June 14, 2016

"Very unusual for the Saudis to come out saying he is meeting with Obama and White House not confirming it."

"They certainly knew he was coming."

Orlando-related?

Well, yesterday, Hillary said: "For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris, the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path toward extremism."

Obama gave a post-Orlando speech today, but he didn't mention the Saudis. (I'll put up a separate post on that speech.)

44 comments:

Bob Ellison said...

Hillary is correct. These regimes are not long for this world.

Fracking could kill their economies.

It's easy to be rich and powerful when you're rich and powerful. Not so easy when the magic carpet slides out from under you.

SteveR said...

Seven and a half years in, he almost made it through without doing any thing. GWB needed them to work in Iraq and Afghanistan but BHO was only wanting to ignore it.

The Bergall said...

Well Obammy was a bit prickly in his news conference today...........

Petulant..........

Hunter said...

And as always, the question for Hillary is:

So why didn't you do anything about it during your 4-year tenure as Secretary of State?

I expect to hear that question a lot in the debates.

Lyle Smith said...

Once the Iranians have nukes they'll be around forever.

Static Ping said...

I would say it makes sense as the optics are terrible, but this administration seems to rejoice in bad optics. Beats me.

eric said...

Someone somewhere else needs to do something about this.


traditionalguy said...

Understanding deceptive leaders 101 is comprehension that they preach against exactly what they are pushing through without your seeing it because YOU CANNOT BELIEVE THAT is possible.

It works every time.

amielalune said...


Amazing how "tough" Hil-LIAR-y is getting now that Trump is holding her feet to the fire. Too bad you can't ever believe a word she says; the speech sounded good.

Darrell said...

Something is going on.

Mary Beth said...

That's right, they should stop them, just like we put a stop to people in Boston and other major US cities who were funding the IRA.

Curious George said...

President ISIL had a hard time saing "Radical Islam" even when he was using it as an example. Check the pause at 14:39.

What a Prick.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Thanks to Drudge I also read this earlier.

It seems like BHO was open to an informal stop-in, while Mohammed bin Nayef was officially meeting other folks. The piece didn't explain how that planning fell apart. Presumably that sort of planning would have been going on a long time ago.

Not to mention that it seems like nobody in DC respects or likes the Prince.

Comanche Voter said...

President Four Putt's smart diplomacy at work.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"President ISIL had a hard time saing "Radical Islam" even when he was using it as an example. Check the pause at 14:39."

It's too bad BHO thoughtfully addressed this nomenclature question today.

If only he could have waited a few more months. After watching Fox and listening to con radio, I could sense that the cons' massive and repetitive focus on the vital criticalness of using this phrase to defeat terrorism was getting becoming awesome.

BHO needed to let that ripen a bit more. The cons didn't seem maxed out yet. It seemed like they were willing to further hype how using this phrase was critical to the fight against terrorism.


PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

rope a dope

AReasonableMan said...

Curious George said...
President ISIL had a hard time saing "Radical Islam" even when he was using it as an example. Check the pause at 14:39.


It's good that you guys on the right are so focused on the critical issues that face the nation, otherwise we'd only have transgender bathrooms with which to while away the hours.

R. Chatt said...

President Obama neglected to mention in remarks decrying the use of the term "radical Islamic terrorism" that the mosque he visited in Baltimore, The Islamic Society of Baltimore (ISB) -- has a history of ties to extremist Muslim groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Mohammad Adam el-Sheikh, who served two stints as ISB’s imam, from 1983 to 1989 and from 1994 to 2003, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Sudan in the 1970s. He also co-founded the Muslim American Society, a Falls Church, Va.-based group that is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. While in Baltimore, el-Sheikh served as a regional director for the Islamic American Relief Agency. That group’s parent organization is the Islamic African Relief Agency, which the Treasury Department says provided funds to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorist organizations. About That Mosque President Obama Will Be Visiting...

hombre said...

Hillary notices Islamic terror. Allah be praised!

Hagar said...

Saudi Arabia needs to get itself a proper government so that we - and they - can tell the difference between "the government" and the doings of 5-10,000 princelings of the royal family.

hombre said...

PB&J wrote: "BHO needed to let that ripen a bit more. The cons didn't seem maxed out yet. It seemed like they were willing to further hype how using this phrase was critical to the fight against terrorism."

It may not be "critical," but when dealing with lefty loons it helps to know that they have noticed, even if only momentarily, that this "fight" is against Islamic terrorists rather than against American "cons," Christians, NRA members, etc.

SteveR said...

ARM its good you are looking at the "right", clearly you are having trouble seeing the mess right around you. I can understand why and I would not expect anything more intelligent from you.

David Begley said...

Obama and the Saudis just working out the details of his post-presidency pay off.

As to Hillary, she had four years to crack down on those countries and she did NOTHING. Correction. Her Foundation collected millions from the ME. Trump will pound her on this point.

Unknown said...

R. Chatt @ 4:24 p.m. about that mosque Obama visited -- you are absolutely correct, as I pointed out in the NYT. I'm a very liberal, 53 year old Princeton-educated Princeton-inhabiting Episcopalian (of the women-and-gays-ordaining variety) woman. Why the hell many folks of my ilk can't see the influence of the Wahabbis in your neighborhood mosque beats me. I'm a zoning lawyer by profession, and this comes up all the time. Some collection of kindly, mild-mannered Pakastani dentists want to set up a mosque because it reminds them of home, and they reach out to more religious people they know for help, and hey-presto, the Islamic Society gives them a webpage that tells women, why would you want to be fondled and bruised like a too-frequently-handled flower, when you can be self-respecting (i.e., by donning the veil.) These guys' wives aren't veiled (they're CPAs), their daughters aren't veiled, but the new website for their little mosque advocates it, as an "option" for "sisters." Make me puke. Obama should have, and could have, found himself a mosque that didn't veil women, and even little girls, for Chrissake. Look at the photos from the press coverage of that speech. Idiot would-be-inclusive graphic artists and art directors make it 100 times worse, by fore-fronting veiled women as generic stand-ins for "Muslim."

Unknown said...

and don't get me started on the Orthodox Jews the their wigs, and the fundie Christians and their make-up

JAORE said...

“It is long past time for the Saudis” to prevent “their citizens from funding extremist organizations,” she said. But keep sending that cash to the Clinton Foundation .....


[Anyone note that "their citizens" in her comment. Like the royal family had nothing, nothing at all, to do with funding extremist organizations.

Nope, just like with the Bernie Bros it's $3 here and $4 there from the little people.....]

Unknown said...

polo shirts and cardigan sweaters, that's the ticket. i knew our new minister was a-ok when I saw him wearing loafers with no socks at Easter . . .

All kidding aside, I'm serious about the return of the veil. It is very, very dangerous to women, to social progress, to egalitarianism, to modernity--as Kemal Attaturk recognized.

JAORE said...

" I'm a zoning lawyer by profession, and this comes up all the time.".... "I'm serious about the return of the veil. It is very, very dangerous to women, to social progress, to egalitarianism, to modernity..."

So, Ms. Zoning Lawyer, would you use the governmental power of zoning laws to deny a permit to build a Mosque that advocates the veil? Would you deny entry into this country for those that insist women wear the veil?

How do you balance halting danger to women against being raaaaaay-ciiiiist?

Or do your credentials as a progressive Princtonian allow you to pick and choose parts of religious movements to discriminate against without being tossed into the Neanderthal pool with the righties?

Unknown said...

Hi, Jahore -- sensitive, much? I never said anything about wanting governmental regulation of religion. Then again, sometimes it can do some good:

Ottoman practice discouraged social interaction between men and women in keeping with Islamic practice of sex segregation. Mustafa Kemal began developing social reforms very early, as was evident in his personal journal. He and his staff discussed issues like abolishing the veiling of women and the integration of women into the outside world. The clue on how he was planning to tackle the issue was stated in his journal on November 1915:

The social change can come by (1) educating capable mothers who are knowledgeable about life; (2) giving freedom to women; (3) a man can change his morals, thoughts, and feelings by leading a common life with a woman; as there is an inborn tendency towards the attraction of mutual affection.[97]

Mustafa Kemal needed a new civil code to establish his second major step of giving freedom to women. The first part was the education of girls and was established with the unification of education. On 4 October 1926, the new Turkish civil code passed. It was modelled after the Swiss Civil Code. Under the new code, women gained equality with men in such matters as inheritance and divorce. Mustafa Kemal did not consider gender a factor in social organization. According to his view, society marched towards its goal with men and women united. He believed that it was scientifically impossible for him to achieve progress and to become civilized if the gender separation continued as in Ottoman times.[98] During a meeting he declaimed:

To the women: Win for us the battle of education and you will do yet more for your country than we have been able to do. It is to you that I appeal.
To the men: If henceforward the women do not share in the social life of the nation, we shall never attain to our full development. We shall remain irremediably backward, incapable of treating on equal terms with the civilizations of the West.[99]

Unknown said...

Turkey had 10% literacy in 1927. Doubled to over 20% by the time his reforms had borne some fruit, in 1940, with help from John Dewey, of all people.

Love me some Ataturk (although I tend to misspell it, along the lines of atta-boy!)

And here's how I would balance halting danger to women, with being raaaayycist (as you put it, for some reason that eludes me--perhaps you think racism is a fake?): it's not racist to condemn, as a private citizen, certain aspects of certain religions. How do you balance being jealous of people who live in (or attended!) Princeton with retaining your self-respect? Certainly it's possible! "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." That said, there's nothing racist about fear and hatred of fundamentalist religion.

JAORE said...

" I never said anything about wanting governmental regulation of religion."

Zoning [lawyer] = governmental control/regulation

You said in the capacity of zoning lawyer "this stuff comes up all the time". Then you described your dislike of the moderates applying and the more radical gaining control.

Can you not see where that might lead me to believe when "this stuff comes up" that you might, just might have considered using zoning to thwart the veil? Sure reads like it has crossed your mind a time or ten thousand. Or is the "very, very dangerous" to women group insufficient for you to even contemplate use of zoning power based on a religion.

And you advocate for education of women per the model above. I agree. Yet you must realize the more strident practitioners of Islam would find any such codification to be blaspheme. Hmmm, could that be under the rubric of governmental regulation of religion?

Well, perhaps so since I see that you start by saying, "governmental regulation of religion... sometimes it can do some good"

The questions are:
Is any governmental action based on the veil (as a surrogate for the more extreme forms of Islam) OK? I still read you as a "Yes" on that. Perhaps you can dissuade me.

If so:
Where do you draw the line? I'm sure you believe your line is drawn at a harmless (to Muslims) spot, yet one that is beneficial to women.

Others would draw the line a bit further down the road.

Differing ideas on what's right. More a matter of degree than intent.

Carol said...

Ehh, the era of Ataturk is long past. Until recently I ignorantly assumed that modernists were still in control there.

Pity.

Unknown said...

Jahore, you're beginning to convince me that gov't regulation of people who jump to conclusions about what professionals who spend their time resisting gov't regulation (which is what zoning lawyers do--resist it!) actually want, could be a good thing . . .

Carol--too sadly, looks as if you are correct. Very, very sad for Turkey. (Jahore, agree with that?)

JAORE said...

Oh and I used raaaay-ciiist, half in jest, because I hear it far too often whenever such subjects come up. Hell, when any conservative position is advanced. And I'm not especially jealous of Princeton. I've come to believe the Ivy education does as much to stunt a mind as to expand it.

Good to see you feel, "That said, there's nothing racist about fear and hatred of fundamentalist religion." Of course your posts suggest you lump many, many religious groups under the "fundamentalist" banner. Perhaps everything to the right of the church you attend.

So, do you have a fear and hatred scale? Perhaps you could enlighten us proles on where the various faiths fall on that scale.

JAORE said...

What? ALL zoning lawyers are on the "resistance" side?

Wow. Many of the planning and zoning board people I've worked with have lied about their profession! Gonna have to take a close peek at those diplomas on the wall of a guy named Charles next time I'm down town. Valuable information.

But what government regulation would you impose on little old conclusion jumping me? Freedom of speech taken away? Chains? Whips and chains (jump in here Laslo)?

And, hell yeah I wish Turkey were more modern. I wish Sharia law was a historical footnote. I wish the ME wouldn't deflect from their failures by blaming Israel and the US. I wish the various factions of Islam would disagree the way Lutherans and Catholics disagree.

And it's JAORE, not Jahore..

Unknown said...

Hey Jaore, you from around here? I know a couple of Charleses . . .
Anyway, yes. We resist. I'm in private practice. It's extremely funny, because you hopped so quickly to the view that I want the U.S. government (or, god forbid, the People's Republic of Municipality-ville) to tell people what they can and can't wear. If a girl can't express some libertarian jollies here on Althouse, where can she? You had me flagged (flogged? Laslo, help us out here . . .) as prog--your word not mine--and that, coupled with my noble profession and place of domicile, got you spewing that I wanted to pick and choose who I would oppress and whose oppression I would call raaaayyyciiist (your word, not mine.) I do my best in these comments to prove, like Althouse, that people can hold liberal principles without checking their brains at the door. Some posters do the same for conservatives . . .

buwaya said...

Oh come on - meeting the Saudi bigshot would look very bad under the circumstances.
More bowing to the king, etc., at a time when the Muslims are in especially bad odor.
This is all PR.

David said...

Probably the most powerful man in Saudi Arabia. The key player regarding Iran. The go to guy on Saudi military (our best customer, our ally and the third biggest spender in the world on defense.) Architect of the plan to revamp the Saudi economy away from oil. Possibly (likely?) in contact with elements in Pakistan about purchasing nuclear weapons.

What a great idea to insult him. What could possibly go wrong?

buwaya said...

"What a great idea to insult him. What could possibly go wrong?"

Many things. The Saudis are in a very difficult position and very low on friends.
There is no way at all the Saudi economy can be weaned from oil. Their people are fundamentally incompetent to make a go of anything of significant value in this modern world, and this after fifty years of well-financed education and absolutely no shortage of financing.
There is also no way they can live off their sovereign wealth funds, they haven't saved enough (one years GDP more or less) for all of them to live on this for very long, and I suspect they are drawing on it much faster than they'd like at the moment. The house of Saud could run off, the whole tribe, and live well, but not the country.
Their military is almost certainly unable to defend them from a serious threat from any of their potential enemies, not because they are short of weapons but because they are decadent and unmotivated.
They could do something desperate at some point, certainly, but the US is ultimately their only lifeline.

pm317 said...

Go after those mfers, Hillary!

el polacko said...

so, hillary, taking hundreds of millions of dollars in 'donations' from "the saudis, the Qataris, the kuwaitis and others" is just a fiendishly clever way to bleed those countries dry, right ? wow...those dumb arabs are playing checkers while you're playing multi-dimensional chess, gurl !

cubanbob said...

pm317 said...
Go after those mfers, Hillary!

6/14/16, 8:48 PM"

Only after she breaks out of prison. Setting aside espionage and corruption she will be facing up to three years per email. Served consecutively. I'm sure the Federal Bureau of Prisons can make a special accommodation for a former New York Senator and let her serve her term of 90,000 years in Sing Sing.

Gahrie said...

Only after she breaks out of prison.

Obama will pardon her.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
Curious George said...
President ISIL had a hard time saing "Radical Islam" even when he was using it as an example. Check the pause at 14:39.

"It's good that you guys on the right are so focused on the critical issues that face the nation, otherwise we'd only have transgender bathrooms with which to while away the hours."

God knows you'll never man up and do anything.
So.
You're fucking welcome.