Trump orders assassination of Iranian general – blames an immediate unspecified threat.
Unless you have been both blind and deaf to everything Trump has done and said over the last three years (at the least), you had to have seen this coming. In oh so typical fashion, he projected this exact scenario back in 2011 when he was telling everyone that this exact same thing would be done by Barack Obama.
Just listen to this if you can stomach it …
That is so friggin’ classic.
When Trump either does something himself, or plans to do something, he first accuses someone else (usually Obama or Hillary or now Pelosi) of having done it before.
This happens OVER, and OVER, and OVER again. Yet a significant portion of this country’s population, and virtually every elected Republican, continues to either agree, ignore or deny that he ever said it.
Of course, if you somehow express any doubt about why he did this, then you are accused of excusing the reprehensible actions of the Iranian he just ordered assassinated. My guess is that we will next hear Trump accusing anyone who questions his action to be guilty of treason.
This all has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whether Soleimani deserved to be killed. Of course he did – without question. Just because he absolutely deserved it, doesn’t mean it should have been done now by us alone, or should have been done in the way it was.
If there was a truly imminent threat, Trump should have scheduled an Oval Office address immediately after it happened to explain to all the American people exactly why he did this now, and why he was willing to put so many people and their families all around the world at enormous, immediate, personal risk.
Instead, he cowardly doesn’t say squat until the next day, and then only during one of his rah-rah appearances before his adoring sycophants. The only “official” thing we hear is a statement from the Pentagon saying this was done because of the immediate threat (still unspecified three days later) posed in multiple, different countries.
Given the daily barrage of lies from Trump, about all things both large and small, why are we supposed to now believe that this attack was motivated by some sort of recent intelligence he had received? Oh, and since when has Trump ever before expressed any confidence in, much less listened to, the “intelligence” that he has received from our intelligence community?
Really? How has Soleimani NOT posed, and continued to pose, an immediate threat for years to many more than just those few named countries named by the Pentagon? How has Soleimani’s death reduced that supposedly immediate threat in any imaginable way?
Do you suppose that the world is safer now because Soleimani was assassinated? Trump has single-handedly made the entire world immeasurably less safe by doing this.
Why now, and why in such a typically reflexive act which was coordinated beforehand with no one else? I’m not just talking about not notifying the Democratic members of the Gang of Eight, either. Obviously, none of our allies around the world (at least those who still ARE allies) were notified either.
Considering that this has the potential to greatly affect people all over the world, you would think some consultation would have been appropriate.
I am The Donald.
I will do whatever the Hell I want, and whenever the Hell I want to.
What are you going to do about it … Impeach me ?
No wonder John Bolton is gone. This is exactly what Bolton has been pushing for, for years. Apparently, Trump just didn’t want him to be able to claim any credit for it.
Only Trump could possibly generate even the most minute amount of sympathy for a complete degenerate like Soleimani.
But then again, how many people have completely ignored the despicable, murderous histories of Putin, Kim Jong-un, Erdogan, Duterte et all because Trump believes that he is entitled to the same type of power that they have in their own countries?
If there were any type of Republican pushback … any at all … to Trump’s actions, I might actually be able to envision a scenario where Iran might see it in their own best interests to hold off on any act of revenge right now. They could, in an ideal scenario, say that they blame this provocation solely on Trump – not on the American people as a whole. They will withhold a response until they see how America itself responds to what Trump has done.
Think of the sympathy (wholly undeserved though it would be) that act would generate for Iranians worldwide, and the enormous amount of pressure that it might be able to put on Trump?
But given the 40% or so of this country, and the 100% of elected Republican officials, who either applaud Trump, or simply do nothing, the hope for that sort of reaction from Iran is fantastical, at best.
Brace yourself for Iran’s response.
People are going to die.
But then brace yourself even more for Trump’s response to that.
Consider, too, the irrational, immoral child whose middle finger is on the nuclear trigger.
Update: Speaking of immoral, how about Trump’s latest tweet threatening to obliterate Iran’s cultural sites? One of the things we have supposedly most feared is that in response to our adversaries, our actions would betray our own values, and we would then become no better than the people we profess to oppose.
I believe that another group is famous for destroying and defacing the cultural sites in Iraq. That would be ISIS.
And I am talking historic turnout. Nothing can be left to chance. The Democrats have to go all in on a push to encourage everyone possible to vote, and then let the chips fall.
Let Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and any other mega donor the Dems can muster, put all those millions to good use. Spend it to first make it possible, and then to make sure everyone knows how critical it will be for everyone to vote.
But I don’t believe historic turnout is possible without that young, diverse and moderate trifecta.
Why now moderate as well?
I’ve always leaned in the direction of a young (relatively) and diverse ticket. But I have now come to the conclusion that moderate is critically essential at this point in time.
Medicare for All and the Green New Deal are still just too divisive to guarantee the type of turnout necessary to defeat not only Trump, but also to defeat as many of those spineless, ultimately pathetic Republicans as is electorally possible. Holding the House and regaining control of the Senate are almost as critically important as defeating Trump, and defeating him decisively.
And then this has to be repeated again in 2022 and again in 2024. We cannot allow another Newt Gingrich to spread just enough fear and demagoguery to be able to immediately take back control because of renewed apathetic voter turnout.
It may already be too late to save this planet without going all in on a Green New Deal at this moment in time. But it sure as hell will be too late if Donald Trump and the Republican sycophants are left with any sort of political power. There is plenty of good that can still be done environmentally once Trump is gone, including the immediate return to the Paris Climate Accord, and bringing sanity back to the EPA.
With Medicare for All, we at least have the luxury of putting that on the back burner and still being able to improve upon a healthcare system that really could further expand coverage and lower costs if given a fighting chance to do so.
Not to mention what lasting and this time permanent damage will likely be done if Trump is given carte blanche. The prospect of Trump completely unleashed should frighten any sane person.
So who do I think would make up that young, diverse and moderate ticket?
- Well, moderate certainly rules out either Bernie or Warren.
- They should certainly have pivotal positions in the new administration … just not at the top of the ticket.
So who would be the choice among the moderates?
- I am just not a believer in Joe.
- I don’t think that Biden can help generate the massive turnout that will be required. I think that massive turnout can and should be created regardless of who is the nominee. But it would be nice to feel that the ticket also might help drive people to vote.
- I also don’t think Biden has proven at all that he can stand up to Trump. That will require a combination of forcefulness, fearlessness and also tact that I don’t believe Uncle Joe will be able to muster.
- If Biden is the nominee, I will certainly support him. But I am certainly not among those who think that his greatest strength is electability.
- The billionaires can take a hike.
- Put all that money to some good use, like I said before, and go all in on whomever else becomes the nominee.
- I’m not sold on Buttigieg.
- I very much like his intelligence, and I believe that he would be able to go toe-to-toe with Trump, but there are still a lot of questions.
- I’m not exactly sure why he does not seem to yet appeal to minorities, but that certainly seems to be the case. I have not yet seen any meaningful outreach by him to minority voters which I find curious.
- His recent rise in the polls has been fueled primarily by his organization in Iowa. That certainly helped put Obama on the map, but this is hardly the same situation.
- The bottom line really is why on Earth the small, homogeneous, non-diverse population of Iowa should play such an outsize role in the selection of, or at the very least in the rejection of, any national candidate.
- While I acknowledge that now is not the time to push Medicare For All, I do not like Mayor Pete’s recent comments saying that proponents of that are willing to put anyone currently employed in the healthcare industry out of work. That is the kind of demagoguery that I would expect from Republicans – not from any thoughtful Democrat.
- So who’s left?
- Right now, for me that leaves Booker, Castro and Klobochar … and maybe even Michael Bennett.
- They all sound like real long shots right now, but as is often pointed out, Clinton and Carter were the longest of shots early on as well, and we are still two months out from the Iowa caucuses.
- A big key will be whom they choose to complete their ticket.
Here are a few ideas for some cabinet choices for any Democratic administration …
EPA Secretary or Secretary of Energy?
- I think that Bernie would be the person I would want to be in charge of putting us back on the correct environmental path.
Secretary of Commerce?
- Elizabeth Warren. Let her lead the fight to reign in corporate abuses and to hopefully take steps to lessen big money’s influence on politics. I’m not positive that Commerce is necessarily the best place for her to have influence, but certainly something along those same lines.
- How about Preet Bharera or Kamala Harris
- OK, admittedly Bharera would be a bit of an in-your-face pick, but the man certainly has credentials, and has handled his bogus dismissal as Attorney for the Southern District of New York with a lot of class.
- Something needs to be done to correct the barrage of injustices that have been levied upon the countless, honorable men and women of law enforcement and of the judiciary.
Secretary of Education?
- Here’s an outrageous idea. How about selecting someone whose life has been dedicated to the public education system, and who has been active, and successful, in trying to improve it?
National Security Advisor, CIA Director and FBI Director?
- Someone whose life has been spent in the trenches of each of those respective organizations and someone who has the full backing of their respective agencies, and of the intelligence community as a whole.
Chief of Staff?
- Someone whom the President trusts and who will be able to think for him or herself and who won’t be afraid to let the President know when he or she thinks the President is full of it.
Secretary of State and United Nations Ambassador?
- Here’s yet another outrageous idea. How about selecting a respected, life long diplomat to fill those positions?
How about seriously trying to find a competent woman to hold any of those cabinet positions?
- Elaine Chao and most certainly Betsy DeVos have demonstrably lowered the bar for competence. I am sure that there are many excellent female choices.
- I might first go looking at current and former female governors and state attorney generals, perhaps even some talented, but unsuccessful gubernatorial candidates, such as perhaps a Stacy Abrams.
Oh, and stay away from picking members of either the House or Senate to fill Cabinet positions.
- Besides the fact that you don’t need to create vacancies in Democratically held seats, the track record of making House and Senate picks has not been good.
- Kamala Harris might be the exception to this rule since I don’t think filling her California Senate seat with another Democrat should be much of a problem.
God knows really that almost anyone even picked off of the street would be a vast improvement over virtually any current or past member of Trump’s administration or Cabinet.
So there is my humble prescription for success in 2020.
It will be such a ridiculously crucial election that nothing, absolutely nothing, can be left to chance.
If the Democrats are put back in complete control, then the onus most definitely falls upon them to prove unmistakably that they are up to the challenge.
Whereas the adage that “both parties suck so what’s the difference” has been true to an extent for some time, the Republicans have now pushed the bar SO low that the Democrats cannot be satisfied to just be marginally better.
Democrats must absolutely not make the same mistakes that Republicans have made. To paraphrase the words of Congressman Elijah Cummings, Democrats must prove that they really ARE better than that.
Because if the Democrats are not substantially better, then we will be almost as lost as a country as we would be if Trump is elected to a second term.
Voting starts at home … so make sure that every eligible voter in your own family, and everyone else whom you know personally, votes – either in early voting or on election day.
This is not some purity test.
Everyone must vote.
Then we just have to trust that basic common sense and decency will determine the outcome in November 2020.
Bill Clinton was impeached by the Republican controlled House of Representatives based solely upon isolated instances of personal conduct, and then one instance of lying about that conduct under oath.
Clinton’s actions were disgraceful and certainly unbecoming of the President of the United States. His lying under oath about it was just plain wrong, not to mention being a violation of the law. That rightly got him disbarred. His actions also directly led, I believe, to eight years of George Bush.
But clearly, there was, and still is, a legitimate question about whether or not Clinton’s behavior rose to the level of being an offense for which he should have been removed from office.
In what alternate, dystopian universe could someone possibly support the impeachment of Bill Clinton and then turn around and not support the impeachment of Donald Trump?
Comparing Clinton’s impeachment to Trump’s impeachment is not even close to comparing apples to apples.
It is comparing Apples to Rocks.