Discussion: NYT: WH Will Stand With Crown Prince Despite Khashoggi Killing

Well, now, Putin first.

5 Likes

Funny, you can provide all the logic and excuse you want, but the president is still standing with a murderer.

3 Likes

Later, after a private buffet lunch of KFC and McDonalds in the White House executive dining room, Toadglans turned to Mr. Bone Saw with a dollop of Big Mac sauce on his chin, a lone sesame seed on his lip, whispers, “I wish I could quit you.”

And so ends another macabre episode of As The Moral Compass Spins.

5 Likes

Everybody can see how weak Trump is with the Saudi’s. Incredibly weak. They can do anything, and he does nothing. And he’s making the big mistake of thinking that this Princeling is the same as the entire nation of Saudi Arabia. Get rid of the Princeling, and let’s deal with someone else.

2 Likes

True enough, but who will tell the Turks and Saudis that the consulate in Istanbul was part of the American Empire?

1 Like

“Mar-a-Lago delenda est”.

1 Like

I hope you’re not waiting for Trump to rescue the reputation of the United States!

As long as the the US sells arms to Saudi Arabia, we are also responsible for her death and millions more soon to follow.

3 Likes

The US gov’t has a writ to protect US persons irrespective of boundaries.

1 Like

I’m on this thread to see how everyone is handling their shock.

2 Likes

Welcome to Sharia Law, Republicans. You’ll love it.

The Crown Prince insists.

1 Like

My country, right or wrong…especially when big dollars are flowing…lmfao…

1 Like

You misspelled horror. Shock implies surprise and no one here was surprised to discover that Trumo was confirming our view of his character and strategic disability.

1 Like

Sanctioning murder always makes people fidgety.

2 Likes

A “writ to protect”? How does it work?

How should the US government have protected Khashoggi in Istanbul?

What was missing was the snark indicator.

No emoji seems to fit.

With you on the horror factor.

1 Like

The deterrent effect comes from punishing Saudi Arabia after the event. Heretofore the USA was more respected and recognized as apt to react to human rights abuses. Under Trump and the GOP congress not so much.

The assertion I asked about referred to “a writ to protect US persons irrespective of boundaries.”

That’s different from punishment and deterrence.

Is there a legal right accorded world wide to nations to expect non-citizens they have extended certain statuses to such as permanent residency to be treated with respect abroad? Not that I am aware of. Has the United States had such a de facto writ in the past? Yes – based on deterrence and avoiding the types of retaliation the US could use if they so desired. Now? Not so much: Trump is both uninterested and too weak to enforce any such demand.

I do wonder how long any sort of respect for United States citizens abroad will last.