Come to think of it, has ANY Republican president stood up to Iran? Obviously Reagan and Bush didnt, but I held out hope for George HW Bush.

So what did HE do when he came into power, while Iran-controlled Hezbollah had American Hostages in Lebanon?

This is what he said toIran in his inaugural address:

"There are today Americans who are held against their will in foreign lands, and Americans who are unaccounted for. Assistance can be shown here, and will be long remembered. Good will begets good will. Good faith can be a spiral that endlessly moves on."

I suppose it's not as missy kiddy as handing them a cake and a truckload of missies, but geez that's not exactly getting tough.

So is it the oil? What has caused three Republican presidents to do nothing but favors for Iran?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why am I surprised that the Obama Administration is making decisions that damage the energy security of the United States? One almost gets the sense that they want a weaker U.S. Hmm.

Coupled with the reduction in defense and this Obama is on the side of iran

No, that would be the Republicans. They are the ones that gave Iran missiles in the 80s, a few years after they took our embassy hostage. Not satisfied with this, they then destroyed Iran's sworn enemy, the one army that could go toe to toe with them in the region. That would be Iraq, and beating them was something that decades of conflict could not accomplish.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why am I surprised that the Obama Administration is making decisions that damage the energy security of the United States? One almost gets the sense that they want a weaker U.S. Hmm.

Hmm, indeed! I also have long suspected that Obama is working for the other side. There's just something about the way he looks.

Keep the faith, brother/sister.

Ah, yes, the race card. Color me shocked that it was your go-to response. Predictable, I suppose. But, let's stipulate that I'm a racist. Even so, what possible upside is there, for the U.S., of killing Keystone XL and ensuring that Canada needs to find another market for the tar sands, most likely China? Oil-filled supertankers chugging off the coast of British Columbia -- what could possible pose less environmental risk? It's like the Valdez happened in an alternate universe. Enlighten me, why would we rather have the tar sands oil burned, less efficiently and at greater environmental risk elsewhere in the world, than shipping it overland to the U.S.?

Let's get this straight: You ham-handedly insinuate that the president is a collaborator with some unidentified foreign enemy, then demand fair debate?

Anonymous wrote:Why am I surprised that the Obama Administration is making decisions that damage the energy security of the United States? One almost gets the sense that they want a weaker U.S. Hmm.

Coupled with the reduction in defense and this Obama is on the side of iran

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why am I surprised that the Obama Administration is making decisions that damage the energy security of the United States? One almost gets the sense that they want a weaker U.S. Hmm.

Hmm, indeed! I also have long suspected that Obama is working for the other side. There's just something about the way he looks.

Keep the faith, brother/sister.

Ah, yes, the race card. Color me shocked that it was your go-to response. Predictable, I suppose. But, let's stipulate that I'm a racist. Even so, what possible upside is there, for the U.S., of killing Keystone XL and ensuring that Canada needs to find another market for the tar sands, most likely China? Oil-filled supertankers chugging off the coast of British Columbia -- what could possible pose less environmental risk? It's like the Valdez happened in an alternate universe. Enlighten me, why would we rather have the tar sands oil burned, less efficiently and at greater environmental risk elsewhere in the world, than shipping it overland to the U.S.?

Who said it's dead?

It's not dead. The current proposed route is dead, and it's because Nebraska vetoed it. The reason Obama had to issue a decision on it is because Congress forced him to, even though it is moot.

They have already been working for a month on the new pipeline route. This is Republican hysterics.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why am I surprised that the Obama Administration is making decisions that damage the energy security of the United States? One almost gets the sense that they want a weaker U.S. Hmm.

Hmm, indeed! I also have long suspected that Obama is working for the other side. There's just something about the way he looks.

Keep the faith, brother/sister.

Ah, yes, the race card. Color me shocked that it was your go-to response. Predictable, I suppose. But, let's stipulate that I'm a racist. Even so, what possible upside is there, for the U.S., of killing Keystone XL and ensuring that Canada needs to find another market for the tar sands, most likely China? Oil-filled supertankers chugging off the coast of British Columbia -- what could possible pose less environmental risk? It's like the Valdez happened in an alternate universe. Enlighten me, why would we rather have the tar sands oil burned, less efficiently and at greater environmental risk elsewhere in the world, than shipping it overland to the U.S.?

GOP got pissed when O put off the decision until after the election, so they passed a law that he had to decide now. So he decided -- to put it off until after the election. Maybe they finally pushed him into a corner where he realizes there is no compromise that works with people who are not looking for compromise.

Anonymous wrote:Why am I surprised that the Obama Administration is making decisions that damage the energy security of the United States? One almost gets the sense that they want a weaker U.S. Hmm.

Hmm, indeed! I also have long suspected that Obama is working for the other side. There's just something about the way he looks.

Keep the faith, brother/sister.

Why am I surprised that the Obama Administration is making decisions that damage the energy security of the United States? One almost gets the sense that they want a weaker U.S. Hmm.

No one wants that pipeline. Bravo Obama.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-administration-rejects-current-keystone-oil-pipeline-route-won-t-final-call-election-article-1.1008124

Environmentalists over jobs. Cue the: "Bush did XYZ posts".

WAIT WAIT WAIT.

The entire legislature of the state of Nebraska AND the Republican governor shot down the plan because THEY don't want it running through the current route.

The fact is, if this was any other project, Republican would be hollering about State's Rights. Make it about oil, and they don't give a crap about Nebraska's right to control its own state.

Anonymous wrote:It will raise gas prices in 12 states.

But it will create 100 million jobs!

It will raise gas prices in 12 states.

No one wanted the current route-- the company's already started planning a new route. The R's in Congress thought they could put the President in a politically difficult spot by making him say go/no go to the current route and he said "no go", but we'll take a look at the new route. Yes it kicks the can down the road, but so what? The only people who should be annoyed are the R's who thought they would cause problems for him.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-administration-rejects-current-keystone-oil-pipeline-route-won-t-final-call-election-article-1.1008124

Environmentalists over jobs. Cue the: "Bush did XYZ posts".