6 ms·

I wonder what evidence, if any, will arise about more contemporary presidents-elect making deals with heads of state with interests opposed to the American peop

by spodek 10y ago

I wonder what evidence, if any, will arise about more contemporary presidents-elect making deals with heads of state with interests opposed to the American people's. Would it surprise anyone to find direct communication and collusion?

Karunamon 10y ago
Nothing would surprise me anymore. And I quite literally mean nothing. The utter disdain shown for rule of law, principles, heck, basic human decency in the last few months has me fantasizing about DC floating off into the ocean and sinking.
- bhaumik 10y ago
  A friend suggested something similar about Trump & his relationship with Russia. Whatever happens there, he's positioning himself as the strongest candidate in 2020 to deal with the aftermath.
  - artursapek 10y ago
    I keep seeing people speculating about Trump and his supposed relationship with Russia, and yet Hillary's proven relationship with Saudi Arabia was barely discussed during the election.
    - ithinkinstereo 10y ago
      15 of the 19 attackers on 9/11 were Saudi. The rest were from UAE (2), Egypt, and Lebanon. The Saudis are largely responsible for the spread of Wahhabism, which in turn has fueled extremist islamic ideology. Both the left and the right have ties to KSA. And they've been major donors to both parties, but especially the democrats. Sad that the MSM willfully ignores this topic.
      - hyggyhhfdd 10y ago
        And the usa buys oil from them and yet they have a cuban embargo. It's a conspiracy I tell you. I think things are a bit more complicated then your smear campaign. Go and join your brothers at breitbart.
      - philwelch 10y ago
        Bin Laden and his crew were Saudi dissidents who were trying to overthrow the Saudi government. Their grievance with us was that we are allied to/stationed troops within/prop up the kingdom they were trying to overthrow. Blaming "the Saudis" for 9/11 is like blaming the Queen for IRA bombings.
      - sangnoir 10y ago
        I think geopolitics gets in the way: Saudi Arabia is an ally to the United States- not the GOP or the Democrats. This arrangement is probably seen as best for American Interests, at least by several administrations regardless of party - I have read theories about the petro-dollar but I'm not familiar enough with Economics to weigh in. Not too long ago, the Republicans pushed a law allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue the KSA. Obama vetoed the bill and the GOP overrode the veto. Not long afterwards, the GOP whip[1] was regretting the law and blaming Obama for not pushing back enough(!). Now, I don't think there's a conspiracy going on, it's just realpolitik/ nation-state equivalent of having a friend who is a dick but lets you play with his nice toys. 1. Might have been "senate majority leader" I'm on mobile and haven't looked it up the correct title. Edit: I am assuming that the Saudi government wasn't involved in 9/11 and that it was the actions of religious extremists. Publicly blaming the Saudi government might not be the most prudent thing to do, just as Uganda shouldn't blame the US government for the actions of American Christian evangelicals stoking homophobia in Uganda. I know it's comparing Apples to ghost pepper
        3131s 10y ago
        > I am assuming that the Saudi government wasn't involved in 9/11 and that it was the actions of religious extremists. You should read about Bandar bin Sultan, AKA "Bandar Bush", Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States for 20+ years [1]. Zacarias Moussaoui stated under oath that Bandar bin Sultan and the Saudi government financed 9/11, and the redacted 28 pages of the 9/11 Comission Report detail how two of the 9/11 hijackers received $130,000 in payment from Bandar's checking account. His nickname comes from his close affiliation with the Bush family. Bob Woodward claims that W. Bush told Bandar about the invasion of Iraq before Colin Powell. It is very likely that the Saudi government was involved in 9/11, and it is worth investigating whether Bush and / or Cheney had foreknowledge of the attacks [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger
    - woofyman 10y ago
      Are you referring to their donation to the Clinton Foundation? That wasn't proven, it was revealed by the Foundation. All donations have been made public. If Trump wants to end speculation, just release his tax returns.
      - ithinkinstereo 10y ago
        > Are you referring to their donation to the Clinton Foundation? That wasn't proven, it was revealed by the Foundation. All donations have been made public. Huh? It's been widely reported that the Saudi government has made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. See: [1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/26/american-crossroads/conservative-group-claims-hillary-clintons-foundat/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
        woofyman 10y ago
        And your point is? We know about those donations because the foundation disclosed those donations as described by your first link. So I stand by my statement that it wasn't "proven". That implies that it took an investigation to reveal.
        cmurf 10y ago
        Large donations, whether for a charity or otherwise, are far less of a problem of influence than on-going unknown liabilities and assets ultimately controlled by foreign governments. If you want to directly give any amount of money directly to Trump not subject to any kind of campaign donation limitations, just buy a hotel room for some duration. If you want someone in U.S. custody released, take the principle operating officers of the president's hotels into custody without trial. And I also wonder whether Trump owned/named buildings are possible targets in the same way American embassies can be targets; and then who pays for the ensuing security evaluations, monitoring, and reinforcement of all of those buildings. Is an attack on any of those buildings an attack on merely the Trump organization, or is it an attack on the president, and indirectly on the U.S.? The differences in liability and unknowns between the incoming president and all previous presidents is qualitatively extremely different, and likely in unpredictable ways.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      The Saudi Arabian government is one of the closest allies of the United States, and has been for nearly 50 years. A US presidential candidate who was the wife of a former President, an influential Senator and Secretary of State would be expected to have a significant relationship with the Saudis. That's not to say that HRC didn't ride or cross the ethical line. But that is much different than what Trump is implied to be doing.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - philwelch 10y ago
      That's because Saudi Arabia isn't an adversary of the United States that seeks to undermine our democracy. It's not an issue to people who grasp the fact that not all Arabs and Muslims are our enemies.
- pasbesoin 10y ago
  A counter-point or counter-perspective, would be the ongoing disabuse of those of us who were raised and... well, "indoctrinated", to believe in the paramountcy of e.g. "the rule of law". During the course of my adult life, I've tried to hold true to that and other principles, only to have life show me with increasing discomfort and personal loss that, no, really, that's not the way the world works. It has not worked that way and it does not today work that way. Nor does it even appear to be a realistic ideal towards which the world is striving. Much of moral sentiment (as opposed to actual, demonstrated moral behavior) appears -- increasingly apparently, to me -- to be used to dupe the willing into sacrificing their own best interests. Sad story is, perhaps, that in the long run this may also create or at least exacerbate larger conflagrations. Because people have not been taking care of their own affairs and their own neighborhoods. At least, that's the approach I now, belatedly, consider. Nothing else is going to work for me, if my own life is not in some sort of reasonable state. Regardless of what some law, educator, or religious authority has to say.
  - chrisbennet 10y ago
    Stop that. You'll frighten the children! I agree that the world unfortunately does work that way. On the other hand, I do believe in the basic goodness of people. [For every bad cop there are probably a 1000 really good ones.] The "trick" to happiness is to surround yourself with nice people and maintain a "good world" bubble around yourself.
    - sitkack 10y ago
      It has been said elsewhere more persuasively, but there are good police departments and bad police departments. One can't be a good cop and let bad cops get away with what they do. If one stands by, they are then a bad cop. Active of passive, one is still a bad cop.
      - chrisbennet 10y ago
        I agree.
- awinder 10y ago
  Some of us just live here. ;-)
thesmallestcat 10y ago
If you read the article, there was no deal-making. But I agree, totally on topic, Trump baddy bad!
- ktRolster 10y ago
  Here is some background on the thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chennault#Paris_Peace_Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chennault#Paris_Peace_Acc... The implicit deal was that South Vietnam would leave the peace talks, and then Nixon would give them a better deal. I'll bet they regretted that decision later.
nostromo 10y ago
I'm curious why you phrased your comment so dissimulatively when everyone knows exactly what you're suggesting.
- spodek 10y ago
  I had to look up "dissimulatively" and found "To conceal one's true feelings or intentions." If that's what you meant, I didn't conceal anything. I have no special evidence so couldn't present anything that most readers don't already know.
  - thesmallestcat 10y ago
    What do most readers already know?
  - RodericDay 10y ago
    "more contemporary presidents-elect"?
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Vagueness makes it easier to discuss things in terms of abstract principles, whereas direct accusations establish an adversarial frame that often results in conflict. If one hopes to prevail through reason rather than force it behooves one to focus on principles rather than personalities.
temp 10y ago
>with heads of state with interests opposed to the American people's Do you consider the interests of the Saudi heads of state to be in line with the American people's interests? Or is what you were trying to say American geostrategic interests?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
smileysteve 10y ago
You do know that we know Reagan held off the hostage release, right? Other than that, it seems contextually unlikely that Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Obama have been up to much. The USS cole is a small possibility; but Bush ran on a policy on a policy of less war / entangling alliances.
- CalChris 10y ago
  Reagan was a shit but not at the Nixon level. I've never heard of any hard proof of the October Surprise theory and I'd be all over it if it were there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th... The Casolaro death does look suspicious though.
noobermin 10y ago
Since you say "interests opposed to American people's" the evidence now is lacking although there is suspicion. Regarding Trump's own self-interest, well that is out in the open.

by spodek 10y ago

Karunamon 10y ago

Nothing would surprise me anymore. And I quite literally mean nothing. The utter disdain shown for rule of law, principles, heck, basic human decency in the last few months has me fantasizing about DC floating off into the ocean and sinking.

bhaumik 10y ago
A friend suggested something similar about Trump & his relationship with Russia. Whatever happens there, he's positioning himself as the strongest candidate in 2020 to deal with the aftermath.
- artursapek 10y ago
  I keep seeing people speculating about Trump and his supposed relationship with Russia, and yet Hillary's proven relationship with Saudi Arabia was barely discussed during the election.
  - ithinkinstereo 10y ago
    15 of the 19 attackers on 9/11 were Saudi. The rest were from UAE (2), Egypt, and Lebanon. The Saudis are largely responsible for the spread of Wahhabism, which in turn has fueled extremist islamic ideology. Both the left and the right have ties to KSA. And they've been major donors to both parties, but especially the democrats. Sad that the MSM willfully ignores this topic.
    - hyggyhhfdd 10y ago
      And the usa buys oil from them and yet they have a cuban embargo. It's a conspiracy I tell you. I think things are a bit more complicated then your smear campaign. Go and join your brothers at breitbart.
    - philwelch 10y ago
      Bin Laden and his crew were Saudi dissidents who were trying to overthrow the Saudi government. Their grievance with us was that we are allied to/stationed troops within/prop up the kingdom they were trying to overthrow. Blaming "the Saudis" for 9/11 is like blaming the Queen for IRA bombings.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      I think geopolitics gets in the way: Saudi Arabia is an ally to the United States- not the GOP or the Democrats. This arrangement is probably seen as best for American Interests, at least by several administrations regardless of party - I have read theories about the petro-dollar but I'm not familiar enough with Economics to weigh in. Not too long ago, the Republicans pushed a law allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue the KSA. Obama vetoed the bill and the GOP overrode the veto. Not long afterwards, the GOP whip[1] was regretting the law and blaming Obama for not pushing back enough(!). Now, I don't think there's a conspiracy going on, it's just realpolitik/ nation-state equivalent of having a friend who is a dick but lets you play with his nice toys. 1. Might have been "senate majority leader" I'm on mobile and haven't looked it up the correct title. Edit: I am assuming that the Saudi government wasn't involved in 9/11 and that it was the actions of religious extremists. Publicly blaming the Saudi government might not be the most prudent thing to do, just as Uganda shouldn't blame the US government for the actions of American Christian evangelicals stoking homophobia in Uganda. I know it's comparing Apples to ghost pepper
      - 3131s 10y ago
        > I am assuming that the Saudi government wasn't involved in 9/11 and that it was the actions of religious extremists. You should read about Bandar bin Sultan, AKA "Bandar Bush", Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States for 20+ years [1]. Zacarias Moussaoui stated under oath that Bandar bin Sultan and the Saudi government financed 9/11, and the redacted 28 pages of the 9/11 Comission Report detail how two of the 9/11 hijackers received $130,000 in payment from Bandar's checking account. His nickname comes from his close affiliation with the Bush family. Bob Woodward claims that W. Bush told Bandar about the invasion of Iraq before Colin Powell. It is very likely that the Saudi government was involved in 9/11, and it is worth investigating whether Bush and / or Cheney had foreknowledge of the attacks [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger
  - woofyman 10y ago
    Are you referring to their donation to the Clinton Foundation? That wasn't proven, it was revealed by the Foundation. All donations have been made public. If Trump wants to end speculation, just release his tax returns.
    - ithinkinstereo 10y ago
      > Are you referring to their donation to the Clinton Foundation? That wasn't proven, it was revealed by the Foundation. All donations have been made public. Huh? It's been widely reported that the Saudi government has made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. See: [1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/26/american-crossroads/conservative-group-claims-hillary-clintons-foundat/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
      - woofyman 10y ago
        And your point is? We know about those donations because the foundation disclosed those donations as described by your first link. So I stand by my statement that it wasn't "proven". That implies that it took an investigation to reveal.
      - cmurf 10y ago
        Large donations, whether for a charity or otherwise, are far less of a problem of influence than on-going unknown liabilities and assets ultimately controlled by foreign governments. If you want to directly give any amount of money directly to Trump not subject to any kind of campaign donation limitations, just buy a hotel room for some duration. If you want someone in U.S. custody released, take the principle operating officers of the president's hotels into custody without trial. And I also wonder whether Trump owned/named buildings are possible targets in the same way American embassies can be targets; and then who pays for the ensuing security evaluations, monitoring, and reinforcement of all of those buildings. Is an attack on any of those buildings an attack on merely the Trump organization, or is it an attack on the president, and indirectly on the U.S.? The differences in liability and unknowns between the incoming president and all previous presidents is qualitatively extremely different, and likely in unpredictable ways.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    The Saudi Arabian government is one of the closest allies of the United States, and has been for nearly 50 years. A US presidential candidate who was the wife of a former President, an influential Senator and Secretary of State would be expected to have a significant relationship with the Saudis. That's not to say that HRC didn't ride or cross the ethical line. But that is much different than what Trump is implied to be doing.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - philwelch 10y ago
    That's because Saudi Arabia isn't an adversary of the United States that seeks to undermine our democracy. It's not an issue to people who grasp the fact that not all Arabs and Muslims are our enemies.
pasbesoin 10y ago
A counter-point or counter-perspective, would be the ongoing disabuse of those of us who were raised and... well, "indoctrinated", to believe in the paramountcy of e.g. "the rule of law". During the course of my adult life, I've tried to hold true to that and other principles, only to have life show me with increasing discomfort and personal loss that, no, really, that's not the way the world works. It has not worked that way and it does not today work that way. Nor does it even appear to be a realistic ideal towards which the world is striving. Much of moral sentiment (as opposed to actual, demonstrated moral behavior) appears -- increasingly apparently, to me -- to be used to dupe the willing into sacrificing their own best interests. Sad story is, perhaps, that in the long run this may also create or at least exacerbate larger conflagrations. Because people have not been taking care of their own affairs and their own neighborhoods. At least, that's the approach I now, belatedly, consider. Nothing else is going to work for me, if my own life is not in some sort of reasonable state. Regardless of what some law, educator, or religious authority has to say.
- chrisbennet 10y ago
  Stop that. You'll frighten the children! I agree that the world unfortunately does work that way. On the other hand, I do believe in the basic goodness of people. [For every bad cop there are probably a 1000 really good ones.] The "trick" to happiness is to surround yourself with nice people and maintain a "good world" bubble around yourself.
  - sitkack 10y ago
    It has been said elsewhere more persuasively, but there are good police departments and bad police departments. One can't be a good cop and let bad cops get away with what they do. If one stands by, they are then a bad cop. Active of passive, one is still a bad cop.
    - chrisbennet 10y ago
      I agree.
awinder 10y ago
Some of us just live here. ;-)

thesmallestcat 10y ago

If you read the article, there was no deal-making. But I agree, totally on topic, Trump baddy bad!

ktRolster 10y ago
Here is some background on the thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chennault#Paris_Peace_Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chennault#Paris_Peace_Acc... The implicit deal was that South Vietnam would leave the peace talks, and then Nixon would give them a better deal. I'll bet they regretted that decision later.

nostromo 10y ago

I'm curious why you phrased your comment so dissimulatively when everyone knows exactly what you're suggesting.

spodek 10y ago
I had to look up "dissimulatively" and found "To conceal one's true feelings or intentions." If that's what you meant, I didn't conceal anything. I have no special evidence so couldn't present anything that most readers don't already know.
- thesmallestcat 10y ago
  What do most readers already know?
- RodericDay 10y ago
  "more contemporary presidents-elect"?
anigbrowl 10y ago
Vagueness makes it easier to discuss things in terms of abstract principles, whereas direct accusations establish an adversarial frame that often results in conflict. If one hopes to prevail through reason rather than force it behooves one to focus on principles rather than personalities.

temp 10y ago

>with heads of state with interests opposed to the American people's Do you consider the interests of the Saudi heads of state to be in line with the American people's interests? Or is what you were trying to say American geostrategic interests?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

smileysteve 10y ago

You do know that we know Reagan held off the hostage release, right? Other than that, it seems contextually unlikely that Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Obama have been up to much. The USS cole is a small possibility; but Bush ran on a policy on a policy of less war / entangling alliances.

CalChris 10y ago
Reagan was a shit but not at the Nixon level. I've never heard of any hard proof of the October Surprise theory and I'd be all over it if it were there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th... The Casolaro death does look suspicious though.

noobermin 10y ago

Since you say "interests opposed to American people's" the evidence now is lacking although there is suspicion. Regarding Trump's own self-interest, well that is out in the open.