One thing obvious from President Obama’s speech about the BP oil spill is that President Obama wasn’t particularly forthright. Put another way, President Obama’s speech contained a couple whoppers. Here’s an example:

Because there has never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That’s why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge, a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

As a result of these efforts, we’ve directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. And in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that’s expected to stop the leak completely.

Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it’s not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years.

Unless President Obama called the Dutch and the British to ask for their help, which his administration had previously rejected, and unless he’s quietly waived the Jones Act so that foreign skimmers can help with cleaning up the Gulf, I’m more than skeptical of President Obama’s statement.

Let’s ask these simple questions: if President Obama convened this panel of experts immediately after the explosion, why are balls of crude oil still washing up onto Louisiana’s, Mississipi’s and Florida’s shores? Why are Lousiana’s wetlands and great fisheries ruined.

There doesn’t seem to be any shortage of viable solutions coming from concerned citizens from across the nation. I’ve seen the demonstrations on TV news shows.

Here’s other questions worthy of an answer: Why hasn’t this panel of experts brought forth a suggestion that’s been acted upon? If they have made some suggestions on how to clean up the mess, why haven’t they worked? If there have been suggestions made and tried, why have they failed so miserably? If they’ve failed miserably, what’s the use of this theoretically elite panel of experts?

Frankly, I’m questioning whether this panel is aggressively pushing themselves for a solution. I’m not certain that this panel exists but if they do, they’re more window-dressing than anything else.

Here’s another statement worthy of ridicule:

But make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes.

That’s BS. By refusing the Netherlands’ and the British’s offer for skimmer ships, they’ve already done less than they could’ve done.

Here’s another statement worthy of ridicule:

From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation’s history, an effort led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has almost 40 years of experience responding to disasters. We now have nearly 30,000 personnel who are working across four states to contain and clean up the oil. Thousands of ships and other vessels are responding in the Gulf.

That’s a nice list of statistics but there isn’t a solution in sight. Louisiana’s wetlands are covered in crude oil. Fisheries have been ruined.

TRANSLATION: This speech has several purposes. The first purpose is to convince the American people that I’m doing my job. The second purpose of this speech is to recite a set of statistics to indicate activity in solving this problem. The third purpose of this speech is to push cap and trade legislation, which the Senate won’t touch it’s a political loser, especially for those who are up for re-election this November.

This speech was so awful that trusted allies like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman ridiculed President Obama:

Olbermann: “Nothing specific at all was said.”

Matthews: “No direction.”

Howard Fineman: “He wasn’t specific enough.”

Olbermann: “I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling.”

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a “commander-in-chief.”

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. “I’ll barf if he does it one more time.”

Matthews: “A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk.”

Matthews: “I don’t sense executive command.”

Just like the Iran Hostage Crisis exposed President Carter as impotent and without a solution for a problem that the federal government is tasked with, this spill is showing the nation that President Obama is impotent in responding to one of the federal government’s basic responsibilities, protecting our nation’s environment. (Yes, it’s the federal government’s responsibility to fix this mess because it happened in federal waters.)

The truth is that President Obama is infinitely more passionate about passing his agenda than he is about solving our nation’s problems.

If President Obama won’t provide solutions to the crises that this nation faces, then it’s time to start thinking about who we should replace him with in November, 2012. We’re a nation of problem-solvers. The last thing we need is a president who won’t think in terms of solving problems or fixing the economy.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

2 Responses to “President Obama’s Dishonesty, Ineptitude On Display”

Leave a Reply