Skip to comments.
Tucker Carlson On Soleimani Intelligence: Since When Do We Trust The Deep State?
Hotair ^
| 01/07/2020
| AllahPundit
Posted on 01/07/2020 8:44:38 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The aftermath of the Soleimani strike is filled with unhappy subplots but a rare enjoyable one will be watching Foxs 8 p.m. guy tussle with, well, pretty much everyone else on the network over whether aggression towards Iran is a good or bad thing.
Tucker is clear and consistent. He doesnt trust Americas hawkish national security establishment, be it in the context of Saddams WMDs, the Trump campaigns alleged collusion with Russia, or the supposedly imminent threat posed by Qassem Soleimani. Especially the latter, as hes been an outspoken critic of belligerence towards Iran throughout Trumps presidency. He was the guy, remember, who allegedly helped persuade the president not to hit back at Iran last summer after they downed a U.S. drone. His criticism of the natsec bureaucracy ranges from forceful to vicious, once describing John Bolton as a sort of insect thats burrowed into the bowels of the body politic. He routinely asserts on his show that hawks in the intel community care nothing for the welfare of Americans or their children. Its full Ron Paul, at least on foreign policy. But, as I say, its consistent.
The rest of Foxs anchor team takes a more
nuanced position about the virtues and vices of the intelligence community.
You need to trust them, except when you dont. How to tell the difference? Seems pretty simple: When theyre at odds with Trump we shouldnt trust them and when theyre in agreement with Trump we should. Rarely will we see a clearer picture of what I described last week as the basic divide within MAGA-era populism. Some, like Tucker, are principled paleocon skeptics about military action; the vast majority are In Trump We Trust Republicans who are willing to see war, and the intelligence bureaucracy, as more or less virtuous as Trumps political needs require. (Ironically, the person who wrote a book titled In Trump We Trust is more of a principled paleocon these days.)
Heres Hannity last night speaking less than an hour after Tuckers comments in the clip below. He and Lou Dobbs are charter members of the In Trump We Trust camp.
In a segment he called How to Deal With the Worlds Most Evil Terrorists for Dummies, Hannity hyped up the need for military action against Iran by stating its aggression must be checked or it will get worse. And it has gotten worse and worse and worse. They must know their hostile actions have consequences.
Despite the whining and the complaining, predictably, among Democrats and the stupid commentators on TV in the media mob, top military experts agree the presidents strategy is effective, he added, noting he didnt want to see U.S. boots on the ground.
Stupid commentators on TV? Watching Tucker and Hannity take barely veiled shots at each other will be even more fun than watching Tucker and Shep Smith do so last year was.
Its nice to see Hannity return to his roots as an ardent hawk, though, which he was from 1996 until, oh, June 2015 or so. In theory it actually shouldnt be that hard to reconcile his position on targeting Soleimani with Tuckers, as neither one wants wider war with Iran and both surely agree that Soleimani was a sinister character without whom the world is a better place. Targeting him was, in fact, true to the Jacksonian spirit of Trumpism, which calls for avoiding foreign adventures whenever possible but also teaching your enemy a harsh lesson whenever he crosses the line. The problem in this case, writes Ross Douthat in a column today, is that the U.S. is sufficiently entangled in the Middle East that it cant simply get out having now delivered a heavy blow to Iran. Its ripe for reprisal, and then counter-reprisal, and then counter-counter-reprisal, and suddenly were in Tuckers nightmare scenario of de facto war, albeit absent a massive ground invasion. Id add that even if we were less tangled up in Iraq and Syria, Trumps fixation on strength would force him into a cycle of reprisals anyway. Hes not gaming out strikes on Iranian cultural sites because hes worried about Iran damaging Americas strategic position in Iraq, hes gaming them out because hes afraid of looking weak if Iran blows up a New York City subway car to settle the score and the White House does nothing. Hes going to insist on having the last word, which is Jacksonian right up until the moment when both sides are shooting at each other regularly.
As for Tucker, this is his third monologue since the news about Soleimanis death broke and as far as I know he has yet to harshly criticize the president himself for ordering the strike. Hell chatter all day about the deep state and Bolton, who left government months ago, and hes happy to tell you just how much blame a marginal Senate backbencher like Ben Sasse bears for cheerleading the strike. But hes been conspicuously shy about calling out his friend Donald even though according to the Times it was Trump who chose the option of targeting Soleimani from a menu provided by the Pentagon that included much less aggressive action. Why Carlson is so intent on whitewashing the commander-in-chiefs singular role in this is known only to him. Maybe he thinks the Fox faithful will tolerate anti-war rhetoric but not anti-Trump rhetoric. Maybe hes afraid of losing influence with Trump, knowing how poorly the president reacts to personal criticism. Or maybe this is just how Carlsons paleocon worldview operates, preferring to blame a faceless cabal of establishment bureaucrats for all bad developments abroad because thats more politically convenient than blaming nationalisms champion, the president. Well see what he says if/when Iran hits the U.S. and then the U.S. hits back and suddenly a sustained conflict is in the offing. He cant give Trump a free pass forever. I think.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: conservative; deepstate; greatpoint; intelligence; soleimani; tds; tickercarlson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
To: SeekAndFind
Lots of people on both sides have been caught up in contradictions trying to find some foundation of consistent principles they can hang their hats on, if you don’t mind my mixing metaphors.
21
posted on
01/07/2020 8:57:07 AM PST
by
Mr Ramsbotham
("God is a spirit, and man His means of walking on the earth.")
To: piasa
I’ve said for days that the U.S. should downplay the embassy attack. I say this for one simple reason: The embassy attack is more indicative of a problem with IRAQ than with Iran. Jussi SoulMan — or whatever the hell that Iranian general’s name is — wasn’t part of an invading force from Iran. He flew right into Baghdad Airport and was targeted after basically just hopping into an Uber ride at the curb.
22
posted on
01/07/2020 8:57:32 AM PST
by
Alberta's Child
(In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.)
To: chuckee
RE: In violation of international law he attacked a foreign embassy.
An attack on our embassy is an attack on OUR SOIL.
This is WAR whether we like it or not.
We shot down general Yamamoto’s plane in WW II to prevent him from plotting against our army. Nobody wept for him.
Now, we killed General Soleimani and that somehow is out of bounds?
If so, then we should apologize for killing Yamamoto as well.
23
posted on
01/07/2020 8:57:58 AM PST
by
SeekAndFind
(look at Michigan, it will)
To: SeekAndFind
Yep. You get down to the issue at the end of your post. It’s as if Tucker is just trying really hard to be “in the middle” on this.
24
posted on
01/07/2020 8:58:18 AM PST
by
cuban leaf
(The political war playing out in every country now: Globalists vs Nationalists)
To: Alberta's Child
RE: Jussi SoulMan or whatever the hell that Iranian generals name is wasnt part of an invading force from Iran.
Oh, and we was simply a tourist from Iran having nothing to do with the attacks on our embassy right?
25
posted on
01/07/2020 8:59:30 AM PST
by
SeekAndFind
(look at Michigan, it will)
To: romanesq
So frankly, I dont know what Tulsi Carlson is doing here other than making some noise. Its grandstanding of the worst kind.
Graham offering the Mueller Protection Act in the US Senate was far worse “grandstanding” than anything Tucker has done. That, in fact, undermined POTUS and the MAGA agenda. Pay no attention to that now, though.
I don’t agree completely with Tucker but he’s got a point here: those in government that have done little but undermine POTUS and the MAGA agenda the past 3 years are not deserving of our trust on anything. Given that the CIA hoaxblower is still sipping his starbucks pumpkin latte at his desk in Langley I wouldn’t take anything coming out of that building as truthful. Sadly, Our institutions are corrupt that their core now.
26
posted on
01/07/2020 8:59:54 AM PST
by
lodi90
To: odawg
Plus the reaction by the Iranian government after the fact.
Not for one second would I think there would be such a reaction over some little insignificant foot soldier.
27
posted on
01/07/2020 9:00:05 AM PST
by
old curmudgeon
(There is no situation so terrible, so disgraceful, that the federal government can not make worse)
To: SeekAndFind
AllahPundit, so transparent as to be laughable.
Tucker is correct but misses the other half here. The Corollary question could be asked as well. Namely, since when doesnt the left trust the intel. After all, during the entire Russia Hoax and FISA scandal they told us that Trump was criminal, a traitor for daring to question the intel community and its motives. Two months ago when he withdrew from Syria we were told he wasnt listening to the intel and was abandoning our allies. I believe AllahJokePundit was such a critic.
Now, not so much. Now, its about Trump relying on faulty intel and being a warmonger.
Which brings one back to AllahFool. Like the dems and every NeverTrumper, the merits of issue are not important. Rather, the contrarian rage is the driver. I hate Trump, therefore I am!
As for Tucker. He is consistent here and not driven by contrarian rage. He has noted that Trump has largely resisted the Deep State/Insider/McCain push to war war and more war!!! Trump has launched two strikes and restrained from launching countless others. Tucker is correct not to throw Trump under the bus as the record indicates he will not silly nilly exercise American military power. The insiders, or so much.
To: SeekAndFind
Tucker is the Rand Paul of talk TV. Another pussy that never had to lay his life on the line for anyone else.
Spewing what ifs as known facts.
29
posted on
01/07/2020 9:01:24 AM PST
by
Souled_Out
(Our hope is in the power of God working through the hearts of people.)
To: SeekAndFind
A lot of people here apparently believe -- mistakenly -- that information from "U.S. intelligence" is intended to guide decisions by U.S. presidents. It's not. It's aimed at driving propaganda efforts to dupe low-information voters into supporting foreign/military policy decisions that may not be in America's best interest.
As such, I'd say the whole purpose of citing "U.S. intelligence information about an imminent attack on U.S. interests by Iran" is to provide public justification for something that President Trump wanted to do anyway. Maybe it was a good idea, and maybe it wasn't ... but it sure as hell wasn't done because of any "imminent attack" on anything.
Never trust your government.
30
posted on
01/07/2020 9:02:09 AM PST
by
Alberta's Child
(In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.)
To: SeekAndFind
Oh, and we was simply a tourist from Iran having nothing to do with the attacks on our embassy right? That's not what I said. My point is that he was in Iraq because he was invited there -- and had probably been traveling freely in Iraq for years.
Like I said ... IRAQ is the real problem here, not Iran. We know what Iran is, but for some reason we have this delusional idea that Iraq is actually different.
31
posted on
01/07/2020 9:04:13 AM PST
by
Alberta's Child
(In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.)
To: SeekAndFind
Perhaps the President should withdraw all the security (and the staff) from that Embassy and post Tucker there to reason with the Mullahs!
To: SeekAndFind
Carlson is busy wasting our time while he attacks a straw man. A one-off killing in the national interest is not a war.
Remember Reagan doing the same with his jet attack on Qaddafi? Reagan delivered a message by special courier
33
posted on
01/07/2020 9:07:17 AM PST
by
xzins
(Retired US Army chaplain. Support our troops by praying for their victory.)
To: Alberta's Child
RE: Maybe it was a good idea, and maybe it wasn’t ... but it sure as hell wasn’t done because of any “imminent attack” on anything.
So, your reasoning sounds like this — our military intelligence LIES like every other government bureaucracy does and the recent attacks on our embassy is just a one time thing that will not be repeated anyway.
34
posted on
01/07/2020 9:07:41 AM PST
by
SeekAndFind
(look at Michigan, it will)
To: SeekAndFind
> “He was the guy, remember, who allegedly helped persuade the president not to hit back at Iran last summer after they downed a U.S. drone.”
Utter BS.
POTUS explained very well himself why he declined to retaliate against the Iranian Regime for last year’s drone attack. Carlson had zero to do with the decision.
35
posted on
01/07/2020 9:08:38 AM PST
by
Hostage
(Article V)
To: SeekAndFind
“RE: The mullahs terrorist general was plotting right inside Iraq directly after the attack on the US Embassy.
That was Tuckers point.”
Yes, Tulsi Carlson’s point is moot. That’s MY point.
The Mullah terrorist general came to Baghdad for reasons, none of them good.
He’s a military combatant who engaged with US forces through his directed militias for years.
For years!
What part of this do people not get? Tulsi Carlson is being a buffoon and I don’t care how stupid and dense he wants to be on this topic. It’s over and the best thing in the region in years.
Many victims of Soleimani in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen and Libya will agree. They number in the hundreds of thousands.
36
posted on
01/07/2020 9:09:25 AM PST
by
romanesq
(8Chan and its child porn, violence and murders are kaput. So is the QAnon grift with it.)
To: xzins
RE: Remember Reagan doing the same with his jet attack on Qaddafi? Reagan delivered a message by special courier
Heck, Reagan did even worse than what Trump did. In 1988, our Navy DESTROYED half of Iran’s navy in Operation Praying Mantis.
This happened when the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine while deployed in the Persian Gulf.
For those who don’t remember, read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
37
posted on
01/07/2020 9:10:16 AM PST
by
SeekAndFind
(look at Michigan, it will)
To: SeekAndFind
... our military intelligence LIES like every other government bureaucracy does and the recent attacks on our embassy is just a one time thing that will not be repeated anyway. No. My point is that President Trump doesn't need military intelligence to tell him that the U.S. embassy in Baghdad is vulnerable to attack from Islamic mutants.
President Trump himself described the George W. Bush decision to invade Iraq as one of the worst blunders in the history of our country. If it were up to Trump, the U.S. embassy wouldn't even be there.
38
posted on
01/07/2020 9:17:33 AM PST
by
Alberta's Child
(In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.)
To: SeekAndFind
I didn't say I agreed with Tucker. I'm just saying I see where he's coming from.
The mistake Tucker is making is not thinking it all the way through and coming to the conclusion that you came to. Salamami is a terrorist. He plans attacks.
The Deep State may have been calling President Trump's bluff and he pulled 52 Aces out of his sleeve and went all in.
What Tucker fails to take into consideration is that if President Trump HADN'T taken Samalamadingdong out when he had the chance simply because it originated from The Deep State, the cacophony from the Left would've been unparalleled.
39
posted on
01/07/2020 9:21:09 AM PST
by
Texas Eagle
(If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
To: SeekAndFind
Does Carlson suggest a non-aggressive reason why the #2 Iranian leader was in Iraq to do something he couldn't already do by staying in Iran?
What's the possible "dual use" excuse on this one that our intelligence is missing?
-PJ
40
posted on
01/07/2020 9:23:26 AM PST
by
Political Junkie Too
(Freedom of the press is the People's right to publish, not CNN's right to the 1st question.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson