RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-dakota-access-pipeline-is-really-about-1481071218

A little more than two weeks ago, during a confrontation between protesters and law enforcement, an improvised explosive device was detonated on a public bridge in southern North Dakota. That was simply the latest manifestation of the “prayerful” and “peaceful” protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Escalating tensions were temporarily defused Sunday when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at the direction of the Obama administration, announced it would refuse to grant the final permit needed to complete the $3.8 billion project. The pipeline, which runs nearly 1,200 miles from the Bakken Shale in North Dakota to Illinois, is nearly complete except for a small section where it needs to pass under the Missouri River. Denying the permit for that construction only punts the issue to next month—to a new president who won’t thumb his nose at the rule of law.

Like many North Dakotans, I’ve had to endure preaching about the pipeline from the press, environmental activists, musicians and politicians in other states. More often than not, these sermons are informed by little more than a Facebook post. At the risk of spoiling the protesters’ narrative, I’d like to bring us back to ground truth.

• This isn’t about tribal rights or protecting cultural resources. The pipeline does not cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government. To suggest that the Standing Rock tribe has the legal ability to block the pipeline is to turn America’s property rights upside down.

• Two federal courts have rejected claims that the tribe wasn’t consulted. The project’s developer and the Army Corps made dozens of overtures to the Standing Rock Sioux over more than two years. Often these attempts were ignored or rejected, with the message that the tribe would only accept termination of the project.

• Other tribes and parties did participate in the process. More than 50 tribes were consulted, and their concerns resulted in 140 adjustments to the pipeline’s route. The project’s developer and the Army Corps were clearly concerned about protecting tribal artifacts and cultural sites. Any claim otherwise is unsupported by the record. The pipeline’s route was also studied—and ultimately supported—by the North Dakota Public Service Commission (on which I formerly served), the State Historic Preservation Office, and multiple independent archaeologists.

• This isn’t about water protection. Years before the pipeline was announced, the tribe was working with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps to relocate its drinking-water intake. The new site sits roughly 70 miles downstream of where the pipeline is slated to cross the Missouri River. Notably, the new intake, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, will be 1.6 miles downstream of an elevated railroad bridge that carries tanker cars carrying crude oil.

Further, the pipeline will be installed about 100 feet below the riverbed. Automatic shut-off valves will be employed on either side of the river, and the pipeline will be constructed to exceed many federal safety requirements.

Other pipelines carrying oil, gas and refined products already cross the Missouri River at least a dozen times upstream of the tribe’s intake. The corridor where the Dakota Access Pipeline will run is directly adjacent to another pipeline, which carries natural gas under the riverbed, as well as an overhead electric transmission line. This site was chosen because it is largely a brownfield area that was disturbed long ago by previous infrastructure.

• This isn’t about the climate. The oil that will be shipped through the pipeline is already being produced. But right now it is transported in more carbon-intensive ways, such as by railroad or long-haul tanker truck. So trying to thwart the pipeline to reduce greenhouse gas could have the opposite effect. CONTINUE AT SITE

His history of lying and coverups does not just disqualify him for Secretary of State—it makes him unfit for any cabinet position in Trump’s administration.

David Petraeus was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos this Sunday, an event promoted as “Petraeus’s Sunday Hail Mary” in his last-minute efforts to become part of the Trump cabinet. Petraeus’s television performance was grim, tense, and hesitant. His demeanor was that of a defendant on the stand, trying to keep his stories straight.

Surprisingly, for someone who has sworn to defend the Constitution in his professional career, Petraeus stated without qualification, “I don’t vote.” He insisted that he did not support or oppose Trump, “nor did I support or oppose any other candidate. I’ve truly tried to be apolitical, non-political.”

But in fact, Petraeus’s positions have been identical to Clinton’s for years, possibly up to the moment last week when he entered Trump Tower for his meeting with the President-Elect. Petraeus as Secretary of State is Hillary Clinton in a better pantsuit.

And that’s why Petraeus is not just a bad choice for Secretary of State—he’s a bad choice for any other cabinet position. He brings too much baggage, a damaged brand, and a long history of lying. He lied to the FBI and CIA about his handling of classified documents; he lied to his wife about his mistress; he lied to Congress about Benghazi. Why should Trump’s transition team assume he’s telling them the truth now?
Petraeus Mishandled Classified Info and Lied about It

Petraeus handed over eight black binders of classified information to his mistress Paula Broadwell, risking charges of violating the Espionage Act. These were real secrets, and it was a more than just a “mistake,” as Petraeus would later allege. “The Justice Department said the information, if disclosed, could have caused ‘exceptionally grave damage,’” wrote the Washington Post. “Officials said the notebooks contained code words for secret intelligence programs, the identities of covert officers, and information about war strategy and deliberative discussions with the National Security Council.”

That was just the start of a series of lies and coverups. Petraeus was caught lying to the FBI in the investigation. He also reportedly lied to the CIA when he resigned, claiming he had no classified materials when, in fact, those eight books of secret information were still at his home. The administration managed to keep the FBI investigation of Petraeus secret until after the 2012 election: the election was held November 6, and Petraeus’s superior James Clapper was—conveniently—informed November 7 of Petraeus’ affair. Obama was then briefed, allegedly for the first time, on November 8—the day Petraeus resigned.

Mishandling classified information and then lying about it, and then being allowed to walk on a misdemeanor charge? It’s as if the Petraeus scandal was the dress rehearsal for the FBI’s handling of Hillary’s private server.
Petraeus Defended Middle East Clients Over the Rights of Fellow Americans

Petraeus’s first impulse is to silence any criticism of Islam that could upset his Middle East clients. When he was commander of CENTCOM, those clients were the Islamic nations in the CENTCOM region. Not much changed when he joined the global financial firm KKR in 2013, as a “door opener” to Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and everyone else he had previously courted in his official government role.

But then in December 2015, Trump suggested a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. Petraeus’s Muslim clients went ballistic. As The Federalist related earlier this year, “In December 2015, influential Dubai billionaire Khalaf Al Habtoor published an op-ed (‘Ignore Trump’s bigotry at your peril’).” On May 4, Habtoor called Trump “very dangerous” and a “loose cannon.” Two days later, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal warned against Trump’s effect on U.S.-Saudi relations.

A week later on May 13, Petraeus made his move against Trump. He wrote a scathing op-ed for the Washington Post, expressing his concern that Muslims would be alienated by “inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.”

Petraeus’s op-ed reached CAIR-levels of outrage, scolding “those who flirt with hate speech against Muslims,” “those who demonize and denigrate Islam,” and “demonizing a religious faith and its adherents.” A bravura finger-wagging performance, the op-ed also served as a timely audition for a future Clinton administration, with Petraeus warning “It is precisely because the danger of Islamist extremism is so great that politicians here and abroad who toy with anti-Muslim bigotry must consider the effects of their rhetoric.”