|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 25 2016 05:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 05:17 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will likely soon release at least part of a 28-page secret chapter from a congressional inquiry into 9/11 that may shed light on possible Saudi connections to the attackers.
The documents, kept in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol, contain information from the joint congressional inquiry into "specific sources of foreign support for some of the Sept. 11 hijackers while they were in the United States."
Bob Graham, who was co-chairman of that bipartisan panel, and others say the documents point suspicion at the Saudis. The former Democratic senator from Florida says an administration official told him that intelligence officials will decide in the next several weeks whether to release at least parts of the documents. The disclosure would come at a time of strained U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, a long-time American ally.
"I hope that decision is to honor the American people and make it available," Graham told NBCs' "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "The most important unanswered question of 9/11 is, did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported?"
Tim Roemer, who was a member of both the joint congressional inquiry as well as the 9/11 Commission and has read the secret chapter three times, described the 28 pages as a "preliminary police report."
"There were clues. There were allegations. There were witness reports. There was evidence about the hijackers, about people they met with — all kinds of different things that the 9/11 Commission was then tasked with reviewing and investigating," the former Democratic congressman from Indiana said Friday.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government says it has been "wrongfully and morbidly accused of complicity" in the attacks, is fighting extremists and working to clamp down on their funding channels. Still, the Saudis have long said that they would welcome declassification of the 28 pages because it would "allow us to respond to any allegations in a clear and credible manner."
The pages were withheld from the 838-page report on the orders of President George W. Bush, who said the release could divulge intelligence sources and methods. Still, protecting U.S.-Saudi diplomatic relations also was believed to have been a factor. Source Obama giving no fucks towards the end of his presidency it seems. Though to be fair we've known for a long time how suspect the Saudis are and how terrible their regime is. Just wish we took energy independence more seriously so we didn't have to align ourselves with such regimes, or care so much about our 'interests' in the middle east. I believe the only criteria in US diplomacy is not whether or not a regime is horrible or oppressive but how pro free market countries are. The Saudi being an example of a horrendous regime with which you can do good business. I think that unbelievably short sighted method is meeting its limits with the rise of globalized terrorism.
Agreed. But at least we wouldn't have to call them allies if we didn't need their oil. :D
|
On April 25 2016 04:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sandernistas have become the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Basically they have been doing their whole campaign on personal attacks about Hillary being corrupt, dishonest and sold to Wall Street.
In fact there is not the slightest evidence that HC has ever been corrupt or bought by anyone, or that she is dishonest. This is right wing propaganda, based on nothing. When Sanders was asked when she had done anything that could be linked to her being "bought by Wall Street", he was left speechless.
This is rather sad because Sanders has plenty to bring to american politics. But if all his troops can do is hate speech, insults and defamation against their own side, they are not worth much better than Republicans. I feel like her being dishonest is somewhat irrefutable. As an example, the transcripts, there is no explanation for how her excuse isn't dishonest. The rest just takes removing the idea that these folks are giving millions of dollars without any expectation to influence policy. Which the Democrats did in 2014, but have since abandoned due to Hillary's fundraising. How does the change in fundraising rules at the DNC not signal that lobbyists will be more influential under her potential administration, not less? It's not that they are giving her $1million cash so she votes X, I don't think many politicians are that stupid. There's no question she would be more heavily influenced to lean toward her donors when making policy considerations. Yes but no. The transcripts are absolutely not a proof of her being dishonest. She might not want to release things she said to a closed circle of people during her campaign for strategic reasons, or because she thinks it could be used in a way or an other against her. How is that dishonesty?? And that's all you have to call someone dishonest? That's quite slim. Now she is playing american politics by the book, and yes, it is contributors who pay for campaigns. It doesn't make her sold. There is a problem with the system, not with her. Blaming her for the system is sterile and unfair. A question: if Sanders wins the primaries, how do you think he will fund his election campaign? With 10$ donations? He'll probably turn down all the big donor's money, right? Just think about that. If accepting money from big donors means being bought, Bernie will be bought the second he is up against Trump or whichever monster the Republican chose for themselves. What does Sanders and his campaign have answered about that? Nothing. They just pretend the problem doesn't exist. So let's recap. Sanders is playing an ad hominem campaign based on right wing propaganda "Hillary is dishonest and corrupt!!" and the fact her opponent is playing american politics by the book the exact same way he will have to play them the moment he is chosen. And that's the guy who will make american politics better. Wow. (I am not voting for that election since I am not american, and I am much closer ideologically to Sanders - I do agree with most of what he says - than Clinton. But the disgraceful campaign he is leading makes me want to root for Clinton. When your troops are so toxic they turn people who are perfectly aligned politically with you away, you have to change something. And that would apply to you. Instead of discussing proposals and policies, you basically concentrate on defaming the most likely candidate to face Trump. Not smart.)
What about WhiteWater guys???
|
On April 25 2016 05:32 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 05:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 05:17 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will likely soon release at least part of a 28-page secret chapter from a congressional inquiry into 9/11 that may shed light on possible Saudi connections to the attackers.
The documents, kept in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol, contain information from the joint congressional inquiry into "specific sources of foreign support for some of the Sept. 11 hijackers while they were in the United States."
Bob Graham, who was co-chairman of that bipartisan panel, and others say the documents point suspicion at the Saudis. The former Democratic senator from Florida says an administration official told him that intelligence officials will decide in the next several weeks whether to release at least parts of the documents. The disclosure would come at a time of strained U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, a long-time American ally.
"I hope that decision is to honor the American people and make it available," Graham told NBCs' "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "The most important unanswered question of 9/11 is, did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported?"
Tim Roemer, who was a member of both the joint congressional inquiry as well as the 9/11 Commission and has read the secret chapter three times, described the 28 pages as a "preliminary police report."
"There were clues. There were allegations. There were witness reports. There was evidence about the hijackers, about people they met with — all kinds of different things that the 9/11 Commission was then tasked with reviewing and investigating," the former Democratic congressman from Indiana said Friday.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government says it has been "wrongfully and morbidly accused of complicity" in the attacks, is fighting extremists and working to clamp down on their funding channels. Still, the Saudis have long said that they would welcome declassification of the 28 pages because it would "allow us to respond to any allegations in a clear and credible manner."
The pages were withheld from the 838-page report on the orders of President George W. Bush, who said the release could divulge intelligence sources and methods. Still, protecting U.S.-Saudi diplomatic relations also was believed to have been a factor. Source Obama giving no fucks towards the end of his presidency it seems. Though to be fair we've known for a long time how suspect the Saudis are and how terrible their regime is. Just wish we took energy independence more seriously so we didn't have to align ourselves with such regimes, or care so much about our 'interests' in the middle east. I believe the only criteria in US diplomacy is not whether or not a regime is horrible or oppressive but how pro free market countries are. The Saudi being an example of a horrendous regime with which you can do good business. I think that unbelievably short sighted method is meeting its limits with the rise of globalized terrorism. Agreed. But at least we wouldn't have to call them allies if we didn't need their oil. :D
Well, I guess with the fracking and shale gas, the US were on the way to gain a bit of energetic independence, but the Saudi have decided to torpedo that industry altogether by increasing their own oil production, and putting the barrel at the absurdly low price it is now.
One more reasons why the energetic policies of the West don't make any sense. Having the Saudi holding everyone by the balls AND warming up the planet to catastrophic levels is apparently not a good enough reason to massively, massively invest into alternative and green energies..
|
On April 25 2016 05:32 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 05:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 05:17 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will likely soon release at least part of a 28-page secret chapter from a congressional inquiry into 9/11 that may shed light on possible Saudi connections to the attackers.
The documents, kept in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol, contain information from the joint congressional inquiry into "specific sources of foreign support for some of the Sept. 11 hijackers while they were in the United States."
Bob Graham, who was co-chairman of that bipartisan panel, and others say the documents point suspicion at the Saudis. The former Democratic senator from Florida says an administration official told him that intelligence officials will decide in the next several weeks whether to release at least parts of the documents. The disclosure would come at a time of strained U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, a long-time American ally.
"I hope that decision is to honor the American people and make it available," Graham told NBCs' "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "The most important unanswered question of 9/11 is, did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported?"
Tim Roemer, who was a member of both the joint congressional inquiry as well as the 9/11 Commission and has read the secret chapter three times, described the 28 pages as a "preliminary police report."
"There were clues. There were allegations. There were witness reports. There was evidence about the hijackers, about people they met with — all kinds of different things that the 9/11 Commission was then tasked with reviewing and investigating," the former Democratic congressman from Indiana said Friday.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government says it has been "wrongfully and morbidly accused of complicity" in the attacks, is fighting extremists and working to clamp down on their funding channels. Still, the Saudis have long said that they would welcome declassification of the 28 pages because it would "allow us to respond to any allegations in a clear and credible manner."
The pages were withheld from the 838-page report on the orders of President George W. Bush, who said the release could divulge intelligence sources and methods. Still, protecting U.S.-Saudi diplomatic relations also was believed to have been a factor. Source Obama giving no fucks towards the end of his presidency it seems. Though to be fair we've known for a long time how suspect the Saudis are and how terrible their regime is. Just wish we took energy independence more seriously so we didn't have to align ourselves with such regimes, or care so much about our 'interests' in the middle east. I believe the only criteria in US diplomacy is not whether or not a regime is horrible or oppressive but how pro free market countries are. The Saudi being an example of a horrendous regime with which you can do good business. I think that unbelievably short sighted method is meeting its limits with the rise of globalized terrorism. Agreed. But at least we wouldn't have to call them allies if we didn't need their oil. :D
It is not just oil, tho that's a big part of it. Its also a geo-political ally in the middle east together with Israel.
The increasing ties to terrorism and now ISIS is threatening that position however, aided by increasing relations between the US and Iran as a replacement.
|
On April 25 2016 05:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 05:32 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 05:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 05:17 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will likely soon release at least part of a 28-page secret chapter from a congressional inquiry into 9/11 that may shed light on possible Saudi connections to the attackers.
The documents, kept in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol, contain information from the joint congressional inquiry into "specific sources of foreign support for some of the Sept. 11 hijackers while they were in the United States."
Bob Graham, who was co-chairman of that bipartisan panel, and others say the documents point suspicion at the Saudis. The former Democratic senator from Florida says an administration official told him that intelligence officials will decide in the next several weeks whether to release at least parts of the documents. The disclosure would come at a time of strained U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, a long-time American ally.
"I hope that decision is to honor the American people and make it available," Graham told NBCs' "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "The most important unanswered question of 9/11 is, did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported?"
Tim Roemer, who was a member of both the joint congressional inquiry as well as the 9/11 Commission and has read the secret chapter three times, described the 28 pages as a "preliminary police report."
"There were clues. There were allegations. There were witness reports. There was evidence about the hijackers, about people they met with — all kinds of different things that the 9/11 Commission was then tasked with reviewing and investigating," the former Democratic congressman from Indiana said Friday.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government says it has been "wrongfully and morbidly accused of complicity" in the attacks, is fighting extremists and working to clamp down on their funding channels. Still, the Saudis have long said that they would welcome declassification of the 28 pages because it would "allow us to respond to any allegations in a clear and credible manner."
The pages were withheld from the 838-page report on the orders of President George W. Bush, who said the release could divulge intelligence sources and methods. Still, protecting U.S.-Saudi diplomatic relations also was believed to have been a factor. Source Obama giving no fucks towards the end of his presidency it seems. Though to be fair we've known for a long time how suspect the Saudis are and how terrible their regime is. Just wish we took energy independence more seriously so we didn't have to align ourselves with such regimes, or care so much about our 'interests' in the middle east. I believe the only criteria in US diplomacy is not whether or not a regime is horrible or oppressive but how pro free market countries are. The Saudi being an example of a horrendous regime with which you can do good business. I think that unbelievably short sighted method is meeting its limits with the rise of globalized terrorism. Agreed. But at least we wouldn't have to call them allies if we didn't need their oil. :D It is not just oil, tho that's a big part of it. Its also a geo-political ally in the middle east together with Israel. The increasing ties to terrorism and now ISIS is threatening that position however, aided by increasing relations between the US and Iran as a replacement.
From what I understand about Iran it would be a great ally if it wasn't governed by the far right wing theocrats (from my understanding Iran was quite progressive up until the 60s or so and that even now the younger generation is). While we do consider them allies I personally don't think we should align ourselves with repressive theocratic regimes. and should try to move towards not having to do so (energy independence, building relationships with the more modern regimes in the area, and so on).
|
On April 25 2016 05:36 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 04:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sandernistas have become the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Basically they have been doing their whole campaign on personal attacks about Hillary being corrupt, dishonest and sold to Wall Street.
In fact there is not the slightest evidence that HC has ever been corrupt or bought by anyone, or that she is dishonest. This is right wing propaganda, based on nothing. When Sanders was asked when she had done anything that could be linked to her being "bought by Wall Street", he was left speechless.
This is rather sad because Sanders has plenty to bring to american politics. But if all his troops can do is hate speech, insults and defamation against their own side, they are not worth much better than Republicans. I feel like her being dishonest is somewhat irrefutable. As an example, the transcripts, there is no explanation for how her excuse isn't dishonest. The rest just takes removing the idea that these folks are giving millions of dollars without any expectation to influence policy. Which the Democrats did in 2014, but have since abandoned due to Hillary's fundraising. How does the change in fundraising rules at the DNC not signal that lobbyists will be more influential under her potential administration, not less? It's not that they are giving her $1million cash so she votes X, I don't think many politicians are that stupid. There's no question she would be more heavily influenced to lean toward her donors when making policy considerations. Yes but no. The transcripts are absolutely not a proof of her being dishonest. She might not want to release things she said to a closed circle of people during her campaign for strategic reasons, or because she thinks it could be used in a way or an other against her. How is that dishonesty?? And that's all you have to call someone dishonest? That's quite slim. Now she is playing american politics by the book, and yes, it is contributors who pay for campaigns. It doesn't make her sold. There is a problem with the system, not with her. Blaming her for the system is sterile and unfair. A question: if Sanders wins the primaries, how do you think he will fund his election campaign? With 10$ donations? He'll probably turn down all the big donor's money, right? Just think about that. If accepting money from big donors means being bought, Bernie will be bought the second he is up against Trump or whichever monster the Republican chose for themselves. What does Sanders and his campaign have answered about that? Nothing. They just pretend the problem doesn't exist. So let's recap. Sanders is playing an ad hominem campaign based on right wing propaganda "Hillary is dishonest and corrupt!!" and the fact her opponent is playing american politics by the book the exact same way he will have to play them the moment he is chosen. And that's the guy who will make american politics better. Wow. (I am not voting for that election since I am not american, and I am much closer ideologically to Sanders - I do agree with most of what he says - than Clinton. But the disgraceful campaign he is leading makes me want to root for Clinton. When your troops are so toxic they turn people who are perfectly aligned politically with you away, you have to change something. And that would apply to you. Instead of discussing proposals and policies, you basically concentrate on defaming the most likely candidate to face Trump. Not smart.) What about WhiteWater guys???
Good idea : let's base that campaign on a twenty five years old minor "scandal" that didn't lead to any kind of conviction for the Clinton and in which nobody has ever had a clue who was involved and at what level.
Jesus... You REALLY think that when we talk of the Clinton, that's the important stuff? Bill Clinton has been 8 years in office, had had a major, major influence on how the world is today, Hillary has been secretary of State, we are discussing policies that could potentially change America, and more importantly, chosing someone to make sure that the most important person in the world won't be Trump, and all you guys find to debate about is a shit scandal from the 80's and the fact that Clinton doesn't want to release transcripts.
That's fucking sad if you ask me.
|
On April 25 2016 05:43 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 05:38 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2016 05:32 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 05:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 05:17 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will likely soon release at least part of a 28-page secret chapter from a congressional inquiry into 9/11 that may shed light on possible Saudi connections to the attackers.
The documents, kept in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol, contain information from the joint congressional inquiry into "specific sources of foreign support for some of the Sept. 11 hijackers while they were in the United States."
Bob Graham, who was co-chairman of that bipartisan panel, and others say the documents point suspicion at the Saudis. The former Democratic senator from Florida says an administration official told him that intelligence officials will decide in the next several weeks whether to release at least parts of the documents. The disclosure would come at a time of strained U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, a long-time American ally.
"I hope that decision is to honor the American people and make it available," Graham told NBCs' "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "The most important unanswered question of 9/11 is, did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported?"
Tim Roemer, who was a member of both the joint congressional inquiry as well as the 9/11 Commission and has read the secret chapter three times, described the 28 pages as a "preliminary police report."
"There were clues. There were allegations. There were witness reports. There was evidence about the hijackers, about people they met with — all kinds of different things that the 9/11 Commission was then tasked with reviewing and investigating," the former Democratic congressman from Indiana said Friday.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government says it has been "wrongfully and morbidly accused of complicity" in the attacks, is fighting extremists and working to clamp down on their funding channels. Still, the Saudis have long said that they would welcome declassification of the 28 pages because it would "allow us to respond to any allegations in a clear and credible manner."
The pages were withheld from the 838-page report on the orders of President George W. Bush, who said the release could divulge intelligence sources and methods. Still, protecting U.S.-Saudi diplomatic relations also was believed to have been a factor. Source Obama giving no fucks towards the end of his presidency it seems. Though to be fair we've known for a long time how suspect the Saudis are and how terrible their regime is. Just wish we took energy independence more seriously so we didn't have to align ourselves with such regimes, or care so much about our 'interests' in the middle east. I believe the only criteria in US diplomacy is not whether or not a regime is horrible or oppressive but how pro free market countries are. The Saudi being an example of a horrendous regime with which you can do good business. I think that unbelievably short sighted method is meeting its limits with the rise of globalized terrorism. Agreed. But at least we wouldn't have to call them allies if we didn't need their oil. :D It is not just oil, tho that's a big part of it. Its also a geo-political ally in the middle east together with Israel. The increasing ties to terrorism and now ISIS is threatening that position however, aided by increasing relations between the US and Iran as a replacement. From what I understand about Iran it would be a great ally if it wasn't governed by the far right wing theocrats (from my understanding Iran was quite progressive up until the 60s or so and that even now the younger generation is). While we do consider them allies I personally don't think we should align ourselves with repressive theocratic regimes. and should try to move towards not having to do so (energy independence, building relationships with the more modern regimes in the area, and so on).
Please name one of these modern regimes in the middle-east.
Also before judging their current government do not forget that the US caused the overthrowing of the progressive government by a military junta and that the current theocracy is what overthrew the US backed dictatorship that followed.
|
On April 25 2016 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 05:43 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 05:38 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2016 05:32 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 05:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 05:17 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will likely soon release at least part of a 28-page secret chapter from a congressional inquiry into 9/11 that may shed light on possible Saudi connections to the attackers.
The documents, kept in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol, contain information from the joint congressional inquiry into "specific sources of foreign support for some of the Sept. 11 hijackers while they were in the United States."
Bob Graham, who was co-chairman of that bipartisan panel, and others say the documents point suspicion at the Saudis. The former Democratic senator from Florida says an administration official told him that intelligence officials will decide in the next several weeks whether to release at least parts of the documents. The disclosure would come at a time of strained U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, a long-time American ally.
"I hope that decision is to honor the American people and make it available," Graham told NBCs' "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "The most important unanswered question of 9/11 is, did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported?"
Tim Roemer, who was a member of both the joint congressional inquiry as well as the 9/11 Commission and has read the secret chapter three times, described the 28 pages as a "preliminary police report."
"There were clues. There were allegations. There were witness reports. There was evidence about the hijackers, about people they met with — all kinds of different things that the 9/11 Commission was then tasked with reviewing and investigating," the former Democratic congressman from Indiana said Friday.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government says it has been "wrongfully and morbidly accused of complicity" in the attacks, is fighting extremists and working to clamp down on their funding channels. Still, the Saudis have long said that they would welcome declassification of the 28 pages because it would "allow us to respond to any allegations in a clear and credible manner."
The pages were withheld from the 838-page report on the orders of President George W. Bush, who said the release could divulge intelligence sources and methods. Still, protecting U.S.-Saudi diplomatic relations also was believed to have been a factor. Source Obama giving no fucks towards the end of his presidency it seems. Though to be fair we've known for a long time how suspect the Saudis are and how terrible their regime is. Just wish we took energy independence more seriously so we didn't have to align ourselves with such regimes, or care so much about our 'interests' in the middle east. I believe the only criteria in US diplomacy is not whether or not a regime is horrible or oppressive but how pro free market countries are. The Saudi being an example of a horrendous regime with which you can do good business. I think that unbelievably short sighted method is meeting its limits with the rise of globalized terrorism. Agreed. But at least we wouldn't have to call them allies if we didn't need their oil. :D It is not just oil, tho that's a big part of it. Its also a geo-political ally in the middle east together with Israel. The increasing ties to terrorism and now ISIS is threatening that position however, aided by increasing relations between the US and Iran as a replacement. From what I understand about Iran it would be a great ally if it wasn't governed by the far right wing theocrats (from my understanding Iran was quite progressive up until the 60s or so and that even now the younger generation is). While we do consider them allies I personally don't think we should align ourselves with repressive theocratic regimes. and should try to move towards not having to do so (energy independence, building relationships with the more modern regimes in the area, and so on). Please name one of these modern regimes in the middle-east. Also before judging their current government do not forget that the US caused the overthrowing of the progressive government by a military junta and that the current theocracy is what overthrew the US backed dictatorship that followed.
Indeed. The US doesn't have clean hands in all of this. The two powers I had in mind were Turkey and India, while not really in the middle east I guess, they would be the ones we should work with in the region it seems to me.
|
On April 25 2016 05:52 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2016 05:43 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 05:38 Gorsameth wrote:On April 25 2016 05:32 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 05:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 05:17 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will likely soon release at least part of a 28-page secret chapter from a congressional inquiry into 9/11 that may shed light on possible Saudi connections to the attackers.
The documents, kept in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol, contain information from the joint congressional inquiry into "specific sources of foreign support for some of the Sept. 11 hijackers while they were in the United States."
Bob Graham, who was co-chairman of that bipartisan panel, and others say the documents point suspicion at the Saudis. The former Democratic senator from Florida says an administration official told him that intelligence officials will decide in the next several weeks whether to release at least parts of the documents. The disclosure would come at a time of strained U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, a long-time American ally.
"I hope that decision is to honor the American people and make it available," Graham told NBCs' "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "The most important unanswered question of 9/11 is, did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported?"
Tim Roemer, who was a member of both the joint congressional inquiry as well as the 9/11 Commission and has read the secret chapter three times, described the 28 pages as a "preliminary police report."
"There were clues. There were allegations. There were witness reports. There was evidence about the hijackers, about people they met with — all kinds of different things that the 9/11 Commission was then tasked with reviewing and investigating," the former Democratic congressman from Indiana said Friday.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government says it has been "wrongfully and morbidly accused of complicity" in the attacks, is fighting extremists and working to clamp down on their funding channels. Still, the Saudis have long said that they would welcome declassification of the 28 pages because it would "allow us to respond to any allegations in a clear and credible manner."
The pages were withheld from the 838-page report on the orders of President George W. Bush, who said the release could divulge intelligence sources and methods. Still, protecting U.S.-Saudi diplomatic relations also was believed to have been a factor. Source Obama giving no fucks towards the end of his presidency it seems. Though to be fair we've known for a long time how suspect the Saudis are and how terrible their regime is. Just wish we took energy independence more seriously so we didn't have to align ourselves with such regimes, or care so much about our 'interests' in the middle east. I believe the only criteria in US diplomacy is not whether or not a regime is horrible or oppressive but how pro free market countries are. The Saudi being an example of a horrendous regime with which you can do good business. I think that unbelievably short sighted method is meeting its limits with the rise of globalized terrorism. Agreed. But at least we wouldn't have to call them allies if we didn't need their oil. :D It is not just oil, tho that's a big part of it. Its also a geo-political ally in the middle east together with Israel. The increasing ties to terrorism and now ISIS is threatening that position however, aided by increasing relations between the US and Iran as a replacement. From what I understand about Iran it would be a great ally if it wasn't governed by the far right wing theocrats (from my understanding Iran was quite progressive up until the 60s or so and that even now the younger generation is). While we do consider them allies I personally don't think we should align ourselves with repressive theocratic regimes. and should try to move towards not having to do so (energy independence, building relationships with the more modern regimes in the area, and so on). Please name one of these modern regimes in the middle-east. Also before judging their current government do not forget that the US caused the overthrowing of the progressive government by a military junta and that the current theocracy is what overthrew the US backed dictatorship that followed. Indeed. The US doesn't have clean hands in all of this. The two powers I had in mind were Turkey and India, while not really in the middle east I guess, they would be the ones we should work with in the region it seems to me.
India I don't know enough about to comment so you may well be right but don't forget that Turkey is quickly descending more or less a dictatorship thanks to Erdogan.
Pretty sure China has a better standard of press freedom then Turkey at this point.
|
On April 25 2016 04:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sandernistas have become the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Basically they have been doing their whole campaign on personal attacks about Hillary being corrupt, dishonest and sold to Wall Street.
In fact there is not the slightest evidence that HC has ever been corrupt or bought by anyone, or that she is dishonest. This is right wing propaganda, based on nothing. When Sanders was asked when she had done anything that could be linked to her being "bought by Wall Street", he was left speechless.
This is rather sad because Sanders has plenty to bring to american politics. But if all his troops can do is hate speech, insults and defamation against their own side, they are not worth much better than Republicans. I feel like her being dishonest is somewhat irrefutable. As an example, the transcripts, there is no explanation for how her excuse isn't dishonest. The rest just takes removing the idea that these folks are giving millions of dollars without any expectation to influence policy. Which the Democrats did in 2014, but have since abandoned due to Hillary's fundraising. How does the change in fundraising rules at the DNC not signal that lobbyists will be more influential under her potential administration, not less? It's not that they are giving her $1million cash so she votes X, I don't think many politicians are that stupid. There's no question she would be more heavily influenced to lean toward her donors when making policy considerations. Yes but no. The transcripts are absolutely not a proof of her being dishonest. She might not want to release things she said to a closed circle of people during her campaign for strategic reasons, or because she thinks it could be used in a way or an other against her. How is that dishonesty?? And that's all you have to call someone dishonest? That's quite slim. Now she is playing american politics by the book, and yes, it is contributors who pay for campaigns. It doesn't make her sold. There is a problem with the system, not with her. Blaming her for the system is sterile and unfair. A question: if Sanders wins the primaries, how do you think he will fund his election campaign? With 10$ donations? He'll probably turn down all the big donor's money, right? Just think about that. If accepting money from big donors means being bought, Bernie will be bought the second he is up against Trump or whichever monster the Republican chose for themselves. What does Sanders and his campaign have answered about that? Nothing. They just pretend the problem doesn't exist. So let's recap. Sanders is playing an ad hominem campaign based on right wing propaganda "Hillary is dishonest and corrupt!!" and the fact her opponent is playing american politics by the book the exact same way he will have to play them the moment he is chosen. And that's the guy who will make american politics better. Wow. (I am not voting for that election since I am not american, and I am much closer ideologically to Sanders - I do agree with most of what he says - than Clinton. But the disgraceful campaign he is leading makes me want to root for Clinton. When your troops are so toxic they turn people who are perfectly aligned politically with you away, you have to change something. And that would apply to you. Instead of discussing proposals and policies, you basically concentrate on defaming the most likely candidate to face Trump. Not smart.)
Well it's not the transcripts themselves which make her dishonest it's her defense of not releasing them which is dishonest. She says she won't do it because it's a double standard applied only to her and she wants Republicans to release theirs. Besides that the Republicans should be irrelevant to the issue in the Democratic primary, it's obviously not true, as you even said in your defense of her. She doesn't want to release it because it could damage her politically, but instead she is dishonest and made up some totally nonsensical excuse about Republicans releasing transcripts to speeches that no one (including her) can point to. If that's not dishonest to someone then we have different understandings of the word.
Sanders and myself to a lesser degree have always pointed out that the system is broken, but her choosing to play in that system, as opposed to Sanders willingness to avoid at least corporate backed superPACs and other shady fundraising strategies, does in fact speak to them as individuals.
As for fundraising, it matters where the money comes from and where the money goes. If we look at their fundraising efforts, not only are Bernie's practically free from the problematic fundraising practices of Hillary (Wall st, Big Pharma, superPACs, superPACs that directly coordinate with the campaign, the HVF questionable practices, etc...) But it's also MORE effective (at least at raising money for the campaign).
If you look at how they have raised money so far, it's blatantly clear Hillary will have to ask millionaires an billionaires for money if she wants to fund her campaign, she can't do it without them. So if they expect her to be more favorable in exchange, she will have no choice (other than to not be able to fund her campaign). Bernie won't. If you extrapolate his fundraising to a national election scale, he gets well over a billion dollars in campaign donations without having to abandon the campaign finance reforms he supports, the same can't be said of Hillary.
Hillary claims to want to change the problematic parts of the system (maybe she really does, though I'm pretty sure she argues for transparency, not limits) she is making it to where she can't run/win her campaign without them.
She says she's for public financing of campaigns, but she used superPAC's in the primary already when her opponent doesn't have one. I don't see anything beyond rhetoric that should lead anyone to believe she has any intention of actually cleaning up campaign financing. In fact whenever she's had the chance to put her money where her mouth is, she's balked and done the same thing she complains is wrong with other candidates (Obama being one).
I and many others have spent too many elections picking the person that bothered us the least, we're not going to be terrorized into voting for Hillary.
|
On April 25 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 04:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sandernistas have become the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Basically they have been doing their whole campaign on personal attacks about Hillary being corrupt, dishonest and sold to Wall Street.
In fact there is not the slightest evidence that HC has ever been corrupt or bought by anyone, or that she is dishonest. This is right wing propaganda, based on nothing. When Sanders was asked when she had done anything that could be linked to her being "bought by Wall Street", he was left speechless.
This is rather sad because Sanders has plenty to bring to american politics. But if all his troops can do is hate speech, insults and defamation against their own side, they are not worth much better than Republicans. I feel like her being dishonest is somewhat irrefutable. As an example, the transcripts, there is no explanation for how her excuse isn't dishonest. The rest just takes removing the idea that these folks are giving millions of dollars without any expectation to influence policy. Which the Democrats did in 2014, but have since abandoned due to Hillary's fundraising. How does the change in fundraising rules at the DNC not signal that lobbyists will be more influential under her potential administration, not less? It's not that they are giving her $1million cash so she votes X, I don't think many politicians are that stupid. There's no question she would be more heavily influenced to lean toward her donors when making policy considerations. Yes but no. The transcripts are absolutely not a proof of her being dishonest. She might not want to release things she said to a closed circle of people during her campaign for strategic reasons, or because she thinks it could be used in a way or an other against her. How is that dishonesty?? And that's all you have to call someone dishonest? That's quite slim. Now she is playing american politics by the book, and yes, it is contributors who pay for campaigns. It doesn't make her sold. There is a problem with the system, not with her. Blaming her for the system is sterile and unfair. A question: if Sanders wins the primaries, how do you think he will fund his election campaign? With 10$ donations? He'll probably turn down all the big donor's money, right? Just think about that. If accepting money from big donors means being bought, Bernie will be bought the second he is up against Trump or whichever monster the Republican chose for themselves. What does Sanders and his campaign have answered about that? Nothing. They just pretend the problem doesn't exist. So let's recap. Sanders is playing an ad hominem campaign based on right wing propaganda "Hillary is dishonest and corrupt!!" and the fact her opponent is playing american politics by the book the exact same way he will have to play them the moment he is chosen. And that's the guy who will make american politics better. Wow. (I am not voting for that election since I am not american, and I am much closer ideologically to Sanders - I do agree with most of what he says - than Clinton. But the disgraceful campaign he is leading makes me want to root for Clinton. When your troops are so toxic they turn people who are perfectly aligned politically with you away, you have to change something. And that would apply to you. Instead of discussing proposals and policies, you basically concentrate on defaming the most likely candidate to face Trump. Not smart.) Well it's not the transcripts themselves which make her dishonest it's her defense of not releasing them which is dishonest. She says she won't do it because it's a double standard applied only to her and she wants Republicans to release theirs. Besides that the Republicans should be irrelevant to the issue in the Democratic primary, it's obviously not true, as you even said in your defense of her. She doesn't want to release it because it could damage her politically, but instead she is dishonest and made up some totally nonsensical excuse about Republicans releasing transcripts to speeches that no one (including her) can point to. If that's not dishonest to someone then we have different understandings of the word. Sanders and myself to a lesser degree have always pointed out that the system is broken, but her choosing to play in that system, as opposed to Sanders willingness to avoid at least corporate backed superPACs and other shady fundraising strategies, does in fact speak to them as individuals. As for fundraising, it matters where the money comes from and where the money goes. If we look at their fundraising efforts, not only are Bernie's practically free from the problematic fundraising practices of Hillary (Wall st, Big Pharma, superPACs, superPACs that directly coordinate with the campaign, the HVF questionable practices, etc...) But it's also MORE effective (at least at raising money for the campaign). If you look at how they have raised money so far, it's blatantly clear Hillary will have to ask millionaires an billionaires for money if she wants to fund her campaign, she can't do it without them. So if they expect her to be more favorable in exchange, she will have no choice (other than to not be able to fund her campaign). Bernie won't. If you extrapolate his fundraising to a national election scale, he gets well over a billion dollars in campaign donations without having to abandon the campaign finance reforms he supports, the same can't be said of Hillary. Hillary claims to want to change the problematic parts of the system (maybe she really does, though I'm pretty sure she argues for transparency, not limits) she is making it to where she can't run/win her campaign without them. She says she's for public financing of campaigns, but she used superPAC's in the primary already when her opponent doesn't have one. I don't see anything beyond rhetoric that should lead anyone to believe she has any intention of actually cleaning up campaign financing. In fact whenever she's had the chance to put her money where her mouth is, she's balked and done the same thing she complains is wrong with other candidates (Obama being one). I and many others have spent too many elections picking the person that bothered us the least, we're not going to be terrorized into voting for Hillary.
I don't ask you to vote for Hillary now.
I ask you and Sandernistas:
1- To base your campaign on policies and actual platforms and not which hunts, propaganda and ad hominems. Which is 90% of what I have read. In that respect you ressemble Republicans.
2- To vote for Hillary when she wins the primaries. Because I don't even really like Hillary but the difference it will make to the world and history whether HC or Trump is elected is simply gigantic.
That's pretty much it. Again, I would rather be a Sanders than a Clinton supporter if his campaign and campaigners were not so fucking obnoxious.
|
1. Campaign finance reform is a policy issue (at the core of every other issue as well) and the veracity and sincerity of their positions is one of the most relevant issues in this election. So what you seem to view as ad hominems are actually legitimate concerns. I'd like to see you explain how her transcripts excuse isn't her being dishonest, for example.
2. Primary or general, I won't be terrorized by a potential Trump presidency into voting for Hillary. If Hillary can't win enough support without the looming threat of the alternative, that's her own shortcoming, not ours for not being willing to vote for someone we don't support.
|
Wow, and to think for a short while I actually agreed with GH on a few things, jesus christ. Ok so about her statement about not releasing transcripts if republicans don't, it's perfectly valid. If the transcripts could only be ammo for bernie to use against her, then sure her and him should release them. However, after the election and assuming she's elected as the presidential candidate, it's the republicans who she will be running against, and they will have an unfair advantage of having that ammo without ever having had to release theirs or do anything. In her mind and most likely in reality, the race is between her and whatever republican candidate gets nominated, her vs sanders is just the pre-show. I honestly would prefer bernie to be the president, but this "our way or we take the ball and go home" mindset that so many bernie bros seem to have is idiotic and disgusting, and reminds me of the republican party.
|
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them.
|
Getting a real sense of deja vu here. Democrat candidate supporters act like there's some loaded gun documents out there that will crush their opposition, create giant conspiracy to pretend there's a big cover-up. Come election time Republican supporters will take that ball and turn it into an avalanche until several years later when the truth comes out and it's the biggest non-event ever (and it was actually withheld because people are just dumb).
Irony, of course, being that it was Hillary supporters that started the whole Birther conspiracy, and it was Trump that believed it was legitimate long after.
|
I don't like the Clinton's either. But to not vote for her versus whoever the republican nominee will be is just being stubborn and stupid. I too would rather Bernie win and be the nominee, but if he doesn't, Hillary is still better than anyone the republicans will field this election. And this as someone who loathes both her and her husband, but at least they are decent and experienced politicians and marginally reasonable.
Though frankly I am not too concerned by the "if it isn't Bernie we aren't voting crowd", I think they are a minority and that people will be motivated to come out and vote against either Trump or Cruz.
|
ideological purity>!>!>!>!>@??#@?$?!?!?
|
On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them.
If they were her campaign would have released them already.
|
On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them. If they were her campaign would have released them already.
It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election).
According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches.
|
On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them. If they were her campaign would have released them already. It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches.
You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc.
It is just scummy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
