The President of the United States had his State Department prepare a report on the Keystone Pipeline and gosh darn, they said it should be rejected. Can you believe that? Do you think that maybe there was some direction given to the authors of the report as to what it should say? No, that wouldn't happen in the most ethical Administration in the history of the world!
If you think we are a bit skeptical, you would be right! First of all, why would the State Department be tasked to write a report that dealt with environmental concerns in Nebraska? Isn't it their job dealing with foreign nations? Or would the report been done by the EPA, everyone would have laughed?
We suppose the answer is that since the pipeline is between Canada and the US, it comes under the purview of State. So where does it get the expertise to address the major concern regarding the construction of this pipeline, that being the environmental issues. Why did they not do a joint task force? I believe the words are, incompetency and politics. It could be worse as the previous post on this topic alluded.
Secondly, our valiant President using his immense brain, hides behind the State Department report and then blames Republicans. Sounds like politics to me. He cannot even mount an intelligent argument why we should not attempt to be energy independent. Keystone could have become a major keystone in our oil supply. Now we might lose it to the Chinese.
One would hope that people we elect would do what was in the best interests of the country first and themselves second. However, the entire government operates in the opposite way. Maybe we are a Pollyanna, but one would hope that we sometime could get people who would do the right thing!
Obama must go and the sooner the better. November cannot come any sooner.
Conservative Tom
Secondly, our valiant President using his immense brain, hides behind the State Department report and then blames Republicans. Sounds like politics to me. He cannot even mount an intelligent argument why we should not attempt to be energy independent. Keystone could have become a major keystone in our oil supply. Now we might lose it to the Chinese.
One would hope that people we elect would do what was in the best interests of the country first and themselves second. However, the entire government operates in the opposite way. Maybe we are a Pollyanna, but one would hope that we sometime could get people who would do the right thing!
Obama must go and the sooner the better. November cannot come any sooner.
Conservative Tom
Obama Blames Republicans, Hides Behind His Own State Dep't, in Rejecting Keystone Pipeline
In his written statement explaining the decision, Obama mentioned the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or the State Department four times in the opening paragraph -- and once again in the second and final paragraph.
“Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State’s recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline,” Obama wrote. “As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.”
The State Department has been studying TransCanada’s application for a permit to extend its oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada to refineries in the Gulf Coast for three years. It was expected to make a decision by the end of last year, but in November, it said the decision would not come until 2013 – after the 2012 election.
The State Department said it needed more time to "undertake an in-depth assessment of potential alternative routes in Nebraska."
The pipeline project is supported by labor unions, a key Obama constituency, but it is strongly opposed by environmental activists, another important constituency.
The pipeline project is supported by labor unions, a key Obama constituency, but it is strongly opposed by environmental activists, another important constituency.
Republicans in Congress, as part of their deal to support an extension of the payroll tax holiday, imposed a new deadline of Feb. 21 for the Obama administration to make a decision on the Keystone XL project.
In his written statement on Wednesday, Obama said his decision to refuse a permit was “not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.
“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.”
“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.”
House Speaker John Boehner, at a press conference Wednesday, said this is a purely political decision from the president:
“President Obama is destroying tens of thousands of American jobs and shipping American energy security to the Chinese. There’s really – there’s no other way to put it: the President is selling out American jobs for politics,” Boehner said.
“The President was given the authority to block this project only – and only – if he believes it’s not in the national interest of the United States. Is it not in the national interest to create tens of thousands of jobs here in America with private investment? Is it not in the national interest to get energy resources from an ally like Canada as opposed to some countries in the Middle East?”
“The President was given the authority to block this project only – and only – if he believes it’s not in the national interest of the United States. Is it not in the national interest to create tens of thousands of jobs here in America with private investment? Is it not in the national interest to get energy resources from an ally like Canada as opposed to some countries in the Middle East?”