hotair--2020-01-08--Operation Futility: Iranian missiles "symbolic moment" for Iran? <span class=red>NATO confirms: No c

Operation Futility: Iranian missiles "symbolic moment" for Iran? NATO confirms: No casualties

Could last night ’ s missile attacks be a form of de-escalation ?
The Iranian military shot missiles at two bases housing US military forces last night , one near Baghdad and the other in the Kurdish territory in the north .
Thus far , however , the missiles appear to have done little if any damage to American personnel and materiel , which thus far also seems to have been a deliberate calculation .
NBC ’ s Richard Engel called it a “ symbolic moment ” for Iran , a “ striking back with its own military.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite as much on the attack : In fact , the missiles appeared curiously aimed at areas on the bases where the Americans aren ’ t .
“ Symbolic , ” indeed : There is a growing belief among some administration officials that Iran ’ s missiles intentionally missed areas populated by Americans during attacks on Tuesday , multiple administration officials said .
These officials floated the notion that Iran could have directed their missiles to hit areas that are populated by Americans — but specifically did not .
They suggested Iran may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than take significant enough action to engender a substantial US military response , a possible signal the administration was looking for rationale to calm the tensions .
Missiles also hit close to the US consulate in Erbil , but didn ’ t go for the consulate itself , though the expectation is that they could have .
Officials have said there were no US casualties as a result of the attacks .
Could they have missed on purpose ?
The Iranians have very sophisticated ballistic missile systems , writes the Jerusalem Post ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well have provided that pinpoint precision against well-known targets .
Frantzman concludes that the use of precision missiles showed deliberate intent to prevent the kind of damage that would force a retaliatory strike .
It ’ s “ a roll of the dice for Tehran , ” Frantzman writes , an attempt to win favor at home with a rare direct military attack on the US but one that the Trump administration could choose to slough off : Iran has gambled with an early morning attack on two US bases in Iraq in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general Qasem Soliemani .
Reports say that more than a dozen ballistic missiles were launched by Iran at Ayn al-Assad base and US forces stationed in Erbil , the capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government .
This is a major roll of the dice for Tehran , which hopes the US will not respond – or at least not with a massive retaliation .
… Iran ’ s regime usually prefers ambiguity .
It likes recruiting proxies such as Hezbollah or the Houthis in Yemen to use missiles so that it can have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacked Saudi Arabia in September , it asked the Houthis to take credit .
Iran never likes to do things itself , it wants others to fight and be the target of reprisals .
That is why it was so outraged by Soleimani ’ s death .
And this is why the regime has gambled on Wednesday to strike at US forces in Iraq , hoping that the US doesn ’ t want to push the crises deeper and start a conflict in Iraq against lightly defended US bases there .
Iran must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alienate Iraqis .
The attack on Erbil could stoke tensions in the Kurdistan region .
Initial reports indicate the rockets that fell in Erbil did not do much or any damage .
The major attack was at Ayn al-Assad base .
Iran claimed “ major casualties ” at the Ayn al-Assad base , but thus far there is no word on any such casualties .
Six missiles hit the base , according to Pentagon sources for Western media outlets , but that ’ s a rather low number if Iran meant this as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war .
It ’ s the kind of “ slap ” — to use Ali Khameini ’ s word — that one would expect in a symbolic response meant to save face without getting it blown off .
Speaking of Khameini , he declared earlier this morning that the attack was “ not enough ” retribution for the killing of Qassem Soleimani , but he otherwise stuck to America-go-home rhetoric : Iran ’ s supreme leader on Wednesday warned that an attack by Tehran against military bases in Iraq housing American troops was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the United States .
“ They were slapped last night , but such military actions are not enough , ” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a televised speech in the holy city of Qom .
“ The corruptive presence of the U.S. in the West Asian region must be stopped.
” … “ The U.S. has caused wars , division , sedition , destruction , and the demolition of infrastructures in this region , ” Khamenei said Wednesday .
“ Of course , they do this everywhere in the world .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presence .
Governments elected by nations won ’ t accept the presence of the U.S. ” Despite the supreme leader ’ s ominous remarks , Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif insisted in a tweet Tuesday evening that the Islamic Republic does “ not seek escalation or war , but will defend ourselves against any aggression.
” Ominous ?
They sound largely impotent , and the missile attack underscored that impotence .
Khameini ’ s specific phrasing of “ military actions ” being insufficient is a giveaway in this regard .
Frantzman ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that ’ s a strategic choice based on weakness as well as a cultural choice .
They use proxies because they don ’ t want to get hit in retaliation for direct action .
The strike on Soleimani “ changed the rules ” by alerting Iran that the Trump administration won ’ t play along with that game any longer .
The missile strikes last night went about as far as Iran can go under the new rules without provoking a larger response than the Soleimani strike , which they simply can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll see whether Iran has truly learned this lesson .
If they don ’ t want war , they will have to end the attacks on US forces by Iranian proxies .
If they don ’ t , Soleimani won ’ t be the last Iranian command-and-control asset they will lose in the field .
Update : It was very , very “ symbolic ” :

Could last night’s missile attacks be a form of de-escalation? The Iranian military shot missiles at two bases housing US military forces last night, one near Baghdad and the other in the Kurdish territory in the north. Thus far, however, the missiles appear to have done little if any damage to American personnel and materiel, which thus far also seems to have been a deliberate calculation.
NBC’s Richard Engel called it a “symbolic moment” for Iran, a “striking back with its own military.” It was heavy on the symbolism, not quite as much on the attack:
In fact, the missiles appeared curiously aimed at areas on the bases where the Americans aren’t. “Symbolic,” indeed:
There is a growing belief among some administration officials that Iran’s missiles intentionally missed areas populated by Americans during attacks on Tuesday, multiple administration officials said. These officials floated the notion that Iran could have directed their missiles to hit areas that are populated by Americans — but specifically did not. They suggested Iran may have chosen to send a message rather than take significant enough action to engender a substantial US military response, a possible signal the administration was looking for rationale to calm the tensions. Missiles also hit close to the US consulate in Erbil, but didn’t go for the consulate itself, though the expectation is that they could have. Officials have said there were no US casualties as a result of the attacks.
Could they have missed on purpose? The Iranians have very sophisticated ballistic missile systems, writes the Jerusalem Post’s Seth Frantzman, which could very well have provided that pinpoint precision against well-known targets. Frantzman concludes that the use of precision missiles showed deliberate intent to prevent the kind of damage that would force a retaliatory strike. It’s “a roll of the dice for Tehran,” Frantzman writes, an attempt to win favor at home with a rare direct military attack on the US but one that the Trump administration could choose to slough off:
Iran has gambled with an early morning attack on two US bases in Iraq in response to the United States killing Iranian general Qasem Soliemani. Reports say that more than a dozen ballistic missiles were launched by Iran at Ayn al-Assad base and US forces stationed in Erbil, the capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government. This is a major roll of the dice for Tehran, which hopes the US will not respond – or at least not with a massive retaliation. … Iran’s regime usually prefers ambiguity. It likes recruiting proxies such as Hezbollah or the Houthis in Yemen to use missiles so that it can have plausible deniability. Even when its drones attacked Saudi Arabia in September, it asked the Houthis to take credit. Iran never likes to do things itself, it wants others to fight and be the target of reprisals. That is why it was so outraged by Soleimani’s death. And this is why the regime has gambled on Wednesday to strike at US forces in Iraq, hoping that the US doesn’t want to push the crises deeper and start a conflict in Iraq against lightly defended US bases there. Iran must also be careful not to anger and alienate Iraqis. The attack on Erbil could stoke tensions in the Kurdistan region. Initial reports indicate the rockets that fell in Erbil did not do much or any damage. The major attack was at Ayn al-Assad base.
Iran claimed “major casualties” at the Ayn al-Assad base, but thus far there is no word on any such casualties. Six missiles hit the base, according to Pentagon sources for Western media outlets, but that’s a rather low number if Iran meant this as a serious opening gambit in a flat-out war. It’s the kind of “slap” — to use Ali Khameini’s word — that one would expect in a symbolic response meant to save face without getting it blown off.
Speaking of Khameini, he declared earlier this morning that the attack was “not enough” retribution for the killing of Qassem Soleimani, but he otherwise stuck to America-go-home rhetoric:
Iran’s supreme leader on Wednesday warned that an attack by Tehran against military bases in Iraq housing American troops was “not enough” of a punishment for the United States. “They were slapped last night, but such military actions are not enough,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a televised speech in the holy city of Qom. “The corruptive presence of the U.S. in the West Asian region must be stopped.” … “The U.S. has caused wars, division, sedition, destruction, and the demolition of infrastructures in this region,” Khamenei said Wednesday. “Of course, they do this everywhere in the world. This region won’t accept the U.S. presence. Governments elected by nations won’t accept the presence of the U.S.” Despite the supreme leader’s ominous remarks, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif insisted in a tweet Tuesday evening that the Islamic Republic does “not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.”
Ominous? They sound largely impotent, and the missile attack underscored that impotence. Khameini’s specific phrasing of “military actions” being insufficient is a giveaway in this regard. Frantzman’s correct that Iran prefers ambiguity, but that’s a strategic choice based on weakness as well as a cultural choice. They use proxies because they don’t want to get hit in retaliation for direct action. The strike on Soleimani “changed the rules” by alerting Iran that the Trump administration won’t play along with that game any longer. The missile strikes last night went about as far as Iran can go under the new rules without provoking a larger response than the Soleimani strike, which they simply can’t afford to sustain.
We’ll see whether Iran has truly learned this lesson. If they don’t want war, they will have to end the attacks on US forces by Iranian proxies. If they don’t, Soleimani won’t be the last Iranian command-and-control asset they will lose in the field.
Update: It was very, very “symbolic”:


hotair--2020-01-08--The odd timing of that Ukrainian airline crash and earthquake

We ’ re going to be digging through the details of last night ’ s Iranian missile strike against US installations in Iraq for a while .
( More on that in a moment . )
But at nearly the same time that all of the shelling and yelling was going down , so was… a plane .
A Ukranian owned Boeing 737 was taking off from the airport in Tehran , but it almost immediately crashed , killing all 176 people on board .
( NBC News ) A Ukrainian airplane carrying 176 people on board crashed after takeoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Wednesday , killing all on board , according to Iranian state television and Ukrainian officials .
Iranian State TV reported that the crash was suspected to have been caused by mechanical issues , without elaborating .
Ukrainian officials , meanwhile , said it was too early to determine the cause .
Ukraine ’ s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said that he had received reports of the crash that indicated all passengers and crew died in the crash .
Officials from Ukraine , Iran and even Iraq were quick to indicate that the crash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not as a result of any sort of attack related to what was going on in Iraq .
And if that tragedy wasn ’ t enough of a coincidence to catch your attention , a 4.9-magnitude earthquake struck Iran near the Bushehr nuclear plant within hours of the rest of these events .
Before you ask , no… nobody is suggesting that people can intentionally trigger earthquakes as a weapon of war .
At least not yet , anyway .
It ’ s just a shocking set of coincidences .
One reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the plane crash is the list of passengers on board .
NBC News got hold of the manifest and reports that 82 of the passengers were Iranian , 63 were from Canada , 11 were Ukrainian ( mostly the crew ) , 10 were from Sweden , four were from Afghanistan , three were from Germany and three hailed from the United Kingdom .
In other words , if someone was intentionally targeting the plane they were mostly going after Iranians and Canadians .
We can keep monitoring the details as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now it just looks like a tragic accident that happened at a curious time .
The real question is what happens next in the showdown between the United States and Iran .
The President is scheduled to make an announcement later this morning , but I wouldn ’ t expect any specific details as to what if any “ retaliation for the retaliation ” might be on the way .
But does Trump even feel a need to hit them again ?
At least as of now , there are no reported casualties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , none of the missiles hit the areas where American troops would be found .
They mostly hit areas occupied by Iraqi forces and several of them missed their targets entirely .
Does this mean that the Iranians are just poor marksmen and those types of ballistic missiles aren ’ t all that accurate ?
( They allegedly aren ’ t . )
Or , as at least one analyst on CNN was speculating this morning , did Iran intentionally miss the targets so as to avoid casualties , giving Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
There are reports saying that the White House is leaning toward that theory , even if it really sounds like we ’ re venturing into Tom Clancy territory with that kind of speculation .
We ’ ll circle back and revisit these questions after the President speaks this morning .
In the meantime , we can at least be grateful that we don ’ t have any coffins to ship back home .

We’re going to be digging through the details of last night’s Iranian missile strike against US installations in Iraq for a while. (More on that in a moment.) But at nearly the same time that all of the shelling and yelling was going down, so was… a plane. A Ukranian owned Boeing 737 was taking off from the airport in Tehran, but it almost immediately crashed, killing all 176 people on board. (NBC News)
A Ukrainian airplane carrying 176 people on board crashed after takeoff in the Iranian capital, Tehran, on Wednesday, killing all on board, according to Iranian state television and Ukrainian officials. Iranian State TV reported that the crash was suspected to have been caused by mechanical issues, without elaborating. Ukrainian officials, meanwhile, said it was too early to determine the cause. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said that he had received reports of the crash that indicated all passengers and crew died in the crash.
Officials from Ukraine, Iran and even Iraq were quick to indicate that the crash was most likely caused by mechanical failure and not as a result of any sort of attack related to what was going on in Iraq. And if that tragedy wasn’t enough of a coincidence to catch your attention, a 4.9-magnitude earthquake struck Iran near the Bushehr nuclear plant within hours of the rest of these events.
Before you ask, no… nobody is suggesting that people can intentionally trigger earthquakes as a weapon of war. At least not yet, anyway. It’s just a shocking set of coincidences.
One reason I wouldn’t ponder any conspiracies about the plane crash is the list of passengers on board. NBC News got hold of the manifest and reports that 82 of the passengers were Iranian, 63 were from Canada, 11 were Ukrainian (mostly the crew), 10 were from Sweden, four were from Afghanistan, three were from Germany and three hailed from the United Kingdom. In other words, if someone was intentionally targeting the plane they were mostly going after Iranians and Canadians.
We can keep monitoring the details as the investigation proceeds, but at least for now it just looks like a tragic accident that happened at a curious time. The real question is what happens next in the showdown between the United States and Iran.
The President is scheduled to make an announcement later this morning, but I wouldn’t expect any specific details as to what if any “retaliation for the retaliation” might be on the way. But does Trump even feel a need to hit them again? At least as of now, there are no reported casualties from Iran’s missile strike. In fact, none of the missiles hit the areas where American troops would be found. They mostly hit areas occupied by Iraqi forces and several of them missed their targets entirely.
Does this mean that the Iranians are just poor marksmen and those types of ballistic missiles aren’t all that accurate? (They allegedly aren’t.) Or, as at least one analyst on CNN was speculating this morning, did Iran intentionally miss the targets so as to avoid casualties, giving Trump an opening to not hit them back? There are reports saying that the White House is leaning toward that theory, even if it really sounds like we’re venturing into Tom Clancy territory with that kind of speculation.
We’ll circle back and revisit these questions after the President speaks this morning. In the meantime, we can at least be grateful that we don’t have any coffins to ship back home.


hotair--2020-01-08--TIME magazine on talking to kids about Soleimani's death: Blame Trump

Back in the day , TIME magazine was known as a decent weekly publication .
Our parents read it to keep up with current events .
It was a mainstay in the magazines offered to kill time in doctors ’ waiting rooms .
It arrived in mailboxes for those who preferred the convenience of home delivery .
That was then .
This is now .
Now the magazine is an in-kind donation to the Democrat Party .
Like so many other magazines , TIME doesn ’ t even bother to feign an independent , professional voice .
Democrat talking points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week the magazine offers some tips on how to talk to kids about “ the situation with Iran ” .
TIME for Kids is here to help .
The suggestions aren ’ t a script , you see , but a source of information you ’ ll need to talk to the youngsters .
Here ’ s the thing – the whole premise of this article is malarkey , to use a word from a Democrat ’ s campaign .
I read the article against my better judgment .
Call me a cynic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are enough precocious school children out here in regular America to even warrant an article with such suggestions .
Are we to believe that kids waiting at the school bus stop are holding foreign policy discussions ?
Are the second graders waiting in carpool lines after school questioning our presence in the Middle East ?
How many kids in America do you think even knew the name of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani ?
High school kids can ’ t even name the Supreme Court justices , so why would I believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation ” with Iran ?
Actually it is insulting to parents to presume any of this nonsense , especially that parents are looking to our intellectual betters in today ’ s journalism for answers .
The only kids asking questions are those with parents looking to dump this kind of adult topic into the conversation .
The indoctrination of school children begins early these days – just look at what liberal adults have done with climate change .
Adults project their own fears onto young kids in elementary school , instead of allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only have to point to the shining example of overpowering children with adult concerns – Greta Thunberg – to see the damage that can be done .
In the TIME piece ’ s suggestions , possible questions from the kids are posed and answers are provided .
The first question is a basic one – Who was Qassem Soleimani ?
The answer , however , is problematic .
“ Qasem Soleimani was a top military leader in Iran , a country in the Middle East.
” That simplistic answer only provides part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some innocent military leader – he was the mastermind of proxy terrorist groups around the globe .
He was referred to as the number two man in Iran , for heaven ’ s sake .
He wasn ’ t a man following orders , he was delivering the orders to militiamen to kill Americans , as well as others .
The second question develops the anti-Trump narrative .
“ Why did the U.S. take action against Soleimani ?
” The bad Orange Man chose the most extreme option given by U.S. military leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a terrorist .
Trump says Soleimani ordered attacks on American military and diplomats and was planning attacks against Americans in the Middle East .
For this reason , Trump ordered the U.S. military to kill Soleimani .
The drone attack took place at an airport in Baghdad , in Iraq .
An Iraqi leader was also killed .
The U.S. strike came after a series of recent attacks by Iran against Americans in Iraq .
On Dec. 27 , a rocket strike killed one American civilian and wounded several U.S. service members .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the U.S. embassy in Iraq .
Trump says Soleimani ordered these attacks .
This piece was written and published before Iran ’ s attack in Iraq Tuesday night but retaliation is discussed .
U.S. military leaders gave Trump several choices for how to respond to Iran ’ s actions .
Killing Soleimani was considered the most extreme .
Some top U.S. military and government officials have expressed surprise and concern about Trump ’ s decision .
But the President insists it was in America ’ s best interest .
“ We will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all Americans , and our allies , ” Trump said in a Jan. 3 address from his resort in Palm Beach , Fla .
Note the mention that military and government officials were surprised and concerned by the choice .
Parents are now told to plant a seed of doubt over Trump ’ s judgment .
I ’ m old enough to remember when the office of president was respected , even if an adult didn ’ t like the man .
We are supposed to come together as a country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ How many times have anti-Trumpers said that ?
Also , why would the military present an option to the Commander-in-Chief if it wasn ’ t a legit proposal ?
Fortunately , Trump cleared that up himself .
He will follow the law , he said .
Frankly , in the heat of his tweet , I don ’ t think he knew that cultural sites are protected .
Once he found out , he corrected himself .
He ’ s a businessman , not a political wonk .
Sometimes that fact arises .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the history of conflicts between Iran and America .
The revolution and hostage-taking in 1979 are mentioned as the beginning of current conflicts then it jumps to 2018 and President Trump withdrawing from the JCPA .
Of course .
This didn ’ t start with Trump .
However , he is not a typical politician .
He ’ s a street fighter .
He took an opportunity to take out a very evil man and that is a good thing .
Scaring school children over future retaliations or actions by bad guys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the kids be kids .
Stop dragging them into politics at such tender ages .

Back in the day, TIME magazine was known as a decent weekly publication. Our parents read it to keep up with current events. It was a mainstay in the magazines offered to kill time in doctors’ waiting rooms. It arrived in mailboxes for those who preferred the convenience of home delivery. That was then. This is now.
Now the magazine is an in-kind donation to the Democrat Party. Like so many other magazines, TIME doesn’t even bother to feign an independent, professional voice. Democrat talking points seep into articles with impunity. This week the magazine offers some tips on how to talk to kids about “the situation with Iran”. TIME for Kids is here to help. The suggestions aren’t a script, you see, but a source of information you’ll need to talk to the youngsters.
Trust your instincts. You know your kids best. Use that knowledge to gauge the depth and breadth of your discussion. Sometimes, it’s best to let a child take the lead and only answer the questions that are asked. Often, brief and simple answers can satisfy a child’s curiosity.
Here’s the thing – the whole premise of this article is malarkey, to use a word from a Democrat’s campaign. I read the article against my better judgment. Call me a cynic but I don’t believe that there are enough precocious school children out here in regular America to even warrant an article with such suggestions. Are we to believe that kids waiting at the school bus stop are holding foreign policy discussions? Are the second graders waiting in carpool lines after school questioning our presence in the Middle East? How many kids in America do you think even knew the name of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani? High school kids can’t even name the Supreme Court justices, so why would I believe that younger kids are concerned about our “situation” with Iran?
Actually it is insulting to parents to presume any of this nonsense, especially that parents are looking to our intellectual betters in today’s journalism for answers. The only kids asking questions are those with parents looking to dump this kind of adult topic into the conversation. The indoctrination of school children begins early these days – just look at what liberal adults have done with climate change. Adults project their own fears onto young kids in elementary school, instead of allowing them to just be kids. We only have to point to the shining example of overpowering children with adult concerns – Greta Thunberg – to see the damage that can be done.
In the TIME piece’s suggestions, possible questions from the kids are posed and answers are provided. The first question is a basic one – Who was Qassem Soleimani? The answer, however, is problematic. “Qasem Soleimani was a top military leader in Iran, a country in the Middle East.” That simplistic answer only provides part of the answer. Soleimani wasn’t some innocent military leader – he was the mastermind of proxy terrorist groups around the globe. He was referred to as the number two man in Iran, for heaven’s sake. He wasn’t a man following orders, he was delivering the orders to militiamen to kill Americans, as well as others.
The second question develops the anti-Trump narrative. “Why did the U.S. take action against Soleimani?” The bad Orange Man chose the most extreme option given by U.S. military leaders.
President Donald Trump has called Soleimani a terrorist. Trump says Soleimani ordered attacks on American military and diplomats and was planning attacks against Americans in the Middle East. For this reason, Trump ordered the U.S. military to kill Soleimani. The drone attack took place at an airport in Baghdad, in Iraq. An Iraqi leader was also killed. The U.S. strike came after a series of recent attacks by Iran against Americans in Iraq. On Dec. 27, a rocket strike killed one American civilian and wounded several U.S. service members. There was also a Dec. 31 attack on the U.S. embassy in Iraq. Trump says Soleimani ordered these attacks. This piece was written and published before Iran’s attack in Iraq Tuesday night but retaliation is discussed. U.S. military leaders gave Trump several choices for how to respond to Iran’s actions. Killing Soleimani was considered the most extreme. Some top U.S. military and government officials have expressed surprise and concern about Trump’s decision. But the President insists it was in America’s best interest. “We will always protect our diplomats, service members, all Americans, and our allies,” Trump said in a Jan. 3 address from his resort in Palm Beach, Fla.
Note the mention that military and government officials were surprised and concerned by the choice. Parents are now told to plant a seed of doubt over Trump’s judgment. I’m old enough to remember when the office of president was respected, even if an adult didn’t like the man. We are supposed to come together as a country. You know, country over party. How many times have anti-Trumpers said that? Also, why would the military present an option to the Commander-in-Chief if it wasn’t a legit proposal?
On Jan. 3, President Trump warned Iran not to retaliate. If it does, he said, the U.S. is “ready and prepared to take whatever action is necessary.” A day later, Trump wrote on Twitter that the U.S. had targeted 52 Iranian sites, including places that are important to Iranian culture. But according to international law, strikes on cultural sites are illegal.
Fortunately, Trump cleared that up himself. He will follow the law, he said. Frankly, in the heat of his tweet, I don’t think he knew that cultural sites are protected. Once he found out, he corrected himself. He’s a businessman, not a political wonk. Sometimes that fact arises.
The article conveniently glosses over the scope of the history of conflicts between Iran and America. The revolution and hostage-taking in 1979 are mentioned as the beginning of current conflicts then it jumps to 2018 and President Trump withdrawing from the JCPA. Of course.
This didn’t start with Trump. However, he is not a typical politician. He’s a street fighter. He took an opportunity to take out a very evil man and that is a good thing. Scaring school children over future retaliations or actions by bad guys is abusive to innocent minds. Let the kids be kids. Stop dragging them into politics at such tender ages.


hotair--2020-01-08--Round-up: Democrats react to Iran attack in Iraq - Pelosi failed miserably

As we learned about the attack aimed at American forces in Iraq coming from Iran Tuesday evening , already early Wednesday morning in Iraq , a lot of us did as we always do – we scanned Twitter for reactions .
It may surprise you to learn that the worst reactions didn ’ t come from Democrats running to be the party ’ s presidential nominee .
The worst came from Speaker Pelosi and her cohorts in the media .
Fortunately for the troops and personnel in harm ’ s way from the ballistic missiles sent from Iran , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Concern for the safety of the troops and others in the path of the missiles was expressed in social media .
Speaker Pelosi , however , turned her concern into a slam against President Trump .
By using the words “ needless provocations from the Administration ” she sounded like the Iranian leadership .
That is not a good look for the third most powerful person in the American government .
Her reaction was unnecessarily hackish and just plain wrong .
President Trump has not “ needlessly provoked ” Iran .
Iran has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the revolution in 1979 .
If anything , it can easily be argued that Trump has shown great restraint .
The drone attack in Baghdad that took out Soleimani was in response to the intelligence of an imminent attack .
Plus , just days earlier , Iran-backed militia attacked the U.S. embassy .
It is reported that Pelosi did not speak with Vice-President Pence when he called but returned his call later and he briefed her .
Maybe next time she should just take his call .
Joe Biden tweeted in a restrained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a calm and reasoned response .
This was a better response than Quid Pro Joe delivered earlier in the day in a speech in New York .
He criticized Trump for his handling of Iran .
Joe Biden has been historically wrong on foreign policy for 40 years .
Former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates said those words in his memoir after retiring from working in the Obama administration with Biden .
Interestingly , Biden acknowledged in his speech that he ’ s made mistakes but it was more along the lines of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and not acknowledging his wrong-headedness in foreign policy .
Remember , he also advised Obama not to take the opportunity to take out Bin Laden .
During a town hall in New Hampshire , Tulsi Gabbard said that the drone attack on Soleimani “ undermined our national security ” .
After the response from Iran , she tweeted about her own flashbacks from her time in the service .
Some top candidates stuck with thoughts and prayers for our troops , as they should have done .
Warren has been busy calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike as a wag the dog scenario .
At least Meghan McCain got her to acknowledge that Soleimani was a terrorist .
Small steps .
I don ’ t find a tweet on Bernie Sanders ’ Twitter account of this nature .
There is a video clip of his interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN where he denounces Trump ’ s actions and says he ’ ll do what he can to stop war authorization and funding if it comes up for a vote .
He also is on record comparing the strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dissidents , so there ’ s that .
So , how did our betters in liberal media react to the incoming missiles launch from Iran into Iraq ?
Just exactly as you probably expected .
There was plenty of misinformation and finger-pointing at Trump , not Iran .
Then a correction – there were no Americans killed : Former Bushie Steve Schmidt weighed in with his usual Orange Man bad hot take .
He is nothing if not consistent in his anti-Trump criticisms .
He returned to his MSNBC gig after serving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s failed presidential nomination bid .
The absolute worst reaction from the media though came from MSNBC ’ s Lawrence O ’ Donnell .
At this point , it looks like he is just flat-out cheering for the Iranian terrorists .
O ’ Donnell mocked Trump ’ s decision to not make a statement until Wednesday .
Instead of acknowledging the wisdom of waiting until assessments could be made and decisions made in response to those assessments , O ’ Donnell called Trump “ speechless ” .
History will not be kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syndrome that they can ’ t even pause and unite with other Americans in supporting a president during the aftermath of an enemy attack .
Whether it is the top leadership of lawmakers or those in the media , we must believe them when they tell us who they are .
They are so psychologically crippled that they broadcast support for America ’ s enemies instead of America .
It ’ s sickening .
I ’ ll end with this from Hollywood ’ s Michael Moore .
He is thrilled that so many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration in the midst of an enemy attack .
Instead of just reporting on the events of the evening , he was celebrating the divisive nature of their comments .

As we learned about the attack aimed at American forces in Iraq coming from Iran Tuesday evening, already early Wednesday morning in Iraq, a lot of us did as we always do – we scanned Twitter for reactions. It may surprise you to learn that the worst reactions didn’t come from Democrats running to be the party’s presidential nominee. The worst came from Speaker Pelosi and her cohorts in the media.
Fortunately for the troops and personnel in harm’s way from the ballistic missiles sent from Iran, the 2020 candidates set the right tone. Concern for the safety of the troops and others in the path of the missiles was expressed in social media. Speaker Pelosi, however, turned her concern into a slam against President Trump. By using the words “needless provocations from the Administration” she sounded like the Iranian leadership.
Closely monitoring the situation following bombings targeting U.S. troops in Iraq. We must ensure the safety of our servicemembers, including ending needless provocations from the Administration and demanding that Iran cease its violence. America & world cannot afford war. — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 8, 2020
That is not a good look for the third most powerful person in the American government. Her reaction was unnecessarily hackish and just plain wrong. President Trump has not “needlessly provoked” Iran. Iran has been attacking Americans and our interests since the revolution in 1979. If anything, it can easily be argued that Trump has shown great restraint. The drone attack in Baghdad that took out Soleimani was in response to the intelligence of an imminent attack. Plus, just days earlier, Iran-backed militia attacked the U.S. embassy.
It is reported that Pelosi did not speak with Vice-President Pence when he called but returned his call later and he briefed her. Maybe next time she should just take his call.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was handed a note during a House Democratic leadership meeting informing her of the attacks on two military bases in Al-Assad and Erbil, respectively, that house U.S. forces in Iraq. Pelosi returned a phone call to Vice President Pence at approximately 6:34 p.m. when he briefed her on the attack.
Joe Biden tweeted in a restrained manner. Obviously he was going for a calm and reasoned response.
I’m going to hold off on commenting on the news tonight until we know more, but there is one thing I will say: Jill and I are keeping our troops and Americans overseas in our prayers. We hope you’ll keep them in yours. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) January 8, 2020
This was a better response than Quid Pro Joe delivered earlier in the day in a speech in New York. He criticized Trump for his handling of Iran.
Biden criticized Mr. Trump in his speech for bringing the U.S. “dangerously close” to starting anew in the Middle East, despite campaigning on bringing an end to so-called endless wars. “I have no illusions about Iran. The regime has long sponsored terrorism and threatened our interests. They’ve ruthlessly killed hundreds of protesters, and they should be held accountable for their actions,” the former vice president said. “But there is a smart way to counter them — and a self-defeating way. Trump’s approach is demonstrably the latter.”
Joe Biden has been historically wrong on foreign policy for 40 years. Former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates said those words in his memoir after retiring from working in the Obama administration with Biden. Interestingly, Biden acknowledged in his speech that he’s made mistakes but it was more along the lines of “Hey, everyone makes mistakes”, and not acknowledging his wrong-headedness in foreign policy. Remember, he also advised Obama not to take the opportunity to take out Bin Laden.
During a town hall in New Hampshire, Tulsi Gabbard said that the drone attack on Soleimani “undermined our national security”. After the response from Iran, she tweeted about her own flashbacks from her time in the service.
#IranAttacks on U.S. troops today brought back a flood of memories from my 2005 deployment at the height of Iraq war. Constant rocket attacks. A daily reminder of the terrible cost of war. Unimaginable suffering awaits if this escalation continues. #NoWarWithlran #IranvsUSA pic.twitter.com/SvMUOHum2K — Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) January 8, 2020
I ask all Americans to stand with me in offering our prayers and hopes for our troops and their families that there are no casualties in the #IranAttacks today. #NoWarWithlran #IranvsUSA — Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) January 8, 2020
Some top candidates stuck with thoughts and prayers for our troops, as they should have done.
Tonight, Americans in Iraq are under fire. My prayers are with them, their loved ones, and their families. — Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) January 8, 2020
Tonight, my prayers are with our service members, our diplomats and personnel serving in Iraq, and their families—and all the people in the region. This is a reminder why we need to de-escalate tension in the Middle East. The American people do not want a war with Iran. pic.twitter.com/Uqybp89u7n — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) January 8, 2020
Warren has been busy calling Trump’s approval of the drone strike as a wag the dog scenario. At least Meghan McCain got her to acknowledge that Soleimani was a terrorist. Small steps.
I don’t find a tweet on Bernie Sanders’ Twitter account of this nature. There is a video clip of his interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN where he denounces Trump’s actions and says he’ll do what he can to stop war authorization and funding if it comes up for a vote. He also is on record comparing the strike on Soleimani with Putin’s assassinations of dissidents, so there’s that.
So, how did our betters in liberal media react to the incoming missiles launch from Iran into Iraq? Just exactly as you probably expected. There was plenty of misinformation and finger-pointing at Trump, not Iran.
MSNBC aired Iran state media’s false claim that 30 U.S. soldiers had been killed tonight pic.twitter.com/DnEkMq3x7f — Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) January 8, 2020
Then a correction – there were no Americans killed:
Later in the segment, MSNBC host Chris Hayes acknowledged & emphasized that MSNBC’s Iran correspondent was sharing completely unverified Iran state media claims about dozens of U.S. soldiers being killed pic.twitter.com/JqOvgnNVwd — Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) January 8, 2020
Former Bushie Steve Schmidt weighed in with his usual Orange Man bad hot take. He is nothing if not consistent in his anti-Trump criticisms. He returned to his MSNBC gig after serving as a campaign adviser for Howard Schultz’s failed presidential nomination bid.
Steve Schmidt: "You can't imagine, I think, a worse president, a worse possible leader, to stand at the head of America's Armed Forces at this very dangerous moment" https://t.co/6FDY4U6XCu — MSNBC (@MSNBC) January 8, 2020
The absolute worst reaction from the media though came from MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. At this point, it looks like he is just flat-out cheering for the Iranian terrorists.
Trump wagged the dog. Now the dog is wagging Trump. — Lawrence O'Donnell (@Lawrence) January 8, 2020
O’Donnell mocked Trump’s decision to not make a statement until Wednesday. Instead of acknowledging the wisdom of waiting until assessments could be made and decisions made in response to those assessments, O’Donnell called Trump “speechless”.
These threats of war crimes & mass murder by Iran make this the most dangerous night in history of American military in the Middle East and the President of the United States has no idea what to say. White House says Trump won't make a statement. He's literally speechless. https://t.co/cVxLtR59rP — Lawrence O'Donnell (@Lawrence) January 8, 2020
History will not be kind to those so afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome that they can’t even pause and unite with other Americans in supporting a president during the aftermath of an enemy attack. Whether it is the top leadership of lawmakers or those in the media, we must believe them when they tell us who they are. They are so psychologically crippled that they broadcast support for America’s enemies instead of America. It’s sickening.
I’ll end with this from Hollywood’s Michael Moore. He is thrilled that so many in the media are openly questioning the Trump administration in the midst of an enemy attack. Instead of just reporting on the events of the evening, he was celebrating the divisive nature of their comments.


hotair--2020-01-08--The princess and the peeved: Harry and Meghan bailing on the royal family?

Are they quitting , or are they getting pushed out ?
Only their servant ’ s hairdressers know for sure .
Earlier today , the reality show known as The Windsors offered up a new plot twist , in which a prince and princess make their dreams of commonerhood come true .
Even those with little interest in monarchical drama have heard enough to suspect that this might not be entirely voluntary .
Rumors of a rift between Harry and his older brother William have only gotten louder , and Harry ’ s public remarks have appeared to confirm it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picture of the couple on her desk in her video Christmas message to the kingdom , which also prompted talk of a rift within the House of Windsor .
All of this seems rather contrived anyway , or perhaps better put , more contrived than the usual pomp and drama surrounding the family .
What in the world does it mean to stop being “ senior members ” of the family ?
Elizabeth , Philip , and Charles are the “ senior members , ” followed by Charles ’ siblings , and William @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heir presumptive .
Technically , William ’ s children are more “ senior ” than Harry or especially Meghan .
One might well wonder if that ’ s not one reason why the Sussexes are Suss-exiting .
It certainly seems to be their initiative , though : The Sun reported that Harry ’ s father and his brother — the heirs apparent and presumptive , respectively — are “ incandescent with rage ” over the announcement : A senior source said : “ Their statement was not cleared with anyone .
It breaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of war on the family .
“ There is fury over how they ’ ve done this without any thought for the implications for the institution .
The Queen is deeply upset .
The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge are incandescent with rage .
“ Courtiers can ’ t believe it .
There are so many unanswered questions but they ’ ve just up and done it without a thought for anyone else .
“ The plan was for there to discuss it and work out a way that works for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ civil war , ” only without all that “ my kingdom for a horse ” stuff and crowns left in the thornbushes .
What this monarchy really needs is a Lancaster/York/Tudor vibe .
Or at least a better publicist .
Regardless , this changes very little .
Even if the pair do decamp for “ North America ” ( Canada , most likely ) , they will still be members of the royal family .
The media will still camp out at their doorstep , with the only change likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After all , what precisely are the skills they will employ to make themselves more “ financially independent ” ?
Meghan was an actor , and Harry was … a royal .
Not a whole lotta market value in that , as it ’ s a very niche business .
Unless Harry plans on becoming a full-time traffic helicopter pilot ( his task in the British military ) , “ financially independent ” is probably going to mean either media-related projects that trade on their royal status or some financial investment from Grandmama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t seem to be in the mood .
To be fair , though , this isn ’ t a bad time to get some distance from the “ senior members ” of the family .
His uncle Andrew was pushed out after embarrassing the family in attempting to explain away his connection to Jeffrey Epstein , an association that won ’ t help Harry ’ s commercial prospects here in the New World .
The Sussexes were already on the Queen ’ s we-are-not-amused list anyway , and perhaps an absence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After this stunt , they only have one way to go on that score , it seems .

Are they quitting, or are they getting pushed out? Only their servant’s hairdressers know for sure. Earlier today, the reality show known as The Windsors offered up a new plot twist, in which a prince and princess make their dreams of commonerhood come true.
Well, pretend commonerhood, anyway:
https://www.instagram.com/p/B7EaGS_Jpb9/?utm_source=ig_embed
Even those with little interest in monarchical drama have heard enough to suspect that this might not be entirely voluntary. Rumors of a rift between Harry and his older brother William have only gotten louder, and Harry’s public remarks have appeared to confirm it. The Queen neglected to include a picture of the couple on her desk in her video Christmas message to the kingdom, which also prompted talk of a rift within the House of Windsor.
All of this seems rather contrived anyway, or perhaps better put, more contrived than the usual pomp and drama surrounding the family. What in the world does it mean to stop being “senior members” of the family? Elizabeth, Philip, and Charles are the “senior members,” followed by Charles’ siblings, and William is a step behind that as the heir presumptive. Technically, William’s children are more “senior” than Harry or especially Meghan. One might well wonder if that’s not one reason why the Sussexes are Suss-exiting.
It certainly seems to be their initiative, though:
JUST IN: Statement from Buckingham Palace: "Discussions with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage. We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through." https://t.co/Sg3LQ9pUC5 pic.twitter.com/Gcf76caq1T — ABC News (@ABC) January 8, 2020
The Sun reported that Harry’s father and his brother — the heirs apparent and presumptive, respectively — are “incandescent with rage” over the announcement:
A senior source said: “Their statement was not cleared with anyone. It breaks all protocol. This is a declaration of war on the family. “There is fury over how they’ve done this without any thought for the implications for the institution. The Queen is deeply upset. The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge are incandescent with rage. “Courtiers can’t believe it. There are so many unanswered questions but they’ve just up and done it without a thought for anyone else. “The plan was for there to discuss it and work out a way that works for everyone in the family.”
Supposedly this is “civil war,” only without all that “my kingdom for a horse” stuff and crowns left in the thornbushes. What this monarchy really needs is a Lancaster/York/Tudor vibe. Or at least a better publicist.
Regardless, this changes very little. Even if the pair do decamp for “North America” (Canada, most likely), they will still be members of the royal family. The media will still camp out at their doorstep, with the only change likely to be more engagement rather than less. After all, what precisely are the skills they will employ to make themselves more “financially independent”? Meghan was an actor, and Harry was … a royal. Not a whole lotta market value in that, as it’s a very niche business. Unless Harry plans on becoming a full-time traffic helicopter pilot (his task in the British military), “financially independent” is probably going to mean either media-related projects that trade on their royal status or some financial investment from Grandmama. And at the moment, Grandmama doesn’t seem to be in the mood.
To be fair, though, this isn’t a bad time to get some distance from the “senior members” of the family. His uncle Andrew was pushed out after embarrassing the family in attempting to explain away his connection to Jeffrey Epstein, an association that won’t help Harry’s commercial prospects here in the New World. The Sussexes were already on the Queen’s we-are-not-amused list anyway, and perhaps an absence will make the monarchical heart grow fonder. After this stunt, they only have one way to go on that score, it seems.


hotair--2020-01-08--Mike Lee erupts: The briefing we had today on the Soleimani aftermath was the worst in my nine years

Mike Lee erupts: The briefing we had today on the Soleimani aftermath was the worst in my nine years in the Senate

That ’ s weird .
The “ never met an intervention they didn ’ t like ” caucus in the GOP seemed to like it just fine .
It ’ s less weird that a White House that expects , and almost always receives , unquestioning loyalty from congressional Republicans would expect it in this matter too .
The clip that follows is something else , though .
Background : Democrat Tim Kaine has introduced a resolution in the Senate that would bar Trump from waging war on Iran absent explicit authorization from Congress .
It ’ s inspired by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill that sought to limit the president ’ s power to initiate military conflict unless Congress has given the okay .
Mike Lee said he walked into today ’ s briefing with Mike Pompeo , Mark Esper , and Gina Haspel undecided about whether he ’ d support the resolution .
He walked out 75 minutes not just in favor of it but enthusiastically so .
Why ?
Because someone at the briefing — Pompeo , I ’ d guess — allegedly suggested that the Senate shouldn ’ t even debate whether further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else Iran would be “ emboldened.
” What the hell do we have a Senate for , asked Lee , if not to debate whether war should be declared in a given situation or not ?
Brace yourself : You don ’ t often hear “ insulting ” and “ demeaning ” tossed around by a senator to describe consultations with aides of a president from his own party .
He wasn ’ t done , though .
Later he was asked whether Pompeo et al .
had at least reassured him that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack plotted by Soleimani that justified taking him out without approval from Congress .
To the contrary , said Lee : Rand Paul corroborated that afterward in an interview : Two U.S. officials briefed on the intel told a NYT reporter this past weekend that it was “ razor thin.
” Lee and Paul seem to agree .
Did Pompeo and the rest waltz into the briefing expecting that Republicans would cover for them afterward no matter how weak the intel was ?
I mean , that was a perfectly reasonable assumption given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shill for Trump .
But they had to know that a pair of libertarians like Lee and Paul who were in the room would feel differently and call BS .
Speaking of Trump shills , here ’ s one of the worst offenders in Congress reminding everyone after the briefing that there ’ s no demagoguery he won ’ t stoop to in service to warmaking by the United States .
His point here about “ empowering the enemy ” by attempting to assert Congress ’ s war powers is exactly the sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the SCIF .
The irony , of course , is that Trump ’ s instincts run much closer to Lee ’ s and Paul ’ s on military intervention than Graham ’ s .
Usually .
As for Kaine ’ s resolution , it ’ s noteworthy that Lee is now a yes — sort of .
Normally it takes 60 votes for cloture in the Senate , but Kaine ’ s bill is a “ privileged resolution ” and therefore requires only 51 to pass .
With Lee and Paul and presumably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is tantalizingly close to the 51 Schumer would need to get the bill through .
( The House will pass its own War Powers measure and reconcile it with Kaine ’ s eventually . )
A bipartisan vote to rebuke Trump ’ s authority to wage war would be an embarrassment to the president .
But … he ’ s suffered that embarrassment before , again thanks to Lee .
And obviously there ’ s no chance of the Senate and House overriding his inevitable veto of the bill , which would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump potentially over the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution .
Lee ’ s signing on to what ’ s effectively a symbolic wrist slap of the president .
There are , and will probably always be , too many hawks and/or loyal partisan hacks in both parties to ever produce the two-thirds majorities in both chambers needed to stop a president from waging the war he wants to wage .
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s Paul taking it to Graham for his demagoguery .

That’s weird. The “never met an intervention they didn’t like” caucus in the GOP seemed to like it just fine.
Natl Security officials gave a compelling briefing to Senators just now. They answered every important question. Anyone who walks out & says they aren’t convinced action against #Soleimani was justified is either never going to be convinced or just oppose everything Trump does. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) January 8, 2020
It’s less weird that a White House that expects, and almost always receives, unquestioning loyalty from congressional Republicans would expect it in this matter too.
The clip that follows is something else, though. Background: Democrat Tim Kaine has introduced a resolution in the Senate that would bar Trump from waging war on Iran absent explicit authorization from Congress. It’s inspired by the War Powers Resolution, the Vietnam-era bill that sought to limit the president’s power to initiate military conflict unless Congress has given the okay. Mike Lee said he walked into today’s briefing with Mike Pompeo, Mark Esper, and Gina Haspel undecided about whether he’d support the resolution. He walked out 75 minutes not just in favor of it but enthusiastically so. Why? Because someone at the briefing — Pompeo, I’d guess — allegedly suggested that the Senate shouldn’t even debate whether further military action against Iran is appropriate or else Iran would be “emboldened.”
What the hell do we have a Senate for, asked Lee, if not to debate whether war should be declared in a given situation or not? Brace yourself:
.@SenMikeLee
: "It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government…to come in and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. It's un-American. It's unconstitutional and it's wrong." pic.twitter.com/fVSE6b3EM0 — CSPAN (@cspan) January 8, 2020
You don’t often hear “insulting” and “demeaning” tossed around by a senator to describe consultations with aides of a president from his own party. He wasn’t done, though. Later he was asked whether Pompeo et al. had at least reassured him that there was solid intelligence of an imminent attack plotted by Soleimani that justified taking him out without approval from Congress. To the contrary, said Lee:
BREAKING: Sen. Lee, Republican from Utah, heavily criticizes Trump admin.'s briefing for senators today on Iran, saying officials expect Senate to be "good little boys and girls" and not debate in public. pic.twitter.com/9yXIskA0zq — NBC News (@NBCNews) January 8, 2020
Rand Paul corroborated that afterward in an interview:
Here’s Rand Paul telling Wolf Blitzer that the intel the Trump admin cited to justify the Soleimani killing during today’s briefing didn’t go beyond “generalities” and “stuff you’d read in the newspaper” pic.twitter.com/fzabfEDWFo — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 8, 2020
Two U.S. officials briefed on the intel told a NYT reporter this past weekend that it was “razor thin.” Lee and Paul seem to agree. Did Pompeo and the rest waltz into the briefing expecting that Republicans would cover for them afterward no matter how weak the intel was?
I mean, that was a perfectly reasonable assumption given the lengths to which Senate Republicans usually shill for Trump. But they had to know that a pair of libertarians like Lee and Paul who were in the room would feel differently and call BS.
Speaking of Trump shills, here’s one of the worst offenders in Congress reminding everyone after the briefing that there’s no demagoguery he won’t stoop to in service to warmaking by the United States. His point here about “empowering the enemy” by attempting to assert Congress’s war powers is exactly the sort of low-rent jingoism that infuriated Lee in the SCIF.
Just asked Graham about the criticism from Paul and Lee over Iran briefing. “I think they’re overreacting. I’m going to let people know ..to play this game with the war powers act, which I think is unconstitutional, is that whether you mean to or not, you’re empowering the enemy” pic.twitter.com/pnlISwkORb — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 8, 2020
The irony, of course, is that Trump’s instincts run much closer to Lee’s and Paul’s on military intervention than Graham’s. Usually.
As for Kaine’s resolution, it’s noteworthy that Lee is now a yes — sort of. Normally it takes 60 votes for cloture in the Senate, but Kaine’s bill is a “privileged resolution” and therefore requires only 51 to pass. With Lee and Paul and presumably all 47 Democrats on board, Kaine is tantalizingly close to the 51 Schumer would need to get the bill through. (The House will pass its own War Powers measure and reconcile it with Kaine’s eventually.) A bipartisan vote to rebuke Trump’s authority to wage war would be an embarrassment to the president. But … he’s suffered that embarrassment before, again thanks to Lee. And obviously there’s no chance of the Senate and House overriding his inevitable veto of the bill, which would have set up a showdown in court with Trump potentially over the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. Lee’s signing on to what’s effectively a symbolic wrist slap of the president. There are, and will probably always be, too many hawks and/or loyal partisan hacks in both parties to ever produce the two-thirds majorities in both chambers needed to stop a president from waging the war he wants to wage.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s Paul taking it to Graham for his demagoguery.


hotair--2020-01-08--Washington Post asks reporters to explain their 'sunny remarks' about the Steele dossier in light of

Washington Post asks reporters to explain their 'sunny remarks' about the Steele dossier in light of the IG report

Erik Wemple is now on part 10 of his series of articles about the media ’ s handling of the Steele Dossier .
I ’ ve had my disagreements with Wemple in the past but the work he ’ s done on this topic is exemplary .
As a conservative who wonders why progressives in the media never get held accountable for things they say that later turn out not to be true , Wemple is doing his level best to restore my faith in the major media with this series .
Last month , Wemple put together a devastating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dossier obsession .
If you haven ’ t read that , it ’ s worth your time .
Today , he published a roundup of “ sunny remarks ” about the dossier by various figures at MSNBC , CNN , and elsewhere .
He asked each reporter to comment on their past expressions of confidence about the dossier in light of the findings in the IG report .
The responses to Wemple ’ s inquiries can be divided into three groups : Those who didn ’ t respond ( at least not on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their past comments , and those who defended their past comments .
Here ’ s a list of the reporters who didn ’ t respond to Wemple ’ s questions ( on the record ) : • MSNBC ’ s Rachel “ Maddow declined to comment on the record.
” • CNN ’ s Alisyn Camerota “ Declined to comment on the record.
” • CNN ’ s John Berman “ Declined to comment on the record.
” • Former State Department official Jonathan Winer ( appearing on CNN ) “ did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Former federal prosecutor Paul Butler ( appearing on MSNBC ) offered “ No response to a request for comment.
” • Journalist Jacob Weisberg ( appearing on MSNBC ) …Wemple writes “ Attempts to secure a comment from Weisberg have been unsuccessful.
” • Journalist Natasha Bertrand ( appearing on MSNBC ) “ Bertrand did not respond to requests for comment.
” It ’ s interesting how many of these journalists who were part of the pro-dossier chorus on left-leaning networks suddenly have nothing to say about it .
To their credit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expressed regret or at least admitted to reassessing their past comments : • Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote an email saying , “ I ’ m still working through the IG report and doing some reporting , trying to decide what , if anything , is still credible in the Steele dossier.
” The work to answer that question has already been done and the answer is “ not much.
” But at least he answered .
• MSNBC ’ s Howard Fineman gave a solid response which said in part , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more digging — it ’ s clear that the whole emergence and effect of the dossier should be a warning to us all : bad oppo + zealous feds = bad journalism , erosion of the rule of law and threats to civil liberties.
” Fineman also took a swipe at Buzzfeed ’ s Ben Smith : “ at least initially , the press deserves more credit for steering clear of it than the feds !
Remember , it took Ben Smith and BuzzFeed to put it out there in January 2017 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a semblance of credibility by the fact that the feds already had used it !
” • Reporter Daniel Lippman ( appearing on CNN ) claimed he couldn ’ t remember why he said what he did and then blamed the NY Times : “ As far as what I told CNN , they were a long time ago and while I don ’ t recall my exact frame of mind at they time , this NYT story is a point of reference for my comments.
” The reporters defending their prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Manu Raju , who didn ’ t defend himself but had a CNN flak do it for him , and MSNBC Nicole Wallace .
But the standout has to be Jane Mayer who wrote a lengthy and favorable profile of Steele for the New Yorker in 2018 .
Here ’ s her response : Steele ’ s a convenient political piñata but he was prescient in warning anyone who would listen that Russian state actors were attempting to interfere in the 2016 presidential election specifically in favor of Trump , and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-Russian sanctions , ” writes Mayer in an email .
“ The New Yorker ’ s coverage carefully quoted naysayers about Steele as well as defenders , and identified whatever flaws were known in the dossier 18 months ago , as well as its strengths .
Since then a number of the details in the dossier have either been denied , or are yet to be confirmed , as Horowitz ’ s report reflects , but several of Steele ’ s major concerns , including that the FBI was employing a double standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while concealing its investigation of the Trump campaign from voters , have been borne out .
So overall , it ’ s a complex and nuanced picture , more suitable to long-form journalism than television talk shows .
It sounds like Mayer hasn ’ t really absorbed the gist of the IG report yet .
The takeway was not that a lot of nuance is required to properly view the dossier .
The takeaway was that the dossier was not believed by the FBI and was not even believed by Steele ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stories as rumors that flowed when people were drinking at the bar .
Read the full piece for all of the details of who said what and when .
Again , I don ’ t think the individual comments are earth-shatteringly important at this point .
What ’ s important is that someone at a major outlet is connecting the dots and pointing out how a pair of news networks irresponsibly inflated this balloon for months because they wanted it to be true .
To be clear , Wemple doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m doing so because we all know that ’ s what is going on here .
At a minimum , we can say there was a booming market for Russia , Russia , Russia on television and the people and networks above are a few of the ones who rushed to fill orders without knowing the facts .

Erik Wemple is now on part 10 of his series of articles about the media’s handling of the Steele Dossier. I’ve had my disagreements with Wemple in the past but the work he’s done on this topic is exemplary. As a conservative who wonders why progressives in the media never get held accountable for things they say that later turn out not to be true, Wemple is doing his level best to restore my faith in the major media with this series.
Last month, Wemple put together a devastating account of Rachel Maddow’s Steele dossier obsession. If you haven’t read that, it’s worth your time. Today, he published a roundup of “sunny remarks” about the dossier by various figures at MSNBC, CNN, and elsewhere. He asked each reporter to comment on their past expressions of confidence about the dossier in light of the findings in the IG report. The responses to Wemple’s inquiries can be divided into three groups: Those who didn’t respond (at least not on the record), those who regretted their past comments, and those who defended their past comments. Here’s a list of the reporters who didn’t respond to Wemple’s questions (on the record):
MSNBC’s Rachel “Maddow declined to comment on the record.”
CNN’s Alisyn Camerota “Declined to comment on the record.”
CNN’s John Berman “Declined to comment on the record.”
Former State Department official Jonathan Winer (appearing on CNN) “did not return a request for comment.”
Former federal prosecutor Paul Butler (appearing on MSNBC) offered “No response to a request for comment.”
CNN counterterrorism analyst Phil Mudd…Wemple lists this as “Awaiting a reply.”
Journalist Jacob Weisberg (appearing on MSNBC)…Wemple writes “Attempts to secure a comment from Weisberg have been unsuccessful.”
Journalist Natasha Bertrand (appearing on MSNBC) “Bertrand did not respond to requests for comment.”
It’s interesting how many of these journalists who were part of the pro-dossier chorus on left-leaning networks suddenly have nothing to say about it. To their credit, some of the people who did respond expressed regret or at least admitted to reassessing their past comments:
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote an email saying, “I’m still working through the IG report and doing some reporting, trying to decide what, if anything, is still credible in the Steele dossier.” The work to answer that question has already been done and the answer is “not much.” But at least he answered.
MSNBC’s Howard Fineman gave a solid response which said in part, “In retrospect — and after much more digging — it’s clear that the whole emergence and effect of the dossier should be a warning to us all: bad oppo + zealous feds = bad journalism, erosion of the rule of law and threats to civil liberties.” Fineman also took a swipe at Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith: “at least initially, the press deserves more credit for steering clear of it than the feds! Remember, it took Ben Smith and BuzzFeed to put it out there in January 2017, after the dossier had been essentially bootstrapped into a semblance of credibility by the fact that the feds already had used it!”
Reporter Daniel Lippman (appearing on CNN) claimed he couldn’t remember why he said what he did and then blamed the NY Times: “As far as what I told CNN, they were a long time ago and while I don’t recall my exact frame of mind at they time, this NYT story is a point of reference for my comments.”
The reporters defending their prior statements about the dossier included CNN’s Manu Raju, who didn’t defend himself but had a CNN flak do it for him, and MSNBC Nicole Wallace. But the standout has to be Jane Mayer who wrote a lengthy and favorable profile of Steele for the New Yorker in 2018. Here’s her response:
Steele’s a convenient political piñata but he was prescient in warning anyone who would listen that Russian state actors were attempting to interfere in the 2016 presidential election specifically in favor of Trump, and in an effort to undermine NATO and lift anti-Russian sanctions,” writes Mayer in an email. “The New Yorker’s coverage carefully quoted naysayers about Steele as well as defenders, and identified whatever flaws were known in the dossier 18 months ago, as well as its strengths. Since then a number of the details in the dossier have either been denied, or are yet to be confirmed, as Horowitz’s report reflects, but several of Steele’s major concerns, including that the FBI was employing a double standard by publicizing its investigation of Hillary Clinton while concealing its investigation of the Trump campaign from voters, have been borne out. So overall, it’s a complex and nuanced picture, more suitable to long-form journalism than television talk shows.
It sounds like Mayer hasn’t really absorbed the gist of the IG report yet. The takeway was not that a lot of nuance is required to properly view the dossier. The takeaway was that the dossier was not believed by the FBI and was not even believed by Steele’s own primary source who described many of the stories as rumors that flowed when people were drinking at the bar.
Read the full piece for all of the details of who said what and when. Again, I don’t think the individual comments are earth-shatteringly important at this point. What’s important is that someone at a major outlet is connecting the dots and pointing out how a pair of news networks irresponsibly inflated this balloon for months because they wanted it to be true.
To be clear, Wemple doesn’t attribute motive to the dossier chorus. I’m doing so because we all know that’s what is going on here. At a minimum, we can say there was a booming market for Russia, Russia, Russia on television and the people and networks above are a few of the ones who rushed to fill orders without knowing the facts.


hotair--2020-01-09--Video shows the moment a missile hit the Ukrainian jet

Video that appears to show the moment a missile struck the Ukrainian airliner over Iran has been circulating online for several hours .
Here it is : Now the NY Times has confirmed the position near the path of the jet where the clip was shot using clues from the clip itself combined with satellite images of the area .
Kudos to the Times for some pretty clever work here : In the video , approximately 10 seconds elapse between the flash of impact with the plane and the sound of the explosion reaching the camera .
The sound delay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two miles from the camera at the time of impact .
This comports with the path of the flight , as recorded by the flight tracking company FlightRadar24 .
Buildings seen in the background of the video are at least five stories high and have a distinctive design .
Several rows of evenly spaced buildings are visible , consistent with the aerial view of the building compound in satellite imagery .
You can click over to see the visual comparisons which are very convincing .
The Times has located the place where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few meters .
In this map you can see the location of the crash relative to the airport and a nearby military base : In addition to the clip above , there is another CCTV clip which shows the impact of the plane : This really is a tragedy but as both Allahpundit and I have already argued it ’ s not the fault of the United States .
Over at the Atlantic , Brookings Institution Fellow Shadi Hamid argues that the American press is getting carried away with it ’ s desire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the aftermath of the strike , critics of the Trump administration ’ s foreign policy , particularly on the left , have described the move as one more rash American intervention that ’ s sure to further destabilize the region .
Yet this formulation gives U.S. policy , for all its flaws , too much credit .
Not everything is America ’ s fault ; others are sometimes to blame ; and no one , not even the weaker parties , are devoid of agency or freed of responsibility .
The burden of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States ; Iran , too , can choose to de-escalate… Middle East experts , and particularly those from the region , have tended to be less alarmist than most other commentators .
These experts are likely to be less fixated on Trump himself and less likely to put the United States at the center of their analysis .
And they are more likely to be aware of the sheer scale of brutality , mass murder , and sectarian cleansing that Soleimani helped orchestrate .
Soleimani wasn ’ t just another bad guy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s worst .
( Yet another humanitarian catastrophe has been unfolding in Syria , but it has garnered little attention .
The Assad regime , with crucial military support from Iran and Russia , has been bombing Idlib province .
More than 200,000 Syrians have already fled , and hundreds of thousands more could be forced from their homes . )
… The United States has done terrible things in the Middle East .
To even casual observers of the region , this should be clear enough .
That , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moral equivalence between Iran and the United States .
Elevating America as a somehow unique source of evil takes necessary self-criticism and turns it into narcissism .
It insists on making us the exceptional ones , glorifying ourselves by glorifying our sins .
To suggest that American officials are at the rarefied level of the deliberate , systematic mass murder and sectarian cleansing that Soleimani helped orchestrate isn ’ t just wrong ; it ’ s silly .
This was published before the left began blaming Trump for complicity in downing the Ukranian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to something .

Video that appears to show the moment a missile struck the Ukrainian airliner over Iran has been circulating online for several hours. Here it is:
Now the NY Times has confirmed the position near the path of the jet where the clip was shot using clues from the clip itself combined with satellite images of the area. Kudos to the Times for some pretty clever work here:
In the video, approximately 10 seconds elapse between the flash of impact with the plane and the sound of the explosion reaching the camera. The sound delay indicates the plane was a little over two miles from the camera at the time of impact. This comports with the path of the flight, as recorded by the flight tracking company FlightRadar24. Buildings seen in the background of the video are at least five stories high and have a distinctive design. Several rows of evenly spaced buildings are visible, consistent with the aerial view of the building compound in satellite imagery.
You can click over to see the visual comparisons which are very convincing. The Times has located the place where the person filming this was standing within a few meters. In this map you can see the location of the crash relative to the airport and a nearby military base:
In addition to the clip above, there is another CCTV clip which shows the impact of the plane:
This really is a tragedy but as both Allahpundit and I have already argued it’s not the fault of the United States. Over at the Atlantic, Brookings Institution Fellow Shadi Hamid argues that the American press is getting carried away with it’s desire to blame Trump for everything:
In the aftermath of the strike, critics of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, particularly on the left, have described the move as one more rash American intervention that’s sure to further destabilize the region. Yet this formulation gives U.S. policy, for all its flaws, too much credit. Not everything is America’s fault; others are sometimes to blame; and no one, not even the weaker parties, are devoid of agency or freed of responsibility. The burden of de-escalation does not fall entirely on the United States; Iran, too, can choose to de-escalate… Middle East experts, and particularly those from the region, have tended to be less alarmist than most other commentators. These experts are likely to be less fixated on Trump himself and less likely to put the United States at the center of their analysis. And they are more likely to be aware of the sheer scale of brutality, mass murder, and sectarian cleansing that Soleimani helped orchestrate. Soleimani wasn’t just another bad guy. He was one of the region’s worst. (Yet another humanitarian catastrophe has been unfolding in Syria, but it has garnered little attention. The Assad regime, with crucial military support from Iran and Russia, has been bombing Idlib province. More than 200,000 Syrians have already fled, and hundreds of thousands more could be forced from their homes.)… The United States has done terrible things in the Middle East. To even casual observers of the region, this should be clear enough. That, however, doesn’t mean there is a moral equivalence between Iran and the United States. Elevating America as a somehow unique source of evil takes necessary self-criticism and turns it into narcissism. It insists on making us the exceptional ones, glorifying ourselves by glorifying our sins. To suggest that American officials are at the rarefied level of the deliberate, systematic mass murder and sectarian cleansing that Soleimani helped orchestrate isn’t just wrong; it’s silly.
This was published before the left began blaming Trump for complicity in downing the Ukranian airliner. Clearly, he was on to something.


hotair--2020-01-09--Buttigieg: The U.S. shares blame with Iran for that downed Ukrainian jet; <span class='red'>Update:<

Buttigieg: The U.S. shares blame with Iran for that downed Ukrainian jet; Update: Jet is Trump's "collateral damage," says Speier

No , my dude , we do not .
But this issue seems to be where the men are being separated from the boys within Team Anti-Trump .
If you ’ re a Democrat or a hard-hard-hardcore Never Trumper then the opportunity to splash some of the blood from the crash onto Trump ’ s hands is irresistible .
It ’ s not just the Iranian missile that killed those innocents , it was our provocation .
Whereas if you ’ re a Trump fan or a critic whose disdain for the president doesn ’ t quite color every inch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : What are you talking about , man ?
How was the jet caught in “ the middle ” when only one side was shooting into the air ?
Pete Buttigieg isn ’ t just a Democrat , he ’ s a would-be Democratic nominee for president , so he ’ s splashing around in the blood .
Lots of other examples of rhetoric like that are floating around today .
Twitter pal “ neontaster ” has compiled a few in this thread , noting the prevalence of the term “ crossfire ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the first time I ’ ve heard of crossfire when the fire that night came entirely from one direction .
The idea behind “ crossfire ” ( or the jet being “ caught in the middle , ” per Buttigieg ) is that the U.S. supposedly initiated the chain of events that led to the jet being shot down by taking out Qassem Soleimani .
But Soleimani ’ s targeting was a response to rocket attacks on American bases by Iranian proxies and the assault on the American embassy in Baghdad last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done to answer those provocations in order to avoid sharing the blame for innocents killed by Iran in their counter-response ?
Would any answer have been too much ?
Would this count as crossfire too , asks neontaster ?
The irony of the Iranian missile attack on Tuesday night is that not only wasn ’ t the U.S. shooting at the time , it declined to shoot back afterward .
By targeting Soleimani and his retinue directly rather than ordering broader operations against Iranian proxies or Iranian forces , Trump limited the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual crossfire .
Blaming him for Iranian negligence in operating their own missile defense system is pure point-scoring .
Even Tom Nichols , normally a pretty hardcore anti-Trumper , can ’ t stomach it this time : Right .
Why was Tehran ’ s airport open on a night when they knew they were planning to fire missiles at American forces ?
The answer , seemingly , is that they didn ’ t want to forfeit the element of surprise by grounding flights ahead of an attack , never mind that there wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But then , having assumed that risk , they somehow neglected to account for the presence of passenger flights overhead in operating their missile defense system .
This wasn ’ t just a one-sided “ crossfire , ” it was an example of Iran not knowing how to use its own “ gun.
” Says Rich Lowry , “ Is the new standard really that a president of the United States can ’ t defend against attacks on U.S. personnel by a terror regime because the regime might accidentally shoot down an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own airports ?
” Keep an eye on this resolution introduced by Ted Cruz , which would in part “ commend ” Trump for taking out Soleimani .
Cruz knows how eager Democrats are to frame this past week as a reckless failure of leadership instead of what it appears to be for the moment , a great success .
He ’ s going to dare the “ crossfire ” contingent in the Democratic caucus to cast a disapproving vote .
Here ’ s video of the missile strike on the jet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to one-up each other on how far they ’ ll go to blame Trump for this .
Again : What sort of U.S. response to the rocket attacks and embassy assault would have been sufficiently “ un-provocative ” to Speier that the U.S. wouldn ’ t be on the hook morally for Iran ’ s clusterfark with the jet ?
Is there anything ?

No, my dude, we do not. But this issue seems to be where the men are being separated from the boys within Team Anti-Trump. If you’re a Democrat or a hard-hard-hardcore Never Trumper then the opportunity to splash some of the blood from the crash onto Trump’s hands is irresistible. It’s not just the Iranian missile that killed those innocents, it was our provocation.
Whereas if you’re a Trump fan or a critic whose disdain for the president doesn’t quite color every inch of your politics, the response is: What are you talking about, man? How was the jet caught in “the middle” when only one side was shooting into the air?
Pete Buttigieg isn’t just a Democrat, he’s a would-be Democratic nominee for president, so he’s splashing around in the blood.
Innocent civilians are now dead because they were caught in the middle of an unnecessary and unwanted military tit for tat. My thoughts are with the families and loved ones of all 176 souls lost aboard this flight. https://t.co/zWaVgWxfdL — Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) January 9, 2020
Lots of other examples of rhetoric like that are floating around today. Twitter pal “neontaster” has compiled a few in this thread, noting the prevalence of the term “crossfire” to describe what happened. It’s the first time I’ve heard of crossfire when the fire that night came entirely from one direction.
https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/1215364827599790082
With so many missiles flying out of Iran that night, this comes as no surprise. Look at who got caught up in the crossfire of revenge. What a horror and a shame. https://t.co/9REwW7Hehw — Sig Christenson 🏕 (@saddamscribe) January 9, 2020
These are images that really tell a story. Of our children caught in the crossfire of conflicts they inherit from us! https://t.co/JAPDYCfKpr — George Koshy (@georgekoshy) January 9, 2020
The idea behind “crossfire” (or the jet being “caught in the middle,” per Buttigieg) is that the U.S. supposedly initiated the chain of events that led to the jet being shot down by taking out Qassem Soleimani. But Soleimani’s targeting was a response to rocket attacks on American bases by Iranian proxies and the assault on the American embassy in Baghdad last last month. What should we have done to answer those provocations in order to avoid sharing the blame for innocents killed by Iran in their counter-response? Would any answer have been too much?
Would this count as crossfire too, asks neontaster?
So if Iran sends a suicide bomber to a US embassy and the explosion kills a bunch of kids, is that also partly our fault because the bombing was a "retaliation"? Give me a break. — Noam Blum (@neontaster) January 9, 2020
The irony of the Iranian missile attack on Tuesday night is that not only wasn’t the U.S. shooting at the time, it declined to shoot back afterward. By targeting Soleimani and his retinue directly rather than ordering broader operations against Iranian proxies or Iranian forces, Trump limited the risk of wider conflict that would have involved actual crossfire. Blaming him for Iranian negligence in operating their own missile defense system is pure point-scoring.
Even Tom Nichols, normally a pretty hardcore anti-Trumper, can’t stomach it this time:
This isn't what happened. The Iranians knew they were about to proceed with a complicated military operation. The airport shouldn't even have been open. This is not "caught in the middle" of anything, it's a screw up by the Iranians. https://t.co/nqKD5hGY9n — Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 9, 2020
Right. Why was Tehran’s airport open on a night when they knew they were planning to fire missiles at American forces? The answer, seemingly, is that they didn’t want to forfeit the element of surprise by grounding flights ahead of an attack, never mind that there wasn’t much element of surprise regardless. But then, having assumed that risk, they somehow neglected to account for the presence of passenger flights overhead in operating their missile defense system. This wasn’t just a one-sided “crossfire,” it was an example of Iran not knowing how to use its own “gun.” Says Rich Lowry, “Is the new standard really that a president of the United States can’t defend against attacks on U.S. personnel by a terror regime because the regime might accidentally shoot down an airliner taking off from one of its own airports?”
Keep an eye on this resolution introduced by Ted Cruz, which would in part “commend” Trump for taking out Soleimani. Cruz knows how eager Democrats are to frame this past week as a reckless failure of leadership instead of what it appears to be for the moment, a great success. He’s going to dare the “crossfire” contingent in the Democratic caucus to cast a disapproving vote.
JUST INTRODUCED w 42 fellow GOP senators resolution to honor members of military & intel community who carried out mission to take out Soleimani, a terrorist responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people across the Middle East, including 603 US service members. pic.twitter.com/1XNgXHFO3z — Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) January 9, 2020
Here’s video of the missile strike on the jet.
Update: Democrats are really working hard to one-up each other on how far they’ll go to blame Trump for this.
.@RepSpeier tells @wolfblitzer if Iran did shoot down the Ukrainian Airlines plane, "This is yet another example of collateral damage from the actions that have been taken in a provocative way by the President of the United States." Wow. — Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) January 9, 2020
Again: What sort of U.S. response to the rocket attacks and embassy assault would have been sufficiently “un-provocative” to Speier that the U.S. wouldn’t be on the hook morally for Iran’s clusterfark with the jet? Is there anything?