None of the conservatives here seem to care. They seem indifferent to the incessant lying, the defense of authoritarian thugs, and the very real possibility that Trump's Saudi (and Russian) foreign policy is the result of emoluments and/or blackmail.
Still no answer on how our present foreign policy towards SA differs from previous administrations. Simple question.
Others have answered that for you.
My point is the one I made - unrelated to your question. I don't see any evidence that any of the conservatives posting here are concerned about what seem like red flags to many others.
Note the placement of scare quotes around the word
policy in the thread's title. To me, that means that the word does not refer to America's official foreign policy regarding Saudi Arabia, but to Trump's personal policy in dealing with them. His policy seems to be to overlook the atrocities, dismiss his intelligence agencies, and court favor with the Saudis for personal gain. Also, his justification for his position is a series of distortions, obfuscations, and outright lies.
Trump is undermining American institutions when he says that he believes the Arabs over the CIA. He's undermining America's moral standing on the world stage with his apparent indifference about what happened to that journalist, which is consistent with his contempt for journalists like Khashoggi who expose high-level corruption, and with his own (non-violent) attacks on America's journalists.
These are not the values that America wants to show the world. These are not the values that people who were offended by what the Saudis did want to be associated with. These Trumpian policies damage America whatever her official foreign policy may be.
It's not the conservatives that are the problem; it's the Republicons
OK, I'll grant you that. The language here is problematic. Not all conservatives are morally lost or factually challenged. Some are very vigilant and seem to care about values that liberal Americans support as well.
Conservative, Republican, right-wing, Neocon - how do these words differ in meaning, and where do they overlap? It's probably different for all of us.
For example, what's a Republican? Anybody that registers Republican? Anybody who preferentially votes for Republican candidates? Somebody running as Republican? A member of government that won running as a Republican? A conservative staff member appointed by such a person? All of the above?
Actually, to me, the biggest threat is power and money behind the Republican party, combined with an increasingly unsophisiticated, low information, and easily manipulated electorate subjected to incessant, effective, right-wing propaganda. Are those behind the scenes with the money and selfish anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian agendas considered Republicans, or just neocons?