Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Obama to Veto Bill Allowing 9/11 Lawsuits Against Saudi Arabia [View all]Bradical79
(4,490 posts)34. It makes sense as President of the U.S.
He knows it will open up a huge can of worms.
Personally, I can't decide if it's good or bad. It's certainly complicated.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
44 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
And when Trump wins thanks to this misguided veto, with GOP majorities in the House and Senate,
forest444
Sep 2016
#20
If the lobbyists wanted the bill to fail, it wouldn't have passed overwhelmingly
democrattotheend
Sep 2016
#33
He needs to understand the impact of 2 747's into the sides of buildings, funded and manned by Sauds
grahamhgreen
Sep 2016
#10
Just because some involved were citizens of that nation does not mean the nation is at fault.
cstanleytech
Sep 2016
#15
No, this law would let the people sue the Saudi government regardless and thats why it needs to be
cstanleytech
Sep 2016
#30
He does. However he's takes the long view on how it would impact Americans
underthematrix
Sep 2016
#17
This administration has unintended us into 8 more years in Iraq. We know Iraq was innocent in 9-11,
grahamhgreen
Sep 2016
#40
"Such lawsuits" would enable them to grab Saudi assets held in American banks (to answer treestar)
ColemanMaskell
Sep 2016
#42
Asinine, embarrassing bill. It should have never been sent to the Presidents' desk.
Auggie
Sep 2016
#12
Except the Iranian government was providing aid back then and thus is culpable but in this case
cstanleytech
Sep 2016
#19
So your expecting Saudi Arabia to prove it had nothing to do with it? Its not up to them to prove
cstanleytech
Sep 2016
#32
Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal cases. Preponderance of evidence for civil cases.
ColemanMaskell
Sep 2016
#43
I totally agree. The President is almost always several moves ahead when it comes to complicated
truthisfreedom
Sep 2016
#26
well, that's what being a rogue state with a history of war crimes should result in
stupidicus
Sep 2016
#25