Of the many topics covered at last night’s debate in New Hampshire, one of the more jarring moments came when the subject of taking out terrorist kingpin Qassem Soleimani was brought up. The responses of the various Democrats on stage offer a peek at what you can expect in terms of foreign policy and military matters if one of this crew winds up taking a seat in the Oval Office and the situation room. Not one of them would have made the call to help Soleimani shuffle off this mortal coil.
Here’s Pete Buttigieg.
Pete Buttigieg says if he was president, terrorist leader Soleimani would still be alivehttps://t.co/xVJmOgtiEV pic.twitter.com/FE3YFyYExs
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 8, 2020
Mayor Pete at least went so far as to say that Soleimani was “a bad guy.” But he then claimed that “taking out a bad guy is a bad idea if you do not know what you’re doing.” Oh, really? Seems to me that our military knew precisely what they were doing. They knew where Soleimani was, where he was heading and took him out with a single drone shot. And the collateral damage was minimal. He also referenced learning lessons from Iraq in that context. Was he implying that Saddam Hussein should still be alive? Is he aware that Hussein was executed by his own people, not the Americans?
Next, we get to Joe Biden.
Joe Biden, who opposed the raid on Osama bin Laden, says he would not have ordered the strike on terrorist leader Soleimanihttps://t.co/5noRYCqs6w pic.twitter.com/PKHHGXSCWR
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 8, 2020
Biden simply says he wouldn’t have ordered the strike because “there’s no evidence yet of an imminent threat that was going to come from [Soleimani].” Two points about that response should have been obvious. First of all, Biden has been out of office for more than three years. He’s not getting the daily intelligence briefings anymore. Much of the intelligence about Soleimani couldn’t be released to the public because it could have exposed sources and methods. So Joe Biden has no way of knowing conclusively about any imminent threats.
And second, the President can and should make the argument that an imminent threat wasn’t even required. The amount of blood on the hands of Soleimani and the Quds Force could be used to paint a mural the size of Texas. At some point, you run out of second chances. We’d been trying to track Soleimani’s movements since the Bush 43 administration. The opportunity came to take him out and Trump took it. You’ll also recall that Joe Biden disagreed with Barack Obama about the raid to take out Osama bin Laden. Sounds like bad guys around the world should sleep well at night if Joe Biden is elected.
Let’s also get Bernie Sanders’ take on the question.
Bernie Sanders claims killing a terrorist leader plotting to kill Americans creates "international anarchy"https://t.co/supAISr8pn pic.twitter.com/CynsTF7O4C
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 8, 2020
Bernie believes you can’t “go around saying you’re a bad guy and we’re going to assassinate you.” That, he believes, would lead to “international anarchy.” He would also prefer that such matters be handled through stronger diplomacy at the State Department. Perhaps he’s pining for the good old days of the Obama administration and thinks Iran will behave better if we go back to sending them pallets of cash. We all saw how that worked out during the previous administration.
Obama would be sending him big pallets of Cash
The headline is a lie they all would take him out to dinner,invites to state affairs.
Oh, make no mistake; if any one of these hollow, empty suits/pant suits needed an approval rating boost, they would drone-strike anyone available that would do the trick. What they meant was they wouldn’t do it just for national security reasons. That doesn’t matter to them.
If it is a matter of just protecting US lives, they are too worried about the opinion of America-hating globalists to do their JOB.
…and all it cost was 34 American soldiers with traumatic brain injury—assuming the story doesn’t get revised yet again—and a Ukrainian jet carrying 176 people.
There’s bad news coming in tonight from Afghanistan. Eighteen years and counting. Unfortunately , not much seems to change.
@Greg:
Pretty pathetic when you sink so low as to resort to blaming the President for the actions of radical Iran.
You need to be medicated. Oh, wait, maybe you are already “self” medicating.
@retire05, #5:
There was a reason restraint had always been showed about targeting Soleimani. Either of Trump’s predecessors could have easily done the same thing. They knew escalation would predictably follow.
@Greg: How about providing your evidence of “traumatic brain injury”. Concussion can be most anything and I’ve heard of nothing “traumatic” or severe in the way of injury.
But, are you suggesting a devastating retaliatory strike is required?
For Democrats, national security is a throw-away issue. They don’t take it seriously except how it can be used as a political weapon. Completely despicable low-lifes.
@Deplorable Me, #7:
I have no evidence. That’s just what the Pentagon reported. But I do stand corrected. They subsequently upped the number from 34 to 50, and then most recently to 64. And the “traumatic brain injury” description is the Pentagon’s, not mine.
64 US troops suffered traumatic brain injuries from Iranian missile attack, as casualty total continues to balloon
I think taking Trump out at the ballot box should suffice.
@Deplorable Me:
Greg doesnt know what the hell he wants other than to bash on Trump.
Initially the scuttlebut was no injuries, so thats what was reported, never ever good enough for Greggie.
It would be better if the guy that was coordinating terrorists all over the ME and north Africa was just left to direct more deaths.
@Greg:
The motto of you and your party. We know.
@Greg:
Do it, then…
*snickers*
@Nathan Blue: He thinks his Amy Glockenspiel will win but if she gets any higher in the polls we will find out from the Harpy she is a Russian asset.
@Nathan Blue, #11:
Maybe we will, if worsening obesity and one too many double cheeseburgers doesn’t take him out first.
Maybe he should try walking on the golf course. If he did, he’d be getting plenty of exercise. So would the Secret Service guys, who have had to spend around $550,000 of the taxpayers’ money on third-party golf cart rentals and another $500,000 for related overnight stays at Trump-owned golfing properties.
Amy Klobuchar once killed a duck with a golf ball, effectively combining the sports of golfing and hunting. Even Teddy Roosevelt would be impressed. She did swear off golf after the incident, however, which could save the taxpayers a great deal of money.
@Greg:
I don’t recall you or any other whiny crybaby mentioning the word “mild” in your hyperbolic references to “traumatic brain injury”. You and others present it as if grey matter was oozing from the ears and noses of the soldiers; instead, it seems more like headaches and precautionary measures. I by no means imply taking such injuries lightly, but in addition to your misrepresentation I have seen numerous other examples of trying desperately to overblow the Iranian attack. In fact, it was EXACTLY as Trump described (and was hammered for)… some soldiers had some headaches.
Sure. Remain consistent. Take the side of the Iranians and do what they want instead of what the majority of the American people want.
So, when was this? Was it duck season? Did she have a hunting license? What kind of duck; was it a protected species? How did she treat the kill? I think an investigation needs to be commenced to determine if she was violating game preservation laws, hunting out of season and without a license. If elected, she should be impeached immediately. After all, an impeachable offense doesn’t have to be a serious crime, just PERCEIVED as a crime. Or presumed. Or suspected.
@kitt: No, he says the same thing as the Democrat candidates: Let’s surrender to anyone that tries to intimidate us and when they attack us and kill our soldiers, we must do nothing but wag our finger at them or they will get mad at us. THAT’S the Democrat idea of national security and it is unacceptable.
@Spurwing Plover:
obama could not wait of kiss his muslin ass.
@Deplorable Me, #14:
You questioned that there had been any such injuries, not having bothered to check the accuracy of Trump’s “no injuries” claim; now that it’s been established that there were, you’re moving on to suggesting that the injuries to 64 U.S. military personnel are irrelevant.
Personally, I don’t find appending the adjective “mild” to the phrase “brain injury” to be cause for denying the significance of what happened as a result of Trump’s decision. There were, in fact, serious negative consequences, and are likely to be more. Targeting government officials of a foreign nation that we’re not at war with sets yet another dangerous precedent.
I think Trump might have ordered Soleimani’s assassination as a distraction from his impeachment. He’d had nearly three years when he could have issued such an order. The timing is very suspicious. No one has ever confirmed that any specific imminent threat existed. That was another lie. He saved us from an imaginary imminent threat, creating an entirely real elevated threat level in the process.
Don’t even bother with “The imminent threat was real, but we can’t tell you what it was because it’s classified.” That’s becoming a bit too obvious.
@Greg: Your definition of war is at fault, that POS that met his end designed road side bombs to kill our troops. Organized the attack on our embassy. He was the brains behind terrorist militias, most in Iran hated him as he was also the boot of the regime, murderer most foul.
Our military decided to behead the organization, it was authorized by the President.
We need to make our shelters for the servicemen stronger better less susceptible to shockwaves.
They were killing our men before and after the treaty, the treaty had no effect on the murderous demon they blew up.
@Greg:
Judas Priest, Comrade Greggie…..can you not do anything but parrot left wing talking points? Just how many American military deaths have been attributed to Soleimani? Obviously, you don’t mourn dead Americans, just dead terrorists.
So while you weep over Soleimani, here’s another one for you to weep over:
“The United States carried out an airstrike in January that killed a leader of Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen after months of tracking him, according to current and former government officials.
Qassim al-Rimi, 41, was killed in the January strike but officials had been waiting to confirm the information before making public statement, the New York Times reports.
The Yemen branch, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, has been keen to attack the U.S. and Europe. Confirmation of al-Rimi’s death would mean a significant blow for the group.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7954907/Terrorist-leader-Yemen-killed-air-strike-bragging-Trump-killing.html
@retire05, #18:
When a lot of people outside of your insular Donald Trump Cult Circle make the same observation concerning the same set of circumstances, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s a “talking point”. It’s a shared opinion. If you want an example of hive mind thinking, check the bullshit bouncing around inside the right-wing echo box any day of the week and compare it with what your Fearless Leader is yapping about on Twitter. The right-wing noise machine gets it’s play list from on high on a daily basis.
Qassim al Rimi was a known terrorist leader who helped to establish an al Queda network in the Arabian Peninsula. He wasn’t an official of any national government.
Qasem Soleimani was a high ranking government official of a nation state we are not at war with and a General of a uniformed branch of Iran’s military services.
If you can’t figure out the difference and what that difference has to do with international law and long-established international convention, have somebody explain it to you. The two assassinations cannot be legitimately equated with one another.
@Greg:
Blah, blah, blah. More b/s from you as you evade the actual point I made.
So f**king what? He was responsible for the deaths of many American soldiers, which you point out, were not at war with Iran. You want to ignore that little fact.
By your standards, we should have never tried to take out Hitler, as he was “high ranking.” And, OMG, perhaps we should impeach JFK for trying to take out Fidel Castro who was a “high ranking” member of the Cuban government and a nation we were “not at war with.”
Here is the real message you don’t like; if you kill Americans, if you are responsible for the death of Americans, we are going to kill you back.
You remain an idiot, Comrade Greggie.
@Greg:
The “no injuries” information came from the military. The reports of concussions came later, and when it did Trump acknowledged them. So, once again, you are wrong, all your Democrat whiny crybabies are wrong and Trump accurately related the facts as they were at the time.
Of course you don’t, because you and the rest of the sore looser left want to play this up as 64 soldiers with their eyeballs hanging our of the split-open skulls. Football players suffer concussions when they tackle or get tackled; a concussion can range from mild to very, very serious.
Of course, since Trump’s killing of Soleimani was such a useful, great success, you needed SOMETHING to criticize, so you wanted to play up and exaggerate mild concussions which may or may not ever materialize into anything more serious. Perhaps it would be best, for YOU, to take a step back and look at your weak, pathetic, desperate, laughable attempts to make something out of nothing in order to TRY to concoct something to criticize. Were you capable of objectivity, it would be an eye-opening experience for you.
Trump didn’t need to distract from his impeachment; his approval rose 5 points because of it. The more focus that was on that Democrat kick in the nuts to the Constitution, the better for him. No, Trump did it because it NEEDED to be done. Soleimani was Trump’s partner, as he was Obama’s.
@kitt: @retire05: People like Greg see the deaths of our soldiers merely as something to use politically. If it happens during a Democrat administration, they are heroes protecting the nation. If it happens under a Republican administration, they are wasted lives. If Trump kills the guy that was providing the implements to kill them, it was a “distraction” or mistake because the fact they believe those lives are meaningless comes to light. It’s pretty easy for people like Greg to take the side of international terrorists killing Americans. No skin off their nose.
Because Soleimani was a member of a government, even though that government supported international terrorism, Greg feels he gets the same protection that Biden gets from investigation of his corruption because he is a candidate. He has a real liberal world view.
@retire05, #20:
Nope. It’s a direct observation. Surf through any random selection of pro-Trump blogs and forums. You’ll see the same topics everywhere, and even the same posts under different names.
That moronic question is the point. You don’t even grasp the difference. Of course if Iran were to return the favor Trump would begin frothing at the mouth at the wrongness of the act, and all of his followers would go totally ballistic.
We never did try “to take out Hitler”, though others certainly made the effort. Had we done so, it would have been entirely justifiable once a state of war existed.
The British planned an attempt in 1944, which would have taken the form of a sniper attack, but never followed through. Most of the actual attempts were made by other Germans.
You seem to have a deep-seated need to keep telling yourself that other people are idiots.
@Greg:
Seen through your jaded, hate filled eyes.
Do you think no “high ranking” American officers were murdered by the actions of Soleimani? Damn, do you intend to continue exposing your ignorance for all to see?
That is correct. But it doesn’t go unnoticed that you did not dispute the fact that the JFK administration tried to take out Fidel Castro, who was a “high ranking” member of the Cuban government that we were NOT at war with.
I like stating the obvious.
@retire05, #23:
Yep, that’s what I think, and I also think that you can’t name any, because it never happened. Surprise me and name them. Or don’t surprise me, and assert that it happened but the information is all classified.
@Greg: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/01/03/soleimanis-legacy-gruesome-high-tech-ieds-that-haunted-us-troops-iraq/
https://www.defenseone.com/news/2015/09/how-many-us-troops-were-killed-iranian-ieds-iraq/120524/
Rank doesn’t make much difference; they were AMERICANS and Soleimani provided the instruments to kill them. HE killed them.
@Greg:
And just who do you think provided the Shite militias in Iraq with the Iranian built IFPs? Santa Clause?
I figured you’d predictably weasel off in another direction when it was pointed out that your claim was bullshit.
That’s what I think. Because none were.
Until Trump, we didn’t make a practice of assassinating government officials of countries we’re not at war with. Here’s another observation: American soldiers weren’t dying in Iraq until we bombed the hell out of the place and then invaded and occupied the country. After which there was an armed resistance, fought by the means that were available. What a surprise.
Iran and Iraq were doing a pretty good job of holding one another in check until we came along and removed Iran’s opposition at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Clever move. One thing I’ll say for republicans—they never seem to learn a damn thing from their mistakes.
@Greg: Trouble with your answer son is Achmed was from Iran, we never invaded Iran, We were in the country of Iraq he was killed in Iraq. If you think the People of Iraq loved that terrorist leader and that Barry has allowed the Iraqis into their government you are dead wrong.
@Greg: Like being a Democrat candidate for office does not shield one from investigation or prosecution, being a HIGH RANKING terrorist does not protect one from being brought to justice.
Defending trash like Soleimani is pretty despicable.
@Greg:
“In July 2015, during the Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing for Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, now chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., pressed him on this. “You have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you know how many soldiers and Marines underneath your command were killed by Iranian activities?” Cotton asked.
“Senator, I know the total number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that were killed by Iranian activities, and the number has been recently reported as about 500,” Dunford replied. “We were not always able to attribute the casualties that we had to Iranian activity, although many times we suspected it was Iranian activity, even though we did not necessarily have the forensics to support that.
In August 2015, at a hearing with then-Secretary of Defense Ash Carter in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pushed the Pentagon to make the numbers public. “I understand that the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency has a classified list of roughly 500 American soldiers … I would ask, Secretary Carter … that the Defense Department release that list to every member of this committee, declassify that list and release it directly to the service members’ families who were murdered by [Iranian] General Soleimani,” Cruz said.
Qasem Soleimani, 62, is a major general in the IRGC. Since 1998, he has been commander of its Quds Force, a division primarily responsible for overseas military and clandestine operations.
U.S. Central Command spokeswoman Maj. Genieve David echoed the estimate of 500 Americans killed in September 2015. “It is important to understand that the CENTCOM statistics on EFP [explosively formed penetrator] detonations are a subset of all the Iranian activities estimated to have killed approximately 500 U.S. troops in Iraq during OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom],” David said.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/iran-responsible-for-deaths-of-more-than-600-american-troops-in-iraq
Remember this, Comrade Greggie, this hearing was held in 2015 during the Obama administration and these witnesses worked for the Obama administration, not Trump.
If it were 1943, you would be a member of the German American Bund.
@retire05: No telling how big his tears would have been when Admiral Yamamoto was shot down.
@retire05, #30:
Do you not understand plain English? “Killed by Iranian activities” is pretty damn vague. On top of which, Dunford said that they had no evidence supporting his claim.
Of course you also think the Trump’s telephone call is perfect because he told you it was perfect.
@Greg: @Greg:
CAN YOU NOT READ ENGLISH?
““Senator, I know the total number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that were killed by Iranian activities, and the number has been recently reported as about 500.”
But more soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines were killed on top of those 500 and he covered those additional deaths when he said:
“We were not always able to attribute the casualties that we had to Iranian activity, although many times we suspected it was Iranian activity, even though we did not necessarily have the forensics to support that.”
And when did I even mention Trump’s telephone call, you raving liar? I didn’t. And I don’t believe everything Trump says is perfect. He’s a yankee and yankees talk funny.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT, COMRADE GREGGIE.
@Greg: Reading comprehension too hard?
Reasonable suspicion. He certainly did not say they had no supporting evidence. As with the phone call you make up your own reality.
@kitt:
Comrade Greggie is refusing to understand something said in plain, concise English. He is so indoctrinated that he thinks lying is acceptable. Reality is not in Comrade Greggie’s play book.
@retire05: It comforts Greggie to deny reality.