Congressional 9-11 report to be released today

Rat Boy: It is easier to go after Iraq than Saudi Arabia. Once we get Iraq ""up and running"" we can go after the Saudi''s. We need their oil or our economy goes to hell. It isn''t like the Democrats would tell the American people that it is worth it. The Democrats care more about getting back into power and Bush cares about staying in power.

I''m not talking about the full-scale invasion of Saudi Arabia; only the elimination of these terrorist-friendly officials. One of al-Qaeda''s prime missions is to overthrow the Crown Prince; I doubt that Abdullah would want to perform a coup on himself. More likely, it is members of the royal family way down on the line of succession; ones that have no shot in hell of becoming king. There have been reports of one princess funneling money to al-Qaeda*. The 9-11 report mentioned a Saudi student living in America having access to near unlimited funds from back home.

Let me put this in terms you''ll understand: if 9-11 happens again thanks to the Administration''s coddling of the Saudis, George W. Bush will not be re-elected and the economy will go straight down the toilet anway. Better to be on the offensive in a war than on the defensive. You and your compatriots on these forums have taken the Clinton Administration to task for not doing enough to combat terror. I find it hypocritical that you are not making the same charge for the same behavior against the Bush Administration.

* = Princess Haifa, according to Hardball a few minutes ago.

Indeed, how much terror came from the Iraqi regime anyway?

As far as we know for sure, one failed assassination attempt against George H.W. Bush. Indirectly, they''ve sent money to the Palestinians. But, no al-Qaeda.

"Koesj" wrote:

Indeed, how much terror came from the Iraqi regime anyway?

Much. Ask Irael. Iraq has strong ties to terrorist groups just not very strong ties to Al Queda.

/puts on X-files conspiracy hat

What if Bush allowed SA to train terrorists to strike right after Enron to distract the eyes of the American public, allowing him to invade Afganistan and Iraq, and completely pull the wool over everybody''s eye over how bad a job he''s doing domestically? Like the allegations of Clinton''s Wag the Dog move with military interventions while the Lewinsky scandal was going on?

/takes off conspiracy hat

I wonder how hard it will be for the SA government to ferret out their own terror supporting officials considering that the Al''Sauds running the government are one big family?

Much. Ask Irael. Iraq has strong ties to terrorist groups just not very strong ties to Al Queda.

Financial? In that way you could indirectly accuse _anyone_ of promoting _anything_ because financial businesses are so entangled. Proof of connections plz, kthz.

"Koesj" wrote:
Much. Ask Irael. Iraq has strong ties to terrorist groups just not very strong ties to Al Queda.

Financial? In that way you could indirectly accuse _anyone_ of promoting _anything_ because financial businesses are so entangled. Proof of connections plz, kthz.

Training, Financial, giving big checks to bombers families, vocal support.

Proof of connections plz, kthz.

Guys, guys, guys.

For the last time: After WWII, America pushed for democratic reform throughout Europe and Asia. It succeeded. Democracy took root. However, we didn''t push for reform in Africa because of the lack of strategic interests or in the Middle East because of oil and the lack of a perceived threat.

Since that time, the Arab world has resisted all attempts at modernization and democracy, and become home to an incredible level of anti-Americanism.

The only way to prevent another September 11 is to engage the Middle East the way we engaged Europe 60 years ago. For decades we have tried to p*ssy-foot around that fact through bribes and pacification, through handling terrorism as if it were a crime and not a cultural issue, and keeping a naval presence in the region. The old manner of handling the situation merely isolated the problem. It didn''t deal with it.

To fix the problem, we must introduce Democracy to the region. We must create a friendly nation that will allow us to project both military might as well as cultural ideas. And so we come to Iraq.

Iraq is the perfect nation for such a grand experiment. It is a wealthy nation, rich with the resource that we need. It had a dictator thathad little outside support and was reviled by his own people. Iraq had thumbed its nose at the UN so many times that even the most pacifistic anti-US countries couldn''t bring themselves to support Saddam.

We have committed ourselves to a long term venture. One with the lofty, and risky, goal of remaking an entire region. We cannot shirk from the task simply because some dissidents in Iraq are sniping our troops. We must see this through to the end, or else the deaths of all the soldiers to this point will have been in vain. We cannot presume that we can stop all terrorist acts against the US until such time that we have given the people who become terrorists a better way.

To say that we should jeopardize the reconstruction of the region by calling out Saudi Arabia now is short-sighted and foolish. When we have been successful in Iraq, the rest of the region will get their due.

Koesj, I''d have to go dig around CNN for the link, but Saddam paid $25,000 to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. Technically to provide for the care of those poor Islamic wives and children left behind by the tragedy.

And Saudi TV had a telethon to raise money for suicide bombers.

Look, you hypocrites can push for culture change until you''re blue in the face, but that does nothing to address the current army of terrorists running around Saudi Arabia and planning to kill thousands of Americans. Didn''t you support the war in Iraq to save American lives? Why aren''t you interested in doing the same thing to the terrorists in Saudi Arabia?

Look, you hypocrites can push for culture change until you''re blue in the face, but that does nothing to address the current army of terrorists running around Saudi Arabia and planning to kill thousands of Americans. Didn''t you support the war in Iraq to save American lives? Why aren''t you interested in doing the same thing to the terrorists in Saudi Arabia?

I want you to tone it down a bit there Rat, I''m seeing the word hypocrite thrown around a lot lately and it''s not necessary. If you or anyone else is feeling too heated about this take off for the day and come back later.

Fine. Perhaps hypocrite is too strong a word. What word would best describe someone who supported preemptive action against Iraq but not against members of the Saudi government with terrorist ties? Misguided? Confused? Cognitive dissonance? How does one sum up in one word a person who agrees with the application of a concept in one instance but disagrees with applying it in nearly the exact same situation?

Ha ha, you got in trouble and I didn''t.

Yet another example of Rat not reading my posts really.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Yet another example of Rat not reading my posts really.

And another example of JohnnyMoJo failing to rationalize the failings of his Administration. I mean, of all the bone-headed things the Administration has done lately, this has to rank up there near the top. The willfull concealment of 9-11 evidence? Come on, there are about 3000 families that are rightfully upset over this cover-up right now. I guess the Administration''s definition of American justice is ""we''ll bring the terrorists to justice or bring justice to the terrorists...but only if it is convenient for the nation''s bottom-line.""

You know what Rat, let''s assume the worst. Let''s assume that the administration is ''willfully concealing evidence''.

It is infinitely more important for the 270 million Americans out there that the economy get better than for the families of the 3000+ victims of this tragedy to get to read about Saudi Arabia''s involvement.

Are you saying that you would rather send the US economy into another recession for 2-3 more years and cost millions more Americans their jobs so you can read this report today? Are you suggesting that we should fight a two front war in the Middle East? Well?

Don''t accuse me of failing to ''rationalize the failings of the the administration'' just because I have some degree of common sense and can recognize that priorities are in order. Yes, it is tragic that 3000 people died on Sept 11. But I would rather enact real change and avoid losing 30,000 in future terrorist actions. And if that means that you and the families of the 9-11 victims don''t get to read a full report, well, so be it.

They can go in, pop some Saudi''s and claim the oil fields as it is, wouldn''t really put the US into a recessions would it? It just depends on how far you are willing to go.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

It is infinitely more important for the 270 million Americans out there that the economy get better than for the families of the 3000+ victims of this tragedy to get to read about Saudi Arabia''s involvement.

Are you saying that you would rather send the US economy into another recession for 2-3 more years and cost millions more Americans their jobs so you can read this report today? Are you suggesting that we should fight a two front war in the Middle East? Well?

Don''t accuse me of failing to ''rationalize the failings of the the administration'' just because I have some degree of common sense and can recognize that priorities are in order. Yes, it is tragic that 3000 people died on Sept 11. But I would rather enact real change and avoid losing 30,000 in future terrorist actions. And if that means that you and the families of the 9-11 victims don''t get to read a full report, well, so be it.

You priorities are really out of whack on this one. You value your own paycheck more than the safety this nation. And why do you even think that admitting in a report something that EVERYBODY KNOWS will cause the Saudis to turn off the pipeline and send the US economy down the crapper? Why are you afraid of the truth that is already known? The Administration, intentionally or not, is protecting their allies in the Saudi government by covering the crimes of our enemies in the Saudi government. I find it really disturbing that you''d be willing to trade $3 a gallon at the pump for progress on the War on Terror. You know, your inability to recognize this threat and unwillingness to deal with it makes this conversation moot...and over. I hope for your sake that your attitude really isn''t as widely shared as I fear, otherwise you''ll have the blood of dead Americans on your conscience in the near future.

You priorities are really out of whack on this one. You value your own paycheck more than the safety this nation.

Not what I said. I said I value the health of the economy more than releasing that information now.

And why do you even think that admitting in a report something that EVERYBODY KNOWS will cause the Saudis to turn off the pipeline and send the US economy down the crapper?

I don''t. I think that it will make the Democrats go hog wild, calling for immediate action against Saudi Arabia, much like you have been in this thread. But, unlike you, most of the Democrats in Congress know we can''t do anything right away and would be calling for immediate action as a political ploy.

I think that if we were to take action against the Saudis before we are ready, it would have profound economic impact. By supressing those pages and leaving their findings in the dark, we can apply pressure to the royal family without causing potential economic problems.

I find it really disturbing that you''d be willing to trade $3 a gallon at the pump for progress on the War on Terror.

You do understand that $3 a gallon gas doesn''t just affect me, right? It affects entire industries. It would cause massive layoffs as it rippled through the market. It wouldn''t bother me personally too much, but it would severely hurt the poor as they would be less likely to be able to afford more expensive fuel.

You know, your inability to recognize this threat and unwillingness to deal with it makes this conversation moot...and over.

Like I said. Your inability to actually read anything I say does not equate to me not recognizing a threat or being willing to deal with it. I just can look longer-term than an hour from now.

you''ll have the blood of dead Americans on your conscience in the near future.

Ah, way to escalate the rhetoric up to 11. So, basically in this conversation, what you have done is said that by supressing 31 pages (the contents of which ''EVERYONE'' already knows) Americans are going to be dying in droves. Now, mind you, you have offered no proof that pressure hasn''t been applied to the Saudi government already. Or that you actually know anything. You haven''t even presented the most basic of logical arguments. You have strong feelings, but nothing else. On the other side, I have made logical arguments as to why we chose Iraq first, as to why the evidence was suppressed (for now), and why we risk economic troubles by moving too fast.

Certis, forgive me, but I have to say it.

Rat, conversing with you is like arguing with a beligerint 5-year-old. You know what you feel, and you shout it at the top of your lungs, regardless of the logic or facts shown to you. Do a search for Elysium or Bosephus and look how an adult conversation is supposed to go. Otherwise, get a radio show and talk about how all the aliens are coming to get us or something.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

You know what you feel, and you shout it at the top of your lungs, regardless of the logic or facts shown to you.

Demonstrate where I''ve spoken a falsehood. My facts in this matter are not in dispute. My logic involved the application of established Administration policy, namely, ""if you''re not with us, they you''re with the terrorists."" Members of the Saudi government are ""with the terrorists"" and yet nothing is being done about them. In fact, the only thing that has been done is the suppression of any mention of the involvement of those terrorists in 9-11. You argue that it would harm the economy to go after them. I argue that not going after them would hurt the economy when the next attack comes. I argue that the investigation was supposed to indepently reveal the truth about 9-11 and expose the failings of America''s intelligence services, but instead, key evidence of these failings and the truth are being being suppressed by the White House, making the report''s independence irrelevant and unreliable. You argue that the truth should take a back-seat to the good of the nation, even though it would mean that the families of the 3000 who died on 9-11 would probably never know the truth and grow to distrust the present Administration. Do you see where a lot of people would have a problem with your logic? So far, you haven''t given a convincing argument why US national security and justice for 9-11 should take a back-seat to an economic recovery. Your arguments make you sound more concerned with your pocket book rather than the safety of your fellow Americans, and yet you don''t understand why someone would have a problem with it. This is a war; sacrifices need to be made, but just not the sacrifices of the lives and souls of innocent men, women, and children.

Oh and Certis, before you lock this thread, remind me to tell you the story of a failed Canadien invasion of France in 1942. It''s a real eye-opener on political bullsh*t.

Oh and Certis, before you lock this thread, remind me to tell you the story of a failed Canadien invasion of France in 1942. It''s a real eye-opener on political bullsh*t.

I have no idea what you''re talking about but I do agree on the thread locking part.

I want everyone to pay attention for the sake of our leaving the political section open. While still worlds apart compared to other forums we''re starting to see more and more arguments getting personal. I don''t want people stalking each other''s threads and I don''t everyone jumping down each other''s throats because they had a heated discussion in some other post.

Don''t lose your head and force us to lock the section or start handing out warnings. If you''re getting too riled up do us all a favor and take a walk. This goes for everyone!

I also want to add my complete agreement with Certis. While we''re trying very hard to take a hands off policy, and we''re very very happy to have a range of viewpoints, this discussion and this forum will remain civil.

We''re nearing a more hands on approach, and we would like to avoid that as much as you. Discussion good. Argument bad. Insults and threats, unacceptable.

Again, this is aimed at everyone.