Probably more than any other country, Saudi Arabia has “hacked our democracy”. I keep meaning to write a post on their ownership share of U.S. media, and why they would be on board with a “Trump is a Russian agent!” narrative.
During the election, Trump rightly criticized Hillary for taking money from the world’s worst country for women and gays. And he had a nasty Twitter exchange with a Saudi prince.
What a difference a year makes. First, the new US-Saudi arms deal:
According to a statement just issued by the White House, Trump “has just completed largest single arms deal in US history, negotiating a package totaling more than $109.7 billion” which will boost Saudi Arabia’s defense capabilities, bolstering equipment and services in the face of extreme terrorist groups and Iran. The White House added that the deal will create defense jobs while also reaffirming America’s commitment to Saudi Arabia…
According to estimates cited by The Independent, including restocking and future commitments over the next ten years, the deal could balloon to $350 billion worth of arms…
I’m not at all sure this is good news.
- How is it different from what any pet of the Deep State would have done? (Obama, Hillary, Jeb Bush, Lindsay McCain?) I don’t know.
- Does it boost U.S. jobs as much as Trump says? I don’t know.
- I know it will help Saudi Arabia to conquer its neighbor Yemen and gain control of its oil reserves. (Not necessarily good.)
- Does it put U.S. defense technology in the hands of people who hate us? Probably.
- Does it mean that Saudi-controlled elements of U.S. media will ease their war on Trump? I don’t know.
I do know that Trump’s speech in Riyadh was epic. As Bruce Bawer puts it:
It was gag-inducing to hear him praise the “magnificent kingdom” of Saudi Arabia, “the splendor of your country,” “the grandeur of this remarkable place,” and so on…But then something happened…
…he began mixing the ethereal praise with realistic businessman-type talk about the value of international partnership…[and] underscored the fact that in order for such a partnership to work, something would have to change. And it would have to change a lot. The Islamic world, he insisted, had to turn into a place where young Muslims could grow up “innocent of hatred.”
And then he spelled out the results of that hatred, presenting first a roll call of some of the “barbaric attacks” on America – 9/11, Boston, San Bernardino, Orlando – and then a list of other places (“Europe, Africa, South America, India, Russia, China, and Australia”) where that hatred has manifested itself.
However delicately he worked his way around to it, it was nothing less than an accusation.
No, he didn’t explicitly charge Muslim leaders with funding terrorism – but he told them, in no uncertain terms, that they needed to cut off funds to terrorists…And, yes, he spoke of “Islamic” (not “Islamist” or “radical Islamic”) terror. And he made it clear he wasn’t just talking about terrorism – he was talking about Islam itself. He condemned “the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.”
Kudos, Mr. President!
Full video here (scroll down). Short excerpts here and here. Full text here. Addressing Saudi princes, telling them to their faces, “Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death…Drive them out of this Earth!”
The proof-of-the-pudding will be if the young Prince Mohammed bin-Salman succeeds his father King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud …and survives his 4000 cousins and uncles.
I, too, thought it was a very good speech. The speech writer / advisors got the speech to play well in Muslim circles with the appeals to God and His works. Also, the citing of the Abrahamic Faiths (since despite what jihadi terrorists and the ignorant claim, Islam says there is only one God, and the Jews and the Christians also worship Him) was masterful.
There was appropriate praise (flattery) suitable from a guest to his hosts in the Arab world, and dwelling on the terrorist and Iranian threats was a great example of keeping the main thrust of his speech easy to translate and understand. I like the subtle references to reforms, but slowly, and improving the status of women.
And as of mid-afternoon Washington time, Melania Trump has been doing very well herself. Doing good things for herself, her husband, and the US.
I’m just happy he didn’t bow like President Boyfriend did.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Trump-in-Saudi-Arabia-Where-the-US-president-feels-comfortable-492333
The decision for Trump to give a speech about Islam, as Obama did in Cairo in 2009, seems a bit awkward. But it is designed to combat “extremism.” There is evidence that Trump’s previous vows to “eradicate radical Islamic terrorism” has been toned down in favor of the more innocuous need to fight “extremism.” The focus here is mostly on Sunni states. The Gulf Cooperation Council will be involved with a focus on conflicts in Syria and Yemen. Saudi Arabia wants to re-affirm its role as the leader of the region and Islamic world. Iran has just re-elected Hassan Rouhani, and Saudi Arabia wants to keep the focus on Iran’s threats. They also want to discuss issues relating to Israel and the Palestinians.
The real story here is that Trump is doing more than a “reset” with Saudi Arabia, he wants to reset his presidency, which is being eaten away by intelligence leaks, allegations of obstruction of justice and general mayhem. The problem Trump faces is he has lost political capital back home and he seems weak. That is to the Saudis’ advantage and disadvantage. The kingdom wins because Trump needs them to seem presidential, so he is willing to sign big military and bilateral deals and be engulfed in their royal robes. The kingdom loses if Trump falls in America and they are gambling on renewing the special relationship with a weakening president. It could remind one of Nixon’s visit to Egypt just before he left office.
At least for two days of his presidency Trump will be in a place where he feels the grandeur that he thought would come with being president. Unfortunately for him he cannot bring back the horse guards and red carpets to Washington. He may get the momentary applause from the press for a normal foreign trip, but unless he pulls a rabbit out of a hat in Jerusalem, it’s unclear if he will get more than a momentary reprieve.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2017/04/11/russia-hacked-our-election-false-on-so-many-levels/
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2017/04/08/my-evolution-on-the-topic-of-war/
Well, since when is Obama’s Iran deal not an arms deal?
CCP, nice but are you making a point? What?
https://mobile.twitter.com/ReaganBattalion/status/866760458010849280/video/1
Just making sure I had that right. Thanks. xo
Well, Rusty, Obama said there were 57 states. The only difference is that Trump is an American who is a little geographically-challenged, (and historically-challenged, at times), (and p*ssy-grabber-challenged), and just suffers often from foot-in-mouth disease.
Obama, on the other hand, is a deceptive infidel born in another country who slowly cut away at individual rights writ into law back in the late 1700s. His socialist agenda was doing the U.S. in. Hillary would have just continued the U.S. on its downward spiral. As long as Congress doesn’t get in the way, Trump reverse the awful trajectory it was on, just like Reagan did. Trump will restore American values and put progressives in their place.
Socialism doesn’t work (well, not in the U.S. anyway). It’s bringing down Europa, Venezuela and company and works absolutely nowhere else. I live in a very socialist country. And it’s on the brink of disaster. 😉
Anybody else notice that, in saying that ISIS and other Islamist terror groups worship Death rather than Allah, Trump branded them apostates and gave the Muslim world the religious justification to go whole-ham on them?
About those horses escorting Trump’s entry to meet with Saudis.
The Arabian horse is a noble steed. The Arabian mounted warriors are legendary. The symbolism of the King of Saudi Arabia sending out his mounted guard to provide protection and safe passage is a message to Saudi Arabia and the Mid-Eastern coalition.
In California, such folk mounted on equally magnificent horses are promoting Pasadena and a football game.
In Riyadh such symbolism is monumental, in Pasadena its all about parading and styling.
I’m fine with the Rose Parade of Roses, but nobody is going to speed dial a showboat when a battleship is needed.
CCP – I still have little idea what point you’re making.
The skepticism to Saudi Arabia that I expressed in this post, lines up well with my other comments you quoted. I will make no apologies for having been negative toward them and no apologies for being consistent or continuing my skepticism.
On the off chance that my skepticism and disdain weren’t obvious enough in this post, I have just inserted a couple little sentences to make it more blatant. The “I’m not at all sure this is good news” and “(Not necessarily good.)”
rusty – yes, it’s normal for Trump to misspeak a bit, then correct himself. Heck, I bet even you do it sometimes 😉
The point about Obama and the 57 states is media bias: if Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin had made the 57 states gaffe, it would have been all over the media. SNL would have done multiple sketches about it and CNN would have then reported the *SNL sketches* as news. (Which they’ve done recently with Trump.)
Kind of like Obama’s treason in undermining Bush administration policy toward Iran, while he (Obama) was still just a candidate. Nobody even heard of it until a couple days ago. But if Trump had done half of something like that, the media/Left would be drumming it until schoolchildren know it.
Sean L, good point. The speech is filled with moral-religious themes. Not Judeo-Christians vs. Muslims, but good people vs. evil ones. From the text:
This is not a speech that Barack Obama ever would have made.
Heck, everyone misspeaks, especially when one is nervous
Supposedly, the individual in the Reagan Battalion twitter post
Is the American Ambassador to Isreal
https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4534054/amp/Israeli-diplomat-facepalms-Trump-s-Middle-East-gaffe.html
More issues of misspeaking
On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed. We will continue to investigate this story and will provide updates as warranted.
sorry, I was corrected
“Guy to the right” is Ron Dermer,a ‘former’ Republican operative who moved to Israel, is close to Netanyahu,&who is Israeli ambassador to US
They jumped the gun; they relied on an investigator who made some very definite statements, then backtracked.
Wikileaks has dropped multiple, major hints that Seth Rich was their source (not Russians). Let’s face it: He was. Eventually the story will gain legs, and Democrats will be in trouble.
Don’t you mean “we.” You posted an article on it. You were also relying on what the investigator said.
Seth Rich’s parents speak out. They had quite a bit to say on the matter.
No worries.
I remember them for being the ones who made “Milo Y/paedophilia” go viral.
Trump does it quite a bit (misspeaking, not correctly himself), and Rusty hasn’t offered to take on the responsibilities of running a nation. Different standards.
“Wikileaks has dropped multiple, major hints that Seth Rich was their source (not Russians). Let’s face it: He was. Eventually the story will gain legs, and Democrats will be in trouble.”
Well, that sounds like an article of faith, ILoveCapitalism, rather than a rational argument… with evidence… Could “major” hints be of any benefit to WikiLeaks, serving their own purposes? Is this a time for using some of that skepticism that Heliotrope invokes us to use on a regular basis?
I was a bit surprised that ILC took their impartiality at face-value, tbh.
I’d love for old Helio to drop a turd in this punch bowl, so to speak.
I feel like the guy who sees “9 times 9” and takes for granted that it’s 81, while others all the sudden demand to have the very concept, foundations and process of arithmetic re-explained to them, because they’d rather have the answer be 50.
There is only one question in the Seth Rich / DNC matter. (Leaving aside his murder; focusing on the emails.) Which is, do you believe Wikileaks?
It’s the only question, because you’d have to be a real dummy – a proverbial retard – not to understand the – yes, the multiple, major hints that they’ve dropped.
I happen to believe Wikileaks, here. You go right ahead and feel free not to.
If I find a good reason to believe the reverse – i.e., to believe that Wikileaks was lying or otherwise incorrect about their own source to one of their biggest stories – I’ll post about it along the lines “Oh, so I was wrong about that.” In the meantime, I don’t give a crap if Fox promotes *their* investigator’s name and story or walks it back. Whatever. (eyeroll)
If Fox first did a story agreeing with me that 9×9 is 81, and then walked it back, I wouldn’t give a crap because it wouldn’t change the underlying story that I already saw without their help.
And no, I don’t believe the proverbial “17 intelligence agencies” here because they’re an echo chamber, all tracing back to a single DNC-engineered report from CrowdStrike, that was debunked months ago. Don’t make me throw “Iraq WMD” in your face 😉
In a contest of assertions between WikiLeaks and the DNC, I have no problem believing WikiLeaks over the DNC.
ILC, I’m not firmly on any side. When someone pulls a card that flirts with conspiracy theory territory, I get skeptical. You have taken a side (without officially announcing that you have taken that side; but the severity and repetition of your language/posting certainly firmly places you quite near a certain camp at the least) that it has been all but confirmed that Seth Rich was murdered for leaking to WikiLeaks. And, I’m reacting to THAT.
I have already shared the rationale in a previous thread that it’s *possible* (read: possible, not that it went down that way) that it was an incomplete robbery due to the, oh, I dunno, a drunken Rich got defiant when surprised with a threat to his life (a few hours had passed since the bar closure, but he could have had a lot to drink; and, you know, alcohol tends to embolden some people to do things they wouldn’t do under sober circumstances), the robbery didn’t go as planned, the gun going off drew attention to the situation, and the robbers ran away. I guess only a “real dummy/proverbial retard” would consider such a possibility! Right, ILC? A REAL DUMMY, huh?
Did you read the article from the parents (link at Comment #19)? If you have, they put fourth a great deal of disputable details that run in conflict with Wikileaks. Love to hear your thoughts, since you’re so firmly near (or in) the camp that the godless DNC took a hit out on Rich. Thanks.
Please forgive me for being a “real dummy/proverbial retard” to ask the same question Cas did: “Could “major” hints be of any benefit to WikiLeaks, serving their own purposes?” So sorry for being such a f*cking idiot for entertaining such an impossible notion.
No. That he was the DNC leaker, yes.
Whether he was the DNC leaker, and who murdered him and why, could be connected. Or not.
– On the murder question, I’m waiting (or keeping it open).
– On whether he was the WikiLeaks source, but then the DNC lied to us about it because they’d rather push a fake Russia narrative, I’m not waiting. Deal with it.
I can agree that a possibility exists that Rich was the DNC leaker and then…John Podesta *didn’t* order his murder; that it’s DC and bad stuff can just happen, even in the swankier neighborhoods. Glad we cleared that up.
EVERYTHING I’ve been saying about Rich has assumed/asserted he was the leaker…but then kept the murder as an open, potentially separate question. By my intention.
Rich’s parents wrote a piece today in the Washington Post. According to his PARENTS:
-The day of his murder he was offered a new job on HRC’s campaign (maybe it was just a cover, certainly, for what was to come)
-There is no evidence, according to them, that his murder was connected with his job (or politics). “Anyone who claims to have such evidence is either concealing it from us or lying.” (either WL is concealing a murder, or they’re suggesting a deception for possibly their own gain, just as Cas suggested)
-The parents wrote that no investigation of Rich’s email and computer turned up any communication with WikiLeaks.
-Rich’s job pertained to increasing voter turnout and wouldn’t have had access to a lot of the communications that turned up publicly.
You keep perpetuating this conspiracy theory fronting like you’re being completely objective. Yet, 9×9=81, I’m failing to see objectivity. There’s a big 50 being pushed in this post.
I highly doubt that the parents wrote a word for the Washington Post. Google “Brad Bauman”. The so-called family spokesperson is a DNC-paid political
consultantmanipulator, who says what he wants in the family’s name.Have you seen video of the parents? They don’t seem especially sophisticated. They do seem deeply moved and grateful – FAR beyond the words quoted above – that so many people want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder.
Ironically, there is almost nothing in what you’ve quoted that I have any problem with. See #24. Our mini-brouhaha here is because you misunderstood my position (or put words in my mouth).
ILC, in your writing on this matter, you don’t afford the possibility that Rich was a not the leaker, nor murdered for something other than politics, with the same weight that you’re declaring he was the leaker and leaning (hoping?) there’s a connection with the unproven leaking to the murder.
And, again, you’re 100% positive WikiLeaks isn’t trying to connect themselves to this for their own benefit? Otherwise, why would you so assuredly say Rich was the leaker?
Okay, I did. And did you google “Rod Wheeler”? (as a side-note, he’s pretty hot) Ed Butowsky referred the family to Wheeler and offered to pay for him, having never received the bill. I suppose that Wheeler gave the bill to … the Richs? … Bauman? … the DNC … HILLARY?
I mean, come one, ILC. Wheeler is a Trump supporter, and FOX News contributor for the last FIFTEEN years. He loves the limelight. He’s of questionable repute (belongs to anti-gay church, makes inflammatory comments about lesbians, depicts an Asian by pulling his eyes from the corners). He quite possibly did this pro bono considering the media attention he anticipated would have paid him in ways money can’t buy.
From Bruce’s twitter feed
Kim Dotcom is an inside trader, a fraudster, a money launderer, a pirate, an illegal stock trader. And Sean Hannity is his biggest fanboy.
Ryan Kelly
It would be their first content-related lie (intentionally giving the public the wrong idea of an issue) in 10 years of their existence. Put it that way.
And quite unlike WaPo, by the way – who lies to the public almost routinely.
Ask yourself why WaPo would publish an op-ed saying, in so many nice-sounding words, that a certain high-profile murder should *not* be talked about or looked at independently. Ask yourself why the wealthy DNC has never offered the slightest reward for information about Seth’s murder; the offers are all from others. (Hint: Even if Rich’s murder is unconnected, DNC’s basic intent is still to have people NOT notice him or talk about him. Their own employee!)
Already explained why I don’t (and shouldn’t) give a crap if Wheeler spins his wheels. IIRC / FWIW, Wheeler stated that has has a contract to bill a third party but has done the majority of his hours pro bono as you suggest.
As stated at #22 and 24. Correct.
Incorrect. I leave that door wide open, as implied in all my comments and stated at #24.
I can’t even parse that. WTF? Time to sign off. We’ve hit “If you refuse to understand me, I can’t help you” territory.
rusty – Yes, as with Wheeler, I think the story is at a point where it’s attracting barnacles. The barnacles need to check out (as not being barnacles) before they can be important. You know, “buyer beware”. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the barnacles are being planted, to muddy the waters. My comments rely on WikiLeaks.
Well, okay, then. If you’re done with me, fine.
But, why would WikiLeaks tweet out a headline just a week ago that reads:
Do they have a history of contradicting themselves?
Cray, Cray @ #27:
Cray,Cray, ILC has never said anything beyond how it appears to him.
How do you Progressives actually use your brains? Your entire clan of DemonizingRat congresscritters are searching for ties between the Trump campaign and Russia on zero evidence; they are guided by suspicion.
Here it comes again:
Discerning what is false requires objective skepticism. I can only speak for myself, but I find a stink surrounding the death of Seth Rich. The Assange nuanced “hints” raise the doubt.
Now, all of a sudden, the DemonizingRats seem to have gotten some talking points memo to swarm the Seth Rich murder and demand that it has nothing to do whatsoever in any way, shape, manner or form with Rich going even a teeny bit rogue within Democrat World.
Last night, somebody reached Hannity, because he intimated on air that Fox would fire him if he kept up the heat on the Seth Rich murder. In his afternoon radio show, Hannity said:
The issue here is “skepticism.”
When ILC is told “you don’t afford the possibility that…” it is a charge that ILC refuses to see the “possible” by being skeptical and therefore, supposedly closed minded. That is also the way of saying your skepticism hasn’t changed the “truth” as I deem it. Critical thinking does not work that way.
We adults can agree to disagree. I respect Seth Rich’s family request to “let it be.” But, it is possible that Seth Rich was engaged in something much bigger than “let it be” will allow. And when, suddenly, the DemonizingRat chorus joins in on the “let it be” chanting, we skeptics hear the Rat in the DemonizingRats.
The DemonizingRats have reason to worry that their whole house of cards is about to come tumbling down. With Hillary’s enormous problems concerning her private server and suitcase of defections and lies, the DemonizingRats have chosen to make much ado about nothing: Trump colluded with the Russians.
Now this:
As they say, read the whole thing.