im sorry everyone, but that decision was downright stupid to say it compares to 9/11.

theres just no way.

More than anything else, the BP oil spill seems to have impacted Barack Obama so negatively because it demonstrated how tone-deaf he is to the American public. This is just another sign of this inability to see how the American public would react.

For those whining about the 9/11 comparison I have a question. Are you just as upset at the widespread comparisons to Katrina? Huge loss of life, devastated many families, and made on a consistent basis. I have heard no one raise a stink about it on this board though. The comparison this time was very apt actually. Whether or not it turns out as badly (in terms of policy) we will have to see, but it will lead down the same legislative path.

I think the reaction among most Americans to Hurricane Katrina is drastically different to their reaction to 9/11; and this is primarily because of the actual differences in these events. For the most part 9/11 is seen as the mass murder of innocent people and the heroes who tried to save them, and Hurricane Katrina is seen as a natural disaster that killed people who refused good advice to evacuate. Beyond that, in the wake of both incidents you can see a massive difference in the public’s perceptions of these events; and I think it is fair to say that the public perception towards 9/11 doesn’t really see the president (or government in general) as being at fault, while people definitely thought that all levels of government were at fault for Hurricane Katrina.

What disappoints me personally the most (though I am not even in the slightest bit surprised) is that he is now reacting now in a way which he knows full well is the opposite of helpful to the situation. The American public want him to be angry, so he's now being angry. This is despite the fact that he knows being angry and yelling at BP isn't going to make things go any better, BP is already doing everything they can to fix the spill.

The American public would probably react by seizing BP's assets. At least thats an idea I have heard bandied around quite a lot recently. That would really fuck the situation up though because; A) It would slow down fixing the problem a lot as a working BP is the only thing that's going to stop the leak.  B) Fuck over American shareholders who actually I think own more of BP than the British do.

Basically Obama started by dealing with this crisis with a rational calm approach, then on demand he started acting angry and dealing in insults and threats. It just goes to show, politics and acting are pretty much the same as career choices.

Personally I like my politicians to have their own personalities and ideologies that they will stick to rather than being puppets of public opinion. (And please don't try and make this sound like I don't support democracy, I think politicians should be elected based on their ideologies and personalities, I just don't think they should change them whenever the winds of opinion shift.)

I don't think a crisis like this should show how the American public would react, it should show how the American president and leader would react, and then he should be judged in the next election based on that reaction.

9/11 got compared to Pearl Harbor.  Is that a good analogy?  One act was a declaration of war by a sovereign nation, while the other was an act done by a bunch of punk individuals in a network.  What is normally seen as a criminal act was turned into an act of war, and launched America on a path of foreign policy that has hinder it, costing over 1 trillion in dollars and costing an lot in credibility.

So, ask me which is worse here.  Do you want to say, "but 9/11 did impact foreign policy the way Pearl Harbor did"?  Fine, then you can say the oil spill impacted economic and environmental foreign policy in a similar scope.

Um, I never said 9/11 wasn't a good analogy, just that he should know there'd be hideous backlash for that.

To be fair, this is something that is being pushed mainly (exclusively?) by the hard left. I haven't seen a poll on the matter, but in every interview I've seen with Gulf Coast residents, they seem to show a kind of sad resignation because they realize that even though the ways they make their living - fishing or whatever - are being fucked up, they are equally (or even moreso) dependent on the oil that's causing the problem.

So you are saying the 9/11 comparison has more in common? What with limited government influence, and a huge problem created by people generally disregarding the welfare of other people? Still you seem to avoid the central point. You talk in large, vague generalities rather than specifics. The people in this thread have expressed disdain because there was a loss of life involved. Both events hold that in common.

On the evacuation angle though I would like to state one thing for the record. It was less"chose not to evacuate" and more "couldn't evacuate." The largest failing was to provide an evacuation route for those too poor to actually get anywhere else. A situation I am intimately familiar with.

To be fair, punk individuals in a network provided safety by a sovereign nation.