PDA

View Full Version : Democrats moving to cut off aid to Saudi Arabia


Taco John
06-23-2007, 12:21 AM
It's about time!



U.S. House votes to ban aid to Saudi Arabia
22 Jun 2007 22:21:11 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to prohibit any aid to Saudi Arabia as lawmakers accused the close ally of religious intolerance and bankrolling terrorist organizations.

The prohibition, reflecting persistent tensions with the kingdom after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States in 2001, was attached to a foreign aid funding bill for next year that has not yet been debated by the Senate.

It also faces a veto threat from the White House because of an unrelated provision.

A spokesman for the Saudi embassy in Washington declined to comment on the legislation.

In the past three years, Congress has passed bills to stop the relatively small amount of U.S. aid to Saudi Arabia, only to see the Bush administration circumvent the prohibitions.

Now, lawmakers are trying to close loopholes so that no more U.S. aid can be sent to the world's leading petroleum exporter.

"By cutting off aid and closing the loophole we send a clear message to the Saudi Arabian government that they must be a true ally in advancing peace in the Middle East," said Rep. Anthony Weiner, a New York Democrat.

According to supporters of the legislation, the United States provided $2.5 million to Riyadh in 2005 and 2006.

The money has been used to train Saudis in counter-terrorism and border security and to pay for Saudi military officers to attend U.S. military school.

"Saudi Arabia propagates terrorism. We all know that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, a Nevada Democrat. She added that Saudi youths had entered Iraq to "wage jihad" against U.S. forces fighting there.

Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born leader of the al Qaeda group that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks, was expelled from the kingdom in 1991 for anti-government activities.

OIL MONEY

Lawmakers also complained that with Saudi Arabia's vast wealth from oil revenues, U.S. taxpayers do not need to subsidize training Saudis.

"With poor countries all over the globe begging us for help, why are we giving money to this oil-rich nation?" Berkley said.

The U.S. State Department has routinely criticized Saudi Arabia for religious intolerance, disenfranchisement of women and arbitrary justice.

U.N. committees and groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International also have been critical of the Saudi legal system and its rights record, including punishments such as flogging and amputation.

Riyadh tends to dismiss the criticism by saying it follows the traditions of Islamic law.

Saudi Arabia is home to the two holiest sites in Islam -- Mecca and Medina -- and to a conservative Sunni Muslim ideology often called Wahhabism.

Despite the efforts by the lawmakers to cut off aid, the United States has had a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia in terms of energy and security.

But recently Saudi King Abdullah has asserted a more robust leadership role in the Middle East, putting himself at odds with Washington over Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

According to the Energy Information Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, crude oil imports from Saudi Arabia are the third largest after Canada and Mexico.

Until 2003, the United States kept up to 10,000 soldiers in Saudi Arabia to help enforce a no-fly zone over southern Iraq that was put in place after the first Gulf War in 1991. Most of those forces have been withdrawn.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22191479.htm

Logical
06-23-2007, 12:25 AM
Interesting to see if the Administration will be able to circumvent this prohibiition.

the Talking Can
06-23-2007, 01:02 AM
THANK GOD


Bush is Saudi Arabia's foot shuffling porter...

Pitt Gorilla
06-23-2007, 01:16 AM
This just in: Cheney just moved to have the House dissolved.

|Zach|
06-23-2007, 01:32 AM
This just in: Cheney just moved to have the House dissolved.
ROFL

Adept Havelock
06-23-2007, 10:41 AM
This just in: Cheney just moved to have the House dissolved.


Has he declared the formation of the First Galactic Empire yet?

Mr. Kotter
06-23-2007, 10:48 AM
I agree, philosophically, with the House; but as a pragmatist....can anyone say, "Veto?" :shrug:

Saulbadguy
06-23-2007, 11:07 AM
"Saudi Arabia propagates terrorism. We all know that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi,"

Pitt Gorilla
06-23-2007, 12:16 PM
I agree, philosophically, with the House; but as a pragmatist....can anyone say, "Veto?" :shrug:Yup, that seems very likely.

mlyonsd
06-23-2007, 12:29 PM
We'd better figure out how to become oil independent real quick.

Mr. Laz
06-23-2007, 12:43 PM
I agree, philosophically, with the House; but as a pragmatist....can anyone say, "Veto?" :shrug:
and why would Bush want to veto it?

go bowe
06-23-2007, 12:54 PM
This just in: Cheney just moved to have the House dissolved.well done... LMAO LMAO LMAO

patteeu
06-23-2007, 01:03 PM
I don't necessarily disagree with this idea, but what I don't like is the way this rogue Congress with barely-measurable support from the people wants to adopt the role of backseat driver for our foreign policy in a sensitive area that clearly has implications for the GWoT.

go bowe
06-23-2007, 01:12 PM
We'd better figure out how to become oil independent real quick.it won't be quick enough...

btw, i think i heard somewhere on the news that some places in europe have mandated new car mpg to be in the 45 - 50 mpg range...

so, it can be done...

and there are actually a number of new hybrid cars available...

i hope lots of people buy them so the auto makers will keep making more of them and possibly even lower the cost...

StcChief
06-23-2007, 01:21 PM
Saudi doesn't need aid from US in $$$.

They employee various tech workers from US.

Many US companies have deals to have on site support.

This may reduce that if passed as well.

$2.5M squat compared to other countries is it really worth it?

WoodDraw
06-23-2007, 01:28 PM
I don't necessarily disagree with this idea, but what I don't like is the way this rogue Congress with barely-measurable support from the people wants to adopt the role of backseat driver for our foreign policy in a sensitive area that clearly has implications for the GWoT.

Your posts are just laughable sometimes. Rogue congress messing with the GWoT? By defintion, Congress can't be rogue in this area; it's their job. The rogue trashman trying to pick up your garbage. Congress controls the money and can do with it as they please.

Both the President and Congress have horrible approval ratings, but if you actually examine them, you might not like it that much. Bush's current aprove/disapprove is 26/65 overall, with Republicans at 60/31 and Democrats at 6/89. Congress's approve/disapprove is at 25/63 with a 25/67, 27/70 Republican Democrat split respectively.

No statistical difference exists between the public's view of the President and Congress. The only statistical difference is that the President gets all of his support from Republicans, while Congress just sucks in general. Aside from the fact that Democrats actually seem to hold their representatives responsible, what accounts for the difference? Congressional inaction. If Congress stood up and started to act on foreign policy, their approval would sky above the President's.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 01:45 PM
Your posts are just laughable sometimes. Rogue congress messing with the GWoT? By defintion, Congress can't be rogue in this area; it's their job. The rogue trashman trying to pick up your garbage. Congress controls the money and can do with it as they please.

Both the President and Congress have horrible approval ratings, but if you actually examine them, you might not like it that much. Bush's current aprove/disapprove is 26/65 overall, with Republicans at 60/31 and Democrats at 6/89. Congress's approve/disapprove is at 25/63 with a 25/67, 27/70 Republican Democrat split respectively.

No statistical difference exists between the public's view of the President and Congress. The only statistical difference is that the President gets all of his support from Republicans, while Congress just sucks in general. Aside from the fact that Democrats actually seem to hold their representatives responsible, what accounts for the difference? Congressional inaction. If Congress stood up and started to act on foreign policy, their approval would sky above the President's.

I like the horrible approval ratings of Congress just fine, even in light of your spirited defense.

I completely disagree that by virtue of merely acting on foreign policy, Congressional approval ratings would "sky above the President's." IMO, it would depend on what actions they took.

As for the "laughable" quality of this and some of my other posts, I can only say that I like to give the irrational Bush haters around here a taste of their own silliness from time to time. Of course I agree that this is well within the constitutional powers of the Congress. OTOH, our country would be stronger if we presented a united front to the world and I think there is something to be said for being strong when you're in the middle of a war.

WoodDraw
06-23-2007, 01:53 PM
As for the "laughable" quality of this and some of my other posts, I can only say that I like to give the irrational Bush haters around here a taste of their own silliness from time to time. Of course I agree that this is well within the constitutional powers of the Congress. OTOH, our country would be stronger if we presented a united front to the world and I think there is something to be said for being strong when you're in the middle of a war.

Thankfully we don't have any irrational Bush lovers around here. :rolleyes: What was that I said about Democrats actually holding their party responsible?

Your posts will be a lot more meaningful if you actually discuss what you believe in instead of attempting to rile up others.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 02:03 PM
I don't think congress has done much so far, but I'd attribute their approval ratings to the fact that they can't get this war ended.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 02:50 PM
Thankfully we don't have any irrational Bush lovers around here. :rolleyes: What was that I said about Democrats actually holding their party responsible?

Your posts will be a lot more meaningful if you actually discuss what you believe in instead of attempting to rile up others.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

And thanks for reminding me. Speaking of laughable, I almost forgot this part of your previous post:

Aside from the fact that Democrats actually seem to hold their representatives responsible....

Now that's funny! Is that the kind of comment that makes one's posts "more meaningful"?

WoodDraw
06-23-2007, 04:32 PM
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

And thanks for reminding me. Speaking of laughable, I almost forgot this part of your previous post:



Now that's funny! Is that the kind of comment that makes one's posts "more meaningful"?

No, but I do think it is telling that not even a year into this Congress and Democrats and independants already disapprove, while after seven years Republicans are the only ones not calling it one of the most incompetent presidencies in recent memory. Here's one stat for you: even with 60% of his own party's support, Bush has the lowest approval rating since Nixon (three points higher). Just how far have the Republicans strayed if their support is the only thing keeping the President from being more unpopular than arguably the most corrupt President we've ever had?

I just find it interesting. My complaint comes mainly from my support for the more libertarian aspects of the Republican party. I'd love to see a refocus there, but it seems the party faithful just doesn't care.

alnorth
06-23-2007, 07:24 PM
it won't be quick enough...

btw, i think i heard somewhere on the news that some places in europe have mandated new car mpg to be in the 45 - 50 mpg range...

so, it can be done...

and there are actually a number of new hybrid cars available...

i hope lots of people buy them so the auto makers will keep making more of them and possibly even lower the cost...

Have you actually seen those so-called "cars"? More like baby buggies with a lawn mower engine.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 07:27 PM
Have you actually seen those so-called "cars"? More like baby buggies with a lawn mower engine.
They don't need much better than that in many situations.
Europe is small. Many of them ride bikes....tons of them on city streets almost like traffick jams at times.

Taco John
06-23-2007, 10:10 PM
I agree, philosophically, with the House; but as a pragmatist....can anyone say, "Veto?" :shrug:


Don't you think that this is why the Democrats are pushing this now? They'd love to see the President veto this thing.

The Republicans are going to have to weigh this thing down with a bunch of BS provisions so that it never passes the Senate.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 10:14 PM
I don't really support foreign aid in general...but right now I don't think we can cut off SA on a practical basis. It's not the right time.

Taco John
06-23-2007, 10:16 PM
http://www.befreetech.com/save_gas.htm

Taco John
06-23-2007, 10:19 PM
I don't really support foreign aid in general...but right now I don't think we can cut off SA on a practical basis. It's not the right time.



It's always the right time for Americans to learn why their tax money is going where it's going.

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 10:25 PM
They don't need much better than that in many situations.
Europe is small. Many of them ride bikes....tons of them on city streets almost like traffick jams at times.

When I lived in Berlin, I didn't even own a car. Wasn't necessary. Mass transit was cheap and efficient. I could travel to any job site in Berlin within 1 hour regardless of the origin point. We could learn from the Germans regards mass transit.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 10:28 PM
It's always the right time for Americans to learn why their tax money is going where it's going.
Well, I agree with this.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 10:32 PM
When I lived in Berlin, I didn't even own a car. Wasn't necessary. Mass transit was cheap and efficient. I could travel to any job site in Berlin within 1 hour regardless of the origin point. We could learn from the Germans regards mass transit.
Well they certainly are an efficient group of people. But our geography is so vast and expansive compared to theirs. Europe has similarities to NE whereas most things are closely situated. So I think our needs are different. But gosh! Switzerland, even in downtown areas was just a swarm of bicycles mostly, with few cars.

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 10:42 PM
Well they certainly are an efficient group of people. But our geography is so vast and expansive compared to theirs. Europe has similarities to NE whereas most things are closely situated. So I think our needs are different. But gosh! Switzerland, even in downtown areas was just a swarm of bicycles mostly, with few cars.

True, the geography of Germany is much less expansive. But outside the large cities it is not unlike the US. Farms and whatnot (I know, not a proper word). But the Rail system is also extremely efficient. With the Bundesbahn (national rail system) you can travel efficiently and cheaply. I traveled all over Europe with the rail and didn't go broke doing it. I think we can learn from the Europeans in that regard. JMO.

Youngster....:p LMAO

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 10:49 PM
True, the geography of Germany is much less expansive. But outside the large cities it is not unlike the US. Farms and whatnot (I know, not a proper word). But the Rail system is also extremely efficient. With the Bundesbahn (national rail system) you can travel efficiently and cheaply. I traveled all over Europe with the rail and didn't go broke doing it. I think we can learn from the Europeans in that regard. JMO.

I used the trains pretty exclusively too. Us kids don't have much dough.

Youngster....:p LMAO
ROFL

mlyonsd
06-24-2007, 11:19 AM
it won't be quick enough...

btw, i think i heard somewhere on the news that some places in europe have mandated new car mpg to be in the 45 - 50 mpg range...

so, it can be done...

and there are actually a number of new hybrid cars available...

i hope lots of people buy them so the auto makers will keep making more of them and possibly even lower the cost...

I have no problem with congress mandating better gas mileage although along with it I think we should be producing more of our own oil.

WilliamTheIrish
06-24-2007, 11:22 AM
35 years late, IMO.

BigMeatballDave
06-24-2007, 01:19 PM
Those poor souls. What will they do for money now?

Calcountry
06-24-2007, 11:31 PM
Has he declared the formation of the First Galactic Empire yet?he has to kill off all the Jedi first, watch out Gochiefs.