Gulf of Mexico oil leak has drawn aggressive response from President Barack Obama

Source: Times Picayune, New Orleans

It was a two-day trip to the Midwest to talk about jobs and clean energy. President Barack Obama didn't mention the drama unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, where oil was gushing from a broken well pipe a mile beneath the sea.

The situation hadn't become a priority. Soon it would.

-snip-


The Gulf region, ravaged five years earlier by Hurricane Katrina, was on the verge of a second ecological disaster. Would there be a repeat of the bureaucratic bungling that marked President George W. Bush's response to the hurricane?

While the Obama administration has faced second-guessing about the speed and effectiveness of some of its actions, a narrative pieced together by The Associated Press, based on documents, interviews and public statements, shows little resemblance to Katrina in either the characterization of the threat or the federal government's response.

Read more: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/gulf_of_mexico_oil_leak_has_dr.html

"If me and Brownie were back in charge, we'd be out golfin and goofin around. As usual. Smirk."

- xCommander AWOL (R)

for good by simply setting off a powerful explosive charge near the well-head?
Soviets did it few times, using nuclear charges on some occasions, even on the
surface. If they don't want to go nuclear, I am sure they can assemble a conventional
charge powerful enough to do the job. It looks to me like they are just trying to
preserve an expensive well for future oil production.

about nuclear charges, but did reply on another post that stopping the leak had to be the main point.

I'll cook my own shrimp, thank you.

:)

I cant help but feel cynical...maybe there is a quick answer BP is avoiding because it burns a bridge to profitdom

You're worried about an ecological catastrophe and you want to try to fix it (keeping in mind that there's no guarantees) by setting off an atomic bomb on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico?

Let me repeat that: SETTING OFF AN ATOMIC BOMB ON THE FLOOR OF THE GULF OF MEXICO?

And you think DRILLING FOR OIL is bad?

they have conventional charges big enough to do the job. My simple question is
why not this option is ever discussed or even mentioned? If there is a reason
why it wouldn't work or some unacceptable ecological consequences, I would like
to hear it explained to me. Don't patronize me with this-is-just-crazy you-are-
stupid drivel. I think the situation is serious enough to put all available
options on the table, is it not?

Seriously no president could do anything of significance in the present catastrophe so no one can legitimately criticize Obama but then he doesn't deserve praise for simply offering condolences.

I do not think this was for the president to get in to, but I do think our gov should have implemented this sooner.

The Orwellian Language of Business As Usual.

Oh well, at least the new weasel words have more syllables, and are more colorful and digestible than the ones in the last dictatorship, and there is at least the ILLUSION of genuine concern and action. (Actually "Robust" is a holdover from Bushco, so I guess some love affairs are hard to let go of)

So there really has been "Change" of some kind.

But they have done very little to undo what the last one did, which was an ADMITTED dictatorship, which was revealed through documents that Obama had released at the beginning of his term.

Right now, far too many of us are blindly following unquestioningly.

We do this at our peril.

$$$Profit$$$ Who cares if an entire ocean(s) Die?

Obama will not dare stand up to them.... he has his marching orders...

main criticisms were.