It’s Wednesday, January 15th, 2020…but before we begin, consider this snippet from a commentary by AEI‘s Middle East “expert”, Kenneth Pollack, entitled…
“Iran responded for the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani exactly as they said they would, with an overt military strike against a pair of American military targets. While the strike was perfunctory and mostly painless for the United States, we should not assume that Iran’s retaliation is over. There is a variety of means over time that Iran can employ to extract real vengeance for Soleimani’s death. Tehran could inflict real harm on the United States and its interests in the years to come.
Iran’s meek response did not likely satisfy the desire for revenge felt by so many outraged Iranians, especially those among Tehran’s most senior leaders. Further, Soleimani’s killing has probably affected Iran’s internal politics. Iranian hardliners were already ascendant as a result of U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal and impose crippling sanctions on Iran. Soleimani’s killing will accelerate their rise.
Soleimani’s death has probably changed Iran’s strategic perspective in significant ways, some of which have already manifested themselves since the killing.Trump’s eagerness to take credit for the strike — which backed Iran’s leadership into an unnecessary corner and forced them to retaliate overtly –undoubtedly reinforced Tehran’s perception that he is naïve and reckless, and therefore a dangerous threat to Iran.
The demands of honor (barely) satisfied, we should expect Iran to go back to its preferred, covert modus operandi. In particular, we should expect Iran to pursue at least four courses of action, both to extract far more meaningful revenge for the Soleimani killing and to pursue their interests in the new strategic circumstances created by the American strike…”
So little time…so many conclusions without any facts in evidence.
First, why is it anyonecontinues to believe Iran is actually abiding by the terms of Obama’s agreement, let alone the Mad Mullahs are somehow, absent Trump’s attack, not planning future strikes on U.S. targets around the globe?!?
Second, does Pollack not recall Suleimani’s execution was in response not only to the Iranian-backed murder of an American citizen, but the assault on the U.S. embassy?!? Or that the animal was in Bagdad brazenly planning future attacks?!?
Third, does anyonereally believe, Trump’s “eagerness to take credit” being unapparent to anyone other than Pollack, had the Iranians been able to breach the defenses of our Bagdad embassy, they’d have just painted a few “Death to America” slogans on the walls, then voluntarily vacated the premises?!?
As The Boss suggested, Dimocrats need to pick their battles, which to date outnumber the total number of skirmishes waged in America’s last Civil War.
Here’s the juice: Haberman’s incredibly spurious claim is akin to Republicans blaming Roosevelt’s embargo on the export of oil, aviation fuel and scrap metal to Japan for Nippon’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
First up, Nancy Pelosi really knows how to hurt a guy:
Wow, impeached FOR LIFE; what’snext, Nancy…
Just to be certain, we took the liberty of checking. And thankfully, unlike it’s Faber College counterpart…
…the Constitution of the United Statescontains no little-known codicil which gives the Speaker of the House unlimited power…or any power at all…to preserve order in time of national emergency.
So for now, this stuttering, stammering, trembling harpy and her band of merry Marxists will have to content themselves with permanently granting The Donald a distinction he’ll wear like a badge of honor, particularly considering its source.
In two related items, for those still wondering whether Progressives have totally “left” the tracks, the latest video from Project Veritas…
…along with this snippet of Lawrence “Stop the Hammering” O’Donnell, MSLSD‘s second-most popular host, and Al Franken, the least-funny person on the planet, should provide your answer:
That would not simply be “yes”, but rather an emphatic “HELL YES!!!”, as Liberals initially began to leave sanity behind several years back, when it first became apparent Trump would win the GOP nomination.
Since we’re on the subject of the second-most popular host on MSDNC, courtesy of Townhall.com, the great Victor Davis Hanson addresses the floundering network’s most popular host, which we guess is akin to being voted “Not Quite Least-Likely to Succeed” by your high school classmates:
“The Washington Post recently published a surprising indictment of MSNBC host, Stanford graduate and Rhodes scholar Rachel Maddow.
Post media critic Erik Wemple wrote that Maddow misled her audience by claiming the now-discredited Steele dossier was largely verifiable — even at a time when there was plenty of evidence that it was mostly bogus.
At the very time Maddow was reassuring viewers that Christopher Steele was believable, populist talk radio and the much-criticized Fox News Channel were insisting that most of Steele’s allegations simply could not be true. Maddow was wrong. Her less degreed critics proved to be right.
…The point of these sharp contrasts is not that an Ivy League degree or a Washington reputation is of little value, or that prestigious prizes and honors account for nothing, or even that supposed experts are always unethical and silly.
Instead, one lesson is that conventional wisdom and groupthinktend to mislead, especially in the age of online echo chambers where an often sheltered and blinkered elite lives.
…And ethics has nothing to do with degrees or pedigrees.“
Speaking of the ethically-challenged, courtesy of Townhall.com, Derek Hunter offers a humorous eulogy…
“It’s been a time of significant loss…for Democrats, since 87.29 percent of their party announced last year they were running for president and it’s been nothing but loss for them since.As we start a new year, we should take a moment to look back and remember those we’ve lost (and mock them)…
“We close the morning with two pieces of shocking news. First, former Bill Clinton strategist James Carville endorsed Colorado senator Michael Bennet for president. Second, Michael Bennet is still running for president.“
…what chance do we have?
Next up, in another item also courtesy of Townhall.com, Derek Hunter contrasts the MSM’s deliberately disparate telling of…
Sorry, we inadvertently inserted an incorrect cartoon:
“It was the best of people, it was the worst of people…
Osama bin Laden deserved to die. Only the fringe of the fringe disagree with this statement(looking at you, British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn), which is why no one seemed to mind when Seal Team 6 invaded Pakistan to upgrade his train ticket to Hell to first class.
Make no mistake: the word “invaded” is the correct word. We did not have permission to enter, nor did we tell them we were coming. There was a chance, however remote, of something horrible happening that could have started at least a serious battle, if not a war, with Pakistan had things gone horribly wrong. Thank God things did not go wrong and the al-Qaeda leader is now fish excrement.
Taking risks in foreign policy is a part of the deal, even the best plans can go horribly wrong. See the President Jimmy Carter-ordered mission to rescue the Iranian hostages in 1980 that resulted in the tragic death of 8 U.S. service members. “Operation Eagle Claw,” as it was called, planned and plotted with care, then things turned bad. It was aborted.
The raid that killed bin Laden, “Operation Neptune Spear,” worked. The world’s most wanted terrorist had his head ventilated by Rob O’Neill and no American lives were lost.
The country was ecstatic,justice had finally come to the man with the blood of 3,000 Americans on his hands.
Almost immediately, the raid was politicized to benefit President Barack Obama. After all, he was facing re-election.Democrats in and out of the media had themselves a new catchphrase: “gutsy call.”
Leftists insisted the order to authorize the raid was a nearly unparalleled act of courage on behalf of Obama, and additional drool was released down liberal chins while remarking on how “cool” he was at the White House Correspondents Dinner the night of the raid, when it was still secret.
The order to go was the right call, but it was also the only call. There was little chance of a war with Pakistan over it, and if bin Laden had escaped during any delay in giving the order and the public found out, that would’ve been the kiss of death for a second Obama term. Even if it had ended in failure or tragedy, the American public would have understood why the order was given.
Still, Obama was treated as a hero after giving the only order he really could have. Fine, to the victor goes the spoils.
Now compare that to the reaction from those very same people to the operation that killed another terrorist mastermind, one with the blood of at least 600 American soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians around the world, Qasem Soleimani. The Iranian government monster has been killing his own people and anyone else he saw fit at willfor decades. His fingerprints were all over the murder of American contractor Nawres Waleed Hamid on December 27th, and on the invasion of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad days later. Hamid’s blood on Soleimani’s hands was still wet when he was liberated from them, and the rest of his body, on January 3rd.
You would think the killing of a man actively killing Americans would be met with some semblance of the relief that greeted the death of a hermit in a self-build prison in Pakistan.You would be wrong.
The very same people whose catchphrase had been turned into “gutsycall.com,” whichredirected visitors to Obama’s reelection website(and fundraising operation), not only didn’t heave a sigh of relief, they expressed outrage…”
For the record, here are the reactions to the lawful elimination of a known terrorist from the leaders of The Left:
Luckily for The Donald, 2020 is looking more and more like 1968, as the spirit of George McGovern is apparently alive and well…and inhabiting the bodies of the entire Dimocratic field.
Then there’s this item from FOX News, which leaves us wondering who’s running the DOJ:
“…Natalie Edwards, 41, entered the plea in Manhattan federal court, where U.S. District Judge Gregory H. Woods set sentencing for June 9. Although the conspiracy charge carried a potential penalty of up to five years in prison, Edwards signed a plea deal with prosecutors that recommended a potential prison sentence of zero to six months.
…As law enforcement swooped in, she was carrying a government-issued USB flash drive containing not only thousands of SARs, but also “highly sensitive material relating to Russia, Iran, and the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,” prosecutors said…”
Seriously: they caught her red-handed, her motives were purely political, and though she was facing 5 years behind bars, federal prosecutors allowed her to plead down to 0-6 months?!?
Is it any wonder government bureaucrats at every level…
…violate federal law with impunity?!?
Including perhaps the biggest corrupticrats…
…of all time!
Which brings us, inappropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Then there’s these memes from Jimmy Crilley…
…Fielding Cocke…
…and Balls Cotton:
Finally, as we regularly criticize misleading internet content designed to generate outrage and website hits, we must note this offering at the dependably-Conservative Townhall.com is no different. First the teaser at the home page…
“The Democratic Party loves to tout their diversity. They claim to be the champion of women, Hispanics, African Americans, the LGBTQ community, the youth and everyone in between. But the most ironic thing about the Democrats? The majority of those who are leading the pack for the party’s nomination are old, white, rich men, which is antithetical to what they stand for.
Tuesday night’s debate will feature billionaire Tom Steyer, former Vice President Joe Biden, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
…“We’ve set forth a clear set of transparent, inclusive rules,” [Tom] Perez said during an interview on MSNBC. “We set those rules out in advance. And it’s for thevoters to decide.”
“If you want to make sure that a candidate of color makes the debate stage, when a pollster calls you, make sure you make that preference felt because that is how you move the polling needle and, again, the voters are the ones who are making these decisions,” the DNC chair explained…”
Tom Perez has faults and foibles too numerable to mention, but in this case, as with The Donald’s misrepresented Charlottesville remarks, he didn’t say it, at least not in so many words; and certainly without assessing blame or fault, only responsibility.
And the candidates who appeared on stage Tuesday night accurately reflect the preferences of Progressive voters. At least to the best of our knowledge…which assumes Debbie Wasserman SGT Schultz…
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.