Monday, May 24, 2010
I hope we're just giving them extra rope to hang with
Because I can't figure out the GOP strategy of NOT holding the administration's feet to the fire on this BP mess.
Napolitano is out there with this "We're watching BP" garbage. Holding them accountable and what not.
Like if BP fails to stop the leak, and the entire fishing industry in the Gulf goes under, the appropriate response is merely to give BP's effort the thumbs down, and sue or jail some folks in the corporation. That will make it all better.
If Manhattan was ablaze because a power plant exploded, would the Mayor stand down the fire department and say, "We're watching Con Ed to see whether they respond appropriately. We will hold them accountable."
What's that? The whole city burned? That's it, Mr. CEO, you failed! We're taking you to task!
I mean, isn't emergency response generally the raison d'etre of government on any level? I have a hard time believing the engineers in the military had no plan for dealing with this. That FEMA and homeland security have never considered the possibility of how to deal with this kind of situation, either as an accident or terrorism strike. Or that, even if this had never been planned, bringing the resources of the military, FEMA, and state authorities to bear wouldn't have drastically improved the outcome.
Why, from week 1 of this catastrophe, was the federal government not intervening and taking the lead on the response, rather than merely watching BP fail and shaking its finger?
This seems to me to be a failure of leadership on the highest level, with deep ramifications for the livelihoods of many Americans down there.
I hope the Congress and the GOP is planning on conducting investigations, slowly dragging the story out with low level staffers testifying about how the administration was concerned about "damage control," "not looking like Bush," and being entirely political, when they should have been jumping into the breach to solve the situation.
I really hope the GOP inaction right now is merely designed to let the Administration think that, with the Dem-friendly press at their sides, they will not be held to account. That they can dither and discuss amongst themselves, and hopefully leave a large and damning paper trail.
Of course, better than that would have been some courageous political leadership on either side of the aisle, that forced the government to do more, sooner.
Napolitano is out there with this "We're watching BP" garbage. Holding them accountable and what not.
Like if BP fails to stop the leak, and the entire fishing industry in the Gulf goes under, the appropriate response is merely to give BP's effort the thumbs down, and sue or jail some folks in the corporation. That will make it all better.
If Manhattan was ablaze because a power plant exploded, would the Mayor stand down the fire department and say, "We're watching Con Ed to see whether they respond appropriately. We will hold them accountable."
What's that? The whole city burned? That's it, Mr. CEO, you failed! We're taking you to task!
I mean, isn't emergency response generally the raison d'etre of government on any level? I have a hard time believing the engineers in the military had no plan for dealing with this. That FEMA and homeland security have never considered the possibility of how to deal with this kind of situation, either as an accident or terrorism strike. Or that, even if this had never been planned, bringing the resources of the military, FEMA, and state authorities to bear wouldn't have drastically improved the outcome.
Why, from week 1 of this catastrophe, was the federal government not intervening and taking the lead on the response, rather than merely watching BP fail and shaking its finger?
This seems to me to be a failure of leadership on the highest level, with deep ramifications for the livelihoods of many Americans down there.
I hope the Congress and the GOP is planning on conducting investigations, slowly dragging the story out with low level staffers testifying about how the administration was concerned about "damage control," "not looking like Bush," and being entirely political, when they should have been jumping into the breach to solve the situation.
I really hope the GOP inaction right now is merely designed to let the Administration think that, with the Dem-friendly press at their sides, they will not be held to account. That they can dither and discuss amongst themselves, and hopefully leave a large and damning paper trail.
Of course, better than that would have been some courageous political leadership on either side of the aisle, that forced the government to do more, sooner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
4 comments:
Where is the dang political leadership for the GOP on this issue? Why are we letting them turn this into "big oil is bad," when the message should be, "the very competence (he's so smart...) you thought you hired Obama does not exist. CANNOT LEAD. CANNOT HANDLE A CRISIS."
I'm not really sure if it would work, but wouldn't a bunker buster or two dropped on the well close the whole thing up?
Hey BP, I've got my eye on you.
-Pres. Obama
Well, you know it must be true that Pres. Obama is not a leader when Chris Matthews confirms it.
"The President scares me," Matthews said of Obama's response to the Gulf oil spill disaster. "When is he actually going to do something? And I worry; I know he doesn't want to take ownership of it. I know politics. He said the minute he says, 'I'm in charge,' he takes the blame, but somebody has to. It's in our interest."
Actually, Chris, it's more than that. IT'S HIS RESPONSIBILITY. That is what you elect a president for--to take responsibility and ownership of problems, not to delegate them to someone else.
Of course, that's why we rarely elect senators to the office of the presidency. They never actually own anything or have responsibility. They just form committees and debate things.