Posted on 10/04/2011 4:46:06 AM PDT by bestintxas
President Barack Obama said Monday he does not regret a $528 million loan to a solar energy company that later collapsed, saying officials always knew a clean energy loan program would not back winners 100 percent of the time.
"There are going to be some failures, and Solyndra's an example," Obama said in a television interview, referring to a California solar panel maker that declared bankruptcy last month and laid off its 1,100 workers. The company's failure has become a rallying cry for critics of Obama's clean energy program who say the government should not try to predict winners and losers in the volatile renewable energy market.
Obama disputed that, saying China is pouring "hundreds of billions of dollars into this space." If the United States wants to compete with China, Germany and other countries that are heavily subsidizing clean energy, "we've got to make sure that our guys here in the United States of America at least have a shot," Obama said.
Obama, in an interview with ABC News, was asked whether his administration had ignored warnings about Solyndra, as some congressional Republicans assert.
"Well, hindsight is always 20-20," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
This isn't just a failure of the DOE energy plan, it's a failure of the Porkulus, Green Jobs, and overall Obamanomics plans. All of the Kenyan's "economic justice" plans are ACORN community organizer FAILURES.
in his mind it is morally superior to letting that money end up in the pockets of some grrrrrreedy oil company
I saw that this morning .. no regrets. That was our money you threw down the drain, stupid.
I believe that one of the ‘Rules for Radicals’ states that you should never admit mistakes.
Yeah? Well try not looking out your hind end for once.
I hear most of the electorate is saying that now.
Heh, heh. Potential bumper sticker there:
Hindsight is 20/20 - Nobama 2012
Did you write this??
The Hermanator needs to use clips of this for his campaign ads.
The thing is, he sounds so damn sincere.
Like a lawyer who knows his client is guilty as sin but somehow is able to come up with some cockamamie story to sell to the jury about his client to deflect attention from the overwhelming evidence.
Think O.J. Simpson or Casey Anthony.
We are the jury and Urkel is the trained lawyer. This is what they teach in Law School. How to lie through your teeth without a trace of conscience.
The question is: How gullible is the jury?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
