Posted on 06/02/2015 10:44:33 AM PDT by Enlightened1
The pages were blacked out by the Bush administration on national security grounds.
We cannot let page after page of blanked-out documents be obscured by a veil, Paul said at a packed Capitol press conference on Tuesday, flanked by fellow lawmakers and families of victims of the 2001 attack. We owe it to these families, and we cannot let this lack of transparency erode trust and make us feel less secure.
For years, Jones and other lawmakers have been fighting for the release of the pages, which are believed to paint senior officials within Saudi Arabia as complicit in the terror attacks.
We all are calling today for the release of these 28 pages, Paul said.
The 28 pages are very important and will, I think, inform the American people and, in so doing, will cause the American government to reconsider the nature of our relationship with Saudi Arabia, Graham said on Tuesday.
But beyond that, these are emblematic of a pattern of withholding information unnecessarily and to the detriment of the American people.
Some lawmakers who have read the pages disagree with their characterization about Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden's home country.
Perhaps surprisingly, Saudi Arabia supports releasing the pages. Keeping them secret, the kingdom has said, has allowed people to suspect that their contents are worse than they actually are.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Paul has a lot of the same ideas as the isolationists of the first half of the 20th century, eg, America has no reason to embroil itself in the concerns of the Old World and we should stay behind our ‘moats’, the Atlantic and the Pacific.
It is a theory that has some appeal, but relegates the US into a spectator of world events that usually affect us in some respect.
I imagine little boy Rand at the dinner table, inadvertently saying something that makes sense, and getting a smack on the head for breaking family rules.
;’)
Rand Paul turned into a 9/11 Truther. I'm shocked to hear this.
He's not really in that boat, he's just exploiting that naivete in others.
LOL! Well put.
“Randstanding”, I love it.
/bingo
/bingo
/bingo
He’s not really in that boat, he’s just exploiting that naivete in others.”
So basically you’re saying that doesn’t really mean what he says and he’s lying to voters.
I have a lot of Libertarian in me, especially on social issues, but he’s sometimes too far out there for me on foreign policy which I don’t see as a Libertarian issue.
With that being said, should Rand Paul win the nomination, I will find it very hard to vote for him, even if he is running against Hillary Clinton. It is actually possible that her foreign policy choices might be better than Paul's.
Same here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.