Re:9/11 probe - what is the white house afraid of?

*sniff, sniff* Something stinks.

 

I've seen this issue speculated on in a bunch of different venues. Everyone's working assumption is that the Bushies don't want to reveal what happened at the daily briefings, because it'll contradict alot of what the Bushies said about how 9/11 caught them totally by surprise.

I understand everyone's assumption that there's some pretty dramatic information that the Bushies can't afford to have revealed. And that assumption may be true. But this is an astonishingly secretive administration. So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they just want to protect the precedent, rather than the president.

(Pretty clever there, huh?)

 

Relax fellas. It's nothing as awful as you want it to be. They are just trying to wipe some of the egg of the Saudis faces. Yea i know, that totally sucks becuase those *#*#*#*#*#*#*#s are in the same boat as AQ, but until we make alternative fuel a reality they are going to remain one of our "friends" in the region. Bastards.

 

Or it could be a lot more complex - and damaging - to the Bush clan than that.

Coming soon to a theatre near you - A Michael Moore/Mel Gibson (Gibson's Icon Productions came out on top in heated bidding for this project) Production - Fahrenheit 911

 

I was thinking the same thing, just like the other report that came out that had 28 some odd pages of blacked out text (probably detailing Saudi involvement), we'll probably see the same thing. It's the kind of thing where their absence makes their presence all the more conspicuous.

Interesting though, that even now a bipartisan Congressional committee is beginning to bring the heat. It looks like even loyal Republicans are realizing that something stinks, and it's not just Rummy's breath...

 

manny, you don't really mean this, do you? You are basically saying that even if the Saudis were directly involved in the murder of 3000 Americans, it's just "tough luck" for us right now that we have to appease them and their oil.

Maybe the most anti-American, unpatriotic thing I've seen on these boards yet.

 

He's not the only one exploring the Bush-Bin Laden familial relationship, and much of what's being talked about is public record (such as Carlyle). Why the pages and pages of blacked-out documents? Why the obfuscation by the Bushies? I'm not a conspiracy-monger by any stretch of the imagination, but I want to know. And it appears that a lot of the nation - Democrat and Republican alike - do, too. Don't you?

 

I don't think the monarchy had any direct involvement, but they sure as *#*#*#*# didn't do a whole lot to hinder AQ.

But yea, i think it sucks that we have to pal up to them while they make only symbolic steps at curtailing the fundamentalist strain of Islam they created.

So stick that in you pipe and smoke it Junior. Geez, un American?

 

Hey Manny, I think liberals and conservatives can pretty much agree that the Saudi government are a bunch of terrorist bastards, and we should cut our ties with them. Only problem is, if we did that, we'd lose one of our major sources of oil, and it would severely hurt our economy.

What would be great would be if there was another country, living under a brutal dictatorship with WMD programs (Bill Clinton said it, so it must be true), ties to terrorist groups including al Qaeda subsidiaries, with enough oil reserves to mostly (possibly completely) end our reliance on Saudi oil, that we could free from said brutal dictatorship and whose massive oil reserves we could use to yank the carpet out from under the House of Saud. Even better, if we were to establish a tolerant democracy in that country, it could inspire citizens of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations to push for the same in their own countries.

Oh wait, we already did that, the country is Iraq, and the liberals won't support us. Thus putting them in bed with the House of Saud, whether they like it or not.

 

Originally posted by dfb547490
Hey Manny, I think liberals and conservatives can pretty much agree that the Saudi government are a bunch of terrorist bastards, and we should cut our ties with them. Only problem is, if we did that, we'd lose one of our major sources of oil, and it would severely hurt our economy.

What would be great would be if there was another country, living under a brutal dictatorship with WMD programs (Bill Clinton said it, so it must be true), ties to terrorist groups including al Qaeda subsidiaries, with enough oil reserves to mostly (possibly completely) end our reliance on Saudi oil, that we could free from said brutal dictatorship and whose massive oil reserves we could use to yank the carpet out from under the House of Saud. Even better, if we were to establish a tolerant democracy in that country, it could inspire citizens of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations to push for the same in their own countries.

Oh wait, we already did that,

Oh no we haven't.


the country is Iraq, and the liberals won't support us. Thus putting them in bed with the House of Saud, whether they like it or not.

That's the strangest and most incoherent spin on the issue I've seen yet.

 

If the oil was worth more than 3000 people (and it is), then it is not anti-American to want to see its free flow to America go unimpeeded.

 

using this logic, i can't figure out why we didn't just attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq. take out source of Al Qaeda money and take over oil reserves all in one swoop. instead we attacked iraq to possess their oil so that we could eventually go after Saudi Arabia.

you know, i'm kind of hungry. i think i'll go kill a farmer, take over his farm and then a few years from now, go to KFC and buy some chicken. that should take care of my current problem.

 

Exactly. This logic isn't even up [sic] to Alex's usual standard. Clearly he was drunk, so cut him some slack.

 

Good luck explaining away the whole US vs. Islam thing when you're pissing on the Kabaa.