The Khashoggi Murder: Trump Suggests “The Vicious World” May Be More To Blame Than The Saudi Crown Prince

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedPresident Donald Trump continues to refuse to accept the findings of his own Administration and overwhelming evidence of the guilt of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the savage murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.  Trump’s refusal has continued despite the report of a tape of a  “smoking gun phone call” of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman with an alleged instruction to “silence Jamal Khashoggi as soon as possible.” In a new interview, Trump has suggested that perhaps we should all just agree on blaming a “vicious world.” 

This was a carefully planned killing with a team sent from Saudi Arabia, including the double and a close security aide to the Crown Prince.  Moreover, there is a recording referencing the Crown Prince by the murderers as well as an intercept of a team member calling an aide to Prince Mohammed and saying “tell your boss” that the mission was accomplished. Intercepts also show that Prince Mohammed was trying to find ways to lure Mr. Khashoggi back to Saudi Arabia.  The tape of the Crown Prince would seem to seal the matter, but it clearly has not moved Trump.


Trump said Thursday that “maybe the world should be held accountable because the world is a vicious place. The world is a very, very vicious place”.

All the more vicious when overwhelming evidence of the flagrant murder of journalists are dismissed while thanking the Saudis for lower gas prices.

124 thoughts on “The Khashoggi Murder: Trump Suggests “The Vicious World” May Be More To Blame Than The Saudi Crown Prince”

  1. As evidenced below some people like Enigma can’t think without their ideology interfering. Some hate so much that anything Trump does in their mind has to be bad. They cannot look at history or logic and cannot present an argument except one based on hate and a distortion of facts. Here is the Doran and Badran article in full so one doesn’t have to face a Paywall. Trump doesn’t even need to be mentioned and misplaced famous statements by the writer below doesn’t help his argument one bit. This article deals with some of the unintended consequences of relying on anger rather than logical thought.

    Trump Is Crude. But He’s Right About Saudi Arabia.

    There’s not much Republicans and Democrats agree on nowadays, but President Trump’s expression of support for Saudi Arabia on Tuesday in the wake of the Jamal Khashoggi killing managed to unite them. Democratic and Republican leaders declared that the president’s statement was dishonest, morally blinkered and strategically obtuse.

    True, Mr. Trump’s sidestepping of reports that the C.I.A. believes that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the killing as “Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!” was jarring. But every president since Harry Truman has aligned with unsavory Middle Eastern rulers in the service of national interests. The difference here is that Mr. Trump seemed unapologetic about this state of affairs with only a passing nod to the affront to our values that Mr. Khashoggi’s murder represents.

    That’s nothing to cheer. But it is vitally important to evaluate the policy on its merits more than its mode of expression. And the truth is that on the big strategic questions, Mr. Trump is cleareyed and right.

    Let’s start with the question of honesty. Critics focused on Mr. Trump’s claim that “we may never know all of the facts surrounding” Mr. Khashoggi’s death, highlighting the contradiction between this energetic uncertainty and the reported assessment of the C.I.A.

    Presidents, however, routinely advance useful fictions.

    President Barack Obama, for example, helped sell his nuclear agreement with Iran by claiming that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons. No bipartisan clutch of senators insisted that Mr. Obama’s claims clashed with the views of intelligence analysts, who possessed hard evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

    The true test of whether a presidential fiction is acceptable is whether the strategy it serves is sound.

    In Mr. Obama’s case, the answer was no, because his policy did not actually stop Iran’s nuclear program. It only delayed it, and, in the meantime, strengthened Iran without moderating Tehran’s fundamental anti-Americanism. But Mr. Trump understands the centrality of Riyadh in the effort to counter a rising Iran and he is rightly unwilling to allow the murder of Mr. Khashoggi to imperil that strategy.

    Mr. Trump’s critics counter with the claim that he is emboldening evil. Samantha Power, former ambassador to the United Nations, cited autocrats like Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt and Vladimir Putin of Russia, in addition to Prince Mohammed, in saying that “Trump’s siding with the meanest and nastiest out there” will “leave the world even nastier.” His statement, she said, “is a green light for would-be murderers in countries that have things Trump thinks we need.”

    Notably absent from Ms. Power’s list of evildoers, however, are Iran and its proxies. The omission is telling. As part of its pivot toward Iran and away from the Sunni states and Israel, the Obama administration turned a blind eye to the slaughter in Syria that Moscow, Tehran and its proxies unleashed, and, thanks to the nuclear deal, delivered countless billions to the Iranian war machine.

    His critics would say that Mr. Trump is now similarly emboldening a reckless Saudi regime.

    This is a false analogy. The Saudis are not the moral equivalents of Iranians and the Russians. The kingdom has sheltered comfortably for over 75 years under the American security umbrella, which the United States happily extended not least because the Saudis and their oil have played a pivotal role in American economic strategies. Mr. Trump’s statement acknowledged that the Saudis are assisting him with stabilizing global oil prices as he seeks to quash Iranian oil sales.

    Whatever Prince Mohammed’s faults may be, he actively supports the American regional order that the Iranians openly seek to destroy.

    Mr. Trump’s critics are asking us to believe that the priority for stabilizing the Middle East today is distancing the United States from one of its oldest allies and instead working to achieve a balance of power between Riyadh and Tehran. The Saudis, they claim, need us far more than we need them.

    This is a dangerous assumption that is not born out by experience. In recent years all of America’s allies, from Mr. Sisi in Egypt to Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey to Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, have begun spending as much time in Moscow as in Washington. Why would we think the Saudis might not also seek protection from Russia if they are shunned by America?

    Instead of standing with the Saudis, Mr. Trump’s critics call for, as Senator Lindsey Graham recently did, sanctions that would persuade King Salman to appoint a new crown prince. But King Salman is not the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia; Prince Mohammed is. A policy that seeks to change the king’s mind is based on a delusion that is far more deranged than anything in Mr. Trump’s statement.

    Let’s imagine Mr. Trump’s critics get their wish. A replacement crown prince who rose to power under pressure of sanctions would be severely weakened, if not entirely illegitimate. This would serve only to validate Al Qaeda’s anti-Saudi ideology, which depicts the royal family as American stooges. Would a compromised crown prince be a more reliable partner for the United States in stabilizing the Middle East?

    In all likelihood, sanctions would simply embitter Prince Mohammed, who would respond by tacking toward Russia and China. The United States could console itself by celebrating its staunch commitment to principle, but its influence would diminish considerably.

    Less likely but worth keeping in mind is the worst-case scenario. Prince Mohammed’s enemies, inside and outside the kingdom, are numerous, and American sanctions on him would put a target on his back. In a violent succession battle, what horrific forces would be unleashed? Outside actors, such as Iran and Russia, coveting control of the kingdom’s oil wealth and influence over the Islamic holy cities, would rush in. The United States would find itself embroiled in another civil war as in Syria.

    In either scenario, Iran would rejoice. Critics of Mr. Trump’s Saudi policy are already demanding that the United States pressure the kingdom to end the war in Yemen without so much as mentioning the need to ensure that the country does not become another base, like Lebanon, for Iran.

    The murder of Mr. Khashoggi was a brutal and grotesque act. The United States has registered its feelings loudly and clearly by putting sanctions on the 17 men who were directly involved in the killing. Punishing the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia will not bring justice for Mr. Khashoggi, nor will it make Saudi Arabia a more dependable ally. It will simply diminish the influence of the United States and embolden its enemies.

    The biblical advice to be as “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” offers sound counsel to anyone who seeks to see their principles influence the world. The advice of Mr. Trump’s critics is long on abstract morality but lacking in strategic wisdom.

    Michael Doran is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

    1. Re: “Trump Is Crude But He’s Right On Saudi Arabia”


      For one it assumes that we need the Saudis more than they need us. And therefore we should bury this Khashoggi matter because it annoys the Saudis. But Trump can’t make the world forget this matter. Even if U.S. policy goes into denial mode, our European allies, and the rest of the world, are still aware of Khashoggi’s murder. It would be a charade for the U.S. to pretend this never happened.

      The column goes on to argue that Crown Prince Bin Salman is somehow vital to Western interests and any investigation that weakens him could result in chaos. Nonsense! Bin Salman’s father, the King, could simply designate a new successor. It’s that easy! The Saudis don’t have to go down with a murderous, toxic prince. There are plenty of Saudi royals in line to the crown.

      More than anything this column assumes that Iran is such a horrible threat that Khashoggi’s murder is not worth upsetting the Saudis. More nonsense! Saudi Arabia is, at best, a highly dubious friend to America. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and that was no coincidence.

      For decades the Saudi’s have promoted a puritanical strain of Islam that has been more repressive than any trends from Iran. The radicalization of Pakistan, Afghanistan and even the ISIS threat can be traced to Saudi sponsors. Iran, by comparison, is a fairly mild threat.

      One suspects this column was written by supporters of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Netanyahu has the most to lose if the Saudi prince goes down. Netanyahu and the Saudi prince are united by their fear of Iran. Therefore U.S. supporters of Netanyahu naturally assume that U.S. interests are represented by Netanyahu. More nonsense!! Netanyahu is a conservative hardliner by even Israeli standards. The U.S. has no obligation to back Netanyahu over common sense.

      Finally this column ignores the possibility that Trump (and Kushner) have business conflicts regarding the Saudis. But those conflicts more than likely exist and they are good reasons why billionaires (with vast business empires) are bad for the White House. We don’t want presidents making foreign policy decisions based on their personal interests.

      1. “For one it assumes that we need the Saudis more than they need us.”

        Are you illiterate? It made no such assumption. It discussed what choice was best for the US.

        “And therefore we should bury this Khashoggi matter because it annoys the Saudis.”

        There was nothing said that the matter should be buried. Generally smart people use things of this nature as levers to get what they want. Stupid people react solely on emotional triggers.

        “ It would be a charade for the U.S. to pretend this never happened. “

        The article never said anything about pretending the incident didn’t happen.

        “ Nonsense! Bin Salman’s father, the King, could simply designate a new successor. It’s that easy!”

        It is that easy if a preteen child were thinking about the situation. We expect more from the adult mind.

        “More than anything this column assumes that Iran is such a horrible threat “

        It is a horrible threat. It is the largest state sponsor of Terrorism. They are developing nukes and missles to deliver them. Their mantra is death to America. It threatens the stability of the area and that threat extends worldwide.

        “More n onsense! Saudi Arabia is, at best, a highly dubious friend to America.”

        Saudi Arabia is not our friend. During WW2 Stalin was not our friend. We are a superpower and generally superpowers don’t have that many friends but are loaded with sycophants.

        Let me make one thing clear, Saudi Arabia has never been our friend and should have been dealt with earlier. We agree on that point but at this present time Saudi Arabia is useful to us so instead of deposing a King and potentially destroying an effective policy by making it an enemy we can use what happened as leverage to get what we want along with changing Saudi Arabia’s support for radical Wahhabism.

        You apparently haven’t learned from the disaster in Iraq and the follow-up disaster in Libya. It sees as if you want to go for a trifecta.

        I won’t bother with the rest of your posting because your initial premises don’t meet the smell test.

        1. Yeah, Saudi Arabia is NOT our friend. So Trump can take his business conflicts and shove them up his …! Trump’s conflicts should have no bearing on U.S. policy.

          1. I rather loathe Saudis and they are supreme mischief makers.

            In whacking Khashoggi however they have not done much more than stuff a sock in the mouth of one of their own princes.

            I think that this is more of an issue for Turks than the USA. IF the Turks want to take certain actions against Saudis it might put us in a hard place. If they havent’ then this is all just talk.

            Did anybody notice the US has stopped certain active support for the unjust Saudi war in Yemen? NO, nobody mentioned that. Trump might get credit so there is silence in the biased liberal mass media


          2. Our policy all the way back to Carter ( and perhaps further) towards Saudi Arabia has been terrible. A superpower should never have been held hostage by oil.

            I don’t think Trump has any true conflicts that impact his policies. In fact I am willing to bet that being President has cost him money and I don’t think that is where his concern lies. He is totally consistent and almost all of his most important policy decisions (if not all) were stated decades ago.

            I agree, when serving the public, personal interests should be put behind but that is not what seems to happen in our Congress. There, members of both parties are self serving to the detriment of the American people. Since you appear interested in Trump let me post as a new posting a long article that perhaps might better explain Trump to you and the never Trumpers. Understand, the supporters of Trump recognize a lot of his bad features such as being crass etc., but they also recognize that the smooth talking politician has been serving himself not the people.The article is Our House Divided: Multiculturalism vs. America.

            Don’t assume that those who don’t like the “multiculturalism” we see today are racists. Many of them have multicultural families so far from being racists they are simply Americans looking out for the American interest.

            1. of course it’s cost him money! these people that imply he’s making money off the Presidency have no clue how business works and how well it works when you are a supremely successful billionaire with decades of success in real estate development and other enterprises

              the Presidency was a step up in terms of executive challenge, but a step down for money, by far. it’s obvious DJT is a prideful man who enjoys the challenge

              as for multiculturalism it is nonsense. I can slice and dice it as easily as an onion. it is many layered but it stinks all the way through.


        ha you seem to think the King is going to take orders from the CIA

        Kings dont think that way Peter
        Kings like successors who they think will have the backbone to rule

        that article, btw, is a fine one

      3. Trump sucks up to the Saudis because they have money to loan him and no U.S. bank will loan him money because he’s a poor businessman. Seven business bankruptcies. Why else do you think he’s frantic to hide his tax returns?

        1. lol i bet he has lines of credit with 100 diff US banks via one enterprise or another

          what you know about business obviously would fit in a thimble

        2. Anonymous – 7 bankruptcies with 525 businesses is a world record for business stability. What are you talking about? Have you ever had to make a payroll? Ever put your own money on the line? Ever built a 58 story skyscraper in Manhattan?

  2. When Khashoggi was assassinated by our politicial (and Trump/Kushner financial) ally Saudi Arabia. There was a need to destroy the reputation of the man to lessen the impact of the deed. I looked at what is being said about him and tried to examine what is known to be true and what is pure conjecture.

    That Khashoggi was once friends with Bin Laden is true and that he interviewed him several times is true. It is also true he distanced himself in the 1990’s, a decade before 9/11. He also has supported some of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood, like lessening the European and American influence on their nation, oh the horror!

    Do your own research before simply repeating everything you hear that meets your needs. A need you would never have imagined until Trump claimed it.





    We’ve reached a state in America, as often shown on this blog where it’s okay to come for Muslims, and immigrants, and liberals, and black people, or watch others do it and remain silent. Who will be left when they come for you?

    1. Enigma,

      ha, don’t worry, trust me, the US will bust crackers’ chops in a heartbeat.
      they have zero hesitancy to toss white Christian folks in prison on bs charges as anybody else. in general they usually enjoy it more than you can imagine, since you are operating on certain of the usual false presumptions

      1. The US will bust poor cracker’s chops in a heartbeat. If you look at the geographic locations where “stop & frisk” take place, you won’t find it happening in the suburbs. Please give me some examples of all these white Christian folk being tossed in jail for Christian activities?

        1. not christian activities , but white christian folks yes. you can read the BoP stats your own self. if you think that white skin buys you a get out of free pass for jail then you are operating under delusion

            1. Enigma, it’s illegal to target blacks for being black. That went out officially with the 14th amendment, and de facto with the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, and subrosa by the 70s.

              There will however be an implicit bias against black males however– so long as they are disproportionately responsible for violent crime. which they are as a group.

              and policing involves, if only for security’s sake, making snap judgments. so yes of course profiling exists and implicit bias.

              we experience the same thing as men vis a vis women. because men are more responsible for violent crime. i can see the statistics and they are what they are. I can live with it.

              but you are fighting deep brain structure and fundamental human nature at that point and not talking about official government policies.

              1. “Enigma, it’s illegal to target blacks for being black.” See; Redlining, Stop & Frisk, Sentencing Disparity, Crack vs Powder Sentencing Guidelines, Voter Suppression, Higher insurance premiums and interest rates based on Zip Codes. The America you imagine is not the one that is.

          1. If the entire population eats bacon, lattuce and cheeses sandwiches and you only look for users in a certain community. You must be pursuing a different agenda. I’m talking specifically about drug use targeting where drug use is similar across races.

            1. there are two things that in my mind, and I don’t worry at all about whether or not you think i am racist, I could care less what you think and maybe I am. But, in my mind 2 things have operated in a way unfair to blacks, where drug policy is concerned

              and mind you i do not believe this was intentional against blacks however unfair it has become in practice

              a– powder cocaine versus rock weight punishments. we have heard all about it and it’s a disparity in sentencing that to me seems arbitrary

              along with that, how a certain weight will get you charged by feds automatically as a drug dealer, based on the mere inference of the weight. this seems totally bogus and i think the persecutors should have to come up with some real evidence of intent to distribute like testimony and not just pint to having numerous doses as intent in itself.

              b– drug asset forfeitures. the cops seize a car because somebody has a joint. this has operated to oppress poor people far worse than middle or upper class, and since a lot of black folks are poor it hits them hard. so, that seems unfair to me, not because blacks suffer, but because the poor suffer, and drug asset forfeitures are fundamentally unjust in that they presume guilt and shift the burden on regular people to sue to get their stuff back even if not charged. Shameless oppression by the state!

              Glad to see Sessions, a big fan of B, is GONE thanks to POTUS DJT finally encouraged him to quit, long overdue

              You should thank DJT too Enigma

            2. Look at where the deaths occur. Every time a police officer removes an illegal gun from a neighborhood where killings occur daily the police officer has done a service to the next child that would otherwise be killed.

              You don’t care about those children. You are too selfish. You would rather use identity politics to get what you want no matter how hight the death toll goes. Sad but true.

                1. As I said you don’t care about the children. You would rather the policeman not take their guns away and permit them to kill another child. What a horrible way of thinking.

      1. What is your point? Are you saying Trump ignoring this assassination should be ignored because… Clinton? Shouldn’t we know the extent of Trump’s personal ties to the Saudis? If it were anyone else, would it still not matter? Jared’s friends that bailed him out of his 666 5th Ave. building can apparently do no wrong. Why does Trump feel the need to lie about the CIA assessment?

        1. you a big fan of cia? wow. lol.

          anyhow in theory the POTUS is served by the CIA and the CIA does not tell the POTUS what to do. We have a military and intelligence establishment that is subject to a civilian leader elected by the people. that means he can decide to do what he thinks is best even if the wonks in Langley say otherwise.

        2. and what i was saying is that essentially the Saudis pay off as many western influencers as they can in both parties, both old hands in statecraft like hillary and business magnates like trump

          in itself that is not cause to assume that either one of them is biased; but if it is, then it is cause to assume Hillary was very deeply biased and perhaps her policies and actions as Sec of State prove it, going around helping Sunni – extremist insurgencies in Syria and Libya against secular tyrants like Qadaffi and Assad– who were not controlled by the Saudis. WHich is why the Saudis targeted them with her help

          In fact the reality is that DJT is far less the lackey of the Saudis than Hillary years ago proved herself to be.

          1. You know, there were a lot of things to like about Qadaffi. for starters, Libya was one of the most prosperous and orderly nations in Africa, under his long tenure. Check it out, the information is out there. We demonized him, but now worse and petty demons rule the roost.

            But he did not take orders from Saudis in his corner of the desert. He was the boss.

            Today, it’s a mess. And while Qadaffi only threatened to flood Europe with refugees, the NATO lead war on Libya backing the Salafist lead rebels (ie, Saudi paid) insurgents actually delivered the refugees. The ensuing chaos after Qadaffi’s murder was terrible and forced many people to flee and they mostly went straight for Europe.

            What a miserable outcome for Europe. A good one for Saudis who can run amuck there with their proxies now. They owe a lot of that to Hillary.

            They didn’t fully get their way in Syria, but not for lack of trying

    2. Thank God for affirmative action, welfare, food stamps, quotas, Obamacare, forced busing, rent control, utility subsidies, WIC, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, TANF, SSI, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, “Fair Housing,” “Non-Discrimination,” “hate crime,” “Reconstruction” amendments, etc.

      Geez, did I leave anything out?

      All unconstitutional, by the way.

        1. Freedom and Self-Reliance constitute the American thesis.

          Parasitism is antithetical.

          America been berry berry good to you, huh?

          Can we abolish affirmative action and generational welfare now?

          Then we could tax the “beneficiaries” for reimbursement for generations of confiscated occupational status and private property.

          That’s what I’m talkin’ about: Justice!


              – Thomas Jefferson

              Surely you can contribute equally to your own subsistence. You are incapable of assimilating and have proven incapable of learning the lessons of the Founders and their Constitution. You are not the burden of the American taxpayer and you shall not nullify the rights and freedoms of Americans in order to profit and/or enhance your own life.

              Congress cannot tax for individual welfare and private property is held “…in the exclusion of every other individual.”
              Americans have the right to keep their life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and private property.

              Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1



              – James Madison

  3. Fake history from the Washington Post

    President Kennedy, in discussing U.S. policy towards Latin America, reportedly described three types of regimes: democracy, dictatorship, and communist. He explained that the U.S. prefers the first, but is willing to accept the second in order to avoid the third.

    Nearly two decades later, Jeane Kirkpatrick, one of the architects of President Reagan’s foreign policy, distinguished between traditional authoritarian governments on the one hand, and revolutionary autocracies and totalitarian regimes on the other. Like Kennedy, she considered the former clearly preferable to the latter, in part because they “are more compatible with U.S. interests.” (Kirkpatrick was a leading neo-conservative, which gives the lie to the stereotype of neo-conservatives as mindless promoters of democracy above all other interests). Kirkpatrick criticized the Carter administration for failing to recognize this reality in its approach to Nicaragua and Iran.

    The pragmatism of Kennedy and Kirkpatrick has guided U.S. post World War II foreign policy for 70 years. The only major exceptions were the Carter and Obama years.

    Yet the Washington Post, in a hissy fit of an editorial, advances the absurd claim that President Trump, by not scuttling relations with the current Saudi regime over the slaying of one regime opponent, has “undermin[ed] the basic understanding that has worked to the United States’ advantage since World War II under presidents both Republican and Democratic.” Because Trump hasn’t insisted on accountability for those who planned and committed the murder of the Post’s man Jamal Khashoggi, the editors warn that “U.S. standing in the world — and, therefore, U.S. influence and prosperity — will dwindle.”

    The Post thus ignores 70 years of history. During this span, we have backed ruthless dictators and turned a blind eye to their worst excesses in exchange for their support in various forms. Saudi Arabia is a paradigm case. The Post itself has shown that the murder of Khashoggi is just an usually gruesome continuation of Saudi practices by past governments, including those Khashoggi served as a mouthpiece.

    This approach has rarely backfired. It’s true that the Iranian regime dines off of the fact that the U.S. supported the Shah. However, Iran is almost unique in this regard (Cuba is the other major example). Moreover, the mullahs real quarrel with America isn’t our support for the Shah. It’s the incompatibility between our way of life and the ideology they espouse (so too with Castro’s Cuba).

    Trump, then, is not “destroy[ing] the American brand” through its approach to the murder of Khashoggi. He’s basically just applying the pragmatic approach that has animated U.S. policy throughout his lifetime. Michael Doran and Tony Badran provide a good defense of that pragmatism in a New York Times op-ed.

    The Post editorial conflates two prongs of Trump’s foreign policy — his pragmatic approach to friendly dictatorships and his aggressive approach to our non-dictatorship allies. As we have seen, the former approach is consistent with our post-World War II tradition.

    The latter, fussing with our allies, is something of a departure. The Post isn’t wrong when it says that “previous presidents understood that the way to [best advance U.S. interests in an orderly] world was to enlist allies who would live by the United States’ rules in return for protection — safe in knowledge that the United States would not use its preeminence to squeeze them for every last dollar.” (Emphasis added)

    Nor is the Post wrong when it notes that Trump seems to be adopting a somewhat different understanding. I assume it’s referring mainly, but not exclusively, to trade policy.

    But whatever one thinks of Trump’s trade policy towards the EU, Mexico, Japan, it has nothing meaningful to do with our policy towards Saudi Arabia in the Khashoggi affair. The Post conflates the two hoping to enhance its grievance over the fate of its former op-ed writer.

    Yes, both policies can lumped together, superficially, under the slogan “America First.” But our Saudi Arabia policy is an unexceptional example of traditional realism. Trump’s trade policy, for better or for worse, breaks with tradition to some degree.

    One can easily support Trump’s handling of the Khashoggi matter and still question aspects of both his trade policy and his overall approach towards our democratic allies. The Post’s desire to merge the two issues is as cynical as it is unpersuasive. __Powerline Blog

    NYTimes opinion piece “Trump Is Crude. But He’s Right About Saudi Arabia”. Bodran and Badran at: Much longer but a lot of detai representing the unintended consequences of a policy that sooths the feelings of those on this list that are too ideological for their own good.

  4. A vicious place:


    Bibi’s case is a cause célèbre. She is a Christian who had been languishing on death row for nine years in Pakistan for blasphemy charges. To Christians worldwide, Bibi is a symbol of fortitude, faith, and unflinching commitment. After all, a conversion to Islam would have exonerated her, but she refused to recant her faith. She was imprisoned after fetching drinking water for fellow berry pickers on a Punjab farm in Pakistan in 2009. Her Muslim co-workers accused her of contaminating the water, because she was Christian. … Regardless of the Supreme Court decision, Muslim extremists believe Bibi must still be executed. The Betrayal of Asia Bibi written by Hardeep Singh

    Terrorism is pretty vicious and killing people of a different faith for bringing water demonstrates how vicious a place the world can be.

    1. Macron’s got his hands full today. Instead of free lessons in tolerating Arabic, his citizens are marching in the streets forming barricades and fighting police over expensive gas prices brought on by “green policies”

  5. Did you say the Saudis killed someone?

    Another Former Obama Gay-Lover, Donald Young, Assassinated?
    By Lee Floyd| December 23rd, 2007|Assassination, Obama body count, Political Corruption

    Donald Young’s bullet-ridden body was found in his Chicago apartment in what appeared to be an assassination-style slaying. Norma Jean Young, the 76-year old mother of the late Trinity United Church of Christ choir director Donald Young, has spoken out and declared that persons trying to protect Obama murdered her son at the height of the 2007 Democratic presidential primary to protect Obama from embarrassing revelations about his homosexual relationship with her son.

    The Clinton Body Count.

    29 – Keith McMaskle – Died stabbed 113 times, November 1988
    54-Seth Rich-Family’s private investigator: There is evidence Seth Rich had contact with WikiLeaks prior to death
    56-Man who sought Clinton’s emails from Russian hackers committed suicide

    1. People die all the time. I expect to die someday myself. What evidence do you have, that would stand up in any court, that these deaths were carried out by the Clintons?

  6. Who let the trolls out? Researchers investigate state-sponsored trolls.
    2018 Nov 23

    “Russian trolls were typically pro-Trump …”

  7. Thanks to Obama’s bribe money, Iran has developed medium range missiles than can reach US bases in the MidEast. That’s why we need Saudi Arabia and why arguing about Khashoggi is irrelevant and against our interests.

  8. No, the “vicious world” did not kill Khashoggi. That would have been the group of guys with a bone saw who killed him, as well as the chain of command that ordered the hit. The moral for the hapless assassins is don’t work for an evil person, because he will show you no loyalty, either.

    One by one, our presidents take office, and they receive a briefing to the extent that the “friendship” with Saudi Arabia is one we cannot refuse. The consequences of becoming enemies are too great. They can threaten our supply line, interfere with our access to the Middle East, destabilize the region, and funnel even more billions of dollars, or riyals, into terrorists attacking us than we already do. We have already shared, gifted, and sold quite a bit of military technology to the Kingdom. Hopefully we remembered to leave it penetrable by our own forces.

    Not even the discovery that the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, or the river of money that funds terrorism in general, is enough to make us forsake Saudi Arabia.

    But one day soon, the Kingdom is going to completely run out of water. It can easily buy it, until the oil runs out in less than a century. When its money dries up, it will be desperate for water and food, and without much of any local industry.

    We need to doomsday prep for the collapse of the Kingdom and destabilization of the entire region when the oil runs out, or is replaced by alternative energy.

    I am disappointed that the United States cannot see its way to do the right thing with Turkey and Saudi Arabia. We have not managed to export Western values to the Kingdom. We had some limited success with Turkey, but it is now backsliding into extremism. Istanbul is no longer a chic international tourist spot. We never pressured Turkey to admit to the Armenian genocide, and we don’t call out the Kingdom on its antisemitism, the killing of gays and apostates, stoning of women, or its poor treatment of women. We just cannot seem to do without what our few fair-weather friends in the region can offer us.

    I guess it’s easy for me to complain at my keyboard. These types of geopolitics cost lives, and the risk-benefit analysis has always tipped in their favor.

    1. I think it would take an open invasion or nuclear war against us for us to take action against Saudi Arabia. Honestly.

    2. “No, the “vicious world” did not kill Khashoggi. ”

      Karen you are of course correct people killed Khashoggi but I think Trump said: “maybe the world should be held accountable because the world is a vicious place.” I think we can all agree with him that the world is a vicious place. Over one-hundred million people killed by leftist regimes in the 20th century outside of war. Islamists kiliing woman and children all over the world in a heinous fashion where those people are totally disarmed. It’s a vicious place when we see young children taking a knife and cutting the head off of a living person or many people stoning a woman to death because as a woman she is considered one without any rights. How many journalists are held in jail in Turkey and how many people have been killed there since the present Islamist took over the country. The world is a vicious place.

      1. Turks are horrible “ethnic cleansers” of Armenians, Christian Arabs, Greeks, Kurds, and probably others I don’t even know about.

        But we have Turkey in NATO and better hope they stay in it too or big trouble

      2. It just breaks my heart to think of the conditions most human beings live in around the world. Western ideas of culture, human rights, and standards of living are in the minority on our planet. That is a grave concern of mine for open borders.

        1. Karen, the human condition is not what any of us would like, but I take comfort in knowing that a strong United States has helped elevate the standard of living in the poorest nations of the world and has helped free many people from political slavery. The best thing we can do for the world is to shine and support movements that lead in the right direction.

        2. America, meet the 19th amendment.

          Now you know why the Founders did not allow women and the “poor” to vote.

          We don’t want their love. We don’t want their respect. We want their fear.


          ― Theodore Roosevelt

          No more incoherence and hysteria.

          Repeal the 19th.

          1. Repeal george.

            Better still, peal and repeal george. He is as monotonous as a bell without the appealing overtones.

  9. So what is the difference between the Saudis giving this guy and Obama using drones to kill IS citizens in the Middle East?

  10. Well, I finally escaped the asylum for the holiday. I have to laugh at both the post and the commenters here. No one is stating out loud what is the most likely reason why He Who Won’t Personally Honor the Military Unless He Can Be Sure He Won’t Get His Hair Wet is acting the way he is regarding Khashoggi, namely, to protect his own personal interests. Setting aside possible temporary fits of sanity, Trump has never cared for anyone other than himself and his family. If you want to find out the real reasons why Trump is acting the way he is acting regarding Khashoggi, follow the money.

    If Trump was making a legitimate policy decision based on what he believes are in the best interests of the United States, he would not be lying about the contents of the CIA report or acting the way he is acting. Trump is doing what he has been doing for all of his adult life, making decisions based on what he believes are in the best interests of Trump.

    PS There is no truth to the rumor that the glowing orb that Trump was fondling while visiting Saudi Arabia was the top of Matthew Whitaker’s head, See here:

      1. None of know where you obtained your degree in scatology, but the fact that you feel compelled to comment about a comment that you claim is not of any interest to you or anyone else is hilarious.

    1. Mr. Clozoff said, “Trump has never cared for anyone other than himself and his family.”

      It’s Kushner, I tell ya! Prince Jared’s been up to sumpin’ the whole way thru. And it cain’t mean no kinda good for nobody, no how. Not even for Santa Trump, who cares for Ivanka and her children and their father, if he has to. So he left his daily brief on the desk where Prince Jared could read it even tho he tweren’t clear to at the time. Then he sent Prince Jared on a secret mission to inform MBS of all of the names of disloyal Saudis listed on the daily brief on the desk. But the CIA had already outsmarted him and got Khashoggi out before they even put that list of disloyal Saudis on the desk. So now both MBS and the CIA have both Santa Trump and Prince Jared over a barrel being rolled by that woman with a repatation fer water-boardin’ and stuff. I swear. It’s so unfair.

      And Christmas is coming. It’s enough to make Santa Trump pull his hair out.

  11. In this, Trump is realistic yet at the same time directionless. Who was the US President who commented on the murderous behavior of a Central American dictator, ” He may be a SOB but he’s our SOB.”? What Trump is saying is what he stands for, might is right. Trump went bankrupt six times, not because he was courageously attempting to create something great; but because he was, in a self centered way, trying to enhance himself, all the time knowing that if he failed it would not matter to him financially in the end. There would be no consequences to him; others would lose investments, pay, etc., but not him. This is the mind set of Trump. This is the same way he sees the Saudi Prince.

    Khashoggi was an American resident. He was lured to his death by order of the prince of Saudi Arabia. It’s not so much about what can be accomplished if Trump says this is wrong but about accepting this and Trump’s behaviors as the norm.

    Americans used to accept far worse as the norm. It was only through recognizing what was wrong that much of what was wrong is no longer a part of American society. America’s greatness is being able to recognize, however slowly, what is wrong and make a change. There is still much that is wrong with America and our freedom of speech and the press remains the vanguard for the change in the direction of the better.

    When it suits those that profit from what is wrong, the world will remain wrong. It’s not about the norm, ie. the world being a very vicious place; but about living in the direction away from that and toward making the world or America a better place. It takes courage and someone with skin in the game to move in the right direction. Trump has no courage and no skin in the game. For Trump being President is no different than starting up a new airline, branding steaks, ties, Ivanka’s bimbo businesses, etc. If he wins, it will all be because he is a god, the god he has always professed to be. If he loses, so what. He might even make money out of it. One thing is for sure, it will never be his fault and the little people should just get used to it. It’s a vicious world out there. Trump, a hundred and fifty-five years ago would not be on the side fighting for the abolition of slavery. He would be on the side profiting from slavery and telling anyone who would listen that it’s a vicious world out there. But, he’s making out like a bandit.

    What gives thugs like Trump and the Saudi prince their environment to hold themselves up godlike above the laws and holier than almost all the rest are those whose first words are, “What about all these other atrocities?”. Somehow that is supposed to make it the norm. Cowards, supporting our coward in chief, and his pal Putin, the Saudi prince, who else.

    1. oh hey isaac did you know this wonderful poem? maybe you will like it, I do. it’s a century old but like all good art carries a perennial message of interest


      Might was right when Caesar bled
      upon the stones of Rome,
      Might was right when Joshua led
      his hordes o’er Jordan’s foam,
      And Might was right when German troops
      poured down through Paris gay;
      It’s the Gospel of the Ancient World
      and the Logic of To-Day.

      Behind all Kings and Presidents —
      all Government and Law,
      Are army-corps and cannoneers —
      to hold the world in awe.
      And sword-strong races own the earth
      and ride the Conqueror’s Car—
      And Liberty has ne’er been won,
      except by deeds of war.

      What are the lords of hoarded gold —
      the silent Semite rings?
      What are the plunder-patriots —
      high-pontiffs, priests and kings
      What are they but bold master-minds,
      best fitted for the fray
      Who comprehend and vanquish by —
      the Logic of To-Day.

      Cain’s knotted club is scepter still —
      the “Rights of Man” is fraud;
      Christ’s Ethics are for creeping things —
      true manhood smiles at “God.”
      For Might is Right when empires sick
      in storms of steel and flame;
      And it is right when weakling breeds —
      are hunted down like game.
      Then what’s the use of dreaming dreams —
      that “each shall get his own”
      By forceless votes of meek-eyed thralls,
      who blindly sweat and moan?
      No! a curse is on their cankered brains —
      their very bones decay;
      Go! trace your fate in the Iron Game,
      is the Logic of To-Day.

      The Strong must ever rule the Weak,
      is grim Primordial Law —
      On earth’s broad racial threshing floor,
      the Meek are beaten straw —
      Then ride to Power o’er foemen’s neck
      let nothing bar your way;
      If you are fit you’ll rule and reign,
      is the Logic of To-Day.

      You must prove your Right by deeds of Might —
      of splendour and renown.
      If need-be march through flames of hell,
      to dash opponents down.
      If need-be die on scaffold high —
      in the mornings misty gray
      For “Liberty or Death” is still
      the Logic of To-Day.

      Might was Right when Gideon led,
      the “chosen” tribes of old,
      And it was right when Titus burnt,
      their Temple roofed with gold;
      And Might was Right from Bunkers Hill,
      to far Manila Bay,
      By land and flood it’s wrote in blood —
      the Gospel of To-Day.

      “Put not your trust in princes”
      is a saying old and true,
      “Put not your hope in Governments”
      translated! it anew.
      All ‘Books of Law’ and ‘Golden Rules’
      are fashioned to betray
      ‘The Survival of the Strongest’
      is the Gospel of To-Day.

      Might was Right when Carthage flames
      lit up the Punic foam —
      And — when the naked steel of Gaul
      weighed down the spoil of Rome;
      And Might was Right when Richmond fell —
      and at Thermopalye —
      It’s the Logic of the Ancient World —
      and the Gospel of To-Day.

      1. i had a hard time finishing that poem when i first read it in law school, so hard and fast did it smash my cherished shibboleths, but i made it through

        i wonder is it better to believe in facts or fancies?

  12. Consider the source:

    From Wikpedia:

    FrontPage Magazine (also known as is an online right-wing, anti-Muslim political website, edited by David Horowitz and published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

    FrontPage Magazine, is a conservative journal of news and political commentary originally published under the auspices of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture,[1] later called the David Horowitz Freedom Center.[2]

    Notable contributors have included David Horowitz (editor in chief), Paul Gottfried, John Derbyshire, Ann Coulter, Mustafa Akyol, Jamie Glazov, Robert Spencer, Bruce Thornton, Raymond Ibrahim, Kenneth Timmerman,[3] and Stephen Miller.[4][5]


    In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center listed Horowitz and Spencer as “anti-Muslim extremists”.[6] Spencer called the article a “hit list”.[7]

    The website has been described by opinion pieces as right-wing,[8][9][10][11] far-right,[12][13] Islamophobic,[14][15] and anti-Islam.[16][17]


      The Southern Poverty Law Center that used to be involved in some good causes changed to a political hit squad that calls anyone that disagrees with their leftist ideology a hate group.

      Take note how Anonymous doesn’t deny any of the statements made by Greenfield.

      Was Khashoggi a friend of bin Laden? Yes. Was Khashoggi involved with the Muslim Brotherhood? Yes Were the statements made by Khashoggi documented?Yes.

      On and on the article writes the truth about Khashoggi something that doesn’t fit the ideology of Anonymous nor the Southern Poverty Law Center. That is why Anonymous doesn’t dispute any of the facts that are true.

      People should read Greenfield’s writing which admittedly is to the right of the spectrum but he takes great care to be as accurate as he can something that Anonomous doesn’t like and can’t factually dispute.

      Everyone should subscribe to and read what he has to say. Hammer him with fact if his facts are incorrect, but that will be seldom and hard to do.

      1. A bit about the Southern Poverty Law Center and why they changed from a group that protected rights into a money making scam:

        “Simply put, SPLC is not a legitimate arbiter of public discourse. It poisons public discourse for profit. Its business model is to target groups and people, sometimes with baseless smears, to gin up fear and anger so people send SPLC gobs of cash it largely doesn’t use to benefit the oppressed. Neither Amazon nor major media outlets — such as CNN, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, CBS, and PBS — should amplify or give any credence to SPLC’s highly partisan, highly personal, self-interested fear-mongering.

        Here are a few reasons why. (The Federalist senior contributor Stella Morabito offers more here.)”

        1. The Souther Poverty Law Center names any organization that disagrees with far Leftist policy or positions as a hate group. You could be the most peaceful, kind person, but if you cannot tick off all of the boxes, your organization is a hate group.

          The SPLC now has over $200 million in endowments, and their main purpose is to blacklist and harass conservatives, dumping them on the same pile as the Klan. They are a complete scam. However, people read their mission statement about fighting hate groups, and hand over their cash without doing any research. It’s like PETA exploiting well meaning people and then turning around and killing more animals than kill shelters.

        2. SPLC is a fraud. But, since the marks are mostly liberals, I say, HAVE AT IT! GO DEES, COHEN, BEIRICH & CO! keep on fleecing those suckers hard as you can! They don’t deserve one extra shekel in their savings. Give till it hurts, fools!

      2. While talking about different groups we should talk about Anonymous who can’t even carry her own icon and who will quote things out of context while not even knowing who she is quoting.

    2. The Southern Poverty Law Center was exposed in Harper’s 18 years ago as a sleazy direct mail mill. The news media quote it in order to slander people without running afoul of civil defamation law. It’s an utterly fraudulent organization and only dishonorable people have any truck with it.

      1. The Southern Poverty Law Center was exposed in Harper’s 18 years ago as a sleazy direct mail mill…only dishonorable people have any truck with it.”

        What does that say about Anonymous?

          1. Per Charity Navigtor:


            Score (out of 100)

            Overall Score & Rating: 88.78 & Rating = 3 out of 4 stars

            Financial: 84.42 (Rating = 3 out of 4 stars)

            Accountability & Transparency: 97.00 (Rating = 4 out of 4 stars)

            “This rating was published 08/01/2018 and includes data from FY2017, the most recent 990 received at that time.”

            1. What you’re not getting is that it exposes Charity Navigator as an idiot source.

              What the SPLC does is collect masses of donations in order to pay huge salaries to their small staff. They have no social service projects and their legal representation is headline grabbing performance art. One of their signature cases was a suit against the United Klans of America. They milked that suit for a seven-digit sum in donations. Their client won all the assets of the United Klans of America, which at that time amounted to a quonset hut with an appraised value of $51,000

              Morris Dees hardly conceals what he’s up to. There was actually a glossy magazine profile of him a number of years ago which included pictures of his home. His trophy wife of the time certainly collected some odd knick-knacks. That’s what you’re buying when you contribute to the $PLC

              1. yep he kicked his first wife to the curb. wow her divorce petition was a doozy.

                I won’t link to that one, even morris dees deserves the benefit of the doubt where a women with divorce-slander operations is running off her mouth.

                but that’s the only benefit of the doubt I would give the old shyster

          2. It is about Anonymous and the SPLC. You don’t have the slightest idea of what they do and yet you talk ignorantly about it. Why not ask some of the people that were previously on their board what happened. Charity Navigator is not the best source for determining good and bad. It looks at financials and I think gives them 3 stars which doesn’t count very much for a company that has almost 1/2 billion dollars banked and uses tactics against good people just to push their ideological agenda. Some excellent charities might have only 2 stars because they have near zero in the bank while the nature of their work leads to a lot of administrative costs.

            1. if you dissect the SPLC form 990 here are a few obvious things for those who know how to read them

              a) tons of self promotion expenses
              b) the self promotion expense to programming ration is laughable
              c) the “contractors” who the promotion expense are paid to actually may be insider cutouts, concealing a lot of graft
              d) they have a huge endowment and huge income, really impressive
              e) the other honchos like Richard Cohn get paid a ton
              f) lower level flunkies not so much LOL

        1. DSS is correct: ““It’s an utterly fraudulent organization and only dishonorable people have any truck with it.”. You are an example of the people DSS is talking about.

  13. Kissinger argues in his many books that US foreign policy vacillates (sometime wildly) between idealism and realism/pragmatism. I sense that this Administration is circumspect about the global geopolitical order being “up for grabs” — attention glued to the past Administration’s extravagances of naive idealism (e.g., Russia, Syria, Libya) — and determined not to make similar mistakes.

    Trump is right to place holding together US alliances at a higher priority than risking one important one to make a point about human rights.

    The best outcome in this case is to telegraph to MBS “you made a terrible mistake”, and it’s called into question your leadership judgment. Don’t ever try something as brazen as this again”, or else the Saudi monarchy could be put at grave risk. You must live up to the ideal of Islamic justice, and not some corrupted version of it.

    1. The “tell your boss” like is disputed by the Saudi intelligence officers that Turkish officials allowed to hear the Khashoggi death tape. Apparently, the Turks have other tapes. I’d believe the Turks authentication of the tape like I’d believe the foxes assurances they’d be good stewards of the chickens.Turks despise Saudi Arabia more than any other Muslim country.

    2. well said and kissinger is talking what he knows about
      US was lucky to have him on the job when it did.
      he’s creepy but smart

  14. Why is it up to the U.S.? A foreign citizen was killed in a foreign country. The U.S. is not the World Police Force or World Prosecutor. Are we going to hold Mexico to account for the numerous reporters and politicians that have been murdered there? China? Philippines? Singapore? …

    1. This is true. We should worry about the killings sponsored by J. Edgar Hoover when he ran the FBI. JFK, MLK, RFK. If your last name began with letter K then you were in the line of gunfire.

  15. “The world should be held accountable”? I thought conservatives opposed the concept of collective guilt, insisting on the accountability of the individuals who are personally responsible.

    1. ” I thought conservatives opposed the concept of collective guilt”

      I guess with that logic Catholics cannot be conservative.

  16. Still no condemnation of Israel for murdering 18 reporters since 1998. How interesting. I guess it’s not murder when our “friends” do it.

  17. “The media’s relationship with Khashoggi is far more damning than anything the Saudis might have done to him.”


    The terrorist truth behind the media lies.

    October 15, 2018






















    Yasin Aktay is the Turkish equivalent of Obama’s Ben Rhodes, and served as the AKP Islamist ruling party’s spokesman. Why call one of the regime’s top propagandists instead of the police?



    Lawyers described clients being brought to them covered in blood.



    It’s not hypocrisy, it’s consistency.





    It’s not. And it won’t be.


    This is about Islam.



    The Khashoggi case demands context.


    And we deserve the truth.




Leave a Reply