Obama Sides With Saudi Arabia Against Americans, Says Will Veto 9/11 Victims Families Bill
The White House on Monday signaled President Obama would veto legislation to allow Americans to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for any role officials played in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” - Barack Obama
“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.
4/18/16: White House Press Briefing
Go to 20:20 in
the video to hear the official White House paid liar explain why the
traitor Obama is going to veto the 9/11 victims families bill.
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.”
The legislation drew widespread attention after Saudi officials reportedly informed the
Obama administration that they would sell off $750 billion in U.S.
assets if the bill became law, a threat that carries widespread economic
consequences if the Saudis follow through.
Earnest appeared to strongly caution the Saudi government against taking such a step.
“A
country with a modern and large economy like Saudi Arabia would not
benefit from a destabilized global financial market, and neither would
the United States,” he said.
The fierce debate over the legislation has bubbled up at a precarious time for Obama, who is set to land in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday to meet with King Salman.
Earnest
said he is not sure if Obama will raise the issue during a meeting in
which the leaders are expected to discuss the Iran nuclear agreement and
the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
"If
this issue were to come up ... the potential consequences of rolling
back this core principle of international law is how the president would
explain our position to his counterparts," he said. The nuclear
agreement has already strained relations between Washington and Riyadh,
and the 9/11 legislation could raise tensions even higher.
Saudi
officials have for years denied their government had any role in the
plotting of the attacks. The 9/11 Commission report said the Saudi
government “as an institution” or its senior officials individually did
not fund the attackers.
But
there has long been speculation that lower-level officials may have
been involved. And victims' families and lawmakers in both parties have
pressed for the release of 28 pages of a 2002 report on the attacks that
reportedly detail Saudi officials’ role in the plot.
The
legislation, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, would allow
victims of terror attacks on U.S. soil to sue the governments of
nations that support terrorism.
It has bipartisan support; Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
both authored the bill. They argue it would allow American citizens to
recoup damages from countries that have provided financial support to
groups like al Qaeda.
Earnest
said Obama has "devoted significant time in office to fighting for the
9/11 families and those who have risked their lives to rebuild after
9/11."
Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both bucked Obama andbacked the legislation ahead of Tuesday’s New York primary. Sanders also said he supports making the 28 pages of the 9/11 report public.
Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes on Monday appeared
to acknowledge concerns shared by critics of the U.S.-Saudi
relationship. He said the Saudi government paid “insufficient attention”
to money flowing to extremist groups before the 9/11 attacks from
wealthy Saudis.
“There
was, certainly, at least kind of a insufficient attention to where all
this money was going over many years from the government apparatus,”
Rhodes said in an interview with former senior Obama adviser David Axelrod. source
Geoffrey Grider | April 19, 2016 at 8:39 amURL: http://wp.me/p1kFP6-b1e
Obama Claims Risk Of Releasing 9/11 Info But His TPP Does Much Worse
CFR
insider Charlie Rose sat down with Hussein Obama for some propaganda
designed to influence the direction of public thought. Obama described
US military action in Iraq around Mosul, formerly a city liberated by
the Americans, in terms of, “As we see the Iraqis willing to fight and
gaining ground.” He would be more correct in stating it as “As we see
the Iraqis and new Iranian sponsors willing to fight and regain ground
that I pissed away, some of it deliberately, let’s make sure that we’re
providing them more support, after two and a half years of supporting
their ISIS enemies.”
Obama
is quick to point out, “We’re not doing the fighting ourselves, but
when we provide training, when we provide Special Forces who are backing
them up [no fighting allowed], when we are gaining intelligence [excuse
for troops being there not fighting], working with the
coalitions that we have [everybody’s doing it excuse for being there],
what we’ve seen is that we can continually tighten the noose. [isn’t
that racist?]”
Hussein
Obama continues, saying, “My expectation is that by the end of the
year,” when he can officially turn tail and run without being labeled a
bigger coward, and when a real American president can take over, “we
will have created the conditions whereby Mosul will eventually fall.
Everything that doesn’t have to do with the destruction of the United
States involves a long, drawn-out process.
Regarding
the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 report, Rose asks, “Have you read
it.” Unwilling to answer definitively yes or no, Obama uses ambiguous
double speak, saying, “I have a sense of what’s in there but this has
been a process which we generally deal with through the intelligence
community and Jim Clapper, our Director of National Intelligence has
been going through to make sure that whatever it is that is released,
[after more redactions to serve Obama’s interests] is not going to
compromise some major national security interest of the United States.
[Or reveal any of his or the Bush’s shady deals] and my understanding is
that he’s about to complete that process.”
Of
course the whole reason for this being brought up at all as Obama
attempts to nail down as many loose ends as possible before he finally
becomes the pimple that the Clearasil finally dried up and makes his
exit, is to try to control what is ultimately released to the public. We
can be sure that whatever is made public be in the form of a whitewashing of the first degree.
Rose
asks Obama about pending legislation in Congress that would allow the
families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government. The response
exposes a major hypocritical flaw in the Obama argument, when he replies that
he’s opposed because, “This is a matter of how generally the United
States approaches our interactions with other countries. If we open up
the possibility that individuals in the United States can routinely
start suing other governments, then we are also opening up the United
States to being continually sued by individuals in other countries.”
It’s more of the lies of Hussein Obama, as one of the major problems that he chooses to completely discount as
a legitimate concern is the ability under TPP for foreign governments,
corporations, NGO’s and other entities to sue the United States in
secret courts, made up of their own cronies, for damages which don’t
even exist and which are created out of the actions on behalf of the
national interest, which final and cannot be appealed.
Why
is it that the 9/11 families can’t be allowed the same privileges as
Mitsubishi or Sanyo? Why does it scare Obama when the American people
are armed with information and the legal means to do something with that
information? Would it upset his international order, the UN global
government and the Saudi or Iranian fat cats who are paying him the big
bucks to do their bidding?
Laura J Alcorn
Let's
Invite More to our social network.
Send these post to your email groups and friends. Like us on
Facebook
|
No comments:
Post a Comment