Congress overrides Obama

[UK2K]

[QUOTE]Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override President Obama

[DonDadda59]

And then 5-10 years from now when the U.S. is facing an avalanche of multi-billion dollar lawsuits in the World Court from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc and they use this bill as a legal precedent, the usual jokers will be like 'Thanks, Obama'.

:facepalm

[UK2K]

And then 5-10 years from now when the U.S. is facing an avalanche of multi-billion dollar lawsuits in the World Court from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc and they use this bill as a legal precedent, the usual jokers will be like 'Thanks, Obama'.

:facepalm

You and Obama are the only ones who can see the future. :oldlol:

[DonDadda59]

You and Obama are the only ones who can see the future. :oldlol:

The gift and the curse. :applause:

[Hawker]

Congress critics bitching they don't get anything done and when they do and its bipartisan they still get criticized.

[9erempiree]

He was never our president.

Wait till Trump rips in half everything he has done.

There is a reason why Obama mentions Trump by first name only now.:lol

[Doomsday Dallas]

remember April Gallop's lawsuit?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ku_XTjjMBkw/UQ3dDAjKX-I/AAAAAAAAAy8/gQiTC7htusA/s1600/PRINTGALLOP-911++5423_1315522980.jpg

April Gallop versus Dick Cheney: Court Dismisses 9/11 Suit against Bush Officials (http://www.globalresearch.ca/april-gallop-versus-dick-cheney-court-dismisses-9-11-suit-against-bush-officials/24557)


Global Research, April 29, 2011

Bush court dismisses 9/11 suit against Bush officials, orders sanctions

Rather than judicially review significant evidence in the events of September 11, 2001, on April 27, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s dismissal of an Army Specialist’s complaint against former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers.

One of Plaintiff April Gallop’s attorneys, William Veale, didn’t know whether to relate the decision to “Kafka, Orwell, Carroll, or Huxley,” referring to the absurdity and dearth of reason emanating from the court regarding the deadliest attack on U.S. soil the nation has ever faced.

“The Court’s decision, analogous to reviewing an Indictment in a liquor store hold-up without mentioning the guy walking in with a gun, refuses to acknowledge even the existence of the three defendants much less what they were doing that morning or saying about it afterwards,” Veale added.

Of the three judges on the panel, John Mercer Walker, Jr. is first cousin of former President George H.W. Bush and first cousin once removed of George W. Bush, who used 9/11 to manipulate public emotion to support passage of the unconstitutional PATRIOT Acts and waging illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East. According to Wikipedia, Walker shares a grandfather with the 41st president, George Herbert Walker, whose daughter married Prescott Bush. A motion to force Judge Walker’s removal from the case was denied, despite a clear conflict of interest.

The lawsuit, prepared by the Center for 9/11 Justice, accuses the defendants of conspiring to facilitate the terrorist attacks of 9/11 that killed 3000 Americans and which has resulted in the deaths of many more, due to the toxicity of the clean-up conditions at Ground Zero. The plaintiff and her son were both injured in the attack on the Pentagon, multiple videos of which the government has refused to release to the public.

Ignoring crucial evidence like the total collapse of WTC7 though not hit by a plane on September 11, the whereabouts of and statements made by the Defendants on 9/11, and the presence of thermitic material in the rubble of the Twin Towers, the court ludicrously affirmed the lower court’s finding that the case was “not plausible” and “the product of cynical delusion and fantasy.”

Additionally, the court filed an Order to Show Cause for Sanctions amounting to $15,000 for filing a “frivolous” suit, which the Center for 9/11 Justice plans to appeal.



Folks at the Pentagon do have a legitimate case against Dick Cheney.

[Doomsday Dallas]

maybe by bringing this to court...

those Pentagon videos can finally be released to other parties involved?


:confusedshrug:



You guys still confident they will show a Boeing
slamming into the side of the building?

I'm confident those videos show nothing of that sort.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/frames/amigaphil/Pentagon091122.gif

[TommyGriffin]

maybe by bringing this to court...

those Pentagon videos can finally be released to other parties involved?


:confusedshrug:



You guys still confident they will show a Boeing
slamming into the side of the building?

I'm confident those videos show nothing of that sort.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/frames/amigaphil/Pentagon091122.gif
Looks like a missile.

[Orlando Magic]

maybe by bringing this to court...

those Pentagon videos can finally be released to other parties involved?


:confusedshrug:



You guys still confident they will show a Boeing
slamming into the side of the building?

I'm confident those videos show nothing of that sort.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/frames/amigaphil/Pentagon091122.gif

I don't care what hit the Pentagon.

What I find hilarious is that, and granted I understand it was 2001, we are expected to believe those were the best and only camera shots of that side of the building. Haha. This is the ****ing Pentagon we're talking about. Why even release that footage? We're supposed to really believe that's the best we have with video surveillance on one of our nations top buildings?

Come on...

[Nick Young]

Obama loves the Saudis.

They helped sponsor his campaign and are currently responsible for 20% of Clinton's campaign donations. (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has-funded-20-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims)

[Doomsday Dallas]

Looks like a missile.


It doesn't have the same look as the Boeing that hit the 2nd Tower.

http://www.unfilteredhistory.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/no_plane.gif


The speed of the plane hitting the Pentagon should
not have created an explosion that goes away from
the building... but that explosion should have gone
more inwards..... just like the 2nd tower.

[9erempiree]

No doubt they love the Saudi's.

There best friend and donor.

[bladefd]

And then 5-10 years from now when the U.S. is facing an avalanche of multi-billion dollar lawsuits in the World Court from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc and they use this bill as a legal precedent, the usual jokers will be like 'Thanks, Obama'.

:facepalm

At least Obama can say "Look, congress overrode it. I did what I could."

[bladefd]

He was never our president.

Wait till Trump rips in half everything he has done.

There is a reason why Obama mentions Trump by first name only now.:lol

And push America towards even more trouble and another recession.

[fiddy]

:applause:

[TommyGriffin]

It doesn't have the same look as the Boeing that hit the 2nd Tower.

http://www.unfilteredhistory.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/no_plane.gif


The speed of the plane hitting the Pentagon should
not have created an explosion that goes away from
the building... but that explosion should have gone
more inwards..... just like the 2nd tower.
At the Pentagon incident Air Traffic reporters had trouble identifying the flying object that struck the pentagon.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don't fly a 757 in that manner."

-Danielle O'Brien, Air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport (https://web.archive.org/web/20130929181230/http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123822&page=1)


Regarding WTC 1 and 2, the Official 9/11 Commission report claimed that the 767s struck the towers at over 500 knots. This is impossible for a 767 to accomplish due to Air Density being 3 times as thicker at sea level when compared to cruising altitude.

[JtotheIzzo]

Any of you guys in college go to law school NOW.

there will be thousands of lawsuits vs the US military.

basically every civilian killed in any bomb strike intended for a terrorist can sue the US.

Lawyers must be licking their chops right now in anticipation of this becoming precedent.

Congress might not create jobs, but they are creating work for their lawyer brethren.

When you talk about politicians ruining a country, this is first and foremost how to do it.

[JtotheIzzo]

It doesn't have the same look as the Boeing that hit the 2nd Tower.

http://www.unfilteredhistory.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/no_plane.gif


The speed of the plane hitting the Pentagon should
not have created an explosion that goes away from
the building... but that explosion should have gone
more inwards..... just like the 2nd tower.

this is why you conspiracy f*cks are rabble rousing pieces of shit.

lets look at another angle so the conspiracy tard can be proven worng. Oh wait, he will ignore what we show him and willfully lie again in the future because he realy wants the 'truth'. :facepalm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

[Nick Young]

How does Congress' ass taste, Obama?

[Doomsday Dallas]

this is why you conspiracy f*cks are rabble rousing pieces of shit.

lets look at another angle so the conspiracy tard can be proven worng. Oh wait, he will ignore what we show him and willfully lie again in the future because he realy wants the 'truth'. :facepalm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk


I didn't say that was my smoking gun...

I'm just saying those 5 frames don't give the government's official story any justice... especially if that's the only visual evidence I have to work with.

But no... you are wrong... the different angles still have the majority of the explosion/fire on the opposite side of the tower. not on the side of the building where the plane entered.

http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/pentagon/explosion-2.jpg


Does that explosion look like it's carrying the same momentum? The majority of that fire/explosion is on the wrong side of the wall (if that is suppose to be a Boeing traveling at the speed we were told it went).

[JtotheIzzo]

But no... you are wrong... the different angles still have the majority of the explosion/fire on the opposite side of the tower. not on the side of the building where the plane entered.



Dude if you want to call BS on everyone you have to hold yourself accountable.

The fire went out the back of the pentagon because that was the only opening for it to be released.

This is exactly the problem with conspiracy people (I even predicted you would do it in my previous post).

You don't accept reality, you believe your little fables even when they get proven wrong.

[Doomsday Dallas]

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/cctv.0.jpg






http://www.krystalnet.com/towers_plane.jpg


The jet fuel... most of it shot out of the opposite side of the tower into a great ball of fire.

This did not happen at the Pentagon judging by those five frames.

[JtotheIzzo]

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/cctv.0.jpg






http://www.krystalnet.com/towers_plane.jpg


The jet fuel... most of it shot out of the opposite side of the tower into a great ball of fire.

This did not happen at the Pentagon judging by those five frames.

those explosions are identical.

The pentagon one goes into a slightly different direction because of the ground and because the plane didn't go all the way through.

Stop it, you are embarassing yourself.

[Nanners]

Any of you guys in college go to law school NOW.

there will be thousands of lawsuits vs the US military.

basically every civilian killed in any bomb strike intended for a terrorist can sue the US.

Lawyers must be licking their chops right now in anticipation of this becoming precedent.

Congress might not create jobs, but they are creating work for their lawyer brethren.

When you talk about politicians ruining a country, this is first and foremost how to do it.

why shouldnt innocent civilians that are harmed by US bomb strikes intended for terrorists be able to sue the US? and how exactly does such a thing "ruin the country"?

btw another country has tried to sue the US for nasty shit we did to them and won. the US just ignored it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

[Doomsday Dallas]

Dude if you want to call BS on everyone you have to hold yourself accountable.

The fire went out the back of the pentagon because that was the only opening for it to be released.

This is exactly the problem with conspiracy people (I even predicted you would do it in my previous post).

You don't accept reality, you believe your little fables even when they get proven wrong.



Are you kidding me?

How do you explain TommyGriffin's point (top of the page #17)?


There are a THOUSANDS of reasons why you should not except the official story.

Thousands.


The official story is a f*cking mess. Plain and Simple. A F*cking Mess.

it is such a mess, that even the members of the 9/11 commission report have to admit it as well.

You people, support the government (in regards to 9/11) a thousand times more than the people that support Donald Trump. It's a joke. It's denial. And quite frankly, it's a little embarrassing for America.



thousands and thousands of red flags... and you still buy the government's explanation every time.

[Nanners]

Obama didnt veto because he wants to protect the Saudis, and he didnt veto because hes worried about foreign drone strike victims suing the US.

Obama vetoed because this will cause the release of classified documents on 9/11 and Saudi Arabia in order to determine whether or not they are in some way responsible for the attacks. The public will finally see hard evidence that our government both knew it was Saudi Arabia and used 9/11 as an excuse for war in Iraq.

[DeuceWallaces]

We already knew that.

[JtotheIzzo]

Are you kidding me?

How do you explain TommyGriffin's point (top of the page #17)?


There are a THOUSANDS of reasons why you should not except the official story.

Thousands.


The official story is a f*cking mess. Plain and Simple. A F*cking Mess.

it is such a mess, that even the members of the 9/11 commission report have to admit it as well.

You people, support the government (in regards to 9/11) a thousand times more than the people that support Donald Trump. It's a joke. It's denial. And quite frankly, it's a little embarrassing for America.



thousands and thousands of red flags... and you still buy the government's explanation every time.

OK so we move on from where I proved you completely full of shit to only find you strawmanning me as 'you people'.

You know why the official story is murky?

Because we don't know the whole story.

Why?

I don't know, but I would harbor a guess that people like yourself would simply bastardize it the way you did with those photos above.

Me being logical about this doesn't make me a sheep. I have my doubts too, but unlike you I try to better understand the whole story, and when I see something I believe to be false, I back away, I don't double down.

Conspiracy f*cks always double down, its your religion.

[JtotheIzzo]

why shouldnt innocent civilians that are harmed by US bomb strikes intended for terrorists be able to sue the US? and how exactly does such a thing "ruin the country"?

btw another country has tried to sue the US for nasty shit we did to them and won. the US just ignored it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

It 'ruins the country' because you guys have so much blood on your hands that it could literally bankrupt you.

Its a can of worms best buried.

Nothing you are saying is wrong, and perhaps more moral than my solution, but I live abroad and if the US isn't running things we are all f*cked.

[Doomsday Dallas]

those explosions are identical.


yea... except for the fact that the one at the Tower starts out going Horizontal, many many feet away from the point of impact... while the one at the Pentagon just goes Vertical.

[Doomsday Dallas]

I have my doubts too



You'll never admit what they are.

I seriously doubt you have any doubts.

[Nanners]

It 'ruins the country' because you guys have so much blood on your hands that it could literally bankrupt you.

Its a can of worms best buried.

Nothing you are saying is wrong, and perhaps more moral than my solution, but I live abroad and if the US isn't running things we are all f*cked.

if we really have that much innocent blood on our hands, we probably deserve to be bankrupted.

how are you gonna tell some dude from pakistan who lost his family or had his arm blown off in a US drone strike that his loss is a "can of worms best left buried"? try to imagine how you would feel if it happened to you. personally if i was minding my own business and living my life, and suddenly a foreign nation accidentally harmed me or my family with a drone strike, i would definitely want there to be some kind of recourse against them.

anyway the US is already bankrupt, have you checked our national debt lately? just add any lawsuits on to that, im sure the fed wont mind lending us the money.....

[JtotheIzzo]

yea... except for the fact that the one at the Tower starts out going Horizontal, many many feet away from the point of impact... while the one at the Pentagon just goes Vertical.

ground and building in pentagon as I said, but you conveniently ignored, as I also said conspiracy f*cks do in their defense of their fables.

[JtotheIzzo]

You'll never admit what they are.

I seriously doubt you have any doubts.

strawmanning again, your last recourse.

I have doubts because it is likely that parts of the official story exploits real weakness in the US infrastructure and puts people at risk.

The government has much more concerns than satiating dummies, and when has the government ever come completely clean? That being said just because they haven't come completely clean means we can throw logic out the window.

I care very little about this and it took one video on youtube for me to blow your premise out of the water.

[JtotheIzzo]

if we really have that much innocent blood on our hands, we probably deserve to be bankrupted.

how are you gonna tell some dude from pakistan who lost his family or had his arm blown off in a US drone strike that his loss is a "can of worms best left buried"? try to imagine how you would feel if it happened to you. personally if i was minding my own business and living my life, and suddenly a foreign nation accidentally harmed me or my family with a drone strike, i would definitely want there to be some kind of recourse against them.

anyway the US is already bankrupt, have you checked our national debt lately? just add any lawsuits on to that, im sure the fed wont mind lending us the money.....

again, not much to find wrong in what you are saying, and my argument which is tepid and flacid at best is that the appearance of the US as a greater good is good for the world.

[Doomsday Dallas]

ground and building in pentagon as I said, but you conveniently ignored, as I also said conspiracy f*cks do in their defense of their fables.


look, it's about as pointless to argue as explosives being used on the twin towers. It's a waste of time... the argument always ends up going nowhere.

Just seems like all that smoke would be billowing out a few rings deeper into the Pentagon, and not at the point of impact... But since this side of the building was the only side of the Pentagon that was renovated and strengthened for such an attack, I'll go ahead and say it was just an observation that could be wrong.

However... this $hit is just unacceptable:

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/7/7b/911_Commission_Report_F.png

[JtotheIzzo]

look, it's about as pointless to argue as explosives being used on the twin towers. It's a waste of time... the argument always ends up going nowhere.

Just seems like all that smoke would be billowing out a few rings deeper into the Pentagon, and not at the point of impact... But since this side of the building was the only side of the Pentagon that was renovated and strengthened for such an attack, I'll go ahead and say it was just an observation that could be wrong.

However... this $hit is just unacceptable:

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/7/7b/911_Commission_Report_F.png

I agree dude, its a fable as well, but that doesn't mean the real truth is a polar opposite, the real truth is probably similar without dotting some 'i's and crossing a few 't's.

-The buildings were not brought down by explosives (they demo'ed a hospital in my hometown a few years back, it was only 8 floors but took a month of prep, and hundreds of miles of cables).

-The government didn't strike any of the buildings (too many people would know, someone would leak, and if not Snowden or the Russians would).

-They may have shot down the 4th plane in Pennsylvania but that is speculation and just as likely there was a struggle and the plane crashed. BTW when planes crash nose first they compress like a soda can and smash into bits, so footage of the South American plane which landed on its side is more conspiracy wilfull ignorance.

Thas as deep as I dip my toe in because I do not study this or care to, and don't use this as an opportunity to say I am brainwashed or whatever because in reality you are the one reading the websites designed specifically to draw and attract people like you and to keep them coming back.

[FillJackson]

It doesn't have the same look as the Boeing that hit the 2nd Tower.

The speed of the plane hitting the Pentagon should
not have created an explosion that goes away from
the building... but that explosion should have gone
more inwards..... just like the 2nd tower.

What if those two building were built differently? Like the surface of one was relatively thin steel and the other was 2 foot thick reinforced concrete?

[Doomsday Dallas]

and OBL?

you really think he was the mastermind? Any room for doubt there?

Is there any doubt in your mind that this was NOT the work of extremist terrorists? Or maybe I could even put it like this: Do you think it's possible that the terrorists that carried out 9/11 were being controlled and funded by shadow elements within our government/military?


I'm sorry... but when you read $hit like this:

http://www.abeldanger.net/2014/12/jack-abramoffs-mobbed-up-casino-boats.html

it just makes you wonder.

[Doomsday Dallas]

What if those two building were built differently? Like the surface of one was relatively thin steel and the other was 2 foot thick reinforced concrete?

They were different... and it was reinforced.

that's why I'm giving JtotheIzzo the benefit of the doubt in regards to that argument...

The Pentagon Renovations
Completed on 9/11/2001 (http://www.******************.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_renovations.html)


edit... broken link^
copy and paste title in google and should be first one


However he still has to admit that this is a major coincidence.

[Nanners]

You are focused on the wrong conspiracy dooms. The real conspiracy here is that the bush admin had tons of evidence that members of the Saudi royal family/government helped to fund and orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, yet they actively covered up any links pointing to Saudis, and instead used the attacks as an excuse to waste trillions of dollars and end hundreds of thousands of human lives invading a completely innocent Iraq.

[~primetime~]

Bush used WMDs to attack Iraq, not 911

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION


His father, Bush Sr., used jack shit to attack Iraq. No 911 was needed then. No terrorism. Nothing. Iraq attached Kuwait, so we went in and fcked shit up, killed 30k Iraqis.

The myth that our government needed 911 to attack anything is just that, a myth. They've never needed or approval to attack something. They do what they want, and always have. If they announced we are attacking Iran tomorrow, then we are attacking Iran...WITHOUT a 911.

[Doomsday Dallas]

You are focused on the wrong conspiracy dooms. The real conspiracy here is that the bush admin had tons of evidence that members of the Saudi royal family/government helped to fund and orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, yet they actively covered up any links pointing to Saudis, and instead used the attacks as an excuse to waste trillions of dollars and end hundreds of thousands of human lives invading a completely innocent Iraq.

and that is worse than killing 3,000.

So there goes the argument that our military/gov isn't evil enough to have helped carry it out... clearly they don't give a f*ck about human life, or justice, or truth for that matter.


and don't forget about Afghanistan...

9/11 occurs and we attacked Afghanistan... what a joke.

But it's good to know we didn't destroy their number one cash crop... Because what would the country do economically without Opium?

https://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/afghan_opium_production_1994_2009.jpg

http://newsexaminer.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/44701501_d643e144-ee35-42d3-825f-6355af4f3e0b.jpg



This is just wrong on so many levels

[Nanners]

allow me to refresh your memory primetime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations


Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations were made by the U.S. Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).[1] In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States,[2] basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others. The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html


In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/17/the-cheneys-claims-of-a-deep-longstanding-far-reaching-relationship-between-al-qaeda-and-saddam/


“It is undisputed, and has been confirmed repeatedly in Iraqi government documents captured after the invasion, that Saddam had deep, longstanding, far-reaching relationships with terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda and its affiliates. It is undisputed that Saddam’s Iraq was a state based on terror, overseeing a coordinated program to support global jihadist terrorist organizations. Ansar al Islam, an al Qaeda-linked organization, operated training camps in northern Iraq before the invasion. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the future leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, funneled weapons and fighters into these camps, before the invasion, from his location in Baghdad. We also know, again confirmed in documents captured after the war, that Saddam provided funding, training, and other support to numerous terrorist organizations and individuals over decades, including to Ayman al Zawahiri, the man who leads al Qaeda today.” - Dick Cheney

The invasion of Iraq would never have happened without 9/11.

Everyone loves to shit on Michael Moore, but he called out all of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozjMbS_sl9M

[~primetime~]

Let me also add this...

[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_

[bladefd]

why shouldnt innocent civilians that are harmed by US bomb strikes intended for terrorists be able to sue the US? and how exactly does such a thing "ruin the country"?

btw another country has tried to sue the US for nasty shit we did to them and won. the US just ignored it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

But if we got hit with bunch of lawsuits, US would have to defend itself. Imagine if you lost a bunch of those lawsuits and if we refused to pay up. It would look really bad from PR perspective and just lead to more enemies forming globally. We obviously cannot pay everyone off.

[Doomsday Dallas]

Bush used WMDs to attack Iraq, not 911

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION





Kim Jong Un...

tests several nuclear bombs... and threatens to use them.


Not one single f*ck is given.


(and I do believe Bush said there were also Al Queda terrorists cells in Iraq.)

[~primetime~]

Kim Jong Un...

tests several nuclear bombs... and threatens to use them.


Not one single f*ck is given.


(and I do believe Bush said there were also Al Queda terrorists cells in Iraq.)

I'm not sure about the fcks given part... We might be close to introducing them to democracy

But, North Korea always been kinda a joke.

[Nanners]

But if we got hit with bunch of lawsuits, US would have to defend itself. Imagine if you lost a bunch of those lawsuits and if we refused to pay up. It would look really bad from PR perspective and just lead to more enemies forming globally. We obviously cannot pay everyone off.

it should look bad from a PR perspective. its wrong to go into foreign countries and accidentally blow up innocent people in the name of some kind of vague "war on terror".

exactly why cant we pay everyone off? and who exactly is going to make us pay anyway? if we really want to, we can just tell people who are suing us to **** off, the saudis cant do that.

[Doomsday Dallas]

its wrong to go into foreign countries and accidentally blow up innocent people in the name of some kind of vague "war on terror"


One thing has become clear...

The war on terror is more shady than the war on drugs.

Somebody is benefiting finically from both of these messes,
and they sure as $hit don't want them to end anytime soon.

As long as these two wars are getting people rich...
The country will continue to get worse and worse.

Believe me.

[Duderonomy]

And then 5-10 years from now when the U.S. is facing an avalanche of multi-billion dollar lawsuits in the World Court from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc and they use this bill as a legal precedent, the usual jokers will be like 'Thanks, Obama'.

:facepalm
You mean a 97-1 biparisan vote, correct?

LMFAO


it was almost 100% of the senate that voted today in favor to override obama.

that includes the democrats son, the democrats even told obama "are you saudi's bish? OVERRIDE."

[~primetime~]

One thing has become clear...

The war on terror is more shady than the war on drugs.

Somebody is benefiting finically from both of these messes,
and they sure as $hit don't want them to end anytime soon.

As long as these two wars are getting people rich...
The country will continue to get worse and worse.

Believe me.
The country is not getting worse and worse

Crime has been trending down since the 90s

Our standard of living has been going up

[Nanners]

One thing has become clear...

The war on terror is more shady than the war on drugs.

Somebody is benefiting finically from both of these messes,
and they sure as $hit don't want them to end anytime soon.

As long as these two wars are getting people rich...
The country will continue to get worse and worse.

Believe me.

no doubt a lot of people are benefitting financially, just look at the stock prices for the top US defense contractors since 9/11 - Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop, BAE, Haliburton... they are all way up since the invasion of iraq. i cant find a single major defense contractor whose stock value has shrunk since 2003.

[StephHamann]

You are focused on the wrong conspiracy dooms. The real conspiracy here is that the bush admin had tons of evidence that members of the Saudi royal family/government helped to fund and orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, yet they actively covered up any links pointing to Saudis, and instead used the attacks as an excuse to waste trillions of dollars and end hundreds of thousands of human lives invading a completely innocent Iraq.

Easy, most politicians are corrupt as hell, Saudis pay them millions to be quiet.

[fiddy]

[QUOTE=~primetime~]Let me also add this...

[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_

[ZenMaster]

US & UK bare the most responsibility as both countries fabricated evidence and lied to get the war started.

This, other countries only went in because US and UK did, had to support the allies because of future relations.

[NumberSix]

Iraq DID have wmd's.

[Orlando Magic]

Iraq DID have wmd's.

Yeah, we sold them to them. lol.

[rufuspaul]

The veto override is symbolic. It sends a message to the Saudis that we know they were behind 911 and that we don't have to take their shit anymore. The victims, even if they win in court, won't see a dime from the Saudis. Same goes for anyone that sues the U.S.

If the Saudis want to get back into our good graces they need to step up to the plate and start working to improve the situation in their own back yard (Syria, Yemen, etc.)

[9erempiree]

I don't know how I feel about this.

First of all we shouldn't be suing another country. That is one step closer to globalism. The unification of all courts.

Second of all, we should really hold the Saudis accountable for 9/11.

Obama wants a one world order but his loyalty remains with the Saudi. That tells you how deep he is with them when he is willing to forgo his plans for them.

[NumberSix]

I don't know how I feel about this.

First of all we shouldn't be suing another country. That is one step closer to globalism. The unification of all courts.

Second of all, we should really hold the Saudis accountable for 9/11.

Obama wants a one world order but his loyalty remains with the Saudi. That tells you how deep he is with them when he is willing to forgo his plans for them.
It shouldn't be a matter of suing Saudi Arabia. It should be a matter of military invasion, overthrowing their government, executing anybody remotely involved in 9/11, taking the oil and occupying the land until the oil runs out.

[StephHamann]

It shouldn't be a matter of suing Saudi Arabia. It should be a matter of military invasion, overthrowing their government, executing anybody remotely involved in 9/11, taking the oil and occupying the land until the oil runs out.

https://media.giphy.com/media/uKwa2KiBA0rTy/giphy.gif

[bladefd]

it should look bad from a PR perspective. its wrong to go into foreign countries and accidentally blow up innocent people in the name of some kind of vague "war on terror".

exactly why cant we pay everyone off? and who exactly is going to make us pay anyway? if we really want to, we can just tell people who are suing us to **** off, the saudis cant do that.

-We wouldn't be able to pay everyone off. :confusedshrug:
-If the Saudis pay off this time and then USA refuses to pay in future lawsuits, it would make the US look bad. It will cause other countries to blow it off too down the road. I guess in the end, the precedent will just fall apart as eventually nobody will agree to pay even if they lose just bc USA refused to.
-Lawyers do cost money though whether anyone pays off or not. Lawyers are the only winners in all this. As usual. :oldlol:

[bladefd]

You mean a 97-1 biparisan vote, correct?

LMFAO

it was almost 100% of the senate that voted today in favor to override obama.

that includes the democrats son, the democrats even told obama "are you saudi's bish? OVERRIDE."

Because voting against this bill would be seen as voting against 9/11. Nobody wants to risk that right before the upcoming elections when their ass is on the line.

[9erempiree]

As much as I want to hold the Saudis accountable for what happened it is still dumb to allow people to sue other countries.

I'm against suing other countries because that is one step closer to globalizing the courts.

[DonDadda59]

And then 5-10 years from now when the U.S. is facing an avalanche of multi-billion dollar lawsuits in the World Court from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc and they use this bill as a legal precedent, the usual jokers will be like 'Thanks, Obama'.

:facepalm

Did I say 5-10 years? I meant 24 hours.


Congress suddenly has buyer's remorse for overriding Obama's veto

Washington (CNN)Top congressional leaders from each party expressed buyer's remorse Thursday about a controversial new law that was enacted over President Barack Obama's objections that allows 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia.

Just one day after these lawmakers led the first override of a veto during Obama's presidency they publicly called for making changes to the law. But even as they admitted they agreed with some of the White House's concerns, GOP leaders quickly blamed the President for "dropping the ball" for failing to engage with Congress on the legislation before it passed.

The White House didn't hold back in its criticism after both the House and Senate voted decisively on Wednesday to overturn Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, also referred to as JASTA. The President called the vote Wednesday "political" and his spokesman ripped the move as the "single most embarrassing thing" Congress has done in decades.

Echoing concerns raised by the White House that the measure could open the US to similar lawsuits from people in other countries, House Speaker Paul Ryan said the law needs to be changed to ensure that US troops are protected.

"I'd like to think there is a way we can fix it so that our service members do not have legal problems overseas while still protecting the rights of the 9/11 victims," Ryan said at his weekly news conference.

The speaker voiced his own reservations about the bill earlier this year, saying people needed to look at the unintended consequences. But he explained that he ultimately decided to allow a House vote on it because "you want to make sure that the 9/11 victims and their families get their day in court."

Asked if Congress would try to fix the law when it returns for a post-election session, Ryan replied, "I don't know."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, speaking at a separate news conference, shared Ryan's concerns.

"It appears there may be some unintended ramifications of that and I do think it's worth further discussing," he said. "But it's certainly is not something that was going to be fixed this week."

McConnell said Obama didn't reach out to him until this week, which was after the bill had passed both chambers, been vetoed, and was facing an override vote that clearly was going to succeed.

"That was a good example of the failure to communicate early about a piece of legislation that was obviously very popular," McConnell said.

McConnell explained that lawmakers were very focused on the needs of the 9/11 families and didn't take the time to think through the consequences.
"Because everyone was aware who the potential beneficiaries were, but nobody focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships. And I just think it was a ball dropped," McConnell said. "I wish the President -- and I hate to blame everything on him and I don't -- but it would have been helpful had...we had a discussion about this much earlier than the last week."

White House press secretary Josh Earnest blasted lawmakers for their second thoughts and said there were ample warnings from the administration of the dangerous consequences of the law.

"What's true in elementary school is true in the United States Congress: ignorance is not an excuse," Earnest said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, typically one of the White House's strongest allies, voted to override the President's veto and told reporters she was never pressed by the President to help prevent it from being overturned.
She called the President's concerns about potential fallout with allies "legitimate" and acknowledged, "I do think that perhaps it could have been written in a little bit of a different way that addressed some of the concerns. The families did think that they made changes but not to the satisfaction of the President obviously."

Pelosi disagreed with the President's remark that it was a "political vote." While she said she didn't see his comments, she said the timing of Congress taking up the measure was because the families of the terror attacks pressed for it to pass around the 15th anniversary of the deaths of their loved ones.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is expected to be the next Democratic leader next year, is the chief sponsor of the legislation. The New Yorker said he was open to changing the law but not in any way that could hurt the 9/11 families, many of whom are his constituents.

"So I will look at anything," Schumer said at a news conference. "But it has to be something that doesn't weaken the bill and limit the rights of these families to get their day in court and justice."

Schumer spoke while standing next to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who was lobbied this week by Obama to sustain his veto, and his was the lone senator to do so. Reid even read aloud to a meeting of his Democratic caucus a letter Obama had written to him outlining his concerns with the bill.
Asked to explain his thinking, Reid declined.

"No, no. I've got my friend here. I'm not going to talk about it," he said.
One senator who wanted to talk more about the legislation before it became law was Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Corker said he tried to arrange a meeting this weekend with Senate leaders, Obama, and Secretary of State John Kerry to discuss "a better route" for the legislation.

"We were unable to get the meeting," a frustrated Corker said on the floor. "For reasons that still are unknown to me, that was not achievable. There was no desire whatsoever to sit down and meet."

Earnest said the White House had spoken to Corker.

"He's going to have to explain to his constituents why he supported a piece of legislation that he claims to harbor significant concerns about," Earnest said of Corker.

Corker spearheaded a letter Wednesday signed by 28 bipartisan senators raising concerns with the law and saying they would consider changes to it, a particularly unusual missive on the day the President's veto was turned back.
"Every one of those senators that signed the letter voted for the bill, including Sen. Corker. So obviously they thought it was better to have the bill than not," Schumer noted.

As for Obama calling his vote politically-motivated, Schumer rejected the charge.

'I look at the families, it's hardly political to me," Schumer said. "I've worked with these families for five years. I feel their pain."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/obama-911-veto-congressional-concerns/index.html

https://media.giphy.com/media/2XskdWBVv71YUWLesdG/giphy.gif

This would be funny if it weren't so potentially damaging to our country.

People- I implore you... Please stop voting these buffoons into office.

What will it take for you to finally realize? :confusedshrug:

[UK2K]

(CNN)

:no:

[UK2K]

(CNN)

:no:

Their story may be true, but the message isn't.

Please don't use documented leftwing propaganda websites as sources on here. Trying to keep out the bullshit.

My question is.. why be worried? So someone in Afghanistan sues the US? How about 'go **** yourself'? Perks of being the world super power. We should act like it.

[DonDadda59]

:no:

http://fox43.com/2016/09/29/congressional-leaders-concede-changes-should-be-made-to-911-law-obama-vetoed/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-slams-congress-buyers-remorse-911-bill/story?id=42459407

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/29/white-house-congress-has-buyers-remorse-after-overriding-obama-veto/91289856/

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/298528-white-house-congress-has-buyers-remorse-on-9-11-bill

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/29/republican-leaders-say-911-measure-may-need-to-be-revisited-after-elections/


You and Obama are the only ones who can see the future. :oldlol:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljgm48RHza1qzu8geo1_500.png

Donstradamus right on the money again. :bowdown:

America will be f*cked as long as people keep voting these incompetent oafs into power. My man Barry O tried to save us as usual, but to no avail.

Thanks, Obama. :rolleyes: