[Poncherello]

Critics Slam Obama Administration for 'Hiding' Massive Saudi Arms Deal

The Obama administration has quietly forged ahead with its proposal to sell $60 billion worth of fighter jets and attack helicopters to Saudi Arabia unhampered by Congress, despite questions raised in legislative inquiries and in an internal congressional report about the wisdom of the deal.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/criti...n-hiding-massive-saudi-arms/story?id=12192558

I guess this is all in the name of deficit reduction because we all know that when Bush did anything even remotely related to the Saudis it was purely for oil.

 

[midnite902]

Critics Slam Obama Administration for 'Hiding' Massive Saudi Arms Deal




http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/criti...n-hiding-massive-saudi-arms/story?id=12192558

I guess this is all in the name of deficit reduction because we all know that when Bush did anything even remotely related to the Saudis it was purely for his family's personal wealth.

Here, fixed it for you.

 

[blckslvr79]

Here, fixed it for you.

Guess when you can't face the truth, slander is all you have left.


"The Obama administration has quietly forged ahead with its proposal to sell $60 billion worth of fighter jets and attack helicopters to Saudi Arabia unhampered by Congress, despite questions raised in legislative inquiries and in an internal congressional report about the wisdom of the deal.

The massive arms deal would be the single largest sale of weapons to a foreign nation in the history of the U.S., outfitting Saudi Arabia with a fully modernized, potent new air force."

 

[midnite902]

Guess when you can't face the truth, slander is all you have left.


"The Obama administration has quietly forged ahead with its proposal to sell $60 billion worth of fighter jets and attack helicopters to Saudi Arabia unhampered by Congress, despite questions raised in legislative inquiries and in an internal congressional report about the wisdom of the deal.

The massive arms deal would be the single largest sale of weapons to a foreign nation in the history of the U.S., outfitting Saudi Arabia with a fully modernized, potent new air force."

I guess when you want to ignore the facts and slander the poster your character, integrity and upbringing have no problem with that?

I do not agree with the sale to Saudi Arabia.

I also did not agree with Bush's decision to abandon the commitment he made to the US Citizens to pursue the perpetrators of the 911 attacks to invade a country that was absolutely no threat to us.

I also do not agree to turning a blind eye to the recovery of al qaeda while we were focused on eliminating a third world dictator. This decision indicated to our enemy a lack of resolve on our Government's part to retaliate for acts against this country and inspired our enemy to rebuild and continue the terror war on the US.

I also do not agree with Bush's decision to ground all civilian flights on the day of 911 except the flight taking Bin Laden's family out of the country to protect them from the US Citizens potential retaliation.

I think arming a country that does not support democracy and has been the source country of many of the Terrorists we are supposedly fighting is serious error in judgment. I believe we will see fallout from the arms deal in the way of increased violence in a region we say we want to stabilize.

Both Presidents were/are major **** ups in my opinion.

:cheers:

 

[duneripperxx]

Critics Slam Obama Administration for 'Hiding' Massive Saudi Arms Deal




http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/criti...n-hiding-massive-saudi-arms/story?id=12192558

I guess this is all in the name of deficit reduction because we all know that when Bush did anything even remotely related to the Saudis it was purely for oil.

This is about keepng people employed during this huge recession.

Anybody with a brain has seen continued military and aerospace contracts continue that did not match the US military slowdown in Iraq nor the lack of air and ground fighting with heavy equipment.
People like Matchframe should know this stuff first hand.
I knew The Saudis have been in a buildup for the last 4 years.

Watch your wsj paper more closely.

 

[Vette_Newb]

All this deal is about is arming the correct players for the next war. Bush, Obama, Santa Clause, doesn't matter who is president..

 

[BonneRisque]

Our government isn't very green

or peaceful

That's for sure :laughing:


They could'nt have thought to rebuild our infrastructure to create more jobs

What a bunch of A"O" 's

Typical Obama Thinking with his KEGAL MUSCLE instead of his Head.:laughing:

 

[blckslvr79]

All this deal is about is arming the correct players for the next war. Bush, Obama, Santa Clause, doesn't matter who is president..

And there you have it. :thumbsup:

Look through the smoke guys.

 

[blckslvr79]

I guess when you want to ignore the facts and slander the poster your character, integrity and upbringing have no problem with that?

I do not agree with the sale to Saudi Arabia.

I also did not agree with Bush's decision to abandon the commitment he made to the US Citizens to pursue the perpetrators of the 911 attacks to invade a country that was absolutely no threat to us.

I also do not agree to turning a blind eye to the recovery of al qaeda while we were focused on eliminating a third world dictator. This decision indicated to our enemy a lack of resolve on our Government's part to retaliate for acts against this country and inspired our enemy to rebuild and continue the terror war on the US.

I also do not agree with Bush's decision to ground all civilian flights on the day of 911 except the flight taking Bin Laden's family out of the country to protect them from the US Citizens potential retaliation.

I think arming a country that does not support democracy and has been the source country of many of the Terrorists we are supposedly fighting is serious error in judgment. I believe we will see fallout from the arms deal in the way of increased violence in a region we say we want to stabilize.

Both Presidents were/are major **** ups in my opinion.

:cheers:

And I thought that the "It's Bush's fault" crying game ended by now? This thread is about Obama's same ol same ol and you try to pass it off as no big deal since Bush did stupid **** too. Nice spin.

 

[duneripperxx]

And I thought that the "It's Bush's fault" crying game ended by now? This thread is about Obama's same ol same ol and you try to pass it off as no big deal since Bush did stupid **** too. Nice spin.

You guys do this daily.....:huh::laughing:

 

[midnite902]

And I thought that the "It's Bush's fault" crying game ended by now? This thread is about Obama's same ol same ol and you try to pass it off as no big deal since Bush did stupid **** too. Nice spin.

Now this is a spin. I did not contest the OP's claims about the arms deal but made a small but truthful joke about the Bush families relationship with the Saudis.

Unfortunately the OP included Bush as a reference that is what I responded to but that is not what you responded to.

The Arms deal has nothing to do with Bush, bush's critics have no relation to the Arms deal and in my opinion should not have been included in the original post. The original post attempted to make a connection that was not there to chastise those that accuse Bush of being in bed with big oil.

Newb is correct as we as a country have often used War to pull us out of recessions.

Don't ante up your opinion and start calling names if you can't face the facts. Filtering unpleasant facts because of Political alignment is not good for the country IMO.

 

[Poncherello]

The original post attempted to make a connection that was not there to chastise those that accuse Bush of being in bed with big oil.

No, the original post was made to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those who support the policies of this administration. If I wasn't so lazy I'd search the archives here to give links to all the posts that claimed the Bush Administration was in bed with the Saudis because he wanted cheap oil. However, when the current President makes a shady deal with the Saudis, avoiding the scrutiny of Congress, those same people are strangely quiet. We are left with forming our own opinion as to why this deal was made..... for oil, which has increased significantly in price since last year, or to keep US jobs. If the decision was made to keep US jobs the next question one must ask is why did he avoid Congress?

 

[BonneRisque]

The American Government has Always run to the Saudias when they need Money

Nothing new reported here

 

[duneripperxx]

However, when the current President makes a shady deal with the Saudis, avoiding the scrutiny of Congress, those same people are strangely quiet. We are left with forming our own opinion as to why this deal was made..... for oil, which has increased significantly in price since last year, or to keep US jobs. If the decision was made to keep US jobs the next question one must ask is why did he avoid Congress?

Our oil prices are tied to market values, not shady deals with Opec for cheaper US only import prices.


And weapon manufacturers are free to sell to whomever they want........unfortunatley.

 

[midnite902]

No, the original post was made to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those who support the policies of this administration. If I wasn't so lazy I'd search the archives here to give links to all the posts that claimed the Bush Administration was in bed with the Saudis because he wanted cheap oil. However, when the current President makes a shady deal with the Saudis, avoiding the scrutiny of Congress, those same people are strangely quiet. We are left with forming our own opinion as to why this deal was made..... for oil, which has increased significantly in price since last year, or to keep US jobs. If the decision was made to keep US jobs the next question one must ask is why did he avoid Congress?

No reason to post the links. Just Google Bush relationship with Saudi Arabia and more links will come up than will fit on a page.

If I had to guess why the deal was made, it was in preparation for pulling out of Afghanistan. I think the hope is the Saudis will help stabilize the region. Unfortunately I predict the result will be the opposite.

If the decision was made to keep jobs we would be hearing about it as an Obama accomplishment.

Whatever the reason, the Arms deal is serious error in judgment in my opinion.



:cheers:

 

[Poncherello]

And weapon manufacturers are free to sell to whomever they want........unfortunatley.

:rolling:

Do you just make things up as you go along? Weapons manufacturers, under contract to the DOD, are in no way free to sell military technology to whoever they want.

Please familiarize yourself with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations and then come back and we'll talk.

 

[duneripperxx]

:rolling:

Do you just make things up as you go along? Weapons manufacturers, under contract to the DOD, are in no way free to sell military technology to whoever they want.

And those corps run our govt, just like all the others.

We sell almost every weapon we make, even to middle east countries.

We have been selling our high tech fighters and tanks to middle east countries since before we sold **** to Sadam and Iraq.

I would be more worried about Russia joining the European Defense Shield, than I would, the Saudis.
And I dont like the Saudis much.


You however, should love the Saudis since you bought into the Afghanistan/Iraq sponsored 911 lie.


Chillax.:thumbsup:

 

[duneripperxx]

About the only good thing about selling our military tech to the Saudis is....


They are too wealthy to waste time to reverse engineer our tech for their own evil bidding.....:laughing:

 

[Poncherello]

And those corps run our govt, just like all the others.

We sell almost every weapon we make, even to middle east countries.

We have been selling our high tech fighters and tanks to middle east countries since before we sold **** to Sadam and Iraq.

I would be more worried about Russia joining the European Defense Shield, than I would, the Saudis.
And I dont like the Saudis much.

I will take all that as an admission that you didn't know what you were talking about when you stated weapons manufacturers can sell to whoever they want

You however, should love the Saudis since you bought into the Afghanistan/Iraq sponsored 911 lie.

No one ever said, except you revisionists, that Iraq was responsible for 911. That's simply a lie you folks have told so many times that you actually think it's true. If you go back and read the 2002 State of the Union address you might finally understand how we got to Iraq.

Our nation will continue to be steadfast, and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans and bring terrorists to justice. And second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.

Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Jaish-i-Mohammed -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities.......

...... The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors.

 

[Poncherello]

No one ever said, except you revisionists, that Iraq was responsible for 911. That's simply a lie you folks have told so many times that you actually think it's true. If you go back and read the 2002 State of the Union address you might finally understand how we got to Iraq.

I saved you the trouble of looking:

September 18, 2003

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans.

The president's comments came in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington.

Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html