Hi Marjorie, was a little unclear what you were saying here:
"...I figure there's a reason it was Saudi's who attacked the WTC"
Simply that its an oppressive, authoritarian regime that doesn't provide the right to dissent. This is pretty well documented by international organizations. So, I'm just speculating that the reason 15 out of 19 of the WTC attackers were Saudi's has something to do with the conditions there, combined with a lack of avenues for dissent.
To be fair to McCain, I don't think most average mutual fund owners (myself included) really have any idea what each of the (hundreds of) companies held by each individual funds are engaged in.
On the other hand this is really something that his political advisers should have thought of before he began his run for the presidency.
Although I agree with you about Saudi being a repressive monarchy, I don't think you can fairly compare them to the Sudanese government who are engaged in outright ethnic cleansing of black africans (the Sudanese government is ethnically Arab.)
Well, I did say: "Sure, Saudia Arabia might not be condoning the genocide in Darfur..."
But they are an example of "regimes that survive off free-flowing petro dollars."
Thanks for the clarification.
Sidenote: does anyone know of any punctuation or convention online to indicate that one is not being ironic or sarcastic? Sometimes even when I'm just saying "thanks" in a comment, I wonder if people will misread it as sarcastic or somehow barbed... Maybe "NIS" (No Intentional Subtext) ? 
Commenting by HaloScan
