White House v. White House concerning Middle Eastern Allies

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

That comes as a surprise to me. If I gave that impression anywhere, it was wholly unintentional.

For instance, I don’t regard Saudi Arabia as a hostile regime, but I do regard them as repressive. No, I’m not. I don’t regard SA as an enemy of any sort.

I’m confused then. Why do you keep referring to it as a hostile regime? I didn’t see that in the quote from the administration official. Did I miss it? I thought he said “repressive”.

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

I’m confused then. Why do you keep referring to it as a hostile regime? I didn’t see that in the quote from the administration official. Did I miss it? I thought he said “repressive”.

I referred to the White House spokesperson painting SA as a hostile nation. He links them rather strongly to “the worst attack on the American homeland in our history,” so that hardly seems an unfair characterization.

[Revenant_Threshold]

Actually, i’d say you were making the bridge to call them hostile. The spokesman is saying that it was citizens of that nation who are terrorists, who were involved in 9/11. You’re reading into that that he’s also making a stab at the UAE being involved in this. So, right or wrong, it is you making the leap to “he’s saying they’re a hostile nation” because you’re the one inferring that’s what he meant.

[RTFirefly]

@Revenant Threshold

Actually, i’d say you were making the bridge to call them hostile. The spokesman is saying that it was citizens of that nation who are terrorists, who were involved in 9/11. You’re reading into that that he’s also making a stab at the UAE being involved in this. So, right or wrong, it is you making the leap to “he’s saying they’re a hostile nation” because you’re the one inferring that’s what he meant.

What else is there to infer? The spokesman wasn’t saying it was wrong for Gore to speak in front of the terrorists (who are dead anyway), but that it’s wrong for him to speak in the country they came from, which makes no sense unless one is associating the people, the act, and the country.

If he’s saying, “It is noteworthy that Mr. Gore would travel to Saudi Arabia…which is the home of Osama bin Laden and most of the terrorists who executed the worst attack on the American homeland in our history [but SA had nothing to do with it, and every country has a few bad apples anyway,]”* then what’s the noteworthiness of the locale of Gore’s speech?

If he’s not implying something bad here about Saudi Arabia itself, what he’s saying makes no sense.
*The stuff in the brackets isn’t what he said; the rest of it in the quotes is. Just so we’re clear.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@RTFirefly

What else is there to infer? The spokesman wasn’t saying it was wrong for Gore to speak in front of the terrorists (who are dead anyway), but that it’s wrong for him to speak in the country they came from, which makes no sense unless one is associating the people, the act, and the country.

If he’s saying, “It is noteworthy that Mr. Gore would travel to Saudi Arabia…which is the home of Osama bin Laden and most of the terrorists who executed the worst attack on the American homeland in our history [but SA had nothing to do with it, and every country has a few bad apples anyway,]”* then what’s the noteworthiness of the locale of Gore’s speech?

If he’s not implying something bad here about Saudi Arabia itself, what he’s saying makes no sense.

Hmm. Good point, actually. I would suggest though that the spokesman isn’t focusing on Saudi Arabia being hostile, therefore Gore shouldn’t have spoke there, but more along the lines of “Hmm, we need to make Gore look bad, so let’s frame his speech in the worst sounding way possible”. But yes, you’re right, whichever inference is correct he’s still making out either the people or government (or both) of SA to be “bad”, whether or not they truly believe that to be the case. I concede the point.