CIA: The Crown Prince Did It

125px-Coat_of_arms_of_Saudi_Arabia.svgWhile President Donald Trump has expressed reluctance to confront Saudi Arabia on the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and noted that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman assured him that he was not involved, the CIA has now reached what it considers a clear finding that the Crown Prince ordered the savage murder and then lied to Trump and the world (while having all of his own henchmen arrested).

Given the history of torture and brutality by the Saudi Prince, it was a laughable suggestion that his closest aides would take on such an premeditated murder without his approval. The CIA’s assessment found that the Crown Prince ordered the murder involving a team of 15 Saudi agents in Istanbul.  The assessment was based on a wide array of evidence including a phone call from the prince’s brother Khalid bin Salman.  Khalid told Khashoggi that he should go to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to retrieve the documents and gave him assurances that it would be safe to do so.

This would also mean that Khalid later joined his brother in lying to the public about the conspiracy.

There was also a call Maher Mutreb, one of the Crown Prince’s closest security official, who was involved in the murder and called Saud al-Qahtani, a top aide to Mohammed, to informed him that the operation had been completed.

So what now?  We have a Crown Prince who murdered a Washington Post columnist and then lied directly to the President and the world — while arranging for his henchmen to be executed.  While Trump has been criticized for his expressions of respect and friendship for some of the world’s greatest dictators, this presents an even starker moral dilemma. This morning when confronted with the CIA assessment, Trump again cited the jobs and economic power of Saudi Arabia.


88 thoughts on “CIA: The Crown Prince Did It”

  1. the cia evidently has bet on a different horse inside the regime. or should I say camel

  2. The closest to the truth that Trump has come, basically saying that regardless of whatever the prince does, money is money and money comes first, before basic freedoms; unless stuff gets in the way of Donald’s golfing.

  3. Do not assume that Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) believes in individual rights or women’s rights, because of his efforts at modernization and the few concessions he has made to women. He is at heart a royal authoritarian. He allegedly keeps his own mother on house arrest because she opposed the succession, making excuses for her absence to the King, who suffers from dementia. Due to gender segregation, disparate treatment, even inside the household, and polygamy, many Saudi men grow up intrinsically viewing women as “other”, or to be controlled and collected. Middle Easatern hospitality is lavish and very generous, but it is not chivalric. That’s a European paradigm.

    Anti-Semitism, as dictated in the Qu’ran, is the standard, where even today it is illegal for a Jew to set foot in the country. It was a major dispensation for Trump’s daughter and son-in-law to be allowed to accompany him.

    MBS has been alleged to have arrested and tortured billionaires, until they hand over their wealth and allegiance. It starts out as a house arrest at a luxury hotel and ends up in a torture chamber, or worse, for the non cooperative. Critics and human rights advocates get arrested or simply disappear.

    As I mentioned before, my father was deeply affected when he witnessed the beheading of gay men in Chop Chop Square. Saudi Arabia is not the West, nor should it ever be confused with the West. We have had a mutually beneficial relationship, and have shared military technology with the Kingdom. We overlook their crimes against humanity, extreme Anti-Semtism, and funding of terrorism, as well as the participation of several of their nationals in 9/11, all because we desire their geopolitical access to the Middle East. It is a Machiavellian relationship. Meanwhile, the hedonistic royal family, with their thousands of royals due to polygamy, tread a fine line with the clerics. They used up almost all of their deep water aquifers to farm wheat and raise dairy in the desert. When the water is all gone, they will be extremely vulnerable. Then the oil will eventually get replaced. At some point, the region will become unstable and sink further into extremism. As it is, there is not that much that separates them from ISIS, except for the latter’s efforts for global caliphate. The Kingdom may not be actively and openly working to conquer the world in the name of Islam, but millions flow to fund such efforts.

  4. I wonder what the world would be like today if #1 the USA had supported the Iranian revolutionaries instead of the Shah; #2 the USA had supported the soviets instead of the mujahadin; and #3 had consistently pursued alternative energy instead of getting in bed with the House of Saud.

    1. Andrea,…
      I’ll try to post a couple of links related to your questions about the Shah.
      As the uprising against the Shah continued, there was disagreement within the Carter Administration on the best course, or “least worst course” to take.
      Carter’s National Security Advisor Brzesniski was one of the few in favor of continued support of the Shah’s regime.
      That support did not materialize. The Carter Administration instead was communicating with Ayatollah Khomeini about a transition of power to “the revolutionaries”, and pressuring the Shah and his military to avoid crushing the uprising.
      Essentially, the Carter Administration decided that Khomeini and his “revolutionaries” were a betted net than backing the Shah.
      Khomeini was evidently ” saying all the right things” to reassure Carter that the the new regime replacing the Shah would not be hostile to America.
      What he said, and what he did when he seized power were two different things.

        1. Andrea,..
          I will just add that the Ayatollah Khomeini had a compliant and favorable press in the U.S. and other Western nations.
          As if this “humble, wonderful, righteous religious man” was just what Iran needed to replace the Shah.
          There were some in the Carter Administration like Brzezinnski who saw Khomeini for what he was, but ultimately their advice did not win out.

          1. Tom, no one liked Khomeini! He kept saying over and over that he wanted to take Iran “back to the 13th Century”. That’s all Americans needed to hear to know that Khomeini was not our kind of guy.

            But the U.S. was in no position to prop up the Shah. Nor were we in any position to install an alternative pro-western government. Iran was not some banana republic where a few U.S. marines could seize the capitol and impose its will.

            1. Peter,…
              The options were not “A”. to “send in the troops” to prop up the Shah or “B”.encourage him to leave.
              The Shah’s declining health also complicated the picture
              The U.S. had some influence in the events that occured in the late 1970s in Iran.
              Sending in American forces to support the Shah was not considered.
              Threatening an arms embargo and an economic embargo were a couple of measures we took that influenced the Shah’s regime and the Shah’s military.
              The 180 degree American policy turnaround with the “valued ally” now viewed as one who must leave power did contribute to the fall of the Shah’s regime.
              As did the wildly optimistic and unrealistic assessment of what Khomeini was really like.
              So this wasn’t about U.S. military option to “install an alternative pro-Western government.”
              It was a question of pulling support from the Shah’s regime, an EXISTING pro-Western, and largely secular, government.

  5. BTW:

    Why does anyone give a Crap one group of islamic Pedos kill another islamic Pedo from a different group?

    Also I wonder, how much would the US have to pay to get the Saudis to take care of Jim The Acoster, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, etc… LOL:)

    I can dream can’t I?

    1. Jamal Khashoggi was not a pedophile. This can be demonstrated by the fact that he was at the embassy to get documents so that he could marry a rather mature woman.

      I, for one, care when anyone murders anyone else. We are all human beings who bleed, are cognizant, and have nerve endings.

      1. islami, the Ideology of a tyrannical type governmental dictatorship, cloaked as a religion, Endorses Pedophilia.

        Look the short of the long story is that if you love these islamic 14th century throw backs from 3rd world sh*thole countries that are still operating slave blocks, selling humans/kids into, (sex),slavery, you should pack up your stuff & move to their sand box & help them & take a few more back with you.

        Don’t forget your bag. (For your Head)

        (If/when I find the news story again the US house of reps is getting rid of a 150+ years old rule that Bans Ragheads from it’s chamber.

        I support keeping it as to Not enslave women.)

        1. BTW: This video didn’t start where I posted it at, but you can use the scroll bottom at the bottom & see if you like any of the other entries into that song contest.

  6. ” the CIA has now reached what it considers a clear finding that the Crown Prince ordered the savage murder”

    Let’s correct the above statement: Some unknown person who says he has access to the CIA says ” the Crown Prince ordered the savage murder”. That means very little and I will state why.

    Over and over again we have been innundated with false reports. Is there a possibility the Crown Prince ordered the murder? That is always a possibility much like the possibility that Vince Foster was killed by the Clinton’s even though I do not think it true. (Vince Foster might actually have killed himself out of guilt because of the blood tainted with AIDs that the Clinton’s were seemingly involved with.)
    Since we have no information from the CIA we only have speculation. Our CIA had said that Iraq had WMD’s and the same persons saying the quote is true say the CIA was wrong about Iraq. They are so sure of themselves even though they have no statement from the CIA nor do they know who gathered the information.

    1. I should have added that legitimate CIA information frequently is better kept as a secret until released from official sources since it increases both the bargaining power of America and increases our security. Those willing to reveal such secrets are both treasonous and anti-American especially when American policy hasn’t yet been formulated.

    2. Allan, this week the Saudi crown prosecutor indicted the murder squad that was named by Turkish intelligence. That murder squad includes two the prince’s bodyguards. Professor Turley is correct; it would be “laughable” to think the crown prince knew nothing about the murder in question.

      But for some bizarre reason you feel the need to cast doubt on all this. Perhaps you think you’re protecting Trump because he was stupid enough to downplay this murder when it first made news. In any event, your comment here confirms what we have always suspected: ‘Allan is a cynical, not-so-bright anti-intellectual’.

      1. Peter, what you are saying is just plain ignorant. I took no position as to the Prince’s involvement in the killing. I took a position that the news we are getting is suspect. Some like conspiracy theories and hold onto them whether or not evidence exists to the contrary. We did not hear directly from the CIA or the President so to the present we don’t know what is true or not.

        If it is true there are many approaches to handle what happened and I feel confident the President will act in the interests of the American people. You don’t agree and that is fine but then you have to defend all the unintended consequences of your opinion.

  7. We have time to carefully consider how to “severely punish” MBS, as the President promised to do in his Lesley Stahl interview. We should wait and give the King time to demote his son from Crown Prince. The evidence has hit a crescendo in the intelligence services, but would build even more consensus if made public.

    According to Muslim law as practiced in Saudi Arabia, bin Salman should have his head cut off in the Riyahd public square, after a trial where all the facts are presented. If this doesn’t occur, the rest of the world should keep buying the oil, but mercilessly ridicule the monarchy for its corruption of Islamic Law.

    We can do this without giving any comfort to Iran, and without punishing the Arabian people, who had nothing to do with this brazen crime.

    1. We should also, as a people, send nastygrams to the Saudi embassy demanding the decapitation of bin Salman. I did just that yesterday.


Comments are closed.