Is the WSJ agreeing with Barton?

[ProSense]

Is this a WSJ editorial (it's unattributed):

<...>

Meanwhile, BP's agreement sets a terrible precedent for the economy and the rule of law, particularly for future industrial accidents or other corporate controversies that capture national outrage. The default position from now on in such cases will be for politicians to demand a similar "trust fund" that politicians or their designees will control.

There was in particular no reason for BP to compound its error and agree to spend another $100 million to compensate the oil workers sidelined by the Administration's policy choice to impose a drilling moratorium. BP had no liability for these costs, and its concession further separated its compensation from proper legal order.

BP deserves to pay full restitution for the damage it has caused, but it ought to do so via legal means, not under what Texas Republican Joe Barton rightly called the pressure of "a shakedown" yesterday. On the other hand, BP does not deserve the apology that Mr. Barton also offered, though he quickly backtracked when the White House pounced on his comments.

The American people seem to have concluded that they dislike both BP for causing this disaster and the White House for appearing to exploit it without stopping the leak, and maybe that's the right response. BP at first sounded arrogant and now is so obsequious it won't even stand up for its legal rights. But it's hard to know who is more unlovable, BP or its Washington expropriators.

[Laelth]

1. Indeed, the WSJ does agree with Barton.

And so do most Republicans. We need to hang this around their necks like millstones.

They love corporations and hate the American people.

:dem:

-Laelth

[impik]

2. Yep. Maybe some "progressives" can now understand what Obama is up against