[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

Lieberman's also been a neo-con member of the Israel amen-chorus, as Pat Buchanan once accurately called those who put their loyalty to Israel far ahead of any concerns they have for the lives of American military personnel, for his entire life. He's just another puppet that shouldn't be listened to.

None of this is about anyone saying Soulemani was any sort of good guy. It's about Trump making things that much worse by doing the most reckless escalation imaginable.

The guy is directly responsible for the deaths of over 500 Americans. How is killing someone who is actively engaged in killing Americans any kind of an escalation?

Should we have simply 'let it go' when he orchestrated two attacks on the US embassy?

[Sunnyways]

Pompeo is now trying to deny that Trump threatened Iranian cultural sites TWICE.

$1:

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One a day later, he sought to offer a justification. “They’re allowed to kill our people,” Trump said, according to a pool report. “They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

[Thanos]

I never said let it go. I merely believe there were other courses of action that could have been taken.

I imagine that Trump barking orders in a war will have a result somewhere in between the thousands of deaths Winston Churchill caused by interfering with the British military and the millions of deaths Adolph Hitler caused by interfering with the German military. I can think of very little that's worse that a war being conducted by the Trump Regime, especially against an enemy as well-prepared to cause global mayhem as the Iranians are. This won't be anything like steamrolling Saddam's crock of a military. This is as bad as it can get, probably only second-worst to going to war against China.

We'll see what happens but I don't expect the process to be very pleasant for anyone, except for those ghouls who count victories by the number of stupid memes they can create.

[CharlesAnthony]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Simply put, he asks why the Democrats can't admit that everyone is safer with this mass murderer in the grave?

--- because it is false. Duh.

Everyone?? Keep the war-time jokes coming! Your children will thank you later for keeping things positive!

[PluggyRug]

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Joe Lieberman, the guy who was the Democrat VP pick in 2000, has come out in support of President Trump on killing the Iranian scumbag.

Simply put, he asks why the Democrats can't admit that everyone is safer with this mass murderer in the grave?

I think in a vacuum, this is absolutely a fantastic thing. The concern is what comes next. If things don't escalate and there is no further death of Americans, then it was 100% a win.

If it escalates into a war, it was a horrible idea.

[Thanos]

Three American dead in Kenya yesterday when an air base was attacked by the same terrorists who shot up the shopping mall in Nairobi. Throw a rock at one hornet's nest and the other hornets from other nests also get stirred up just as much.

I expect some day in the future that American leaders will one day understand that Muslims seem extraordinarily immune to the shock & awe of aerial bombing and drone strikes. I however do not expect to be around to see the day that realization finally happens because it certainly won't happen in my lifetime. This generation is too much in love with footage of explosions to let any facts get through to their brains.

[BartSimpson]

Senator Joe Lieberman Senator Joe Lieberman:

President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats.

The president’s decision was bold and unconventional. It’s understandable that the political class should have questions about it. But it isn’t understandable that all the questions are being raised by Democrats and all the praise is coming from Republicans. That divided response suggests the partisanship that has infected and disabled so much of U.S. domestic policy now also determines our elected leaders’ responses to major foreign-policy events and national-security issues, even the killing of a man responsible for murdering hundreds of Americans and planning to kill thousands more.

After World War II, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, a Michigan Republican who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, formed a bipartisan partnership with President Truman that helped secure the postwar peace and greatly strengthened America’s position in the Cold War. “Politics stops at the water’s edge,” said Vandenberg when asked why he worked so closely with a Democratic president. He added that his fellow Americans undoubtedly had “earnest, honest, even vehement” differences of opinion on foreign policy, but if “we can keep partisan politics out of foreign affairs, it is entirely obvious that we shall speak with infinitely greater authority abroad.”

In their uniformly skeptical or negative reactions to Soleimani’s death, Democrats are falling well below Vandenberg’s standard and, I fear, creating the risk that the U.S. will be seen as acting and speaking with less authority abroad at this important time.

[N_Fiddledog]

And here's one from an actual Democrat:



The Pentagon revealed that Soleimani, a longtime enemy of the U.S. who was reportedly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. personnel, was “developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq” and the Middle East region.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/01/04 ... um=twitter

[xerxes]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Joe Lieberman, the guy who was the Democrat VP pick in 2000, has come out in support of President Trump on killing the Iranian scumbag.

Simply put, he asks why the Democrats can't admit that everyone is safer with this mass murderer in the grave?

An ever more relevant question is : who gives two squirts of piss what Lieberman has to say? It’s been twenty years since anyone cared what he has to say. Quick, someone tell Lieberman Marilyn Manson is still around. That’ll distract him.

[BartSimpson]

xerxes xerxes:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Joe Lieberman, the guy who was the Democrat VP pick in 2000, has come out in support of President Trump on killing the Iranian scumbag.

Simply put, he asks why the Democrats can't admit that everyone is safer with this mass murderer in the grave?

An ever more relevant question is : who gives two squirts of piss what Lieberman has to say? It’s been twenty years since anyone cared what he has to say. Quick, someone tell Lieberman Marilyn Manson is still around. That’ll distract him.

It's rather revealing how quickly you people turn on each other.

[N_Fiddledog]

Re Trump's warning of sanctions should Iraq go through with threats to expel foreign troops, here's what he actually said:

$1:

(Via CNBC)

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, the U.S. president said: “If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.”

“We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it.”

He added that “If there’s any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we are going to put sanctions on Iraq, very big sanctions on Iraq.”

(Via CNBC)

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonst ... p-n2558982

[xerxes]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And here's one from an actual Democrat:



The Pentagon revealed that Soleimani, a longtime enemy of the U.S. who was reportedly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. personnel, was “developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq” and the Middle East region.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/01/04 ... um=twitter

No, the pentagon hasn’t. All we’ve gotten are vague declarations that he was planning something. No specifics, not even to the people in congress who are cleared to know such things.

And now the least trustworthy administration in history wants us all to trust them. Give. Me. A. Break.

[xerxes]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

xerxes xerxes:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Joe Lieberman, the guy who was the Democrat VP pick in 2000, has come out in support of President Trump on killing the Iranian scumbag.

Simply put, he asks why the Democrats can't admit that everyone is safer with this mass murderer in the grave?

An ever more relevant question is : who gives two squirts of piss what Lieberman has to say? It’s been twenty years since anyone cared what he has to say. Quick, someone tell Lieberman Marilyn Manson is still around. That’ll distract him.

It's rather revealing how quickly you people turn on each other.

Lieberman was never a Democrat. At least not ideologically. You hate on republicans who don’t toe the party line and call them RINO’s. Lieberman was a DINO.

[Strutz]

$1:

Trump already told us he sees war with Iran as a distraction from a faltering presidency: Keith Boag

Take note of some of the things we can be sure were sloshing around in U.S. President Donald Trump's head last week while he was also making his momentous decisions about Iran: his impeachment, his Senate trial, the November election.

If you think it's possible none of that was on his mind, check his Twitter account. It's all there. He's an open book.

Trump admitted years ago that he saw war with Iran as a clever ploy to distract attention from a faltering presidency in an election year. At the time he was speculating that's what Barack Obama would have to do to win in 2012. His analysis is preserved for us on video.

Trump was, of course, wrong. Obama won re-election handily without making war on Iran. Now it's Trump's turn: his re-election prospects are uncertain; Iran is in the crosshairs. Is he, as he's boasted before, "cocked and loaded"?

Of course, we can't ever be sure about his motives or anyone else's. We will likely never know everything that led the president to decide to escalate the Iran situation. But as the world waits nervously to see whether the U.S. stumbles into another Middle East war, it's possible to understand how we got to this point even if we aren't exactly sure why we're here now.

Analysis continues here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-ira ... -1.5415531