In light of 28 Saudi pages, how can GOP claim to be tough on terrorism?
Last edited Tue Jul 19, 2016, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)
Even if you give Bush a pass for ignoring warnings BEFORE 9/11, after the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 Report, he knew that Saudi Arabia offered far more financial and operational support to the hijackers than any other country.
The Taliban was essentially al Qaeda's landlord.
And none of the evidence of Iraq's involvement with al Qaeda held water.
Bush did NOTHING in response to Saudi Arabia's role in an attack except smoke cigars with Prince Bandar on the back porch with the Pentagon still smoldering in the background.
At minimum, this means the Bush administration was either afraid to confront and punish Saudi Arabia or he put his family's and our countries (in that order) financial entanglement with Saudi Arabia ahead of lost American lives.
How are his administration's crimes on this matter not worthy of investigation and prosecution when we ran one president from office for a botched politically motivated burglary and spent a decade trying to impeach another (with some bipartisan support) for lying about his sex life under oath?
Thousands of people died, and leaders of both parties love to shake the terrorism boogey man when there's another Middle Eastern secular dictatorship that they want to replace with chaos and violent madness, but those same leaders act like the real sponsors of terror aren't worth bothering with?
And in fact, the same Prince Bandar who had so much to do with the 9/11 hijackers helped get the beheading crazies in Syria started for our government--the same sort of service he provided"us" for decades.
Isn't it worth investigating whether using such "allies" and methods are in the interests of average Americans or whether they needlessly put our lives at risk for policy goals that benefit a very, very few?
= new reply since forum marked as read
