Rep. Barton under fire after apologizing to BP

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) on Thursday apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for the way his company has been treated by the U.S. government, drawing heavy criticism from the left and giving ammunition to an administration on its heels over the gulf oil spill.

Astounding.

Barton is the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Now even some Republicans are saying he should step down.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/17/AR2010061703756.html?hpid=topnews

That should net him a few cool million.

[quote="ProVobis, post:2, topic:202258"]
That should net him a few cool million.

[/quote]

I know. He was the largest recipient of BP's largesse in 2008....

opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000091&type=P&sort=A&cycle=2008

Legislators like Barton is how Louisiana became 'toxic alley'. Calmer minds in the GOP have pulled his coat tails and he has retracted:

"Under pressure from Republican leaders who threatened to remove him from a ranking committee position, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) late Thursday retracted his apology to BP CEO Tony Hayward for the way his company has been treated by the U.S. government -- a comment that had drawn heavy criticism from both parties.

Barton made that apology to Hayward in his opening statement Thursday morning before Hayward's testimony to the House subcommittee, in which Barton decried the Obama administration for pressuring BP to open a $20 billion escrow account and to suspend dividend payments for the rest of the year.

The ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee said such arrangements have no legal basis, and that the political pressure exerted on the corporation in the midst of an investigation is a "tragedy of the first proportion."

"I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday," Barton said in the morning. "I apologize."

Barton called the escrow account, which will be distributed independently, a "slush fund" and said the situation amounted to a "shakedown" by the White House. He said if he, as a congressman, asked for something similar from a corporation he was investigating, he could go to jail.

Later Thursday, when House Republican leaders called his statement "wrong," Barton first said he was sorry for the "misconstruction" of his comments, then later put out a statement retracting his apology to BP. "

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/17/AR2010061703756.html?nav=rss_email/components

That's some fancy tap dancing Barton has been doing.

Barton SHOULD retract his apology to BP, but stand firm on his descriptions of the "deal" as "a "slush fund" and "shakedown". Totally accurate. Chicago thug politics at its finest, but I thought that we lived in America, where the rule of law is respected. No more! Rob :eek:

[quote="RACJ, post:5, topic:202258"]
Barton SHOULD retract his apology to BP, but stand firm on his descriptions of the "deal" as "a "slush fund" and "shakedown". Totally accurate. Chicago thug politics at its finest, but I thought that we lived in America, where the rule of law is respected. No more! Rob :eek:

[/quote]

No law which has been broken. I note your gratuitous statement about 'Chicago thugs'.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:6, topic:202258"]
No law which has been broken.

[/quote]

Maybe not, I'm far from being an expert there. But this administration will definitely not be going down as open, transparent, moral or ethical.

I note your gratuitous statement about 'Chicago thugs'.

Oh please, "Chicago thug style politics", and all other variations of the phrase are being uttered every single day in every corner of this country. Don't act like there is no truth to the statement. Clever how you left the politics out of the quote though.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:6, topic:202258"]
No law which has been broken. I note your gratuitous statement about 'Chicago thugs'.

[/quote]

 Obama has learned well from Chicago thugs that he has befriended, and he has become one himself. There may be no law against a President refusing help to contain a catastrophe, but it's morally reprehensible. More coastline will be destroyed thanks to the heinous decisions of Barack Obama, but his decisions are so incomprehensible that laws against his (in)action could never have been contemplated. :eek: Rob

[quote="bbarrick8383, post:7, topic:202258"]
Oh please, "Chicago thug style politics", and all other variations of the phrase are being uttered every single day in every corner of this country. Don't act like there is no truth to the statement. Clever how you left the politics out of the quote though.

[/quote]

I just hate gratuitous, unverified uncharitable statements. If that's your thing then we differ.

[quote="RACJ, post:8, topic:202258"]
Obama has learned well from Chicago thugs that he has befriended, and he has become one himself. There may be no law against a President refusing help to contain a catastrophe, but it's morally reprehensible. More coastline will be destroyed thanks to the heinous decisions of Barack Obama, but his decisions are so incomprehensible that laws against his (in)action could never have been contemplated.

[/quote]

I thought this thread was on Barton. You should throw in a 'for instance' now and then, for credibility.

They are hardly gratuitous or unverified. Open you’re eyes, there’s a whole world at you’re fingertips. Look around. Uncharitable, maybe. Truth hurts sometimes.

I thought this thread was on Barton. You should throw in a 'for instance' now and then, for credibility.

How about the Gerald Walpin incident? Or, how opponents of socialistic health care were shaken down?  The list is endless.
GOOD NEWS, though, Beau---Today's Glenn Beck show (5PM Eastern) will connect the dots between Obama and the wretched George Soros, and explain why Obama has obstructed the Gulf clean-up at every turn and seems intent at leaving our economy in ruins. If every American had the courage to watch Mr. Beck tonight, articles of impeachment would be drawn tomorrow. :thumbsup: Rob
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.