Satire? You Decide
Trump is holding all the cards
JOHN FEEHERY:
“…He would be a nightmare to play poker against.
He is always on offense. He is always making a big show of his big bets. When he does fold, he does it so quietly, nobody really notices, because he is on with his next big bet.
Predictability used to be the hallmark of America’s international policy. But Trump has changed that equation.
He is unpredictable, unconventional, and he makes foreign leaders, our allies and the Washington establishment exceedingly uncomfortable.
When he folds, like he did on a huge spending package that included some but not all of his requested money for the border wall, he does it so quietly, that nobody really even reported on it.
He folded, but he won anyway.
That’s how good Trump is at playing poker in this modern political moment.
The president has plenty of trump cards up his sleeve as he moves forward on his campaign to reelection this year.
He pulled one of them when he authorized the assassination of one of America’s toughest foes, Qassem Soleimani.
Sure, it was a gamble, and we don’t know how exactly it will play out.
But we do know that the man who had masterminded death and destruction for decades in the Middle East is permanently retired, and Trump’s decisive action has put everybody on notice, from Kim Jong Un to Bashar Assad that he doesn’t mess around when it comes to protecting American interests.
Trump’s move to kill this Iranian terrorist has roiled the Democratic primary, caused the left to embrace him as a martyr and sent the mainstream media into conniptions.
In other words, it has served the president well, from a political perspective.
The president has other cards up his sleeve.
He has the ability to thoroughly dominate media coverage with one 280-character tweet.
No matter what reporters want to report on, from impeachment to the Emoluments Clause, Trump can change the subject to what he wants to talk about.
He ups the ante with each tweet, making grandiose and often ridiculous statements.
The whole controversy over the supposed targeting of Iranian cultural sites is a case in point.
Nobody seriously thinks that the American people (or the military) would allow the president to target historically or religiously significant sites to punish the Iranians.
And yet the president mentions it, and the media goes nuts…”
On Iran
Worth clicking over
Lee Smith:
“…In making Iran accountable, Trump has knocked Iran down to its natural size—and likely made Americans safer from Iranian aggression than they have in fact been at any point in the last 40 years, during which Iranian proxies have repeatedly killed large numbers of Americans. Killing Soleimani is a much more important operation than those targeting ISIS leader al-Baghdadi and even bin Laden, since it will likely shape the future actions of a state, not the leadership rotation of terror groups.
Iranian-backed terror isn’t a stubborn, unchanging fact of the international landscape, except to the degree that we made it so. The policy of appeasement that began in 1979, with the embassy takeover, culminated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) when the Obama administration flooded Soleimani’s war chests with hundreds of billions of dollars and legitimized Iran’s “right” to a large-scale nuclear weapons program. In line with the decadeslong U.S. policy of augmenting the Iranian threat in order to avoid taking action against it, Obama said the only alternative to giving Iran the bomb was war.
Donald Trump was vilified when he exited the Iran deal in May. But in the eyes of the foreign policy establishment, he committed an even graver sin by exposing the 40-year-old lie that U.S. policymakers, right and left, had cultivated to rationalize their collective unwillingness to protect Americans from Iranian terror…
…Six U.S. administrations were complicit in turning Iran into a regional power. In that context, the Obama administration’s decision to flood Iranian war chests with cash and recognize its right to build a nuclear bomb was the logical culmination of the rot eating away at the Beltway for four decades. It was perhaps to be expected that an outsider who often doesn’t know when to keep quiet, and can’t stay off Twitter, would be the one to sing out like the boy in the fairy tale. It’s true, the emperor has no clothes. The rules have changed but that doesn’t mean the Iranians won’t be looking for revenge…”
Bottom headline of the day
Michael Moore Tweets Apology For Death Of Soleimani In Farsi
A colossal nitwit
One reason Iran does not want war with US
A picture is worth a thousand words. Fifty F-35AII’s The most advanced warplane in the world. That is a small portion of US capability. The MSM is hysterical.
Headline of the day
Mortgage rates fall further
Diana Olick:
-
- Buyer sentiment in the housing market remained high in December, according to a monthly survey from Fannie Mae.
- The average rate on the 30-year fixed mortgage fell to the lowest level since October this week, at 3.69%, Mortgage News Daily reported.
- Prices nationally rose 3.7% annually in November, a new report from CoreLogic said. That is the largest annual gain since last February.
If this was Iran’s response, Qassem Soleimani killing was a major victory for Trump
Philip Klein:
“…As I pointed out before, Trump most likely viewed taking out Soleimani as a calculated risk worth taking. With an economy being crippled by sanctions, regular domestic protests, and military stretching throughout the Middle East, the Iranian regime could afford a major escalation a lot less than the U.S. To Iran’s rulers, war with the U.S. poses an existential threat.
The early indications are that Iran blinked. The regime dramatically launched ballistic missiles toward U.S. troops and made a big show of it to the world, but it also chose targets where it knew Americans were expecting an attack and would be able to take preparations to reduce or avoid casualties. It was telling that even the threats Iran issued tonight, that if the U.S. retaliates, Iran will attack Israel and Dubai, suggest an unwillingness to engage the U.S. were it to risk actual casualties.
It’s possible that, as the sun rises in Iraq and there is a full assessment, it will reveal there were, in fact, casualties. It also is possible that, even in the absence of casualties, Trump could choose to retaliate in a way that triggers another response from Iran. But that seems unlikely. Remember, when Trump backed off retaliating for Iran’s downing of a drone in June, he said the decisive factor was that it was unmanned. If there were no casualties in this case, Trump has an opening to declare victory and avoid a retaliatory strike. In any event, he certainly can take a pause before making any dramatic moves…
…By taking out Soleimani, Trump not only undermined Iran’s capabilities in the region, but he reestablished deterrence by demonstrating that the U.S. had the means, the intelligence assets, and the will to strike Iran hard. Barring casualties, this attack can be shrugged off by the U.S. The cost-benefit analysis is not even close…”
On Iran
Charles Hurt:
“…watching the full-blown hysterics out of Washington over the past few days reveals just how wildly delusional the Trump-haters have become…
…Their hatred of Mr. Trump has always been all-consuming. From the start, they hated Mr. Trump more than they ever loved America. In fact, that is precisely why he is such a threat to them: his practical, common sense, “America First” agenda reveals how rotten so many politicians and pundits in both parties have become in Washington.
The notion that America should spend billions of dollars and sacrifice thousands of soldiers to protect and enforce the borders of a bunch of barbaric countries halfway across the globe — while ignoring our own borders — is absurd in the extreme…
…So we are deeply entangled in Iraq, a place Mr. Trump and many Americans would dearly like to depart. Along comes Iran, which launches an attack on our embassy compound in Baghdad, ordered by this thug Soleimani.
What on God’s green Earth is Mr. Trump supposed to do in response to such an attack?
Write a check for more than $1 billion and give it to the mullahs? Send a plane under the cover of darkness carrying pallets of $400 million in unmarked cash for the ayatollah? Wipe out effective sanctions so that Soleimani might sow even more terrorism around the world?
Well, that is precisely what the previous administration did. But not Mr. Trump. Instead, he killed the thug.
And good riddance.
Now, let’s get back to the business of disentangling ourselves from Iraq and the rest of that God-forsaken, barren land.
But don’t forget: Never turn your back to them while you’re walking out and never take your finger off the trigger…”
Democrats have put their head in a noose while standing over a trap-door
Worth clicking over.
Conrad Black:
“…The Democrats have stumbled into yet another beartrap in their unanimous objection to President Trump’s order to kill the world’s leading terrorist, Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. The same misdirected solicitude that caused the Washington Post to describe ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, after he was driven to suicide by U.S. special operators, as an “austere cleric” has elevated Soleimani to the status of an Iranian General MacArthur.
The Democratic presidential candidates agree that Soleimani was a nasty man, but all the principal active candidates—Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren—have embraced the Obama Administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, in which Iran undertook not to develop a full nuclear-tipped long-range missile capability for 10 years. Under this agreement the United States released approximately $150 billion of frozen Iranian assets, which substantially have been squandered in underwriting the terrorist acts and infiltrations supervised by the late Soleimani—especially by the Iranian-sponsored terrorist organizations Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthi in Yemen.
Apart from being unverifiable, and giving a tremendous stimulus to Iran’s terrorist and other destabilizing activities around the Middle East, the treaty (also ratified by France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia and China), only dealt with fissile material, not rocket development or the perfection of a warhead. So Iran’s nuclear military research has continued apace, as it escalated its terrorist activities: a terrible and indefensible agreement the Democrats are now robotically defending.
The reimposition of sanctions by the United States has badly squeezed the Iranian economy and its oil exports have fallen substantially. The Iranian economy has partially collapsed and there is immense discontent; months of rioting required very heavy-handed action by the secret police and army to repress. The Democrats who would take Trump’s place have thus very conveniently lined up on the side of the appeasement of Iran, the toleration without reprisal of all Iran’s terrorist outrages, the absolute right to life of the world’s leading terrorist and America’s greatest single enemy.
There could not be a better foreign policy political gift to the president…”
Republicans have an active investigation into IG Michael Atkinson
Sara Carter:
“…Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes told The Sara Carter Show that Republicans have an active investigation into Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who alerted lawmakers to the so-called whistleblower complaint that has led to President Donald Trump’s partisan impeachment in the House.
Nunes, R-CA, spoke to this reporter for Monday’s podcast. He revealed that transcripts of Atkinson’s secret testimony will expose that the Inspector General either lied or he needs to make corrections to his statements to lawmakers. The transcripts have been kept from the public by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-CA, because it is damaging to their “impeachment scam,” Nunes said…”
Headline of the day
An award show worth watching, for about 8 minutes!
Here is the full intro to the Golden Globes by @rickygervais Holy smokes.
It’s a must watch.— Jim Hamilton (Vice Captain) (@jimhamilton4) January 6, 2020
On Iran
Kurt Schlichter:
“…This has been a really difficult time for Ben Rhodes, John Kerry, and the rest of the geniuses who zombie Neville Chamberlain recently hailed as “a flock of insufferable sissies crowded around the behind of America’s enemy, shamelessly smooching their dignity away.” Zapping Qassam Soleimani ruined an Iranian offensive that had started with such promise. When the dirtbag catspaws of the dirtbag Iranian mullahs surrounded the American embassy in Baghdad, American liberals were more excited than the old Weekly Standard’s staff would have been upon discovering that it was sharing one of its cruises with a pool boy and sexy gardener convention. Libs and their Fredocon submissives were practically salivating at the thought of fellow Americans being murdered by scuzzy foreigners and the opportunity such a tragedy would present for blaming Donald Trump. This was Trump’s Benghazi test, they chortled on social media…”
Meanwhile on the border Trump policies are effective
I & I Editorial Board:
“…Last week, 18 people crossed the border illegally into Arizona hoping they could exploit a loophole in U.S. asylum policy to stay in the country. Instead, they found themselves shipped back to Mexico while their asylum claims are reviewed.
In the midst of impeachment mania and the killing of an Iranian general, this event captured little attention. But it’s part of a broader campaign that the Trump administration has quietly embarked upon to crack down on illegal border crossings. And – even without the wall – these policies are having a huge impact.
The 18 migrants were sent back to Mexico thanks to a policy President Donald Trump implemented that goes by the official name of “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP), but more colloquially known as “Remain in Mexico.”…”
The Democrats biggest worry
On Soleimani
GEORGE PARRY:
“…On April 18, 1943, during the Solomon Islands campaign in the Pacific, the U.S. Army Air Force shot down the bomber known to be transporting Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the commander of the Combined Fleet of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The aircraft went down in flames, and all on board died.
Planned and executed under the strictest secrecy, Operation Vengeance was launched with the specific purpose of killing Yamamoto. Although the planners were concerned that this targeted assassination might invite retaliation in kind by the Japanese, the American press, public, and political establishment overwhelmingly approved the intentional killing of Yamamoto. He had been the architect of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and was deemed to be the Imperial Navy’s ablest officer. His death was not only well-earned retribution, it also materially advanced the war effort. So, targeted assassination or not, the killing of Yamamoto was considered to be a good thing.
Similarly, the 2011 execution of Osama Bin Laden by special forces received universal praise from the American public, the media, and both major political parties. And, consistent with the goal of that operation, the Obama administration also conducted extensive drone warfare that targeted and killed scores of lower-ranking terrorists while in many instances collaterally wounding or killing hundreds of non-combatants. Nevertheless, despite this “collateral damage,” neither the Democrats nor the mainstream media raised any serious criticism or opposition to Obama’s lethal drone program.
Which brings us to the recent drone strike on Major General Qassem Soleimani of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Force (“IRGC”) and his top ally in Iraq, militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Soleimani commanded the IRGC’s Quds Force which is primarily responsible for military and clandestine operations outside Iran. As reported extensively elsewhere, he was responsible for deployment of Iranian designed and manufactured IEDs that caused the deaths and wounding of thousands of American military personnel during the Iraq War.
Despite Soleimani’s bloody record, the drone strike that killed him, carried out at the direction of President Trump, has been bitterly denounced by Democrat office holders and their wholly-owned mainstream media subsidiary. To hear them tell it, by authorizing the killing of Soleimani without first consulting Congress, Trump has acted illegally and heedlessly and unnecessarily risked all-out war with Iran.
While Democrat and media criticism of Trump is hardly news, the context and vehemence of this latest condemnation raise interesting questions regarding the Democrats’ true motives which, as will be discussed below, appear to be nefarious and corrupt…”
On the Killing of Soleimani
Brandon J. Weichert:
“…Although Iran replaced Soleimani immediately, his loss will be felt for years. Soleimani’s leadership had proven indispensable to the mullahs over the last 12 years, as Iran strove to make the Middle East its own exclusive sphere of interest. While Soleimani may have been replaced, his vision and talents—his savvy—cannot be replicated so easily. When the United States assassinated Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamato in 1943, the man who had conceived and executed the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese war effort at sea was irreparably damaged. His insights and leadership had kept Japan a potent enemy of the United States. Yamamoto’s death, however, robbed Japan of such leadership at a critical time.
Trump’s killing of Soleimani deprives Iran in a similar fashion…”
Hold my beer while I shoot this rocket from my butt
https://twitter.com/holdmyale/status/1144607020835844097
Related:
https://twitter.com/holdmyale/status/1210900709409001477