Rep. Tulsi Gabbard eviscerates Trump as 'Saudi Arabia's bitch'

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not at all. The point that we knew that KSA would begin looking into nuclear research (that they told us they would do this) if we gave the ok to Iran's nuclear program are fairly salient to complaints about it. We knew the Saudis would begin looking into their own program if we signed that mis-guided deal with the Iranians, and so yes, it’s very possible that is precisely what they are doing.

"Looking into nuclear research" is not the same thing as "looking into building nuclear weapons".

What you appear to be saying is that the US government knew that the Sauds would start working on nuclear weapons if the Iranians only built nuclear power plants. In short, what you appear to be saying is that the US government knew that the Sauds would start working on nuclear weapons REGARDLESS of whether or not Iran was doing so.

Is that what you are saying?

Fascinating. So it is both advancing in accordance with the restrictions Iran supposedly accepted and it is non-existent. It both Is and Is Not.

Obviously you don't quite understand that there is more than one meaning for the term "apace" and that one of them stick close to the root "at a pace" meaning, "at the expected rate". Since the restrictions prevented any nuclear weapons development work, the "pace" for that work, therefore, is "stopped" and as long as it is "stopped" then it is "proceeding apace".

I would say that Iran is most likely advancing just barely ahead of that which they agreed to - enough to maintain an edge, and also enough to maintain a modicum of plausible deniability.... which is probably what they will use those sites we agreed not to inspect for.

Thank you for your opinion.

Given that the Saudi's told us they were going to if we let Iran have/keep their nuclear program, it wouldn't astonish me, however, there's always been the assessment out there that the Saudis dind't need to do much, as they effectively had access to Pakistan's program (Pakistan depends on KSA economically, and the trade is that they offer back certain security options).

In short, the Sauds were going to acquire nuclear weapons either through purchase or internal development REGARDLESS of what happened with Iran (but being able to blame Iran [without any evidence to support the accusations] does make it a lot easier).

Or Canada, apparently, if you are indeed upset about KSA pursuing nuclear research.

Actually I think that any rational government would be "concerned" about the introduction of nuclear weapons into the Middle East - especially if those nuclear weapons are going to be in the hands of a government that has a lengthy history of promoting extremist teachings as well as funding terrorist activities. The Sauds are one such government.

More like: like all nations, the US does not like it when other nations' pursuit of their own interests clashes with our own... just like every other nation. One salient point might be that one of the United States' interests include a more Liberal world order, as opposed to simply immediate power posturing, but our illiberal neighbors likely don't see too much of a difference.

Strangely enough some of your liberal neighbours don't agree with Mr. Trump's "Either you do it exactly the way I say to do it, or I will crush you." style of "negotiations".

Nah. If there is one thing the Saudi's don't want (especially at current), it's increased regional instability. They're willing to back partners to limit Iran, but that is intended to attempt to reach parity.

Indeed the Sauds don't want "regional instability". What the Sauds want is to be able to rule the Middle East (potentially including that area currently occupied by the state of Israel).

Palestine held elections. They chose Hamas. So, yes, like you, I find it unlikely Israel is willing to repeat that error on a grander scale, especially when Hezbollah is so unlikely to fully stand down.

Israel would "refuse to stand down" REGARDLESS of who was governing Palestine. The entire ethos of Israel is too tightly interwoven with being "under siege" to allow any other course of action.

Iran has spent generations teaching that the entire Jewish people need to be eradicated.

Now there you are confusing "eradicating the (political and territorial) 'State of Israel'" with "killing all the Jews". Thank you for buying into the "Israeli Propaganda Line".

You can't turn off that kind of mass cultural assumption on a dime.

You can if it doesn't exist.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We are talking about the criminal of all criminals when it comes to businesses. What a bunch of gibberish, The purpose , the man, the mean, the from , the who in the hell cares what your nonsense is, nonsense is nonsense.No more bozo talk, fact "NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Halliburton Co. and its one-time KBR unit have agreed to pay a combined $579 million to settle bribery charges in connection with their dealings with Nigerian officials, the largest fine paid under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act." https://www.marketwatch.com/story/kbr-halliburton-pay-record-fine-nigeria "Halliburton pays $1.1bn to settle Gulf of Mexico oil spill lawsuits" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance...settle-Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-lawsuits.html "Halliburton fined $1.8 million over disposal | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette" "Halliburton pays $29.2m to settle SEC claims over Angola payments" https://www.ft.com/content/79f16637-e8c8-3e1c-bb26-457566e92f43 "Anthony Badalamenti, 62, faces a maximum sentence of 1 year in prison and a $100,000 fine after his guilty plea in U.S. District Court to one misdemeanor count of destruction of evidence. His sentencing by U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey is set for Jan. 21. "On February 25, 2016, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) announced that it concluded an enforcement action against Halliburton Atlantic Limited (“HAL”) and its affiliate Halliburton Overseas Limited (“HOL”) for alleged violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (“CACR”)." Fine $304,706 https://www.steptoeinternationalcom...ities-partially-owned-by-sanctioned-entities/ THIS IS WHAT A CRIMINAL COMPANY LOOKS LIKE IN THIS COUNTRY. In these types of businesses even when the business does a criminal act , they get fined , these pigs should be in jail.

Now that's interesting. Did you know that

• Halliburton Co. and its one-time KBR unit have agreed to pay a combined $579 million to settle bribery charges in connection with their dealings with Nigerian officials, the largest fine paid under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act." involved Halliburton PAYING bribes and not receiving them (and didn't have anything to do with the US taxpayer at all);
• Halliburton pays $1.1bn to settle Gulf of Mexico oil spill lawsuits doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with bribery;
• Halliburton fined $1.8 million over disposal doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with bribery;
• ... alleged violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations ... doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with bribery;
• in not one of your examples was Halliburton tried and found guilty of the allegations (a company may have many reasons to enter into a "plea bargain" - not the least of which is that the "plea bargain" actually ends up less than the company would have to pay in legal fees EVEN IF they were to be found "Not Guilty".

There is absolutely no dispute over whether or not Halliburton is an "ethical company" but your allegation that "Halliburton" (as "Halliburton") was actually involved in the illegal activities of its former employees and that those former employees were acting under the direction and orders of the management of Halliburton (as a company) simply don't wash - because there isn't a single shred of evidence to support it.

Was Halliburton more than willing to accept the benefits which accrued to it due to the illegal activities of former employees (who were acting solely for their own financial benefit)? Of course it was.

Did Halliburton (as a company) TELL its former employees to go out and solicit bribes in order to inflate the costs of the sub-contracts it was going to be awarding? Of course it didn't.

If Halliburton were a male human being would I allow him to be alone with my daughter? Only if he were bound, gagged, chained to the wall, and knocked unconscious while my daughter held a loaded shotgun (with hair triggers) that was pointed about four inches below the line connecting the points of his pelvis.

Do I defend Halliburton? Only against charges which are not warranted. The "inflation" of the costs of the contracts in Iraq was all completely legal as far as Halliburton AS A COMPANY was concerned.

Possibly you should remember that constantly spinning bogus accusations greatly diminishes the effect of the real ones.

 

[jbander]

Now that's interesting. Did you know that

• Halliburton Co. and its one-time KBR unit have agreed to pay a combined $579 million to settle bribery charges in connection with their dealings with Nigerian officials, the largest fine paid under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act." involved Halliburton PAYING bribes and not receiving them (and didn't have anything to do with the US taxpayer at all);
• Halliburton pays $1.1bn to settle Gulf of Mexico oil spill lawsuits doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with bribery;
• Halliburton fined $1.8 million over disposal doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with bribery;
• ... alleged violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations ... doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with bribery;
• in not one of your examples was Halliburton tried and found guilty of the allegations (a company may have many reasons to enter into a "plea bargain" - not the least of which is that the "plea bargain" actually ends up less than the company would have to pay in legal fees EVEN IF they were to be found "Not Guilty".

There is absolutely no dispute over whether or not Halliburton is an "ethical company" but your allegation that "Halliburton" (as "Halliburton") was actually involved in the illegal activities of its former employees and that those former employees were acting under the direction and orders of the management of Halliburton (as a company) simply don't wash - because there isn't a single shred of evidence to support it.

Was Halliburton more than willing to accept the benefits which accrued to it due to the illegal activities of former employees (who were acting solely for their own financial benefit)? Of course it was.

Did Halliburton (as a company) TELL its former employees to go out and solicit bribes in order to inflate the costs of the sub-contracts it was going to be awarding? Of course it didn't.

If Halliburton were a male human being would I allow him to be alone with my daughter? Only if he were bound, gagged, chained to the wall, and knocked unconscious while my daughter held a loaded shotgun (with hair triggers) that was pointed about four inches below the line connecting the points of his pelvis.

Do I defend Halliburton? Only against charges which are not warranted. The "inflation" of the costs of the contracts in Iraq was all completely legal as far as Halliburton AS A COMPANY was concerned.

Possibly you should remember that constantly spinning bogus accusations greatly diminishes the effect of the real ones.

Bull****, they were criminal enough to be fined the largest penalty in history and everything they get involved with they steal from the government or this country or their actions are criminal enough to get fined every project they get involved with, You supporting this nonsense is just a zombie thinking how they are told to think. The fines and level of criminality should have put the CEO and board in jail.

 

[jbander]

There is always lap dogs out there that do what they are told and think the way they are told to think. It is totally obvious to everyone on the out side but they still think they can make excuses for absolutely anything their hero's do or any political motivate stinking thinking. Ultimately you have to just blow these blind people off and ignore them. They can't find reason and only believe the way they are told to believe.

 

[Joecool44]

Look up Gabbard's congressional record and you'll note a lack of accomplishments.

 

[Oborosen]

The only one living in la la land is you, there is no good American that supports your God and Hero president Scum bag. There is no patriot that supports that pig and if you do you sold out the constitution and my country. He is this countries biggest threat and enemy, there isn't even a close second.

Citations please, because your speech is more than enough to display that you can't really back any of that up.

 

[jbander]

Citations please, because your speech is more than enough to display that you can't really back any of that up.

Citation please , Polly wants a cracker!

 

[Ikari]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...viscerates-trump-saudi-arabia-s-bitch-n939011

"Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not 'America First,'" the Hawaii Democrat tweeted.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesday slammed President Donald Trump as "Saudi Arabia's bitch" in the latest scathing criticism of the commander-in-chief's extraordinary statement this week to stand by the country's rulers despite the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The Hawaii Democratic congresswoman made the remarks in a brief and blistering tweet Wednesday afternoon.
===============================================
I think she just made Trump's enemy list. He does not react well to criticism.

I thought we've been Saudi Arabia's bitch for some time. Hell most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and we attacked Iraq instead.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I thought we've been Saudi Arabia's bitch for some time. Hell most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and we attacked Iraq instead.

What you have to realize is that it was ONLY the US intelligence agencies who claimed that the murderers were from Saudi Arabia. Mr. Bush had a gut feeling that they were from Iraq and he "went with his gut" rather than believing any of those do-called "findings" based on any of the so-called "evidence" that was produced by those so-called "experts".

Mr. Trump is merely following in the footsteps of earlier Presidents when he "goes with his gut" rather than believing any of those do-called "findings" based on any of the so-called "evidence" that was produced by those so-called "experts".

I mean, wasn't Mr. Bush proven to be correct when those nuclear bombs all neatly wrapped and waiting for loading on Iraq's huge stock of ICBMs (all of which were aimed at the United States of America) were discovered exactly where the US government had said that it knew where they were hidden?

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...viscerates-trump-saudi-arabia-s-bitch-n939011

"Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not 'America First,'" the Hawaii Democrat tweeted.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesday slammed President Donald Trump as "Saudi Arabia's bitch" in the latest scathing criticism of the commander-in-chief's extraordinary statement this week to stand by the country's rulers despite the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The Hawaii Democratic congresswoman made the remarks in a brief and blistering tweet Wednesday afternoon.
===============================================
I think she just made Trump's enemy list. He does not react well to criticism.

I'm pretty sure she doesn't care. Even by the safe standards (for a Democrat) of Hawai'i, though, I'm surprised she went so hard.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

It’s kind of funny because only a few months ago she was on Joe Rogan agreeing we don’t need to force other countries to live by our standards

Is she trying to force our standards on Saudi Arabia, which would be a futile exercise, or is she trying to enforce American standards in the US?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Is she trying to force our standards on Saudi Arabia, which would be a futile exercise, or is she trying to enforce American standards in the US?

Would attempting to get "America" to abide by the standards set in "The American Ideal" or "The American Dream" be such a bad thing if you don't see "America" doing that?

Is "Leadership by example" NOT a "Good Thing"?

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Would attempting to get "America" to abide by the standards set in "The American Ideal" or "The American Dream" be such a bad thing if you don't see "America" doing that?

Is "Leadership by example" NOT a "Good Thing"?

I don't understand your post. Why is "America" in quotation marks? I support Gabbard's tweet and encourage more people to call 45 the bitch he is.

 

[Oborosen]

Citation please , Polly wants a cracker!

Thank you for proving me correct.

I'm done with you now, so you're free to go.

 

[cpwill]

"Looking into nuclear research" is not the same thing as "looking into building nuclear weapons".

Sure. I would be fairly suspicious of the claim that Saudi Arabia was prepping to build nuclear weapons, and not at all suspicious of the claim that they were prepping to start a nuclear research program, with the intent of eventually producing nuclear weapons, in order to re-reach parity with Iran.

What you appear to be saying is that the US government knew that the Sauds would start working on nuclear weapons if the Iranians only built nuclear power plants. In short, what you appear to be saying is that the US government knew that the Sauds would start working on nuclear weapons REGARDLESS of whether or not Iran was doing so.

No. I am saying that Iran being allowed to continue their nuclear program means the Saudi's are going to pursue one - that they told us this (and they told us this in public, so no, this isn't close-hold USG information) ahead of time, and so we shouldn't be surprised if it's happening now.

Obviously you don't quite understand that there is more than one meaning for the term "apace" and that one of them stick close to the root "at a pace" meaning, "at the expected rate". Since the restrictions prevented any nuclear weapons development work, the "pace" for that work, therefore, is "stopped" and as long as it is "stopped" then it is "proceeding apace".

Except that it is not "stopped". It was allowed to continue, and is proceeding apace.

Thank you for your opinion.

Well, you keep asking for it, so it seemed easy enough to give

In short, the Sauds were going to acquire nuclear weapons either through purchase or internal development REGARDLESS of what happened with Iran

No. Iran being allowed to keep and grow their nuclear program means that KSA now has a strategic imperative to match them. By allowing Iran to maintain their nuclear program (which, yes, is almost certain to be weaponized, if not immediately), we knowingly kicked off a nuclear arms race in the middle east.

Actually I think that any rational government would be "concerned" about the introduction of nuclear weapons into the Middle East

You would think so, but the previous U.S. administration was more concerned with getting it's name on a HISTORIC DEAL WITH IRAN, to the point where the contents, really, almost didn't matter.

especially if those nuclear weapons are going to be in the hands of a government that has a lengthy history of promoting extremist teachings as well as funding terrorist activities. The Sauds are one such government.

Sure. So is Iran.

Strangely enough some of your liberal neighbours don't agree with Mr. Trump's "Either you do it exactly the way I say to do it, or I will crush you." style of "negotiations".

American dedication to the expansion of Liberal ideals as a national interest goes back oh, a good bit further than Trump.

Indeed the Sauds don't want "regional instability". What the Sauds want is to be able to rule the Middle East (potentially including that area currently occupied by the state of Israel).

Sorta. The Saudis want to be the regional hegemon, just as Iran does. They don't want to expand rule into other nations such much as just put them into a client status.

Iran, however, is currently being quite a bit more aggressive in pursuing this goal.

Israel would "refuse to stand down" REGARDLESS of who was governing Palestine

If by that you mean "refuse to cease existing", certainly. That being said, the last time the Palestinians had elections, they elected a terrorist organization who swears to wipe Israel from the face of the planet, so.... Yeah. That's a fairly salient point when discussing whether or not Israel is going to do something as strategically suicidal.

Now there you are confusing "eradicating the (political and territorial) 'State of Israel'" with "killing all the Jews". Thank you for buying into the "Israeli Propaganda Line".

Nope. That actually comes from a (admittedly not terribly deep) familiarity with Arab propaganda.

You can if it doesn't exist.

Sure. Unfortunately, it does.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don't understand your post. Why is "America" in quotation marks? I support Gabbard's tweet and encourage more people to call 45 the bitch he is.

Putting words in quotation marks is the accepted manner of indicating that you are using the word in a specific context.

In this context I used the word "America" to indicate that I meant ONLY the government of the United States of America and not the entirety of the nation.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Putting words in quotation marks is the accepted manner of indicating that you are using the word in a specific context.

In this context I used the word "America" to indicate that I meant ONLY the government of the United States of America and not the entirety of the nation.

If you say so. That context was absent from your post.