“'Into the streets they will throw their very silver, and an abhorrent thing their own gold will become.  Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to deliver them in the day of Jehovah's fury.  Their souls they will not satisfy, and their intestines they will not fill, for it has become a stumbling block causing their error.  And the decoration of one's ornament—one has set it as reason for pride; and their detestable images, their disgusting things, they have made with it.  That is why I will make it an abhorrent thing....”

Ezekiel 7:19-20

Trump Says U.S. Will Remain 'Steadfast Partner' Of Saudis, Despite Khashoggi Killing


President Trump says the U.S. will remain a "steadfast partner" of Saudi Arabia, despite the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, whose image was shown on a screen at a memorial earlier this month.

Chris McGrath/Getty Images

Updated at 6:20 p.m. ET

President Trump declared on Tuesday that his administration will remain a "steadfast partner" of Saudi Arabia, despite the CIA's assessment that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally approved the killing last month of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

"Maybe he did and maybe he didn't," Trump said of the crown prince's knowledge of the killing.

The president's statement suggests he has no plans to further punish the crown prince or the Saudi government, although Trump said he would be open punitive measures if Congress demands them. But he stressed he would weigh any such steps against American interests as he sees them.

"If we abandon Saudi Arabia, it would be a terrible mistake," Trump told reporters.

The CIA has not publicly commented on its assessment, but according to an individual briefed on the matter, intelligence officials believe the crown prince approved Khashoggi's Oct. 2 killing at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Trump spoke over the weekend with CIA Director Gina Haspel.

Trump noted that his administration has already sanctioned 17 Saudis thought to have played a role in Khashoggi's killing, but he declined to go further, stressing the close strategic and economic ties the U.S. has with Saudi Arabia.

"We may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi," Trump said in a statement. "In any case, our relationship is with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They have been a great ally in our very important fight against Iran. The United States intends to remain a steadfast partner of Saudi Arabia to ensure the interests of our country, Israel and all other partners in the region."

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo echoed that assessment in remarks at the State Department.

"It's a mean, nasty world out there. The Middle East in particular," Pompeo said. "It is the president's obligation and indeed the State Department's duty as well to ensure that we adopt policies that further America's national security."

The president's statement drew swift criticism from some members of Congress.

"I fully realize we have to deal with bad actors and imperfect situations on the international stage," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "However, when we lose our moral voice, we lose our strongest asset."

Graham expects to see a bipartisan appetite among lawmakers for serious sanctions against Saudi Arabia, including members of the royal family.

"While Saudi Arabia is a strategic ally, the behavior of the Crown Prince – in multiple ways – has shown disrespect for the relationship and made him, in my view, beyond toxic," Graham said.

"I never thought I'd see the day a White House would moonlight as a public relations firm for the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia," retiring Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the outgoing chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wrote on Twitter.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees accused Trump of "siding with murderous foreign dictators over American intelligence professionals."

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said that in his view, it is "inconceivable" that Prince Salman was not involved in Khashoggi's killing.

"To suggest 'maybe he did and maybe he didn't' or that we are incapable of finding out the truth or that knowing the truth our silence can be bought with arms sales undermines respect for the Office of the Presidency, the credibility of our intelligence community and America's standing as a champion of human rights," Schiff wrote.

In reaffirming his support for Saudi Arabia, Trump highlighted the country's role in keeping oil markets well supplied as well as Saudi arms purchases from the U.S.

"If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries," Trump said. Experts say the president exaggerates the value of the arms deals and the ease with which the Saudis could switch suppliers.

Earlier this month, the U.S. stopped providing refueling support for Saudi aircraft fighting a proxy war in Yemen. Trump said the Saudis would gladly withdraw from Yemen if Iran would do the same. The war in Yemen has produced what the U.N. describes as the world's worst humanitarian crisis with more than 8 million people facing the threat of famine.

Americans have always been unaware of how they are controlled by propaganda.  The latest and largest “narrative” is for why Trump is backing the Saudis.  Trump is backing the Saudis because Israel fears Hezbollah and the Iranians. The Sunni Saudis also fear and hate Shiite Iranians—while at the same time the Saudis hate “the Jews,” but are willing to operate on “the enemy of my enemy” principle.

President Trump Statement Disputes CIA Assessment On Killing Of Khashoggi


From criticism to judges to pushing for more border security funding, President Trump kept up the political tempo, as lawmakers headed home for the Thanksgiving holiday.

The U.S., Saudi Arabia and Global Influence


NPR's Scott Simon talks with writer and former foreign piolicy adviser Robert Kagan about where the United States stands on the global stage.

Nothing has changed in the Middle East except that both parties (Jews and Arabs) have met with a Fascist government in the United States headed by businessman/deal-maker Donald Trump, who has made a deal with Sheldon Adelson, who has spent millions on Trump with more to come, and other American Zionist to Make Israel Great Again!  Israel is to rise to the power of biblical myths under Netanyahu, Donald Trump and American military power, all done under business deals with Prince Mohammad bin Salmon, sociopath and Crown Prince.  Trump, narcissistic and fellow sociopath clicked.


The reason I label MBS a sociopath is because if he weren't, he would have been allowed to leave Saudi Arabia to attend Harvard University.  Instead he was forced to remain in Saudi Arabia and attend King Fahd University.  He was too dangerous to be allowed outside of the Kingdom.  Attending Harvard is a great source pride—wasta, in Saudi Arabia and MBS has a legacy connection with Harvard which would have given him a-shoe-in, as money greased Trump's entrance into the University of Pennsylvania.


USA TODAY (11/21/18/) Amnesty say Saudi Activists beaten, tortured in detention: Dubai, United Arab Emirates—Several activists imprisoned in Saudi Arabia since May, including a number of women who campaigned for the right to drive, were beaten and tortured during interrogation, Amnesty International said Tuesday.


Nothing happens in Saudi Arabia that is not sanctioned from the Saudi Prince amalgamation.  Same as with Trump and the Courts.

Kagan: The myth of the modernizing dictator

Many Americans have an odd fascination with the idea of the reforming autocrat, the strongman who can “modernize” and lead his nation out of its backward and benighted past. This was the hope for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, a hope now somewhat diminished by the hit he appears to have ordered against Washington Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey.

Sympathetic Americans saw Mohammed, or MBS, as he is known, as a transformational figure seeking to reform Saudi Arabia’s one-commodity economy and to reconcile Islam and modernity. If doing so required more not less dictatorial control, if it entailed locking up not only fellow members of the royal family but also women’s rights activists, moderate religious figures and even young economists raising questions about the dubious figures contained in his “Vision 2030” program, then so be it. Only a “revolution from above” held any promise of reforming that traditionalist, hidebound society. You know — omelets, eggs.

The trope isn’t new. During the 1920s and 1930s, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin and even Adolf Hitler looked to many Americans like just what their countries needed to get them into shape. During the Cold War, leaders including the Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos, Iran’s Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, South Korea’s Park Chung-hee and Chile’s Augusto Pinochet took turns as the United States’ favorite “modernizing” dictators. In the post-Cold War era, the Chinese dictatorship has gained many Americans’ admiration for its smooth handling of the country’s economy.

Justifying all this sympathy for the dictator have been variations on what used to be called “modernization theory.” Developing societies, the argument ran, had to move through an authoritarian stage before they could become democracies, for both economic and political reasons. Only authoritarian governments could be trusted to make the right economic decisions, unhampered by popular pressures for inflationary and deficit-raising spending.

Moreover, non-Western societies allegedly lacked many of the basic elements necessary to sustain democracy — the rule of law, stable political institutions, a middle class, a vibrant civil society. Pressing democracy on them prematurely would produce “illiberal democracy” and radicalism. The role of the reforming autocrat was to prepare these societies for the eventual transition to democracy by establishing the foundations for liberalism.

During the 1960s, the political scientist Samuel Huntington argued that what modernizing societies need is order, not liberty. During the late 1970s, Jeanne Kirkpatrick used this argument as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to defend supporting “friendly” right-wing dictatorships — on the theory they would eventually blossom into democracies if the United States supported them against their opponents, but would give way to radical, communist governments if the United States withdrew support.

Governments were the ones that undertook reforms that led to their unraveling and a turn to democracy, however feeble. Meanwhile, authoritarianism persisted in the Middle East and elsewhere, except where the United States did withdraw support, as in the Philippines, South Korea and Chile; only at that point did they become democracies.

As a purely factual matter, it turned out that dictatorships do not do a better job of producing economic growth. And economic growth has not proved the secret to democracy. We are now a quarter-century into expectations that Chinese economic growth, which has created a substantial middle class, would inevitably lead to greater political openness. Yet the trend has been in the opposite direction, as Chinese ruler Xi Jinping centralizes all power to himself and the government experiments with ever more thorough methods of political and social control.

As for the “liberalizing autocrat,” he turns out to be a rare creature indeed. Autocrats, as it happens, are disinclined to lay the foundations for their own demise. They do not create independent political institutions, foster the rule of law or permit a vibrant civil society precisely because these would threaten their hold on power. Instead, they seek to destroy institutions and opposition forces that might someday pose a challenge to their dictatorial rule. Why should we expect otherwise?

Yet we do, and for a variety of reasons. Some are simply racist. Much like the racial imperialists during the 19th century, we just assume that some people aren’t ready for democracy, or that their religious or historical traditions did not prepare them for democracy. Another reason springs from dissatisfaction with the messiness of our own democracy. There is a certain palpable yearning for the strongman who can cut through all the political nonsense and just get things done — a yearning that our current president plays to very effectively.

Then there is our fear of what democracy elsewhere might produce. During the Cold War, it was demands for greater economic and social justice, and possibly at the expense of U.S. investments; today, it is demands for a society and a polity more in consonance with Islamic teaching. We fear what people allowed to make their own choices might choose, so we prefer “revolution from above.”

And, of course, there are our strategic interests. We wanted allies against the Soviet Union; now, we want allies against Iran. What we discovered during the Cold War, however, and may be discovering again today, is that these supposed allies may not be quite the bulwarks we had hoped. Their methods of dealing with their opponents may create more radical opposition and make a revolution more likely, not less. In both Egypt and Saudi Arabia, we may ultimately find that supporting dictators in those countries produces precisely the outcome we had hoped to avoid. Then the weapons we begged them to buy from us will wind up in the hands of the very radicals they were supposed to save us from.

Today, the Saudi crown prince’s U.S. supporters are asking how he could have been so foolish if he, as it appears, ordered the murder of Khashoggi. But who are the fools here? Dictators do what dictators do. We are the ones living in a self-serving fantasy of our own devising, and one that may ultimately come back to bite us.

Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. From the Washington Post.


Views: 42

Comment by Robert B. James on December 8, 2018 at 10:16am

Why am I so not afraid?  Crimes against humanity are us. Crimes against nature are us.  Foward, will justice swoop down upon us? Or just us, the ones who are too old and weak to move off of the killing fields? 

Comment by moki ikom on December 8, 2018 at 2:28pm

Once it was that i could be unafraid because for spell of near two decades all I lived for was a/my cause without an immediate family care, not responsible for anyone but myself.  My father's --in his end, his last thirteen years alive, was separated from his five children but for one winter unheated cabin upslope a creek and a hwy toward the high school and an easy walk past the orphanage where my good friend lived to the stream running through the center of Gatlinburg in the winter semester of my ninth grade-- demise when i was twenty-six was to me the result of his country's, the u.s.'s, betrayal of morals, truths and values he once believed he shared at least enough with his government and fellow citizens that his joining the army to fight against a wing of euro-fascism would be an honorable pursuit toward an honorable goal.  Continuing as pfc on the front line toward Berlin twice after recovering from bullet and shrapnel wounds to limbs and head wounds i don't know what a pre-twenty year old man warrior has on his mind ideologically speaking.  Returning to the states after bloodying up someone else's homeland in yet another generation of corporatist, fascist warfare didn't result in a lot GIs (many corporatist-legUSy brats/officers  like bush1 excepted) wanting to jump aboard u.s.'s fascist (ala jMcCarthy/rNixon/jeHoover/pBush) capitalist bandwagon to embrace anti-communism propaganda and policies.  My father embraced the ideals of truth as opposed to propaganda, the ideals of communism as opposed to the idealless immorality of capitalism without my ever being aware of his doing so until he told as much a few years before he took his own life where forty-nine yrs prior he had become his mother's last live born child.

Even now with plenty of immediate family for whom i feel responsible maybe i am still or again unafraid but more likely i'm just too wornout with caring enough about everything to be able to care about anything.

Comment by moki ikom on December 8, 2018 at 2:53pm


 But who are the fools here? Dictators do what dictators do.

We are the ones living in a self-serving fantasy of our own devising, and one that may ultimately come back to bite us." -- Robert Kagan

== I don't believe that our "living in a self-serving fantasy... may come back to bite us" is an adequate description of the consequence of our living a lie.  We are repeatedly and predictably being bitten all the time for continuing our living a lie.  So far we just get bitten now and again for our living a lie (or living The Lie/"America is not a fruit of the the culture of genocides.") others pay the immediate costs of our fantasies, at least so far.

Comment by moki ikom on December 8, 2018 at 3:30pm

We Made A Documentary Exposing The ‘Israel Lobby.’ Why Hasn’t It Run?

**Clayton Swisher, Nikki Casey March 8, 2018


At the end of this link* are four separate youtube episodes totaling about an hour and half of the controversial documentary.




Comment by mary gravitt on December 11, 2018 at 2:34pm

We need to stop living under the illusion that a mythical past can be righted by a handful of irredentist ideology.  Now this is creeeping into the The Republic of the United Sates and in the end will bring on the Holocaust that was prevented by Obama.  We are not in the business any longer of ethnic cleansing.


You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!

Join Our Salon


The Tree Ring Circus

Posted by Robert B. James on March 22, 2019 at 7:30am 1 Comment

Antarctic Specimen 46b

Posted by Doc Vega on March 21, 2019 at 2:00pm 11 Comments

The New Cold Is All Wet

Posted by Robert B. James on March 20, 2019 at 8:30am 11 Comments

Canine Cognitive Dysfunction

Posted by Rodney Roe on March 20, 2019 at 12:24am 5 Comments

© 2019   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service