House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the administration conducted the airstrike without consultation of Congress or an authorization for use of military force against Iran. She said it “risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence."
“When the security of the nation is at stake, decisions must not be made in a vacuum,” Mr. Schumer said. “It is paramount for administrations to get an outside view to prevent groupthink.”
Presidential candidate Joe Biden said that Trump has “tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox" with the targeted killing of Iran's top general in an airstrike at Baghdad’s international airport.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders released a statement saying, “Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren - Trump's “reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict."
The arguments laid forward are poor ones. Presidents don't consult and ask for Congressional approval on one time strategic air-strikes like this one. They wait till they have the chance to make a move, and then they make it. These are ultimately military (not political) decisions. Informing Congress likely would have messed up the mission in one way or the other. Democrats cannot be trusted to not immediately run to the NYT, WaPo, or CNN and illegally leak classified information. They have done it time and time again, and justified it.
Meanwhile, the shaking in their collective boots argument of fear, tells us that these Democrats (should they be back in control) would be feckless cowards who would simply apologize every time terrorists attack Americans, and let these terrorist understand that their culture of fear is working. We cannot allow the threats of terrorism to get us to the point where we accept dead Americans for fear that doing anything about it would just escalate violence. You let them kill one American without response, and next time they will kill two. This is no different than appeasing toddlers who throw tantrums to get their way. Appeasement may stop the tantrum momentarily, but it only invites more tantrums in the future.
111 comments:
The tantrums that worry us are the ones that take place in the Oval Office.
The biggest loser ever seen before Scott A**hole.
Democrats all believe Soleimani should still be alive .
Evidence Suggesting Imminent Attack Was ‘Razor Thin’
January 4, 2020 at 10:14 am EST
New York Times Repoterr Rukmini Callimachi:
“I’ve had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I’ve learned.
According to them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is ‘razor thin’.”
More:
“One official described the planning for the strike as chaotic. The official says that following the attack on an Iraqi base which killed an American contractor circa Dec. 27, Trump was presented a menu of options for how to retaliate. Killing Suleimani was the ‘far out option.'”
SO NOW TRUMP IS PLAYING WITH WAR AS A MEANS FOR GETTING AN UNPOPULAR PRESIDENT RE-ELECTED.
Myballs said...
A single strike is now a war? Hyperbole much?
NYT reporter said:
"Trump was presented a menu of options for how to retaliate.
Killing Suleimani was the ‘far out option.'”
Myballs said...
Iran thought Trump was all bellicose bluster with no balls. Now they have to think twice when they do something. A smart tactic from Trump.
James said...
Wall Street Journal Says Oil Companies Tighten Security
WSJ:
“Oil companies in the Middle East are tightening security as U.S. officials say American energy infrastructure in the region is a likely target for Iranian retaliation following the killing by the U.S. of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qassem Soleimani.”
Response to Trump's "smart tactic" which until recently was to get us less, not more, involved.
No one in the west is shedding tears for Soleimani. My question is whether or not the administration is ready for the reprisals?
if you hate your president more than you hate terrorists would would like to kill you, you just might be suffering from a whopping case of TDS.
and speaking of biggest losers alky... look in the mirror. your TDS has cost you everything.
Why is a single strategic military strike a tantrum? Because it's Trump? Do you know how ignorant that sounds? I bet you didn't say that when obama ordered the strike on bin laden.
Reprisals? Like seizing oil tankers and laying assaults on embassys? Oh wait, those were before Trump's response.
But irrational partisan beliefs have been clouding their minds.
No one in the west is shedding tears for Soleimani.
But your 500 word diatribe stating the Democrats wish Soleimani was still alive and an immediate threat to the United States is completely irrational diatribe.
no one cranks up the anonymously sourced fake news machine as quickly as the NY Times.
“I’ve had a chance to check in with sources,
suuuuuure you have, asswipe. those sources just happen to be at the tips of your fingers. oh wait, they ARE the tips of your fingers, as they type the fiction you publish in response to our CinC doing with what he is constitutionally charged to do.
after 8 years of a feckless, apologetic, moose-limb sympathizing coward, we have a president who will actually protect the nation.
and DAMN, it feels good.
Anonymous Myballs said...
Reprisals? Like seizing oil tankers and laying assaults on embassys? Oh wait, those were before Trump's response.
or watching iran seize a ship full of US sailors and 0linsky paying a fucking ransom to get them back.
those days are over.
there will be another democrat coward in the white house someday, but for now we get enjoy having a real president at the helm.
Our world has been set on edge by an erratic, unstable, and dangerously incompetent commander in chief. The stakes could not be higher. Every day that Donald Trump directs American national security is a dangerous day for the United States and the world.
But your 500 word diatribe stating the Democrats wish Soleimani was still alive and an immediate threat to the United States is completely irrational diatribe.
then publish a coherent and compelling response, alky.
all your own, and not some copy/paste from a nitwit like max boot.
we'll wait.
tell us, in your own words, WHY you feel it's an irrational diatribe.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Our world has been set on edge by an erratic, unstable, and dangerously incompetent commander in chief. The stakes could not be higher. Every day that Donald Trump directs American national security is a dangerous day for the United States and the world.
hear, hear!
a content free declaration of opposition from the alky of the holic!
harumph, harumph...
LOL That was not "content free."
an erratic, unstable, and dangerously incompetent commander in chief
is FULL OF CONTENT. And is TRUE.
it was full of conjecture, hyperbole, and fact-free opinion. i'm looking for the alky to provide actual informed content to back up his assertions.
you too for that matter.
give it a go, pederast.
FBI Raids Home of Lobbyist Tied to Trump
January 4, 2020 at 10:10 am EST
Washington Post:
“FBI agents investigating a lobbyist who has claimed to have close ties to President Trump and his family searched the man’s Northern Virginia home and D.C. office early Thursday looking for evidence of possible fraud.”
WHAT? But...but I thought the "President" had the FBI firmly in his own pocket by now. Does this mean we are still a nation of laws and there is still hope for genuine justice?
Who said this?
“No one in Washington is in the mood for big-picture questions right now,” he said. “Questions like: Is Iran really the greatest threat we face? And who’s actually benefiting from this?And why are we continuing to ignore the decline of our country in favor of jumping into another pointless quagmire, from which there’s no obvious exit?”
from the FAKE NEWS Washington Post...
the POS lying pederast "pastor" said :
Does this mean we are still a nation of laws and there is still hope for genuine justice?
Yes Durham and Barr are coming, with justice like served to Soleimani.
ANOTHER FANTASTIC WEEK
is Nancy still holding onto her pocket veto ?
ROFLMFAO !!!
the same guy who said this:
"We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.
Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said he is confident Soleimani was actively planning attacks against the U.S. in the Middle East and those attacks were imminent.
"We had clear, compelling, unambiguous intelligence to indicate Qassem Soleimani was planning, coordinating, and directing a significant campaign of violence against the United States in the coming days," said Gen. Milley.
Targets in Syria that were under imminent threat included military outposts the U.S. maintains in the eastern part of the country, current and former officials said. In Lebanon, Soleimani was allegedly planning attacks on diplomatic and financial targets, they said.
Gen. Milley said the U.S. military is confident an attack was imminent because of "the size, scale and scope" of what was planned and "the seriousness of it."
"By the way, it might still happen," he added.
A senior U.S. defense official said the U.S. alerted the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat team to prepare to deploy to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities in Lebanon should they come under attack. Despite the fact the entire brigade was put on alert, the official said the most likely deployment would be a rifle company or a battalion, somewhere between 130 to 750 total troops.
'I have real questions'
A senior U.S. official said Soleimani had traveled to Syria, Lebanon and then to Iraq Thursday, and U.S. intelligence officials believe he was approving final plans for attacks in each location.
Milley said Soleimani had been directing attacks against the U.S. inside Iraq, including a Dec. 27 attack near Kirtkuk that killed an American contractor and wounded four U.S. service members.
"He approved it," said Milley. "I know that. One hundred percent."
A senior Congressional aide briefed on the intelligence, however, said lawmakers saw nothing explicitly linking Soleimani to an imminent attack. What they saw, this source said, was exactly the sort of planning and coordination he has been doing for years. The aide said no one doubts he posed a threat to U.S. interests, but the case for acting this week was not made.
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, "I have real questions and want to get a full briefing from the intelligence community about the decision on this time and place."
Administration officials were expected to brief lawmakers on the operation. So far the administration has declined to provide details publicly of the intelligence assessment that prompted the strike against Soleimani.
Members of Congress have expressed concern about retaliation from Iran, which its leadership has said it will take. Democrats in particular have expressed concern that Trump's authorization of a strike against Soleimani will escalate to a full-blown war with Iran, and they've demanded details of the "imminent" threat.
The National Security Council did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. One even apologized to Iran.
Who dat do dat?
Roger Amick said... why are we continuing to ignore the decline of our country in favor of jumping into another pointless quagmire, from which there’s no obvious exit?”
Ummm America is doing quite well, thank you. What country are you talking about unless you are referring to a state or city under Democrat control.
And we haven't jumped into another "quagmire", this president appears very capable to avoid, unlike the past.
amazing.
for the first time in over a decade we're actually defending ourselves against iranian-backed terror and the left just can't fucking deal.
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, "I have real questions and want to get a full briefing from the intelligence community about the decision on this time and place."
so you can go running to the wapo and cnn?
FUCK YOU.
A senior Congressional aide briefed on the intelligence, however, said lawmakers saw nothing explicitly linking Soleimani to an imminent attack.
If this aid saw nothing to link Soleimani to an immenent attack it because he didn't want to see it. It was right their slapping them in the face.
un-fucking-believable:
More than 70 protests planned across US against Soleimani strike
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/476752-over-70-protests-planned-across-us-against-soleimani-strike
More than 70 protests across the country are planned for Saturday to condemn the Pentagon’s killing of Iran’s top general Qassem Soleimani and the decision to send thousands of more troops to the Middle East.
Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander threatens attacks on ‘vital’ US targets to avenge Soleimani
I think Trump will be ready to deliver 72 virgins on a platter to him too.
Sure as taxes and death... Democrats are now pro-Soleimani!
Just as likely as you would become pro obama......BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! And fucking daddy, wishes for his own martyrdom to collect a virgin...the only way you would ever have one!!!! LOLOLOLOLO
Rat finds this unbelievable:
More than 70 protests across the country are planned for Saturday to condemn the Pentagon’s killing of Iran’s top general Qassem Soleimani and the decision to send thousands of more troops to the Middle East.
Well, you see, Rat, it's all a bit complicated.
Many Americans are still convinced that the nuclear understanding that our allies and Obama worked out with Iran was a good thing which Trump nixed only because it came largely from Obama, and Trump has even lately been hypocritcally urging France to come up with something similiar that he could approve just because it would have his (Trump's) name on it, not Obama's.
So who was the real statesman in all this?
Not the "it's just all about me" current President-in-pretense.
John Hayward
@Doc_0
Follow Follow @Doc_0
MoreJohn Hayward Retweeted Betsy Klein
You can't fight back against terrorists! That just makes them stronger. Who knows what they'll do if we antagonize them? Better to just give them what they want.
Also, why do we have so much terrorism?
John Hayward
@Doc_0
In case you were wondering, yes, it *is* still too much to expect the Democrat Party to side with America against vicious terrorists.
LOL rrb
Well, you see, Rat, it's all a bit complicated.
no it's not, pederast.
Americans are planning on protesting IN FAVOR of iran, and AGAINST the US.
not complicated at all.
democrats from capitol hill and all across the nation are coming out publicly, openly, and vociferously in favor of iran and against the US.
and when iran warns of retaliatory attacks, it will be these same democrats who will aid and abet them.
Ilhan Omar
@IlhanMN
There is no way to overstate how dangerous this is.
We need every voice to rise up and demand that Congress stop Trump from starting a catastrophic war with Iran.
Sign the petition → http://bit.ly/IranPetitionIO #NoWarWithIran
John Cardillo
@johncardillo
Give her a break
Trump killed her sugar daddy
Many Americans are still convinced that the nuclear understanding that our allies and Obama worked out with Iran was a good thing which Trump nixed only because it came largely from Obama. Lately Trump has even been hypocritcally urging France to come up with something similiar that he could approve and sign just because it would have his (Trump's) name on it, not Obama's.
So who was the real statesman in all this?
Not the "it's all really just about me" President-in-pretense.
Ted Cruz
@tedcruz
According the the Obama Department of Defense, Qasem Soleimani was a terrorist directly responsible for the murder of over 500 US service men & women. Why are congressional Dems outraged that he’s finally dead? See more: https://militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2015/07/29/ted-cruz-release-names-of-u-s-deaths-linked-to-iran/…
Ilhan Omar
@IlhanMN
We are outraged the president would assassinate a foreign official, possibly setting off another war without Congressional authorization and has zero plan to deal with the consequences.
But of course you know that.
Sebastian Gorka DrG
@SebGorka
For Omar, a murdering son-of-a-bitch terrorist with America blood dripping of his hands, is a “foreign official.”
This woman is the face of @TheDemocrats.
Let that sink in.
Rasha Al Aqeedi
Verified account
@RashaAlAqeedi
Follow Follow @RashaAlAqeedi
More
A serious question to the alarmists: What will the IRGC do now that it has not already done? Kidnap foreigners? Strike military bases? Sack embassies? Assassination attempts? Target GCC oil interests? Send out militias to crackdown on adversaries?
10:38 AM - 3 Jan 2020
we came, we saw, he died! cackle, cackle cackle!
Red Nation Rising
@RedNationRising
Follow Follow @RedNationRising
More
Remember when Hillary laughed at Gaddafi being killed and the media cheered?
Yeah... good times 😏
https://twitter.com/RedNationRising/status/1213232870153736192
Not the "it's all really just about me" President-in-pretense.
What a great description of Obama.
What was his record for referring to himself in one on his narcistic speeches ?
Well in his defense he was just a community organizer at his core
I'm rolling on the floor laughing.
NEVER have we had a president as narcissistic in his speeches as Trump.
NEVER.
THAT is solid historical record and will ever remain so.
THAT is solid historical record and will ever remain so.
WOW! New Record: Obama Mentions Himself 467 Times During Berlin Town Hall
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=581457792332414
And he beat his own record !!!
ROFLMFAO !!!
Obama
Trump
See the difference?
Carmine Sabia
@CarmineSabia
BREAKING: Reports that another air strike has killed another terrorist leader. Unconfirmed. Waiting on confirmation.
Matt
@matfield_green
John Kerry's contact list is getting shorter by the day
Julie Kelly
@julie_kelly2
This must stop, how much heartbreak and anguish can the Democrats endure in one day?
well as we can see with the lying POS "pastor" they can endure by continuing to lie, it must be in their DNA
Caliphate4vr said...
Obama
Trump
See the difference?
Thank God for President Trump
SNOPES: A comparison of the inaugural addresses delivered by both Obama and Trump shows the number of self-references was nearly identical.
But that, of course, was only because Trump stuck to his telescript, LOL.
WOW! New Record: Obama Mentions Himself 467 Times During Berlin Town Hall
Just how many times a minute was that ?
and it looks like the "pastor" was caught in another lie, nothing new there.
Awesome warms the cockles of my heart. Been perfect if his shredded ass had fallen on the street like Khomeini’s did
“One official described the planning for the strike as chaotic.
It certainly ended up as a very successful mission, with zero casualties on our end. The fact that some anonymous source didn't care for it is just more evidence that we have either disloyal government employees or dishonest reporting.
But your 500 word diatribe stating the Democrats wish Soleimani was still alive and an immediate threat to the United States is completely irrational diatribe.
Well since it is mainly quotes from Democrats...
I can see why it comes across as irrational.
thebradfordfile™
@thebradfordfile
Nancy Pelosi considers the killing of Soleimani a "provocative and disproportionate" action, at the same time she is attempting to remove the President of the United States from office. Which begs the question...
Whose side is she on?
---
I wonder when AG Barr is going to declassify the list of hundreds of Americans unmasked by Susan Rice and Samantha Power in 2016. Were Obama's direct reports "fighting terrorism" or "spying on Trump"?
Signs point to spying!
Durham and Barr and Trump are coming for Justice for all !!!
How high up did it go ?
The fact that some anonymous source didn't care for it is just more evidence that we have either disloyal government employees or dishonest reporting.
Can’t it be both?
Trump Flouts Risks That Gave Others Pause
January 4, 2020 at 1:56 pm EST
“President Trump is not the first American leader to have Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in his sights, but he was the first to pull the trigger,” the AP reports.
“It’s a pattern that has emerged throughout Trump’s presidency. On a range of national security matters, he has cast aside the same warnings that gave his predecessors in both parties pause.
“At times, he has simply been willing to embrace more risk. In other moments, he has questioned the validity of the warnings altogether, even from experts within his own administration. And he has publicly taken pride in doing so.”
TRUMP IS SO SURE HIS GUT FEELINGS ARE RIGHT. SORTA LIKE G. W. BUSH.
Tucker Carlson Breaks Ranks and Criticizes Trump Strikes
January 4, 2020 at 2:29 pm EST
“On Friday afternoon President Trump praised Tucker Carlson along with other conservative Fox News stars,” CNN reports.
“A few hours later Carlson tore into Trump’s decision to authorize the US airstrike that killed Iran’s top general Qasem Soleimani. While he mostly refrained from criticizing Trump directly, Carlson condemned ‘chest-beaters’ who advocate for foreign interventions.”
Erdogan Called Soleimani a ‘Martyr’
January 4, 2020 at 2:47 pm EST
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reportedly expressed his “regret” for the loss of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in a call with his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Rouhani, days after Soleimani was killed in a U.S. airstrike, the Daily Beast reports.
According to RT, the Turkish President called Soleimani a “martyr” and said he understood the anger of Iran’s people and leaders.
Has the "pastor" figured out how many times a minute Obama referred to himself in his record setting display of narcissism ?
Or is the truth something else you are not good at and avoid in all possible means ?
ROFLMFAO !!!
Erdogan Called Soleimani a ‘Martyr’
Another great reason to have blown his ass away
Oh btw pederast Tucker Carlson is VERY SUPPORTIVE of President Trump. You should actually watch his show sometime rather than doing your normal mindless cut-n-pastes from political_lire with their misrepresentations. What he does not want is us getting into foreign wars without a compelling need.
You spread lies as much as you make up lies.
But your daddy will keep you in check
ROFLMFAO !!!
Coming from the fucking idiot daddy
Or is the truth something else
ROFLMFAO !!!
BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU CALL THIS PASTOR A LIAR:
TRUTH HAS A WAY OF RISING UP TO AND SLAM YOU
from The INDEPENDENT:
The differences between Trump’s and Obama’s rhetorical styles seem stark. Yet, when we set aside the presidents’ speaking styles and looked more carefully at the specific words Trump employed in his first months in office, we were surprised to discover that, in certain ways, these two presidents are remarkably like each other and unlike their predecessors. Here’s what we found – and why Obama and Trump have more in common than you would think.
Our analysis is based on Trump’s more substantial speeches – which we somewhat arbitrarily define as those longer than 500 words – which were directed primarily at domestic audiences. We scraped from the website of the American Presidency Project all of Trump’s campaign speeches and presidential addresses through July 1 that met these criteria. We ended up with 74 campaign speeches, representing more than 230,000 words, and 56 presidential addresses, which included more than 122,000 words. We compared these bodies of speech to each other and to a separate database of postwar presidential speech that one of us had collected, using these same criteria, for a recently published book.
We ran these speeches through a specialised computerised content analysis program called Diction. Diction contains 33 separate dictionaries tailored to political speech. It searches texts for the words contained in the designated dictionaries and then calculates the number of words from each dictionary that would be present in a typical 500-word sample.
On two key dimensions, Obama and Trump look similar – and stand in marked contrast to all other presidents.
First, their rhetoric is much more self-referential, meaning it uses more first-person pronouns. Obama’s rhetoric is 69 percent more self-referential than the presidential average, and Trump EXCEEDS Obama by ANOTHER 20 PERCENT.
Trump employs almost 50 percent MORE first-person pronouns than the second most heavily self-referential president after Obama, Gerald Ford. Trump’s rhetoric is TWICE as self-referential as the postwar presidential average.
*SNICKER*
Roll on the floor and laugh your fat posterior off over that.
The Independent - a left-wing British newspaper whose circulation is down 85% since 1990. So what?
HOW NICE OF JAMES'S FRICASEEING DADDY FOR POINTING OUT HOW MUCH FOX'S TUCKER CARLSON LOVES AND SUPPORTS TRUMP
Fox's Tucker Carlson breaks with colleagues and criticizes Trump's strike on Iranian general
On Friday afternoon President Trump praised Tucker Carlson along with other conservative Fox News stars. "We have great people," Trump said.
A few hours later Carlson tore into Trump's decision to authorize the US airstrike that killed Iran's top general Qasem Soleimani.
While he mostly refrained from criticizing Trump directly, Carlson condemned "chest-beaters" who advocate for foreign interventions. He asked four questions that made clear his anti-war point of view:
"Is Iran really the greatest threat we face? And who's actually benefiting from this? And why are we continuing to ignore the decline of our own country in favor of jumping into another quagmire from which there is no obvious exit? By the way, if we're still in Afghanistan, 19 years, sad years, later, what makes us think there's a quick way out of Iran?"
"Nobody is thinking like that right now," Carlson added. "Instead, chest-beaters like Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska are making the usual war-like noises, the noises they always make."
Carlson's commentary on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" stood out on a network of outspoken supporters of the president and Thursday's airstrike.
Right after Carlson's 8 p.m. show expressed doubts about the strike and whether it made America safer, Sean Hannity began his 9 p.m. show by saying "tonight the world is safer as one of the most ruthless, evil war criminals on Earth has been brought to justice."
Hannity then repeated some of the very same talking points that Carlson had dismantled in the previous hour.
Hannity's show, and some others on Fox, are downright propagandistic in support of the president.
Contrast that to one of Carlson's banners an hour later on Fox News: "HOW WILL A NEW CONFLICT MAKE US MORE SECURE?"
Another Carlson banner said "BENEFITS OF RECENT WARS HAVE BEEN NON-EXISTENT."
If Trump was watching, as he so often does, he saw two polar opposite arguments about the crisis with Iran.
Carlson's dovish views have had an impact on the president before: Carlson had personal phone calls with Trump when tensions with Iran escalated last June. Carlson advanced the same arguments in private that he made on TV: That Trump was "elected on the promise that he'd avoid war except when absolutely necessary."
He brought these points up again on Friday, and said Trump won the election "probably because of that promise" of "fewer foreign adventures" and a greater focus "on America's problems here at home, which are growing."
"We fought quite a number of wars around the Middle East in recent decades," Carlson said, listing off the war zones. "In every single place," he said, "each of these conflicts has turned out to be longer and bloodier and more expensive than we were promised in the first place. The benefits? Often they've been non-existent. A lot of lectures about how the people we're killing deserve to die. Certainly they did. Hope that makes you feel better."
Later in the evening, Hannity did just that, emphasizing that Soleimani has "finally been given exactly what he deserved, for his bloodsheed, his atrocities, his terror."
Carlson had already countered that point of view.
"Yes, Soleimani was linked to the deaths of Americans. Nobody mourns his passing," Carlson said. "But Mexico and China are also linked to the deaths of Americans. Each has flooded our country with narcotics from which tens of thousands of Americans die every single year, not that anyone in power cares. So does that mean we get to bomb Oaxaca? Can we start assassinating generals in the People's Liberation Army?"
Carlson's primary argument was this: "Before we enter into a single new war, there's a criterion that ought to be met: Our leaders should explain to us how that conflict will make the United States richer and more secure. There are an awful lot of bad people in this world, we can't kill them all. It's not our job. Instead, our government exists to defend and promote the interests of American citizens, period, that's why we have a government. So has the killing of Soleimani done that? Maybe. No one in Washington has explained how. Instead, like Ben Sasse, they're telling us what an awful person he was. He clearly was. So? That's irrelevant."
Carlson closed his monologue on Friday night by repeating his frequent criticism of neoconservatives as warmongers. Carlson said official Washington "has wanted war with Iran for decades. They have been working toward it. They may have finally gotten it."
Trump warns that Iran may retaliate "in a matter of weeks."
*********************************
I see I've TRIGGERED THE LYING POS "pastor". He's now full on FOX NEWS
ROFLMFAO !!!
he sure copies a lot from political_lire without attribution.
so he LIES AND STEALS, even copies other peoples lies
SHAMELESSLY
**********************************************
Democrats question President’s order
In an interview with CNN Friday, Democratic Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico said more than once that he does not believe an attack on the United States was imminent as President Donald Trump and other top administration officials have said.
“My staff was briefed by a number of people representing a variety of agencies in the United State Government and they came away with no feeling that there was evidence of an imminent attack,” Udall said, adding he believed the President is only saying an attack was imminent to justify killing Soleimani.
Udall also said had the US Secretary of Defense been killed by Iran while in another country, the US would consider that an act of war.
Fellow Democrat Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland also told CNN Friday that one of his representatives was at the briefing and “nothing that came out of the briefing changed my view that this was an unnecessary escalation of the situation in Iraq and Iran.”
Van Hollen went on to say: “While I can’t tell you what was said, I can tell you I have no additional information to support the administration’s claim that this was an imminent attack on Americans.”
Milley, the top US general, pushed back hard Friday against claims that there was any impulsiveness on the part of the US by targeting Soleimani. “We fully comprehend the strategic risks and consequences,” of killing the Iranian military commander, he said. “The risk of inaction exceeded the risk of action.”
The US has not provided any evidence publicly on what the specific threats were.
I guess those dems didn't see all the action at the U.S. Embassy. They must watch cnn.
If you don't like the message, attack the messenger.
But I got my Fox info from a non Fox source.
...didn't see all the action at the U.S. Embassy.
I saw a lot of mostly ineffective milling about, called off completely soon after midday.
Scott Uehlinger
@thestationchief
I am Certain that several Iranian Officials the world over will be walking into our Embassies seeking out CIA over the next few days. Everybody Wants a Chair When the Music Stops.....#iran #Suleimani #Suleimanididntkillhimself
Rich Higgins
@RichHiggins_DC
BONUS: the walk-ins can rest assured that their names won’t be showing up in an unsecured server in Donald Trump’s bathroom...…
https://twitter.com/Hxnxnah/status/1213537962186694657/photo/1
Looks like we dodged a major bullet when this man didn't become president.
But he will be part of Obama's failed legacy, WORST PRESIDENT EVER and we have yet to see everything...
WORST PRESIDENT EVER and we have yet to see everything...
True. Donald's not finished quite yet.
The Soleimani Strike Defied the U.S. Constitution
Yale law professor
Oona A. Hathaway writing in The Atlantic:
“The drone strike that killed Major General Qassem Soleimani, leader of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, raises many legal issues, but one of the most significant—at least to the American constitutional order—is that President Donald Trump ordered the strike without so much as informing Democratic leadership in Congress, disregarding Congress’s essential role in initiating war.
“If Congress fails to respond effectively, the constitutional order will be broken beyond repair, and the president will be left with the unmitigated power to take the country to war on his own—anywhere, anytime, for any reason.”
Yet another reason for IMPEACHMENT.
Small Cracks Appear In GOP Unity on Impeachment
January 4, 2020 at 4:29 pm EST
Associated Press:
“For now, Republicans are holding the line behind Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s position that they should start the trial and hear arguments from House prosecutors and Trump’s defense team before deciding what to do.”
“But small cracks in GOP unity have appeared, with two Republican senators criticizing McConnell’s pledge of ‘total coordination’ with the White House during the impeachment trial.”
“Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she was ‘disturbed’ by the GOP leader’s comments, adding that there should be distance between the White House and the Senate on how the trial is conducted. Maine Sen. Susan Collins, meanwhile, called the pledge by McConnell, R-Ky., inappropriate and said she is open to seeking testimony.”
take a break pederast.
Looks like you won't survive Trump's next five years.
And the complete collapse of the Democrat party.
ROFLMFAO !!!
The fucking idiot daddy again posted his gibberish with.......
Looks like we dodged a major bullet when this man didn't become president.
BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA!!!!!! Sure you dumb fuck.....sad you think that is germane......LOLOLOLOLOL
Yale law professor
Oona A. Hathaway writing in The Atlantic:
Stupid old man ask that jackass law professor if drone zapping an American citizen, denying him of his Constitutional rights was unconstitutional, idiot
Don't worry lo iq. We realize you are so mentally challenged you can't follow anything but you do know how to bleat.
Very impressive accomplishment for you.
ROFLMFAO !!!
Stupid old man ask that jackass law professor if drone zapping
Tough talk from a major league loser, Paula......Why don't you have another vodka.....>BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!! You and trump......talking trash and the US will pay for it.....!!!!
Fucking idiot daddy blowing more smoke out his old white flabby ass.....all he ever does......BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Thanks for the attention lo iq. You are projecting yourself on me again. That must be one ugly fat white ass you have. And you constantly show that's all you have.
Must be very depressing.
Stupid old man ask that jackass law professor if drone zapping an American citizen, denying him of his Constitutional rights was unconstitutional, idiot
If Trump did it, I'm sure you would say it was QUITE okay.
Moreover, there's a big difference between possibly infringing on the son of a terrorist's constitutional rights and unconstitutionally involving an entire nation in a war unapproved by Congress.
Obama launched over 2800 strikes in Iraq and Syria. Double standard much?
In an interview with CNN Friday, Democratic Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico said more than once that he does not believe an attack on the United States was imminent as President Donald Trump and other top administration officials have said.
“My staff was briefed by a number of people representing a variety of agencies in the United State Government and they came away with no feeling that there was evidence of an imminent attack,” Udall said, adding he believed the President is only saying an attack was imminent to justify killing Soleimani.
Udall also said had the US Secretary of Defense been killed by Iran while in another country, the US would consider that an act of war.
White House Notifies Congress of Soleimani Strike
January 4, 2020 at 5:34 pm EST
“The White House delivered to Capitol Hill on Saturday a formal notification of the drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani as required under the War Powers Act,” the Washington Post reports.
“The War Powers Act of 1973 mandates that the president report to lawmakers within 48 hours of introducing military forces into armed conflict abroad.”
Introducing forces? They're already in Iraq shit for brains.
Moreover, there's a big difference between possibly infringing on the son of a terrorist's constitutional rights and unconstitutionally involving an entire nation in a war unapproved by Congress.
Umm stupid al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico
“The War Powers Act of 1973 mandates that the president report to lawmakers within 48 hours of introducing military forces into armed conflict abroad.”
Introducing forces? They're already in Iraq shit for brains.
I guess you need to tell this s. for brains president and his s. for brains advisers that.
He and they seem to have thought otherwise.
Or does "forces" mean not only additional troops but "forces" like drone strikes?
What? He doesn't have to go to Congress every time he wants to adjust troops or equipment. Don't br do fuckin stupid.
Biden is feeling the Burn of poor fund raising, Called Bernie Ridiculous .
Fun stuff.
Emotional poop eating Mutt Denny .
"Don't br do fuckin stupid."
🤣😃😄😅
How wonderful Trump is! SAY the low life Trump worshiping denizens of this blog.
But Trump's own military advisers didn't think he'd make the poor choice he made.
Here, you Trump adorers can read all about it:
Officials ‘STUNNED’ Trump Took MOST EXTREME Option
January 4, 2020 at 8:22 pm EST
“In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s most powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him — which they viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq — on the menu they presented to President Trump,” the New York Times reports.
“They didn’t think he would take it. In the wars waged since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable.
“After initially rejecting the Suleimani option on Dec. 28 and authorizing airstrikes on an Iranian-backed Shia militia group instead, a few days later Mr. Trump watched, fuming, as television reports showed Iranian-backed attacks on the American Embassy in Baghdad… By late Thursday, the president had gone for the extreme option. Top Pentagon officials were stunned.”
They made the mistake of assuming Trump has a few ounces of sense left.
The New York Times has lost all credibility.
Iran Crosses the Red Line
Having failed to that point, Tehran escalated further. Despite specific American warnings, Iranian proxies launched at least ten rocket attacks on American-Iraqi bases, killing an American contractor and wounding four American service personnel. The United States retaliated by striking through the air against a pro-Iran militia, killing at least 25 militia personnel. Soleimani’s response, on behalf of the regime he had served so well for so long, was to direct his militia proxies to attack the American embassy in Baghdad.
It was the last outrage for which he will ever be responsible.
So what are the takeaways?
The United States has a clear strategy in dealing with the threat from Iran. It is to strangle the regime until it either comes seriously to the bargaining table or is overthrown by its own people. Whether the strategy will succeed remains to be seen, but the Trump administration has pursued it with consistency and purpose and is achieving demonstrable progress towards the goal.
President Trump has narrowed America’s commitments in the Middle Eastern theater but has restored the credibility of those that remain. The move against Soleimani was an ingenious stroke in that regard; it was bold but surgical, and the effect of it as a demonstration of American resolve will be comprehensive and long-lasting — and not just in the Middle East.
It would be a mistake for the administration or its supporters to adopt a triumphalist attitude regarding this episode. The Iranians used the sanctions relief from the JCPOA to upgrade their arsenal of precision ballistic and cruise missiles and to spread more of those missiles to their proxies in the region. They have greater capacity now to damage American assets in the region, though they would exhaust that capacity quickly — and the administration has just sent a powerful message that the response to any conventional attack would be certain and overwhelming.
All of that is a reason why the president’s sanctions policy is so necessary. It starves the Iranian regime of the resources it needs to grow stronger. It’s also a reason why the move against Soleimani was well chosen and well timed.
As I have emphasized before, every action or inaction in the Middle East carries risk. This step was no exception. The Iranians are no doubt considering whether and how to inflict additional costs on the United States, though henceforth they will have to make their plans without the aid of Qasem Soleimani. But they were in the process of escalating anyway. This is a case where not responding would have been riskier, and more likely to lead to additional and more serious attacks over time, than showing Iran that the United States will forcefully defend its people, its installations, and its rights.
The United States is getting better at smart power and grey-war tactics. The administration has effectively coordinated an economic, diplomatic, and cyber campaign to pressure the Iranian regime on a number of fronts at once. Consistent with the president’s reluctance to engage in new military operations, particularly in the Middle East, the armed forces have until this latest exercise remained mostly in the background, but their presence has been essential to the broader effort.
As the last week has shown, it is the deterrent and retaliatory power of America’s armed forces that gives the other tools of influence time and space to work. The sanctions may be doing the heaviest lifting over the long term, but it isn’t economics that is protecting the Foreign Service officers and civilian employees who work in the American embassy. It’s Marines from CENTCOM’s Crisis Response Task Force and, right behind them, the locked and loaded power of the armed forces of the United States.
Guess who?
Opinion: Trump Is Doing The Right Thing, But He’s Doing It As Trump, Which Means It’s Still Bad
It’s important in politics to be consistent. That’s why I’m always consistent in criticizing Trump no matter what he does.
I’ll criticize Trump for not doing what I want. And then when he does what I said I wanted, I’ll still criticize him. Some smaller minds might call this hypocrisy, but there is no hypocrisy, because I’m sticking to the core principle that Trump is dumb and bad. Even when Trump does exactly what I want, he’s still doing it as Trump, which makes whatever it is now stupid and wrong.
For instance, the other week I railed against Trump for not visiting the troops at Christmas. And when I learned that he secretly went over to visit the troops, I criticized him for how unhelpful his visit was. That’s because he didn’t just visit the troops as president—he visited them as President Trump. Furthermore, he started pulling troops out of the Middle East—something I’ve been demanding forever—but he’s doing it in a Trump way, and now it seems like the most wrong thing ever.
It’s like that time he visited a farmer’s market, and one farmer gave him two apples and then another gave him two more apples and Trump said “I now have four apples!” And I made fun of him for adding two plus two and getting four. Yes, mathematically that seemed right before, but out of his mouth it just sounded like something only a racist moron would believe.
It’s clear that Trump can’t do anything right because he will stubbornly insist on being Trump while doing it. That’s why he must resign—though I will then criticize him for abandoning the country in our time of need. It’s important in politics to be consistent. That’s why I’m always consistent in criticizing Trump no matter what he does.
I’ll criticize Trump for not doing what I want. And then when he does what I said I wanted, I’ll still criticize him. Some smaller minds might call this hypocrisy, but there is no hypocrisy, because I’m sticking to the core principle that Trump is dumb and bad. Even when Trump does exactly what I want, he’s still doing it as Trump, which makes whatever it is now stupid and wrong.
For instance, the other week I railed against Trump for not visiting the troops at Christmas. And when I learned that he secretly went over to visit the troops, I criticized him for how unhelpful his visit was. That’s because he didn’t just visit the troops as president—he visited them as President Trump. Furthermore, he started pulling troops out of the Middle East—something I’ve been demanding forever—but he’s doing it in a Trump way, and now it seems like the most wrong thing ever.
It’s like that time he visited a farmer’s market, and one farmer gave him two apples and then another gave him two more apples and Trump said “I now have four apples!” And I made fun of him for adding two plus two and getting four. Yes, mathematically that seemed right before, but out of his mouth it just sounded like something only a racist moron would believe.
It’s clear that Trump can’t do anything right because he will stubbornly insist on being Trump while doing it. That’s why he must resign—though I will then criticize him for abandoning the country in our time of need.
Supposedly Trump came around to the “far out option” after the assault on the American embassy in Baghdad.
It sounds from her description like U.S. intelligence had reason to believe Soleimani was planning something major and simply deduced that the targets would be American interests based on the slow spiral of escalation between the two countries over the past six months. That seems like a … not unreasonable inference, especially coming so soon after the provocation at the embassy. Counterfactual: If the U.S. had had this same intelligence, had taken no action against Soleimani, and then a bunch of American troops and diplomats were killed in coordinated Iranian operations across Iraq, how much political trouble would Trump now be in for having stood by and done nothing to disrupt those attacks?
The point of the Socialist Democrats is this:
"A more dangerous world': US killing triggers global alarm"
You can't have it both ways. Since you believe this, then you believe the world was a safer place with him alive.
Blogger Commonsense said...
Guess who?
Another trumpist asshole finds the babylon bee amusing and source of new!!!!!...I find you easily trolled by fake news and anything trump wants you to believe....no wonder why you flunked out of HS!!!!
Denny is triggered by a satire web site.
The definition of an idiot snowflake.
As Tensions With Iran Escalated, Trump Opted for Most Extreme Measure https://nyti.ms/2Qpxb1C
COMMENSA SAYS:
The New York Times has lost all credibility.
Why? Because they accurately depicted how stunned Trump's own military officials were at his final choice of action?
See my 8:56 PM post above.
TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's state television reported that the country will no longer abide by any of the limits of its 2015 nuclear deal.
The announcement came Sunday night after another Iranian official said it would consider taking even-harsher steps over the U.S. killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Friday in Baghdad. State TV cited a statement by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's administration saying the country will not observe limitations on its enrichment, the amount of stockpiled enriched uranium as well as research and development in its nuclear activities.
Duck and cover!😟
Retaliation for Soleimani could potentially come through the proxy forces which he oversaw as the head of an elite unit within the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard. Soleimani's longtime deputy Esmail Ghaani already has taken over as the Quds Force's commander.
Retaliation for Soleimani
Would be no different than if Soleimani was still alive.
However their command and control has been severely degraded.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Retaliation for Soleimani could potentially come through the proxy forces which he oversaw as the head of an elite unit within the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard. Soleimani's longtime deputy Esmail Ghaani already has taken over as the Quds Force's commander.
January 5, 2020 at 12:54 PM
geezus alky, in an attempt to appear intelligent you're stealing from raghead sources now?
Retaliation for Soleimani could potentially come through the proxy forces which he oversaw as the head of an elite unit within the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard. Soleimani's longtime deputy Esmail Ghaani already has taken over as the Quds Force's commander.
https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/2067896/iran-vows-severe-revenge-top-generals-death
Post a Comment