The Hill Discovers 'Crossing the Line,' Ignores Who Drew It
The Hill frets over Trump defending Saudi Prince MBS, citing Khashoggi's murder as a major transgression. Suddenly, America has a 'line' for human rights? This newfound moral compass conveniently ignores the decades of bipartisan support for regimes with far more extensive human rights abuses—especially when those regimes serve US geopolitical interests, or fund US elections. One might wonder if
the 'line' only appears when a political opponent crosses it, not when the establishment benefits. Where was The Hill's concern for 'crossing the line' when the US continued to arm Saudi Arabia for its devastating war in Yemen? Or when Congress repeatedly authorized billions in aid to regimes that systematically oppress their own populations? The selective indignation is glaring. Perhaps the
'line' in American politics is less about ethics and more about who's politically convenient to condemn.