Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Don't call this disaster Obama's Katrina. Obama says it's like 9/11.
Sorry Mr. President, but I don't think that a terrorist act that killed over 3,000 innocent people can be compared to an accidental oil spill.
But he's not going to miss the chance to make this political. He's going to turn it into a bill that will kill the energy industry.
Obama Compares Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill to 9/11 - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Rick D.
Both caused by human stupidity and arrogance.Asshole, two man made catastrophes ... the oil spill has the potential to do much more damage in the long run.
Thank God Bush is no longer president, his answer would have been to invade Ireland.
Holy shit! There's oil terrorists in Ireland?!?!?!? Somebody get the UN on the red phone!!
Wait.... This oil spill was a man made disaster? So as I contended two weeks ago and it was denied, some do believe BP did this on purpose? Otherwise let's stop calling either of these a man made disaster. One was an industrial accident, one was a freaking terrorist act.
Both caused by human stupidity and arrogance.Holy shit! There's oil terrorists in Ireland?!?!?!? Somebody get the UN on the red phone!!
Wait.... This oil spill was a man made disaster? So as I contended two weeks ago and it was denied, some do believe BP did this on purpose? Otherwise let's stop calling either of these a man made disaster. One was an industrial accident, one was a freaking terrorist act.
Ditto Katrina and also Wilma and Andrew and the year we had three or four in a row. I'd rather have a hurricane a month than this disaster.I went through Katrina, Rita, Ike in LA and TX and two in Florida in a four year period. They were all terrible, yet they will be nothing in comparison to the oil spill.
Now you're just lying. The Jones Act bullshit is just you repeating bullshit rightwingloon talking points.Two man made catastrophes.
Works for me.
Not even close.
Sept 11 was a deliberate act designed to strike fear into the very hearts of Americans. It was meant to be a rallying cry for other Islamic terrorists to commit other terrorist acts with the sole purpose of destroying America and lets not forget the 3000 souls that perished in that attack.
The oils spill in the gulf and the resulting loss of life, while tragic, does not compare to Sept 11 in any way. The spill was not a deliberate act with malice aforethought. And quicker action would have prevented the spill from becoming the disaster that it is now.
That Obama, who by the way refused to waive the Jones Act
, which would have allowed foreign countries to send ships capable of cleaning up much of the oil, now compares the result of his lack of action to an attack the caused the deaths of 3000 innocents is reprehensible
The question we should be asking is why didn't Obama suspend the Jones Act and accept the very aid that would have lessened this disaster?
Now you're just lying. The Jones Act bullshit is just you repeating bullshit rightwingloon talking points.Two man made catastrophes.
Works for me.
Not even close.
Sept 11 was a deliberate act designed to strike fear into the very hearts of Americans. It was meant to be a rallying cry for other Islamic terrorists to commit other terrorist acts with the sole purpose of destroying America and lets not forget the 3000 souls that perished in that attack.
The oils spill in the gulf and the resulting loss of life, while tragic, does not compare to Sept 11 in any way. The spill was not a deliberate act with malice aforethought. And quicker action would have prevented the spill from becoming the disaster that it is now.
That Obama, who by the way refused to waive the Jones Act
, which would have allowed foreign countries to send ships capable of cleaning up much of the oil, now compares the result of his lack of action to an attack the caused the deaths of 3000 innocents is reprehensible
The question we should be asking is why didn't Obama suspend the Jones Act and accept the very aid that would have lessened this disaster?
Don't call this disaster Obama's Katrina. Obama says it's like 9/11.
Sorry Mr. President, but I don't think that a terrorist act that killed over 3,000 innocent people can be compared to an accidental oil spill.
But he's not going to miss the chance to make this political. He's going to turn it into a bill that will kill the energy industry.
Obama Compares Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill to 9/11 - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Rick D.
"In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11 . . . I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come," Mr. Obama said in an Oval Office interview Friday.
The major spill is also something that will have far-reaching effects for a long time, just as the attacks of 911 have. Katrina came thundering through and left untold devastation, but at least we knew how to clean it all up and then rebuild.
I see this latest criticism as just more illiterate nonsense that the far-right can't resist piling on.
So you think the oil leak and 911 is a fair comparison?
No one is COMPARING the two events.
They are simply BOTH examples of EVENTS that have profoundly effected US attitudes.
Lemme see if'n ah kin put this here in lingo you maht comprende:
1. An Armadillo is an animal
2. A Longhorn is an animal
3. Armadillos and Longhorns are both animals
Did I say they were the SAME animal??? Same SIZE? Same Color?
No, I did not COMPARE them.
The major spill is also something that will have far-reaching effects for a long time, just as the attacks of 911 have. Katrina came thundering through and left untold devastation, but at least we knew how to clean it all up and then rebuild.
I see this latest criticism as just more illiterate nonsense that the far-right can't resist piling on.
So you think the oil leak and 911 is a fair comparison?
I think what OBama actually SAID (making the comparison) and what I SAID are true. They both have long-range effects, period. I don't think he meant anything else. (But of course he can't say Good Morning without that being taken to the level of WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT IT by his enemies, so carry on.)
An environmental 9/11, not on the American people, but by the environment it its area. I find this quote to be most appropriate:
There's no doubt the spill and leak is going to drastically affect the ecology and environment and how we look at it. That's why he compared it to 9/11, its a big disaster shake-up.
I'd like to know who the "we" are he's referring to. I don't know of anyone besides a few leftwing loons that share those sentiments.
yea b/c this spill isn't the biggest environmental disaster or anything
Why? This spill has the potential to destroy several states. Mine included. You think that matters nothing?Two man made catastrophes.
Works for me.
You are a fucking idiot.
Piss off.
You think trying to destroy the US by committing terrorist acts was a smart thing to do?Both caused by human stupidity and arrogance.Wait.... This oil spill was a man made disaster? So as I contended two weeks ago and it was denied, some do believe BP did this on purpose? Otherwise let's stop calling either of these a man made disaster. One was an industrial accident, one was a freaking terrorist act.
So 9/11 was caused by stupidity?
Or was it caused by a deliberate well funded group of terrorists?
Now you're just lying. The Jones Act bullshit is just you repeating bullshit rightwingloon talking points.Not even close.
Sept 11 was a deliberate act designed to strike fear into the very hearts of Americans. It was meant to be a rallying cry for other Islamic terrorists to commit other terrorist acts with the sole purpose of destroying America and lets not forget the 3000 souls that perished in that attack.
The oils spill in the gulf and the resulting loss of life, while tragic, does not compare to Sept 11 in any way. The spill was not a deliberate act with malice aforethought. And quicker action would have prevented the spill from becoming the disaster that it is now.
That Obama, who by the way refused to waive the Jones Act
, which would have allowed foreign countries to send ships capable of cleaning up much of the oil, now compares the result of his lack of action to an attack the caused the deaths of 3000 innocents is reprehensible
The question we should be asking is why didn't Obama suspend the Jones Act and accept the very aid that would have lessened this disaster?
Then please enlighten us as to why Obama refused the offers of help from countries with ships capable of skimming millions of gallons of oil from the waters of the gulf?
If indeed his hands were tied by law, surely you can post a link to that law.
.i think it is telling of our education system that so many americans lack the historical foundation to understand that for over 150 years the US has not sought foreign state-funded aid, help or support for causes in the western hemisphere from any states in europe as part of the wider-reaching implications of the monroe doctrine.
our 'thanks, but no thanks, we've got it covered' policy is pretty central to our history with respect to circumstances of need such as this and is evident from our civil war (save for southern separatists), clear through to modern tragedy in 9/11, and katrina.
nevertheless, whether through ignorance or partisan bias, some attribute this action to the current government (or bush's in katrina or 9/11). presuming that something like the jones act is preventing much needed foreign vessels from operating in the gulf for the purposes of repair, cleanup or mitigation would be validating of these claims.
to the contrary, this is the reality:
the rig in the foreground (ground?) is the swiss-owned, singaporean laid, vanuatu registered development driller III
the red rig in the middle is the q4000, an american vessel directly over the spot where the korean made, british owned, marshalls registered deepwater horizon used to be. the boat to the left in the red is the boa sub c, a norwegian vessel that has been at work there since april 20. the other red vessel looks like skandi neptune, which has also been there from the jump.
you decide:
the skandi neptune, a norwegian laid and flagged vessel.
one of the vessels in blue are from american firm, oceaneering, the norweigian laid and flagged Ocean Intervention III. i could speculate that the sistership from the same firm is of similar origin, but i only know from here that these three were at sea as early as the 20th.
finally, the largest vessel colored to match its swiss owned/operated co-worker in the front is the discoverer enterprise, built in spain, flagged in the marshalls.
in light of this concerted, commercial, international effort to cap the broke rig last month, one might consider arguments that the jones act is impeding international response to be absolutely rediculous. the only impediment that i see is that there's only so much room for these big-ass ships to operate, and only a few companies have been contracted to do so in light of that. naturally this leaves a world of gracious declines of assistance - just the opportunity for a partisan spin-doctor to run with.
I'd like to know who the "we" are he's referring to. I don't know of anyone besides a few leftwing loons that share those sentiments.
yea b/c this spill isn't the biggest environmental disaster or anything
Hey stupid, when he said "how we look at it" I took it to mean how we look at the entire oil drilling process and there should be no major changes in that respect. If you understood how many offshore wells have been drilled compared to the number of blowouts like the one in the Gulf, then you would know that the risk are not really all that great. What needs to be looked at is the oil companies as well as the governments response time and effectiveness. They should have immediately ignited the oil and had booms readily available.
yea b/c this spill isn't the biggest environmental disaster or anything
Hey stupid, when he said "how we look at it" I took it to mean how we look at the entire oil drilling process and there should be no major changes in that respect. If you understood how many offshore wells have been drilled compared to the number of blowouts like the one in the Gulf, then you would know that the risk are not really all that great. What needs to be looked at is the oil companies as well as the governments response time and effectiveness. They should have immediately ignited the oil and had booms readily available.
Wasn't more oil spilled off the Kuwait coast during the first gulf war?
yea b/c this spill isn't the biggest environmental disaster or anything
Hey stupid, when he said "how we look at it" I took it to mean how we look at the entire oil drilling process and there should be no major changes in that respect. If you understood how many offshore wells have been drilled compared to the number of blowouts like the one in the Gulf, then you would know that the risk are not really all that great. What needs to be looked at is the oil companies as well as the governments response time and effectiveness. They should have immediately ignited the oil and had booms readily available.
Wasn't more oil spilled off the Kuwait coast during the first gulf war?
