A week ago or so, the Senate had there hearing on the oil spill. The three CEO of BP, Transocean, and Halliburton all pointed fingers at each others. But would it have made a difference to bring Dick Cheney along? After all, Obama already denounced the “ridiculous spectacle” of finger-pointing by BP Plc, Transocean Ltd. and Halliburton Co. over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Thats According to MSNBC Hardball Host Chris Matthews. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37118030#37118030 A week ago he demanded that they should have got the former Vice President testify so he could show that his laws and his time in the White House would shown how that created failure of April's 20th disaster. This is because he was also the former CEO of Halliburton. Yea you could, but why waste the time? He would have just pointed fingers at the Obama administration.
What they should have done was have next to the CEO of Halliburton and BP, was to have the CEO of Exxon Mobile. Why have a CEO of another oil corporation? Because of the policies of Exxon have on Drilling. You see Exxon has a policy of having there engineers on station during the drilling process. As they hire contractors like Halliburton to cement the drill hole, the engineers from Exxon are on hand make sure that the proper material is used, that all are in coordination with each other so no accidents ever happen to Exxon again. The Exxon Valdez spill taught Exxon a lesson that BP is now learning that spills aren't just bad for the environment, there bad for business.
Having Dick Cheney at these hearing would have just made trash talk to be thrown by right wing radio talk shows on how socialistic the legislative branch is. retired, so leave the old man alone. Having him testify would have been no different then republicans demanding Bill Clinton show up at a hearing about another senator or congressman's affair.