Much has been said about the need to simply get the gulf oil geyser capped, and not to worry right now about whose fault it is, or was. I notice most of this seemingly noble sentiment is coming from those whose fault it might be, including the Obama Administration.
But there is one person at whose feet can be laid the entire disaster, and probably to the surprise of no one paying any attention at all since the year G.W. Bush was appointed, that person would be Dick Cheney.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer and son of the assassinated Senator, traced a clear path of oily footprints straight to the former "co-president" in a post on May 5th:
...between January and March of 2001, incoming Vice President Dick Cheney conducted secret meetings with over 100 oil industry officials allowing them to draft a wish list of industry demands to be implemented by the oil friendly administration. Cheney also used that time to re-staff the Minerals Management Service with oil industry toadies including a cabal of his Wyoming carbon cronies. In 2003, newly reconstituted Minerals Management Service genuflected to the oil cartel by recommending the removal of the proposed requirement for acoustic switches. The Minerals Management Service's 2003 study concluded that "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly."
For some reason, Americans seem to be intolerant of attaching blame for current events to actions by former administrations. It may be a part of our deep cultural desire to always be on the front foot, looking into the future. Or it may just be a deep and malignant societal A.D.D.
Regardless, Cheney needs to be hauled before a grand jury and forced under oath to tell us what deals he made, so that the people can see how ideologically radical free-market deregulation, (otherwise known as greed), is the fond of disaster. Of course, Cheney is a grand master at eluding such scenarios, but if the will can be found, if enough people want it, we just might get him on the stand. Grill, baby, grill.
Islands , established by funds TAKEN from the ENRON retirement accounts, said to be established for Cheney';s Secrets Energy Committee members.
Spread the word.
"Cheney also used that time to re-staff the Minerals Management Service with oil industry toadies including a cabal of his Wyoming carbon cronies. In 2003, newly reconstituted Minerals Management Service genuflected to the oil cartel by recommending the removal of the proposed requirement for acoustic switches. The Minerals Management Service's 2003 study concluded that "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly.""
Yep BP saved $500,000 thanks to Cheney.
But look at the cost now.
BP wasn't the only one taking short cuts.
Cheney's ole company Halliburton had problems pouring cement before.
There was huge drill explosion and spill of the coast Western Australia last year.
soon after Halliburton poured the cement.
Cheney and Enron buddies. screwed over California back in 2001 by tripling energy prices
after deregulation. Prices tripled and we had rolling blackouts. One they go the price locked in at the higher rates, lo and behold no more blackouts There was plenty of Energy for everybody.
Where is Dick Cheney? Haven't heard a peep out of him.
He was in Saudi Arabia earlier this month.
If Obama had been President at the end of WWII, there probably wouldn't have been any Nurenberg Trials. I could hear him saying, "I prefer to look forward not backwards."
Implicitly condoning them, or explicitly ignoring them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNCybVtPMjg
I'd love to see the man in the dock, but how likely is it? Unfortunately, not likely at all.
handcuff and perp-walk him for all to see...
That embarrassment to him would work wonders on many souls......
But he's squeal ''bad heart, bad heart......"
And am still wondering as they clamor for audiences with $ister$arah and her sucky cohorts.....
dick's next few hundred lives should be pretty tough.
• Bush policy was markedly different from other govts. North sea platforms are required to have acoustic switches. The point is that Cheney decided NOT to require this safety device. Choosing not to require the device when it was deemed "essential" under Clinton, then suddenly, "optional" under Bush/Cheney, is direct evidence of deregulation leading to one of the main causes of this disaster. That is factual, and it is irrelevant whether other countries require it or not.
• Your second point is muddled. What does BP being one a a few companies that can work at depth (and I might add they were illegally drilling at a depth they were not permitted for) have to do with their lack of regulation?
• Esquire (abbreviated Esq.) is a term of British origin (ultimately from Latin scutarius in the sense of shield bearer via Old French "esquier"). An unofficial title of respect, having no precise significance, it is used to denote a high but indeterminate social status. Only in the US does it have a connection with lawyers, and that is tenuous.
But what is Factual there that leads to a main cause of disaster?
Is this right: Cheney's deregulation of the acoustic switch requirement and other regulatory restrictions caused the blow-out-preventer to fail??
I don't buy it. This looks like more Cheney hyperventilation and hysteria to me. SchmearNobyl!
Yeah, Cheney's got his Halliburton. Kinda like Obama's got his Rev Wright and his Acorn, isn't it. Some day we will look at facts. May be.
RE: Second point -- Definitely could have been more clear. Like the first point, I was responding to the Kennedy piece, and the general implication behind statements like "And wherever there's a national tragedy involving oil, Cheney's offshore company Halliburton is never far afield. In fact, stay tuned; Halliburton may emerge as the primary villain in this caper." The point obviously doesn't respond to the regulation issue.
RE: Esquire -- thanks for the clarification. :)
RE: Deregulation -- Deregulation is not direct evidence of cause when BP could have voluntarily used the switch. If BP were prevented from choosing to use the switch as a result of Cheney's policy, then there would be a problem. In other words, direct causation requires meeting a "but for" test: but for the policy, there would have been no accident. I don't think that's the case here. It seems to me that BP had a history of using switches (required under Clinton, voluntary use elsewhere) and then voluntarily decided not to use them in a location that didn't require them (but didn't ban them). As Bairkus notes, this is independent from the blowout preventer failing. At best, there is a proximate cause link (chain of events; events too far down the chain = outside the scope of liability) between the policy and accident, and a policy decision not impacting BP's choice to use the switch is waaaaaaaaay down the chain.
Thanks for the discussion. :)
And then he'd demand an apology from the people he's wronged.