Wednesday, January 25, 2012

WHO LIES

I know I should not be, but I continue to be dumbfounded that the likes of Jay Ambrose still grace the national media. His recent column (1/24) accusing President Obama of lying about the Keystone pipeline is, indeed, full of lies-- Ambrose's.

Time will allow for only a partial review. But first, let us note that this is the same Jay Ambrose who,  in defending obvious lies about WMD's, uranium, et al , said that accusing Bush of lying was "hateful hallucinations that poison political discourse." In the first sentence Ambrose accuses the President of being “weasel-worded”. Does this not “poison political discourse” ? Before he concludes that first sentence he accuses President Obama of betraying his country, lying and welshing. (That latter, though I am sure it is far too “pc” for Mr Ambrose, is an ethnic slur.)

A basis of his argument is the inference that the tar sand oils will be used for domestic energy. This a lie that the supporters promulgate implicitly or explicitly. The whole reason the current pipeline is being added to and extended is to transport the oil to Gulf refineries for export. For the profit of the corporations not for the energy of the nation. We, in fact, are not going to  “use” the oil.

He claims that the environmental complaints are about CO2 content and global warming. True enough, but he ignores other issues such as spills-- of which the current shorter pipeline has had at least 11 in the last year . Certainly a great risk to any surface and ground water exposed-- not, as he claims, “physically impossible tainting.”

Ambrose refers to “some Nebraskans complained.” In fact the UNANIMOUS state legislature passed and the Republican governor signed a bill prohibiting the planned route and voting $2 million to study an alternative route. A process that, in itself, will take us beyond the November elections.

If, as he accuses the president, there is a lie in not being sure the pipeline was safe it is in that we can be sure that the pipeline will not be safe. Yes, there is a risk-benefit analysis to be made, but that analysis must be comprehensive, including the need to move away from increasingly more polluting and expensive non-renewables and to move towards investing in cleaner, renewable energy sources.

Again, there is so much more, but let me end with my outrage that this man who has so defended Bush's lies-- about affairs, domestic and foreign-- that got so many people killed, injured and financially devastated, has the nerve to finish his venomous column with accusing President Obama of leaving “this country wounded and bleeding.”