Night Strike wrote:Looks like the Inspector General agreed with the critics: Obama's drilling moratorium was politically motivated rather than driven by science. Thank you Obama for killing jobs for political gains.
The latest complaint from scientists comes in a report by the Interior Department's inspector general, which concluded that the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it falsely appear that scientists and experts supported the administration's six-month ban on new deep-water drilling. The AP obtained the report early Wednesday.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do they say it was a political move? In what way did Obama gain by imposing the ban? Was it to gain approval by some easily misled environmentalists?
Gain approval by environmentalists: yes. The whole point was that the administration claimed the decision was made on science in that a panel of scientists had said that the moratorium was necessary. In fact, no such panel of scientists had made that recommendation, so Obama's decision was not actually based on scientific recommendations. Therefore, the motivation they found was purely political as the administration went so far as to manipulate the report to make it appear that scientists had provided the recommendation. They were playing games to achieve their desired political outcome. As far as I know, the report never said he actually gained politically (and many would argue that he lost ground politically), just that politics were the motivation.
Was Obama aware of such a change? A lot of things can go unnoticed by the guys up top, so I'm hesitant to immediately blame Obama for all this.
Just heard a report on NPR that says the scientists in the report Obama used to implement this ban were not consulted about the ban and did not reccommend that as the best solution.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Just heard a report on NPR that says the scientists in the report Obama used to implement this ban were not consulted about the ban and did not reccommend that as the best solution.
Yeah, we knew that already according to the article I posted. It's why the situation was politically motivated.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Just heard a report on NPR that says the scientists in the report Obama used to implement this ban were not consulted about the ban and did not reccommend that as the best solution.
Yeah, we knew that already according to the article I posted. It's why the situation was politically motivated.
Well, according to the report I heard, no. But, putting such motivations onto actions is hard. None of us really knows what Obama or anyone else is thinking.
Personally, even though that particular report did not support the ban, I believe it was a good idea.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Just heard a report on NPR that says the scientists in the report Obama used to implement this ban were not consulted about the ban and did not reccommend that as the best solution.
Yeah, we knew that already according to the article I posted. It's why the situation was politically motivated.
Well, according to the report I heard, no. But, putting such motivations onto actions is hard. None of us really knows what Obama or anyone else is thinking.
Personally, even though that particular report did not support the ban, I believe it was a good idea.
We know that nothing in the report from the scientists said a ban was needed, yet we also know that the administration changed the report to include the desire for a ban. It's pretty easy to draw the conclusion that the administration wanted the ban and wanted to do anything to draw justification for it. So yes, we can know the thought process based on the outcomes we observe.
