On Friday, Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah thumbed his nose at the families of the victims of the 9-11 attacks and protected Islamic Sharia ruled Saudi Arabia by vetoing the 9/11 victim’s bill which would have allowed families to sue the Middle Eastern country that was intricately tied to those attacks.
The Washington Times reports:
As expected, President Obama vetoed a bill Friday that would give families of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks the ability to sue Saudi Arabia, setting up the potential for the first congressional veto override of Mr. Obama’s presidency.
Mr. Obama said in his veto message that he has “deep sympathy” for the families of the victims, but the bill would invite retaliatory lawsuits against U.S. personnel abroad and weakens national security by allowing individual judges, instead of the executive branch, to designate foreign governments as sponsors of terrorism.
The legislation “does not enhance the safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, and undermines core U.S. interests,” Mr. Obama said.
Actually, what it would have is call into question why we are in Afghanistan and Iraq rather than in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, it would have called into question the Bush family’s ties to the Saudi’s as well, including why President George W. Bush was so apt to get more than two dozen of Osama bin Laden’s family out of the country following the grounding of flights over united States’ airspace. On top of that, it would open the DC government up to questions regarding its own illegal use of our military in unconstitutional wars and illegal strikes against innocent civilians in foreign countries, as well as what it may have known or how it even participated in the events of September 11, 2001.
In 2014, the families won a legal batter that allows them to sue the Saudi government for their involvement in the attacks. They also demanded that classified 9/11 and FBI reports be declassified. At least 28 pages that had remained classified were declassified in July 2016.
The Saudi’s threatened to dump US Treasury holdings if Congress passed the bill. Their bluff was called and they did nothing.
Still, representatives in Congress are seeking to override the veto, which requires a two-thirds vote.
“It’s disappointing the president chose to veto legislation unanimously passed by Congress and overwhelmingly supported by the American people,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). “Even more disappointing is the president’s refusal to listen to the families of the victims taken from us on September 11, who should have the chance to hold those behind the deadliest terrorist attack in American history accountable.”
GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would have signed the bill and said the veto was “disgraceful” and “shameful.”
“That President Obama would deny the parents, spouses and children of those we lost on that horrific day the chance to close this painful chapter in their lives is a disgrace,” Trump said. “These are wonderful people, and as a lifelong New Yorker, I am saddened that they will, for now, not have that opportunity.”
Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton also voiced support for signing the bill.
As for Obama, he has been adamantly opposed to it.
“Over the past eight years, I have directed my administration to pursue relentlessly al Qaeda, the terrorist group that planned the 9/11 attacks,” said Obmaa.
“State sponsor of terrorism designations are made only after national security, foreign policy, and intelligence professionals carefully review all available information to determine whether a country meets the criteria that the Congress established,” he added, indicating that courts should not be determining these matters.
Right, as if we should trust a corrupt administration like his to determine such things.
Obama added that the bill “could encourage foreign governments to act reciprocally and allow their domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials — including our men and women in uniform — for allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support to third parties.”
He also said the bill “threatens to create complications in our relationships with even our closest partners.”
Closest partners? You mean those who funded the hijackers and had a direct hand in the attacks? You must be kidding.
“A number of our allies and partners have already contacted us with serious concerns about the bill,” Obama added.
Which ones, Mr. Obama? Who contacted you and what were their concerns? That they might be just as guilty of similar crimes and don’t want to be held accountable?
There is no doubt that Obama is intimately tied not only with Communists, but also with the Muslim Brotherhood. It might also explain why he is so adamant about defending a country that is antithetically opposed to the united States and its foundation.