if it doesn't fit their agenda they just won't cover it.Will be interesting to see how Fox reconciles a Republican Senate vote to cease support of the Yemen war vs shilling for the Trump stance.
That's my instinct. It's fairly significant news and interesting in terms of defining Fox. I assume they plan to be around beyond 2020.if it doesn't fit their agenda they just won't cover it.
clearly, their audience will believe whatever they are toldThat's my instinct. It's fairly significant news and interesting in terms of defining Fox. I assume they plan to be around beyond 2020.
say what now?As an extremely immoral person and one who places the interests of the US above the life of an individual, this whole thing is growing tiresome and is akin to the whole conservative debate and apoplexy surrounding abortion.
This is why Time was right with the cover. Anyone who can bring Congress together on an important issue is the person of the year.
I’d encourage everyone to speak highly of the Senate for doing this, since the public reaction will be used as part of the calculations on whether it’s worth it to turn on Trump.I may be alone on this but I’m not very impressed with the supposed Senate rebuke of Trump. Without the House acting as well, (and Ryan managed to avoid that) it’s meaningless. We will continue to support the war in Yemen. We will continue to support Saudi Arabia and its crown prince. The senators who voted for this knew it and this gave them a chance to supposedly “stand up for justice” without really doing anything.
Shall we give them a participation trophy? It makes 1st graders happy.I’d encourage everyone to speak highly of the Senate for doing this, since the public reaction will be used as part of the calculations on whether it’s worth it to turn on Trump.
I always forget you were a Republican.Shall we give them a participation trophy? It makes 1st graders happy.
I consider it a compliment that you forget. I’d like to forget it myself.I always forget you were a Republican.
If having a trophy shop make 100 participation trophies and shipping them to the Senate would let them feel like they can, without committing political suicide, impeach the President, I'll pay for them myself.I consider it a compliment that you forget. I’d like to forget it myself.
They’re never going to vote to remove Trump. My advice is to forget it.If having a trophy shop make 100 participation trophies and shipping them to the Senate would let them feel like they can, without committing political suicide, impeach the President, I'll pay for them myself.
Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind.They’re never going to vote to remove Trump. My advice is to forget it.
Deadline for the White House to respond is tomorrow.Meanwhile ...
That's some major league weaseling. The guy who abhors political correctness describing torture, murder and dismemberment described as a "bad original concept."
Also Congress already told him what to do. It's called the "Global Magnitsky Act." It authorizes the president to sanction foreign officials who commit human rights violations. Then some Senators wrote a letter triggering an executive branch response to this particular human rights violation. Time for the President to actually do his job for once instead of passing the buck.
A bipartisan group of senators is renewing a push to punish Saudi officials for the death of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi, reintroducing Thursday a bill that would require sanctions on those responsible for the killing.
In addition to responding to the Khashoggi killing, the bill also seeks to address support for the Yemen civil war by prohibiting some weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and U.S. military refueling of Saudi coalition planes.
“Seeing as the Trump administration has no intention of insisting on full accountability for Mr. Khashoggi’s murderers, it is time for Congress to step in and impose real consequences to fundamentally reexamine our relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and with the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen,” Senate Foreign Relations committee ranking member Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said in a statement Thursday.
Here's the most important part of the story you linked:Senate Votes to Block Trump’s Arms Sales to Gulf Nations in Bipartisan Rebuke
Congrats to the republican senators for doing their job. Still, just another horrifying project of Trump's though.
It's pretty clearly a republican strategy to look bipartisan on some topics without really being bipartisan in a meaningful way. Basically, "let's find enough people to vote the other direction so we don't appear to be shills (or to protect some up for re-election in 2020), but not enough to overcome veto." I want to say the same exact thing happened with relieving sanctions on the Russian Oligarch, where there was a landslide bipartisan vote in the house, only to fall 3 short in the Senate. Still, the story gets portrayed as 'these principled Republicans standing up as protest to Trump'... again, in an utterly meaningless way, symbolizing nothing but an ability to do constitutional math and CYA.While the Democrat-controlled House is also expected to block the sales, Mr. Trump has pledged to veto the legislation, and it is unlikely that either chamber could muster enough support to override the president’s veto. Seven Republicans — not nearly enough to override a veto — broke from their party to disapprove of the sales to Saudi Arabia: Senator Susan Collins of Maine, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Senator Mike Lee of Utah, Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Senator Todd Young of Indiana.
Missed that. FFS :(Here's the most important part of the story you linked:
It's pretty clearly a republican strategy to look bipartisan on some topics without really being bipartisan in a meaningful way. Basically, "let's find enough people to vote the other direction so we don't appear to be shills (or to protect some up for re-election in 2020), but not enough to overcome veto." I want to say the same exact thing happened with relieving sanctions on the Russian Oligarch, where there was a landslide bipartisan vote in the house, only to fall 3 short in the Senate. Still, the story gets portrayed as 'these principled Republicans standing up as protest to Trump'... again, in an utterly meaningless way, symbolizing nothing but an ability to do constitutional math and CYA.
Yeah, and on the Russian oligarch topic, not a question in my mind it went landslide in the house only because they were given info that it could not win in Senate. Otherwise, there is no logical explanation for how something can be a 362-53 house topic which is not also an overwhelming Senate republican supported. It's all math and narratives.Sheriff Bart said:Missed that. FFS :(
No surprises...Missed that. FFS :(
We were never not going to sell weapons to the Saudis.
You are not.We were never not going to sell weapons to the Saudis.
The cynical part of my brain is telling me that Obama wouldn’t have been nearly as crude as Trump; he would have condemned Saudi Arabia, spoken harshly about this...and still found a way in the end for the sale to go through. Am I wrong?
Not sure. Was he bought and paid for also? I don't really understand the point in asking the question to be honest, other than going out of one's way to feign lack of bias. Trump's rationale pertains to Iran as a threat. The Obama administration (and the EU) chose to leverage the UN Alliance and a nuclear deal to keep Iran in check. Trump tore up that agreement, has made every effort to undermine our EU alliances in a way that has isolated the US, and instead hitched our outcomes in the middle east to a dubious relationships with MBS and Turkey. Basically, your question is "If everything was different, wouldn't it be the same?"We were never not going to sell weapons to the Saudis.
The cynical part of my brain is telling me that Obama wouldn’t have been nearly as crude as Trump; he would have condemned Saudi Arabia, spoken harshly about this...and still found a way in the end for the sale to go through. Am I wrong?
No. Obama was not bought and paid for. He was not corrupt so far as I know.Not sure. Was he bought and paid for also? I don't really understand the point in asking the question to be honest, other than going out of one's way to feign lack of bias. Trump's rationale pertains to Iran as a threat. The Obama administration (and the EU) chose to leverage the UN Alliance and a nuclear deal to keep Iran in check. Trump tore up that agreement, has made every effort to undermine our EU alliances in a way that has isolated the US, and instead hitched our outcomes in the middle east to a dubious relationships with MBS and Turkey. Basically, your question is "If everything was different, wouldn't it be the same?"
I get that, and agree. I completely understand that SA will always be a key ally in the ME, I do believe this turns out different with nearly any prior US president on either side of the aisle after a US resident and member of the press was murdered at the hands of this regime. Other EU countries have I believe at least suspended sales (including Germany, if I recall right).No. Obama was not bought and paid for. He was not corrupt so far as I know.
But ever since the 1930s, our overall relationship with Saudi Arabia has been corrupt. We’ve supported one dictator after another and been Buddy Buddy with all of them. There hasn’t been a single President, no matter how idealistic, who has strayed from this pattern.
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — In his final words, slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi urged his killers not to cover his mouth because he suffered from asthma and could suffocate, according to Turkey’s Sabah newspaper.
Sabah newspaper, which is close to Turkey’s government, published new details of a recording of Khashoggi’s conversation with members of a Saudi hit squad sent to kill him. The paper says the recording of Khashoggi’s grisly Oct. 2, 2018 killing and reported dismemberment at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul was obtained by Turkey’s intelligence agency.
According to the transcript, Maher Mutreb, a member of the Saudi hit squad, tells Khashoggi that he has to be taken back to Riyadh because of an Interpol order against him. The journalist objects, saying there is no legal case against him and that his fiancee is waiting for him outside.
Mutreb and another man are also heard trying to force Khashoggi to send his son a message telling him not to worry if he doesn’t hear from him, according to the paper. Khashoggi resists saying: “I will write nothing.”
Mutreb is later heard saying: “Help us, so that we can help you. Because in the end, we will take you to Saudi Arabia. And if you don’t help us, you know what will happen in the end.”
Sabah also published Khashoggi’s last words before he was apparently drugged and lost consciousness.
“Don’t cover my mouth,” he told his killers, according to Sabah. “I have asthma, don’t do it. You’ll suffocate me.”
Some of the details of the transcript published by Sabah were already in a searing United Nations report over Khashoggi’s killing that had been released in June. The U.N. report alleged that Saudi Arabia bears responsibility for the killing and said Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s possible role in the killing should be examined.
Saudi Arabia initially offered multiple, shifting accounts about Khashoggi’s disappearance. As international pressure mounted, the kingdom eventually settled on the explanation that he was killed by rogue officials in a brawl inside their consulate.
The kingdom has put 11 people on trial in non-public proceedings. The 33-year-old prince, who continues to have the support of his father, King Salman, denies any involvement in the slaying.
Khashoggi’s remains have never been found.
Copyright © 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.