In an event that could significantly escalate security concerns and sectarian tensions in a region beset with civil war and spreading terrorist violence, several gunmen and a suicide bomber carried out two separate attacks in Iran on Wednesday, killing at least 12 and injuring dozens more.
Saudi Arabia, he worried, could be moving to "escalate matters further toward some kind of confrontation with Iran" in the near future.
And we are about to sell them billions of dollars worth of high grade weapons.
Yeah, but that's all part of Trump's peace plan, right? I was told over and over and over here prior to the election that Trump wanted peace. I was also the told he'd be better on trade and was even told he was less "corrupt" than Clinton, a candidate who released all her tax returns going back 30 years and her charity's financials. There was "alleged" corruption on her part, dispite us knowing more about her finances than any other candidate in history, including Sanders, and that was very important. Because fighting Bill Clinton circa 1997 is the main front! The Republican majority . . . well that's just a side conversation.
in time all oil wells run dry, don't they? when i lived in oklahoma i'd often see inactive oil pumps. once a well quits producing the search begins for a new source. some towns that for a while were boom towns now see only sink holes. a couple of weeks ago i entered, "saudi arabia running out of oil?" in my search line and guess what? of course this explains why hydrolic fracturing has become the means to extract oily sludge from the ground. also may have a lot to do with saudi arabia's aggressive behavior. they have little else to export.
"oils well that ends well!"
Excellent point, randlieb, ignore the DNC Damage Control.
Is it a side conversation that under Clinton's State Dept. weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, a known human rights abuser, increased dramatically. In fact, weapons sales increased dramatically after many countries and corporations donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation -
oops! my response to 'kc2669' was meant as a respond to your post.
It is worse than a side conversation, right? I mean, you are alleging a one-for-one deal in the way that Trump just popped off and signed something that not even National Security folks were sure about after for-real receiving a large influx of hotel cash from the Saudis. Oh, and Trump's deal was fake, by the way. It was a photo-op gesture.
Trump is literally is doing the things you folks accused--nearly always baselessly because you read conspiracy nonsense--of Clinton.
And your accusation about Clinton? It comes from Trump himself! He made it during the campaign, which his people never even bothered to support when asked about it by joirnalists. Progressives just got suckered--they always do--by Clinton conspiracy nonsense.
In real life, the Saudis gave $10 million towards the Clinton Presidential Library and other causes during George W. Bush's presidency. They gave no money to the Clinton Foundation after she became Secretary of State. How do we know this? She was required to release the names of donors after she accepted her position as Secretary of State per an MOU signed with the Obama Administration. And that's the thing: the candidate with the most disclosure was punished for it relentlessly while others, including Sanders, weren't.
The last thing we needed was a president to take sides in the conflict between the Shiites and Sunnis but leave it to Trump to side with the Sunnis. And on top of that he has sided against Qatar which just happens to be the country with the critical US airbase for carrying out attacks in Iraq and Syria in the fight against ISIS. I think there are people in the military and State Department who are trying to hold this together despite Trump but it is not going to be easy. The Middle East is volatile enough without Trump making statements and sending out tweets in total ignorance of the situation.
Would have edited it to 'more' weapons but can no longer edit. Because you are right, it isn't just a rump phenomenon. However I would rather concentrate on what is going on NOW, not constant dwelling on how wicked Obama was or Hillary was and might have been. The fact is rump is the one currently in office and he is simply following the orders...err...I mean advise of his far right wing masters....err...I mean advisors. He is ruling through fear, hatred and demagoguery. Would Hillary have been just as bad or worse? Maybe, I don't know. What I do know is the one in power is the one doing the most damage right now.
No, that is why we sold.
But how did that make Trump the peace candidate here?
oh yeah, the Mideast is about to explode and Trump doesn't know wtf he is doing. It is like waiting for a spark and he will provide it.
"By deception we shall make war" motto of the Mossad.
This is not to excuse Trump. But to only focus on what's going on NOW, as you prefer, you will always find yourself facing the same thing. Because whoever sits in the White House, whether Democrat or Republican, are just following orders. Trump has only been in office for 5 months. The US has been destabilizing the Middle East through a lot more presidencies than that.
You seriously are defending the Clintons? There is no end to their chicanery. From Arkansas to the White House, a trail of scandals and dead bodies, Clinton Foundation, a money laundering operation,. Where are the billions for Haiti, Bill? Haitians got nothing. Lock them both up.
Amid Roiling Mid-East Tensions, precedented CIA Attacks Strike Iran
Is a charitable foundation - for which a board of trustees, not Ms. Clinton, manages (and according to Charity Navigator, manages very well) supposed to turn down perfectly good, voluntarily-donated money?
I really don't see how the source of a donation somehow is tainted or implies corruption. Money is money. If, say, 350.org got a big cash donation from the Koch Brothers, should they turn the donation down? Sure, they should send a letter thanking them for the donation and explaining that the donation would go to fighting the work of denialists like the Koch Brothers, but why would they send the money back?
But, back to the topic of the current crisis, a Clinton administration would have sold arms to Saudi Arabia too, but would have been very different regarding Iran - Clinton would vave continued the previous administration's policies of improved relationships with Iran, but the current administration is unrelentingly hostile - exactly as Trump promised.
So now, instead of an administration that would be attempting to defuse a potentially catastrophic Arab-Persian War, we have an administration that will likely throw gasoline on the fire, then intervene on the side of the savage Wahhabi Saudis for which Iran is a practically Sweden comparison. God help the people of the region, and maybe the world...
Charity ratings of the Clinton Foundation were previously impossible to rate ... funny how donations have dried up now that there is little influence to sell. The authors of UK House of Cards apparently understood how these foundations work.
I checked the Clinton Foundation a last July and they had a rating, and a fairly good one. Just because someone donates money on in an attempt to curry favor does not mean any favors are given. So yes I would expect large donations to have dried up. But there is no evidence of a quid-pro-quo. The same, bad, policies supporting Saudi Arabia remained unchanged both before and after the donation.
The charity was operated as a blind trust. This whole fictitious "corrupt Clinton Foundation" among other fake nonsense regarding Clinton, is why we have the monstrous Trump leaving a wake of conflict wherever he goes right now.