bias often comes into play.

For example, the headline could have been, "Obama rejected some Bush offshore drilling policies early: admits it should have done more before Horizon disaster."

That would have been equally accurate (if not more so) and given a very different impression of the article's content.

Or take this line:

"To buy time and work out its own policy preferences, the Obama administration reopened the Bush plan for public comment."

How does the journalist know what the motivations were? Is he a mind reader? Someone who understands EPA bureaucratic processes knows that Obama's action is what one would do to review and change Bush's plan. But, that more straightforward interpretation of events doesn't fit into the narrative spun by the article.

You have to read things more critically. A few creative interpretations of events and inflammatory lines can obscure the real facts hiding in a story.

[depakid]

24. Nothing wrong with the title that I can see

It's accurate- especially the "irrational" part.

Like it or not, the willful failure to return accountability under the law to pre-Bush norms led to this catastrophe and will forever be part of this administration's legacy.

[Radical Activist]

25. Of course you don't because it reinforces what you want to believe regardless of the facts.

As I wrote, Obama admitted that he acted too slowly to restore the agency. Does it make your head hurt that Obama agrees with you?

But you still exaggerate. Some action had already been taken before the gulf oil gusher, as this article points out. Why not just stick to the facts without the drama and exaggeration?

[depakid]

31. There you go with the projection and false attitribution

My statement and beliefs about this matter (and others) are factual an supported by overwhelming evidence on the issues..

Your posts in these threads more often than not seek to support or apologize for a politician.

Fact of the matter is that Obama not only ratified Republican drilling policies- he got up and stated (falsely) two days later that these rigs were "safe," all of the while knowing or having every reason to know that they weren't and that his administration was still chock full of incompetence and engaged in corruption.

Trying to say "Oh, he acted too slowly" is ridiculous considering the above. Bottom line is that if you don't have your own regulatory and managerial house in order- you don't go off adopting these policies.

Unless you want to risk a political and environmental disaster of epic proportions.

[Radical Activist]

32. And you make another false statement.

The article above, if you care to read past the headline, makes very clear that Obama changed Bush-era policies. It does not support your overly broad accusation that he merely ratified Republican policies. Even the headline itself says "some" policies. Some is not all. You would do well to notice the detail and not spin it beyond the facts.

I'm not excusing Obama's mistakes. I just acknowledged them in my previous comment. My posts in theses threads typically support accurate statements over your kind of biased distortion.

[depakid]

34. LOL- keep spinning

Some is a TON too many- as we have seen.

Look at it this way- if Obama hadn't engaged in his one if his signature "preemptive concessions" (which was also an effort to triangulate) and had instead held firm to progressive principles, advocating alternative energy instead- he'd be looking prescient. Like a visionary.

Instead, he looks like the goat.

On the administrative/managerial side of things, the problems at the MMS were appalling and well known (there was another GAO report from September 2009 on point)- and unresolved at the time Obama pushed for expanded drilling.

Note however that it wasn't just the decision to push ahead in the future- Salazar & Co. were already approving these applications at a record pace -more than even the Bush administration- using the same, flawed, corrupt procedures, and failing to perform required inspections.

[Radical Activist]

45. I can admit Obama did something wrong. Can you admit he did something right?

I don't need to spin. He did some good things but it wasn't enough. Everyone acknowledges that. Except for you because you can't admit he did anything to move in the right direction.

Prescient is the fact that he responded to the oil spill in the most important ways before it happened by reducing our dependence on oil. He increased auto mileage standards, got old gas guzzlers off the road, made major new investments in high speed rail, got GM to take fuel efficiency seriously, and mandated more electric vehicles. That's the most visionary response and he did it before the gusher happened.

Are you to dogmatic and obsessive in your opposition to praise the positive?

[SidDithers]

26. If it's not the WSJ, it WSWS...

Interesting choices of sources, eh?

Sid

[Karmadillo]

29. Maybe you could point out any inaccuracies in the article?

nt

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

40. Swarming the thread!!

:rofl:

Sid

[Karmadillo]

42. Good job pointing out those inaccuracies.

nt

[SidDithers]

43. Hey, I noticed you went back to WSWS this morning in another thread..

nice job covering the both ends of the spectrum.

Sid

[Karmadillo]

44. That gives you another thread to debunk--except you seem unable to do that sort of thing. At least

you can post a smilie and hit the unrec.

[Karmadillo]

47. Kick to keep this thread alive so Sid can debunk it. Go Sid!

nt

[Karmadillo]

48. Last chance before it sinks, Sid. Debunk away!

nt

[Bluebear]

49. just saw a tumbleweed

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. Salazar is O's pick --

Kenny couldn't pass out those new drilling rights fast enough. O must be happy with his performance.

[Karmadillo]

36. That certainly seems the most reasonable interpretation.

nt

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[girl gone mad]

10. How was this OP about hating Obama?

[Bluebear]

12. Too much critique and not enough...

[Bluebear]

11. Anti-drilling is "hating Obama"? How ridiculous.

[QC]

28. The anti-drilling people never really loved him!

:cry:

[Bluebear]

30. And Michelle has AWSUM arms!

[QC]

33. I love them more than you do!

:cry:

[Bluebear]

35. I had The Bam!

[Coyote_Bandit]

13. 78 Days into this Gusher

it would appear that everyone was unprepared. Yet there wwere government agencies tasked with seeing otherwise. Katrina's Brownie remains on the job. And performing no better.

[Bluebear]

46. Indeed

[Greyhound]

14. Chuckles lives...

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Reccing this to showcase the undisguised obfuscation and deflection in lieu of facts from the thread

. . . . . responders.

Lots of shots at the messengers. No refutation of the message.

I now know some houses to which I would never deliver mail.

[Cetacea]

17. +1 n/t

[Raine]

19. Agree nt

[Bluebear]

20. indeed.

[HughMoran]

38. .

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. K&R

[obxhead]

23. k/r

[Lionheart23]

27. This is a very good article

Very well researched and sticks to facts.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.