ChrisWeigant.com

Today's Two Big Stories

[ Posted Monday, January 6th, 2020 – 18:26 UTC ]

There are two major stories in the political world today, without a whole lot of overlap. They both have foreign policy in common, and the outcome of both is unpredictable at this point. Other than that they are entirely separate stories, so we're going to handle them separately rather than trying to tie them together in any way. The bigger story by far is Donald Trump's assassination of a major Iranian military figure as well as an Iraqi militia leader. This could have far-reaching consequences across the Middle East, obviously. The second story is that John Bolton is apparently ready to spill the beans on Trump, as long as the Senate "forces" him to by issuing a subpoena.

 

Will we hear from Bolton?

Let's take the Bolton story first, since it strikes closer to home. John Bolton, ever since he was kicked out of the Trump inner circle, has been somewhat of an enigma. He is reportedly upset with Trump and is eager to reveal his side of the story, as it were. He quickly inked a book deal which will allow him to do so in an unfettered manner. However, books take a long time to write, and events on the ground are moving quickly in the meantime.

House Democrats initially invited Bolton to testify, but then Bolton announced he wanted a federal judge to rule that he had to testify before he would do so. One of Bolton's aides was subpoenaed and went to court to fight it, but then the House withdrew its subpoena and the case was essentially mooted out of court. Impeachment went ahead anyway, even though Bolton was teasing that he knew more than the committees had heard and was willing to tell all.

Now the House has passed impeachment articles so the focus has shifted to the Senate. Bolton is now saying that he'd be willing -- if a subpoena were to be issued -- to testify at the Senate trial. This puts even more pressure on Mitch McConnell to call him as a witness, but McConnell has so far been resisting all such pressure, so it's not clear whether this will happen or not.

The reports today show how conflicted Bolton is, though. Apparently he wants to continue having a career in Republican politics, but it is not clear if he is separating Republican politics in general from Trump, who now virtually owns the Republican Party. Is he hoping for some post-Trump GOP career? It's hard to see -- with where Republicans are today, at any rate -- how Bolton could air some Trump dirty laundry to the Senate and then ever be trusted by any Republican officeholder again. So does this mean he wants to testify but not spill the beans on Trump? That would seem to be kind of pointless.

There may be a different route out of this situation, though. One of the House committees could always just subpoena Bolton, and it'd be very hard for him to now argue that he couldn't comply with such a subpoena after publicly announcing he'd respect a Senate subpoena. Legally speaking, there is no difference between a House and a Senate subpoena -- they're both from one branch of the legislature. So Adam Schiff could decide to move if McConnell refuses to, and Bolton's story would be aired anyway.

The one thing that does seem clear in all of this is that Bolton himself has realized that: "I've got a story to tell, but I'm going to wait to put it in my book because I care more about cashing in than doing my duty as a citizen" is not a very noble position to take. It's hard to take any sort of high road when your obvious interest is making money rather than doing what is right. But Bolton seems at times eager but then flips to being reluctant, so it's really anyone's guess whether we'll hear from him in the coming weeks or not.

 

Iran

Of course, the situation with Iran will probably prove to be much bigger than even impeachment. Nobody has any idea of what is going to happen next, since Trump has steered us into such uncharted waters. If we had been in a state of declared war with Iran, then the assassination of the leader of the Quds Force would have been seen by the world as hitting a legitimate and valid military target. But we're not actually at war with Iran.

This brings up a tangential question -- has Iran been at war with us in a de facto way, even without a formal declaration? Iran has attacked oil tankers, has brought down a U.S. military drone, has launched a missile attack at a Saudi oil refinery, and is in charge of militias in Iraq and Syria which have indeed occasionally been in a shooting war with American troops. Complicating this situation is the fact that Iranian militias have also fought the same enemy as the American troops during the pushback against the Islamic State, in one of those "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situations. So it's not as clear-cut as it might first seem.

What set Trump off initially was a rocket attack which killed an American. Trump then retaliated by bombing several sites under the control of the militia who had launched this rocket attack, killing a few dozen of them. This set off a massive protest which turned into a low-level siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad -- which really annoyed Trump. Republicans fear having "their own Benghazi," and Trump has always been focused on the videos that make the news on television, so he decided to push back as hard as possible. This is when he gave the green light to bomb the Iranian military leader's vehicles at the Baghdad airport.

This is an escalating spiral of violence, obviously, and the ball is now in the Iranians' court. Nobody has any real clue what they're going to do in retaliation, or what the timeline is going to be. Will they retaliate swiftly while the world's attention is on them, or will they take a "revenge is best served cold" approach and wait for a time of their own choosing? Nobody knows.

Iran has a number of options open to it in terms of possible retaliation. They could attack oil shipping in a much more overt fashion, even perhaps going as far as announcing they're shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. They could attack an American ally such as Saudi Arabia or even Israel. They could launch a direct military attack against U.S. forces in the region. They could launch a cyberattack at America, either targeting the government or our civilian infrastructure. They could launch a terrorist attack either on us or on our allies almost anywhere in the world. Or they could decide on a strict "eye for an eye" approach and try to assassinate an American diplomat or military leader. Again, nobody outside of Iran currently knows what form their retaliation will ultimately take.

President Trump has tried to frame the whole situation as "not starting a war, but preventing a war." This is rather laughable, and is really on the same order as the Vietnam-era statement: "We had to destroy the village to save the village." People can argue about whether assassinating a high-ranking Iranian was the smart thing to do or not, but almost nobody is buying in to the story that this was somehow a "defensive" measure designed to prevent some sort of "imminent" attack. This was a provocative escalation of hostilities, plain and simple, no matter how the White House tries to spin it.

Trump and his advisors are now desperately trying to psych out the Iranians in an effort to avoid them retaliating in any way. This is quite likely nothing short of a fool's errand. It was probably influenced by the long-held neo-conservative belief that America can get away with militarily attacking Iran and they'll just sort of shrug their shoulders and ignore it -- or be so cowed by American military prowess that they are too scared to react. This storyline has been bandied about by the neo-cons since George Bush was president -- either George Bush, in fact.

Now Trump is openly threatening Iran with what can only be called war crimes -- targeting cultural sites important to the Iranian people (and the rest of the world, for that matter). This was probably just a bluff, because the Pentagon might actually refuse to carry out any orders to do such a thing. But Trump's betting the Iranians aren't sure of that. Trump's bluster may serve a purpose, because it may mean Iran chooses one of the less-overt methods of counterattacking. If they can claim any sort of deniability of their involvement, then it just muddies the waters for how America can react (at least, that's what they'll figure upon). But it likely won't deter the Iranians from launching any sort of response to our assassination, as the neo-cons have always claimed would happen. What is much more likely is that we will either continue a tit-for-tat back and forth series of targeted strikes between us and Iran, or that the entire situation will explode into some form of open warfare. Either one looks equally possible, at this juncture.

Trump has already proven that he's not afraid of escalating the situation. He doesn't want to look weak heading into both his impeachment trial and an election year. But this could easily blow up in his face, and lead to a much wider conflict than any of his advisors told him would be the outcome. Who knows how he'll react to that?

This has always been the nightmare scenario for those who feared a Trump presidency: Trump acting militarily on a whim, without any understanding of the possible consequences of such an action. When things don't go as he predicted afterwards, he could become even more unhinged in his subsequent responses.

Donald Trump has now taken America on the first step down this frightening road. His blustering designed to avoid any further steps is quite likely to fail, as the Iranians are almost certainly going to respond in one fashion or another. Nobody knows what the Iranians are going to do or when they'll choose to do it. They may even try to orchestrate an attack to fit the American political news cycle, for maximum effect (such as an attack launched while Trump is giving his State Of The Union address, to cite just one obvious example).

Nobody really knows what is going to happen next. Or how Trump will react to it, for that matter. This may be the start of a very rough ride indeed. Donald Trump, who ran on getting America out of "endless wars" in the Middle East, may wind up going down in history as the president who started the biggest one of all.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

74 Comments on “Today's Two Big Stories”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The president of the United States has squandered any credibility that he ever had and cannot be trusted.

    Deal with it.

  2. [2] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump is as clueless about what happens next as all the other nobodies.

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    If you think about it, Qassem Soleimani played much the same role for Iran as T.E. Lawrence did for the British Empire in WWI. Both were training and supplying local irregulars to blow up infrastructure (broadly defined to include people) so as to advance the political interests of a Greater Power within the latter's colonial or semi-colonial sphere of interest. The US Green Berets played much the same role in the Vietnam conflict. All the above were specialists within the Great Power Military who knew something about asymmetrical warfare. So, let's not pretend there is anything fundamentally new about Quds. If the bandit leader is your guy, it's romantic, if not, it's terrorism.

  4. [4] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It seems that it is unwise to assume that Trump, is given the option, won’t always choose the worst option and run with it. The military LITERALLY only threw in the option to kill Soleimani because it was such a bad idea that they thought that even Trump would pick one of the other options! Never underestimate Trump’s stupidity!!!

    General Milley and Mr. Esper traveled on Sunday to Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s Palm Beach resort, a day after officials presented the president with an initial list of options for how to deal with escalating violence against American targets in Iraq.

    The options included strikes on Iranian ships or missile facilities or against Iranian-backed militia groups in Iraq. The Pentagon also tacked on the choice of targeting General Suleimani, mainly to make other options seem reasonable.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/politics/trump-suleimani.html

  5. [5] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    I am surprised you did not try to connect your two "entirely separate stories" with the quite common observation among the pundits and many citizens that the Iran escalation is most likely a direct reaction to the impeachment threat. The president is not known for strategic thinking, and has always been absolutely ignorant, and proud of it, about what actually makes Iranians, Iraqis, Saudis, etc. do whatever the the heck it is that they do. So "start a war to quash the opposition, and its hated impeachment" becomes a more likely explanation of his actions (don't say "his thinking") than any calculus of what might happen next strategically, militarily, or geopolitically.

    As many have already noted, the president predicted (wrongly) that Obama would "start a war with Iran" to help his 2012 re-election". Projection is Trump's primary mode of action, so it is almost too easy to conclude he was saying that Obama would do what he would do, if he were a president heading into a tough re-election campaign.

    The jungle drums have already started beating on right-wing media that 1) you can't have an impeachment trial against a valiant wartime president - it would threaten national security, clearly; and 2) the Democrats are obviously rooting for Iran in this fight, and can't be listened to or treated honorably, as they are clearly traitors in a time of war.

    "Entirely separate stories" - are you sure?

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The military LITERALLY only threw in the option to kill Soleimani because it was such a bad idea that they thought that even Trump would pick one of the other options!

    That was an asinine move by the US military leadership.

  7. [7] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It seems that Trump was so worried that Americans would view the attack on the American Embassy in Iraq as his Benghazi that Trump felt he had to respond in a way that made him look tough. I guess he feared the Democrats would treat him the way the Republicans treated Hillary after Benghazi.

    Trump need not worry about that; as Democrats don’t have to search for molehills to turn into mountains with Trump. He offers up scandals and screw ups as reliable as the rain in Seattle this time of year — every few hours on an almost daily basis!

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhh The hate is strong here in Weigantia..

    It's as I said..

    President Trump can single-handedly cure cancer, bring peace to the middle east and re-unite the Koreas..

    And ya'all would STILL find something to attack him over..

    Killing the Iranian terrorist scumbag was a GOOD thing, people..

    I am surprised I have to explain that to ya'all..

    Actually, considering all ya'all's hate and bigotry and HHPTDS, maybe I am not so surprised..

    #sad

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, by all means.. Continue..

    Not only does it amuse me, ya'all are guaranteeing that President Trump win re-election in Nov.. :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump Kills Iran’s Most Overrated Warrior
    Suleimani pushed his country to build an empire, but drove it into the ground instead.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/opinion/iran-general-soleimani.html

    No matter how much bullshit ya'all spew nor how much spin ya'all put on things..

    Killing Suleimani was a GOOD thing...

    Again, I am shocked that I have to explain this..

    But with ya'all wrapped up in HHPTDS and ruled by ya'all's hate and bigotry..

    Maybe it's not so shocking after all.. :eyeroll:

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Although, having said all of the afore, it's not really surprising that ya'all would side with the scumbag Iranian terrorist against your own country..

    The shadowy Iranian spy chief who helped plan Benghazi

    As Kenneth R. Timmerman reveals in his new book, “Dark Forces,” Suleymani was even the shadowy figure behind the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, Libya.

    He’s the Wizard of Oz of Iranian terror, the most dreaded and most effective terrorist alive.

    He is Qassem Suleymani, the head of the Quds Force, an organization that acts as a combination CIA and Green Berets for Iran, and a man who has orchestrated a campaign of chaos against the United States around the world.

    Today, the Obama Administration has allied itself with Suleymani to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

    In this case, Iran’s goals — a Shi’ite-friendly government in Iraq — coincides with America’s hope that the country doesn’t fall apart.

    But don’t be fooled: It’s only a partnership of convenience, and one that won’t last
    https://nypost.com/2014/06/20/how-irans-spy-chief-paid-for-the-benghazi-attack/

    Suleimani and Obama were besties..

    So, naturally, ya'all would side with the scumbag terrorist..

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    McConnell: Some Democrats "Rushed To Downplay Soleimani's Evil While Presenting Our Own President As The Villain"
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/06/mcconnell_on_impeachment_and_iran_senate_must_put_national_interest_ahead_of_factionalism.html?utm_campaign=ora_player&utm_medium=ora-video-widget&utm_source=homepage

    Just another example of the HHPTDS that Trump/America haters suffer from.. :eyeroll:

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unfortunately, in this toxic political environment, some of our colleagues rushed to blame our own government before even knowing the facts, rushed to split hairs about intelligence before being briefed on it, and rushed to downplay Soleimani's evil while presenting our own president as the villain. Soon after the news broke, one of our distinguished colleagues made a public statement that rightly called Soleimani a murder and then amazingly walked that message back when the far left objected to the factual statement. Since then, I believe all her criticism is directed at our own president.

    Another of our democratic colleagues has been thinking out loud about Middle East policy on social media. Mere days before President Trump's decision, this senator tore into the White House for what he described as weakness and inaction. "No one fears us," he complained. "Trump has rendered America impotent in the Middle East." But since the strike, a complete 180. That same senator has harshly criticized our own president for getting tough.

    Ludicrously, he and others on the left have accused the administration of committing an illegal act and equated the removal of this terrorist leader with a foreign power assassination of our own Secretary of Defense. Well, here's what one expert had to say about it. Jeh Johnson, President Obama's own former Pentagon general counsel and Secretary of Homeland Security. Here's what he said: "If you believe everything that our government is saying about General Soleimani, he was a lawful military objective and the president under his constitutional authority as commander in chief had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without, without an additional congressional authorization, whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people, he was a lawful military objective." That's the former Secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration, Jeh Johnson, an expert on these things.

    Have you people no decency??? :^/

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iran... Killing it's own people..

    32 dead, dozens injured after stampede erupts during Soleimani funeral procession: report
    https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-stampede-soleimani-dead-injured-kerman-mourners

    Yea.. THAT is the country ya'all want to side with.. :^/

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as Bolton goes..

    He's probably just yankin' the Left Winger's chain.. :D

    Bring them to the brink of euphoria and then do a 180 and say, "Nope.. Not gonna say jack shit!!"

    I am sure Bolton has not forgotten how shitty and crappy the Trump/America haters treated him (Bolton).

    As I said before, it wouldn't surprise me if this was all a Next Level con by President Trump and Bolton is simply playing the Trump/America haters.. :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Betsy McCaughey: On Trump impeachment trial, don’t believe Chuck Schumer
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/betsy-mccaughey-on-trump-impeachment-trial-dont-believe-chuck-schumer

    Democrats are shooting blanks.. :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Democrats could have gone to court to get a ruling on the president’s claim of executive privilege, possibly compelling the testimony. But once the Democrats voted to impeach, they lost any chance of having federal courts order Trump’s staff testify.

    The Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that the courts won’t interfere in impeachment trials, because the Senate has “the sole power” over them under the Constitution.

    Now Schumer is pressing Senate Majority Leader McConnell to promise to call four White House witnesses. It’s a charade. McConnell can’t surrender the president’s executive privilege. It’s not his to give away.

    Schumer’s demand is nothing more than a public relations stunt.

    Schumer is claiming emails released last week are “a game-changer.” That’s nonsense. The emails confirm that Trump put a hold on aid to Ukraine – a fact already known – but don’t indicate he did it for improper reasons.

    In fact, several of the emails underscore the president’s concern about corruption in Ukraine and his legitimate concern to ensure that aid sent there would not be wasted.

    Meanwhile, McConnell has so far indicated he’d favor a short impeachment trial without witnesses.

    House Democrats have already called 19 witnesses, and produced 8,000 pages of testimony and reports. Republicans were denied any chance to call witnesses there.

    If Senate Republicans decide at some point they want to hear from witnesses, they have the votes to call them. Here’s who should be on the top of the list: the whistleblower, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, and Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson. Atkinson inexplicably deemed the whistleblower’s complaint “credible.”

    Start with the so-called “whistleblower.” He filed what is technically called a whistleblower complaint. But he had no firsthand knowledge of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine or Trump’s motives.

    I am all for witnesses.. But, since the GOP controls the Senate and is in TOTAL control of any impeachment proceedings, it's going to be the witnesses that President Trump wants to have..

    Schiff-head, Whistleblower tops the list..

    So, what ya say, Dumbocrats??

    You still want witnesses?? :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iran is considering 13 'revenge scenarios' over the death of General Soleimani as top official vows to create 'historic nightmare' for the US

    Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani was killed by US airstrike in Iraq last week

    Tehran has pledged to exact a 'crushing revenge' on America in retaliation

    Iran has been considering 13 'revenge scenarios' in retaliation, top official said

    Even the weakest option will create an 'historic nightmare' for the US, he said
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7860045/Iran-considering-13-revenge-scenarios-death-General-Soleimani.html

    Blaa blaaa blaaa blaaa... BIG YAWN

    Iran now knows that President Trump has absolutely NO PROBLEM with escalating things..

    We tried restraint with Iran..

    The gloves have come off.. Iran just had it's nose bloodied...

    I don't think they want to see where this leads..

    I could be wrong.. Iran might be THAT stoopid and escalate things..

    But, like the faux impeachment coup for Democrats, this will end VERY badly for Iran if they choose to escalate things...

    "You must choose.. But choose wisely"
    -Knight, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Americans Will Rally Around Trump on Iran

    The overwhelming majority of Americans will support the president—the Democrats have put their head in a noose while standing over a trap-door. The consequences are predictable.
    https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/06/americans-will-rally-around-trump-on-iran/

    That's what happens when one is ruled by hate and bigotry...

    Democrats are going to learn a VERY painful lesson..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    There have been pro-Iranian and anti-Trump demonstrations in 70 different locations across the United States in the 48 hours following the death of Soleimani. After the Iranians, on the direction of Soleimani, attacked the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and destroyed the reception area on Thursday, the Iranian theocratic leader Ayatollah Khamanei announced to his Friday prayer session that despite Trump’s threats, “There’s not a damn thing he can do about it.” A few hours later, Trump did something about it. It is shocking and disgraceful that the Democratic leadership and candidates have swarmed like the Gadarene swine to support Tehran’s side of this issue. The Democrats screamed that Trump would blow up Asia when he called North Korean president Kim Jong-un “Rocketman” and warned him of military action if he committed aggression or attempted to become a nuclear power.

    No audible Democrat has understood that Trump cannot lose these arguments with Iran or North Korea. Land and sea-based air power, including cruise missiles, that the United States has in-theater in both cases, could destroy every relevant military target in North Korea, including decalibrating the artillery aimed at Seoul from caves just north of the Korean cease-fire line, in five minutes. The United States could also destroy every strategically relevant military and economic target in Iran in 30 minutes.

    Trump has made it clear that if there is any move to achieve a nuclear military capability by either country, he will strike. The elimination of Soleimani, apart from being just in itself, (if unduly merciful), helps bolster the Tehran regime’s confidence that Trump means what he says. Iranian threats of retaliation are rubbish—any retaliation will be returned to them at once tenfold.

    Like the Democrats, President Trump has maneuvered the Iranian leadership into a perfect LOSE-LOSE situation..

    Trump/America haters continuously under-estimate President Trump..

    And that is why the Trump/America haters ALWAYS lose..

    It really is THAT simple...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iranians raise the Red Flag Of Doom..

    Unfortunately for the Iranians...

    http://sjfm.us/pics/RedFlags.jpg

    We have one of those too...

  22. [22] 
    John M wrote:

    [8] Michale wrote:

    "Killing the Iranian terrorist scumbag was a GOOD thing, people.."

    A GOOD thing, really??? HOW??? EXPLAIN IT!

    It directly led to ALL of the Following:

    1) American troops being asked to leave Iraq. A long time strategic objective of Iran.

    2) Uniting ALL of the Iranian people to back their government. Where just weeks before they had been protesting against it instead.

    3) Iran now going full tilt ahead without constraint to develop their nuclear capability in less than a year, where under the Obama agreement it would have been delayed for at least 15 years.

    4) loss of support of our European allies, which even Pompeo acknowledged.

    5) Guarantees an Iranian revenge strike against America of at least equal if not greater magnitude.

    HOW is any of that a good thing????

  23. [23] 
    John M wrote:

    [9] Michale wrote:

    "Not only does it amuse me, ya'all are guaranteeing that President Trump win re-election in Nov.. :D"

    You mean if Trump is not assassinated by Iran or one of their proxy militia allies like Hezbollah before then???

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ironic..

    Odumbo ordered 542 Drone Strikes.. All of them without approval from Congress.. These drone strikes resulted in the deaths of 3,497, 342 of which were innocent non-combatants...

    Democrats (and Weigantians) said nothing.

    President Trump ordered a single drone strike that killed 4 or 5 scumbag terrorists and NO innocent deaths..

    And Democrats (and Weigantians) hysterically lose their frakin' minds..

    Tell me again, how it's NOT all about the -D or -R after a person's name??

    I seem to have forgotten, what with all the FACTS to the contrary... :eyeroll:

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean if Trump is not assassinated by Iran or one of their proxy militia allies like Hezbollah before then???

    Hopeful daydream of yers, eh?? :D

  26. [26] 
    John M wrote:

    [14] Michale wrote:

    "Iran... Killing it's own people..

    32 dead, dozens injured after stampede erupts during Soleimani funeral procession:

    Yea.. THAT is the country ya'all want to side with.. :^/"

    WOW, you are literally that dense????

    The important TAKE AWAY from that story was the out pouring of MILLIONS of ordinary Iranian people MOURNING his funeral. That's what cause those people to die in a stampede. Because of the crush of millions of people mourning his death!

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    A GOOD thing, really??? HOW??? EXPLAIN IT!

    If I have to explain it, you would never understand..

    1) American troops being asked to leave Iraq..

    Not factually accurate..

    Uniting ALL of the Iranian people to back their government.

    Not factually accurate.. The majority of the people of Iran are dancing in the streets celebrating Sulemani's demise..

    Iran now going full tilt ahead without constraint to develop their nuclear capability in less than a year, where under the Obama agreement it would have been delayed for at least 15 years.

    And, of course, you BELIEVE Iran, right?? :D

    Guarantees an Iranian revenge strike against America of at least equal if not greater magnitude.

    Wanna bet???

    HOW is any of that a good thing????

    Simple.. NOTHING you have posted is factually accurate..

  28. [28] 
    John M wrote:

    24] Michale wrote:

    "Ironic..

    Odumbo ordered 542 Drone Strikes.. All of them without approval from Congress.. These drone strikes resulted in the deaths of 3,497, 342 of which were innocent non-combatants...

    Democrats (and Weigantians) said nothing."

    And once again, you are as OBTUSE as a BRICK.

    None of those strikes were as ill conceived without regards to the negative consequences, with the risks far outweighing any potential gains, as this one was. That's why they were not condemned as much!

  29. [29] 
    John M wrote:

    [27] Michale wrote:

    "1) American troops being asked to leave Iraq..

    Not factually accurate.."

    LIE. What did the Iraqi parliament just vote on then???

    What did the Iraqi Prime Minister just suggest to the American official he just met with? DO you even bother with REALITY anymore????

    Uniting ALL of the Iranian people to back their government.

    "Not factually accurate.. The majority of the people of Iran are dancing in the streets celebrating Sulemani's demise.."

    COMPLETE UTTER BULLSHIT. What are all the videos and satellite images on TV showing then???

    "Iran now going full tilt ahead without constraint to develop their nuclear capability in less than a year, where under the Obama agreement it would have been delayed for at least 15 years.

    And, of course, you BELIEVE Iran, right?? :D"

    NO. That was the conclusion of the UN Atomic Energy agency in charge of the inspections, you FOOL.

    "Guarantees an Iranian revenge strike against America of at least equal if not greater magnitude.

    Wanna bet???"

    Any BET you want!

    "HOW is any of that a good thing????

    Simple.. NOTHING you have posted is factually accurate.."

    SIMPLE. NOTHING you have posted is FACT or TRUTH

  30. [30] 
    John M wrote:

    [15] Michale wrote:

    "As far as Bolton goes..

    He's probably just yankin' the Left Winger's chain.. :D"

    You want to make a bet on that too???

    Considering how often you have been PROVEN WRONG, I would not if I were you!!!

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    None of those strikes were as ill conceived without regards to the negative consequences, with the risks far outweighing any potential gains, as this one was. That's why they were not condemned as much!

    So, the 342 innocent civilians..

    That's not "ill conceived"???

    Further, how do you know they were not ill-conceived.. Ahhh Because a DEMOCRAT told you that they were no ill-conceived..

    Ladies and Gentlemen.... Exhibit A

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    You want to make a bet on that too???

    Considering how often you have been PROVEN WRONG, I would not if I were you!!!

    Actually, it's ya'all who have been wrong on everything Trump..

    But hay.. I'll be yer huckleberry..

    The wager is Will Bolton testify in the Senate impeachment proceedings

    I say, NO he won't..

    What stakes do you want??

  33. [33] 
    John M wrote:

    [27] Michale wrote:

    "Not factually accurate.. The majority of the people of Iran are dancing in the streets celebrating Sulemani's demise.."

    I can PROVE that's a LIE right here and now. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    You claim people are dancing in the streets celebrating his death!

    Yet you just POSTED A LINK, saying 35 people were killed in a stampede because of the crush of millions of people MOURNING his death!

    So, which exactly of the two CONTRADICTIONS is it???

    And where is the LINK supporting people dancing in the streets???

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Soleimani dead, but 'America First' very much alive

    President Trump did not get elected to spark a war with Iran.

    Nor was he elected to use American blood, sweat and treasure to fix the hopelessly broken Middle East. Not since 9/11 has a nominee from either party run a campaign with such a clear, forceful and credible promise to roll up America’s far-flung foreign entanglements. It is one of the chief reasons Mr. Trump won the 2016 election.

    That said, 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.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/6/soleimani-dead-but-america-first-very-much-alive/

    What good is having the BEST military on the planet and not use it to squash some terrorist scumbag bug???

    I know, I know.. Ya'all would have preferred that this scumbag remained alive to kill more Americans..

    Sorry people.. President Trump actually CARES about the American people..

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    And where is the LINK supporting people dancing in the streets???

    I'll bring it to you under one condition..

    You concede you were wrong and I was factually accurate..

    Deal??

  36. [36] 
    John M wrote:

    [32] Michale wrote:

    "The wager is Will Bolton testify in the Senate impeachment proceedings

    I say, NO he won't..

    What stakes do you want??"

    The wager I WILL take is that BOLTON will tell his story one way or another, either in Senate testimony, House testimony, press conference, or book deal.

    What stakes do you want?

  37. [37] 
    John M wrote:

    "Sorry people.. President Trump actually CARES about the American people.."

    BULLSHIT

    Trump is a psychopath, narcissist, pathological liar who cares only about TRUMP.

  38. [38] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "And where is the LINK supporting people dancing in the streets???

    I'll bring it to you under one condition..

    You concede you were wrong and I was factually accurate..

    Deal??"

    IF, you can prove more people were celebrating his death than mourning him. I am not talking about one little isolated group of people anywhere but inside IRAN. I am talking about thousands at least.

    IF you can DO THAT, than DEAL.

    But it has to be inside Iran, and several thousands at least.

  39. [39] 
    John M wrote:

    If you can't Michale, then you have to concede I was right about it, and shut up.

    DEAL?

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, I have to concede the my error..

    It was not Iranians who were dancing in the streets. At least not in Iran..

    It was Iraqis who were dancing in the streets after Suliman's assassination..

    My apologies for the error..

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    I concede that you were right about it, JM...

    There.. That's what integrity looks like..

    Be nice if more people here showed that kind of integrity..

    But that only belongs in the Weigantia of the past, I am afraid.. :(

  42. [42] 
    John M wrote:

    [17] Michale wrote:

    "I am all for witnesses.. But, since the GOP controls the Senate and is in TOTAL control of any impeachment proceedings, it's going to be the witnesses that President Trump wants to have.."

    Actually it is going to be whatever 51 Senators want. And Collins, Romney and Murkowsky have all said they want Bolton to testify.

    "So, what ya say, Dumbocrats??

    You still want witnesses?? :D"

    YES, bring them on!!! Both Bidens too if you want!

  43. [43] 
    John M wrote:

    [40] Michale wrote:

    "Actually, I have to concede the my error.."

    Apology accepted. Nice to see grace for once. Bravo Michale. You get that one.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    When I heard that President Trump had taken out a high ranking Iranian Official..??

    I thought he got Obama..
    -Internet Meme

    :D hehehehehe Funny.. Cuz.. True...

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apology accepted. Nice to see grace for once. Bravo Michale. You get that one.

    Touche' :D Peach out..

  46. [46] 
    John M wrote:

    [20] Michale wrote:

    "There have been pro-Iranian and anti-Trump demonstrations in 70 different locations across the United States in the 48 hours following the death of Soleimani."

    I thought you said Americans were going to rally around Trump???

    Oh no, not another contradiction!!! :-D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    One of the big problems with getting deeply entangled all around the world is that it is very hard to withdraw — especially after you have just finished killing a bunch of them. You never want to turn your back on these people, even if your intent is peace.

    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.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought you said Americans were going to rally around Trump???

    Oh no, not another contradiction!!! :-D

    REAL Americans.. PATRIOTIC Americans have..

    I don't really consider the protesters and terrorist lovers as 'American'..

    They are floatsam.. The scum that rises to the top of any liquid..

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Politics ends at the coastline..

    Democrats have forgotten or, more accurately, chose to ignore this in pursuit of their hate/bigoted filled pursuit of President Trump..

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    McConnell still has the power to shut down the impeachment process entirely, taking the political pressure off a handful of centrist Republicans, including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who is facing the reelection fight of her life. The Kentucky Republican could simply decide to dismiss the impeachment and argue that Pelosi undermined her own rationale for rushing the impeachment process by withholding the articles in an attempt to gain leverage over how the Senate conducts its trial.

    “Faced with the House manipulating the system, the Senate can change its rules and simply give the House a date for trial, then declare a default or summary acquittal if House managers do not come,” Turley wrote in a piece in The Hill.

    Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley, who has emerged as a major Trump ally, introduced a measure to do just that on Monday, and 11 other Senate Republicans signed onto it, including Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa and John Barrasso of Wyoming, who are members of party leadership.

    The resolution would change Senate rules to allow a vote on the articles of impeachment within 25 days of an impeachment vote, thereby undercutting the ability of House leaders to control the clock.

    I hope the GOP can take this bold step.. It would be REALLY nice to see Pelosi and the House Dumbocrats slapped down.. :D

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    YES, bring them on!!! Both Bidens too if you want!

    AND the "whistleblower".. AND Schiff-head...

    You get Democrats to agree to the Bidens and the Whistleblower AND Schiff-head to testify and I'll support 4 witnesses of the Democrats choosing..

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    See how easy it is to compromise??

    If only Congress was more like that..

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    New pressures greet Pelosi following Bolton's willingness to testify
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-strategy/index.html

    SQUIRM... Pelosi... SQUIRM.. :D

    President Trump is playing Pelosi like a cheap fiddle..

    President Trump OWNS Pelosi.. :D

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Juvenile.

    That's how I would describe the comments sections here, these days ...

  55. [55] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that the hit was a good move? Things with Iran had been escalating anyway, so it's not like they will do anything now that they wouldn't have done before. Possibly less if they suspect we might overreact again.

  56. [56] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and I'll support 4 witnesses of the Democrats choosing..

    Including the president and Rudy? If so, i'm on board. Let the whole truth out.

  57. [57] 
    andygaus wrote:

    There is a third story. We are hearing that the loans from Deutsche Bank, the ones that revived Trump's real estate career at a point where no American bank would touch him, may have been guaranteed by a Russian bank. In other words, we may have an explanation of why Trump dare not say a bad word about Putin.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that the hit was a good move? Things with Iran had been escalating anyway, so it's not like they will do anything now that they wouldn't have done before. Possibly less if they suspect we might overreact again.

    It's funny.. You and I are both saying the same thing vis vis the Suleman assassination..

    And yet, I am the only one who catches grief over it.. :D

    I find that funny...

    Once again, Party loyalty is all that matters. :D

    Including the president and Rudy? If so, i'm on board. Let the whole truth out.

    Sure.. Why not.. Democrats will never agree to putting the whistleblower on the stand and under oath..

    Democrats have WAY too much to lose to let that happen..

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is a third story. We are hearing that the loans from Deutsche Bank, the ones that revived Trump's real estate career at a point where no American bank would touch him, may have been guaranteed by a Russian bank. In other words, we may have an explanation of why Trump dare not say a bad word about Putin.

    So?? President Trump has been 10x harder on Putin and Russia than Obama *EVER* was..

    While I am sure it's a lovely fantasy you like to daydream about..

    There are no facts to support your claim..

  60. [60] 
    ericksor wrote:

    “Senior Iranian officials are using Twitter to hint at threats against President Trump’s properties — including his Mar-a-Lago Club resort in Florida and Trump Tower in Manhattan — over the killing of Iran’s top military commander,” the New York Post reports.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Senior Iranian officials are using Twitter to hint at threats against President Trump’s properties — including his Mar-a-Lago Club resort in Florida and Trump Tower in Manhattan — over the killing of Iran’s top military commander,”

    Iranians have been threatening US interests for decades..

    It means very little in the larger scheme of things.

    Really the only difference between all the past threats and these threats is that Trump/America haters are siding with Iran and HOPE that Iran strikes and kills HUNDREDS of Americans..

    Trump/America haters can REALLY have a ball with that new shiny club.. :eyeroll:

    By the bi..

    "WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    I predict that Iran is NOT going to risk further escalation....

    They know President Trump will strike back ten times harder than America was hit..

    Iran is either going to withdraw, lick it's wounds and live to fight another day..

    OR

    At worst, Iran will throw up some token "attack" that does little to no damage to US interests or assets as a face-saving measure..

    But Iran is cowed.. At least for now..

    How long it lasts is anyone's guess..

    A calm, clear objective and INFORMED analysis of the facts with no hysterical Party slavery nor hate nor bigotry whatsoever..

    You heard it here first.. :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Juvenile.

    That's how I would describe the comments sections here, these days

    "Yes, play, Mister Sulu. The more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of play."
    -Captain James T Kirk, STAR TREK, Shore Leave

    :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, there are some REALLY complex minds here in Weigantia.. :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    At worst, Iran will throw up some token "attack" that does little to no damage to US interests or assets as a face-saving measure..

    However, the problem with THIS choice is that President Trump might bitch slap the Iranians to hell and back for even such a small token attack..

    Which simply proves the age old military adage..

    "If you tweak the tail of the tiger, you better have a plan in place for dealing with his teeth..."

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/afb010720dAPR20200107034509.jpg

    A comparison of the United States under Obama and under President Trump... :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    McConnell prepares to move forward on impeachment trial rules without Democrats

    GOP leaders have enough votes to ignore Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s demands for witnesses and new evidence.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/07/mcconnell-prepares-to-move-forward-on-impeachment-trial-rules-without-democrats-095537

    Who could POSSIBLY have predicted this!!???

    Oh.. Wait.. :D

    So, it looks like Pelosi laid a goose egg... :D

    She better get this Articles over to the SENATE ASAP...

    Or else the Senate is just going to steamroll right over Pelosi... :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former CIA station chief: Retaliation by Iran against Americans would be 'regime suicide'

    Former CIA station chief Daniel Hoffman said on Tuesday that a retaliatory attack by Iran against the United States would be “regime suicide.”

    “What we’ve done, clearly, is state that Iran needs to back off right now. We own escalation dominance and that Iran would be risking their own regime security, their survival, if they cross our red line,” said Hoffman, a Fox News contributor, on "America's Newsroom."
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/daniel-hoffman-iran-retaliation-regime-suicide

    Yup, yup, yup....

    Granted, Democrats don't have much experience in "red lines".. Their idea of a 'red line' is just a starting point for negotiations...

    President Trump's red lines??

    Well, let's ask Sillyman about President Trump's red line..

    Oh wait. He can't.. Because Sillyman got blowed up! :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    I Faced Soleimani's Forces; Dems Are Mourning a War Criminal

    As someone who went toe-to-toe with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Afghanistan, I can assure you that Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani got exactly what he deserved when he perished in a U.S. drone strike. What he certainly doesn't deserve is praise from Democrat lawmakers who would rather mourn a war criminal than credit President Trump for making the world safer.

    As the leader of the IRGC’s Quds Force, which has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, Soleimani was among America’s most vociferous and aggressive foes. He was personally responsible for the deaths of thousands, including the killing and maiming of hundreds of American soldiers. He was an evil, remorseless man, and his death is a positive development for the entire world — including his own country.

    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, however, is currently considering a resolution that labels the strike that killed Soleimani “provocative and disproportionate,” and even seeks to curtail the president’s ability to respond to future Iranian aggression. Death, no matter the manner it is dealt to a terrorist who has planned and engaged in the murder of Americans, is never “disproportionate” — it is necessary.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/07/i_faced_soleimanis_forces_dems_are_mourning_a_war_criminal_142098.html

    Democrats are mourning a war criminal??

    Wish I could say that surprises me... But it doesn't... :^/

  70. [70] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    First, NO ONE is mourning Soleimani in this country. He’s responsible for many American service members being maimed and killed by roadside bombs throughout the ME. Unlike members of your cult, the rest of us are able to disagree with Trump’s decisions without feeling the need to castrate ourselves — because we know the difference between “disloyalty” and “disagreement”!

    Next, Michale, if you told me that you bought a large dildo, painted it orange, and that you are pleasuring yourself with it while you post your comments on here — it would actually help explain your constant gushing over how wonderfully manly Trump’s actions always are! How TURGID Trump’s resolve is! We do not live in an authoritarian country that requires you to praise every action “Most Honored He-Man President who definitely has huge hands” does, so obsession is the most obvious explanation.

    Ivanka Trump, the blondest daughter of Trump — and who just giggled when Trump was asked by an interviewer to name interests that he shared with her, and Trump answered “SEX” — and who converted to Judaism when she married JK, will now spend the rest of her life with a HUGE terrorist’s bullseye on her back! Thanks, Daddy!
    (I have to wonder if Donald will do for the last name “Trump” what old Adolf did for the “Hitler” brand?)

    And I think it was Iran’s foreign minister who, when asked if the US should be worried about the Iranian government’s response targeting civilians, replied something to the effect, “No, the government would not do that... but I would also remind you that we have no control over what the militia groups choose to do!”

    Trump was quick to point out in his tweets how unfair it is for him to have to deal with an impeachment trial (which he calls a “hoax” without knowing what the word means) when our country is on the brink of war....that he caused to happen!

    Lastly, Trump had three years to target Soleimani, but he waited until his impeachment trial is starting and his re-election campaign is in big trouble to order it. NOTHING SUSPICIOUS WITH THAT!

  71. [71] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I predict that Iran is NOT going to risk further escalation....

    They know President Trump will strike back ten times harder than America was hit..

    Iran is either going to withdraw, lick it's wounds and live to fight another day..

    OR

    At worst, Iran will throw up some token "attack" that does little to no damage to US interests or assets as a face-saving measure..

    I think you are exactly right on this! Trump is a giant man-baby that throws tantrums and is prone to doing the most idiotic things!

    Our president is, without question, the most feared man in the world! I know Michale just sprayed Trumpfetti” all over his keyboard when he read that, but he should realize that it has nothing to do with him being tough or strong... it’s because Trump is so INCREDIBLY STUPID and so thin-skinned that he could destroy this entire planet over the littlest insult to his extremely fragile ego!

    The man wanted to nuke hurricanes, for God’s sake! He is unable to see beyond the immediate! His supporters like to claim Trump is a genius whose thought process is like he is playing 3 dimensional chess. NOPE, Trump’s thinking is more akin to someone playing checkers and after their first move, demands that you restart the game...over and over! He does not think about tomorrow, he’s only concerned with his ratings for that day!

  72. [72] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So?? President Trump has been 10x harder on Putin and Russia than Obama *EVER* was..

    While I am sure it's a lovely fantasy you like to daydream about..

    There are no facts to support your claim..

    Ummm...Trump might get 10x harder for Putin than he did for Obama, but Putin has made Trump his bitch and all the world knows it!

    Obama got Putin kicked out of the G8 as punishment after Russia invaded Crimea. Trump thinks Putin should be allowed back in the G7 despite Russia still in Crimea.

    Trump insults our intelligence agencies and every American who works to defend our country from foreign aggression when he stands next to Putin on the world stage and says he believes Putin over them regarding to Russia interfering in the 2016 election.

    He refuses to say anything even remotely critical of Putin’s actions...he might say something about Russia, but NEVER Putin! He called Putin to let him know about the plan to kill Soleimani before he let Congress know! Hell, he was running around Mar-Lard-Ass telling guests there to be watching for something big to happen in the next few days!

    Trump ordered the State Dept. to NOT issue a statement calling out Russia for ramming an Ukrainian tug boat and taking its crew captive after the story broke.

    I cannot think of anything Trump ever did that was “rough” on Russia. OK, there was that one time when Trump laid out a bunch of sanctions against Russia — which made him look tough — at least it did until he refused to have our government put those sanctions into action. Yeah, they were never implemented, despite being passed! Ohhhh, Trump is so tough!

  73. [73] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    ericksor [60]

    Trump does not realize that he is destroying his brand’s value with his actions. Think about it, people will avoid staying at his properties out of fear that they will be killed in a terrorist response! We are talking hotels, apartment buildings, corporate office space, resorts.... they all just got targeted thanks to Trump — which is another reason why intelligent presidents divest from all business ventures that they are tied to prior to taking office.

    Trump is a FOOL!

  74. [74] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    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?

    Let’s be clear — Iraqi’s attacked the US consulate in Iraq. They may have been backed by Iran, they may have been funded by Iran; but it was Iraqi’s that did the damaging and attacking!

    Do you know why Iran received that pallet of cash? It is because that was THEIR money that we had frozen in their US bank accounts. They were able to get that money back after they agreed to the demands that WE had set for them!

    Why did they agree to our demands? Because they had suffered for decades under the sanctions we had imposed on them and realized the best thing for their country’s people was to agree to what we were demanding. Their economy could not grow and get stronger unless they got out from under our sanctions. They signed the nuclear agreement with us and four other countries — agreeing to our terms in exchange for removing the sanctions on them — and suddenly Iran was not the world’s leading bad player anymore! With the sanctions removed, Iran’s economy improved greatly.

    They were happy. We were happy. The world was happy.

    Then Trump got elected and decided that Iran was lying to us and were not following through on their promises. Trump had no proof that Iran was not keeping its word (And Trump cannot be taken seriously anytime that he dares to complain that someone else is lying!). In fact, every time you ordered your people to find evidence of Iran lying, they came back and reported that they could not!

    So what was the stupidest thing someone in Trump’s position could do? Walk away from the deal, breaking our word and telling the world that the US cannot be trusted to keep its word. No agreement, no treaty, no “you have our word” will ever carry the same weight that it once did. Trump dumped the old sanctions back on Iran, but not before making them harsher, for not agreeing to the conditions that they had agreed to!

    Iran had finally caved into our demands after decades of sanctions crushing their economy. There was peace where it had not been in decades...Iran is back to their old tricks now. Iran was no longer working towards creating their nuclear arsenal... now they are again! All because Trump could not stand that Obama had mocked him during the WH correspondents dinner years ago...

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]