White House Promises Keystone Veto

I could write a lot about this, but Ace nailed it in one sentence:

Shock: Obama, Who Was Permitted by the Press For Two Elections to Pretend to Be Waiting to Decide on Issue, Makes Veto Threat on Keystone

The White House is, of course, waiting on yet another finding by the State Department, which has already given it's approval, albeit with the usual caveats, at least twice already.

The veto threat was not a surprise since Obama talked down the economic benefits of the Keystone pipeline in his final press conference before Christmas in December. Obama claimed that the pipeline creates only a few thousand temporary jobs only benefits one Canadian oil company. Earnest also reaffirmed yesterday that Obama is concerned about increased carbon emissions from the project, even though Obama's own State Department found the impact of the project on carbon emissions to be negligible.

On Tuesday, however, Earnest repeatedly stressed that the White House had faith in the State Department's process for ruling on these projects and that, separately a Nebraska judge was also holding up the pipeline.

The application to begin construction on the Keystone pipeline was first submitted to the State Department in 2008 and the House bill would not affect the Nebraska suit since it is based on state law claims.

Given the amount of pipeline already in the United States, and the fact that transporting it by pipeline rather than by rail or truck is many times safer, the recalcitrance of the administration on this issue is criminal.

Major natural gas and oil pipelines in the United States.
Liquid lines in red, gas transmission lines in blue.

UPDATE: Tom McGuire at "Just One Minute" points out a discrepancy in the language used by Josh Earnst, who said that Obama would not sign Keystone Pipeline.  This would not be a veto, and would not have the same effect:

Until we see the full transcript (WhiteHouse.gov) for more context, that is the best we've got. And it's not good enough! Lest you have forgotten your civics, here we go:

Bill becomes law without president's signatureWhen Congress is not adjourned, and the president fails to either sign or veto a bill sent to him by the end of the 10-day period, it becomes law without his signature.

We all remember the "pocket veto", where the President simply holds the bill while Congress adjourns within the ten-day window.

But a threat to "not sign" a bill is different from a threat to send it back with a veto message. Is this deliberate ambiguity, or just a chronic inability to articulate a clear message? well, if this is one more case of the mumble-mouths, at least it is only baffling a domestic audience and not, e.g, Putin or Kim Jong-Un.

So an unsigned bill would become law after 10 days without his signature? Good enough for me.