In response to Alex Massie 

Vulture

You are being far too thin-skinned and
sensitive on this one, David.

Just because you have written the plain bloody obvious truth you are being hauled over the coals for it by stars-in-his eyes Obamanut Massie.

Frankly, Massie would find good things to say about the prize fraud of the western world if he was caught sprinkling cyanide on the candy at the annual White House tea party for disadvantaged youngsters.

Obama is our enemy. Period. His every word and his every action proves it. More and more Americans rue the day they elected him & he's about as popular in the States as a dermatitis outbreak at a Club Med skinny dip - as we will discover in the Mid-term elections.

Now where DID he put that that pesky birth certificate...

Marbury

The return of the Churchill bust was only a slight to the desperately insecure, which unfortunately describes a large part of the UK press.

If Obama is so irrationally "enraged" why is it that every damn commentator has been demanding he show more emotion?

David seems to have borrowed one or two of Alex's sentences in his last para. And what is "adjudged"?

God what embarrassing drivel this is. "Effused" with effluent.

Chuck Unsworth

Criminal, eh?

American 'Justice'? Some sort of oxymoron?

If BP has any sense it'll hold the bastards to ransom - as would any multi-national.

Anyway, what about Occidental and the duplicitous Gore? But maybe that's OK - because it's Americans damaging other Americans.

In2minds

I'm with David Blackburn on this. Obama has said something like he "will keep his foot on the throat of BP". Will he be able to do this? It seems he has, of late, always had one foot in his mouth. In other words the Messiah is about to topple over, that's not the fault of BP. The man lost it some time back and a bit like Gordon Brown wanted to "manage the recovery" so Obama wants a second chance.

David Blackburn

Marbury, it seems you can argue only with limp invective. In contrast, Alex's response was factual and very cogent.

Hysteria

As far as I am aware the enquiry into the root cause of the blow-out and subsequent disaster has not yet concluded.

To say that a "British oil company is to blame" is actually an unfounded assertion at this point. It may be - but we don't know that........

Marbury

David, if that's your adjudgement, I won't argue with it. But seeing as you mention it, here some facts:
a) Infer is not the same as imply.
b) Effuse is not the same as infuse.
c) When quoting sentences from someone else's post, it's best to put them in quotation marks.

It's OK to take absurd positions now and again. But to do it so clumsily, and at such unnecessary length...it's not worthy of the masthead.

David Preiser

I suppose the gift to Gordon Brown of a pack of DVDs which couldn't be played in the UK was a deliberate slight as well?

No, it was an act of thoughtlessness (especially in the face of Brown's genuinely thoughtful gift), callousness, and incompetence. Same for the return of the Churchill bust. Remember, this is the same genius Administration who gave the Queen an iPod loaded with Broadway show tunes and videos of her last state visit.

If the oil spill was caused by a true-blue US company, His reaction would be the same.

David Blackburn

Marbury,

'Effused' is the past participle of 'effuse', which means to shed or disseminate - so perfectly valid in this context. 'Infuse' means to penetrate or inspire, which is the wrong word here.

'Adjudge' means to declare formally, which is what Hillary Clinton did on the Falklands question.

And for the rest, they're all Alex's words and well pointed.

I suggest you consult a dictionary if you're going to give me a lesson in linguistic accuracy.

alexsandr

Wasn't Haliburton, a us company, involved in the operation that went so wrong. No mention of them is there?

alexsandr

sorry, does this illustrate my earlier post

http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10004219/gulf-oil-spill-whos-to-blame-bp-halliburton-and-the-feds-are-all-implicated/

Nicholas Hallam

Marbury, the "infer/imply" error was Alex's.

His "implication" that David "implied or suggested" that Obama should not be castigating BP while British troops died in American-led war was wild and unwarranted. No reasonable man would make that inference from David's original post.

Cuffleyburgers

I'm with David on this.

Marbury, when you're in a hole stop digging!

JONNY

David Blackburn seems wonderfully cool and relaxed about the way BP's drillings have turned The Gulf into an ecological disaster.
Is he arging BP is blameless?
How would he react if Texaco buggerd up The Solent?

Naomi Muse

Obama is indulging in what can only be called displacement activity by pointing the finger only at BP.

The US has always over reacted when something has attacked the homeland. The 9/11 horror was worse because it happened on american soil. The invective goes with the territory.

Obama is being unfair and unjust in not naming all the companies involved and just harping on about BP simply isn't on. I hope Dave has a word with him at some juncture and puts that right.

porkbelly

David, you must get over the bitterness of a scorned ex-lover. The fact is - no matter how much adoration you and the rest of the bien-pensants showered upon him in the past - he never cared one way or the other about you or your tiresome little island. To infer that he hates Britain is to give yourself airs. His attacks on BP are part of a long-standing tactic of demonizing Business in order to generate popular support (see GM, Goldman Sachs, Blue Cross, etc.). Can you imagine he would have shown any less hostility to, say, Exxon? The only oil company that could have engaged his sympathy would be Citgo, owned by his soulmate Hugo Chavez. His long-term plan is to place the energy industry under his boot-heel just as he has automotive, healthcare, banking and home mortgages. BP will wind up collapsing under the weight of lawsuits, fines, criminal investigations and will have to file bankruptcy. Its pieces will be scavenged by the remaining majors but only on the understanding that they pay tribute to the One: that is how crony capitalism works in Obama's brave new America. Makes handwringing over Churchill busts and DVDs seem a bit petty, no?

THX1138

To lighten the mood a bit, I thought this was very funny:

Sign at BP gas station in the US: "Do not leave pumps unattended. You are responsible for spills."

http://bit.ly/bd6p1E

DavidDP

" (see GM, Goldman Sachs, Blue Cross, etc.)"

All of which had done things for which highlighted criticism was more than justified.

BP is responsible for over 90% of willful infractions of safety regulations applicable to oil companies in the US. The idea that it's being unfairly singled out for a calamity which it bears most if not all responsibility for simply does not bear the lightest scrutiny.

DavidDP

"just harping on about BP simply isn't on"

The original congressional hearings, which took place some time ago now, involved Transocean and Halliburton, and both were accused of being responsible. However, as the details of what happened become clearer, it's becoming less likely that they bear much in the way of responsibility, as where their systems failed, it was due to the actions of BP over-riding safety concerns and systems.

Edward Sutherland

Jonny asks how David Blackburn would react if Texaco "buggered up the Solent". If history is anything to go by, this country has reacted rather more sanely than President Obama.In 1977, the US oil company Phillips Petroleum was responsible for the second largest offshore oilwell blow out in the world, at the Ekofisk North Sea oil field; and in 1988 US oil company Occidental was responsible for the loss of 167 lives on the Piper Alpha North Sea oil rig, the largest loss of life in the world in any oil rig disaster. I don't recall either Jim Callaghan or Margaret Thatcher rushing out intemperate and ill-considered statements such as Obama has done. What's more,amazingly, criminal proceedings were not brought against Occidental despite the massive loss of life. When you consider all this- and the outrageous behaviour of US corporations Union Carbide and Dow Chemical over the Bhopal tragedy-a more measured approach might serve the president better. People in glass houses and all that.

TGF UKIP

Smack on porkbelly, but no matter how loathsome Obama is on this and on so many other matters, Massie has a valid point in posing the question on the UK response if a US company had a degree of responsibility for a major N. Sea incident.

The earsplitting howls of outrage there would be from the LibDems, Labour, a goodly slice of the Tory Party, the unions and all the broadcasting variations of the Independent and Guardian.

Unfortunately the efforts of the broadcast media and education system Left have contributed to a deeply inured anti-americanism in this country which is deliberately swelled every time a Reuplican President is elected. God knows what the hysteria will be propelled to if we have a President Palin.

2trueblue

Edward Sutherland, very well put. Obama really needs to read up a bit more on history and what America has been up to, and the lack of hysteria from those affected,. He needs to engage his brain before his mouth runs off. The facts should have been put before him prior to his recent bout outpourings.
But then this is the man who accepted a Nobel Prize and wrote books about himself before he had done anything that really mattered. He is in danger of becomin an X factor victim.

DavidDP

"In 1977"

Some time ago. Given the recent hysteria over a mere takeover by a US company (Kraft), I have doubts the public will react in the same way now.

Ali C

I'm sure I'll get ignored again but why are the US not chastising TransOcean who owned and ran the rig that went wrong? It was not BP's rig. Obama appears hysterical/vindictive/wrong to me...

Ali C

Transocean, the world’s largest offshore drilling contractor, provides the most versatile fleet of mobile offshore drilling units to help clients find and develop oil and natural gas reserves. Building on more than 50 years of experience with the highest specification rigs, our 18,000 employees are focused on safety and premier offshore drilling performance.

Well, that's what their website says. Kinda sticks in the craw given that it was their rig, not BPs...

2trueblue

Ali C, it just does not suit their narative. It is daft of Obama to run off at the mouth, but then that is what Obama is good at. Everything today is about the 'narative'. which leads to politicans lacking substance. We have visited upon us men who lack substance, have no clarity, and lack 'the measure of the rule'.

DavidDP

"why are the US not chastising TransOcean who owned and ran the rig that went wrong?"

Because it's becoming apparent that BP personnel bypassed warnings and systems that if adhered to may have averted the catastrophe.

Major Plonquer

Over the past 15 years we've witnessed TWO global crises precipitated by American bankers. First there was the Savings and Loan debacle. Then the slight of hand sales of toxic derivatives that contributed to the recent global financial meltdown.

If BP is to be criminally negligent in the creation of a few billions of dollars of environmental damage then surely the American bankers - and the politicians who set their stage - must also be criminally liable for the TRILLIONS of dollars of damage they caused the rest of us?

Quid pro quo.

Ronnie

I believe that the real target of the US adminsitration is Big Oil, not just BP. BP are simply a handily-placed representative whose mistakes will be used to push through more regulatory legislation of the oil industry in the US.

Obama has had to concede the need for more drilling on US territory but, as a liberal Democrat, he and hos supporters will want more tighter control over what their oil industry does.

Naomi Muse

@Ronnie you may well be right. If so, Obama is having a go at the Bush presidency but, as a tactical approach, having a go at BP is easy peasy, and Bush and family get caught up in it without a direct hit.

Very cynical.

Chuck Unsworth

It's as well to remember that the UK shareholding of BP is 40%. American investors own 39%. Thus Obama's rhetoric is damaging the wealth of many Americans, too. And those who were responsible for making the errors leading to the disaster were almost all American. Is Obama castigating them?