The British backlash over President Obama and the BP crisis

[mitchymo]

How are they being "scapegoated"? A scapegoat is an innocent party made to bear the blame for the guilty. BP is not only guilty in spades, I continue to maintain, and would be happy to wager a large sum, that when the investigation is complete, they will be proven to bear the guilt overwhelmingly.

My understanding of 'scapegoat' is a party that takes the blame in place of a more guilty party regardless of its own involvement. Essentially i'm not saying BP are blameless, just that i think the contractors they used to maintain the rig did'nt do their job properly and are in my opinion more directly responsible so should pay the bigger price.

Instead, blame BP to bring down the share prices, buy shares, then watch a pretty mint being made when the share price goes back up, which it will because BP are not going to go bankrupt over this mess. To add to that, nobody need lose their job from a smaller company which COULD go bust if they had to bear the brunt of the costs.
Basically, there is money to be made from this accident, not just spent, and political points to be gained.

I also think it is incredible that holding an investigation to proportion blame and learn what happened (so it does'nt happen again? or just for the blame part?) has took precedence over dealing with the spill.

I don't understand either why its taking so long to plug the leak, you'd have thought there was safeguards in place to insure against this kind of thing before they even started drilling off-shore.

BP are definately guilty, but they are not solely responsible imo.

 

[maxcok]

I think maybe we are being boxed into corners here, especially since you have already clearly said you are not in any way a typical american. Maybe if it had been up to you this would never have happend, but left up to the average american, it surely would. When I was a lad there was this book, already a dusty antique, Charles Kingsley's 'the water babies. It featured two old women, Mrs Do as you would be done to, and Mrs be done to as you did. They behaved as their names implied. The moral question, which of these two ladies is more like the USA?

The moral question is not about the USA, it's about BP! Stop fuking deflecting! If you think I'm going to get into a distractive discussion of English fairytales with you, you're more daft than I imagined!

DONE.....WITH......YOU..!!!!!

​

 

[798686]

Actually, some have. One example: "the leak has apparently now slowed to a trickle . . ." I'm not linking to it, because I don't want to embarrass the poster. However, I think it illustrates the reality gap in what I can only assume is being fed to you by the British press.

LOL, it's ok - that one was me. Does anyone have accurate figures of exactly how much is escaping currently - and does it match BP's current estimations?

Yes, I have asked this too several times in the course of the discussion. "Is there a British equivalent of Fox "news"? etc. I have yet to receive a response.

That isn't strictly true Max. :wink: You asked me in PM and I gave you my answer - I believe it would be the equivalent of the Daily Mail or The Sun papers (populist publications, with a grain of truth in most of their stories, but often blown out of proportion). I don't think any of our TV news progs would fit that description, but that's what I can come up with - unless my idea of Fox News is faulty?

My own news info comes from either the BBC or The Times newspaper - both of which are fairly reputable.

The quote about the leakage having slowed (and the oil being naturally broken down over time) was from a programme my Dad watched, lol - and as I stated earlier - the 6 miles depth of the well (which Tallguy corrected, as it was the wrong well) was quoted by Radio One. The figures I gave from the paper - 18,000ft depth of well, 5,000ft below water's surface, were from the Times - and pretty accurate as it turns out.

Anyway, it's drilled to a depth of 35,000 ft. or six miles, but the wellhead is approx. a mile below the surface on the ocean floor.

[Edit to your edit: Yeah, I saw that page too. I'm not sure about 4,130' to the wellhead. All the reports I've heard put it close to 5,000'. Whatever . . . . )

Hmm...yes you did get the wells confused, too. :wink:

You're ridiculous.

You really are hopeless. If not delusional.

Tsk, name-calling.

You be the truth and bullshit police, and I appreciate that. I think you have your hands full in this thread.

Just be careful you don't catch me in your net along with the guilty, K? .;-)

Hmm, in your opinion you're the only one on here who is 100% correct on the whole issue, without being able to take into consideration the points raised by others. Yes, you've stated that BP isn't solely responsible, but you still don't seem to realise the unhelpful impact of Obama's grandstanding. How will it help the US or the UK if Obama talks BP into liquidation?

There's also the issue of the UK/US relationship. Yes, it's strong - but at the beginning of a new coalition Government, tentatively allying itself closer to the US and slightly further from the EU - pissing the UK off too much, and possibly into the arms of the EU permanently would seem a bit counterproductive. Cameron was very supportive and understanding of Obama's frustration (initially), however a constant rant against BP resulting perhaps in bankruptcy or a bailout may well cause him to rethink his position.

Brits are the LAST people who should lecture Americans on imperialism, consumerism, and the like. They practically invented the terms.

Well, perhaps we did - but you seem to be the experts on 'Negligent Corporations' and 'Environmental Damage' up till now...

 

[sbat]

So, I guess star is right; BP really isn't a bad buy :biggrin1:

My understanding of 'scapegoat' is a party that takes the blame in place of a more guilty party regardless of its own involvement. Essentially i'm not saying BP are blameless, just that i think the contractors they used to maintain the rig did'nt do their job properly and are in my opinion more directly responsible so should pay the bigger price.

Instead, blame BP to bring down the share prices, buy shares, then watch a pretty mint being made when the share price goes back up, which it will because BP are not going to go bankrupt over this mess. To add to that, nobody need lose their job from a smaller company which COULD go bust if they had to bear the brunt of the costs.
Basically, there is money to be made from this accident, not just spent, and political points to be gained.

I also think it is incredible that holding an investigation to proportion blame and learn what happened (so it does'nt happen again? or just for the blame part?) has took precedence over dealing with the spill.

I don't understand either why its taking so long to plug the leak, you'd have thought there was safeguards in place to insure against this kind of thing before they even started drilling off-shore.

BP are definately guilty, but they are not solely responsible imo.

 

[Jason]

BP are definately guilty, but they are not solely responsible imo.

This is surely a good starting point.

An inadequately enforced regulatory regime is also to blame. If you want cars to drive no more than the legal speed you set the rule but you also enforce it - speed cameras, traffic police and so on. Looking at the North Sea the UK has draconian enforcement of regulations (as does Norway). By contrast the regulatory enforcement in the Gulf of Mexico appears lax. The US regulatory regime - ultimately the USA - has to acknowledge that it bears a part of the responsibility. If it doesn't acknowledge fault there will be another catastrophe sooner or later.

And of course we are all to blame. We have lives dependent on oil, and oil extraction and distribution is messy, and using it creates global warming. Every few years we get a major environmental catastrophe somewhere. If we don't want them we have to stop using oil. Every one of us has some personal blame for this accident in the Gulf of Mexico.

There are also problems around the culture of fixing blame. X is responsible so X is punished. The reality is often that a pragmatic solution is needed. The world took this sort of solution with the banks. X is responsible, but X is too big to fail and must be supported with lots of money from innocent tax payers. It may be that BP is similarly in the category of too big to fail. In a few weeks' time we could be in a world where large sums of tax payers money - both UK and US - are used to prop up a company that must not fail.

We need solutions, not comparisons of BP with Osama bin Laden. Efforts are being made to stop the leak and lets hope they work. Efforts are being made to disperse it and clean up - lets hope they do something. But it has happened - this is a dire environmental disaster, and it is quite within the bounds of possibility that the oil will still be gushing this time next year. The disaster is dire and so far has no limit. What we need right now is legislation to set up a fund which BP will spend on compensation, and this fund should have an absolute top limit. BP will take the hit and continue as a company creating wealth for the world. This way we all win. The idea of punishing BP, or taking every last penny from them, hurts us all. We get more from a fixed sum of money from BP plus it creating wealth and paying taxes for years to come than we get from talking it into liquidation.

 

[TomCat84]

Well, perhaps we did - but you seem to be the experts on 'Negligent Corporations' and 'Environmental Damage' up till now...

Hey now, I vote for liberal Democrats/Greens....I've never voted Republican for anything other than a city council or state assembly position.

 

[maxcok]

My understanding of 'scapegoat' is a party that takes the blame in place of a more guilty party regardless of its own involvement. Essentially i'm not saying BP are blameless, just that i think the contractors they used to maintain the rig did'nt do their job properly and are in my opinion more directly responsible so should pay the bigger price.

A scapegoat is as I described. A party with minimal or no guilt made to take a fall for the guilty. Does not fit BP at all. Where do you get this business about the contractors maintaining the rig? (working for BP, btw) The well was disatrously flawed from the beginning and BP repeatedly ignored the recommendations of their contractors, engineers, and even their own employees in the interest of maximizing profit. Please read this.

Instead, blame BP to bring down the share prices, buy shares, then watch a pretty mint being made when the share price goes back up, which it will because BP are not going to go bankrupt over this mess. To add to that, nobody need lose their job from a smaller company which COULD go bust if they had to bear the brunt of the costs.
Basically, there is money to be made from this accident, not just spent, and political points to be gained.

Oh please, will you just stop! Do you seriously think that's Obama's agenda? I can't respond to that crap anymore.

I also think it is incredible that holding an investigation to proportion blame and learn what happened (so it does'nt happen again? or just for the blame part?) has took precedence over dealing with the spill.

IT'S NOT TAKING PRECEDENCE, IT'S HAPPENING CONCURRENTLY. IN CONGRESS. IN WASHINGTON. IT IN NO WAY DISTRACTS FROM OR INTERFERES WITH FIXING THE PROBLEM IN THE GULF.

Why would anyone have a problem with that, unless they don't want to see BP further embarrassed? It's been almost two months. If anything, it's overdue. Don't you think it's kinda important to start figuring out what happened, if for no other reason it doesn't happen on any of the thousands of other rigs currently in the Gulf, or scheduled to go into operation? Plus part of the questioning today was grilling all the major oil execs about their ideas about how to stop the flow. That could be helpful, huh?

I don't understand either why its taking so long to plug the leak, you'd have thought there was safeguards in place to insure against this kind of thing before they even started drilling off-shore.

You'd think, huh? Why don't you read this for starters to get a hint of the engineering recommendations BP defied all along the way in the interest of maximizing profit, and safety be damned.

BP are definately guilty, but they are not solely responsible imo.

Never said they were, said the opposite in fact. However, the more that comes out, the more obvious and overwhelming their share of guilt is. Stay tuned.

Anyone who continues to defend BP, and does not digest the following, does not have a legitimate leg to stand on.

BP Cost-Cutting Added Risks at 'Nightmare' Well - Bloomberg Business Week‎

The President will be speaking in an hour. If anyone wants to see what he has to say without the press filter, you might want to tune in.

 

[Jason]

Just seen tomorrow's Daily Mail online.

This is the paper that pretty much matches the views of Conservative voters, the people who put Cameron in power. I wouldn't like to vouch for the accuracy of many of the facts in the article - indeed I think it is probably factually wrong in parts. But the tone is significant. The Special Relationship is a Specially Bad Relationship, Obama is trying to bankrupt BP and we should get out of Afghanistan right now.

Special relationship? America's still itching to bash Britain in the snoot | Mail Online

 

[pleasureboy]

OK I've just got to ask: I haven't heard Obama say the first negative thing about anyone British or the people of Britain. In fact I've even hear him share concern that if the flow hits the jet stream that it could cause damage to British fisheries.

He has rightly been critical of BP -- an international company which happens to be headquartered in the UK but has nothing to do with Brits or Britain or the British government. BP is however a careless company (known locally among oil field workers as the single worst company to work for because of all the shortcuts they take) which has likely caused the worst environmental catastrophe in modern history.

You guys elsewhere aren't seeing it, but everyday we're finding hundreds of dead pelicans and piles of fish, and turtles. Yesterday I was driving across town and came to a stop light to realize that the whole place smelled like an old lawn mower.

The whole situation is ridiculous and BP deserves any blame it has gotten and more.

BUT, Obama hasn't blamed the British. He's blamed a company. I have not heard a single American say anything angry about British people. Honestly I've never heard anyone in America ever say anything bad about brits or Britain.

Yet, when I lived in Europe I had to deal daily with British expats berating me about some policy that Bush had or trying to expect me and the other 330 million Americans to individually answer for the actions and policies of Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Exxon, or any other company they could think of that neither Americans, the American government, nor anyone else had any control over or anything to do with.

I've sat in a pub hearing about how it's America's fault that british children are getting fat because they are eating McDonalds. No I would reply it's the fat kid's fault for eating McDonalds just like it would be the fat person's fault in the US if they choose to eat that crap all the time.

Don't get me wrong, many of my best friends are British. But it was actually rarer for me NOT to be attacked as one of the evil Americans by someone who was British than it was for them to go after me (or any other American who happened to be around).

To this day I don't understand how our best ally and someone we consider to be brothers/cousins and true friends can be so Anti-American. And, I don't see how these same people think it's ok to expect individual Americans to answer for the perceived wrongs of the government or some multinational company, yet they don't think the same standard should apply to the UK.

Seriously, what the hell? The UK shouldn't be angry with the US for being angry with BP. They should be even more angry with BP and helping the US ensure that they do everything needed to fix this.

(end rant)

 

[798686]

^Wasn't really a rant dude - seemed fairly civilised.

I think the whole thing's spun out of control. We ARE angry with BP, and embarrassed, it's just we think the gung-ho handling by Obama is unhelpful and unconstructive.

BP should be brought to book (Maxcok's links are interesting and horrifying), but destroying them is not going to help anybody. It has come across as an anti-UK rant whether that was intended or not.

Anyway - I dunno what to think at the moment, my head's absolutely battered by it all, lol.

 

[b.c.]

With the information that has come to light about BP's procedures prior to the blowout, in addition to their history, it amazes me to no end that someone might even think to argue that this company and their representatives and associates are being "scapegoats".

I say, based upon the current evidence at hand, that not only should this company be held financially liable for this disaster, there should be criminal charges filed as well; against those in administration who cut corners, ignored standard safety procedures, and conducted the operation of this rig with nothing less than GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

It's the same as knowingly climbing into an 18 wheeler without properly functioning brakes and plowing through three lanes of vehicles and passengers.

Someone needs to do HARD time.

 

[pleasureboy]

Supposedly the announcement tonight will be a big one. We'll see.

BTW I think the big concern here with BP and why they really have to keep personal pressure on the leaders of the company is because BP (being the smart group of people it is) have their North American operations incorporated as an independent company (wholly owned by BP) within the US. They do this so that if something like this ever happens, they can declare that division bankrupt which would keep them from having to pay out and it ends up not hurting the rest of the company as a whole.

So the big fear is since this cleanup will likely get to the 20-50 billion dollar cost mark that BP not just go down to the courthouse file bankruptcy (insolvency) and walk away leaving the people here to try and deal with it all.

But really on the news here, there's really no anti-british sentiment. Even literally HERE where these people are seeing their lives and livelihoods evaporate in front of their eyes.

 

[mitchymo]

A scapegoat is as I described. A party with minimal or no guilt made to take a fall for the guilty. Does not fit BP at all. Where do you get this business about the contractors maintaining the rig? (working for BP, btw) The well was disatrously flawed from the beginning and BP repeatedly ignored the recommendations of their contractors, engineers, and even their own employees in the interest of maximizing profit. Please read this.

Oh please, will you just stop! Do you seriously think that's Obama's agenda? I can't respond to that crap anymore.

I was talking about Halliburton when i referred to contractors. If Halliburton knew that BP were taking risks then they should have said 'NO'. Instead they did just as BP asked so are guilty of negligence too.

I read the letter you linked to but i was confused on one thing, i don't know who was being referred to exactly whenever it mentioned 'lawmakers'.
Its odd that the article quoted an investment banker, why an investment banker?

I was'nt saying Obama had an agenda. I'm saying that there is money to be had by making the situation worse for BP. If an investigation is under way then it serves no real purpose in attacking BP prior to the conclusion of the investigation, unless you see an opportunity to benefit. For some it will be financial, for Obama its political, that does'nt make him a bad guy or anything, just that his reasoning for attacking BP is forced on him to a degree because he himself is being attacked for not acting soon enough, although i'm not sure he has a superman costume to be able to plug the leak himself.

 

[798686]

But really on the news here, there's really no anti-british sentiment. Even literally HERE where these people are seeing their lives and livelihoods evaporate in front of their eyes.

Well, that's a relief at least. :smile: We'd probably come over personally and help you shift the oil ourselves if we hadn't been given the impression you were out to get us, lol. :tongue:

 

[pleasureboy]

It's probably more an immigration issue. If you guys come here, we'd be culturally required to feed you and once you've eaten Louisiana cooking you'd never leave!

Can you imagine the paperwork that much of a migration would cause?

 

[maxcok]

LOL, it's ok - that one was me. Does anyone have accurate figures of exactly how much is escaping currently - and does it match BP's current estimations?

No one can know exactly. The current government estimate is 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day. That's not including the approx. 15,000 bpd being collected through a pipe by BP. I tend to think it's on the higher side, but taking a slightly high median of 50K bpd + 15K being collected, yields a total of 65K bpd coming out of the wellhead, or 2,730,000 gallons per day. The estimate will not go down, if it is revised, it will go up.

"The original estimate [from BP] shortly after the rig explosion was 1,000 barrels a day, but was quickly revised to 5,000 after an environmental group challenged the figure. A government panel began studying videotape and other data, issuing an estimate of 12,000 to 19,000, then raising it last week to 20,000 to 40,000.

Even before the new numbers came out, the ever-increasing estimates about the size of the spill were taking a toll on BP's financial health. Fitch Ratings analysts Tuesday downgraded the rating on the company's long-term debt to just above junk status.

The new numbers also undermine the oil company's recent news that it has put in place a containment plan to collect most of the oil. The company told the Coast Guard on Sunday that it would be able to collect up to 53,000 gallons of oil a day by the end of June.

If the new high number is accurate, that means that a disaster the size of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, which dumped 257,000 barrels, has been occurring about every week since April 20, when the Deepwater Horizon erupted in flames, killing 11 people."

Oil spill could be up to 60000 barrels a day​

Yes, I have asked this too several times in the course of the discussion. "Is there a British equivalent of Fox "news"? I have yet to receive a response.

That isn't strictly true Max. :wink: You asked me in PM and I gave you my answer - I believe it would be the equivalent of the Daily Mail or The Sun papers (populist publications, with a grain of truth in most of their stories, but often blown out of proportion). I don't think any of our TV news progs would fit that description, but that's what I can come up with - unless my idea of Fox News is faulty?

Oh hell! The Sun's owned by Rupert Murdoch, right? For chrissakes, he owns Fox "news". That explains a lot. And I appreciate your response Joll, but I was interested if anyone in the thread would respond to my question. No one did except you, and that was in a separate PM. Besides the quote above, I asked it in two other posts:

Frankly, I just don't get this perception that "Obama is blaming Britain". This oh-so-important semantic distinction between "BP" and "British Petroleum" is something that I think is being fueled by politicians and the media in the U.K. Seriously, what is the equivalent of Fox News over there?.

Seriously, where is this crap coming from? What is the British equivalent of Fox "news"?

My own news info comes from either the BBC or The Times newspaper - both of which are fairly reputable.

I would agree, and I actually check them periodically. I wonder how many Brits in this thread check U.S. produced news to get a more accurate sense of what's really going on here?

Hmm...yes you did get the wells confused, too. :wink:

Well sort of, though I was never confused about the depth of the wellhead, and it was you who led me astray. My mistake was accepting the information you cited and the link you posted as accurate. Last time I'll do that, I guess. :tongue:

Check the first paragraph from Transocean's webpage on the Deepwater Horizon site:

Transocean Ltd. (NYSE: RIG) announced that its ultra-deepwater semisubmersible rig Deepwater Horizon recently drilled the deepest oil and gas well ever while working for BP and its co-owners on the Tiber well in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Working with BP, the Transocean crews on the Deepwater Horizon drilled the well to 35,050 vertical depth and 35,055 feet measured depth (MD), or more than six miles, while operating in 4,130 feet of water.

Tsk, name-calling.

That's not name calling. Names are nouns. What you quoted are descriptive adjectives. I stand by their accuracy in describing the posters, and I make no apologies. This is name calling, and fairly mild at that:

The more you Brits complain and try to divert blame, the more you come off as petulant children.

Hmm, in your opinion you're the only one on here who is 100% correct on the whole issue, without being able to take into consideration the points raised by others.

That's simply not true, and I'm disappointed to hear you say that. Because I have an inquisitive mind, I seek out lots of information from a wide variety of sources. Therefore, I feel I'm better informed than the average person, clearly better informed on these issues than certain British posters here, notably in regards to what's actually happening in the U.S. I also back up my assertions with facts and links, hardly done, if at all, by any of the complaining Brits.

I have taken into consideration the views of the other posters, in fact, early in the thread that's all I did, because I truly wanted to see what you all thought. That's how I learn, you see. Keep an open mind and take in information from a wide variety of sources. But as I saw the same self-absorbed points, misperceptions and blatant mischaracterizations repeated over and over, I began to see a dull pattern emerge, and I challenged that - with actual factual information.

Does that make me 100% right? Probably not. But it makes me a helluva lot more right than someone who is obviously speaking from a limited, ill-informed, self-centered perspective, who only believes what they want to believe, ignores all evidence that disproves their position, and spouts nothing but spoon-fed media propaganda.

Yes, you've stated that BP isn't solely responsible, but you still don't seem to realise the unhelpful impact of Obama's grandstanding. How will it help the US or the UK if Obama talks BP into liquidation?

If BP goes into liquidation it will be due to their own inept, dishonest, irresponsible, possibly criminal actions. I'm not going to dignify your "grandstanding" comment with a response. I'm done with countering those gross mischaracterizations.

There's also the issue of the UK/US relationship. Yes, it's strong - but at the beginning of a new coalition Government, tentatively allying itself closer to the US and slightly further from the EU - pissing the UK off too much, and possibly into the arms of the EU permanently would seem a bit counterproductive. Cameron was very supportive and understanding of Obama's frustration (initially), however a constant rant against BP resulting perhaps in bankruptcy or a bailout may well cause him to rethink his position.

Obama is one of the most astute leaders we've had in a long time as far as understanding the importance of international relations. I can't help remembering how thrilled Europeans were when he was elected, more so it seemed than many Americans. How quickly you turn on him now that his mission to serve the American people comes in conflict (in your perception) with the financial well-being of British pensioners.

The man has his hands full with a whole raft of problems, not the least of which is the Gulf oil spill, not to mention two wars, high unemployment, a stressed and fragile financial recovery, an exploding deficit, and a recalcitrant Republican opposition in Congress determined to stop him at every turn from passing any legislation - all of which he inherited from the previous administration. He has a lot of shit on his plate. Give him a break.

So you have a new government. You can't expect him to coddle you at the expense of his responsibility to his own people and his nation. And not to sound all yankee arrogant, but the UK benefits from its close relationship with the US more than the reverse, especially in light of the fragility and widening cracks in the EU.

BP is primarily responsible for what is already the worst disaster in American history, and there's no end in sight. The longer this goes on, the more that will become obvious to you Brits too - provided you're openminded enough to see the obvious. I hope you have a healthy helping of crow ready to chow down on then. It's too bad the U.K. is overexposed to investments in the company, but sorry to say, that's just bad investment.
Y'all really need to suck it up, stop whining, and deal with it. Stiff upper lip and all that. :wink:

The more you Brits complain and try to divert blame, the more you come off as petulant children.

P.S. Everytime he spoke of the multinational corporation in his address tonight, Obama called it BP. Happy?

 

[dreamer20]

As if we don't have enough nutjobs trolling the American politics threads. Seriously, where is this crap coming from? What is the British equivalent of Fox "news"?

Oh hell! The Sun's owned by Rupert Murdoch, right? For chrissakes, he owns Fox "news". That explains a lot. And I appreciate your response Joll, but I was interested if anyone in the thread would respond to my question. No one did except you, and that was in a separate PM. Besides the quote above, I asked it in two other posts...

News Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UK and Ireland newspapers, published by subsidiaries of News International Ltd.

• News Group Newspapers Ltd.
  • the tabloid The Sun (published in Ireland as The Irish Sun)
  • the tabloid News of the World
• Times Newspapers Ltd.
  • the broadsheet The Sunday Times
  • the 'ex-broadsheet' (Now in compact form) The Times
  • The Times Literary Supplement

Yes maxcok. Rupert Murdoch, the King of the gutter press, also owns The Times/ The Sunday Times, from which joll obtained this spin- doctored article--->>rebuffed

and flameboy's OP is also from that rag.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Murdoch's News Corp is also part owner of Sky News (which probably explains why their graphics are similar to those of US's Fox News). Murdoch is presently trying to buy out the other stakeholders, to own it outright... And also owns prints papers in the form of The Sun and News of the World tabloids, as well as The Times.



edit: Right, like Dreamer20 just posted... :beerchug:

 

[maxcok]

We need solutions, not comparisons of BP with Osama bin Laden.

WAS ......NOT......DONE​

For someone to come to the above conclusion based on what Mr Obama said, one can only think that they have not actually read what the man said, or they are being deliberately obtuse.

Obama said, "In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come."

"Now is the time for us to start making that transition and investing in a new way of doing business when it comes to energy."

Just seen tomorrow's Daily Mail online.

This is the paper that pretty much matches the views of Conservative voters, the people who put Cameron in power. I wouldn't like to vouch for the accuracy of many of the facts in the article - indeed I think it is probably factually wrong in parts. But the tone is significant. The Special Relationship is a Specially Bad Relationship, Obama is trying to bankrupt BP and we should get out of Afghanistan right now.

Special relationship? America's still itching to bash Britain in the snoot | Mail Online

That's the headline? ^ :chairfall::lmao: "Factually wrong in parts"? What a load of crap!!!

 

[maxcok]

Yes maxcok. Rupert Murdoch, the King of the gutter press, also owns The Times/ The Sunday Times, from which joll obtained this spin- doctored article--->>rebuffed

Oh my fukn god in heaven! No wonder they're confused. It's like lambs to the slaughter.

Orwell must be spinning in his grave.