Whatever happened to trigger the fire, etc. on the oil rig we can assume at least for now that it was an accident. BP is indeed taking responsibility and, to my knowledge, has agreed from the beginning to pay for the cleanup.
So what is with this "keeping a boot to the throat" talk coming from the President? "Boot to the throat??" Like BP is some kind of corporate thug that needs to be violently coerced to honor its responsibility? This is just so reminiscent of 60s shallow, ignorant, emotional, rebelliousness. Big business is, of course, presumed to be evil and oil companies the worst of the worst. I expect more intelligence from the federal government. Of course, these expectations have not been met since the new administration took office.
Additionally, how do we know that terrorism was not a part of this accident? Nearly a mile deep in the ocean. Clearly, the cause of the accident is going to be hard to determine. Until we know for sure the cause, why is there a presumption of guilt on the part of BP? If this was a terrorist act then it could be argued that BP is not financially responsible for the clean-up. Are businesses responsible for acts of war that result in massive damage if there is no negligence on the part of the business?
You know what I think of BP? I'm happy for the cheap gas they have for sale around the corner from my house. Should they pay for the cleanup of the spill? Of course, if it is their fault.
But I don't see how this inflammatory rhetoric ("boot to the throat") will aid in the cleanup efforts. Wouldn't it be better to join arms in cooperation than to throw out words that can only breed antagonism?