Thoughts on the way Trump handled the Khashoggi murder's impact on US-Saudi relations

Allahpundit at Hot Air notes both the distinctive stylistic flourishes and the VSG's set of priorities:

. . . it’s written in fluent Trump-ese. Exclamation points galore. It’s basically the longest Trump tweet in history. You would think that if he had resolved to officially shrug off Khashoggi’s murder, he’d at least farm the statement out to John Bolton or Mike Pompeo to pretty it up. Nope. It reads like dictation for the most part. Which is good, frankly: If we’re going to greenlight the murder of dissidents by our Wahhabist “friends,” better that we avoid diplomatic niceties and doublespeak. The Trumpian tone of the statement is his way of taking full possession of the decision. He’s owning it.

His logic is pure nationalism too, right down to the “America First!” kicker. (Exclamation point in the original.) As you read, bear in mind this post from last night. For all of Marco Rubio’s pro-nationalist twaddle lately, do you think he agrees that arms sales matter more than an American resident’s right not to be dismembered by a foreign power that he’s criticized? Maybe there’s a lesson here for Little Marco.

After my heavily negotiated trip to Saudi Arabia last year, the Kingdom agreed to spend and invest $450 billion in the United States. This is a record amount of money. It will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, tremendous economic development, and much additional wealth for the United States. Of the $450 billion, $110 billion will be spent on the purchase of military equipment from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and many other great U.S. defense contractors. If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries – and very happy to acquire all of this newfound business. It would be a wonderful gift to them directly from the United States!…

Representatives of Saudi Arabia say that Jamal Khashoggi was an “enemy of the state” and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but my decision is in no way based on that – this is an unacceptable and horrible crime. King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman vigorously deny any knowledge of the planning or execution of the murder of Mr. Khashoggi. Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information, but it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event – maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!

That being said, we may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi. In any case, our relationship is with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They have been a great ally in our very important fight against Iran.

Ben Shapiro at the Daily Wire says maintaining strategic ties to Saudi Arabia could have been handled on other grounds:

 Obviously, justifying human rights violations on the basis of economic deals is a major moral disaster — and comes closer to the Obama agenda with regard to Iran than to actual principle. We don’t need Saudi cash. We do need Saudi Arabia to act as a counterweight to Iran. That’s the central point upon which Trump should have focused. And even then, we can help Saudi act as that counterweight without greenlighting or nodding away murder.

And

 [Trump] has essentially signaled that because the United States has strategic interests in alliance with Saudi Arabia, there will be no serious consequences for human rights violations. That’s unnecessary. The United States is the strong partner here, not the Saudis — they need us far more than we need them. We could certainly have slapped them on the wrist, at the very least — and it is not in the interest of the United States to stand idly while our allies commit open murders against dissidents.  

The VSG didn't help himself by casting doubt on the CIA assessment with al that "we'll-never-know-all-the-details" jive.

Then there's this bracingly blunt contribution for Hawaii Senator Tulsi Gabbard:

Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not “America First.”

But those who assume such forthright positions would do well to first see if they are vulnerable to charges of inconsistency:

Gabbard’s remark drew some criticism of her own dealings with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. She met with him in an unannounced trip in January 2017 and was skeptical that he was behind the deadly chemical weapons attack in April 2017.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) responded to her tweet highlighting her friendliness towards Assad.

And how would you describe your fondness for Assad? Asking for the 500,000 Syrians he murdered... including the 50,000 children who gasped their last breath because of him.

In essence, the sum total of these takes is this: This has been one of those situations that calls for a hard swallow and an unfortunate pragmatic foreign-policy call, which necessitates that it be handled with finesse and as much humanity as can be brought to bear - and the Very Stable Genius is the wrong man for the job.