Who is the TRAITOR?
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
United States
June 2, 2009 7:52am CST
Yes, it is true.
Either Joseph Farah is a traitor or Barrack 0bama is a traitor. Farah has published a report that 0bama has sought immunity for certain Saudi royal family members who alledgedly had a role in the 9/11 plot! Read it here.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=99832
I say this explains 0bama bowing to the Saudi King awhile back! Time for impeachment.
What do you say?
2 people like this
4 responses
@clrumfelt (5490)
• United States
6 Jun 09
I'm sure radical muslims all over the world are rejoicing to have Obama in power in the USA. I have always contended he is a muslim, and he is claiming that part of his heritage more than ever. He hid it during his campaign and now he is wearing it like a medal. I wouldn't be surprised at anything at his point. I doubt the left wingers would go for impeachment no matter what. They are still praising him for "rebooting" our relationship with the muslim murderers around the world.
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
7 Jun 09
That "rebooting" our relationship with Islam overlooks military assistance we gave Muslims in Bosnia and disaster relief in several instances in the last 10 years. No rebooting should have been necessary.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
3 Jun 09
I agree.
I saw this yesterday, and was immediately incensed, much he same as when I discovered that the Bush Administration got bin Laden's family out of the US right after 9-11 happened.
There is no doubt that the Great Deceiver is a traitor, unless of course an illegal cannot be a traitor to a country that he is not really a citizen of.... but that is another story.
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
4 Jun 09
I'm sure my teachers from many years ago would never have believed we are witnessing what we are here in America.
1 person likes this
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
3 Jun 09
This is just a continuation of Bush's policies in regards to Saudi.
When 9/11 occurred, we already had proof that the majority of the participants and planners were from Saudi. TWO had family members in Iraq (even though they were Saudi) and Bush used that tenuous link to attack Iraq and Sadaam Hussein and ignore Saudi's involvement.
They didn't impeach Bush for that; so, why would they impeach Obama from protecting 4 member of the Saudi royal family?
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
3 Jun 09
Seeking immunity for possible known conspirators is a lot more than just slightly more serious than what Bush did, by a long shot. The official reason for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam's violations of the first Iraq War peace agreement. True, there was a lot of talk about other reasons, but the violations of the peace agreement are why no charge of an "illegal war" stuck on Bush. Both Iraq wars were clearly legal.
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
3 Jun 09
Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with 9/11 as a country. Certainly, some of its citizens did. I seriously doubt President Bush would have sought immunity for any of those citizens.
1 person likes this
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
3 Jun 09
"The official reason for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam's violations of the first Iraq War peace agreement."
That may have been the "official" line; but, the fact remains that within days of 9/11 we were in Iraq fighting the "war against terrorism"; because, they had "weapons of mass distruction" (never found by the way) and they were going to use those on us next.
Almost nothing was said about the nationality of the people who planned and participated in 9/11 and the implications circulating through this country was that we went to war with Iraq because of 9/11 and if you were young and patriotic you should sign up and go fight them to pay them back for what they did to our country. (There were also theories that we went of war with them to "get control of their oil"; I am sure you heard that also.)
But, no one really cared or was saying that we went to war in Iraq because Saddam broke the "peace agreement".
Also, I did not say the war in Iraq was an "illegal war". Bush had the legal authority to go to war. I am just saying that he chose to go to war with Iraq instead of going after the country that was the most involved in 9/11. Iraq was a politically expedient CHOICE.
1 person likes this
@AngryKittyMSV (4317)
• United States
2 Jun 09
This does not surprise me in the least. Even before the bow I knew that the madrassa educated Indonesian citizen was a sleeper agent for jihad. His every action as usurper in chief reveals where his true allegiance lies - and it ain't to the US.
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
2 Jun 09
If Farah did not make this up, (I doubt he did!) then I would like to know why this is not on the evening news and why major newspapers are not doing editorials demanding an explanation.
Something is going on behind the scenes that is not pretty.
1 person likes this
@AngryKittyMSV (4317)
• United States
2 Jun 09
You already know why the media WILL NOT cover it, same reason they won't cover ANY of the disturbing actions of the leper messiah.
