There was definitely a concerted effort after 9/11 to protect the Saudis. Whether or not the ruling families or govt had anything to do with it I do not know.
That being said its a NY Post opinion piece, a paper that may only rank above the Glorious Republic of North Korea Daily News in credibility.
Yes source aside the actual OP story (which has NOTHING to do with any of the major conspiracy stories) is quite interesting. It's a shame the thread got so side-tracked (but hey ... internet) because the actual story posted about the Saudis would (if ever confirmed) be a pretty big deal. I don't think it was a "Bush is in on it" conspiracy though -- I think it was a "these are my buddies and they said they had nothing to do with it but people might think they did so I'll protect them and help get them out of the country and ... oh wait they were involved?!?!? Oh crap ... can't un-ring that bell ... well ... I'm an idiot! Blame Saddam!"
If it's true the murdering scum-bags were meeting in Sarasota that's a pretty major story. Bush was in Sarasota on 9/11. That's where he sat there like a jackass reading the pet goat thing or whatever it was. That suggests to me there was another plan in motion at some point. I suppose it could be a coincidence but ... oh boy.
I know I could Google (but hey ... lazy) but does anyone know the status of the proposed bill to declassify the documents?
Okay so after complaining about thread hijacking (sorry) I will now do the same ...
We landed on the moon. Multiple times even! We could do it again! But people tend to be very short sighted about space and science in general in the US and don't want to pay for it. So it's a political non-starter.
Actually if we're talking about purely space exploration you can make an argument that shutting down the space program is the right move (I realize that sounds crazy). We aren't going anywhere with current tech and spending trillions to mount a mission to Mars is arguably less effective for the long-term success of space exploration than investing that money heavily in computers: AI, processor speed etc.
Now of course it isn't as if they took the NASA money and actually DID invest in computer technology so it's something of a moot point. That said, the only way we are ever getting anywhere interesting space-wise is with more advanced tech ... the kind of shuttles we send on missions now are effectively a horse and buggy ... you don't build a Bugatti Veyron by adding more horses to your buggy and going on slightly longer drives. If we had unlimited funds and resources ... great ... but I think we're better off rethinking our approach than continuing to try to upgrade our horse and buggy tech.
Now there are lots of things we learn in space that aren't just about space ... scientific and tech applications etc. which we lose with no program so it's complicated. But if you want a USS Enterprise some day we won't get there by spending trillions getting to Mars ... we get there by building better computers. Most of the other prep (space suits etc.) we can do at space stations in orbit and we still have some programs going (even in the private sector) which can get us into orbit.
As a kid I think most of us figured we'd go farther and farther into space as time progressed. There is also a possibility that we are stuck here.
