It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lobbyists have paid five of the Senators who shot down Yemen bill

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:34 AM
link   
It's no secret that foreign money enters the US political arena via lobbyists and funneled contributions.

The article I'm going to use is from Al Jazeera, which I wouldn't typically use just to avoid the obvious objections that will come form it, but in this case, western journalists are pretty quite on. These facts are varifiable, so if you wish to shoot it down, shoot down the facts presented rather than taking the lazy route of "fake news".


At least five of the 37 Republican Senators who voted against advancing a resolution limiting the United States's involvement in the war in Yemen have received campaign contributions from pro-Saudi lobbying groups.



The Trump administration has threatened to veto the resolution if it passes.



Last year, the oil-rich kingdom spent at least $24m to influence US policy and public opinion, according to disclosures to the Department of Justice made available through the Center for Responsive Politics' Foreign Lobby Watch tool.



According to the CIP, it made Saudi Arabia one of the top 10 countries spending on influence and lobbying in the US.


I think this is an obvious weakness our politicians (for the most part) are stubborn to address.

If our politicians make decisions swayed by another countries best interests, they are not our best interests, or else we wouldn't need their "convincing".

If our goal in the Middle East is to combat terrorism, supporting Saudi Arabia in what the world argues is one of the biggest humanitarian crisis only breeds more hatred towards the US.

Interestingly enough, Graham who just found himself in good graces of the semi divided Republican party switched his stance.


Delivering a massive blow to the Trump administration, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he flipped sides because of the way the government had handled the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.



"I changed my mind because I'm pissed," Graham said following the vote.

"The way the administration has handled Saudi Arabia is not acceptable."
link




posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker


Cut the crap, brohan. The Saudis are our pals, it's not like a bunch of them flew some planes into some buildings and killed 3,000 American citizens or something. Jesus, they're good people! Hell, I nominate them to be on the United Nations human rights council.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I mean, when you say it like that it almost sounds like they've had a long term vision for sculpting the Middle East.

Also, welcome back, hope you had a good Thanksgiving.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I mean, when you say it like that it almost sounds like they've had a long term vision for sculpting the Middle East.


I would never say anything like that
since Wahhabism is about raining unicorn farts and kittens on people instead of violently forcing them to accept your ideology you fargin bigot.


Also, welcome back, hope you had a good Thanksgiving.


It was wonderful, thank you, everyone enjoyed the TurPerson I made.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Is that a turkey stuffed in a person, or a person stuffed in a turkey?



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
Is that a turkey stuffed in a person, or a person stuffed in a turkey?


Yes.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Is that a turkey stuffed in a person, or a person stuffed in a turkey?


He strikes me as a person who likes to take a challenging approach.

I'm hoping for the latter.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

From your link


Roy Blunt, John Boozman, Richard Burr, Mike Crapo and Tim Scott all received financial contributions from firms representing Saudi interests between 2016 and 2017, according to a recent investigation by the Centre for International Policy (CIP). All five Republicans voted on Wednesday against advancing the resolution, which, if passed, would force the US to limit its support for the Saudi-UAE war in Yemen.

Interesting
almost a cause and effect connect the dots type of situation...

also from your op


"All of that was caused by the Saudi-led invasion of Yemen three years ago, led by a despotic, dishonest dictatorship."

three years ago.....hmm...who was in charge in 2015?



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Mike Crapo

What a great name for a bought Congressman.

edit:

Senator from Idaho.
edit on 11/29/2018 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




It was wonderful, thank you, everyone enjoyed the TurPerson I made.

Is that a recipe you can share? Or is it a family secret?



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


three years ago.....hmm...who was in charge in 2015?


War mongerer and chief.

Luckily for us, this is one of the few issues that isn't so much about partisan politics considering both parties kiss the boots of the Saudis.

As unfortunate as that is, at least we have a topic that isn't left vs right seeing as they are the same animal on this issue (most issues).



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:57 AM
link   
We really need to get out of the ME. We don't need their oil.

We really need to vote out people who take Saudi money.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I am thinking that practically every politician in this world with any power has received at least some money from Saudi Arabia.

Not justifying, just saying.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker




As unfortunate as that is, at least we have a topic that isn't left vs right seeing as they are the same animal on this issue (most issues).

Wait what?
Isn't everyone against war?
We should have gotten ALL of our soldiers out of that part of the world a long long time ago.

Fwww.vox.com...
from the current white house occupant



“I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary, and I mean absolutely necessary, and will only do so if we have a plan for victory with a capital V,” he thundered. “The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies.”



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
We really need to get out of the ME. We don't need their oil.

We really need to vote out people who take Saudi money.


I couldn't agree with you more.

As I've said in the OP, the more we extend influence in the region (especially in the form of bombs), the more we are back peddling the original mission of fighting terrorism.

The longer we're there, the more the 6 trillion (which will rise) will be in vein.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
I am thinking that practically every politician in this world with any power has received at least some money from Saudi Arabia.

Not justifying, just saying.


I'm doubtfull anyone will argue that, at least effectively.

While the article frames this as a Republican problem, in context I believe it's because Republicans have control.

But as Shooter pointed out, this predates the current admin, and has carried over in pretty much all of them since WWII.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Lobbyists in modern democracy are something that you introduced to the rest of the world, so it's only fair that you also suffer from them.


Maybe i'm simple, but i always thought the point of democractic representation was its impartiality - the lawmakers are supposed to do what's best their respective nation, not for whoever pays them the most.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Lobbyists in modern democracy are something that you introduced to the rest of the world, so it's only fair that you also suffer from them.


Maybe i'm simple, but i always thought the point of democractic representation was its impartiality - the lawmakers are supposed to do what's best their respective nation, not for whoever pays them the most.


Your not going to find me trying to sugar coat things with American exceptionalism.

You're right. Our politicians have not been representing constituents impartially for some time now. Corporations hold the reigns, as do anyone else with stockpiles of cash.

The term campaign donations is a slap in the face, anyone who keeps up with this stuff knows they are investments.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
Lobbyists in modern democracy are something that you introduced to the rest of the world, so it's only fair that you also suffer from them.


That's only because we were the first modern democracy, lobbyist-like behavior existed in classical democracies.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I included nations rather than simply the US as it is prevalent throught "Western" democracy and also in third world countries.

It is a cancer for all of us.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join