Categorized | Commentary/Editorial, Videos

Charles Krauthammer Eviscerates Obama Over Keystone Pipeline Decision

Yesterday when Obama rejected the Keystone Pipeline, he did what he always does: Put his political interests above those of the country.  In the hours since, I’ve listened with interest to the rationale for this suicidal decision being put forward by the hapless Jay Carney and some of the other mouthpieces in the administration.  Here are a few of the excuses I’ve heard thus far:

1) This is really the fault of the evil, Wascally Wepublicans since it is they who forced Obama to make a hasty decision by setting an “arbitrary deadline”.

2) Obama needed more time to study the issue, never mind it’s been studied for over three years by two different administrations (including his own), both of whom concluded the project is environmentally safe.

3) It won’t create jobs, notwithstanding the fact that Obama’s own Jobs Council said it would.

4) The obligatory "building the pipeline will cause global warming" nonsense.

5) The pipeline goes through the pristine, environmentally sensitive Nebraska Sand Hills.  The fact that there’s already in excess of 25,000 miles of pipeline criss-crossing that region is, presumably, irrelevant.

6) And finally my personal favorite: The pipeline is "not in the national interest". Obviously. Who needs a reliable source of energy from our friend and neighbor to the north when we can get it from our, er, reliable allies in the Persian Gulf instead?

It would be ridiculously easy to point out how utterly fatuous all these excuses are but, conveniently, I don’t have to.  Charles Krauthammer methodically did just that in just over two minutes last night on Fox News. Enjoy:


Tags: , , , , ,

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • wodiej
  • conservativemama

    If the GOP in DC doesn’t relentlessly hammer  him on this then they are a thoroughly useless crowd.

  • Lennart Bilén

    Why did Obama first delay the Keystone XL pipeline decision until after the 2012 election, and then when forced deny the permit?
    Here are four possibilities:
    1. Obama is a true believer that ”this was the moment when the rise of the
    oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”. As a true environmentalist
    his role cannot be overestimated. He wants to implement the environmentalists
    desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% in the year 2050, thereby
    returning us to the middle ages in energy use.
    2. Obama is deliberately wrecking our economy, refuses to have an energy policy
    that will create jobs, but will support protest movements and foment unrest.
    3. Obama is acting on orders from Global Governance people that do want U.S. to
    be totally dependent on international law and U.N. mandates.
    4. Obama is half insane and surrounded by bad advisors.

    This is the best I can do to
    explain the reasons for this decision.

  • wodiej

    All points are excellent but #6…you’ve got to be kidding me-Obama actually said that??

  • Randall Pickard

    It’s almost like this election is playing into the hands of someone with proven executive experience who has fought successfully for increased energy production in her state and for the nation…

    • Marianne

      You know, Todd’s really going to enjoy zooming his snow machine through the trails in the mountainous region surrounding Camp David next year.

  • MikeinMI2

    It would be ideal if a leader from the Conservative/GOP side challenged the POTUS decision on XL and personally invited the Canadian PM to a townhall along with the public and put on the record that when elected they will take "immediate" action on keystone.

  • Min Max

    Gosh. He really is such a sourpuss eh.

  • susiepuma

    Well, you said it – they won’t and they are…………………………………..

    damm disqus – this is reply to conservativemamma below………………..

  • suehimel

    The pipeline needs to be constructed, but not through the NE Sandhills.  Krauthamer got a few facts wrong last night.  While NE currently has about 25,000 miles of pipelines, the Sandhills has exactly 234 miles of natural gas pipelines and "0″ miles of petroleum or other hazardous material pipelines – and for good reason.  This is not just about protecting some cranes, it’s about protecting the Ogallala Aquifer, especially in the Sandhills region.  Keystone proposed the route because it is shorter, but if they had any kind of savvy about getting this approved in NE, they would have had an alternate route ready to go.

    This article is about the most balanced one I have read about the situation – not full of hysterical environmentalists’ rants or Keystone’s total dismissal f the concerns.

    • johnfromcanada

      I’m sorry – that was not a balanced report. If running the pipleline through the Sandhills region is considered to be a problem, then Nebraska can rightfully ask for a re-routing of it (though I suspect there will be objections no matters where it is put – it seems this route caused the least disruptions out of 5 or 6 that were proposed).
      The problem with the article is that focuses only on that issue (which can  be changed or fixed). A balanced report would have focused on the broad benefits of the XL pipeline project to the U.S. – like carrying  a secure supply of oil from a friendly neighbour and therefore lowering US  dependence on unfriendly and even hostile foreign sources (this alone makes it in the US national interest); – the fact that the oil is needed and will be for at least a generation or more; – the job opportunites it provides now and in the future – the very real possibility that this pipeline will  transport oil from  from new domestic wells in the  Dakotas.  

      • suehimel

        It was balanced as far as the ecological impact on NE and the Sandhills and the aquifer.  It was not a comprehensive treatment of all factors for or against the pipeline.  NE is for the pipeline (mostly) but not through the Sandhills.  There are other places to route it and if it doesn’t cross the Sandhills our legislature will approve it.  They won’t permit it to be built on the current proposed route.  Even if Obama had approved the pipeline, they still wouldn’t have a route through NE.

        I will place blame where blame is due and that is on the NE Legislature.  They did not deal with this issue until the very last minute beause it is a political hot potato on both sides of the aisle.  We should have dealt with the issue much earlier.  Keystone should have had a contingency plan but they were convinced they could persuade our legislature that this route was safe. 

        Sorry – but this is not a black and white issue where blame can be cast on one individual or one party or one institution.  I will say that the combined negligence of NE and Keystone allowed Obama to make a decision that turned into a win-win for him.

  • Hyman Roth

    Sorry folks but I still don’t care what Dr. Death has to say.  Krauthammer spent the better part of 2008 patting Obama on the back like a proud uncle.  Now he is telling us that he’s inept?

    **BUZZ**  Sorry, you lost your turn.

    • alien4palin

      The awakening of "Rip Van Winkle."

  • Lennart Bilén

    Oh I almost forgot one:
    5. If we agree to the pipeline we will no linger be Brazil’s best customer. So don"t say that Pbama doesn’t keep his promises.

    • Guest

      So oil that is being piped from Canada to be refined in Mexico will belong to the US in the end?  I believe you want the fiction department, two doors down.

    • colliemum

      And who got the money from the US taxpayers, thanks to Obama, to invest in Brazilian oil?

      I give you three guesses …

  • MarkRNY

    Krauthammer speaks?!…"I have heard the voice of GOD" (Howard Beale, Network)

  • Lennart Bilén

    Last week the gulf states imported 7.271 million barrels of crude oil. Some of it came from the gulf states where by sharia law 1/8 of 1/40 of the profits goes to Jihad (if the sheiks are honest).
    Other oil is imported from Venezuela. To me it seems better to give those 700 million dollars a week to Canada, which as far as I know is still on terms with U.S.

  • nkthgreek

    And now we’re exporting oil. Hello!

  • globalwmngisahoax

    You need to ask first who owns the "Canadian" company that is planning this,,,,, where is the oil going,,,, is it going to actually be used by the U.S.? Are the jobs all union or will they benefit everyone,,,,, why should a foreign company be allowed to use eminent domain to take private property within the U.S? I am Republican and conservative, anti-union and live in the Sandhills,,,,,,, there may be a few natural gas pipelines on the edges, but they certainly are not crisscrossing the area and I would be surprised if there were anywhere near that many miles of them.

  • globalwmngisahoax

    I am Republican, conservative and sixth generation in the Sandhills. If there are anywhere near that many miles of pipeline crisscrossing this area I would like to know where and what it contains, there is some natural gas on the outer edges, however most areas have none.
    The pipeline does not create jobs except for union workers,or so it has been touted,,, Nebraska is a right to work state, so Conservatives here would think that was b.s.
    The "Candadian" company should not have the right to use eminent domain to take property from rightful landowners as it is not a U.S. entity.
    Who actually owns the"Canadian" company?
    Where was the oil going to go? To refineries and ultimately for sale in the U.S.? Apparently no, it was going to be shipped across and out of the country.
    The oil was oil sand which would be abrasive to the interior of the pipes.
    Believe me, I am pro oil exploration, Republican, right to work, Conservative etc, but this pipeline is wrong for reasons than simply what the "greenies" have stated…… with the eminent domain by a foreign corporation being at the top of my personal list.

    • Freempg

      Can you point to us where you are located on this map?

      • globalwmngisahoax

        The large area which comprises most of the actual Sandhills where there are no pipelines. You have the entire state here, as you can see while pipelines cross parts of the state they do not cross most of the Sandhills area.

        • globalwmngisahoax

          Your map also does not include the Cambrian ridge in the Southern part of Nebraska which essentially divides the Ogallala Aquifer into two sections, with most of the water being on the North side of the ridge.

          • globalwmngisahoax

            I should mention that I like Sarah Palin, this is a serious issue though and I believe the points I have made need to be addressed and I strongly disagree with the author.

            • Freempg

              How would a pipeline impact an aquifer?

              • globalwmngisahoax

                The Ogallala aquifer is the largest freshwater aquifer in the U.S., second in the world, the Cambrian ridge runs East to West essentially dividing it in half in the Southern part of Nebraska. The water in the Sandhills is just below below the surface in many areas, there are sloughs and bogs as well as many natural lakes. If one pipe broke in any of these areas it would destroy a delicate ecological balance.
                However as I stated before that is not my one concern,,,,,,, the other issues are key points that need to be addressed. Look at the posted links as to who owns transcanada. Why should a foreign entity be allowed to declare eminent domain in our country?

        • Freempg


    • John_Frank

      So, you would prefer higher gas prices, while continuing America’s reliance on oil from countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia?

      • globalwmngisahoax

        What does it matter if we are buying it from Canada or one of those places? We have plenty of oil within our own borders, if we drill our own, we actually create jobs. I believe some of the oil via transcanada is not actually staying here but merely being transported across the U.S. for export.

        • John_Frank

          Okay, so you don’t care if the oil is sold to China, instead of being refined in the US and then sold into the domestic and foreign market?

          • globalwmngisahoax

            I think the foreign market you are referring to will still be primarily China, so the only advantage of it would be a few long term refinery jobs. The negatives include: declaration of eminent domain on U.S. soil by a foreign corporation, using only union workers in a right to work state, risking the largest freshwater aquifer in the U.S.
            So to answer your question, there are other ways to transport it than the pipeline, using existing railways, highways etc. There are other places it could be refined than on the Gulf. There are routes other than the Sandhills. It is not cut and dried nor based on preferences, but sound reasoning.

            • John_Frank

              Have to strongly disagree with your analysis.

              The Keystone Pipeline would have allowed the US to substitute crude oil sourced from Venezuela with crude oil sourced from Nebraska and Alberta, while reducing imports from Saudi Arabia.

              But what the heck, even though the pipeline route was changed, the net benefit is positive and the crude supply would help reduce America’s reliance on crude sourced from countries that are not supportive of America, let’s side with Hollywood, the no growth environmentalists and the Obama administration.

  • globalwmngisahoax
    • Freempg

      I looked at the ownership profile. I am a broker/dealer by trade, not a stock broker, but a dealer which holds many securities licenses for such a qualification and can hire stock brokers to work for me should I choose. I examined the profile. It is normal and transparent. I have no problem with ownership. It is diverse.

      Regarding risk to habitat. I know firsthand as having been born and raised in northern MN where similar pipelines transgress sloughs, peat bogs, swamps (wetlands), and where a similar pipeline was just completed out of Canada, one passing oil from tar sands the other returning the solvent used to cut the thick crude to reduce its viscosity. The citizens there welcomed the pipeline with open arms for the jobs. This is an area of mostly Democrats. I find your concerns overblown and almost unbelievable, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

      This is my last comment on the subject.

      • globalwmngisahoax

        Be that as it may regarding the transparency and yes it is,,, the question is, what right does a foreign corporation have to claim eminent domain in another country to take property owner’s land? Where is the oil ultimately going? to the Gulf to be shipped ? I have no clue whether Minnesota is a right to work state, or if by being primarily Democrats they are pro union, that may make a difference. Perhaps they would like this one as well.

  • GeraldGoff

    BILLINGS, Mont. — Exxon Mobil says 1,509 barrels of oil spilled into the Yellowstone River during a pipeline break in Montana last summer – an increase of more than 500 barrels over the company’s earlier estimates.

    And they only recovered about 1%.

    It was the Nebraskan residents and politicians who asked for a new route that does not go thru wetlands or the sand hills.

    the keystone pipeline has had several spills.  If they cant keep the original pipeline from leaking how are they going to keep the XL extension from leaking?

  • Guest


Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets