Skip to main content

Sen. Rand Paul Charts Independent Course on Saudi Crisis


WASHINGTON, D.C. - What has all the appearances of a conspiracy by the Saudi government to murder a very high-profile Washington Post journalist in a Saudi embassy in Turkey, has become a tense international crisis involving key geopolitical powers – and vast sums of money.

The Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, a notable critic of the Saudi government, and a Saudi national living in Northern Virginia with permanent resident status, visited the Saudi Arabian embassy in Turkey on October 2.


Turkish surveillance cameras show Khashoggi entering the building that day, but never leaving, and the Turkish government says it has video and audio footage to prove Khashoggi was viciously beaten, gruesomely tortured, and then murdered.

The Washington Post reports that U.S. intelligence intercepts reveal:

"The crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, ordered an operation to lure Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi back to Saudi Arabia from his home in Virginia and then detain him."


CNN was the first to report that the Saudi government is preparing to admit that Jamal Khashoggi died inadvertently in a botched interrogation that did not receive clearance from the Saudi Crown, calling it an "unlikely explanation" for the killing.

(A Turkish official who has listened to an audio recording of the murder says Khashoggi died in under seven minutes.)

Two days later, CNN reported that the Saudi officer who led the deadly encounter with Khashoggi is a high-ranking official in the Saudi government, "with close ties to the inner circle of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman."

Predictably Democrats Attack Donald Trump's Response to Saudi Crisis


Senate Democrats have criticized President Donald Trump for suggesting to White House reporters that "rogue killers" and not the Saudi government might be responsible for the disappearance of the Saudi journalist, prompting Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) to say Donald Trump is acting as a "PR agent" for Saudi Arabia.

Sen. Murphy said:

"Been hearing the ridiculous 'rogue killers' theory was where the Saudis would go with this. Absolutely extaordinary they were able to enlist the President of the United States as their PR agent to float it."


Tim Kaine criticized the president's response to the crisis along the lines of the familiar Democratic Party complaint that Donald Trump is an instrument of Russia and Vladimir Putin, with an unseemly adversarial relationship to the U.S. intelligence community for a sitting president.

"President Trump’s response to Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance reveals a man more willing to trust authoritarian leaders than reliable intelligence," Kaine said.


But in this case, Donald Trump's timidity toward the Saudi government may have something to do with preventing the expansion of the Russian Federation's influence into the region, and losing billions of dollars in U.S. arms industry sales to Russia.

And the criticisms of Democratic leaders appear to be predictable partisan attacks, rather than sincere stands on principle. Especially when taking into account the consistent willingness of Democrats, along with Republicans, over the years to walk hand in hand with the Saudi government despite its abysmal record on human rights and as a prolific sponsor of Islamic terrorism.


After all, Donald Trump's Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama, had defend his administration's cozy relationship with the Saudi government as well, despite the fact that "3,000 allegations of torture were formally recorded" against Saudi Arabia between 2009 to 2015, according to the United Nations.

Obama's justification for this was:

"Sometimes we need to balance our need to speak to them about human rights issues with immediate concerns we have in terms of counter-terrorism or dealing with regional stability."


And in 2016, the Democratic Party nominated Hillary Clinton with the rather forceful influence of the party's leaders. Over and above the consistently friendly U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, the Clinton family has strong ties to the government of Saudi Arabia, with the Clinton Foundation disclosing in 2008 that Saudi Arabia had given "between $10 million and $25 million" to the foundation.

Sen. Rand Paul Charts Independent Course on Saudi Arabia Crisis


While both major parties in Washington have long supported a consistent policy of friendship and a military alliance with Saudi Arabia, a few policymakers led by Rand Paul on Capitol Hill have tried to bring the Saudi government's human rights record to light for years.


Paul's warnings against U.S. entanglement with the Saudi government have become more frequent and urgent in recent months, as Saudi military intervention in Yemen, one of the world's poorest countries -- ravaged by civil war -- has led to a full-blown humanitarian crisis.

In April, Saudi bombs struck a wedding, killing 20 people. In August, the mainstream media was stunningly silent after the Saudi military struck a school bus in a crowded marketplace in Yemen with a laser-guided Mark 82 bomb sold by the U.S. and manufactured by Lockheed Martin, killing 40 children.

In an op-ed on Fox News Tuesday, Sen. Paul published a jaw dropping list of Saudi Arabian human rights abuses and ties to terrorist activity around the world. Paul has vowed to force a vote in the U.S. Senate on a bill that would end federal military aid and assistance to Saudi Arabia, "until the Secretary of State certifies to Congress that journalist Jamal Khashoggi is alive and free..."

The ongoing bipartisan support for Saudi Arabia in Washington has been a major point of disagreement between Rand Paul and Donald Trump, but the Kentucky Senator says "the president may come around on this if there is any evidence they killed this journalist."

This article is republished here in its entirety with permission from the publisher, The Independent Voter Network.

Popular posts from this blog

Obama keeps pushing the bipartisan religion of interventionism

Michael Scheuer is deadly accurate - foreign interventionism is a bipartisan religion (or disease, whichever you prefer). Too often, I believe, Americans think about Washington’s interventionism only as the actual physical intervention of U.S. military forces abroad in places where no U.S. interest is at risk. That activity certainly is intervention, but President Obama’s despicable decision last week to have his administration leak intelligence claiming that Israel has concluded an agreement with the government of Azerbaijan to allow its use of Azeri airfields for an air strike on Iran is just as much an unwarranted intervention by the United States government. Readers of this blog will know that I carry no brief for Israel, that I believe it is a state that is irrelevant to U.S. national interests, and one whose U.S.-citizen supporters are disloyal to America and involved in activities that compromise U.S. security and corrupt the U.S. political system. That said, Israel — l...

How Thorough a Brainwashing

Saw this on Facebook: Left this comment: It's more thorough of a wash job than that. They don't just believe they are not brainwashed, the question has never occurred to them and as long as they keep reading TIME and watching MTV, it's *impossible* for the question to occur to them. Oh brave new world, that has such people in it. EDIT: And one more thing-- don't ever stop considering what questions it is currently impossible to occur to you . This is what I've been thinking about a lot lately and I'm worried just how large and numerous my own blindspots are. The only solution is to be as intellectually curious as possible. To learn voraciously. To read things that challenge us. To read things that are hard for us to understand and then try to understand them. To expose ourselves to ideas far removed from our present culture and place on the timeline. Read old books. Read foreign books. Turn off the TV. You have already absorbed its biases and blindspots. ...

How To Gain More Twitter Followers

Earlier today, I wrote : "My goal is to write a book before the end of March. My goal is to spend no more than a week from start to publication, spending as much time as I need in order to get it done during that week. My goal is to give it away to you for free here on HumbleLibertarian.com. What's a goal you have? Something you may have been putting off for years? Something you could accomplish in one month if you were determined? If it's near-term enough of a goal, and specific enough of a goal, and you share it in the comments below, feel free to tell me how I can help you and I'll do whatever I can. If it's a libertarian / news / politics-related goal, my manner of help would be easy to determine. I could promote it, introduce you to someone via email, (etc.). If it's something apolitical like quit smoking cigarettes, start exercising, learn guitar, start a business, gain more Twitter followers, learn another language, eat a paleo diet, or...
–––As Featured On–––