Archive for the ‘Military’ Category

Last week, Democrats pointed to the huge crowds attending the Soleimani as proof that Iranians loved the mullahs. Since then, that narrative hasn’t just collapsed. It’s been shattered into tiny bits. This article highlights how repressive regimes control the media to the point of turning them into propaganda factories.

The article starts by saying “At least two Iranian journalists at a state-owned media outlet reportedly resigned from their jobs, and another left a while back, apologizing for ‘the 13 years I told you lies‘ to her supporters as Tehran grapples with the fallout from protests stemming from a cover-up of its accidental downing of a Ukrainian airliner.”

The article continues:

Gelare Jabbari posted an apology on an Instagram that appears to have been deleted. “It was very hard for me to believe that our people have been killed,” the post read, according to The Guardian. “Forgive me that I got to know this late. And forgive me for the 13 years I told you lies.”

Nazee Moinian joined in with the chorus:

“The Iranian protesters have had enough of this. They don’t want less. They don’t want more. They want out,” Moinian said. “They don’t want this regime to represent them. Actually, this regime doesn’t represent the people.

Last week, Democrats blamed President Trump for bringing down the Ukrainian jetliner:

Tulsi Gabbard is supposedly one of the sensible presidential candidates on the Democrats’ side. The above video disproves that foolishness. This foolishness isn’t just confined to the Democrats’ presidential candidates. It’s found in the Democrats serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI. Jackie Speier is a member of that committee. Here’s what she told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer:

President Trump’s “provocative actions”? What the hell is she talking about? President Trump gave the order to kill the nastiest terrorist in the world. When the time was right, that order was fulfilled. The day that killing the world’s nastiest terrorist is considered a provocative action is a frightening day. That’s the day that Democrats will have shown that they’re utterly spineless.

There is a possibility that Iran will attack the US for killing Gen. Soleimani. It isn’t likely but it’s possible. Democrats apparently make military decisions based on what longshot possibilities might happen. They act like the US military isn’t the best in the world. Democrats apparently think that diplomacy that isn’t backed up by the legitimate possibility of military retribution is the right path to peace and harmony in the Middle East. We know that because that’s the path they’ve taken in the recent past.

Like most Americans, I don’t want the US military tied up in endless wars. That doesn’t mean, though, that I want the bad actors in the world to think that we’re a nation of pacifists, either. Coupling a devastating set of sanctions that’s brought Iran’s terrorist activities to a halt with a well-timed military strike against a man that Iran thought was untouchable has Iran on the brink of a tipping point. The previous administration never got close to this point with Iran.

When you combine obviously biased ‘reporting’ with obviously biased polling, don’t be surprised if the polling is essentially worthless. That’s what happened with this ABC News/Ipsos Poll. Q1 of the poll is “Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Trump is handling the current situation with Iran? The result of the poll was that 43% approved and 56% didn’t approve. Q2 of the poll asked “Do you think the U.S. airstrike in Iraq that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani has made the United States: Less safe – 52%, More safe – 25%, didn’t make a difference – 22%.”

Polling that asks slanted questions like that is angling for a specific set of responses. In this instance, that’s precisely what ABC got. Further, the polling was done on Friday and Saturday. Finally 525 adults were surveyed. That means that this poll was junk. The MOE was 4.8%, which is terrible.

Q3 and Q4 deserve a category unto themselves. Q3 asks “How concerned are you about the possibility of the United States getting involved in a full-scale war with Iran? A: 32% replied that they’re “very concerned” and 41% are “somewhat concerned.” Q4 is about Speaker Pelosi’s handling of impeach. It asked respondents “On another subject, three weeks ago the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not immediately deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate that would trigger a trial. Which of the following statements comes closest to your point of view even if neither is exactly right?”

“The fact that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats did not immediately transmit the articles of impeachment shows that the allegations against President Trump are not serious and that the Democrats are just playing partisan politics” A: 37%
“By not immediately transmitting the articles of impeachment, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are doing their constitutional duty to ensure that there is a full and deliberate trial in the Senate and that the jury in the Senate is impartial.” A:39%

The frightening thought is that votes cast by these uninformed idiots count just as much as the votes of informed citizens. Still, how can serious people think that we’re on the brink of full-scale war with Iran? Then again, how can anyone think that Speaker Pelosi is an honest person? After watching this video, it’s impossible for me to think that she’s honest:

Early in the interview, Pelosi said that Sen. McConnell will be involved in a cover-up if he doesn’t allow witnesses. If that’s true, then Adam Schiff is a co-conspirator. Chairman Schiff didn’t call Bolton, Blair, Mulvaney and Duffey and he didn’t subpoena them, either. Further, Democrats should’ve called for a special counsel to investigate the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. Congressional partisans like Chairman Schiff aren’t qualified to investigate corruption. There’s a reason why people don’t take partisan congressional investigations seriously.

We were told that this was a national emergency that couldn’t wait. Pelosi insists that GOP senators will pay a price if witnesses aren’t called. Coming from the woman who turned impeachment into a political weapon because Democrats can’t win this election if their lives depended on it, that’s rich. Pelosi and Schiff are nasty partisans who don’t have a bit of integrity between them.

There’s a new Democrat coalition. It consists of corrupt Democrat politicians like Pelosi and Schiff, partisan Democrat journalists like George Stephanopoulos and intentional push-polling aimed at providing a dishonest picture. Republicans have to defeat that coalition just to stand a fighting chance. That’s why President Trump hasn’t listened to people instructing him to stop tweeting. Without Twitter and other social media platforms, he would’ve gotten buried by now.

Finally, thank God he’s a fighter.

Saying that Pete Buttigieg’s bizarre big blunder will hurt him is understatement. Shortly after Iran’s military shot down a flight, killing all 176 passengers on the plane, Buttigieg insisted that the US was, at minimum, partially to blame:

What a deadbeat Pete Buttigieg is. The US isn’t to blame for the shooting down of this airliner. Iranians are to blame. Period. The US doesn’t need another blame-America-first president. Obama was sufficient for a lifetime.

We don’t need more presidents that won’t notice that Iran has been at war with the US since the Shah of Iran received medical treatment in NYC in 1979. When Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took control of Iran’s government in 1979, the radicalization of the Iranian government was essentially complete. It’s stunning that someone who served in the military, which Buttigieg did, would be this ignorant of fairly recent Iranian history.

Frankly, Buttigieg is an intellectual lightweight. Either that or he’s dishonest. Both possibilities are plausible.

Iran fired two surface-to-air missiles right before the plane exploded, killing every single one of the 176 passengers aboard, according to U.S. officials. And we now have video evidence of a missile being fired directly at the plane hours after the country had attacked U.S. military assets in Iraq. To be clear, there was no “tit for tat” involved. Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at U.S. targets in Iraq, and the U.S. showed restraint by not responding. Then, the downing of the airliner occurred. It’s unclear whether the downing was intentional, but one thing is obvious: This had nothing to do with the U.S.

Apparently, Buttigieg didn’t get briefed on Iran’s attack of the airliner. That’s the type of sloppiness that accidentally gets nations into wars. This isn’t the time for a wet-behind-the-ears commander-in-chief who is too arrogant to admit that he’s isn’t ready for the job of commander-in-chief.

Once again, Democrats misunderestimated President Trump, this time on Iran. Just because they didn’t understand his objectives and tactics didn’t mean he didn’t have a brilliant multi-faceted plan. President Trump’s plan is brilliant for multiple reasons, though Democrats won’t admit that.

First, President Trump’s deregulation of the energy industry put us in a position of strength. As a result of that deregulation, the US is now energy independent. As a result of that independence, President Trump can simply tell Japan, South Korea and Europe that the Straits of Hormuz is their problem. It’s up to them to keep the Straits open. Since they’re reliant on that oil to keep their economies running, it’s their option to keep the Straits open.

Next, President Trump’s peace-through-strength initiative is entirely different than President Obama’s payouts and appeasement policy. President Trump’s red lines weren’t ignored. As a result, Soleimani is dead. Soleimani’s second-in-command is dead, too. As a result of that, Iran’s network of proxies is in disarray. That isn’t to say that they aren’t still dangerous. They’re still a threat. It’s that they aren’t working in orchestration at this point.

Third, President Trump took a somewhat veiled shot at the Obama administration. President Trump didn’t mention their name. Instead, he mentioned that “the previous administration” gave Iran pallets of cash and billions of dollars of sanctions relief without Iran changing their behavior. President Trump then said that this money was then used to buy the missiles that were fired at the air bases in western Al-Anbar province.

Fourth, President Trump announced that the US was imposing additional hard-hitting sanctions on Iran’s leaders. He isn’t imposing these sanctions on the peaceful Iranian people, just on the jihadist leadership. By doing that, he’s sending the signal to the Iranian people that he’s looking out for them while punish Iran’s increasingly unpopular leadership. It won’t take long for Iran’s young people to return to protesting the Regime.

Supposedly, a full three-fourth’s of the Iranian population is younger than 35 years old. That’s a revolution waiting to happen and the mullahs know it. When the 3 days of mourning for Soleimani end, those young people will again remember that unemployment and inflation are so high that they’d make Jimmy Carter’s misery index numbers look modest.

Democrats in the media are reflexively criticizing President Trump. That’s odd considering the fact that Iranians waved the white flag last night. They fired missiles that would get into the general area of the air base in Iraq but that weren’t likely to do any damage to US troops. President Trump now can point to a coherent policy that’s got Iran on its heels while the Democrats’ presidential candidates look incoherent or petty.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Mitch McConnell highlighted the Democrats’ hatred for President Trump while highlighting the Democrats’ limited patriotism for this nation. Sen. McConnell exposed them when he said “The Senate is supposed to be the chamber where overheated partisan passions give way to sober judgment. Can we not at least wait until we know the facts? Can we not maintain a shred, just a shred, of national unity for five minutes before deepening the partisan trenches?” Additionally, Sen. McConnell asked “Must Democrats’ distaste for this president dominate every thought they express and every decision they make? Is that really the seriousness that this situation deserves?”

When statesmen/patriots like Hubert Humphrey and Daniel Patrick Moynihan roamed the Senate, patriotism was in overabundance. Now that partisans like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer lead the Democrats, patriotism is essentially missing from the Senate. Since President Trump ordered the airstrike on Soleimani, Democrats have questioned whether we’re safer now than before the airstrike.

If Democrats are serious in asking that question, then Democrats should never get their hands on the levers of power. The answer to the Democrats’ foolish question is this: yes, we’re infinitely better off today than we were a week ago. Soleimani wasn’t just some rank-and-file general. Soleimani was Iran’s guy that established Iran’s proxies that spread Iran’s reach far beyond Iran’s borders. Soleimani was Iran’s guy who put in place the training for the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas and other proxies.

Put into a sports analogy, taking Soleimani out is like taking Tom Brady in his prime off the field. This wasn’t like losing the backup offensive lineman on the Cincinnati Bengals. As for whether Iran retaliates, that’s likely but that shouldn’t have stopped the military from taking him out. The Department of Homeland Security should (and likely is) beefing up our defenses against cyberattacks. The Department of Defense is already shipping in reinforcements for our military bases around the world. The State Department is likely hiring additional FSOs (Foreign Security Officers) to protect our diplomats. (Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration puts a high priority on protecting diplomats.)

“My Democratic colleagues should not plow away at American unity in some bizarre, intramural competition to see who dislikes the president more,” he said. “They should not disdain our Constitution by rushing through a purely partisan impeachment process and then toying around with it. Governing is serious business.”

Thus far, I haven’t seen anything that would indicate that Democrats are serious about governing according to the will of the people. Unfortunately, I’ve seen tons of proof that Democrats are willing to govern according to their far-left ideology.

During his antiwar diatribe, Tucker Carlson highlighted his one-track mind with regard to the Middle East. At one point, Carlson asked “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?” Then he asked “If we’re still in Afghanistan 19 sad years later, what makes us think there’s a quick way out of Iran?”

Of course, we aren’t in Iran. That doesn’t matter to Carlson. The great military strategist figured that out earlier in his monologue, saying “It is no exaggeration to say that by the next time this show airs, we could be engaged in a conflict, a real conflict with Iran.”

Wow. Saying that it isn’t an exaggeration that the US might be at war with Iran by Monday morning is foolish. It’s nothing except an exaggeration. How does Carlson get away saying stupid things like this? Talk to Fox management about that. I haven’t figured that one out. At times, he can be a thoughtful commentator. Far too often, though, he’s sounded like a CODEPINK antiwar lunatic. This is one of those times.

Let’s deconstruct Carlson’s arguments. It won’t take long since they’re such flimsy arguments. We aren’t ignoring the decline of our own country. Democrats are. They haven’t provided a serious solution to our nation’s problems since retaking the majority in the House. President Trump and Senate Republicans have put forth lots of proposals that would fix things like the opioid epidemic and illegal immigration.

When Carlson gets into his rants, he ignores the Trump administration’s already lengthy list of accomplishments, too. When he rants, he’s talking about what happened during the Obama and Bush administrations. Apparently, he hasn’t noticed that things have changed since President Trump got to Washington.

Next, insinuating that we’re on the verge of war is either dishonesty or stupidity. I don’t think Carlson is stupid so that leaves us with the likelihood that he’s utterly dishonest. Later, Carlson ripped into Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, who put out a statement saying that “This is very simple: Gen. Soleimani is dead because he was an evil bastard who killed Americans.” Carlson then admitted that Sen. Sasse’s “statement is essentially true.” Rather than fleshing that out, Carlson pivoted to strawman arguments that Mexican drug cartels and the Chinese have killed lots of Americans with drugs, then flippantly saying “not that anybody in power cares” about those deaths.

Then Carlson mentioned that Sen. Sasse is a former consultant, whatever that means. Carlson is a former CNN personality. Does that mean he’s ill-suited for Fox? I think he’s far better suited to be one of CNN’s clowns than to be one of FNC’s hosts.

I wasn’t a big fan of Bill O’Reilly. Still, I’d welcome him back to FNC over this one-trick (antiwar) pony any day of the week. It’s time for FNC to cut its losses and put in someone who actually thinks things through before ranting.

Finally, Carlson said that there are lots of bad guys out there, then asking if we should kill all of them while we’re at it. That’s oversimplification on steroids. Gen. Soleimani wasn’t just a bad guy. He’s the mastermind behind destabilizing an entire region of the world while spreading terrorism and launching Iran’s nuclear weapons program. He supplied Shi’ite militias in Iraq with IEDs and other weapons that were used to kill Americans.

Whatever you think of the Iraq War, it’s disgusting to think, as Carlson apparently does, that these soldiers were expendable because they followed a president’s orders. Personally, it’s one thing to question the wisdom of going to war. It’s quite another to say that it’s ok to kill US soldiers in the line of duty.

Having Susan Rice lecture people about integrity is insulting. During her interview with Rachel Maddow, she said that the risks of killing Soleimani probably outweighed the benefits. She also said “The Obama administration was not presented with an opportunity by our intelligence community or by the U.S. military to strike Qassem Soleimani.” If they had been given that information, Rice said that what they “would have done is weigh very carefully and very deliberately the risks versus the potential rewards.”

That’s probably the only truthful thing she said in this interview:

“So, if in fact the administration can be believed that there was indeed strong intelligence of an imminent threat against the United States that’s being carried out by Soleimani and related militia then the question becomes [was] there more than one way to address that threat?” she asked Maddow. “Was the only way to deal with it to kill Soleimani? Certainly, given his history and track record, he deserves his just rewards but the question is does that serve our interests? Does that make us more secure?”

First, killing a man that’s destabilized an entire region of the world for a generation is always in our best interests. Gen. Soleimani isn’t just a high-ranking military guy. He’s the man who put together the military strategy to inflame an entire region. He’s the reason why Iran is the world’s greatest exporter of terrorism. Iran wasn’t like that before Soleimani.

Next, the US got information of an attack that would have hit multiple cities throughout the region. It isn’t that taking out Soleimani doesn’t come without risks. It’s that taking out a man with his list of accomplishments and skills is worth the risks. The trick, I suspect, is take the proper precautions to protect US interests.

Finally, if I’m going to get lectured about integrity, that lecture won’t come from Susan Rice. She’s as untrustworthy as Jim Comey and John Brennan. You can’t sink lower than that. If I’m going to get lectured about integrity, I’ll enthusiastically accept it from Mark Geist. In an interview with Pete Hegseth, Geist said this:

“First off, I mean, when has a protest ever occurred at night and, I mean, most protests they don’t typically bring AK-47s, belt-fed machine guns, and RPGs. That’s somebody planning an attack and they knew it,” Geist told Hegseth.

“They knew it when she went out on the speaking circuit on Sunday,” he continued. “But, instead of telling the truth she wanted to tell lies because she had to say what the administration — at the time — wanted.”

This part must’ve stung the most:

“If President Trump had been in office during Benghazi, we wouldn’t have lost four Americans,” he concluded.

That’s true. Unlike President Obama, President Trump wouldn’t order troops to stand down during a terrorist attack.

I’ve spent much of today listening to Democrats talking about the inevitability of Iran striking back as retaliation for the Trump-ordered airstrike against Gen. Soleimani. Tonight, President Trump decided that flipping the script on one of Iran’s proxies was in order. First reports are that “Iraqi official claims 5 Iranian-backed militia members killed in airstrike north of Baghdad. An airstrike Friday hit two cars carrying members of an Iran-backed militia north of Iraq’s capital, Baghdad, killing five members, an Iraqi official told The Associated Press. The official added that the identities of those killed were not immediately known. It was not immediately clear who launched the strike.”

This article has different information. It said “A fresh airstrike, targeting high-profile members of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), an umbrella group of Iran-backed militias, has been reported. The PMF members were travelling in a three-car convoy north of Baghdad, when the strike occurred, killing six persons, multiple reports said. Three other persons were critically injured. No one has claimed responsibility for the strike.”

There isn’t much doubt who carried out this attack. There’s only one nation with the capability and motivation to carry out an attack like this. When the US designated Iran’s Quds Force as a terrorist group, they also put Iran on notice that killing a US soldier was the Trump administration’s red line. Further, President Trump has demonstrated that he isn’t like President Obama when it comes to suffering terrorists lightly when they cross his red lines.

To paraphrase the late Charles Krauthammer, “it isn’t that there’s a new sheriff in town. It’s that, after 8 years, there’s finally a sheriff in town.” Everyone who studied President Obama knew that his default position was to do nothing. The Democrats’ spin was to call it “strategic patience.” It’s time to tell these pacifists to take a hike. That’s what Pete Hegseth did during this segment of The Five:

Marie Harf is essentially the female version of Baghdad Bob. Pete Hegseth had enough of Harf’s questioning. The tipping point was when she questioned Hegseth about the possibility of escalation. At that point, Hegseth had enough and replied that Iran has been escalating tensions for months. Then he asked her if President Trump should just let Soleimani kill American soldiers and diplomats. Hegseth questioned why a US president would let something like that happen when he had the actionable intelligence that would prevent the killing of diplomats and soldiers. Harf, of course, didn’t have an answer for that question.

Hegseth put the Democrats’ appeaser on her heels just like President Trump is putting Iran’s Quds Force on their collective heels. Wise generals pick their battles. Harf is neither smart nor a general. She’s just a former mouthpiece for a failed presidential administration.

Last night, Democrat Chris Murphy issued a statement that accused the Trump administration of bringing the US to the brink of a region-wide war. Earlier this week, Murphy accused President Trump of implementing policies that made the US “impotent.” Apparently, Murphy can’t decide whether President Trump is making the US impotent or whether he’s bringing the US to the brink of war.

Lost in all of this is the fact that Gen. Soleimani was in Baghdad and that US intelligence found out that he was plotting harm against US diplomats and soldiers. What would Sen. Murphy want us to do? Send a plane filled with cash to buy off the Iranian terrorists like the Obama administration tried? How did strategic patience work out?

It’s safe to say that Ben Sasse isn’t President Trump’s biggest fan. That being said, it’s safe to say that he didn’t take any BS from Sen. Murphy, either:

When American lives are at risk, we have the right to defend ourselves. Protecting troops doesn’t require a declaration of war or even an authorized use of military force or AUMF. A declaration of war is needed if the C-in-C wants to expand it to a war.

Thus far, it looks like President Trump isn’t interested in expanding this into a full-fledged war. Major Gen. James A. “Spider” Marks [Ret.], now a military analyst with CNN, criticized Murphy, too:

“What I would say to Senator Murphy is, why don’t you just be quiet,” Marks said, questioning the notion that the strike has made the world “more dangerous.” “Look, when has Iran ever demonstrated self-restraint? I mean, that’s the question I have. So, is the world more dangerous today? Maybe it’s more dangerous, but when has it not been dangerous? When have we not been a target of a regime like exists in Tehran? I mean, it happens as a matter of routine,” said Marks.

Murphy isn’t supporting our troops and diplomats when he’s playing the part of partisan hack. That’s what Murphy did last night. Murphy, like far too many Democrats, care more about scoring partisan points than he cares about being a patriot.

It sounds like Pelosi and Schumer weren’t notified of the attack beforehand. That’s perfectly appropriate since neither has proven trustworthy with national security secrets. Pelosi and Schumer are partisans first. I don’t know that I could call them patriots.

There’s no doubt that Ben Sasse is a patriot. I don’t always agree with him but he wants what’s best for America.

Either Speaker Pelosi is taking lessons from Sen. Chris Murphy or Sen. Murphy is taking lessons from Speaker Pelosi. Whichever direction it’s coming from, it’s clear that both Democrats are both talking out both sides of their mouth. Earlier this week, Sen. Murphy accused President Trump of making the US “impotent” throughout the Middle East. Thursday night, Sen. Murphy accused President Trump of “knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war.”

At least, it took Sen. Murphy a couple of days to talk out of both sides of his mouth. It didn’t take Speaker Pelosi a full paragraph to talk out of both sides of her mouth in this statement:

American leaders’ highest priority is to protect American lives and interests. But we cannot put the lives of American servicemembers, diplomats and others further at risk by engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions.

Got that? President Trump’s “highest priority is to protect American lives and interests” without “engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions.” Speaker Pelosi doesn’t explain how to do that. She’s just certain that President Trump failed.

What’s disproportionate about killing a terrorist who is organizing terrorist attacks against US diplomats and military personnel? Should President Trump have done nothing to prevent these terrorist attacks? That’s what President Obama would’ve done so that isn’t the right path.

Tonight’s airstrike risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence. America – and the world – cannot afford to have tensions escalate to the point of no return.

Apparently, Speaker Pelosi prefers talking tough while doing nothing. That’s what’s known as a doctrine of appeasement. That’s what Jimmy Carter tried in 1979. That resulted in 52 US hostages being held in the US Embassy in Teheran for 444 days. Five minutes after President Reagan was sworn in as the 40th president of the United States, the plane carrying those hostages cleared Iranian air space.

Jimmy Carter, like Pelosi and Obama, are Democrats who believe in appeasement. President Trump isn’t a Democrat. He doesn’t believe in appeasement.

Is retaliation likely? That’s definitely possible. Is there a better option than the option used Thursday night? That’s a matter of opinion.