White House signals veto on Saudi 9/11 bill

[Freewill]

How complicated can this be? Right?

Saudi Arabia wants US to kill 9/11 bill, threatens to dump US assets worth $750 bn - report

Saudi Arabia appears to be blackmailing the US, saying it would sell off American assets worth a 12-digit figure sum in dollars if Congress passes a bill allowing the Saudi government to be held responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The warning was delivered by Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir last month during a visit to Washington, the New York Times reported. He said his country would sell up to $750 billion in US treasury securities and other assets before the bill puts them in jeopardy.

I'll bet you think that is why Obama doesn't like the bill.....donchya?

You think he's cowering under his desk. Right?

And you have something else?

The WH flipped on the subject so, yes, it is likely because of this threat. The story that they are selling is that it may effect our national immunity but that is largely bullshit - that simply is not going to happen. I don't really know about making the liable in US courts - that seems rather silly to me - but I have to wonder why we are still friends with such a hostile nation. They are not any better than Iran or Iraq yet we treat them as though they are so much better - it is sickening.

For once I have to say, it is all about oil. Nothing else has come from SA worth a crap.

 

[Freewill]

How complicated can this be? Right?

Saudi Arabia wants US to kill 9/11 bill, threatens to dump US assets worth $750 bn - report

Saudi Arabia appears to be blackmailing the US, saying it would sell off American assets worth a 12-digit figure sum in dollars if Congress passes a bill allowing the Saudi government to be held responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The warning was delivered by Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir last month during a visit to Washington, the New York Times reported. He said his country would sell up to $750 billion in US treasury securities and other assets before the bill puts them in jeopardy.

I'll bet you think that is why Obama doesn't like the bill.....donchya?

You think he's cowering under his desk. Right?

Jesus..........where the hell did you come up with that................................

I made a point................and Saudi is holding our bonds.............you know those IOU's that are stacking up................

That's not gonna kill us but it will cause some pain..........

I don't care on that aspect................I WANT THE TRUTH.

I am not sure how having someone else holding the bonds is going to hurt us. SA isn't exactly our best friend and if they were involved in 9/11 that pretty much makes them our enemy. So yeah, selling a load of US bonds might devalue them some I don't think it is something the US needs to worry about.

 

[Freewill]

Here is an article on the subject. Here are some snippets from the article. What it indicates to me is that this bill has bi-partisan support. I read nothing about a "poison" pill.

McConnell, Ryan decline to back 9/11 lawsuit bill - CNNPolitics.com

The bill, authored by Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, would prevent Saudi Arabia and other countries accused of having terrorist ties from invoking their sovereign immunity in federal court.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said he supports the bill and the "pushback is coming from the Republicans."

"Now, I've spoken to the White House about this and a number of other issues. They don't particularly like it. But that's okay," the Nevada Democrat said. "I think we should move forward on this legislation and I hope we can."

 

[pwjohn]

Hmmm. What do you think, right or wrong.

White House signals veto on Saudi 9/11 bill

“Given the long list of concerns I have expressed ... it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which the president would sign the bill as it's currently drafted,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

Earnest argued the legislation could jeopardize U.S. citizens overseas if other countries were to pass reciprocal laws that remove foreign immunity in their courts.

“It could put the United States and our taxpayers and our service members and our diplomats at significant risk if other countries were to adopt a similar law,” he said.

“The whole notion of sovereign immunity is at stake.”

It's quite apparent that congress has attached a poison pill of sorts to the release of the redacted 28 page 9/11 report. And with repubs in charge.........

Can you apparently post what you think is the poison pill?

I was more than clear on that.

In the bill attached to the release of the redacted 28 page report 9/11.

 

[Redfish]

A government that keeps the truth from its citizens is not a government of, by, and for the people.

How about the parts of the Warren commission report that were sealed for 75 years, exactly who is that protecting? Why must we wait until 2038 to know?

 

[kaz]

and is anyone buying the "Sargaent Ed Schultz Reaction" by Hillary? really,,,,SOS has no idea about what happened on 9/11?

She doesn't even know what happened in Benghazi and she didn't know she can't use her own e-mail server for secret documents, why would she know about 9/11?

 

[percysunshine]

Barack Obama has been snubbed by the Saudis

Obama has the foreign policy instincts of Eric Cartman.

The 9/11 bill is a red herring. Iran and Saudi Arabia are in a shooting war in Yemen and Iran is in an oil price war with the House of Saud. Obama put the entire thing in motion with that stupid treaty. It isn't even about nukes...yet.

 

[Freewill]

Hmmm. What do you think, right or wrong.

White House signals veto on Saudi 9/11 bill

“Given the long list of concerns I have expressed ... it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which the president would sign the bill as it's currently drafted,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

Earnest argued the legislation could jeopardize U.S. citizens overseas if other countries were to pass reciprocal laws that remove foreign immunity in their courts.

“It could put the United States and our taxpayers and our service members and our diplomats at significant risk if other countries were to adopt a similar law,” he said.

“The whole notion of sovereign immunity is at stake.”

It's quite apparent that congress has attached a poison pill of sorts to the release of the redacted 28 page 9/11 report. And with repubs in charge.........

Can you apparently post what you think is the poison pill?

I was more than clear on that.

In the bill attached to the release of the redacted 28 page report 9/11.

No, you are implying something without evidence. What is the poison pill? Is it allowing the victims of 9/11 to sue SA? Myself I think that would be a bad precedence but maybe needs to be done.

 

[TNHarley]

wonder if they could override a veto?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

There is the question of what the Saudis could expose about US complicity in 9/11.

How US covered up Saudi role in 9/11

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I kind of think that if governments could get sued for actions they do that harms US citizens that they would not do those things in the first place. I don't see what is wrong with this.

 

[FA_Q2]

A government that keeps the truth from its citizens is not a government of, by, and for the people.

How about the parts of the Warren commission report that were sealed for 75 years, exactly who is that protecting? Why must we wait until 2038 to know?

This bill really is not about releasing the pages though - it is about allowing people to sue SA over its possible role in 9/11.

 

[FA_Q2]

I kind of think that if governments could get sued for actions they do that harms US citizens that they would not do those things in the first place. I don't see what is wrong with this.

The problem with this is reciprocity.

People in other nations may want to sue the US.

 

[bendog]

I kind of think that if governments could get sued for actions they do that harms US citizens that they would not do those things in the first place. I don't see what is wrong with this.

The problem with this is reciprocity.

People in other nations may want to sue the US.

Yeah. think of some of the Syrian folks we're arming.

But, I'm a bit fed up with the Saudis. They don't seem too eager to cut out funding wahhabism, and we don't need their oil.

 

[Redfish]

A government that keeps the truth from its citizens is not a government of, by, and for the people.

How about the parts of the Warren commission report that were sealed for 75 years, exactly who is that protecting? Why must we wait until 2038 to know?

This bill really is not about releasing the pages though - it is about allowing people to sue SA over its possible role in 9/11.

yes, but a suit without the data on those pages would be pissing into the wind.

 

[Redfish]

I kind of think that if governments could get sued for actions they do that harms US citizens that they would not do those things in the first place. I don't see what is wrong with this.

The problem with this is reciprocity.

People in other nations may want to sue the US.

Yeah. think of some of the Syrian folks we're arming.

But, I'm a bit fed up with the Saudis. They don't seem too eager to cut out funding wahhabism, and we don't need their oil.

and they refuse to take muslim Syrian refugees, much less Christian refugees.

 

[Redfish]

I kind of think that if governments could get sued for actions they do that harms US citizens that they would not do those things in the first place. I don't see what is wrong with this.

The problem with this is reciprocity.

People in other nations may want to sue the US.

let em, who cares?

 

[FA_Q2]

A government that keeps the truth from its citizens is not a government of, by, and for the people.

How about the parts of the Warren commission report that were sealed for 75 years, exactly who is that protecting? Why must we wait until 2038 to know?

This bill really is not about releasing the pages though - it is about allowing people to sue SA over its possible role in 9/11.

yes, but a suit without the data on those pages would be pissing into the wind.

Legally, it does not matter what those pages state at this point. SA is protected from such lawsuits. That is one of the things that this law tries to address. I agree with releasing the pages, not so sure about letting lawsuits though. Dealing with an international actor's actions against the nation is not a place for the courts - that is the place of treaties, trade agreements and ultimately war in the worst situations.

 

[Redfish]

A government that keeps the truth from its citizens is not a government of, by, and for the people.

How about the parts of the Warren commission report that were sealed for 75 years, exactly who is that protecting? Why must we wait until 2038 to know?

This bill really is not about releasing the pages though - it is about allowing people to sue SA over its possible role in 9/11.

yes, but a suit without the data on those pages would be pissing into the wind.

Legally, it does not matter what those pages state at this point. SA is protected from such lawsuits. That is one of the things that this law tries to address. I agree with releasing the pages, not so sure about letting lawsuits though. Dealing with an international actor's actions against the nation is not a place for the courts - that is the place of treaties, trade agreements and ultimately war in the worst situations.

international lawsuits are generally a joke. there is no court with jurisdiction to hear or enforce such cases. release the pages, let americans know the truth.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I kind of think that if governments could get sued for actions they do that harms US citizens that they would not do those things in the first place. I don't see what is wrong with this.

The problem with this is reciprocity.

People in other nations may want to sue the US.

Hmm...