Visit Counter
Thursday, January 9, 2020
The contrast between Panty-boy and Trump...
Well, night and day doesn't begin to cover it!
Remember this? Little different now.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
2020 Democrats risk backlash in trashing Trump’s Iran strike
By Howard Kurtz
“The only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat presidential candidates,” she told Fox.
Yes, Nikki along with 99% of brain-dead Hollywood. This is the typical take from McGowan and the rest of the dogs in Tinseltown.
Her tweet:
“Dear #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us.”
If this guy suddenly became an 'AUSTERE RELIGIOUS SCHOLAR' after his death...
Why didn't this guy become 'A PIOUS MAN WHO CHOSE A LIFE OF ISOLATION' after his ?
When Barry droned the bastard Anwar al-Awlaki (an American citizen) how come the Dems didn't attempt to limit his authority to kill terrorists?
--------------------------------
President Trump and Mike Pompeo provide insight to U.S. intelligence on General Soleimani prior to the attack.
A week ago, the top challenge facing Democrats was how to run against Donald Trump in a strong economy.
Now they face a dual dilemma, namely how to run against a president who also, for all the criticism around the globe, took out Iran’s top terrorist.
The most liberal 2020 contenders are ratcheting up their rhetoric on the killing of Qassam Soleimani, which they obviously believe plays well with the party’s left wing. But when the general election rolls around, it could leave them looking like their sympathies are misplaced.
The situation is obviously complicated, and will be influenced by how the Iranians retaliate, the magnitude of the president’s counterattack, and whether Iraq destabilizes the region by expelling American troops. The Bush invasion of Iraq looked very different a year later.
Bernie Sanders cast Trump’s decision in the harshest possible light by telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper:
"This guy, you know, was, as bad as he was, an official of the Iranian government. And, you unleash -- then, if China does that, you know, if Russia does that, you know, Russia has been implicated under Putin with assassinating dissidents."
Now I understand the argument that Soleimani, in addition to being one of the region’s top terrorists and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, was also part of the Tehran regime and therefore should have been off-limits.
But comparing what the president of the United States did to Vladimir Putin having political dissidents murdered is rather offensive. And yet it will undoubtedly draw some cheers on the Trump-hating left.
Elizabeth Warren, while accusing the president of a “reckless move,” initially called Soleimani a “murderer” who was “responsible for the deaths of thousands.”
But by Sunday morning, Warren was describing Soleimani only as "a government official, a high-ranking military official." In a CNN interview with Jake Tapper, she said that next week “the president of the United States could be facing an impeachment trial in the Senate. We know he's deeply upset about that. And I think people are reasonably asking, why this moment? Why does he pick now to take this highly inflammatory, highly dangerous action that moves us closer to war?"
As Chris Cillizza put it, “Wow. We went from ‘murderer’ to ‘wag the dog’ in the space of a few days.”
Again, I get the distract-from-impeachment argument. But why promote Soleimani as just “a high-ranking military official”?
On "The View" Tuesday, it took Meghan McCain three attempts before Warren tersely acknowledged that Soleimani was a terrorist.
Such rhetoric has opened the door to criticism from the likes of Nikki Haley. “The only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat presidential candidates,” she told Fox. That’s political spin—almost no one in America is “mourning” the general’s death—but the former U.N. ambassador knows her target.
The more moderate Democrats have been more restrained.
Joe Biden, looking at the long-term effects, said Iran would boost its nuclear program and that “this is totally a crisis of Donald Trump’s making.”
Iran, he said ungrammatically, “now is going to be the person occupying and influencing Iraq, which is clearly not very much in our interest." Biden, of course, was vice president when the Iranians agreed to a nuclear deal.
The furor gives Pete Buttigieg, who served in Afghanistan, a chance to play up his military credentials. He dodged Tapper’s question on whether the Soleimani killing was an “assassination,” saying he’s interested in consequences: “Did the president have legal authority to do this? Why wasn't Congress consulted? It seems like more people at Mar-a-Lago heard about this than people in the United States Congress who are a coequal branch of government with a responsibility to consult. Which of our allies were consulted ?”
And the former mayor told reporters in New Hampshire: “You could also argue that we wouldn’t be there if it weren't for the invasion of Iraq in the first place, which I still believe was a grave mistake.” (Sanders, meanwhile, is using the occasion to rip Biden for voting for Bush’s Iraq invasion, which is true but also happened 17 years ago.)
Biden, Bernie and Buttigieg are in a three-way tie in Iowa, at 23 percent, with Warren 7 points back, according to a new CBS poll. Warren doesn’t want to let Sanders get too far to her left. And all the candidates have convince voters that they beat Trump, and that means besting him on the foreign policy crisis that is suddenly dominating the headlines.
Saying anything that be construed or twisted into sympathy for Soleimani does not help their case.
Michael Pregent: Iran fears US war – May have deliberately missed hitting Americans in missile attacks
Iranian missile attacks on two joint U. S. -Iraqi military bases Wednesday morning didn’t kill or injure any Americans, according to initial reports – and that appears to have been a deliberate move by Iran to avoid a retaliatory strike by U.S. forces .
Iran had to strike back at the U.S. in some way after an American drone attack ordered by President Trump killed Iranian terrorist Gen. Qassem Soleimani and other terrorists Friday morning in Iraq. But the leaders of the Iranian regime are smart enough to know that if they had killed Americans in their retaliatory attack, Trump would have responded with deadly force.
This could have sparked a rapidly escalating series of strikes and counterstrikes as each side hit back at the other and could have eventually led to a costly war that would have hurt Iran far more than the U.S.
Iran called on the U.S. not to retaliate after the Islamic Republic launched as many as 15 ballistic missiles at the bases where U.S. troops were stationed – a clear indication that Iran wants to avoid further military conflict with the far more powerful American forces.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted after the attacks: “Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched. We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.”
The lesson here is that despite Iran’s tough talk and threats, it fears the power of the U.S. and doesn’t want a military confrontation with America that could lead to a U.S. invasion – the fate that befell its neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan.
In fact, the U.S. killing of Soleimani was such a severe blow to the Iranian regime that it may be the de-escalation event we were looking for to ratchet down tensions with Iran.
As a result, Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani – a terrorist responsible for the death of more than 600 Americans and thousands of others – was a double victory for the U.S.
First, eliminating Soleimani ensures he will never lead another deadly attack. And second, the killing is a stern warning to Iran that the Trump administration is not afraid to attack when warranted.
The killing of Soleimani and other terrorists followed an attack by a militia backed by Iran that killed a U.S. contractor and wounded four other Americans in December. The U.S. conducted airstrikes on five bases belonging to the terrorist militia Kataib Hezbollah in retaliation.
That American action prompted Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes – the commander of Kataib Hezbollah – to join with other militia leaders to attack the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
A day later President Trump decided to target Soleimani – the man responsible for the escalation in Iraq and across the region and the one man whose death would send a clear warning to Iran to back off. Or else.
Trump appears to have asked himself the right question: Who do we take out to stop these Iranian attacks? The answer was Soleimani.
Trump should be commended for ordering the drone strike that killed both Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes –the two most powerful men undermining the U.S. presence in Iraq and the region.
It’s time now for the Iraqi government to tell Iran to stop killing Iraqis, and time for Iraq to target and arrest members of the Iranian-backed militias.
If Iraq refuses, the U.S. must come to the realization that the Iraqi government is more interested in being allied with Iran. That will lead to a U.S. troop withdrawal and loss of support for the Iraqi government. The big loser, if that happens, will be Iraq and its people.
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
TRUMP: EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO NEW WORLD ORDER
By James D Veltmeyer, MD
The ongoing attacks by the political establishment on President Donald
Trump –which began even before he was elected – are without parallel
This President has been spied on, lied about, made the subject of
non-existent crimes, investigate him and his family members for
Administration with leakers and double-agents.
No other President in American history has been treated in such a
What is it about this President that has roused such demons in his
Is it simply that he is not part of the club, a brash outsider with a
Not at all. After all, aren’t these the same folks who loved Bill
Of course, Clinton was beloved by the globalist elites who pull the
Donald Trump, of course, never played ball with these globalists . He
President Trump pulled us out of the TPP. Billions in lost profits
President Trump pulled us out of the job-destroying Paris Climate
Accords. Billions in lost profits for foreign nations like Communist
China, at our expense. Read NASA's Report.
President Trump began the process of securing the U.S. border .
Billions in lost cheap illegal immigrant labor for the Business
Roundtable.
President Trump imposed tariffs on China, becoming the first President
Billions in lost profits for corporations who ship our jobs to one of
President Trump launched the process of extricating the U.S. from
North Korea. Billions –perhaps trillions – in lost profits for the
Is the picture becoming a little clearer? In each instance, the
President’s policies have represented a dramatic upending of the
Republicans, all Globalist-Socialist, are determined to bring this
President down? Most of the mass media is controlled by these same
As was said in Watergate, just follow the money. And -while you’re
Arabella Advisors which is funding the anti-Trump political agenda
Folks, the New World Order gang is in full retreat all over the globe.
From Brexit in the UK to the populist governments of Hungary and
Poland to the Yellow Vest movement in France and Salvini in Italy, the
In the United States, Donald J. Trump has emerged as the New World
Order’s most tenacious and determined foe as he fights the good
Go ahead, globalists . Try your impeachment games. Try your Senate
Something you will recognize clearly come November 3, 2020.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)