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: AzNASCARfan
I believe military intelligence has been on team Trump from day one!
Agree. They are there to protect lives...
The agencies are only there to cover up their failed schemes for the most part.
Particularly the CIA who it seems is never really exposed
To: SeekAndFind
Tucker makes a good argument EXCEPT he forgets about the threat of a nuclear Iran. If we do what he says and stay out of the middle-east Iran will eventually become a global threat and it will be much harder to deal with them.
To: SeekAndFind
How did the President get the Iranians to attack the US Embassy in Baghdad?
The US performed a flawless direct proportional response to the people who planned, and organized, that internationally recognized act of war. A target which has direct documented links to the assassination of 700 US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
That you infantile scum are trying to play politics with this is yet another indication of your total unfitness to hold any political office, at any level, anywher
43
posted on
01/07/2020 9:33:02 AM PST
by
MNJohnnie
(They would have abandon leftism to achieve sanity. Freeper Olog-hai)
To: SeekAndFind
Tucker is a Liberaltarian, he would gladly vote for Karl Marx if he was promised a big sack of dope to smoke with his queer boyfriend.
44
posted on
01/07/2020 9:36:12 AM PST
by
Beagle8U
(Did Eric Ciaramella kill Epstein? He didn't kill himself.)
To: Magnum44
“Tucker makes the mistake of equating the military use of the tactical intelligence our systems provide the warfighter with the political weaponizing of our intelligence capabilities by a relatively few and high up appointed deep staters.
I dont appreciate that Tucker on more than one occasion blurs that distinction.
Its like blurring the distinction between good cops and bad cops.”
Tucker is generally quite conservative with regard to domestic issues. He is off the rails on foreign policy. He has shown himself as a TV host, certainly not a Victor Davis Hanson or a thinker.
To: SeekAndFind
We should expect some difference in view between those who agree 95% of the time. I understand that Carlson is being consistent. I also worry about being sucked into a major war with Iran but also think that the president’s actions in this case were completely appropriate. It obvious that he orchestrated the attacks on the embassy, and it is easy to see that there would have been more. So President Trump was completely in his rights to order him taken out. So, while I disagree with Carlson on this instance, I think he is spot on most of the time. That is why I watch him.
46
posted on
01/07/2020 9:39:48 AM PST
by
gbscott
To: SeekAndFind
Soleimani wasn't killed for the embassy attack. He was 'targeted' because 'he' was planning widespread attacks to 'us' in the area. Soleimani was some super genius who could only round up a few guys who were only capable of pulling down welcome signs at a embassy.
Ping me once we find out the name of the defense contractor killed. I haven't seen his name released yet.
Seems like we have zero intel on the ground. Soleimani was going back and forth and had local support. The idea we must trust .gov only because our guy is in charge is a joke. Remember syria from a few months ago?
47
posted on
01/07/2020 9:45:11 AM PST
by
Theoria
(I should never have surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive)
To: gbscott
RE: I also worry about being sucked into a major war with Iran but also think that the presidents actions in this case were completely appropriate
If by major war, you’re talking about war in the scale of our wars with Germany or Japan or even with Saddam Hussein’s military, it AIN’T going to happen.
Iran is not going to risk going to war with us. We have them surrounded everywhere in the Middle East.
What is going to happen is what has been happening already — ASYMMETRIC and TERROR attacks with INCREASING FREQUENCY and FEROCITY.
They WILL do this on our soil and note — They WILL target prominent people to assassinate. There already have been threats against Ivanka and Melania and an $80 Million bounty on our President’s head.
Their sleepers cells are already here and many are coming from our porous Mexican border.
*THAT* is what you have to worry over.
48
posted on
01/07/2020 9:47:13 AM PST
by
SeekAndFind
(look at Michigan, it will)
To: wastoute
How did the President get the Iranians to attack the US Embassy in Baghdad?
The US performed a flawless direct proportional response to the people who planned, and organized, that internationally recognized act of war. A target which has direct documented links to the assassination of 700 US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
That you infantile scum are trying to play politics with this is yet another indication of your total unfitness to hold any political office, at any level, anywher
49
posted on
01/07/2020 9:48:57 AM PST
by
MNJohnnie
(They would have abandon leftism to achieve sanity. Freeper Olog-hai)
To: Theoria
RE: The idea we must trust .gov only because our guy is in charge is a joke. Remember syria from a few months ago?
Yes, I remember Syria. And I also remember the ACCURATE intelligence that killed Abu Bakr Albaghdadi *AND* his deputy.
Now this — Soleimani.
Not all intelligence is bad. Otherwise, we might as well dismantle them as totally useless.
50
posted on
01/07/2020 9:49:32 AM PST
by
SeekAndFind
(look at Michigan, it will)
To: SeekAndFind
I trust what I have known for decades about Iran, and also that this is most likely military intel, not CIA.
To: Theoria
How did the President get the Iranians to attack the US Embassy in Baghdad?
The US performed a flawless direct proportional response to the people who planned, and organized, that internationally recognized act of war. A target which has direct documented links to the assassination of 700 US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
That you infantile scum are trying to play politics with this is yet another indication of their total lack of any intellectual, or moral, credibility.
Really amazing that there are people here so blindly bigoted politically they actively serving as propaganda agents for Iran.
Really pathetic to attempt to dismiss the significance of an attack on a US Embassy as no big deal simply because it make clear the knee jerk ignorance of the political dogmas your are still mindlessly clinging to.
52
posted on
01/07/2020 9:53:00 AM PST
by
MNJohnnie
(They would have abandon leftism to achieve sanity. Freeper Olog-hai)
To: stanne
>He had a nasty hateful guest on.<
Yeah, a guest who said he did not vote for President Trump and couldn’t imagine voting for him. I could watch CNN if I wanted to hear from people like that.
To: SeekAndFind
I think the deep state uses these Iranian events as a cover to try to assassinate the President.
To: Texas Eagle
This is a legitimate concern. Intelligence manipulates presidents and the public by feeding them information. For example, WMD in Iraq. Both Clinton and Bush believed they were going to find nukes.
If intelligence has an agenda, they can create a factual sceneriao (true, false or biased) that directs a president to their agenda. The president is really their captive and has no way to validate the info they give him.
I see this happen with staff of local government officials all the time. Staff controls the budget. Not the officials who just take what staff gives them and tweak it a little.
To: Tejas Rob
Yeah, a guest who said he did not vote for President Trump and couldnt imagine voting for him. I could watch CNN if I wanted to hear from people like that.
Ya. I discontinued my recording of the series. It just gets me thinking about how we need to get out of the Mideast. Well we do. But I think Trump is doing his best to do so
And whom CANhe trust?
The whole scheme looks has been in the control of the unitary year-Iran complex since GHW
Warren asked about timing. Hah. She ought to ask the Clintons
56
posted on
01/07/2020 10:03:20 AM PST
by
stanne
To: xzins
I like Tucker generally but agree with your take: Carlson is busy wasting our time while he attacks a straw man. A one-off killing in the national interest is not a war.
In fact, I think Trumps approach will provide us with more flexibility and a greater ability to limit our involvement in Iraq. He is forcing the Iraqis to choose sides. If they choose the Iranian side and ask our troops to leave, well that is exactly what Trump has wanted to do all along. And without our troops in Iraq exposed to attack, we will have less at risk and be more free to strike Iranian targets with greater impunity. The point is that not every use of military power is a precursor to a quagmire. Tucker is unhappy about the prospect of a ground war against Iran that is not going to happen
To: MNJohnnie
'How did the President get the Iranians to attack the US Embassy in Baghdad?'
It wasn't Iranians who did it. That's part of the rub, and makes Iraq such a $hithole. Keep up the propaganda though. No intel on the ground. No resources stopping the spread of dissidence. Allowing the sectarian militias to get stronger and stronger.
58
posted on
01/07/2020 10:14:24 AM PST
by
Theoria
(I should never have surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive)
To: SeekAndFind
Just how big is the deep state now? Is it a agency created by congress?
The deep state was originally the nickname given to people like Comey, Brennan, and a few others trying to bring down the President using Russia and then the Ukraine. The way Tucker is using it, it now means the entire U.S. federal bureaucracy. That is not fair. Not everyone in DC is a political hack involved in some Byzantine scheme to bring down the President. Most of them are just doing their jobs.
To: Widget Jr
DC is not full of “political hacks”
It IS full of people who firmly believe that the US Constitution is an impediment to their careers and political aspirations and ideology.
60
posted on
01/07/2020 10:21:53 AM PST
by
mo
("If you understand, no explanation is needed; if you don't understand, no explanation is possible")
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