Obama's trasparency??

1. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   Obama didn't want info from NOAA about the BP oil leak to reach the public, so he blocked it. What happened to the most transparent WH ever?
   
   http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6953Q720101006

   replyreport
   1. 59

      dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I would say he is more obvious than ever now, as for transparent, it was a campagin promise...ie-a lie.  It did get the vote however.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That transparency never existed to begin with, purely rhetoric, and successful rhetoric.

      replyreport
   3. 66

      Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It's all Bush's fault?

      replyreport
   4. 0

      sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      After reading through the article I just want to know if you think it would have been better to keep giving out incomplete information or keep it quite until they could have a reasonably good data report?
      
      Also, how much oil leaked out wouldn't have made them move any faster to clean it up.  It was, after all BP who said they would take care of it because it was their mess.
      
      This all happening, mind you, during a period (not so long ago) where half the country was rallying against government services help. 
      
      So it's difficult to say I blame Obama or the government for what did or could have happened instead remember why these things happened?
      
      Deregulation/less government oversight.  You cannot forget the investigations findings about warning bells that BP was well aware of but did nothing about.  They took a risk that cost lives and destroyed many, many things.
      
      Regardless, the gist of the article seems to want to suggest that if they put out the 'findings' earlier, the clean up would have been more urgent.
      
      I think that is a crappy excuse.  1 billion, 10 billion what friggin difference does it make?  The well would not have been plugged earlier than it did. 
      
      The article seems to insinuate that the meanwhile clean up effort was somehow futile because had they gotten the "how much oil could possibly leak into the Gulf" data sooner then they would have fixed it faster.
      
      Remember the reason the well couldn't get plugged any faster? It had nothing to do with the amount of oil, it had everything to with getting the technology together and preparation for the relief wells...
      
      It's silly to blame anyone but BP and I also think it is insane that there are commercials out defending BP and how wonderful BP is because they give them job even though it was BP who destroyed them to begin with. 
      
      Sinister and despicable.  Habee baby, you don't find it at least a little 'strange' *shoulder shrug*.

      replyreport
2. 70

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Hey Habee,
   
   It was blocked probably because it would show poor regulating again on the part of federal regulators. Showing that regulation of large or super-sized companies really cannot happen.
   
   Sure the government was great at attacking Microsoft when it got too big, but thousands of regulators, federal employees, have fallen down on their primary job.
   
   It's ridiculous.
   
   *as for transparency, forget about it- government does what it wants, because it knows the citizens are weak against it. There is no real common ground, as of yet, to rally citizens. It is in the works, but not yet.
   
   Just my thought on it.

   replyreport
3. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   Sad but true, Cags!

   replyreport
4. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   Sandra, I don't know if the spill/leak would have been addressed any more quickly or not, and I certainly don't blame the POTUS for the leak. What bothers me is the lack of transparency with the WH - not just with this, but with numerous other examples. This is one thing I was looking forward to with an Obama presidency because it was such a big promise during his campaign. I thought he would be different in that regard.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I hear ya.  I thought there would be more transparency as well but I suppose being President is a big deal and I can only image that there is a battle bigger then we know going on the WH.
      
      Who's wrong or right, I don't know but from all the craziness I have seen in the last couple years and the degree to which certain people will go to keep things quite and destroy the system is enough to make be believe that anyone who will resort to such hurtful and deceitful tactics is trying to hid their dirty underwear.
      
      With that said, though I am also slightly disappointed with the lack of transparency, it would be pretty hard to caste judgment against the obstructionist without hard proof.
      
      That hard proof was destroyed when they passed the law that removed their accountability.   Off the top of my head, I cannot remember the name of the act but they don't have to tell you where they are getting their money to run the campaigns and you could sign a petition to have them investigated because from what the consensus is the Tea Party Republican's are getting their money from other countries which is illegal for them to do but they bump into the that little piece of legislation that say they don't have to tell you where they are getting their money or who is funding their ads.
      
      Obama has made a few address, address this and many people are becoming aware that the Republicans are being influenced by other nations and that is sooooo wrong, so, so wrong.
      
      I doubt, however, that their constituents would sign the petition to have them investigated because what they are likely to find would destroy their campaign and probably drive the dagger deeper into the hearts of the people who really honestly believe that they are 'called by god'.
      
      I don't know if you heard about Sharron Angles little slip.  The "I wont do backroom deals to get what I want" chick, turns out she was and is doing just that.  She said, "The Republican's have lost their values..."  so why on Earth would she go against her own party like that and then say, "if you drop out of the race, then I can get you some "juice", you want to speak with so, and so, then I can make that happen."
      
      It's disastrous and I am largely aghast that so many people can find this ethical, part of the game etc.. and generally they would rather look the other way.
      
      I have to ask the Tea Party Republicans how they can knowingly accept liars, deceitful, disloyal, dishonest, backwards, unethical, morally challenged, and often 'insane', into the the high offices of America?
      
      I think it sucks that the Democrats had not stood up to them sooner and allowed their challengers to muddy up nearly everything beyond repair before they decided to fight back. 
      
      I think it totally sucks to have to 'face off' with people who would rather say nasty things and repeat lies in order to achieve their goal.   I think it sucks that when you stand up to them, there is little to no civility.
      
      But what sucks more is that so many people have put their morals on the back burner and now think it is okay to use 'hate speech' and 'scare tactics' and even in some cases actually, literally physically hurt people and they seem to be getting away with it.
      
      They have taken 'freedom of speech' to mean something like, "fuck you, the law says I can say whatever I want to and if you don't like it then you don't believe in freedom of speech and you don't know the Constitution, and you are trying to deny my rights and we hate you...blah, blah, blah." 
      
      It's crazy!  Anyways, sorry I just rambled on. 

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Petra Vlahposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I did too Habee! And I believe in "Change" as well.
      "We can do it!"
      Sure we can, but what did we do? Where is the change and where is the beef? The big CEO's got the millions and we can keep the change - all the pennies from Haven that is. While they are too big to fail, we are too small to matter - so much for change, Habee dear

      replyreport
5. 79

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   This recession is the proverbial rock/hard place -- there's no sure, simple, or quick solution.
   Which is better?
   A) For the government to take employment into its own hands, creating (and funding) government jobs, which, historically (Great Depression) worked in the short term but ultimately were a failure?
   or
   B)For government to offer loans to giant businesses to keep them going,ostensibly to restart the money flow and get people back solvent and working?
   The problem with A is that your free marketers are gonna balk
   The problem with B is that everyone's gonna see it as helping the fat cats
   Not to mention the fact that to implement either approach requires Congressional approval.
   Two words: Quel mess.
   
   As for reporting the BP oil spill,why was it ever within the realm of the WH to report?
   Those looking to tar and feather Obama would have found fault had he rushed to send out premature, inaccurate information vs. not enough information vs. late information.
   The guy can't win for losing, it seems.

   replyreport