Heh! Heh!  They're still duking it out on the other thread.

"I am hereby submitting this letter to President Obama, asking him to release all documentary evidence in his possession about his dealings with BP."

I wish some Republican weenie would be able to locate a set of balls, duct tape them on and make that request of Obama.  Sadly, it will never happen.

" the People have a right to know what BP was threatened with"

What?  Obviously you're just a shill for BP.

Most of the attorneys in DC are running around trying to figure out where Obama got the legal authority to even demand such a thing. Half of them want to prove he has it and the other half are trying to prove he doesn't. No one even seems to know where to start.

MATT DAMON !

Tonight, I will be treated to Michelle wearing a very hot and sexy see-through negligee with peek-a-boo cutouts in strategically placed locations, if you know what I mean.

Most of the attorneys in DC are running around trying to figure out where Obama got the legal authority to even demand such a thing. Half of them want to prove he has it and the other half are trying to prove he doesn't. No one even seems to know where to start.

Posted by: dagny at June 17, 2010 08:32 PM (HTKLS)

Clearly, he doesn't have the authority.  Nothing even close.  The simple proof of this is seen in people asking whether the 20 billion is a cap, but the Executive branch has no power to cap the liability of a private corporation.

The other unanswered question is How does this affect the LEGAL process that will hit the courts soon.

Will this count towards compensation? Not? (in a legal sense).  Because unless this money is somehow covered by a legal document, someone could possibly get compensation from this fund, THEN sue anyway for full damages... which of course means the Lawyers win...

So when can we expect the shareholders to file a lawsuit or can they?  I would think the Brits  losing their pensions have standing

BP actually has almost an equal number of shareholders in the U.S. and they actually employ more Americans than Brits.  That being said, I say those idiots across the pond wanted Obama elected Precedent.  I say to them, "Suck it, Losers!"  It does make me wonder if the Royal Family's fortunes will be affected much.  Prince Charles is a big Greentard, so I bet he would have quite a bit of shares in BP.

That's how it's done, folks.

However, I'd strike this line:

"This is too large a power to be left in the hands of one man, with none of the checks and balances our Constitution created to restrain the executive.

People want a strong leader in time of crisis, and Obama isn't.  Suggesting that he's overstepped his authority (true or not), implies leadership in doing whatever it takes to hold BP accountable.

What!    I'm Shocked...SCHOCKED, I tell You...that  their is a Shakedow going on here!

Prefect Renieu....here is you cut.

Oh Thank-You.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 17, 2010 08:35 PM (OlHjR)

Unless they force people to sign away any future claims as part of accessing this fund (as with the 9/11 fund).  But if someone doesn't want to sign away future claims, then he can file on his own, again, as with the 9/11 fund and those who opted out so that they could sue the Saudis and others.

Of course, the 9/11 fund wasn't money extorted out of anyone.

Or instead of Barton sending it, as the opinion has become His comments sucked. (i still don't agree)

We put an ad in the paper asking it for ourselves?

oh forget it, pulls my own hair.

Boy, with all the disasters and crises going on, the one demographic that is going to be busy for quite a long time (jobs saved and created) are the trial lawyers.  I bet Toyota is happy that this little oil spill came along.  It takes some of the scrutiny and heat off of them.  This BP thing is a much bigger deal.

Ace, I think your statement is right on the mark.  But Barton would not have said that.  It would have had to come from some other GOP member of the committee.

What Barton wanted to say was that it wasn't fair -- and maybe wasn't Constitutional -- for the President to force BP to commit $20 billion to a fund that was created unilaterally by the President without oversight and without granting BP due process.

So the alternate reality of what Barton wanted to say is:

"I apologize that the President jumped the gun in forcing BP into this arrangement, because it unjustifiably gives the appearance that without it, you were somehow going to get away without paying for the lives you disrupted, the wildlife you killed, the ecosystems you upended and the lands and waters you desecrated.  The President seems to have forgotten the role of the legislative and judiciary branches in seeing that BP does right by the American people."

Be interesting to see how Barry spends that $20 BILLION slush fund. 

LOOK FOR THE UNION LABEL!

Clearly, he doesn't have the authority.  Nothing even close.  The simple proof of this is seen in people asking whether the 20 billion is a cap, but the Executive branch has no power to cap the liability of a private corporation.

No, but they do have the power to agree that the executive branch will not pursue damages in excess of 20 billion.

The agencies (setting aside the constitutionality of the existence of such agencies) that would go after BP- Dept of Justice, EPA, Dept of Commerce, etc are under the exectutive branch.

We should be told exactly what they were threatened with to reach this deal- but trying to argue that the President has no authority in reaching such an agreement is a political loser.

I think Obama just fucked himself bigtime with this. As long as it was BP paying the compensation and checking hard that the claims were legit I doubt if they had many losers trying to get a free lunch. Now that people know the government is running it they will have every out of work loser on the Gulf Coast filing claims. It will turn into and overwhelming cluster fuck.

The 911 fund took 2 years to figure out and there were only 3,000 families involved. There are millions of people on hard times in the gulf and they will be lining up and sending in applications.

-->No, but they do have the power to agree that the executive branch will not pursue damages in excess of 20 billion.

The Executive branch is not pursuing damages. Any liability that impinges on the government and the spill is already covered by statutes. The fact that this junta is trying to hold BP responsible for the losses incurred by the Executive branch WRONGLY shutting down the other drilling is an illustration of the bizarro world we're in.

-->The agencies (setting aside the constitutionality of the existence of such agencies) that would go after BP- Dept of Justice, EPA, Dept of Commerce, etc are under the exectutive branch.

No. The liabilities we are talking about are for private people and perhaps states.  These lunatics are even floating the idea that BP is responsible for the drop in real estate values along the coast because of the spill.  Think about that and let it sink in.  That is CRAZY, not least because it's impossible to measure in any way, but because it's just insane.

-->We should be told exactly what they were threatened with to reach this deal- but trying to argue that the President has no authority in reaching such an agreement is a political loser.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 17, 2010 08:44 PM (plsiE)

He does not have any such authority. That is clear. If you don't think so, then extrapolate such an Executive power and see what sort of nation you would end up with. It ain't pretty. It looks a bit like Indonesia or Argentina.

Posted by: Gov. Wm. J. LePetomaine at June 17, 2010 08:49 PM (3Dnuf)

Indeed - let us install a toll booth just above the wellhead!

See if that oil well can come up with a shitload of dimes!  HA!

Posted by: Merovign, Strong On His Mountain at June 17, 2010 08:51 PM (bxiXv)

Die in a fire, asshole.

OK.  Now you're done.

Posted by: Vic at June 17, 2010 08:52 PM (6taRI)

And in fact, I believe they had a fiduciary duty to do so.  That's $19,925,000,000 worth of "goodwill" they just fucked their shareholders out of. 

Just an observation, that makes no fucking sense.

Posted by: Merovign, Strong On His Mountain at June 17, 2010 08:51 PM (bxiXv)

Except for, "You ignorant slut!"

Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at June 17, 2010 08:55 PM (zgd5N)

[Comment never made.  I hate Somalia]

Die in a fire, asshole.

OK.  Now you're done.

Posted by: Vic at June 17, 2010 08:52 PM (6taRI)

Yep.  But, obviously, The Precedent threatened that BP would have all their US assets seized (under some insane reasoning by Justice) and would never be able to do business in the US again - IF BP adhered to the actual law.  Because, to this junta, law is bad.

Posted by: mpfs at June 17, 2010 08:57 PM (QuP9W)

Your lips say "yes yes yes".

But the lack of boobie pics says "I'm too drunk to find your e-mail address".

Posted by: Bill O'Reilly at June 17, 2010 09:00 PM (0pYSi)

Boobie pics.  Try again.

It's amazing how this administration can so accurately be portrayed by either "Blazing Saddles" or "The Blues Brothers".

Except that the Black sherrif in Blazing Saddles was actually competent.

Actually current law places a 75 million cap on liability. BP could have ignored the Won and paid out the 75 million and stopped.

From what I just read, that $75 million goes out the window if criminal charges are filed. 

This article also suggests that the legislation could be changed, though I don't know how the courts would view the cap being changed after the fact.

Posted by: pam at June 17, 2010 08:58 PM (h8R9p)

Sarah Palin actually knows a thing or two about how to communicate political memes.

Don't be turgid, folks.

But what I want to know is, "who's looking out for the folks?"

Dropped this in the other Barton thread:

Krauthammer: "I think that wins the award for the most politically stupid statement of the year. We can retire it right now, in June."

Video here.

Posted by: mpfs at June 17, 2010 08:57 PM (QuP9W)

Your lips say "yes yes yes".

But the lack of boobie pics says "I'm too drunk to find your e-mail address".

Some of the British papers are lauding Rep Barton, as they feel Hayward was thrown to the lions. Bizarro universe. Plus:

'There's nobody else in front of the firing squad,' Washington lawyer, Stan Brand, who specializes in criminal law and Congress, said. 'It's about as far from a legally recognizable proceeding as you're going to see. It will be a much more dramatic public execution' than the earlier congressional hearings.

58, yeah, I thought about a post, but over 2 years?

They're drinking margaritas on the Riverwalk, and hitting the strip clubs.

In other words living the American dream.

And this is the guy who sent out $250 "tax cuts" and was surprised that they didn't silence the tea partiers or get him support for Obamacare.  So you know that efforts are going to be made to 'stretch' that money.  $20 billion isn't going to go very far among millions of people on the coast.

You'd think those people would be thanking me!

Except that the Black sherrif in Blazing Saddles was actually competent.

Posted by: runningrn at June 17, 2010 09:01 PM (CfmlF)

That could be what lulled the 52% into a false sense of security!  Damn you, Mel Brooks!

As an aside, Cleavon Little would make a far better President than Obama... and he's been dead for 17 years.

But what I want to know is, "who's looking out for the folks?"

The small people? 

[Comment never made.  I hate Somalia]

That could be what lulled the 52% into a false sense of security!  Damn you, Mel Brooks!

Geez, and all this time I've been blaming Dennis Hayesbert!

“BPÂ’s reported willingness to go along with the White HouseÂ’s new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics," said Price in a statement. "These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this AdministrationÂ’s drive for greater power and control.  

~Rep. Tom Price, R-GA~

Luntz's Hollywood Dunces! 

I just crossed an item off my bucket list.

In a dark day filled with animus and cannibalism, I bring thee glad tidings:

The South Carolina Democratic PartyÂ’s Executive Committee Thursday rejected a protest of the June 8 primary for U.S. Senate, in which Alvin Greene defeated Vic Rawl.

The decision came down about 8:20 p.m. The final vote was 38 1/2 to reject the protest, 7 1/2 in favor of itÂ…

During the hearing, a USC professor, Walter Ludwig, said his analysis noticed discrepancies with vote totals.

“There is one county, Lancaster County, where the disparity between absentee ballots, optical scan ballots, and the election day ballots was 43 percent,” Ludwig said. “This is not a small county. This is a fairly big sample size.”

Posted by: davidt at June 17, 2010 09:10 PM (HtIec)

Shoot, I was rooting for the midgets.  "The Beast Has Beat The Man!" 

jesus drowning in a oil spill, HA has a story up the the Coast Guard shut down oil skimmers because they didn't have enough life jackets on board.

I mean couldn't they just give them some or go get some for them. goddamn.

Geez, and all this time I've been blaming Dennis Hayesbert!

Posted by: runningrn at June 17, 2010 09:08 PM (CfmlF)

Until now, so have I.  But now I see that there could never have been a President Palmer without a Sheriff Bart.

He does not have any such authority. That is clear. If you don't think so, then extrapolate such an Executive power and see what sort of nation you would end up with. It ain't pretty. It looks a bit like Indonesia or Argentina.

From a political standpoint, it's completely irrelevant whether he does, doesn't should or shouldn't have that authority.

The public isn't going to hold it against Obama if (and I don't know if he did or not) he overstepped his bounds in going after BP.  They wanted someone to do something, with BP held accountable.

We can argue till we're blue in the face that Obama acted without authority, but in the end it'll just be percieved as Republicans coming to the defense of Big Oil.

The transparency angle is legit, but in the end the deal is likely a political win for Obama.  Criticising his overall handling of the spill and the time it took before he even bothered dealing with BP is a more effective attack.

Posted by: Bwaney Fwank at June 17, 2010 09:13 PM (667i6)

It's twoo!  It's twoo!

Posted by: 48%er at June 17, 2010 09:12 PM (OThQg)

That's pretty damned tone-deaf. I wonder if the MFM will forget who the Coast Guard works for long enough to report this breathlessly and hysterically.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at June 17, 2010 09:16 PM (oPZ+v)

See, this is EXACTLY the type of red tape Obama could have cut through with an Executive Order on Day One.  It's one of the very few things he personally could have done to improve the response.

Stopping the barges for life jackets and fire extinguishers.  Are you frakkin' kidding me?

Barack Obama to Louisiana: Drop dead!

Well he didn't even mention them in his speech.  Thin skinned little man.  Wouldn't want Jindal to look good.

Thad Allen is doing a heckava job ain't he?

Until now, so have I.  But now I see that there could never have been a President Palmer without a Sheriff Bart.

Clearly, Sheriff Bart set the Precedent!  That's what I heart about AoSHQ.  You guys are always putting me the knowledge.  I am a much more informed and well rounded person because of all of you!  XXOO!!11!!

We can argue till we're blue in the face that Obama acted without authority, but in the end it'll just be percieved as Republicans coming to the defense of Big Oil.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 17, 2010 09:15 PM (plsiE)

It wouldn't, but even if it did, who cares?  When you defend private property rights and the limits of our Constitution, you will find yourself in an unpopular position every now and again.  That's just how it is and that is why you don't keep a Republic without work, sacrifice, strength and mettle.  If you are happy to toss the Constitution in the trash for a little political expediency (and this is not just some run-of-the-mill situation) then there is nothing left of this nation.

This is why I have been saying that this nation will split apart.  It cannot go on like this.  No way.  No how.

123 Well I guess the 2013 Republican President has their British Ambassador set to go.

They probably changed their minds now. But many of their papers are painting Hayward as a man on the verge of a nervous breakdown, due to being "torn apart by political enemies". Commenters agree:

Although one understands the hatred Americans are showing the Oil Industry and in this case BP, i cannot applaud the bully boy tactics of the so-called elected representatives mof the USA for their actions.
One may feel that BP have been dragging their feet or been tardy in their safety but in order to get BP to work well personnal attacks get nothing achieved. I feel sorry for Tony and hope that Congressmen and senators feel righly ashamed of their so-called righteous indignation.

- Ipswich, 17/6/2010 19:12

Or how about this one?

I had high hopes for Obama, thought maybe someone with some intelligence. Alas even worse than the previous ones. Bush comes out as an intellectual compared to Obama. Unbelievable his ignorance of the situation. I think BP are to blame, but the questions should be how did several 'failsafe' procedures all fail? Did any congressmen / persons raise this question? If the safety issues are inadequate then why were the licenses issued?

-bristol, 17/6/2010 19:09

They're immigration issues, not terrorism issues, almost assuredly.

Any AWOL muslim let in this country with misplaced notion of training them in military affairs with a CAC card IS definitely a potential security risk

jesus drowning in a oil spill, HA has a story up the the Coast Guard shut down oil skimmers because they didn't have enough life jackets on board.

well rounded

Posted by: runningrn at June 17, 2010 09:19 PM (CfmlF)

There better be pics on the ONT.

Clearly, Sheriff Bart set the Precedent!  That's what I heart about AoSHQ.  You guys are always putting me the knowledge.  I am a much more informed and well rounded person because of all of you!  XXOO!!11!!

Posted by: runningrn at June 17, 2010 09:19 PM (CfmlF)

All the strife, the struggle, the hobos lost... It's all worth it now. (sniff)

Posted by: Y-not at June 17, 2010 09:20 PM (Kn9r7)

Yeah well the point is they didn't, shutting them down for a minor infraction that usually results in a ticket is absolutely assinine. They are kinda busy now.

See, this is EXACTLY the type of red tape Obama could have cut through with an Executive Order on Day One.  It's one of the very few things he personally could have done to improve the response.

That has been my issue all along.  I know our Clown in Chief can't "plug the hole".  I do know he did nothing to expedite containing this mess and was completely disengaged and disinterested until he started getting hammered.  Then all of a sudden, he jumped into action (meeting with the families of the victims 1 week ago, scheduling a meeting with the BP CEO this week, and giving his little pissy/political rant on Prime Time this week).  I actually got into a big fight with an idiot woman I ran with last Saturday at our post run coffee.  She was actually yelling at me.  She ended up leaving in a huff--good thing because my husband would have had to drag me away from her.  I was like white on rice.  I would not back down. 

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at June 17, 2010 09:19 PM (oPZ+v)

Yes, that's the point.  If he actually cared about doing his job and protecting the Gulf from the effects of this spill, he'd have given a blanket waiver to any and all regulations that interfered with capping the well, cleaning up the oil or containing it away from the shoreline.  But he didn't give one, and I therefore infer that he doesn't actually care.

Here, W.E. -- another example of how Obama left red tape in place.

The reason the Obama Administration rejected the initial offer of skimmers from the Dutch three days after the explosion was due to EPA regulations.  You see, the skimmers collect the oil-water mix out of the ocean and pump it into tankers.  After a number of hours, most of the oil floats to the top inside the tanker and the water settles to the bottom -- at which point you pump out the water back into the ocean and pump the oil onto other ships for removal.

Only the EPA wouldn't allow the tankers to pump out the water because it wouldn't be clean enough -- there would still be some oil in it.  And if you don't pump out the water, then the tanker fills up and you can't collect any more oil.

The U.S. Government has apparently reconsidered a Dutch offer to supply 4 oil skimmers. These are large arms that are attached to oil tankers that pump oil and water from the surface of the ocean into the tanker. Water pumped into the tanker will settle to the bottom of the tanker and is then pumped back into the ocean to make room for more oil. Each system will collect 5,000 tons of oil each day.

One ton of oil is about 7.3 barrels. 5,000 tons per day is 36,500 barrels per day. 4 skimmers have a capacity of 146,000 barrels per day. That is much greater than the high end estimate of the leak. The skimmers work best in calm water, which is the usual condition this time of year in the gulf.

These systems were developed by the Dutch as a safety system in case of oil spills from either wells or tankers. The Dutch have off shore oil development and also import oil in tankers. Their economy, just like ours, runs on oil. They understand that the production and use of oil has dangers and they wanted to be ready to cope with problems like spills. The Dutch system has been used successfully in Europe.

The Dutch offered to fly their skimmer arm systems to the Gulf 3 days after the oil spill started. The offer was apparently turned down because EPA regulations do not allow water with oil to be pumped back into the ocean. If all the oily water was retained in the tanker, the capacity of the system would be greatly diminished because most of what is pumped into the tanker is sea water.

As of June 8th, BP reported that they have collected 64,650 barrels of oil in the Gulf. That is only a fraction of the amount of oil spilled from the well. That is less than one dayÂ’s rated capacity of the Dutch oil skimmers.

This is exactly the kind of stupid regulatory red tape that Obama, as President, could have swept aside with an Executive Order on the proverbial Day One.

 Bush comes out as an intellectual compared to Obama

Bwhahahahaha!

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at June 17, 2010 09:25 PM (oPZ+v)

That's brilliant!  Put LiLo and Paris Hilton in a deep-dive submersible, and they can suck off the output of the well.  They're just the girls for the job.  Well, maybe them and the Kardashian sisters.

This is exactly the kind of stupid regulatory red tape that Obama, as President, could have swept aside with an Executive Order on the proverbial Day One.

(Swaying with hands raised) Go on Brother, Preach it!

And in my in-box from David Plouffe of Organizing for America:

Stuart --

When BP CEO Tony Hayward testified before Congress this morning, many expected to hear him apologize for the disaster his company has caused. Instead, GOP Congressman Joe Barton was the one saying he was sorry -- to BP.

In his opening statement, Barton, the top Republican on the committee overseeing the oil spill and its aftermath, delivered a personal apology to the oil giant. He said the $20 billion fund that President Obama directed BP to establish to provide relief to the victims of the oil disaster was a "tragedy in the first proportion."

Other Republicans are echoing his call. Sen. John Cornyn said he "shares" Barton's concern. Rep. Michele Bachmann said that BP shouldn't agree to be "fleeced." Rush Limbaugh called it a "bailout." The Republican Study Committee, with its 114 members in the House, called it a "shakedown."

Let's be clear. This fund is a major victory for the people of the Gulf. It's a key step toward making them whole again. BP has a responsibility to those whose lives and livelihoods have been devastated by the disaster. And BP oil executives don't deserve an apology -- the people of the Gulf do.

Stand with us to show that the American people support holding BP accountable -- and we won't apologize for doing so.

The decision came down about 8:20 p.m. The final vote was 38 1/2 to reject the protest, 7 1/2 in favor of itÂ…

What the Hell?  Was Obama 'voting' on that?

Um, no.  Uh, I was told there would be no math, and clearly there are fractions there.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at June 17, 2010 09:30 PM (oPZ+v)

The Playboy cartoon was a stunned bellboy outside a hotel room door, hearing through the open transom: "Suck, Margaret, SUCK!  'Blow' is just a FIGURE of SPEECH!"

Posted by: liberal douche defending Obumbles at June 17, 2010 09:32 PM (667i6)

Well, the Italians offered to dump garlic, oregano, basil, pepper and wine vinegar into the Gulf, and then have all of the people in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida scoop up the spill with lettuce leaves.

See, this is EXACTLY the type of red tape Obama could have cut through with an Executive Order on Day One.  It's one of the very few things he personally could have done to improve the response.

I doubt it would've even required an exectutive order.  One phone call to the head of the Coast Guard explaining that they need to do everything possible to expedite cleanup activity would probably be enough.

Obama may be a narcissistic, ineffective douche, but he is still the President.  If you're in command of US Coast Guard, that's not a phone call you're going to blow off.

Posted by: steevy at June 17, 2010 09:34 PM (667i6)

I seem to recall a Monty Python bit -- "Are you a plouffe?" "I should say not!"  "Funny, he looked like a plouffe!"

Sure. But you never wrote this without Barton first speaking his truth.

Posted by: gack

That may be one of the most dumbfucked things I've ever read. Please go stick your head in the microwave and hit "Vegetable Defrost".

Posted by: jacksontn at June 17, 2010 09:38 PM (2Lbco)

Holy cow!  What a group of idiots.  Every one of them had a very difficult time making a complete sentence.  Not that it mattered.  Success would have been a complete sentence of gibberish.

 huerfano, that didn't quite work but I got there:

http://tinyurl.com/27apgea

Congressional testimony timeline, @ The Guardian:

8.47pm: A Louisiana Republican, Steve Scalise, has a prop - he holds up a picture of an oiled pelican. He wants to know why it's taking so long to enact Bobby Jindal's plan for sand barriers protecting the Louisiana coast.

Hayward blames the federal government, saying "ultimate approval" lies with the administration.

8.30pm: BP's boss goes a little further in defending decisions on the Deepwater Horizon. Asked about the small number of centralisers keeping the drilling pipe in place, Hayward says "more doesn't always mean better". And asked by congressman Peter Welch about the use of saltwater, rather than heavier drilling fluid, to flush out the well, Hayward says: "The procedure that was used to displace mud was a procedure not uncommon in the industry. it was a procedure approved by the Mineral Management Service."

Sky News has video & commentary from the hearings. Headline says that Hayward was heckled.

http://tinyurl.com/2emb3xx

Most sympathetic piece, from The Daily Mail:

Sliced and diced on Capitol Hill: Hapless BP boss torn apart by political enemies

8.05pm: Hayward is asked if BP shouldn't have had "failsafe mechanisms" in case of a massive oil leak. He says Halliburton's faulty blowout preventer, which was supposed to cut off oil in the event of the accident, was intended to fill this role.

"We believed that the blow-out preventer was the ultimate failsafe mechanism. That clearly wasn't the case in this instance."

Hayward says blowout preventer failed three times - when it was activated from the drilling rig, when the drilling rig separated from the blowout preventer and when undersea robots tried to activate it a day later. That's another clear signal by BP that it feels contractors share the blame for the accident.

I, too, would like to read a transcript, or All the notes for that meeting yesterday with BP and  obama.

This sums-up today's hearings rather well:

Ridiculous charade. This was all about making the committee members look good. You could see the disdain dripping from Tony's expression and rightly so. What a waste of everyone's time. Asking how the oil flow can be stopped more quickly. Stupid. Asking why relief channels aren't built on every well. Stupid. Asking for the specific name of the contractor who decided on the pipe design. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Maybe they should be asking themselves why the regulators were so cosy with the oil companies, why they were allowed to write their own safety reports, why the US Govt had such a blatant disregard for the safety of operations in the Gulf and consequentially the people of the southern states.

This whole affair is stinking more than the Louisiana coastline. Utterly shambolic. Oh and "Dame" Helen Mirren: you can sod right off n'all...

- Herts, 17/6/2010 17:29

Well, perhaps my colleague Rep Barton was not quite as diplomatic as he could have been, but we're all a little out of sorts. And if we're talkin' apologies, its President Obama that owes us all an apology, especially our friends and neighbors in the Gulf . . .

Rep Barton is no Shakespeare, but you gotta admit he's on the money when the President starts cutting side deals on matters that are decided in the Courts. Yeah, that's right, its in the Constitution, put apparently not the part the President taught in school. . . . This sort of extra-legal act is not just rotten in Denmark.

And I'll hand it to Rep Barton. At least he understands that Congress as an independent branch of government not only has the right, it has the constitutional obligation, an inherent duty to call the President out when he does things he doesnt have the legal authority to do  . . .