Setting Record Straight On BP

Once the Obama White House decided to actually notice the BP oil platform leak, they immediately began demonizing BP. All sorts of statements were thrown around, such as the accusation that they sacrificed safety measures for higher profits. It was a convenient brush with which to paint them as villains, and I think most people bought it... Only it isn't true.

That's right, it isn't true. An in-depth investigation of BP by the Department of the Interior found no evidence to support such an accusation.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44828.html

The federal investigation of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has found no proof that BP, Halliburton and other companies associated with the drilling disaster put profits ahead of safety, a lead investigator said Monday.

"We've not found a situation where we could say man had a choice between safety and dollars and he put his money on dollars," said Fred Bartlit, chief counsel of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.

So the early accusations were false. But what about the report issued by the Department of the Interior and used by the White House to justify a ban on deep water drilling? Experts agreed it was the thing to do, right? Well, no. Actually, now we discover that the White House edited the report in order to give that impression.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44921.html

The White House rewrote crucial sections of an Interior Department report to suggest an independent group of scientists and engineers supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling, the Interior inspector general says in a new report.

In the wee hours of the morning of May 27, a staff member to White House energy adviser Carol Browner sent two edited versions of the department report’s executive summary back to Interior. The language had been changed to insinuate the seven-member panel of outside experts – who reviewed a draft of various safety recommendations – endorsed the moratorium, according to the IG report obtained by POLITICO.

“The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,” the IG report states, without judgment on whether the change was an intentional attempt to mislead the public.

The IG report remained non-judgmental on whether it was an attempt to mislead the public, we don't have to do that. Besides misleading the public, can you think of another reason why the White House would change the report in the manner described? Yeah, me neither.

So Obama lied to the public by releasing that edited report, and we now discover that other allegations against BP were untrue.

Is this REALLY the kind of government we want, one willing to lie in order to advance their agenda? I can't speak for you, but it certainly isn't the kind of government that I want!