Obama, whose lack of governing instincts and placatory, striving to win acceptance, flip-flopping actions, have led to some of his appalling nominations and appointments,   But even he should be fed up with Coast Guard Cmdr. Thad Allen or does President Obama conflate inertia in not yanking an unsuitable, illogical, BP admirer like Allen with leadership?  

Where is Allen's sense of responsibility to the American people, trusting the CEO of a company with a long history of killing workers, causing environmental destruction and blatant lying?  Is this a Coast Guard commander or a brown noser hoping to cash in on a revolving door corporate oil and gas industry job after his CG retirement?

I wrote on May 28: "Another individual who should have at least been demoted or retired was Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen who "affirmed his support for BP and its CEO in an interview with CNN. "I trust Tony Hayward," he said—a statement that did little to allay concerns that the administration has put too much faith in the oil giant."  Who the hell does Allen work for, the American people or BP and Tony Hayward?"

Now others are finally questioning Thad Allen's fitness as Obama's point man in the BP disaster as Allen reaffirms his trust in BP's Tony Hayward.

Dan Froomkin at Huffington Post:  "The Obama administration's new get-tough-with-BP public relations campaign was badly undercut Friday morning when Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen reaffirmed his confidence in the oil giant's widely-despised and discredited CEO, Tony Hayward.

"Three weeks ago, Allen, who is leading the response to the massive oil spill poisoning the Gulf of Mexico, famously told CBS News: "I trust Tony Hayward."

"It became a rallying cry for those who believe the Obama administration has been too deferential to a company whose interests are not at all aligned with the public's.

"Now, after 53 days during which BP has just made the leak worse while spreading misinformation intended to minimize its possible liability, Allen is sticking to his earlier statement.

"Asked at a Friday news conference if he still trusts Hayward, Allen responded: " 'The fact of the matter is, we have to have a cooperative, productive relationship for this thing to work moving forward. When I talk to him and ask for answers, I get them. You could characterize that as trust, partnership, cooperation, collaboration, whatever. But this has to be a unified effort moving forward if we are to get this thing solved.' "

"So does that mean yes? " 'If you call that trust, yes,' " Allen said.

"BP in general and Hayward in particular have squandered the public trust. The company was absurdly overconfident about its ability to stop a blowout in the first place, has been deceptive about steps it's taken to plug it, and has been constantly low-balling flow estimates. Hayward, meanwhile, has cemented his status as "the most hated and most clueless man in America", as the New York Daily News called him, with a series of gaffes.

"So why does Thad Allen still trust Tony Hayward? Is it genuine deference -- or conflict aversion? Is it a wrong-headed attempt at pragmatism?

"By contrast, one suspects the American public would be much happier if Allen -- or Obama, for that matter -- simply said: No, we don't trust BP. They have proven they are not to be trusted. We have no choice but to work with them, but we are making it clear in every interaction that their assertions are being verified, their facts are being double-checked, their motives are suspect, and we are the ones setting the priorities, not they.

"But apparently it's just not so."

It's time to give Thad Allen the boot he deserved three weeks ago.