>I presume you did read the Saudi approval of Trump's message of working together against evildoers, since you quote part of his "rhetoric" from the government release.

I quoted the context to see that there was more than one aspect of the visit (i.e. the arms deal, other financial and economic agreements, etc... in addition to the speech against extremism) to which the Foreign Minister commented.

>Hopefully we both can see why a Saudi FM and possibly even a few others in both the West and Islamic worlds, might agree with this rhetoric. Maybe even you agree with it.

Of course, who wouldn't? Now, we'll just have to hope that was not only empty rhetoric and that something constructive will come out of this. I also hope that the deal aimed to provide $110 billion worth of arms and military equipment to SA and other Sunni Arab countries is not casting a shadow over the credibility of these statements. And then, there's Iran which just had a democratic election days before ...

>So what does the US MSM media have to say on it? Well, as I pointed out- CNN brings along an opposition politician who frets that Trump's (yes, he does mention him by name) "rhetoric" is divisive and could cause attacks on the US.
>I have a hypothesis about this glaring disparity. What's yours?

What I saw was this:
Decent CNN coverage of the Manchester attack... during which the politician bit was when the topics started leaning towards the details as to whether ISIS would claim the attack, how they are able to motivate and recruit members, and whether something like that could happen in the US. The divisive rhetoric was invoked as one of the possible reasons, and something that politicians should be careful about. Yes, Trump was mentioned, and it is unfortunate that it came so soon after delivering his message in Riyadh. However, the CNN bit made sense to me in the context of the Manchester attack... I'd call it a very unfortunate sequence of events.
*