No one has said that "we can fix this without BP."
We are saying that we can fix this - and probably faster (not just the leak, but the entire disaster) - without BP
being in charge.
No matter how much expertise or equipment BP has, that does not qualify them to protect the public interest. Only the government has the power, the authority, the mandate, the duty and responsibility to do that.
"The government can go get the equipment." Sure, from BP. If you know of anywhere else, please provide evidence.
That is ludicrous. We have no way of knowing, do we? That is the problem. That is a problem that we turn to the government to solve. That is why we have a government. Your argument undermines the purpose of having government at all. You said that the government does not have the equipment, so can do nothing. I said the government can get the equipment, and you then turn around and say "what equipment?" Whatever equipment you claim that they don't have, and the reason you gave for why the government cannot manage the operation. That equipment; whatever and wherever it may be. "Not having equipment" is not a legitimate excuse for the government to stand down.
"The government can hire all the expertise it needs." Sure, from BP and the others working on the problem now. If you know of anyone else that has expertise not being used that would make the situation better, please provide evidence that a) the expertise exists and b) it would somehow make the situation better.
We have no way of knowing, do we? That is the problem. Yes, BP experts answering to the people through our government is the answer, rather than those same experts answering to BP and allowing BP to make decisions for the sake of BP that may or may not be in the public interest.
Why not put the entire staff of experts from BP on the federal payroll starting tomorrow? Why not? What expertise do the executives have at anything other than covering BP's ass and protecting the desires and needs of the shareholders, of Wall Street?
I would bet that there are hundreds of experts at BP who are dying for some leadership and direction, dying to get at this problem more efficiently and effectively, dying to be out from under the thumb of corporate management. That is largely true even when there is not a catastrophe. That is the rule everywhere in corporate culture.
Basically, your proposal seems to be one of two things:
False. I did not say that, and you know I did not say that. Refute what I am saying, not what you want people to think I am saying.
Advocating for the government to protect the public welfare is dismissed by you as "rhetorical flourishes?" That is telling. Well, we can just dump the whole thing and let corporations run the show. Who needs the principles and ideals that the government was founded on, the Rights of Man, the Enlightenment? It is all just rhetorical flourishes.