Editorial: Obama's Keystone veto a head scratcher

The overarching sentiment from those not politically charged over the Keystone Pipeline veto is that it was another overly-dramatized political battle.

Indeed, that seems to be the case.

For a president who has rarely used his veto power, we're left scratching our heads as to why Obama would use it here.

The Keystone pipeline already exists. Massive amounts of oil are moved along an existing pipeline. In fact, there are pipelines all over the country.

If built, the new section of pipeline would provide a reliable source of oil from Canada. The pipeline would also allow for the transport of crude from shale formations in North Dakota, "at a time when there are still 250 million vehicles on U.S. roads," according to USA Today.

The pros and cons on either side of the debate were overstated, as seems to be the case with everything that turns political.

The economic boom wouldn't have been as big as predicted by conservatives; and the potential environmental effects would not have been as dire as predicted by environmentalists.

But this project would mean a lot to our Canadian neighbors, a strong ally. It would further protect the United States from the whims of Middle East oil economics. It would provide jobs. Could there be environmental consequences? Perhaps. Every pipeline has that potential, but so does every truck and train that hauls the stuff, which, by the way, we all need and use.

The president showed his hand when he vetoed the pipeline project. Extreme environmentalism has more sway with the president than other considerations, including jobs and economics. This was a project supported by both parties.

The president went against the grain, and common sense, by rejecting Keystone.