Mr. Bush his Saudis

[depotoo]

Are you saying that we should have gone to Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan?

Not necessarily an invasion, just some sort of action. I realize the situation is extremely complex and there are implications to the whole thing.

However, when we have a number of Saudi nationals with ties to the Saudi gov't crashing planes into buildings and we do not much to address this I think there might be a problem. Don't you?

did any of the bombers have ties to the Saudi government? were any of them agents of the saudi government?

you beat me to it!

 

[NoNukes]

The dem/libs will never get over the fact that Bush beat their clowns twice. Its amazing.

We will never get over how you put the worst Oresident invHustory in office twice and embarrassed the United States.

 

[KevinWestern]

Are you saying that we should have gone to Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan?

Not necessarily an invasion, just some sort of action. I realize the situation is extremely complex and there are implications to the whole thing.

However, when we have a number of Saudi nationals with ties to the Saudi gov't crashing planes into buildings and we do not much to address this I think there might be a problem. Don't you?

did any of the bombers have ties to the Saudi government? were any of them agents of the saudi government?

No, but article alleges that (according to CIA papers) the bombers did meet and receive money from prominent government officials. Again, this is just a debate.

 

[Kosh]

Are you saying the Saudis were not involved in the attacks? Not sure what your point is.

Are you saying that we should have gone to Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan?

I'm not saying anything, I'm just asking why the President at the time wouldn't take action against that country in some way.

Typical far left Obama drone that will not answer the question.

 

[Kosh]

The dem/libs will never get over the fact that Bush beat their clowns twice. Its amazing.

We will never get over how you put the worst Oresident invHustory in office twice and embarrassed the United States.

Your right Obama is worst president in history.

 

[KevinWestern]

Are you saying that we should have gone to Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan?

I'm not saying anything, I'm just asking why the President at the time wouldn't take action against that country in some way.

Typical far left Obama drone that will not answer the question.

Hey Kosh, please stop acting like a child. We're talking about a serious topic here and if you're not going to be a big boy I suggest you leave. The "obama drone" line makes you sound like a moron.

I answered your question directly. You asked if I was saying something and I said "no, I wasn't saying that". Don't fault me for a poorly worded question on your part.

.

 

[Edgetho]

The dem/libs will never get over the fact that Bush beat their clowns twice. Its amazing.

We will never get over how you put the worst Oresident invHustory in office twice and embarrassed the United States.

Your right Obama is worst president in history.

Bush's worst year was better than this scumbag **********'s best year.

 

[Redfish]

The dem/libs will never get over the fact that Bush beat their clowns twice. Its amazing.

We will never get over how you put the worst Oresident invHustory in office twice and embarrassed the United States.

sorry, but you guys did that. Obama is clearly the worst president in history and has been a total embarrassment to the country.

 

[Edgetho]

I'm not saying anything, I'm just asking why the President at the time wouldn't take action against that country in some way.

Typical far left Obama drone that will not answer the question.

Hey Kosh, please stop acting like a child. We're talking about a serious topic here and if you're not going to be a big boy I suggest you leave. The "obama drone" line makes you sound like a moron.

I answered your question directly. You asked if I was saying something and I said "no, I wasn't saying that".


.

You're assuming that the Sauds did something wrong.

You kinda ignored that little thing called guilt, huh?

You haven't proven they did anything wrong. In fact, you haven't even presented any hard evidence.

Try to follow the steps......

 

[Kosh]

Are you saying the Saudis were not involved in the attacks? Not sure what your point is.

Are you saying that we should have gone to Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan?

Not necessarily an invasion, just some sort of action. I realize the situation is extremely complex and there are implications to the whole thing.

However, when we have a number of Saudi nationals with ties to the Saudi gov't crashing planes into buildings and we do not much to address this I think there might be a problem. Don't you?

Bin Laden was the son of one the royals in Saudi, so should I come get you for the actions of your kid regardless of age?

And to bring this up now with Obama in charge should you not be asking why the far left is not demanding Obama do something about this?

You still avoided my question:

Are you saying that we should have gone to Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan?

 

[Redfish]

Not necessarily an invasion, just some sort of action. I realize the situation is extremely complex and there are implications to the whole thing.

However, when we have a number of Saudi nationals with ties to the Saudi gov't crashing planes into buildings and we do not much to address this I think there might be a problem. Don't you?

did any of the bombers have ties to the Saudi government? were any of them agents of the saudi government?

No, but article alleges that (according to CIA papers) the bombers did meet and receive money from prominent government officials. Again, this is just a debate.

conjecture after the fact. Means nothing. Its history, move on and try to deal with the mess you fools created by giving obama two terms.

 

[Kosh]

I'm not saying anything, I'm just asking why the President at the time wouldn't take action against that country in some way.

Typical far left Obama drone that will not answer the question.

Hey Kosh, please stop acting like a child. We're talking about a serious topic here and if you're not going to be a big boy I suggest you leave. The "obama drone" line makes you sound like a moron.

I answered your question directly. You asked if I was saying something and I said "no, I wasn't saying that". Don't fault me for a poorly worded question on your part.

.

No you did not answer my question directly you avoided once, then did an end run around it.

How about a simple yes or no?

 

[KevinWestern]

First he needs to identify who he means by "the Saudis"

Were some Saudis involved? Duh.... In case it's escaped everyone's attention, Mecca is in Saudi Arabia and so is the heart of the Islamic movement.

So of course there were some Saudis involved.

Does he mean "the Saudis" as in the Saudi Arabian government? THAT is the question.

If he's accusing the Saudi GOVERNMENT of collusion or conspiracy then I think he needs a lot more evidence than some missing papers from a Congressional Investigation.

And since when has ANYTHING Congress ever investigated been a secret for longer than an hour?

I also don't like a thread with a presupposed answer to a question.

Although I generally agree with Kevin, this one is way too conspiratorial for me.

Hi Edge,

The newstory I linked to connects a few (what appears to be prominent) government officials to the 9/11 attacks:

"LOS ANGELES: Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy allegedly arranged for an advance team to receive two of the Saudi hijackers — Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi — as they arrived at LAX in 2000."

"HERNDON, VA.: On the eve of the attacks, top Saudi government official Saleh Hussayen checked into the same Marriott Residence Inn near Dulles Airport as three of the Saudi hijackers who targeted the Pentagon. Hussayen had left a nearby hotel to move into the hijackers’ hotel."

"SARASOTA, FLA.: 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and other hijackers visited a home owned by Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of King Fahd."

"WASHINGTON: Then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks totaling some $130,000 to Bassnan while he was handling the hijackers. "

Again, just bringing up the subject because I personally found it to be interesting. I'm not blaming Bush here for all of the world's problems, lol, just throwing the topic out there.

Didn't realize I would get such a backlash. People seem overly protective of the Bush Administration.

We're not 'protective' of Bush, we're sick to death of dimocraps never taking responsibility for anything.

It's important to note in your conspiracy that Osama bin Floatin' was persona non grata in Saudi Arabia. Big time and in a Big way. Had he showed up there, King Abdullah would have had him boiled in oil, drawn, quartered hanged and shot. And then killed.

He was tossed by the King. The story is more complicated than I want to get into, but Osama bin Floatin' offered his services to the King after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The King, not being stupid, saw what bin Foatin' was up to and tossed him.

Lucky he didn't have his whole family killed.

There were almost certainly bin Floatin' sympathizers inside the Saudi Government willing to help bin Floatin'. He was the one who offered to fight Saddam (he would have gotten pulverized) by bringing his Mujahideen from Asscrackistan.

The King saw that obvious treachery as well. Get 20 or 30 thousand Mujahideen in the Country and take over.

The King preferred American Troops. We had no desire to take over his Country.

There were (and still are) factions that would love to depose the King and the entire Royal Family..... Or most of it.

Complicated.

Well there we go, that's a great answer and helps be better understand the situation at hand. I feel like we miss out on a lot of good discussion when folks (perhaps out of fear, or lack of respect) jump quickly to the name calling and whining before even once considering the notion that a well thought out response could do a world's more of difference, and help both parties arrive at a place where everyone is happy.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why did George W. Bush (as Commander in Chief) ignore the fact that there was a large amount of evidence linking the Saudi Government (or elements within) to the 9/11 attacks (news story), and divert our attention (instead) towards a country that had nothing to do with the event?

It doesn't make much sense to me, but perhaps somone could explain it.

Thanks

Actually, this is very well explained, documented and referenced in the documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. Problem is, as factual as the documentary is, it was produced by Michael Moore and the right is way too terrified of him to actually watch it.

Except Bush has been out of office for 5 years, the incident happened 12 years ago, no new information has come to light to make it newsworthy, and it is merely a chance for you to beat up on Bush and proclaim your narco-libertarian crede.

See, there are actually some despicable rw's who have the nerve to offhandedly refer to most deadly foreign attack on US soil as an "incident" that is not "newsworthy".

Fact is, plenty of "new information" is available to those Americans who actually give a **** about their own country.

Incredibly, there are some rw's who think that telling the truth about the damn Bush oil dynasty as "beating up".

"out of office for 5 years" - So, just how long is the statute of limitations on treason?

 

[KevinWestern]

did any of the bombers have ties to the Saudi government? were any of them agents of the saudi government?

No, but article alleges that (according to CIA papers) the bombers did meet and receive money from prominent government officials. Again, this is just a debate.

conjecture after the fact. Means nothing. Its history, move on and try to deal with the mess you fools created by giving obama two terms.

How did I create that mess exactly? When you say "you fools" who are you speaking of?

 

[Kosh]

Why did George W. Bush (as Commander in Chief) ignore the fact that there was a large amount of evidence linking the Saudi Government (or elements within) to the 9/11 attacks (news story), and divert our attention (instead) towards a country that had nothing to do with the event?

It doesn't make much sense to me, but perhaps somone could explain it.

Thanks

Actually, this is very well explained, documented and referenced in the documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. Problem is, as factual as the documentary is, it was produced by Michael Moore and the right is way too terrified of him to actually watch it.

Except Bush has been out of office for 5 years, the incident happened 12 years ago, no new information has come to light to make it newsworthy, and it is merely a chance for you to beat up on Bush and proclaim your narco-libertarian crede.

See, there are actually some despicable rw's who have the nerve to offhandedly refer to most deadly foreign attack on US soil as an "incident" that is not "newsworthy".

Fact is, plenty of "new information" is available to those Americans who actually give a **** about their own country.

Incredibly, there are some rw's who think that telling the truth about the damn Bush oil dynasty as "beating up".

"out of office for 5 years" - So, just how long is the statute of limitations on treason?

And definitely far left propaganda.

 

[Redfish]

Hi Edge,

The newstory I linked to connects a few (what appears to be prominent) government officials to the 9/11 attacks:

"LOS ANGELES: Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy allegedly arranged for an advance team to receive two of the Saudi hijackers — Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi — as they arrived at LAX in 2000."

"HERNDON, VA.: On the eve of the attacks, top Saudi government official Saleh Hussayen checked into the same Marriott Residence Inn near Dulles Airport as three of the Saudi hijackers who targeted the Pentagon. Hussayen had left a nearby hotel to move into the hijackers’ hotel."

"SARASOTA, FLA.: 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and other hijackers visited a home owned by Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of King Fahd."

"WASHINGTON: Then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks totaling some $130,000 to Bassnan while he was handling the hijackers. "

Again, just bringing up the subject because I personally found it to be interesting. I'm not blaming Bush here for all of the world's problems, lol, just throwing the topic out there.

Didn't realize I would get such a backlash. People seem overly protective of the Bush Administration.

We're not 'protective' of Bush, we're sick to death of dimocraps never taking responsibility for anything.

It's important to note in your conspiracy that Osama bin Floatin' was persona non grata in Saudi Arabia. Big time and in a Big way. Had he showed up there, King Abdullah would have had him boiled in oil, drawn, quartered hanged and shot. And then killed.

He was tossed by the King. The story is more complicated than I want to get into, but Osama bin Floatin' offered his services to the King after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The King, not being stupid, saw what bin Foatin' was up to and tossed him.

Lucky he didn't have his whole family killed.

There were almost certainly bin Floatin' sympathizers inside the Saudi Government willing to help bin Floatin'. He was the one who offered to fight Saddam (he would have gotten pulverized) by bringing his Mujahideen from Asscrackistan.

The King saw that obvious treachery as well. Get 20 or 30 thousand Mujahideen in the Country and take over.

The King preferred American Troops. We had no desire to take over his Country.

There were (and still are) factions that would love to depose the King and the entire Royal Family..... Or most of it.

Complicated.

Well there we go, that's a great answer and helps be better understand the situation at hand. I feel like we miss out on a lot of good discussion when folks (perhaps out of fear, or lack of respect) jump quickly to the name calling and whining before even once considering the notion that a well thought out response could do a world's more of difference, and help both parties arrive at a place where everyone is happy.

so whats the purpose of this thread? Do you want the US to nuke Saudi cities and put Bush in jail?

What point are you laboring so hard to make?

BTW, neither of those things will ever happen.

Shall we also go back and lock Clinton up for not taking OBL when the Sudanese offered him up? If he had done his job 9/11 would not have happened. Is Clinton then a traitor?

 

[bendog]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uai7M4RpoLU]I'm Tired Madeline Kahn Blazing Saddles - YouTube[/ame]

 

[KevinWestern]

so whats the purpose of this thread? Do you want the US to nuke Saudi cities and put Bush in jail?

Nukes? No that's ridiculous. Bush in jail? Perhaps, if he knowingly lied/exaggerated evidence surrounding the WMDs. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

What point are you laboring so hard to make?

I'm asking why the US didn't take any action against Saudi Arabia.

Shall we also go back and lock Clinton up for not taking OBL when the Sudanese offered him up? If he had done his job 9/11 would not have happened. Is Clinton then a traitor?

Perhaps, yes.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why did George W. Bush (as Commander in Chief) ignore the fact that there was a large amount of evidence linking the Saudi Government (or elements within) to the 9/11 attacks (news story), and divert our attention (instead) towards a country that had nothing to do with the event?

It doesn't make much sense to me, but perhaps somone could explain it.

Thanks

Actually, this is very well explained, documented and referenced in the documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. Problem is, as factual as the documentary is, it was produced by Michael Moore and the right is way too terrified of him to actually watch it.

Except Bush has been out of office for 5 years, the incident happened 12 years ago, no new information has come to light to make it newsworthy, and it is merely a chance for you to beat up on Bush and proclaim your narco-libertarian crede.

See, there are actually some despicable rw's who have the nerve to offhandedly refer to most deadly foreign attack on US soil as an "incident" that is not "newsworthy".

Fact is, plenty of "new information" is available to those Americans who actually give a **** about their own country.

Incredibly, there are some rw's who think that telling the truth about the damn Bush oil dynasty as "beating up".

"out of office for 5 years" - So, just how long is the statute of limitations on treason?

And definitely far left propaganda.

Pro-US facts.

Something you traitors on the right know nothing about.

Seriously.

I am SO frikken sick of the blatant treason from the right being celebrated by ignorant rw assholes. Anybody who wants to know the truth about the Bush family and their oil only has to open their mind a teenie weenie bit.

Watch the documentary. I dare you.

No more lies. Just watch it.

( I know rw's won't and I know they'll lie about it.)