Trump stands with Saudi Arabia.

[AuCivilEng1 11,385]

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/20/669666348/trump-says-u-s-will-remain-steadfast-partner-of-saudis-despite-khashoggi-killing

Anyone have thoughts on the mess of the day?

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

36 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/20/669666348/trump-says-u-s-will-remain-steadfast-partner-of-saudis-despite-khashoggi-killing

Anyone have thoughts on the mess of the day?

From what I’ve read today, there is multinational collusion with Team Trump. Saudi Arabia is one of those nations.

[homersapien 11,812]

I am embarrassed for my country (as represented by Trump).

What a totally immoral position - more evidence of his psychopathy.  Hopefully, congress will step in to rectify this insult to our values.

Even Trump has implied that the Saudi's need us more than we need them.  So where in hell is that supposedly champion negotiator??  Trump has sold our soul for "30 pieces of silver". 

[AuCivilEng1 11,385]

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am embarrassed for my country (as represented by Trump).

What a totally immoral position - more evidence of his psychopathy.  Hopefully, congress will step in to rectify this insult to our values.

Even Trump has implied that the Saudi's need us more than we need them.  So where in hell is that supposedly champion negotiator??  Trump has sold our soul for "30 pieces of silver". 

I don't know if you watched his little interview in front of AF1 or not. He insists that he has no business ties to the Saudi's. I guess he forgot that he was bragging about how many millions they spend on his apartments and resorts and that people can easily find and reference said bragging. That's what this is about, at the end of the day. He's worried about his personal situation.

[homersapien 11,812]

12 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I don't know if you watched his little interview in front of AF1 or not. He insists that he has no business ties to the Saudi's. I guess he forgot that he was bragging about how many millions they spend on his apartments and resorts and that people can easily find and reference said bragging. That's what this is about, at the end of the day. He's worried about his personal situation.

When every other sentence out of his mouth is a lie, it's hard to focus on a single one.

"Alternative facts"

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/us/politics/trump-jr-saudi-uae-nader-prince-zamel.html

[homersapien 11,812]

Excellent commentary on this:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/with-khashoggi-decision-trump-places-economic-interests-above-human-rights

(excerpt):

(emphasis mine)

President Donald Trump:

It's a very complex situation. It's a shame, but it's — it is what it is.

We're not going to give up hundreds of billions of dollars in orders and let Russia, China and everybody else have them. It's all about, for me, very simple. It's America first.

Saudi Arabia, if we broke with them, I think your oil prices would go through the roof. Just take a look at Iran. And you look at what they're doing. They are a terrorist nation right now.

We also need a counterbalance. And Israel needs help also. If we abandoned Saudi Arabia, it would be a terrible mistake.

Judy Woodruff:

For more on all this, our foreign affairs correspondent, Nick Schifrin, is here with me now.

So, Nick, what's the thinking behind the administration's decision to handle this, this way?

Nick Schifrin:

That strategic interests are more important than human rights concerns and the president wants to stick by not only Saudi Arabia, but by the crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.

On the strategic concerns, you heard the president and what he said. Saudi Arabia is critical for keeping oil down, Mideast peace plan, countering violent extremism.

And he's not the first president to say that Saudi is a strategic ally. Each of his predecessors for the last 70 years or so has decided that Saudi strategic interests are more important than any questions about human rights concerns.

Now, on Mohammed bin Salman, he is rejecting his intelligence community's assessment. In a statement released this afternoon, the president said — quote — "Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information. But it could very well be that the crown prince had knowledge of this tragic event. Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't."

Now, the CIA assessed that Mohammed bin Salman was likely responsible for Khashoggi's murder. But U.S. officials I speak to say there's no smoking gun. There is some circumstantial evidence. And there's an assessment that there's no way that the crown prince would know that — wouldn't know that this was coming, given the nature of how Saudi Arabia works.

But that's an assessment. And the president is exploiting that ambiguity. The president, of course, has questioned the intelligence community before about Russia and 2016. But at the end of the day, the CIA provides assessments, and the president provides policy.

And he's not the first president to receive an intelligence assessment and decide to do something different than that assessment leads to obviously.

Judy Woodruff:

So, after this statement was made, after the administration made it clear what their position was, criticism, serious criticism from both political parties.

Nick Schifrin:

Yes, especially from Republican senators.

So let me show you first something that the president also wrote in his statement. He wrote that "Representatives of Saudi Arabia say that Jamal Khashoggi was an enemy of the state and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but my decision is in no way based on that — this is an unacceptable and horrible crime."

This is a Saudi Arabian talking point. Jamal Khashoggi's past connection with the Muslim Brotherhood somehow invalidates his criticism.

The Saudis have been whispering that, and the president repeated that in his statement, which led Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to tweet this afternoon: "I never thought I would see the day a White House would moonlight as a public relations firm for the crown prince of Saudi Arabia."

And Senator Lindsey Graham, more of an ally, by the way, of the president, released this statement: "It is not in our national security interests to look the other way when it comes to the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi. I fully realize we have to deal with bad actors and imperfect situations on the international stage. However, when we lose our moral voice, we lose our strongest asset."

Next week, senators will come back, will have to decide whether they want to put pressure on the president and put more pressure on Saudi Arabia than the president has. And one Republican aide did tell me today that this statement that the president released will likely encouraged senators to put more pressure on Saudi Arabia than the president did.

[homersapien 11,812]

Another excerpt from the same source:

Judy Woodruff:

Well, you have long covered American foreign policy, U.S. foreign policy.

Fred, you are familiar with what the president said today. He said, this is entirely in U.S. strategic interests not to do anything to alienate, in so many words, not to do anything that would separate the U.S. from its close relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Fred Hiatt:

Yes, it's — I think it's wrong on so many levels.

I mean, even if you wanted to say, human rights don't matter and strategic interest to do, it makes no sense, because everything this reckless 33-year-old crown prince has done has hurt American interests. He entered this war in Yemen, which has been a disaster. He broke with Qatar, an American ally. That's been harmful to U.S. interests. He kidnaps the Lebanese prime minister and so forth.

It's not — even a realpolitik analysis wouldn't say this person is acting in us interest. And, more broadly, I would say if we want to live in a world where a dictator can lure one of his own citizens to diplomatic a compound, which is supposed to be a sanctuary, deliberately murder and dismember him, and get away with it, that's what's going to make the world a dangerous place.

And accepting that is what's going to make the world a dangerous place. Everything Trump said in that regard is just backwards.

Judy Woodruff:

And so, when the president argues, as we heard him in that report just a moment ago, say that we think this is going to drive the Saudis into the arms of the Chinese and the Russians, you're saying that's not a real concern?

Fred Hiatt:

Look, I'm not saying the United States and Saudi Arabia shouldn't be — shouldn't have a relationship, shouldn't have an alliance, if both countries think it's in their interest.

But, first of all, MBS is not Saudi Arabia. The king is the ruler in Saudi Arabia. And, you know, perfectly possible for the United States to say, we want a relationship, but we also think there was a murder, and whoever was responsible for the murder should be held to account.

Those are two separate questions. And, also, you know, I think they are playing Trump for a fool, in the sense that, you know, they present this story now of how Khashoggi died, which is a clear lie, and we swallow it. And they have him kind of — you know, the Saudis, as he said himself a few weeks ago, need the United States a lot more than the United States needs Saudi Arabia.

Thirty years ago, maybe that wasn't true, but the United States is now an energy exporter. You know, these arms sales that he's always talking about, it's been maybe $4 billion, not $110 billion. So the power balance is very much different than how he seems to see it.

-------------------------------

 

I think Trump is simply protecting one of his good real estate customers which is far more important to him than the country's long term interests, of which he hasn't a clue.

 

[homersapien 11,812]

The "Great Negotiator", NOT!

(Trump's)  635-word statement on Tuesday implies, if inarticulately, that more pressure on MBS would hurt the U.S. economy, because the prince would cancel contracts with American arms manufacturers and turn to suppliers in Russia and China. Separately, Trump said another consequence would be a spike in oil prices, to $150 a barrel. Protecting the prince from blame, he argues, is necessary for the pursuit of the U.S.'s foreign policy goals in the Middle East, notably the containment of Iran.

But none of this is true. Much of it is, in fact, the opposite.

Even if you set aside for a moment the direct link between the defense of America’s values and the furthering of its interests, there is little doubt that MBS has done those interests great harm. His reckless foreign policies have led to war in Yemen and the blockade of Qatar, both of which have undermined attempts to build an Arab consensus on Iran; indeed, they have greatly expanded the influence of the Islamic Republic. The conflict in Yemen, apart from creating a huge humanitarian crisis, has opened up more space for al-Qaeda and other extremist groups to operate.

Likewise, the president’s economic argument for propping up Prince Mohammed is hopelessly wrong. Never mind that the world’s most powerful nation ought not to fear blackmail by anyone, MBS is in no position to make the threats Trump imagines — and not only because his family, and the entire House of Saud, depend for their very survival on U.S. military and diplomatic support.

I’m going to set aside Trump’s characteristically wild overstatement of the value of Saudi defense contracts, and the American jobs they would create: the numbers are moot. It takes a high degree of credulity to imagine that the prince can simply cancel the deals, whatever their size. Saudi's military infrastructure, hardware, software and training are almost entirely built on U.S. and European systems. To replace them would require a soup-to-nuts overhaul that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and take many years.

Even if MBS could afford this, it would leave the army with inferior technology and more vulnerable than it is today. He might also have to reckon with reduced U.S. military support, some thing that is crucial to the defense of Saudi Arabia.

As for the Saudi oil weapon, any effort to deploy it against the U.S. would be a “self-own of colossal proportions,” as my colleague Liam Denning has persuasively argued. Not only would it hurt the kingdom’s long-term economic interests, it would also undermine the Saudi goal of containing Iran. If MBS reduced oil production, pressure would grow on the Trump administration to ease sanctions on Iranian exports. 

MBS has no real leverage over the U.S.; the power is entirely on the American side.

 

Read the full article at: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-21/no-donald-trump-mohammed-bin-salman-isn-t-what-you-think-he-is

 

[TitanTiger 20,708]

DONALD TRUMP IS SAUDI ARABIA’S ‘BITCH,’ DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSWOMAN TULSI GABBARD SAYS AFTER KHASHOGGI STATEMENT

Cue the POTUS who uses decorum for toilet paper whining about rudeness and decorum.

 

 

[japantiger 4,077]

Sound US foreign policy move.  Another nice attempt at the TDS crowd to create a major US foreign policy issue where none exists.  The killing of a Saudi national, by Saudi's, on Saudi soil; is not really something we should ever use as a litmus test for our foreign policy.   

There's only one good guy in that region; and it's Israel.    

[homersapien 11,812]

2 hours ago, japantiger said:

Sound US foreign policy move.  Another nice attempt at the TDS crowd to create a major US foreign policy issue where none exists.  The killing of a Saudi national, by Saudi's, on Saudi soil; is not really something we should ever use as a litmus test for our foreign policy.   

There's only one good guy in that region; and it's Israel.    

That's a red herring.  We're talking about Saudi Arabia here.   If being "good" is relevant to choosing our allies, please explain what is good about Saudi Arabia.

Apparently, Trump uses the possibility of arms sell profits as the "litmus test" of who are friends should be.  Do you think that's more important than a "values" test?

Sound  policy move my ass.  It's an insult to American values and to the rest of the world who ever respected us.

 

 

[japantiger 4,077]

Reread the post...didnt say Saudi was good.

Still a good foreign policy move for the US.  Checking Iran and keeping global oil prices low benefits every man, woman and child on the planet. 

Leftist hysteria at, well, everything,  benefits only leftist politicians.

[homersapien 11,812]

6 hours ago, japantiger said:

Reread the post...didnt say Saudi was good.

Still a good foreign policy move for the US.  Checking Iran and keeping global oil prices low benefits every man, woman and child on the planet. 

Leftist hysteria at, well, everything,  benefits only leftist politicians.

No, you said embracing Saudi Arabia while ignoring the fact their leader murdered a journalist - who happened to be a US resident -  was good policy.  That's just BS.  It illustrates a total bankruptcy of American values.  (And talking about "leftist hysteria" is an absurd red herring.)

Do you even accept the idea of American values?   If so, how could you possibly applaud this as "good policy".

It's also stupid.  First, America exports more oil than Saudi Arabia.  Secondly, cheap oil is the wrong policy if we want to attenuate the effects of global warming, which will have worse effects on every man, woman and child on the planet than expensive oil.

 

[homersapien 11,812]

Elections have consequences.

Is Trump Compromised by Saudi Money?

The incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee wants to know, saying the president hasn’t been honest in accepting Saudi denials in the Khashoggi murder.

On Thanksgiving Day, President Donald Trump once again touted the Saudi royal family’s denial of any role in the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. That didn’t sit well with Representative Adam Schiff, the California Democrat poised to take over the House Intelligence Committee.

“The president is not being honest with the country about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi,” Schiff said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, having promised to use his new authority to investigate whether Trump’s personal finances influence his foreign policy. “Is his personal financial interest driving U.S. policy in the Gulf? … Are there financial entanglements with the Gulf? Are there financial inducements that the president has not to want to cross the Saudis?”

Although Trump tweeted last month that he has “no financial interests in Saudi Arabia,” he has in the past acknowledged business ties with the kingdom. “Saudi Arabia, I like the Saudis,” he said at a July 2015 campaign rally. “I make a lot of money with them. They buy all sorts of my stuff. All kinds of toys from Trump. They pay me millions and hundreds of millions.” The Associated Press reported that in the 1990s, when Trump was “teetering on personal bankruptcy and scrambling to raise cash,” a billionaire Saudi prince twice closed on multimillion-dollar deals, including one to buy a 282-foot yacht called Princess. More recent business comes through Saudi stays at Trump hotels during his presidency, though PolitiFact reports that the Trump Organization doesn’t appear to own property or invest in the kingdom.

These concerns about Trump’s financial entanglements with Saudi Arabia parallel suspicions about possible financial connections to Russia, which Schiff also promised to investigate, including “whether the Russians have been laundering money through the president’s businesses, and this is the financial hold that the Russians may have. It would certainly explain the otherwise bewildering conduct of the president in Helsinki, many of the president’s pro-Putin comments. It would explain why his sons have said at various times they don’t need money from U.S. banks—they get all the money they need from Russia.”........

Read the rest at:  https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/schiff-will-probe-trump-business-ties-saudi-arabia/576601/

[japantiger 4,077]

So, you're saying Trump loves Muslims now?  I thought he hated Muslims?  Man, you guys change the rules so fast....

[homersapien 11,812]

1 hour ago, japantiger said:

So, you're saying Trump loves Muslims now?  I thought he hated Muslims?  Man, you guys change the rules so fast....

The only "rule" is that Trump loves whatever profits him at the time. 

If that means doing business with Muslims, no problem.  If it means demonizing Muslims in order to pander to his xenophobic base, no problem.

Observe and think.  It's really quite simple.

[AUDub 11,424]

Wow.

 

[AUDub 11,424]

Article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/gop-senators-come-out-say-it-trump-administration-is-covering-up-khashoggis-killing/

Republican senators emerged from a briefing Tuesday about journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s killing and essentially accused the Trump administration of misleading the country about it — and even covering it up for Saudi Arabia.

In remarks after a briefing from CIA Director Gina Haspel, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) suggested there is no plausible way that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman didn’t order the killing of Khashoggi, a Washington Post contributing columnist, and said that the evidence is overwhelming.

This is completely contrary to the narrative that has been put forward by President Trump and his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo. Trump has said it’s unknowable whether the crown prince was actually behind it — despite the CIA concluding this with “high confidence”— while Pompeo said last week that there was no “direct reporting” implicating him.

Graham said Tuesday that you’d have to be “willfully blind” to not know Mohammed was responsible — a clear rebuke of Trump’s argument that this whole thing resides in some kind of gray area.

Graham was also asked about Pompeo’s comments and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’s comments that there was no “smoking gun.” The senator said there was indeed a “smoking saw” — a reference to the reported bonesaw that was brought to dismember Khashoggi — and that Pompeo was being a “good soldier” by toeing the administration’s line. So that’s basically saying Pompeo aided Trump’s “willful” effort to obscure the truth.

[AUDub 11,424]

The admin is at complete odds with reality, if Corker and Graham are to be believed. 

[AUDub 11,424]

 

[homersapien 11,812]

44 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The admin is at complete odds with reality, if Corker and Graham are to be believed. 

They are not at odds with reality.  They are contemptuous of the facts. 

They manufacture their own reality.  And their supporters lap it up, or at least ignore it.

[homersapien 11,812]

44 minutes ago, AUDub said:

 

Yeah, I was really disturbed  by Mattis's statements.  I thought he was better than that.

[AUDub 11,424]

29 minutes ago, homersapien said:

They are not at odds with reality.  They are contemptuous of the facts. 

They manufacture their own reality.  And their supporters lap it up, or at least ignore it. 

I'm surprised to hear Graham so vehement. Not so much with Corker.

[homersapien 11,812]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

I'm surprised to hear Graham so vehement. Not so much with Corker.

He is very erratic with what he is willing to stand for on principle. Sometimes I am proud of him (he's one of my senators), but other times I'm

He's very calculating and politically astute.