Tulsi called it: Trump is the Saudi's bitch

bitch.PNG

What else can you take away from that headline except that the Saudis control our foreign policy?
The Saudis always want to “fight the Iranians to the last American”, as former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates put it a decade ago.
However, it's only with Trump that the Saudis can actually speak for us.

Speaking on the margins of the UN general assembly in New York, he said: “This action will have consequences and Iran must know this.”

He added: “When push comes to shove, there comes a point when even America’s patience runs out – and Iran must be aware of that.”

If we go to war with Iran on behalf of the Saudis, I would consider this to be treason.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Alligator Ed's picture

but the circumstances of the oil refinery attacks allegedly put our "national security at risk". Why? By hiking gas prices. This is something that Trump cannot allow. High gas prices will drive voters away--even if they don't support Dems. The political divide is so steep in this country that many voters are of the my way or the highway temperament. They will vote for whom they want and if that isn't an option, voters will simply stay home.

So the attack on KSA is an attack on Trump Presidential Security. In the immortal words of Michael Moore: where to attack next?

up
1 user has voted.

up
0 users have voted.
travelerxxx's picture

@p cook

I don't know any other areas like this but there must be some. Offshore?

Yes, offshore (and I'm assuming you mean ocean drilling/production) is hit hard if there is any protracted price drop. I was offered, and accepted, early retirement because of just this.

Offshore oil work of any kind is extremely expensive.

I was part of the transportation system for the people who work on the offshore facilities. In fact, I lived and worked on offshore oil production platforms and even drilling rigs for well over a decade. My job was to maintain the helicopters used to move people and parts between the various locations.

Any time there was a drop in the price of oil, It would soon be apparent in the operation of these facilities. People were let go, maintenance was deferred, leases were not let at auction. Contract companies were always the first to be affected. Cooks? Gone. Cook your own food. Janitorial help? Gone. Clean the place up yourself. (Not exactly what you want to do after your 12-14 hour shift ends.) Scheduled well maintenance? Forget it.

When Obama opened up the offshore waters to vastly increase the tracts available for exploration and production, together with the push by his administration to advance fracking anywhere and everywhere, the oil prices crashed. They have never really recovered. Fairly recently, I read that no fracking outfit has ever made money, except to sell out to some corporation or investor group. The banks have been getting stung and are now wise to the game. Getting backing for drilling holes in the ground is not so easy now.

It's been my opinion that the primary reason Obama opened the spigot was an attempt to bankrupt Russia. Of course, it didn't work. They aren't through. Trump is carrying the ball for the corporations now and doing as well as Obama, although Obama never got the recognition (or blame, as you wish) for it as Trump does. If one drives along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf of Mexico coastlines, you will see the new Freedom Gas shipping terminals, all put up in the last ten years or less. The oil companies and banks have many hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars sitting there waiting to be used. If it takes killing a few million brown people to make them profitable, then so be it. They fully intend to do it.

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@travelerxxx

...in these matters. The proving ground and risks can always be found in operations. You probably have more answers than you know.

It's been my opinion that the primary reason Obama opened the spigot was an attempt to bankrupt Russia. Of course, it didn't work. They aren't through. Trump is carrying the ball for the corporations now and doing as well as Obama, although Obama never got the recognition (or blame, as you wish) for it as Trump does.

It's funny to think back on that situation; to how far-reaching it was. President Obama, and Hillary at State, tried like the dickens to get TTIP and the TPP free trade agreements nailed down before Obama left office. They could have sewn up the world geopolitically. That was the real significance of Hillary's Presidential campaign. The one thing that really mattered was that Hillary would carry that ball across the goal line.Then, the deep state could spike the ball and celebrate a world where China and Russia were finally isolated. That explains the risks they took, up to and including their attempt to overthrow the election.

Hillary sort of gave it away when, near the end of her campaign, she abruptly announced she changed her mind and she was now against the TTIP and the TPP. It was a Hail Mary pass. Her campaign knew well in advance that she was going to lose the worker/blue collar vote. Thus, her last ditch attempt to win them back. She had every intention of betraying that promise, of course. It was a matter of National Security.

I imagine the Trump campaign was shaken by this. They knew what it meant and they understood the strategy Hillary was planning when she denounced those agreements and started campaigning against them. Trump, himself, was campaigning for and against things he had no intention of honoring. Especially in matters of foreign policy. But the TPP and the TTIP were something else. They were the key to "Making America Great Again" in a rapidly changing world, without the risk of a direct confrontation, or a war. Trump adapted.

So, how perfect was it that one of Trump's first official acts as President was to tear up, the TPP and the TTIP, which were still on the table? Doing that, in essence, was "The Art of the Deal" in action. He uses this technique again and again, and no one ever gets wise to it. First, he throws the imposing threat away — he denounces it — which causes his opponent to disarm himself in good faith. Then, he swoops in and makes the deal anyway, while insisting the threat is gone.

Case in point: From the moment Donald Trump entered office in 2017, he has been executing a model of the TTIP and the TTP everywhere the US does business — China, Mexico, Canada, Russia, Europe, NATO, Saudi Arabia, Iran. He's extra friendly, confidential, disarming, and empathetic in private conversations in private conversations he has with these world leaders (which elicits brays of "collusion" from the Democrats). But the terms of the deal (or the sanctions involved) are ultra tough. (This won't work with the Chinese, of course. They invented the technique 2,500 years ago.)

Keep those insights coming. In my opinion, the oil & gas dynamic at the operations level unlocks many secrets to the way our government operates. It defines our civilization.

up
0 users have voted.
Populations don’t like wars. They have to be lied into it.
That means we can be “truthed” into peace. — Julian Assange

@Pluto's Republic

could spike the ball and celebrate the world with China and Russia finally isolated.

TPP would have thrown the door wide open to Chinese ownership of the USA. How do you figure it would isolate them?

up
0 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Pluto's Republic's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness

...in the global free-trade agreement. Nor would they, since the TPP handed their sovereignty over to multinational corporations. Smaller countries had less at risk, or so they thought.

The agreement was designed to isolate China. The TTIP was designed to isolate Russia.

up
0 users have voted.
Populations don’t like wars. They have to be lied into it.
That means we can be “truthed” into peace. — Julian Assange
snoopydawg's picture

@Pluto's Republic

Case in point: From the moment Donald Trump entered office in 2017, he has been executing a model of the TTIP and the TTP everywhere the US does business — China, Mexico, Canada, Russia, Europe, NATO, Saudi Arabia, Iran.

What is he doing that is the same as the TPP? The trade war? Something else?

He did say that he would bring jobs back home, but since his election and especially during the tariffs thing more companies have moved offshore. Just read that Lockheed is moving parts of its jobs to India. And of course the car companies have payed off tens of thousands of people and GM and the union is doing its best to screw their workers. And Trump is doing some very bad things to labor laws.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.

ggersh's picture

@travelerxxx to help his buddies the clintons and Buffett.
Buffetts trains are highly profitable shipping fracked
oil.

up
0 users have voted.

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

travelerxxx's picture

@ggersh

The middle-men seem to be doing okay. The companies drilling the holes, not so much. We'd been led to believe that owning a fracking rig was like owning a mint. In the last six to nine months or so, we've learned that it just 'taint so. There are billionaires from fracking who drilled holes, but they are the ones who sold out before the banks realized that it was a money pit.

By the way, there's a map I posted some time ago showing all the offshore Gulf of Mexico wells that had been fracked. It only covered up to 2016, so Obama owns it. There must have been something close to 1,000 wells shown on that map. A lot of folks think fracking is a land-based-only thing. Nope.

By the way, I don't know whether Buffett owns rail out in West Texas, but they're about to have pipelines to bring the oil east from the fracking fields. That would be the enemy of rail; trucks too, of course. No tears for our man in Omaha from me, though.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@p cook We must place sanctions on ND until it agrees to hand over its oil at a fair market value as determined by the EPA, Dept of Energy, Treasury Department, and Mike Pompeo. If they don't accede to our rightful demands, we will install a new Governor who will listen to reason.

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@Alligator Ed

Would that mean Trump would ignore the whole matter?

There is an argument to be made that gas demand could fall for a period, resulting in chronic over-production. We live in a different oil and gas world that we did in 2007. The corelations and ratios across commodities and events are not necessarily the same. Fossil fuel extraction investments are overbought in my opinion, at a time when it was assured that we would pull every last drop of oil out of the earth at a brisk pace and sell it — even if we had to destroy nations and exterminate entire populations to do it. It was further assured that the US would monitor every oil trade, and control by force and fiat, every significant oil reserve on the planet. However, the underlying geopolitics are shifting significantly. Soon, I imagine, Saudi Arabia will be under China's umbrella.

All that aside, the deep state has very specific goals. They will obviously tell any lie, commit any heinous act, or threaten global destruction in order to control the world's fossil fuels. That's why extraction investments are the most owned class of investments in the world. But that control is not their ideological goal. It is merely another weapon the deep state is strugglng to own.

up
0 users have voted.
Populations don’t like wars. They have to be lied into it.
That means we can be “truthed” into peace. — Julian Assange

@Pluto's Republic Wars and supply "shortages" are really a win-win for the domestic retailers, and lose-lose for producers other than the Saudis who employ the US to knock its competitors out of the world market.

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@leveymg

The American people do not own the natural resources of their nation, nor do they benefit from having a national oil company — so, windfall profits that come from a price dip are unlikely to end up in their pockets.

up
0 users have voted.
Populations don’t like wars. They have to be lied into it.
That means we can be “truthed” into peace. — Julian Assange

a bad sign

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has urged caution over blaming Iran for the September 14 attack on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities.

The United States, some European Union member states and Saudi Arabia have blamed the attack on Iran, instead of Yemen's Houthi rebels who have claimed responsibility.

Iran distanced itself from the incident but said it was ready for a "full-fledged" war.

Erdogan told the US's Fox News that it was not "the right thing to do" to blame Tehran.

"We need to recognise attacks of this scale come from several parts of Yemen. But if we just place the entire burden on Iran, it won't be the right way to go. Because the evidence available does not necessarily point to that fact," he said.

up
0 users have voted.

@gjohnsit I too smell bovine effluence. It's a lingering CYA odor over the entire region.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@leveymg @leveymg Yes the Houthis, with or without Iran's direct help, likely bombed the two refinery sites in KSA. But think about this: the perfectly positioned, neat little holes in liquified gas tanks were easily reparable in less than two days. The tanks did not explode the way conventional missiles would provoke. Yes, the pinpoint precision could be just to send a message to MBS that his country is susceptible of receiving more such damage, if a cease fire/armistice/peace accord does not occur. But why such limited damage? Why so little time the fields were totally out of operation?

I have no answers. Anyone?

up
0 users have voted.
edg's picture

@Alligator Ed @Alligator Ed

Remember the ships that Iran allegedly attacked? With precision holes in non-critical areas above the waterline so as to cause as little damage as possible and avoid sinking. Somebody's itching for war, and I don't think it's Iran.

up
0 users have voted.

@Alligator Ed the once idealistic 20-somethings who signed up with the CIA after 9/11 to save the world who ended up today, in middle age, commanding this sort of shitty little false-flag operation. And, they know they're going to fail. Again. It must suck to be them.
And, Trump just makes it all seem more pointless.

No wonder they want to regime change him - they just might be able to pull that one off. This is how great powers fall. From within. Out of frustration.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@leveymg We are all victims of the corrupt, war-mongering, greedy oligopoly. The biggest false flag event of all time: 9/11.

up
0 users have voted.

@Alligator Ed Maybe we should get some of those.
////
;0)

up
0 users have voted.

the next debate with interest, as Tulsi might have some interesting things to offer in the FP area, hopefully calling out the MSM debate mods for their lack of attention to these important issues in previous debates.

That said, I'm souring a bit on her candidacy, after her entirely unconvincing comments against impeachment recently. Now I hear she is not for M4A -- preferring instead a public option, with people able to choose between a private insurance plan and Medicare. Somehow I missed checking out her position on this before.

She is becoming much more of a problematic mixed bag candidate for me. She still earns great credit for her bold FP stance, but her surprising weak tea stance on health care is another major disappointment.

up
0 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

Do you have a source for your claim below?

Now I hear she is not for M4A -- preferring instead a public option, with people able to choose between a private insurance plan and Medicare. Somehow I missed checking out her position on this before.

up
0 users have voted.

@Wally Can't say for sure but her web page now touts "Healthcare for All" so my guess is that she's decided to roll (weasel-up?) her own; not a good sign. I remember the Shrub misadministration was always rolling out these nice sounding rebrands of existing legislation (e.g., "clear skies", "healthy forests", etc.) that turned out to be environmental rape-and-pillage when read.

You would think that her campaign site would have specifics, but there's nothing in print. There is a video clip of an interview, but that's too slow and frequently those end up being lacking in specifics (at best).

up
0 users have voted.

@Wally https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR0GKjOfswc

Basically, she has repeated her comment that private insurance should remain available for those who want it. She clearly doesn't understand how that affects Medicare For All.

up
0 users have voted.

@tle for jumping in with that cite while I was busy elsewhere. David Does video is indeed where I learned of this.

And it looks like we all missed her interview w/Cooper Anderson on CNN following her dynamic 2d debate appearance, where she gave a clear indication she was in favor of the awful public option approach. She just seems not to understand how allowing the private insurance industry to continue largely as now would ultimately undermine the Medicare program. I could have been listening to Michael Bennett or most Republicans who are more interested in preserving the private health insurance companies.

Even Kamala Harris ferchrissakes offers a more robust plan. Tulsi seems more aligned with Generic Dim Amy Klobuchar's Eliza Doolittle approach.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@wokkamile Please explain how the preservation of private insurance undermines M4A when M4A is automatically available to any who wish to accept it.

up
0 users have voted.

@Alligator Ed than I with how the health care system works argue against the public option, as here.

If the public option were such a great idea, why aren't the two most progressive candidates out there -- Bernie and Liz --advocating for it, instead of their much more robust and costly plans? Politically it would be safer to go smaller. In most election cycles that is.

Btw, do you prefer the public option? Or just some modest tweaking at the margins? Or perhaps a return to the pre-ACA days?

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@wokkamile There is a lot there for me to assimilate, despite my extensive involvement (less than voluntarily) with the insurance industry. This means, I have to consider those arguments, for or against, further.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@Wally

"If you like the health insurance you get from your employer you can keep it." She might have also said that the insurance you negotiated hard for. But yes it's a walk back from MFA. Not a good sign.
I'm not that impressed with her foreign policy views. She knows that our military is just working for the corporations and yet she still stays in it. And for once I'd like to hear her say something about all the civilians we have killed. Anyone know her views on drones?

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.

Alligator Ed's picture

@snoopydawg

She knows that our military is just working for the corporations and yet she still stays in it.

Okay, Tulsi stays in the military. Bernie, despite all his protestations, remains within the Dem Party. So what? Actions prove louder. Tulsi introduces bills like Get Out of Denver Afghanistan and the others, except Bernie, compete to see who can promote the most money to the MIC.

up
0 users have voted.

@wokkamile Although I sent her a few bucks to help get her on the debate stage she's always been a question mark to me. Unlike some of the other candidates, I think she's authentic which together with her anti-interventionist foreign policy views is rather refreshing. I just returned to her campaign site in search of info on healthcare. She now has an "issues" menu item on her front page but when I got to the healthcare section it was mostly filled with a several big pictures of Gabbard and a bunch of nice sounding, though vague, quotes about healthcare. She's now supporting some undefined thing called "Healtchcare for All"; I take this to mean that she's stepped back from Sander's MFA—following in Harris's footsteps? Together with her moderate-Republican take on the Ukraine affair I begin to doubt even her authenticity; she wouldn't be the first politician who impressed at first but later turned out to be utter dross.

up
0 users have voted.

@MinuteMan than Kamala in that at least Harris provides a 10-yr phase in period to achieve total M4A. Nothing like that from Tulsi -- just continue allowing private insurance cos to rip off people with high premiums and deductibles while raking in enormous profits.

Looks like Jordan Chariton has also picked up on Tulsi:

[video

]

up
0 users have voted.

@wokkamile
I like most of what she says, but there are certain things....

up
0 users have voted.

@MinuteMan I assume the website you went to was her campaign website (Tulsi 2020.com) but, as I understand it, there's much more detail on https://www.tulsigabbard.org, which may be more geared towards communicating with her constituents. If you click on Medicare for All, it does mention the fact she's an original co-sponsor of HR 1384, the Medicare for All legislation introduced in the current session of Congress. Plus, there's a lot more detail on some 40+ issues. Not sure why this page isn't linked to the campaign website, perhaps because the other website is used to collect money and there's some FEC rules involved, I dunno ...

up
0 users have voted.

@JCWeb previously claimed to back Medicare for All in its various congressional versions, then went soft as they hit the campaign trail. What matters is what the candidates say now.

Tulsi clearly is in the Public Option category -- let the private insurance cos continue to reap profits while undermining real Medicare.

up
0 users have voted.
fakenews's picture

@JCWeb Private insurance that M4A does NOT cover - read it. Read / it watch it, there is a difference here for those who believe she is saying the same as Biden. Understand the "different" health care proposals and what they mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz-opG6ltLc&t=1377s

Peace
FN

up
0 users have voted.

"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN

snoopydawg's picture

@fakenews

then they get to keep it. That is pretty much the same as what ByeDone said, "Their hard fought union health insurance."

This is not MFA like what Bernie is offering.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.

fakenews's picture

@snoopydawg Here is the best explanation of the various health care proposals:

https://medium.com/@alanmyron/understanding-the-differences-between-univ...

Medicare Choice: A term coined by Representative Tulsi Gabbard to expand over the universal single payer system. Recognizing that there are additional healthcare services that are not covered under Medicare for All.

Medicare Choice (Tulsi Gabbard’s interpretation of the House Medicare for All bill)
Tulsi has been very clear that Medicare for All will provide a base level (like the House and Senate legislation do), and people are free to buy private insurance (like the House and Senate legislation allow for).
The “choice” is not about choosing between public and private insurance, it is about choosing to get or not get private insurance. Public insurance is a given, you are covered, you pay into it, just like people pay property taxes and school taxes and can choose to send their kids to private school. You always have the option to take your children to public school, but you may want something different, well, you pay for it, but this does not allow you to not pay into the public system.
In fact, the way Tulsi is representing her healthcare position, is the most consistent with the bill she voted for in the House. There is no inconsistency.

Ok, if you're saying that this bill does not meet your criteria for a health care solution, then please tell me where it fails?? Everyone still pays, everyone is covered - but you can if you wish get your own plan or get coverage for the situations that are NOT covered by Medicare for all. Who will get hurt by this plan?

Peace
FN

up
0 users have voted.

"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN

snoopydawg's picture

@fakenews

it's not my criteria that I'm talking about. Did you see the graphic in the article you posted? This seems very clear to me. The only thing that meets the criteria for single payer is single payer.

IMG_3781.JPG

This seems very clear which plans offer what. Why keep paying the middle man gobs of money that just drives up health insurance rates.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.

fakenews's picture

@snoopydawg You can not eliminate ANY product that someone wants to buy snooper... that is just not the way to go and also not constitutional. I asked in my response 'who would it hurt?' to buy your own insurance??? In any manner a really wealthy person would buy an operation on their own if they felt it was the best way to go...Tulsi's proposal does NOT pay the middleman. You're getting it wrong man. Did you read the article from Myron? The bills are not set in stone. No matter what you can legislate, if a wealthy person wants something other than a government program - they WILL get it. Yes I DO see the charts but these are not passed yet and not the health care deal. I ask everyone to google Tulsi's stance on healthcare and decide for themselves. I aske again "WHO WOULD IT HURT"?????

Peace
FN

up
0 users have voted.

"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN

@wokkamile I haven't heard her say anything about the inconvenient little facts in the Ukraine hullabaloo - that both Biden and, purportedly, Trump, were threatening to withhold MILITARY aid. Aid which is needed because of the chain of events following the U.S.-backed Maidan Revolution.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@tle from Ukraine, at least in the telephone call made with Zelensky in July. Zelensky brought the subject up briefly.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@tle

because he said he wanted Germany and France to do more for them as they promised. I don't think it's a good idea to send weapons into Ukraine. This is going to aggravate tensions between us and Russia. Overthrowing Ukraine's government was bad enough. Supporting the neo Nazis in their government and elsewhere with weapons so they can continue their war on the Russians living in E. Ukraine where they have killed over 10,000 people who identify with Russia is just going to make things worse. There have been a few peace agreements that they made with Russia but we keep blowing it up. This all started after Obama's coup of course. Imagine Russia overthrowing Mexico's government and arming ISIS.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.