Obama Blames Republicans For Keystone XL Decision

Tyler Durden's picture

The big news of the day, aside from the idiot rally finally being back on full bore, is that the Obama administration finally pushed Canada's hand in telling it to sell its crude to China instead of the US, which we are confident it will gladly do. Much of this was largely priced on, as was the fact that opportunity for significant job creation was just kicked to the curb. What was not however expected, is that in keeping up with the fine tradition of taking responsibility for his decisions and actions, kinda sorta, America's president said that it was really the republicans whose fault it is that Keystone XL is now and will remain in its blueprint stages. From The Hill: "Obama said he was not acting on the merits of TransCanada Corp.’s plan, but instead was forced to make the decision based on the “arbitrary” deadline mandated by GOP provisions in December’s payroll tax cut extension deal. "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," Obama said in a prepared statement. “As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree,” Obama added. In other words, do you remember where you were when the republicans blocked the Keystone Pipeline?

Naturally, Republicans were not happy, and will use this faux pas to the fullest extent.

House Republicans blasted Obama for his decision to reject the pipeline at a press conference Wednesday afternoon.

 

"President Obama is destroying tens of thousands of American jobs and shipping American energy security to the Chinese," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said. "The president is selling out American jobs for politics.”

 

Boehner vowed to continue pushing for approval of the pipeline.

 

"This is not the end of the fight. Republicans in Congress will continue to push this because it is good for our country, it is good for the economy and it’s good for the American people," he said.

 

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said Wednesday that he has invited Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to testify before his panel next week on the pipeline decision.

 

President Obama, while nixing the project, sought to show that he backs expanded oil-and-gas development.

 

“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,” Obama said.

 

“In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security – including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico – even as we set higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and invest in alternatives like biofuels and natural gas,” said the president.

 

“And we will do so in a way that benefits American workers and businesses without risking the health and safety of the American people and the environment,” he added.

The sad thing is that due to yet more political bickering, nobody is a bigger winner here than China and OPEC: precisely the two organizations that America should be most concerned about, and not who has how many votes where. But such is the terminal game of political marionettes which we have.

In the meantime, The Ogallala Aquifier will be appreciated in all its pristine beauty by ever more unemployed Americans, whose jobs skills petrify as most they remain without a job for a record 40+ weeks.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
emsolý's picture

Couldn't he blame the snow?

spiral_eyes's picture

nah he should do a brother nathanael and blame the jews.

macholatte's picture
Presidential Accomplishments

I get tired of all the mail stating the President hasn’t accomplished anything.
An impressive list of accomplishments!

 

· First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

· First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

· First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States

· First President to violate the War Powers Act. .

· First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .

· First President to defy a Federal Judge’s court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.

· First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

· First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready’ jobs when there was no such thing as ‘shovel-ready’ jobs.

· First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

· First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat. .

· First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.

· First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

· First President to terminate America ’s ability to put a man in space.

· First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

· First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

· First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.

· First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

· First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

· First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

· First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

· First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office. .

· First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.

· First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.

· First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

· First President to go on multiple global ‘apology tours’.

· First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends; paid for by the taxpayer.

· First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

· First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

· First President to repeat the Holy Qur’an tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

· First President to take a 17 day vacation.

So how is this hope and change working out for you?

 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/01/11/presidential-accomplishments/

LongSoupLine's picture

wow, that is a lot of "change"!

trav7777's picture

there probably weren't enough black companies that had payola from any project.  So he rejected it.

It's something as simple as that, one of his favored interests wasn't getting paid enough.

old naughty's picture

Hey, Harper buddy, I did not reject it, the other party did. I showed you an alternative, let's give it another run.

philipat's picture

Hey, Obama Buddy. Shove(el) it, we'll build a pipeline to BC and sell the oil to the Chinese. if you don't want it, they do.

Chief KnocAHoma's picture

Actually I am impressed that he didn't blame his failure to provide for our engery needs on race.

"A pipeline coming from a majority white country would only surpress the disadvantged. We need new engery sources... like unicorn shit or magic beans. Only those clean inovations will make this nation secure."

PS - Why is press having a stroke about Romney's tax returns? What about Obama's college transcripts?

Keep it clean you turd eaters.

Chief KnocAHoma's picture

Oh and PPS -

I can also hear Huesein Obama adding this to his speach - "Sure I flushed over $500-million of your tax payer dollars down the toilet on unproven solar technologies, and that is another reason the mean old racist white Republicans don't want this pipeline.. It is a proven affordable engery sourse and ... wait I am confusing myself.... RACIST."

Cheesy Bastard's picture

Oh, and also he can legally shoot American citizens, or if he is feeling benevolent he can simply detain them indefinitely without due process.

NumberNone's picture

- First president to arm Mexican drug smugglers with weapons in order to push for stricter gun control laws in the US.

Gully Foyle's picture

NumberNone

"First president to arm Mexican drug smugglers with weapons in order to push for stricter gun control laws in the US."

Only true in the sense of using Mexicans instead of various drug dealers worldwide. Maybe not even the first to arm Mexicans.

You do understand that arming one cartel allows our boys to pick and choose who controls the pipeline. Who controls our neighbors south of the border.

When Poppy took out Noriega drug smuggling quadrupled overnight.

 

moondog's picture

There are some uneducated folks engaged in discussion here. Who would give you a negative for a true statement? Go back to watching the corporate media dummies. Gully, it's sad that our country is full of a bunch of sheeple who can't think critically. How the hell did they find their way onto ZH?

blunderdog's picture

Posts that start with the name "Obama" are usually intended to kick off the communal "5-hour hate" session.  There are places you can have good conversations here, though.

covsire's picture

It's critical thought assassins who label thoughts they don't like as "hate" speech that do more damage to constructive debate than anything else.  Obama supports are the worst offenders if you ask me because rarely do they actual debate with substance. 

Flakmeister's picture

Pray tell, where did you get your mastery of Newspeak??

blunderdog's picture

Don't think you'll find many Obama supporters here, but I know they exist.  I enjoy a good substantive debate, myself.

But do you think that's the point of the pages of comments about Michelle Obama being fat and ugly?  Or Obama being Muslim?  Or both of them being black?

There's substance, but these aren't the threads where you'll find it. 

Personally, I like it here.  I appreciate the window into the thoughts of some of my countrymen.  Moderated boards suck.

Flakmeister's picture

Well said...

I shudder to think  if there was ever a Post that was titled "Obama says Global Warming is Serious Issue"

spankfish's picture

We've been arming drug dealers/cartels/warlords for decades.  Gun running and war is profitable for some.

moondog's picture

First president to arm Mexican drug smugglers? Perhaps, but previous administrations have been complicit in illegal activity. The latest scam on the American public is a two fer. Arm CIA associates AND do away with gun rights.

Keep in mind that the CIA has been engaged in trading drugs and guns for a while. Remember Iran-contra?

http://youtu.be/fy9JCDchk34

The Left|Right argument is a fallacy. Money is king, and our system has been corrupt for a long, long time. The government is the mob, with legal authority.

Both Bushes were dirty, Clinton was dirty, Obama is dirty. Some things never change in the good ole US of A.

Do what you can locally to wake up your neighbors. Prepare, and protect yourself and your loved ones. The big shitstorm is coming.

 

PulpCutter's picture

All that typing, and you're still completely clueless.

The individual mandate was originally a Republican idea.  Even Fox News got that one:

http://politics.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=23888&content=35925395&...

So much for the "Constitutional Crisis". 

 

john39's picture

there is only one party...    left vs right is entertainment for the masses.   And yeah, brother nathaniel would agree...

moondog's picture

By george I think he's got it.

+1000

Stax Edwards's picture

Make no mistake there are differences, however, at this pivotal point economically it would be nice to set the social and religious issues aside for a few years and do what the American people need to fix our economy.

You see, the interests of the American People may in fact differ from those of our new banker overlords, I know, Shocker.  Damn shame bonuses have fallen all the way to 375k at Goldman (chump change). 

Lets not forget Goldman Sachs great contributions to our society.  Who can forget the Fabulous Fabrice Tourre?  I actually put an American flag on my house the day congress was grilling he and Blankfein.  Abacus was a gift from Blankfein with a bill for the taxpayers.  I believe it has now been conclusively proven that John Paulson can only make money when he gets to hand pick the bad paper he wants to bet against.  Who would have thunk it? 

Goldman is happy to provide such services to the detriment of our society as a whole, and for that we should all be thankful.

Hell, Goldman is responsible for helping Greece cook the books as needed to make it into the Euro.  Yes, Greece did not qualify for the Euro without the "Paulson Special" they provided for the Greek .gov to make it in the union.  We should thank our GS overlords for their service.  Certainly some of the money we lost in the last few years could be attributed to Goldmans marvelous financial engineering. 

We are blessed with people of such fine moral terpitude that are willing to take time off from GS to run our treasury department & often times federal reserve.  Hell Goldman alums are even willing to run Italy and Greece now.  Good people over at GS indeed.

blunderdog's picture

Goldman is responsible for helping Greece cook the books as needed to make it into the Euro.

Yeah, just one of those funny things, right? 

That's the kind of thing that would be suspicious if you found it happening at sporting events or with insurance policies.  But no one could possibly imagine anything untoward happening in the banking industry.  What, like these guys could ever even *try* to plan something more than a quarter in advance?  That they'd make decisions solely for the purpose of long-term profit? 

Unpossible.

Uncle Sugar's picture

PulpCutter - I love how you idiots apply relativism to justify illegal and/or immoral acts implemented by the left.  How many times have we heard "Well Bush did it first" as if that is supposed to make it ok for Obozo to do it. 

Get a life and a brain.

PulpCutter's picture

Moron-

There's nothing to justify.  Obama did the right thing.  The Affordable Care Act is a mess, but it's the best deal he could get, given the assinine behavior of "conservative" morons like you who, after first proposing the idea, then when someone else would get the credit for it, decided it was unconstitutional.

The rest of the G20 has single-payer healthcare, at an average price of half what we pay, and with better results.  Hey - I could care less how much you piss and moan, because 1) I'm a clinician and I'm raking in your money (thank you) and 2) my family has great healthcare coverage.  When the spoiled Boomers get a bit older, they're going to vote in single-payer healthcare.

Here's one for you to think about (but don't try to chew gum at the same time, we don't want you to fall down).  The rest of the G20 averages about half the healthcare bill we have.  The federal govt (taxpayer) already pays for 59% of America's total healthcare bill, when you total up Medicare/Medicaid, the VA hospital system, insurance premiums for federal workers, etc..  So - we already PAY enough for universal healthcare, we just don't get the healthcare.

You idiot.

blunderdog's picture

So - we already PAY enough for universal healthcare, we just don't get the healthcare.

That's true, but the health-insurance plan as passed doesn't have much to do with DELIVERING CARE.  It's about protecting the health-insurance industry.  The problems that exist on the delivery side of the health-care system are not helped by forcing more people into the incomprehensible world of modern medical insurance.  *Insurers* are the institutions that have the most control on the treatments most people can get--not the doctors or hospitals, and not the government.

Believe me, if there were a real reason to defend "Obamacare," I'd do it.  But there isn't.  Everyone got chumped.

Captain Kink's picture

You seem to have plenty of facts and even personal experience to support your argument.  You lose by resorting to "moron", "Idiot", etc...

why trash the power of your own well-informed argument?  If you have kids, your patience has been tested way beyond what you read here.  Use it as an opportunity to educate rather than humiliate.

 

peace.

PulpCutter's picture

Up yours.

Lee Atwater started this.  Real Americans (liberals) have tried 'nice', and got our asses handed to us.  Time to close the "nastiness gap".

 

Flakmeister's picture

Never thought of it that way....

It does make a lotta sense though....

defencev's picture

You, motherfucker, think you are smart ass? I do not care whether you are clinician or more likely clinical case but I can tell you something. America is bankrupt and it is going to go to hell if Obama stays in White house for another 4 years. You, motherfucker, has no slightest idea what is going to happen with you: but you will suffer in way you cannot imagine. How about looking for food in waste baskets? Living in slums? Being total, miserable, helpless shit? This is your future with adorable affordable act.

And do not worry about Obama and his Marxist cronies: they will enjoy

the life on Swiss government accounts while the rest of the country will be in deep shit. That is what all Marxists crave for: enjoy total control and gorge while the others go to hell.

PulpCutter's picture

I normally have reservations about kicking an animal as dumb as your punctuation and grammar indicate...

That said, I'll go through this SLOWLY. See if you can keep up.

If someone takes my property and gives it to the GOVERNMENT, that's Marxism.  If someone takes my property and gives it to the WallSt BANKS, that's CORRUPTION. 

There is no Marxism in America.  The banks' paid media mouthpieces (Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) scream "Marxism" to distract you, while they steal everything that isn't nailed down.

--------------------

BTW, did you know that Bain (Romney) bought Clear Channel Communications (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage) in 2008?  That's why "real conservatives" haven't been able to agree on an alternative to Romney; they're lost without someone to tell them what to think!

 

Clear Channel Communications, Inc. is an American media conglomerate company headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.[3] It was founded in 1972 by Lowry Mays and Red McCombs, and was taken private by Bain Capital LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP in a leveraged buyout in 2008.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communications

Bob Sacamano's picture

- Presided over the worst US mining disaster in many decades (administration is responsible for mine safety -- lack of regulation was not the cause)

- Presided over the worst oil spill disaster (administration is responsible for monitoring oil drilling -- lack of regulation was not the cause)

- Presided over the worst intelligence leak of all time (hundreds of thousands of documents -- and no one above the rank of Private suffers any consequence)

And the MSM pretty much gives him a free pass on all of the above......he is one of them....

 

UP Forester's picture

It's all Bush's fault.

Didn't you get the memo?

Everybodys All American's picture

Impeachable offenses and yet no one has the balls to call him out on it.

BlackholeDivestment's picture

Rosemary's Baby is an enemy to the U.S. Constitution and every moron that voted for him holds that account.

Taint Boil's picture

Let me play the devil’s advocate for a second here: 

The 935 lies of George W. Bush and other stuff.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/01/30/notes013008.DTL

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html

http://www.rense.com/general58/dadmin.htm

 

Iraq war totals: 

4,000 Americans dead

30,000 Americans injured 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

 

All based on lies

Taint Boil's picture

 

 

September 10, 2002

 

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

 

  1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?
  2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
  3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?
  4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?
  5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
  6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?
  7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?
  8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?
  9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?
  10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when and where it chooses"
  11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?
  12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US- and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?
  13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?
  14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?
  15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?
  16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?
  17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?
  18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?
  19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
  20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?
  21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?
  22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?
  23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?
  24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?
  25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?
  26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?
  27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
  28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?
  29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us and could not if it wanted?
  30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
  31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
  32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?
  33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?
  34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?
  35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

From ........... wait for it ....... Ron Paul of course

smore's picture

This picture needs a caption: "This is how it's gonna be, bitch!"

http://rt.com/usa/news/israel-iran-us-missile-011/

solgundy's picture

Obama commands the SUN to rise every day...but the F/n republicans make it go away every day

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

It's all George Bush's fault.

nmewn's picture

It is a little thread bare ain it?

"With Canadian regulatory approval received from the National Energy Board (NEB) in 2010, the Project is ready to commence construction activities as it awaits final approval from U.S. regulators. In March of 2011, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) committed to delivering a definitive decision on Keystone XL before the end of the year."

 http://www.transcanada.com/5738.html

His own administration made the commitment to make the decision before the end of 2011...lol.

Captain Kink's picture

“As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree,” Obama added

I love how the Admin is citing the State Dept's advice on the matter... I wonder if Hillary was consulted on the fact that he will later flip and throw her sorry ass under the bus.

Joebloinvestor's picture

The sooner this idiot and his administration fade into obscurity the better.

 

Blue Dingo's picture

And the true believers that still support this loser!

covsire's picture

Left vs Right being what it is, what cannot be denied is that even in the face of shades of crap, i'd still rather have any running R than the current D-bag ruining everything him and his congress cohorts touch.

Hobbleknee's picture

What difference will that make?  They'll replace him with something worse and people will continue to except it.