9/11

[garbon]

As we roll into the coverage of 9/11 rememberance

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/295082-obamas-huge-saudi-9-11-dilemma

Obama's huge Saudi 9/11 dilemma

President Obama is facing a dilemma over legislation allowing the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts.

The House is expected to vote overwhelmingly in favor of the legislation on Friday. The Senate has already passed the same legislation unanimously.

Obama has fiercely opposed the bill, arguing it could both strain relations with Saudi Arabia, and also lead to retaliatory legislation overseas against U.S. citizens. The Saudi government has let a quiet campaign in Washington to kill the legislation.
Those efforts have been fruitless in Congress, however.

The legislation has broad support from both parties, and Congress could override an Obama veto for the first time if he rejects the legislation.

Such an outcome would undoubtedly embarrass Obama and divide Democrats ahead of the 2016 elections and a crucial lame-duck session of Congress.

Friday's vote is heavy with symbolism; it will take place on the eve of the 15th anniversary of September 11 terrorist attacks.

If the House vote is as resounding as expected, supporters hope, coupled with the unanimous passage of the Senate version in May, the White House may reconsider its concerns.

"I think the pressure is the vote," said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), an original backer of the bill and one of its 29 Democratic cosponsors. 

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are unsure whether Obama will actually use his veto pen on the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.

"I presume they would have to think very carefully about a veto because it might very well be overridden," said Nadler.

To override the president, supporters would need a two-thirds majority in each chamber.

"I think the votes will be there to override it," said Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), who introduced the bill in the House.

The White House is clearly aware of the dicey political waters in which it is sitting.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton supports the bill, as does Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is expected to lead Senate Democrats in the next Congress.

Democrats note that the White House has chosen its words carefully when discussing how it will handle the bill.

"I don't take the administration's stated objections as a presidential veto threat," said Democratic lobbyist Jack Quinn, who is working with 9/11 victims families backing the bill. "There is thus ample room here for the president to sign JASTA or let it become law without his signature."

For months, the White House has lobbied against the measure and strongly hinted that Obama will nix it. But officials have stopped short of issuing a full veto threat.

"We have serious concerns with the bill as written," a White House official said Wednesday, 

"We believe there needs to be more careful consideration of the potential unintended consequences of its enactment before the House considers the legislation," the official said. "We would welcome opportunities to further engage with the Congress on that discussion."

Previous revisions to the Senate bill in May bill did not assuage the administration's concerns, and it's not clear how the legislation could be changed to win over Obama.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest has repeatedly said it would be "difficult to imagine a scenario in which the president would sign the bill," but has not said it's impossible.

Obama has rarely been more alone than he is now in a policy debate.

Vetoing the legislation would underline a disagreement with congressional Democrats and Clinton, who Obama hopes will succeed him in the White House.

"It would [surprise] me if she and the president found themselves at odds on this important anti-terrorism legislation," said Quinn.

The White House hoped to have Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in its corner after he expressed reservations over the measure this spring. But pressure from bill supporters has mounted on Ryan and other GOP leaders to move forward.

Under Obama, U.S. foreign policy has pivoted away from Saudi Arabia, straining ties with the kingdom. Saudi Arabia fiercely opposed the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran.

The Saudis have warned of further strain on its relationship with the U.S. if the 9/11 legislation becomes law.

Officials have reportedly threatened to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars in American assets in order to protect them from being frozen by court rulings, although economists doubt they would follow through.

Victims families have long sought to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for the attacks. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens there have long been rumors about ties between al-Qaeda and the government in Riyadh.

But bill opponents point out that 28 declassified pages of a congressional report released over the summer did not contain a smoking gun proving senior Saudi officials had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.

Former United Nations ambassador John Bolton and ex-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, both of whom served under President George W. Bush, this week warned the legislation "is far more likely to harm the United States than bring justice against any sponsor of terrorism."

"There is already a law that permits U.S. citizens to sue any country our government has designated a state sponsor of terrorism, such as Iran," they wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "JASTA, however, does not require a prior U.S. government designation, bypassing a critical safeguard to allow plaintiffs to get at the Saudis—and also setting a precedent for suits against other countries."

If Obama vetoed the bill, he'd be going to bat for the Saudi regime — while taking on 9/11 victims' families and large majorities in both chambers.

"I don't think they'll veto it — but they may veto it on the idea that they could say to the Saudis, 'we're in good faith and Congress is crazy' and do that as a basis to keep their relations with the Saudis," said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), another original co-sponsor.

Some are asking whether Obama wants to expend political capital it desperately needs during the lame-duck session.

The president is hoping lawmakers will pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, a criminal-justice reform measure and confirm Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

"They don't want to pick a fight with the Democrats now," Nadler said of the White House.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/09/hillary-clinton-9-11-attacks-response

9/11 tapes reveal raw and emotional Hillary Clinton
For the 15th anniversary, we partnered with WNYC to look back at Clinton at Ground Zero – a far cry from the controlled figure now a step away from the presidency

It was 26 August 2003, almost two years since 9/11, and the sickening plume of smoke that hung over Ground Zero in lower Manhattan had long since dissipated. But steam was rising from the steps of city hall, three blocks away, where Hillary Clinton was venting her rage at the Bush administration for having lied to the American people.

"I don't think any of us expected that our government would knowingly deceive us about something as sacred as the air we breathe," she said, her voice tightening in anger. "The air that our children breathe in schools, that our valiant first responders were facing on the pile."

Surrounded by firefighters and the doctors who were treating them for respiratory and other illnesses incurred when they worked on the massive mound of Ground Zero rubble – the "pile", as it was known – the junior senator from New York was incandescent. Audiotape recorded at the time by WNYC, the city's public radio affiliate, captures a Clinton quite unlike the controlled public figure who is now a step away from the White House.

The Clinton who emerges from the WNYC tapes is passionate, raw and unrestrained. Above all, she is livid. She had just learned that the Bush administration instructed officials of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reassure New Yorkers after 9/11 that the air over Ground Zero was safe. In fact, they had a pretty good idea that it was a toxic pall of asbestos, cement, glass dust, heavy metals, fuels and PCBs.

"I am outraged," Clinton went on. "In the immediate aftermath, the first couple of days, nobody could know. But a week later? Two weeks later? Two months later? Six months later? Give me a break!"

Of all the varied chapters of Clinton's tumultuous 30 years in public life, the story of her response to the attacks on the twin towers is one of the richest in terms of the clues it provides as to what to expect from a Clinton presidency. It reveals elements of her character, of her domestic policy strengths, as well as her tendency to lean towards the hawkish side in international affairs.

As the 15th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, the memories of those days, and her role in them, remain fresh for many who stood by her side. Richard Alles was on the smoldering pile on 12 September, the day after the attacks, when Clinton turned up and proclaimed: "This attack on New York is an attack on America, it's an attack on every American."

Then a uniformed firefighter with battalion 58 in Canarsie, Brooklyn, Alles arrived at Ground Zero 20 minutes after the second tower collapsed. He stayed there for two days and nights, seeking survivors amid the ruins. What struck him most about Clinton that day, he said, was what he called her "compassion".

"She really went out of her way to speak to the first responders on the site to reassure them," he said. "I never forgot it."

Alles was also struck by how Clinton quickly grasped the potential health risks of Ground Zero, and how doggedly she pursued treatment for those who suffered. "We all knew from the get-go that the air was contaminated," he said, "but we had a job to do so we kept on working. Senator Clinton was at the forefront over dealing with it, she showed herself to be a fighter."

On 9/11, Peter Gorman was president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association of New York City, a union that represents largely white, blue-collar workers of the sort who today might back Donald Trump. The union had pointedly put its weight behind Clinton's opponent in the 2000 senatorial race, Republican Rick Lazio.

Yet Gorman recalls being pleasantly surprised by Clinton's commitment, both in terms of her mastery of policy detail and on a personal level. "She would call me on my cellphone to ask how I was doing, how my members were doing," he said. "One time I was pumping gas at a Texaco station, it was Christmas Eve, and she wanted to know how things were going. When a senator calls someone on my level, that's impressive."

That same personal care made a profound impression on Lauren Manning, one of very few people who survived severe injuries from the planes crashing into the towers. She was engulfed by a fireball of jet fuel as she was entering the elevators in the north tower to go up to work at Cantor Fitzgerald, on the 105th floor.

She was burned on 83% of her body; 658 of her colleagues died.

A few months later, Manning was in treatment at the Burke rehabilitation hospital in White Plains, New York, when she had a visitor. Clinton walked into her small hospital room and "embraced me as best she could", she said. "She was kind and gentle, and she very specifically said to me that she was here for me and that she would remain at my side."

Manning, who gave a keynote speech on behalf of Clinton at the Democratic national convention in July, said that her most vivid memory was of the senator's eyes.

"I was covered and swathed in bandages," she said, "dealing with a great deal of pain, but she captured me with her eyes. They were wide open and expressive, and they remained on mine. She didn't lose sight of what I was saying to her. To me, that was the mark of somebody who is sincere, who you want on your side."

Having declared 9/11 to be an attack on all Americans, Clinton soon discovered that the national response was not entirely united or favorable to struggling New Yorkers. The head of the EPA at the time, Christine Todd Whitman, repeatedly insisted the air at Ground Zero was safe even as early as three days after the towers collapsed, as did Mayor Rudy Giuliani despite worries within City Hall that they were facing thousands of liability claims.

Confronted by this wall of denial, Clinton was one of the most powerful voices warning of an impending health crisis. Ben Chevat, chief of staff to congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York on 9/11, recalls the impact.

"The Bush administration was saying, 'There's no problem, move along'," he said, "and so it was hard work getting any traction in the media. Yet we knew there was a problem because people were getting sick with respiratory diseases and cancers."

Chevat, now executive director of 9/11 Health Watch, said: "It took Clinton to put a spotlight on the issue and change the frame."

...

[CountDeMoney]

Meh, Obama's just being a lawyer about it:  but if it gets the TPP passed, let them sue the Saudis in US courts.  It's not like they'll ever get any verdicts out of it.

[grumbler]

It always surprises me that reporters who dig into the Hillary Clinton stories appear astonished (or, at least, write as though their readers should be astonished) to find that she isn't actually the cold, calculating bitch that her opponents insist that she is.

And i agree that Obama's resistance to the Make lawyers Rich Act seems token; he'll allow it to become law without signature, I believe.

[garbon]

It always surprises me that reporters who dig into the Hillary Clinton stories appear astonished (or, at least, write as though their readers should be astonished) to find that she isn't actually the cold, calculating bitch that her opponents insist that she is.

What's that about lies repeated often enough?

[Siege]

It always surprises me that reporters who dig into the Hillary Clinton stories appear astonished (or, at least, write as though their readers should be astonished) to find that she isn't actually the cold, calculating bitch that her opponents insist that she is.

And i agree that Obama's resistance to the Make lawyers Rich Act seems token; he'll allow it to become law without signature, I believe.

What about all her lies?

She lied to the Benghazi families with the dead bodies in front of them, blaming the attack on a video nobody knew about, while emailing to Chelsea and that Egyptian dude that it was a planned terrorist attack.

She have lied to so much and so frequently that it would take days to mention all her confirmed lies. And the question is, what else is she lying about? Her health, for one? Pay to play?

Whatever. Fanboys will suck her dick no matter what.

[Valmy]

Whatever. Fanboys will suck her dick no matter what.

Not really. Especially since she does not have one. Or does she? MAYBE SHE IS LYING ABOUT THAT TO!!111

[Eddie Teach]

Maybe Bruce Jenner gave her his.

[Siege]

Bruce Jenner doesn't have a dick? 

[mongers]

Bruce Jenner doesn't have a dick? 

Seigy in drive-by mode?

[Razgovory]

It always surprises me that reporters who dig into the Hillary Clinton stories appear astonished (or, at least, write as though their readers should be astonished) to find that she isn't actually the cold, calculating bitch that her opponents insist that she is.

And i agree that Obama's resistance to the Make lawyers Rich Act seems token; he'll allow it to become law without signature, I believe.

What about all her lies?

She lied to the Benghazi families with the dead bodies in front of them, blaming the attack on a video nobody knew about, while emailing to Chelsea and that Egyptian dude that it was a planned terrorist attack.

She have lied to so much and so frequently that it would take days to mention all her confirmed lies. And the question is, what else is she lying about? Her health, for one? Pay to play?

Whatever. Fanboys will suck her dick no matter what.

No, but you are a liar.  We know you to be a liar.  A dishonor and disgrace.

[CountDeMoney]

Knock it off, Raz.  You're being Razzy.