I have questions for environmentalists about Obama

If you believe Obama is a green President, and the White House is directing BP, then why hasn't he ordered the explosive destruction of the well at the source?

As BP prepares to lower a four-story, 70-ton dome over the oil gusher under the Gulf of Mexico, the Russians — the world’s biggest oil producers — have some advice for their American counterparts: nuke it.

Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily, reports that in Soviet times such leaks were plugged with controlled nuclear blasts underground. The idea is simple, KP writes: “the underground explosion moves the rock, presses on it, and, in essence, squeezes the well’s channel.”

I'm not convinced the effort would require a nuclear detonation.  Something substantially smaller and localized could possibly do the trick.  I'm not even convinced it would necessarily work.  But it could stop the flow. It wouldn't take months - the US wouldn't have to wiat for BP either.  The federal government does have explosives.  But it would cost BP billions in lost revenue and alternate development costs. BP donated big to Obama's presidential campaign.

Could it be that he puts politics ahead of principles?  Could it be he says one thing and does another because environmentally he's a hypocrite?  Could it be he's too timid to pull the trigger on the decision? Is he a deer in the headlights on this? 

Could it be that they really aren't directing BP the way he claims, which would make him dishonest?  Could it be they haven't considered this option, which has been discussed in the public domain? That would make him unaware at best or just plain dumb if he really is an environmentalist.

None of those options make him your best choice on your issue. Does he really deserve your continued support?

I'm just asking.