I can appreciate the president's sense of urgency on the Gulf; what I question is the lunacy of comparing 9/11 to the Gulf. Eleven rig workers dead in the Gulf, yes; but a far cry from the nearly 3,000 killed then.
This was a failure of a company trying to make a lot of cash; a far cry from terrorists trying to make a lot of corpses. One rushed a financial killing, the other just a massive killing — big difference.
The Gulf was an environmental accident; 9/11 was a premeditated attack.
Yes, there were communication breakdowns now as then, but since the president himself fails to take any of the blame for those communication breakdowns now, it’s hard to remotely connect what happened then. If that was his intent. I wonder, because there's a big difference between livelihoods shattered and lives just gone.
We can try to make good for those who've lose livelihoods; little you can do for those who've lost lives. One's alive and struggling, the other's dead and gone.
I don't mean to be simplistic, but I do mean to be real and to get us back to reality.
What could come of comparing the biggest attack on American soil with one of the nastiest environmental accidents on American soil, unless the goal is to do now what this president criticized the last president for doing then?
Using a calamity to justify going after personal freedoms then, using this calamity to justify just going after companies now.
You can use a crisis to justify doing a lot of bad things. Just ask FDR, who made a field day of it; or this president, who seems to make a routine grab for power almost every other month doing it. It doesn't make it any less offensive, or any less illegal.
Big footing anyone under the guise of protecting everyone helps no one; it's as murky as that murky muck in the Gulf — only this smells worse. A lot worse.
— Watch Neil Cavuto weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on "Your World with Cavuto" and send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org