Home | About | Donate

'What a Crock': Clinton Breaks DAPL Silence With Statement That Says 'Literally Nothing'


'What a Crock': Clinton Breaks DAPL Silence With Statement That Says 'Literally Nothing'

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

No longer able to sit on the sidelines and remain silent about the battle raging in North Dakota over Indigenous rights to clean water and sacred land, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton released a statement on Thursday about the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) fight—and it says "literally nothing."


Is anyone surprised at this?

Deny her any basis to claim a mandate.

Vote Stein/Baraka!


Unfortunately, Bill McKibben and the climate activists seems to be unaware that all the tribes are asking for is to re-route the pipeline off their tribal land. They do not oppose the pipeline itself - so they are setting themselves up for a disappointment even if - hopefully - the tribe's demands are met.

Climate activism needs to target the downstream-end of the oil infrastructure first - starting with one's personal consumption - then the upstream end - but fighting it at the middle is terrible strategy.


Hillary Clinton's response is not surprising give her derogatory comments regarding environmental activists as revealed by WikiLeaks.

Folk in support of environmental sustainability, social and economic justice, and peace are in for a tough 8 years with Hillary Clinton as President.

In spite of the fact that we all may not always agree on tactics, I sincerely hope that larger numbers of progressives will work together to build strong community based movements.


Triangulation is a specialty of the Clintons.


She could have said that the pipeline should be constructed as fast as possible so it can replace these dangerous oil trains that can explode when passing through highly populated areas. Or she could have said that building the pipeline is providing many jobs for workers and it needs to go forward. But she didn't. I think her statement read between the lines hints that perhaps a solution can found such as rerouting this pipeline to avoid the risk of polluting drinking water. I don't think anybody wants these oil trains out of North Dakota to continue so I would think the focus should be on finding another route for the pipeline. Of course oil needs to be replaced with green energy but that is going to take some time to accomplish.


You can just see a focus group parsing every word to make sure the statement is as bland an endorsement of the rights of groups involved to demonstrate peacefully as could be made at the last minute. Buried in the statement is this easily overseen comment that "all of the parties involved...need to find a path forward that serves the broadest public interest."
The words "broadest public interest" suggests that DAPL, in fact, does "serve the broadest public interest" and Indiginous rights to clean water and sacred lands be damned.


It took her owners long enough to supply her with a response.


Really? The tribes are fine with a pipeline carrying this earth desecrating substance, just not on their land? Why do i doubt this? If the legal challenges are wrapped around the routing, it is because that is the only grounds, literally, on which the Standing Rock Sioux actually have standing in a US court ..


Well here's a good start - Stein/Baraka '16 ..


Election day approaches, Lrx, and so does your likely layoff by whatever Dem organization hired you to troll CD. If indeed your days on CD are numbered, let me say that I'll miss you. Unlike the other Dem trolls you have always been polite and thoughtful, making the best logical arguments possible for the often indefensible Hillary. Hopefully the layoff notices will be handed out AFTER the victory party so you can have a bit of feel-good time. Then you, like the rest of us, will be living in HillRod's America. Perhaps you will be able to land one of those new jobs being created in the "service sector." Maybe HillRod will have some pity on the common man and knock a few percentage points off your student debt. With any luck neither you nor anyone in your immediate family will be a casualty of any of the ongoing wars, or those soon-to-be-started. Oh......and if you have a 401k put it in gold or diamonds before the inauguration. Good-bye and good luck, Lrx, you fought the good fight.


Great, let's send them to Bermuda ...


Guess what - the original, or alternate route was to be east of Bismarck, the capital - but folks there objected because - wait for it - it would endanger their water supply ..... Fact is there is no route that would not endanger a water supply ..

As for what Clinton could have said - that is what she will say - after the election is over ....


Shucks, where all the "let's elect Clinton and 'push' her after" folks? Maybe its rather clear by now that if you can't "push" her before the election when she needs votes, you sure as hell wouldn't be able to "push" her after, when she wouldn't need them ,,,,


When Clinton says we need to find a solution for " all parties involved" she really means all oil parties that have a vested interest in the 3.8 billion $ DAPL!


Check out this morning's Democracy Now. A tribal rep. told Amy Goodman exactly what I stated.

If people don't like this black smelly earth desecrating substance, they need to first deeply cut their own usage of it, and over time end using it altogether. This is what I've been doing over the past 20 years.


You have to remember that we on a environmental left are a small minority - and vote-seeking politicians know that. Hillary stands to lose a lot more votes by talking a strong anti-pipeline stand than taking a pro-pipeline stand. Hence, this wishy-washy statement is probably the best we can expect from her, unfortunately.

Trump has taken a very strong pro-pipeline/drilling/fracking/coal mining stand, and this is winning him a lot of votes- especially in my region.

He also holds a million dollar investment in the Dakota Access Pipeline.


Funny how 'Clinton-created' triangullation rhymes with strangulation ... :smirk::smiling_imp:


Let's look at that "Oil Train" argument. Of course, leaving all fossil fuels in the ground would be the best thing in terms of reducing the effects of Climate Chang. However, you are arguing that the gas is needed in some kind of transition period to supplant coal so hence the necessity of pipelines. And the pipeline and oil companies argue that it reduces our dependence on foreign sources and creates jobs.
But even that doesn't quite work. It costs less to build a refinery in North Dakota than it does to build a pipeline from North Dakota to Texas and the effect on jobs is about the same. They want it to get to Texas only so they can refine it there and ship it overseas. But shipping our gas overseas is not particularly in the interest of reducing dependence on foreign sources and the dangers of transporting stuff all over the world in gigantic tankers is just as bad as the dangers of the trains. In the end, the pipelines are then completely useless in terms of a "public good" as far as I can see.


I don't think your statement about tribal demands is accurate. The main issue is about crossings of the Missouri river and tributaries, which us not possible to avoid. Hence the "Water is Life" slogan and why they refer to themselves as protectors.

Unlike most Euro-descended Americans, most Native Americans are concerned about things beyond tbeir own self interests.