The major difference being, Katrina was a natural disaster, which was nobody's direct fault(I was living in NOLA at the time, and it was common knowledge that we were fucked if a hurricane hit. Good old corrupt New Orleans. :P).

There was nobody besides FEMA that had direct responsibility (heck of a job, Brownie).

In this case, the oil rig was owned by BP, therefore there is somebody directly responsible for the blowup.

I find it amusing that the right, normally bastions of private enterprise and personal initiative, are screaming bloody murder that the Feds haven't done enough, etc. Just goes to show that most people's political 'convictions' get thrown out the window when it comes time to score some cheap political points. Its bullshit, and I find myself disturbed that rlumley is making any sense at all.

Jack - I think you confuse the political right with anarchists. Conservatives are not anarchists, and this is clearly a situation where the the effect will cover such a large area that is unreasonable to assume that any one state or company can handle the clean up on it's own. This IS a case for national intervention. By the way, in Katrina, Mayor Nagan and the Governor of LA were the FIRST and SECOND lines of defense. the Feds could only step in to help once their help was requested...which took 3 days. Something the left consistently fails to acknowledge. The Mayor refused to evecuate his city when he should have, he refused to use the school buses and everything available to him...and then they dumped the blame on bush.

@rlumnley - You are such a fucking Troll. Brilliant input, asshole. In case you are too stupid to actually READ, what I said was that IF YOU APPLY OBAMA'S STANDARDS to himself - if you use OBAMA'S RATIONALE that he used to criticize Bush - how would you rate Obama. But you are apparently just too fucking stupid to understand that discussion point. If all you are going to do is play the part of the asshole, maybe you should find another discussion troll. Or you can stay here...It fun to point out how ignorant you are. I've seen on more than one other thread today your name being dragged through the mud for being an asshole....Maybe you should take the hint.

There IS a national debate - a very legitimate national debate - over whether or not Obama is a LEADER, or simply a talking suit that give s a good speach. I note that the respondants consistently fail to acknowledge that OBAMA is personally responsible for turning down the help from forieng nations that was offered on DAY 3. This is a BP-created problem....but Obama has done next to nothing to hhelp where he could. the question is: Why? Incompetence? Or ulterior motive - i.e. pass energy legislation using pressure created by this crisis? again...this is a discussion that IS on the national stage which I have mentioned that nobody will respond to, because you are too busy slinging mud and name calling. I thought there were a few more intellectuals on here that might offer up thoughtful points....I guess not.

I actually live on Obama's street in Chicago, and a tree fell on the road today.

It a sign from God! lol

rlumley is retarded. How can you hold the CEO of BP accountable for every oil rig, but not hold the head of the executive branch responsible for the executive branch? I really don't understand the logic...

Well, clearly the CEO dropped an M80 down the well on a lark...and...well...It has to be his fault.

I'm not happy with Obama actions, but the problem is systemic. The cause goes back decades, not just the past year and half. My father worked for the Federal Gov from the early 60's to the early 80's. He constantly c/o the increasing problem of middle ranked bureaucrat indecision, buck passing, and crippleing paper work and regulations. Many of the regs and paper work are required by law and cannot be waved by decree. The fallowing decades have just seen it get worse. The blame needs to go to all concerned, not just to a president that is to slow to act. And yes he has gotten off easy with the press and others so far, but that is starting to shift.

@warspite - THANK you for a little intellectual response. I agree - the problem is systemic. I think that's why conservatives tend to be for smaller government. When you put a profit motive into a system, the bureaucracy tends to shrink (not always - I have worked for Ford and GM....both monstrous bureaucracies. It amazes me they can built a car...) But even though it is systemic - what DO we expect of our President in a crisis? ANY president in any huge crisis, to remove the emotions from the moment...He has executive orders, can declare even martial law if necessary....How far would you want a President to go? Our President has arguably stretched the limits of his power in the $20 Billion "shakedown" of BP - is that good or bad? (To keep it in context, Exxon only paid $500 Million after the Valdez)

But even if we admit that the problem is systemic....and NOT wholly Bush's fault in Katrina or wholly Obama's fault here... we can't deny that the chief executive doesn't have power

"the Coast Guard's command center in the Gulf, things begin to shift when other agencies start weighing in, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."

- on a completely non-political aside for once. I did read in recent months in Science (or Nature i can't remember which) proposals to unify all the ocean related agencies, so the fishermen, enviromental protection people, oil companies and wind farms (and the article was really about the decision making required to put wind farms off shore) would all have ONE government agency instead of these dozens dealing with ALL ocean resources.

Well I guess this is another example of that need.

Martial law would be a stretch. Executive orders have limits and I'm not sure what he could legaly order and what he could not. "Shakedown" come on, BP had 4bil in cash sitting in banks, so the stockholders lost this years casn payout, that's the chance you take when you own stock in a company. I look at it as good faith money for the rest they will have to pay out. BP will be around for along time, after all their income is more than most countries. I think Obama is to deliberate. Fast action even if it is not 100% correct is better than none or to late. I also think he's finding out just how difficult it is to run large country.

@ Krellin:

From your opening post:
"It appears Obama - by allowing his coast Guard (He is commander in Chief) to halt an effective clean-up effort - wants (or at least is allowing) the destruction to be worse. "

After I made a mockery out of this point, you decided you wanted to completely change your rhetorical strategy, from "Obama is trying to hurt the country" to "If you apply Obama's standards to himself, he's at fault." I never once disagreed with your second point. But I don't see the real reason to discuss it. Is it news that politicians are a bunch of liars and hypocrites? No, of course not. And it doesn't need to be pointed out to anyone who has even a remote amount of intelligence.

"rlumley is retarded. How can you hold the CEO of BP accountable for every oil rig, but not hold the head of the executive branch responsible for the executive branch? I really don't understand the logic..."

I don't?

I don't necessarily have a problem with the fine, although I think it should be done in other ways. I think BP should have to pay the government for the use of their cleanup stuff, and the market should punish BP. Do you really think that many people are buying BP gasoline right now? I'd be very surprised if BP didn't declare bankruptcy soon. Admittedly though, I don't know much beyond the fact that everyone involved has make a complete screwup of the situation.

Ray Nagin did order a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans (first in NOLA history). I know, because that is what freaked out my gf at the time.

I haven't read the whole thread, but the Coast Guard is not part of the US Military. It is part of the department of transportation, not the DoD. His being CiC has nothing to do with the CG.

Trolls...

lulmley...could you please troll someone's thread who doesn't make it so easy? ;)

Oh, and during wartime the CG becomes part of the Department of the Navy, fwiw.

My real opinion on this mess is this....

I really wish people would stop looking at the federal government for "action" on domestic affairs... That's not what it's there for.

That isn't an automatic reassignment, but is at the discretion of the President. To the best of my knowledge, neither Bush nor Obama have issued that directive.

I know I probably shouldn't bump this by posting, but I just gotta say, whenever I see a thread started by krellin, I open it and read it. The lol's never cease.

Yes, krellin is always good for that. I will be the first to say that , bush wasnt satan and obama isnt a god, Im trying to be fair......but the visceral hatred that krellin and fox news displays for anything Obama does is mind boggling. He can do no right, no matter what he does, I guess they just want to pay us back for laughing at dumbass Bush.

@dubmdell - I do too, but my doctor informs me is bad for my blood pressure.

@Draugnar - Thank you for showing your stupidity. Coast Guard IS part of the US military. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Coast_Guard lo i love when you trolls get it SO wrong...

@figlesquidge...and friends...Hillarious...once again...how all you brainiacs have nothing better to do than be trolls while calling other trolls. You have nothing of use to say...probably because it's hard admitting when you are wrong...I pity you, and can't wait to laugh at your replies and mock you some more.

@sean - I actually don't get fox news...you may notice the initial post is linked to a web page distinctly NOT fox news. Once again, the ignorant raise their heads with misguided insults. Too funny. And, sean, you fool, thank you for displaying your incredible bias, as well. You claim I can see no good in obama (which is not true) and state this as an insult - as if I'm so biased I only see bad...and then follow up that statement by showing yourself to be so biased you could see no good in "dumbass bush". What a fucking moron you make yourself out to be by demonstrating yourself to be exactly the thing you claim to hate....as most of you often do. Toooo funny the hypocrisy of you trolls.

Can't wait to see all your lame counter-attacks. Not of course that any of you will address any issues that have been brought up, such as pragmatic politics - using natural disasters to push political agendas, for example. Just shows what trolls you truly are.

Um... since when is a man-made structure blowing up due to human error a "natural disaster?" lol, krellin. lol.

And I'm sure that sean will defend himself, but he didn't say you watch fox news. He merely lumped you into a category with fox news. It would be akin to saying that Genghis Khan and the Nazis were mass killers and Genghis Khan replying that he never went to Europe.

I'd give you more pointers, but then the lol's might go away....

"@sean - I actually don't get fox news"

Funny. He seems to have teh interwebs. Maybe Fox shut down their site...

At any rate, I love how he didn't respond to me.

krellin- " You claim I can see no good in obama (which is not true) and state this as an insult - as if I'm so biased I only see bad...and then follow up that statement by showing yourself to be so biased you could see no good in "dumbass bush". "

Where did I say I could see no good in Bush ? I said he wasnt an intellectual giant (anyone want to fight me on that?!) and that people on the left made fun of him for that.
so krellin, I would love to hear what you think Obama has done well.

I'm tired of both parties spending so much time and effort trying to cut each other's throats that they don't get anything else done.

@warsprite

Isn't that what we pay every member of Congress 200k+ to do? Plus we fund their jets and office expenses and pay their minions to make sure they're effectively getting nothing done. Get with the program, man.

@rlumley - maybe I didn't respond to you because, being the King of the Trolls, you deserve no response. And I'm sure when you talk "Fox news" you are talking cable, not the internet. but, no, I don't go to their page, either. Again, maybe you are just too dense to understand, but look at the link to the story -- it's not fox News. You truly are one pathetic troll. If you are going to attack me, at least make it reasonable and based upon something I did, not something you imagine I did. It makes you look stupider than you already have proven yourself to be...and increasing your appearance of "stupid" if one hell of a feat. it like, your stupid indicator actually reaches 11...

@sean - You ASSUME I don't like anything about Obama because I criticize him on one point, and yet when you make a blanket statement about bush i can't assume the same about you? No...if you get to paint with such a broad brush, I will operate by your standard. You are a biased voice that is beyond reason. You hate everything about bush - this is clear to me because you insulted him -- again, this is YOUR standard of judgment i am applying back on to you. So what does Obama do good? I think Obama is a fantastic father and husband, and sets a very good example to a lot of followers that need that example. I fully advocate his desire to see people more involved in volunteering for programs - I believe volunteerism is a good thing. I appreciate the fact that he seeks dialogue with out enemies, even while I also think it is naive. He seeks a peace that few President's before him have - I just don't believe in his methodology, and I do not believe in his economic policies.

You satisfied, you stupid, narrow-minded, judgmental pricks. But Im' sure even in these statement you will find cause to attack...because that's what sad little trolls do...

@dumbell - as far as categorizing disasters - let me ask you, do you think the wildlife dying on the beaches gives a shit if a valve let loose or a hurricane hit? The effect is pretty much the same - loss of natural life and environments. The disaster is multi-state, and is far beyond the scope of one company to fix on it's own, particularly because of all the regulations in the way. At this point in time, it is accepted across the board that the Federal Government must be involved.

I could very easily make the argument that Katrina was not a natural disaster at all. The damage done by Katrina occurred when the man-made levies protecting a city that was built below sea-level failed. The levies were known to be weak, and yet year after year the resources need to repair them were diverted. So....in truth...Katrina was completely a man-made disaster. If the levies had been in proper maintenance, New Orleans would never have flooded.