Republican Cliff Stearns of Florida grilled BP’s Tony Hayward yesterday and made an utter ass of himself.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/18/hawyard_testimony
REP. CLIFF STEARNS: The people of Florida, when I talk to them and they say there’s oil spilling on the coast, would it be appropriate to say that it’s because of BP’s reckless behavior? Yes or no?
TONY HAYWARD: It is a consequence of a big accident.
REP. CLIFF STEARNS: No, yes or no? Reckless behavior or not?
TONY HAYWARD: There is no evidence of reckless behavior.
REP. CLIFF STEARNS: So, you’re standing here, you’re saying here today that BP had no reckless behavior? That’s your position. Yes?
TONY HAYWARD: There is no evidence of reckless behavior.
REP. CLIFF STEARNS: No, yes or no? You’re saying BP has had no reckless behavior, is what you’re saying to us.
TONY HAYWARD: I have seen no evidence of reckless behavior.
REP. CLIFF STEARNS: OK. So you’re on record saying there’s been no reckless behavior. Has anyone in BP been fired because of this incident? Anybody?
TONY HAYWARD: Not—
REP. CLIFF STEARNS: Yes or no?
TONY HAYWARD: No, so far.
REP. CLIFF STEARNS: No people have been fired. So, your captain of the ship runs into New Orleans, spews all this oil, causes all this damage, from Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, and no one’s been fired?
TONY HAYWARD: Our investigation is ongoing.
REP. CLIFF STEARNS: So, let’s say the investigation goes for three years. Does that mean you wouldn’t fire anybody?
TONY HAYWARD: As the investigation draws conclusions, we will take the necessary action.
It’s not a good thing to outright *lie* in such a public forum with the cameras running. While Hayward seems to have been kind of a dumbass with respect to PR, note that in this exchange at least he couched his answers in very reasonable and respectable terms. He never said that there was no recklessness, just that he hasn’t seen *evidence* of recklessness. But Stearns outright lied and claimed that Hayward had said something quite different.
This exchange is reason number four bagrillion why federal officeholders need to be term limited… preferably to a single term. This hearing is not meant to accomplish a damn thing except to give these political yahoos a soapbox to stand on and blart, in the hopes that they’ll blart something that’ll make the electorate think that they are jsut neato keen and should be re-elected.