I'm not trying to absolve BP of blame here... of course they should be on the hook for the majority of claims and costs and, despite several moves seemingly to block free investigation and help, they've done a relatively good jo of accepting responsibility prior to the political pressure heaped on them.
That's a bit spurious. They are still working to downplay the magnitude of this, which our administration foolishly took at face value, delaying proper mobilization.
Obama's naivette regarding executive experience aside - BP still lied about the magnitude of what was coming. It still is.
The point is more why people in the UK are looking at this pretty negatively. The Obama administrations dealings with the UK have been pretty poor since he came into power: from the relatively minor/farcical events (returning Churchill's bust, a gift of DVD's that may or may not work in the UK) to the slightly more serious (Obama constantly avoiding meetings with BrownWhat?
All I can find about this is Obama not giving Brown a proper welcome weeks
after he assumed office. Given the clusterfuck he inherited, uh, what?
while having time for 1 on 1 meetings with the leaders of Japan, China and Russia, the lack of a joint press conference on the official visit) to the genuinely hostile; this administrations position on the Falklands...
Genuinely hostile would be an intent to intervene. I wonder how Fox News (again, the same company pushing this sort of language on your side of the pond) would have reacted if he did. (Edit: Did support Britain's claim, I mean)
And now you have Obama administration using a name for a company that is a decade out of date that emphasises the company is British
This is a linguistic tendency and has little to do with intent, claiming otherwise is - again - simply delusional. It originally stood for British Petroleum, it is still headquartered on the British Isles. They are naturally going to get interchanged. It might get used as a political stick against Rand Paul and others shilling for them, but it has nothing to do with hostility to the British people.
This is the 21st century, for crying out loud.
, using exceptionally hostile language and mentioning criminal charges (while still blocking the moves that would lead to the prosecution of US company officers whose industrial accident led to the deaths of 10,000 plus) in actions that will almost directly lower the value of UK pensions... it's not a surprise really that people on this side of the pond are thinking "hold on... there's something a little strange here..."
25 years ago - so claiming that judicial obstruction for Dow Chemical is an Obama administration problem is simply false.
We let BP off the hook for leading to the deaths of American citizens, as well. We turned a blind eye to their genuinely abysmal safety record, and let them be the suppliers of oil to our military despite it all.
And comparing this to the deaths ten thousand people over two decades ago is a sick, twisted, disgusting joke. Ignoring the two wrongs != right angle, ignoring the fact that we did put up with BP's negligence in killing our citizens, ignoring the inherently sick nature of trading death and suffering for death and pain...
...it shows a stunning lack of comprehension of the scale involved. Ten thousand. Seriously? Do you have no clue at all of the magnitude of what is going on in the Gulf? British people typically accuse Americans of having no sense of perspective. "Well, it's only a third of your coastline!" ... that thirty million
people depend on.
If some private group wrecked London, how would you react if I turned around and pointed to one of Britain's atrocities in the past?
I seriously find it difficult to express the scale of my incredulity.