Donald Trump has had a busy May. Lots of confusion worse confounded, of who’s in, who’s out, and where are the snows of yesteryear. In-and-out like Flynn, up-and-down like Bannon, here-and-there and everywhere, like Jared Kushner of Kushner International Realty. And quick to take offense at the slightest slight, a brittle man in the middle of the muddle. The most disturbing of his acts was his nonchalant revealing to the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, and the Russian ambassador, Kislyak, of classified intelligence information about the Islamic State’s latest, and deadliest science project to date, to put undetectable explosives in laptops that can be carried aboard planes. Information about this worrying threat, including exactly where, in what Syrian city, this macabre start-up is getting ready for its I.P.O., was provided to American intelligence from its most reliable, valuable, and steadfast ally, Israel. What makes Trump’s lapse even more worrisome is that “Israel had previously urged the United States to be careful about the handling of the intelligence that Mr. Trump discussed.” And when we further learn, according to General McMaster, that Trump decided “on the spur of the moment” to reveal secrets the American government had been warned to carefully keep, this makes his negligence more disturbing still. On-the-spur-of-the-moment? That was not a time, that was not a place, and that was not a fit subject for our President to show off to the Russians with something akin to a schoolboy’s schoolyard boast, “I know something you don’t know.” While the Israelis are putting an uncomplaining public face on it, they surely must be unhappy. And other allies, too, must now be worrying as to what to share with, and what to withhold from, Trump, because apparently the classification “Top Secret” and specific warnings to hold very close within the American security services this intelligence provided by a close ally were ignored. And now we must all worry that the Russians may be able, on the basis of what they learned from Trump, to engage in reverse-engineering, to determine (Israeli) sources and methods, and then Russia may share what it discovers with its close ally Iran, which just happens to be Israel’s mortal enemy.
“What the president discussed with the foreign minister was wholly appropriate to that conversation and is consistent with the routine sharing of information between the president and any leaders with whom he’s engaged,” General McMaster said at a White House briefing, seeking to play down the sensitivity of the information Mr. Trump disclosed. Really? Was it “wholly appropriate” for Trump to reveal the most sensitive intelligence information gathered by a close ally, that had requested it be closely held even within the American security establishment, and to do so because, as General McMaster added, the President, who he said was unaware of the source of the information, made a spur-of-the-moment decision to tell the Russians what he knew?
“General McMaster also appeared to acknowledge that Thomas P. Bossert, the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and counterterrorism, had called the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency after the meeting with the Russian officials. Other officials have said that the spy agencies were contacted to help contain the damage from the leak to the Russians.”
General McMaster would not confirm that Mr. Bossert made the calls, but suggested that if he did, he was acting “maybe from an overabundance of caution.” So the justified worries of national security officials, attempting to “contain the damage from [Trump’s] leak,” are described by McMaster as “an overabundance of caution.” It’s not an “overabundance” of caution — it’s bizarre to charge those who are exhibiting common sense with being “too cautious,” in order to defend the President from his heedless lack of caution. “Overabundance of caution” — that’s certainly one charge that can never be made against Trump.
Some of those Israeli agents providing extraordinarily valuable information about terrorist planning by those inside the Islamic State may now, thanks to Trump, be in mortal danger. Or, at the very least, they may have to curb some of their intelligence gathering. Israel will now be under much greater scrutiny. And as for sharing what its agents manage to discover, Israel now has to worry about how much to share with the Americans, given that they now are uncertain what will be kept secret, and what President Trump may, in a moment of boastful negligence, reveal. The Israelis (or any other allies who share intelligence with us, for that matter) must now be in a quandary: can they trust President Trump to keep a secret — or even understand that something is a secret to be kept? Much may depend on what happens now to the Israeli agents inside the Islamic State.
The meeting with the Russians took place on May 10, and while Washington was still reeling from that, Trump announced that the first stop, on his first foreign trip, will be to Saudi Arabia. It’s a curious choice: America’s most dangerous state enemy in the war against the Jihad, surpassed only by the non-state actors of ISIS and Al Qaeda, is given pride of place.
Trump will, by this visit (where the Saudi hosts will pull out all the stops for their powerful guest, who enjoys Saudi-like over-the-top luxury) be further legitimizing a country, Saudi Arabia, that he ought to be shunning. Saudi Arabia has spread Islamic fundamentalism all over the globe, spending billions on mosques and madrasas and subventions to imams and theologians and on Western pseudo-academic centers of Islamic studies, such as John Esposito’s Alwaleed bin Talal Center for the Study of Christian-Muslim Understanding, currently headed by the egregious Defender of the Faith, Jonathan Brown, and funded by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, that promote not just Islam, but defend the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia. Saudi textbooks, that are used by Muslim students around the world, bristle with hatred of Infidels. Wahhabi Saudi Arabia is one of only two Muslim countries (Shia Iran is the other) that imposes the full Sharia as its legal code. Saudi Arabia is the country that provided 15 of the 19 World Trade Center bombers. Osama bin Laden was not only a Saudi, but from the very highest ranks, the son of a billionaire contractor who was the richest non-royal in the Saudi kingdom. All over the world, from the building of mosques to the funding of extremist imams, and payments for teachers in madrasas following the Wahhabi line, Saudi money has been used to push fundamentalist Islam.
Here’s a tiny sample of what Saudi schoolchildren learn:
Among the passages found in one 10th-grade Saudi textbook on Monotheism is this: “The Hour will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews, and Muslims will kill all the Jews.” Another work (M. H. Shakir’s translation of the Holy Qur’an) states in one of its glosses to the text: “It’s allowed to demolish, burn or destroy the bastions of the Kuffar (infidels) – and all that constitutes their shield from Muslims if that was for the sake of victory for the Muslims and the defeat for the Kuffar.”
And there is much more in the same vein. But after 9/11, the American government finally got around to asking the Saudi government to revise its textbooks, eliminating any passages that spread “intolerance and hate” against Christians and Jews, and to reform its educational curriculum, including textbooks in Saudi schools and distributed worldwide, by reviewing and revising educational materials and eliminating any that promoted holy war against “unbelievers.”
Al Fawzan, the author of the textbook on monotheism used in Saudi schools and “one of the staunchest religious conservatives in the education system,” replied in 2002 to the American request, in the Saudi newspaper Al Jazeera:
“The Jews and Christians and the polytheists have shown their heartfelt hatred and try to prevent us from the true path of God. They want to change our religion and our teaching to disconnect us from Islam so they can come and occupy us with their armies. It is bad enough when it comes from the infidels, but worse when they are of our skin. They say we create parrots, but they are the real parrots repeating what our enemies say of Islam.”
By 2006, Saudi officials assured the United States that the textbook and curriculum reforms were completed. Not everyone was willing to take them at their word. Freedom House investigated twelve Saudi religious textbooks, and concluded that much more needed to be done to eliminate the inculcated anti-Infidel hate. The Saudis, of course, have steadfastly maintained that they have reformed their educational curriculum, but none of the organizations that have looked into the matter have found convincing evidence for this. And though the affable Prince Turki bin Faisal, Riyadh’s man in Washington (who has taken to heart the famous definition of a “diplomat” as a “ man sent abroad to lie for his country”) has gone around the USA on speaking tours to assure Americans that the Saudi textbooks now are just fine, no one appears any longer to take his assurances seriously. Except possibly Donald Trump, for what else could explain his touching faith in a proposed alliance between the West and a “unified” Muslim world led by Saudi Arabia?
In November 2010, the BBC’s investigative program Panorama reported that Saudi national textbooks advocating antisemitism and violence against homosexuals were still in use in weekend religious programs in the United Kingdom.
In October 2012, Robert Bernstein, who founded Human Rights Watch, serves as a chairman of Advancing Human Rights, and was a former chairman and CEO of Random House, expressed — along with other book publishers — their “profound disappointment that the Saudi government continues to print textbooks inciting hatred and violence against religious minorities.” They gave as an example of an 8th grade textbook in which it is written that “The Apes are the people of the Sabbath, the Jews; and the Swine are the infidels of the communion of Jesus, the Christians.”
Now it is mid-2017, and General McMaster has announced that President Trump will visit Saudi Arabia first on his first foreign tour, and “will deliver an inspiring but direct speech on the need to confront radical ideology and the president’s hopes for a peaceful vision of Islam to dominate across the world.”
“Inspiring.” “…need to confront radical ideology…” “president’s hopes for a peaceful vision of Islam…”
Haven’t we heard something very much like this many times before, not least from our Presidents (think of Bush constantly praising Islam as a religion of peace, or the effusions of Barack Obama in his speech in Cairo, where everything he said, about a “peaceful” and “tolerant” Islam and Muslims as always being “part of American history” was false), that is, heard enough nonsense about Islam? Haven’t successive American governments repeatedly talked about the need for Muslims to confront “a radical ideology” (or, in another variant, “a handful of extremists”) instead of recognizing that what that “handful of violent extremists” believe is no different from what mainstream Islam teaches? And where, in Islamic theology or Muslim history, has a “peaceful vision” of Islam ever dominated? What makes Trump think that his “peaceful vision” of Islam can overcome what is to be found in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, and 1400 years of Islamic history? It’s a tall, a trump-towerish, a burj-khalifaish — no, it’s an impossible — order.
But let’s allow our imaginations to run riot. Let’s allow ourselves to believe that Donald J. Trump has fallen under the spell of McMaster and Trump’s imaginary but entirely plausible Muslim friend Omar, who has disinterestedly been tutoring him in Islam. Let’s allow ourselves to believe further that he’s been deeply impressed by several verses in the Qur’an which he’s learned about only just recently, and that he’s ready to make, with the Saudis and other Muslims, a grand alliance against the “extremists” whom he now believes, just as General McMaster says, have “perverted” a great religion to further their “criminal and political” agendas. Trump, McMaster tells us, will set out an “inspiring” (how does McMaster know beforehand that it will be “inspiring”?) but “direct speech on the need to confront radical ideology” (as defined by whom?) for a “peaceful vision of Islam.”(When, in the past 1400 years, has there been a “peaceful vision of Islam”?)
Remember, this nightmare scenario is being imagined, in true apotropaic fashion, to ward off — inshallah — the conceivable evil of a Trump who’s been turned, or perhaps just mesmerized by the appetizing prospect (this is the other main aim of the stopover in Riyadh) — of selling the Saudis $100 billion worth of weaponry.
It will be fascinating to hear Trump’s speech in Riyadh to his new, true, Saudi and other Muslim friends. Will he recite Qur’an 5:32, that appears to denounce killing? And will he then carefully refrain from reciting 5:33, that lists those who should be killed? If so, he would merely be following the lead of both Bush and Obama, and of so many other apologists, both Muslim and non-Muslim, for Islam. Will he ask the members of his audience, from 50 Muslim countries, all to pledge, in the spirit and letter of 5:32, to combat those who continue to “pervert a great religion” by calling for the killing of Infidels? Sure, why not pledge, or better still, reaffirm the words of the Holy Qur’an against the “killing of innocents.” No one will direct Trump’s attention to 5:33. And neither he, nor General McMaster, whose view of Islam, has become disturbingly and unacceptably benign, are going to raise 5:33. That would be impolite to Trump’s Saudi hosts.
Will Trump then continue with 2:256, claiming that “the Holy Qur’an says that there is to be ‘no compulsion in religion’” and “we need, all of us, to get that message out”? Has Trump been told that 2:256 does not prevent the death penalty from being inflicted on apostates — and that, surely, is the worst form of “compulsion”? Does he know — we all have assumed he must, but doubt begins to creep — that Infidels under Islamic rule have three choices: death, conversion to Islam, or life as dhimmis, allowing them to practice their religion (if they are Christians or Jews), as long as they meet a host of onerous requirements, including the payment of the Jizyah, or capitation tax, to which dhimmis were subject?
Here’s how I can imagine Trump ingenuously discussing 2:256:
I think we can all agree on that fundamental principle of Islam, that as the Holy Qur’an says, there should be “no compulsion in religion,” and we must work together — and I like working together with a team, it’s how you really get things done, as long as we stay — to make sure that the “handful of extremists” who oppose such an idea are not allowed to win. They deserve to lose. They’re losers. We’re going to make them lose. I promise. If more people actually knew some of the basic principles that Islam — the real Islam — stands for, they’d be a lot less suspicious, a lot less worried. And I have a confession to make. I don’t want to hold anything back. I was, not so long ago, one of those people. I used to be one of them. I mistakenly took what bin Laden said, and what the Islamic State proclaimed, and just assumed that they stood for what many, many Muslims believed. But I knew I should study, look into Islam, try to get to the bottom of things. So I did, every day, here or at Mar-a-Lago. I would read the Qur’an, and some of the commentaries, even for more than an hour at a time. I know what the Hadith are, and the Sira — you never heard Barack Hussein Obama mention either one. And I had a personal tutor — a Muslim from Iraq, who worked with our troops. A great guy. Completely trustworthy. I can call him up to ask a question at any hour of day or night.
Yes, ever since I became President, I’ve been looking into Islam more deeply — no one in American history has looked into Islam as deeply as I have — and I can say that it’s not been treated fairly. Yes, I, Donald J. Trump, am willing to admit that I had a change of mind. It’s not that there aren’t some bad apples in the barrel. Of course there are. But as my Iraqi friend likes to say, how many? There have been more than 30,000 terrorist acts by Muslims since 9/11/2001. Sounds like a lot. But there are 1.5 billion Muslims. That means that about one out of every 50,000 Muslims has been involved in terrorism. Or, if we assume that there are at least four terrorists for each attack, on average, then we’d have four out of every 50,000 Muslims. Still not very many. See, I like numbers. I’m a numbers guy. Numbers tell you a lot. And it’s ridiculous to accuse 1.5 billion Muslims or be suspicious of them because one or two or three or four out of every 50,000 has engaged in terrorism. It just doesn’t make sense. Believe me.
We can’t let the terrorists win. We just can’t. So what I, Donald J. Trump, am calling for today is a partnership between you, the world’s Muslims, and the world’s non-Muslims. We need to isolate the extremists — and I know that not all extremists are Muslims, we have our own to worry about — so that you no longer have to endure being lumped in with them. We need to put a stop to those who taunt Muslims by maligning the Prophet Muhammad. Believe me, there is never any excuse, absolutely none, to make fun of a sacred figure in someone else’s religion. We wouldn’t like it, not at all, if someone did it to Jesus, and there’s no reason for Muslims to be expected just to put up with it, and say nothing, when the Prophet Muhammad is mocked. It’s just a tremendous, tremendous insult and we’re not going to expect you to put up with it, just as we wouldn’t put up with mockery of Jesus. Have you been insulted for standing up for your Prophet? Yes, you have. And I’m sorry. And that has got to go. Believe me, I know what it’s like to be badly treated by the media. I have without a doubt been treated worse by the media than anyone in American history. And as Muslims, you know the feeling. So this fight belongs to both of us.
What the terrorists want, of course, is to set us off against each other, rather than to appeal to our common humanity. They don’t want non-Muslims and Muslims to be friends. They even claim that in the Qur’an it says not to take Infidels as friends. I don’t believe that for a minute. I’ve had plenty of Muslim business partners. They’re good friends. Good businessmen, too. I’ve made a tremendous amount of money for them. Yes, it’s hard to believe, but extremist Muslims really don’t want us even to be friends. They pull some story out of somewhere and claim it’s what Muhammad wanted, and some young kids listen to some crazy imam and believe this stuff is really Islam. We have to clean up those acts. It’s not fair to the Muslim kids. I, Donald J. Trump, hereby pledge that I will help you put a stop to this kind of thing.
But first, I think it’s important for the Muslim world to unite against its real enemies — the Islamic State, and other extremist groups. They are not just giving Islam a bad name — they are real bad guys, make no mistake — and are actually attacking many Muslims as well. In the West, too few people realize that the greatest enemies of the extremist Muslims are the moderate Muslims. They are engaged in a war for Islam’s soul, and I, Donald J. Trump, was determined to come here, to Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Islam, as my first foreign stop, to express my support for you and your effort to fight them. I know that the Saudis have done a wonderful job in reeducating radicalized Muslims and letting them back into the community. And it’s that kind of effort that needs to be expanded. You’re the good guys in this fight. I know that, and I want more Americans to know that. A few years ago we pointed out to our Saudi friends some problems with their textbooks, and that’s all it took, just one reminder, for them to clean them up — the royal family hadn’t been paying attention to those books which, I learned, had long been tampered with by some rogue clerics who had managed to put in some unpleasant material about Christians and Jews. And no sooner was the problem pointed out than Prince Alwaleed bin Talal himself personally took charge of getting rid of those passages, and I’m sure he did a great job of that, he always does — he’s a great guy, I’ve known him for years, he went in with me on a tremendous deal, a golf course in Dubai. Tremendous, really tremendous. You’d be surprised how many beautiful golf courses they can build in the desert. Sure, it takes a tremendous amount of water, but when you have to pay a quarter of a million just for basic membership in a truly fabulous golf club, the water is not a problem. Definitely, no problemo. Where was I? Oh, yes, while the Saudi textbooks were taken care of just as soon as we alerted the Saudi authorities to the matter, we have the bigger problem, believe me, of fighting ISIS, fighting Al-Qaeda, the extremists, the haters.
There’s been a lot of trouble and infighting in the Muslim world, and that weakens the ability of Muslims to fight the extremists. What I want to do, as I told General McMaster, is to help start an Arab NATO, get Muslim troops on the ground running, and this Arab NATO can move forces around quickly to this or that Muslim country, to fight the extremists wherever they pop up, so that we in the West don’t have to become the peacekeepers for the whole Muslim world. We’ve had sixteen years of trying to make things better in Afghanistan, and almost as long in Iraq. We’ve spent at least four trillion dollars. But Al-Qaeda is still here. The Islamic State is still here. It seem that they keep popping up, getting new recruits, no matter how many are killed. So we need you Muslims to handle things on the ground. We’ll be happy to help, from the air or sea, you saw what I did in Syria, I wanted to send a message, I surprised everyone, even Putin with whom I am supposedly — the media lie as usual — so buddy-buddy — and the message was sent loud and clear: Donald J. Trump doesn’t mess around, he means business.
My new policy will guarantee, and for trillions — trillions — less, the success we all need. We need our Arab friends, our Muslim friends, to join together, not to fight with each other — excluding Iran, which is a special case — and as General McMaster said, to “take a firm stand against extremism and those who use a perverted interpretation of religion to advance their criminal and political agendas.”
With General McMaster, the Trump Administration’s view of Islam has become scarcely distinguishable from what was offered in the Age of Obama and of Bush. An absolutely mainstream Islam, centered on the duty of Jihad, becomes, in this telling, “a perverted interpretation of Islam to advance [the extremists’] criminal and political agendas.” What was “perverted” about the “interpretation” of Islam offered by the Muslims of the Islamic State, dutifully following what is prescribed in the Qu’ran and in the Hadith, where the example of Muhammad, the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct, remains to be forever emulated? What evidence is there of the slightest difference between mainstream Islam, and what McMaster described as a “perverted interpretation of religion”? He offers none. And there is none. And what are the “criminal and political agendas” of Muslims, if not the duty to participate in Jihad, against all those considered to be Infidels, in order to expand Dar al-Islam at the expense of Dar al-Harb, until Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere?
Why would any Infidel leader want to help create a “united Muslim front,” instead of exploiting signs of disarray within the Camp of Islam? Why can’t Trump see the benefit of sectarian fissures, mainly between Sunni and Shia, and now on violent display in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Lebanon, Pakistan? Surely Donald Trump remembers the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), that went on for eight years, and consumed the aggressive energies of both sides. Wasn’t the Iran-Iraq War a good thing? Didn’t it use up men, materiel, money, and morale, of both Iran and Iraq? And what about the ethnic conflict, within Islam, of non-Arabs resentful of the way that Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism, requiring a kind of ideal “arabization”? The Berbers in North Africa have suffered cultural imperialism at the hands of the Arabs, who have tried intermittently to get them to abandon their Berber language and culture, in a campaign of forced arabization. The Kurds in Iraq suffered, under Saddam Hussein’s Arabs, a still worse form of arabization; the Arabs killed 182,000 Kurds, and then Arabs were moved into formerly Kurdish-populated villages. And how many Muslims elsewhere have wanted, because Arabs are superior to non-Arabs in the Islamic pecking order, to claim a pseudo-Arab identity, as in Pakistan, where so many take on the name “Sayyid” (meaning a descendant of the Prophet)? While Muslims are called the “best of peoples” in the Qur’an, it is clear that the Arabs are the “best of Muslims.” For the Qur’an was dictated in Arabic, to an Arab, the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims must face toward Mecca, in western Arabia, five times a day, and ideally copy the dress, mores, and customs of 7th century Arabs. And until recently, the Qur’an was to be read only in Arabic and still, today, tens of millions of madrasa students read, recite, memorize the Qur’an in Arabic, even when they can hardly understand the language.
Is Donald Trump aware of this history? What makes him think the West has more to gain from a “united” Muslim world than from one that is divided against itself, in either sectarian or ethnic conflict? How would the West suffer if Saudi Arabia and Iran, instead of fighting through proxies, engaged in a full-scale war? And why wouldn’t the West have far more to gain if the Kurds managed to establish an independent Kurdistan on territory that was formerly part of Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey? A Kurdish state would certainly be loyal to its indispensable American ally, a good deal more loyal than Erdogan’s Turkey, though the latter is a member of, and receives considerable benefits from, NATO. While re-islamizing and de-kemalizing Turkey, Erdogan has also treated his Western allies with considerable disdain. He demanded that the American government ignore its own legal procedures and simply hand over Fethulleh Gulen to Ankara, and he bitterly denounced the Americans when they refused. In Germany, where Erdogan’s men were prevented from holding a referendum among local Turks on Erdogan’s “reforms” — the ones that will make it possible for him to stay in power until 2029 — he repeatedly denounced German officials as “Nazis.” Not exactly what one expects from a NATO ally. In his warm welcome to Erdogan in early May, Trump decided to overlook all that. Perhaps he was already thinking ahead to his big reveal in Riyadh, later in the month.
“How is it that I, Donald J. Trump, have moved all the way from my campaign call for a ‘complete and total shutdown on Muslims entering the United States’ to going off to visit Saudi Arabia, where I’m going to stand right in front of the representatives of 50 Muslim nations, and where I will call for a ‘united Muslim front’ and an alliance between that ‘united Muslim front’ and the West? Well, I’ve learned a lot in the last few months about Islam that I didn’t know before. And I’m always willing to recognize when I don’t know something. You can’t be a good businessman if you can’t take in new information. I didn’t know about the ban on killing innocents, right there in the Qur’an, I think it’s 5:32. I didn’t know that in the Qur’an it says that “there is no compulsion in religion.” I didn’t know that the Prophet Muhammad was really a feminist — I mean, so many people claim women are oppressed in Islam, but let’s get real. He married a successful businesswoman, Khadija, he wasn’t the kind to keep his wife at home. She was like Ivanka. Women actually had it better after the Prophet Muhammad came along. He allowed them to inherit property. And their dowry was paid to them directly, not to their families. Women were allowed to control their own money and property. And yes, it’s true that a man could have up to four wives, but only if he could support them all. It was the women who had a right to live off the men, if they wanted to, not the reverse. Is that ‘oppression’? And there’s an emphasis, my friend Omar explained, in the Qur’an and in the stories about Muhammad, called the hadith, on the spiritual equality of men and women.
“And when Omar — who’s been a great help, believe me — pointed out that even if there have been 30,000 terrorist attacks, that’s not much when we’re talking about 1.5 billion Muslims, my mind opened. One or two or even five out of every 50,000 Muslims. Not very much. Do the math. Should I condemn Muslims because one, or three, or even five, out of every 50,000 Muslims turns out to be a real bad egg? I don’t think so.
“Listen, we’ve spent a tremendous amount of money trying to fix up Iraq, Afghanistan. Really tremendous. Tillerson told me its trillions! We need that money! And we can’t renovate these properties. Look at Iraq, look at Afghanistan. They’re still a mess, and still counting on us to rebuild and rescue them. No. We’ve spent more than enough. The people who live there have to do it themselves. My strategy — my alliance of the West with the mainstream Muslims who hate the extremists just as much as any of us, maybe more — is going to work. The Saudis are with us! Everyone said it couldn’t be done, that they would never join us. Well, just watch how they greet me when I arrive in Riyadh. My strategy is going to win. I’m not used to losing. I don’t like losing. I’ve never been a loser. Look at how I won the election, while the media said it would never happen. Listen, I came out a winner from all of my so-called bankruptcies. People have been trying to pull me down for decades. They’ve never succeeded. They tried during the campaign. Nobody thought I could win. They’re still trying. I don’t want to start being a loser now. There’s going to be so much winning with my strategy, you’re going to be bored with winning. It will be tremendous. Saudi Arabia. The Middle East. Muslims all over the place, joining our team. No more Us and Them. Believe me, it will be absolutely tremendous.”