If the people you are leading don't know what they're supposed to do, can you really call yourself a leader?

This seems a bit "Beckian" to me...as in cherry-picked and then deliberately taken out of context, but not having seen the entire hearing, perhaps I am mistaken. What Interior Secretary Salazar was probably attempting to ascertain was whether the BP spill was a SYSTEMIC problem throughout the off-shore oil rig drilling or whether just this one rig was the problem. The commission is, after all, charged with tracing how such a horrific event could have occurred---where are all the weakest links in the chain and to what extent are other operations by BP or by other oil companies involved? Is the pattern of negligence, malfeasance, and corruption or collusion with regulatory officials which is oil-industry-wide? Or is the problem mainly with BP, which is the fourth wealthiest corporation in the world and yet was too cheap to replace batteries or buy the half-million-dollar part needed for a back-up system should failure occur? These seem reasonable questions for a Commission whose job is to PINPOINT CAUSES from Congressional lack of oversight or collusion throughout the years applicable, MMS involvement, money trails, criminal liability at any level, Haliburton's involvement in laying the cement (which had previously been the cause of an explosion at a different offshore rig), the employees' error or negligence, BP or any of its subsidiaries involved, etc. A truly THOROUGH investigation would involve a study of the procedures, protocols, practices, and performances of all involved in offshore drilling to determine whether any systemic flaws exist, either in contractual wording or conditions, performance, adherence to safety codes, etc. I do not see anything wrong with Interior Secretary Salazar asking a Commission that is supposed to trace ALL OF THE PROBLEMS involved in the explosion and the leak what they think of the moratorium---is there a need for MORE TIME to conduct inspections and to determine safety or back-up system availability? Why would that be a bone of contention or a source of ridicule? The PRESIDENT appointed these two---and they are NOT oilmen---they simply have the AUTHORITY to INVESTIGATE every aspect of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill, and if the problems with MMS are going all the way back to 2001, then does it not stand to reason that some of the fault might be contained in the interaction between the MMS and any existing OTHER off-shore oil rigs? Salazar is leading, but the new Commissioners may not yet comprehend the full SCOPE of the task that has been assigned. If you witness the two change their tune and go Ken Salazar's direction, then you could make an assumption that he leads, they are new and do not know the scope of their authority, they ask the President who appointed them, he backs Salazar, and the two commissioners then take their blinders off and get to work analyzing possible COLLUSION with the former MMS and other oil operations that could mean other safety violations or no back-up systems in place. By the way, Wall Street Journal (which is the parent for your site) is owned by Faux News owner and foreign media mogul right-wing homophobe Rupert Murdoch. Just thought I'd mention the connection in case you want to determine credibility or hidden agenda.