Posted on 01/04/2020 4:53:24 AM PST by Kaslin
The Democrats are absolutely devastated. They were certain that President Trump would start a war with Iran, but instead he’s keeping the rogue regime in line using tactics that would never occur to any Democrat.
The Democratic Party has always been uncomfortable with the notion of America winning, and their irrational, undying hatred of Donald Trump makes it even harder for liberals to process the news that a U.S. airstrike took out the general in charge of Iran’s elite Quds Force, Qassim Soleimani. The leading Democratic presidential candidates, for instance, had to resort to some fairly awkward rhetorical contortions in response to this undeniable victory for the Free World.
Former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Elizabeth Warren must have compared notes before taking to Twitter — or else they ran their messaging by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for approval — because both made the same points using almost identical language. Both candidates acknowledged that Gen. Soleimani was a brutal terrorist responsible for thousands of deaths, including hundreds of American soldiers, yet they insisted that it was wrong to eliminate this warmongering menace because it might risk “escalating” tensions with Iran.
Sen. Bernie Sanders didn’t even bother with the niceties of condemning Soleimani’s crimes. He just threw out the preposterous accusation that killing Solemani was a “dangerous escalation” and that President Trump was therefore breaking his promise to end “endless wars.”
That argument is facially absurd — if anything, the exact opposite is true. With Solemani’s death, Iran lost one of its most aggressive and provocative commanders, and the ease with which the United States dispatched with such a high-value target will undoubtedly give pause to the other war hawks in the Iranian military. As an added bonus, the strike also took out the deputy commander of the Iranian militias who recently coordinated an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. It was a forceful reminder that Iran cannot attack America with impunity, and that we have the capability to retaliate against Iranian aggression with a wide variety of creative and devastating actions short of war.
Biden and Warren, like almost everyone else in their Party, have boxed themselves into a corner with their constant demonization of President Trump. They knew they would sound foolish if they tried to downplay or ignore Soleimani’s crimes, yet they could hardly afford to praise the President, so they came up with the warped idea that ridding the world of this monster was somehow a bad strategic move for America. The only charitable explanation for their delusion is that they genuinely believe America’s only foreign policy option in every circumstance is between unilateral surrender or total war.
Now that the President has demonstrated the possibility of a restrained military response to Iran’s provocations by authorizing the strike on Soleimani before he could carry out the next attack he was planning in Iraq, the Democrats find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to condemn an operation that was an unmitigated success. Thanks to President Trump’s bold and decisive action, the American people are more safe, our allies are more secure, and the forces of evil in every corner of the world have been put on notice. If any Democratic politician were to acknowledge that, though, their political career would be over before they could even tweet out their apologies for neglecting the ABCs of contemporary Democratic politics: Always Be Criticizing Donald Trump.
American citizens are justifiably proud that our commander-in-chief struck such a resounding blow on behalf of law, order, and civilization. Democratic politicians and partisans are just despondent because that commander-in-chief happens to be President Trump — a man they evidently consider a greater enemy than the tyrannical thugs in Iran.
Brett Velicovich is a U.S. Army veteran and author of “Drone Warrior: An Elite Soldier's Inside Account of the Hunt for America's Most Dangerous Enemies”
That depends on who might have invited him....
They are distressed over American victories they see as Republican victories. If Obama had okayed the operation from a golf course, the Left would be orgasming over it for the next ninety days and you would be seeing political slogans like ‘X alive and Y dead’.
The are not “conflicted”.
They hate the United States.
They hate the existence of a free United States.
Period.
No conflict.
Trump is more popular than ever! He piles success on top of success! The economy is booming! Prosperity is unprecedented! His rallies attract thousands of people! TRUMP wins! Wins! WINS! America is great again!
Nothing could devastate the Democrats more!
The last thing they want is success for America--especially under the leadership of President Donald Trump!
option in every circumstance is between unilateral surrender or total war.
This binary fallacy is indemic in our college educated Americans.
It exists not just in foreign policy, but in domestic also.
It exists not just in politics, but in business and HITECH also (Intentional use of the the term HITECH, which is the name of a law that gave many billions to Corporatist welfare with a binary view of techology.)
Electricians have a single-pull double-throw switch and a double-pull double-throw switch. There are many computer and high tech applications where those concepts could be applied. But many of our best and brightest can only conceive of on and off, only a single-pull single-throw operation in hi tech.
No.
He was an enemy soldier, a commander of an irregular army at war with the United States.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Terror can, and often has been, state policy and/or military policy.
He was an enemy soldier, a commander of an irregular army at war with the United States.
—
So we shot back.
In a war.
Right?
You have a problem with that?
We’re only allowed to get shot at?
Never shoot back.
(And BTW, the guy is ALSO a terrorist. But I realize you don’t want to entertain that idea.)
“I’d say an uncharitable explanation is far more likely: they’re on Iran’s payroll.”
Agree.
I have a problem with not being prepared for the war that follows.
And yes, it may not come.
But the constant attention to naming the enemy TACTIC of "terrorism" while not naming the ENEMY himself (Saudi Arabia-Pakistan-Iran) sets us up for defeat.
And believing you cannot be defeated is the first step down the road to disaster.
No I have no problem with killing this guy. Not at all.
—
It’s hard to tell from your posts.
You seem to be doing a lot of whining about it.
Anyway, glad to hear you say it.
Because this guy was really worth killing.
If it makes you feel any better (and I know it won’t but I will put it out there anyway) Trump is way ahead of you in not wanting a major war right now. If for no other reason that it will hurt him in the coming election. You don’t start wars in January of an election year.
But that’s not his only reason.
Trump IS the president of Peace and Prosperity. Trump BELIEVES in Peace and Prosperity.
Trump is able to continue to deliver Peace and Prosperity.
Ha....Quote of the year
And he will keep it up
Chicoms, Norks gone quiet
Dims discombobulated
Massive WINING again.
Donald the Strong.
Obama paid them jizia in the form of $billions in cash. Trump said “Nope” and killed them. Obama is a worm. Trump is a man.
LOL....good one.
From VOAT: “If I didn’t know any better, I’d say Trump is tracking Pelosi’s contacts in the middle east for targeting.”
.
Siding with Terrorists - Democrats weaving their own Nooses ...
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.