One Disturbing Aspect Of The New Hampshire Democrat Debate

Yesterday Hot Air posted an article about the Democrat debate in New Hampshire last week. The article noted that none of the Democrat candidates would have killed terrorist Qassem Soleimani. That is really amazing. Soleimani was the head of the Quds Force, a division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps primarily responsible for extraterritorial military and clandestine operation from 1998 until his death. He was responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands of American soldiers in Afghanistan. It was also reported that he was planning terrorist attacks on numerous American Embassies in the Middle East.

The article reports:

Mayor Pete at least went so far as to say that Soleimani was “a bad guy.” But he then claimed that “taking out a bad guy is a bad idea if you do not know what you’re doing.” Oh, really? Seems to me that our military knew precisely what they were doing. They knew where Soleimani was, where he was heading and took him out with a single drone shot. And the collateral damage was minimal. He also referenced learning lessons from Iraq in that context. Was he implying that Saddam Hussein should still be alive? Is he aware that Hussein was executed by his own people, not the Americans?

…Biden simply says he wouldn’t have ordered the strike because “there’s no evidence yet of an imminent threat that was going to come from [Soleimani].” Two points about that response should have been obvious. First of all, Biden has been out of office for more than three years. He’s not getting the daily intelligence briefings anymore. Much of the intelligence about Soleimani couldn’t be released to the public because it could have exposed sources and methods. So Joe Biden has no way of knowing conclusively about any imminent threats.

And second, the President can and should make the argument that an imminent threat wasn’t even required. The amount of blood on the hands of Soleimani and the Quds Force could be used to paint a mural the size of Texas. At some point, you run out of second chances. We’d been trying to track Soleimani’s movements since the Bush 43 administration. The opportunity came to take him out and Trump took it. You’ll also recall that Joe Biden disagreed with Barack Obama about the raid to take out Osama bin Laden. Sounds like bad guys around the world should sleep well at night if Joe Biden is elected.

The article concludes:

Bernie believes you can’t “go around saying you’re a bad guy and we’re going to assassinate you.” That, he believes, would lead to “international anarchy.” He would also prefer that such matters be handled through stronger diplomacy at the State Department. Perhaps he’s pining for the good old days of the Obama administration and thinks Iran will behave better if we go back to sending them pallets of cash. We all saw how that worked out during the previous administration.

Notice how Sanders, along with many other Democrats, chooses to use the word “assassination” when referring to the death of Soleimani, as if he was some sort of public figure deserving of respect. The General wasn’t assassinated. He was a battlefield casualty in the war on terror and a very high-value target.

This crew has demonstrated that they’re basically carbon copies of each other on many key issues. As for the current topic of discussion, they are soft on crime domestically (with calls for criminal justice reform and emptying the prisons) and soft on terror both at home and abroad. And if voters want to pick one of them this November they will fully deserve the whirlwind we’ll reap from that decision.

Just for the record, killing Soleimani made the world safer for everyone. Soleimani had no problem killing innocent civilians if they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Obviously, he felt that the rules of war did not apply to him (as if everyone plays by the ‘rules of war’). It appears that the current field of Democrat candidates has no idea that they should be protecting America or any other nation from terrorism. That’s sad.

 

The View From The Iranian People

The Gateway Pundit reported the following yesterday:

Iranians online are cheering the assassination of Iran Quds Force leader Major General Qassem Soleimani by a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad early Friday local time, with many thanking President Trump with a hashtag that reads: #TnxPOTUS4Soleimani. Many observers regarded Soleimani as the second most powerful person in Iran behind the Supreme Leader.

It was just Wednesday that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei trash talked President Trump, saying, “That guy has tweeted that we see Iran responsible for the events in Baghdad & we will respond to Iran. 1st: You can’t do anything. 2nd: If you were logical —which you’re not— you’d see that your crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan… have made nations hate you.”

Please follow the link above to the article to see all of the Tweets from Iranian citizens thanking President Trump for his actions. Soleimani was part of the tyrannical regime that the Iranians are trying to overthrow, and Soleimani had no problem killing his fellow countrymen.

 

Stating The Obvious

The Hill posted an article on Friday about some recent comments by President Obama regarding the nuclear deal with Iran.

The article reports:

In comments following the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, Obama denied speculation that the United States would ease rules preventing dollars from being used in financial transactions with Iran, in order to boost the country’s engagement with the rest of the world.

 Instead, Obama claimed, that Iran’s troubles even after the lifting of sanctions under the nuclear deal were due to its continued support of Hezbollah, ballistic missile tests and other aggressive behavior.

Iran so far has followed the letter of the agreement, but the spirit of the agreement involves Iran also sending signals to the world community and businesses that it is not going to be engaging in a range of provocative actions that are going to scare businesses off,” Obama said at a press conference.

“When they launch ballistic missiles with slogans calling for the destruction of Israel, that makes businesses nervous.”

The ballistic missiles with slogans calling for the destruction of Israel are not an indication of a new attitude. The Quds Force is named the Quds Force because Quds is the Iranian name for Jerusalem. The Quds Force is the group that will be given the ‘honor’ of taking Jerusalem when ‘the time comes.’ This represents the attitude of Iran since the Iranian revolution in 1979. I don’t know what President Obama thought was going to change when he agreed to the nuclear treaty.

The article concludes:

Despite the lifting of sanctions, American companies are still banned from doing business in Iran and foreign banks are prohibited from using the U.S. dollar for their Iranian dealings. Earlier this week, multiple reports indicated that the White House was considering easing financial rules to let foreign companies use the dollar to do business with Iran.

But on Friday, Obama appeared to shoot the idea down.

“That’s not actually the approach that we’re taking,” he said.

“It is not necessary that we take the approach of them going through dollar transactions,” he added. “It is possible for them to work through European financial institutions as well.”

Instead, Obama said, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and other U.S. officials would help “provide clarity” to global businesses about what kinds of work they can do in Iran under current rules.

That sounds an awful lot like ‘the rules will be what I say they are.’

One Of Many Reasons We Need A New Policy Regarding Iran

Iran‘s nuclear program has nothing to do with generating energy. Iran has openly stated that it is working toward the destruction of Israel. This is not a country that is interested in being part of a peaceful family of nations. Recently, they were caught again engaging in activities that undermine peace in the Middle East.

On Friday World Net Daily reported that a Revolutionary Guard spokesman, Ramadan Sherif, confirmed that Iranian General Hassan Shateri was killed when Israeli aircraft bombed a convoy in Syria that had been on its way to Lebanon.

The article reports that Iran described Shateri’s mission in Lebanon as rebuilding public schools, hospitals and mosques that had been impacted by the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War.

The article at World Net Daily (WND) reports:

However, informed Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND identified Shateri as the Quds Force commander responsible for coordinating the arming of Hezbollah in Lebanon, including restocking the terrorist group with advanced missiles.

The Quds Force is a special unit of the Revolutionary Guard responsible for what the Guard calls its “extraterritorial operations.”

Until someone stands up to Iran, they are going to continue to foment unrest in the Middle East.Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Things To Keep In Mind About The Recently Discovered Iranian Plot Against The United States

The recently-discovered Iranian plot against America was a shock to all of us. It shouldn’t have been–Iran has been killing American soldiers since we first went into Afghanistan, but it was.  I have heard a few questions about the timing of the news on this plot and the motives behind them. My best source on this is Andrew C. McCarthy.

Mr. McCarthy posted an article at National Review’s The Corner with his perspective on the foiled plot.

Mr. McCarthy reports:

The case is being handled by my old office (the Southern District of New York), where the U.S. attorney is a very honorable guy and the prosecutors are notoriously resistant to micro-management by Main Justice. The FBI director is also a straight arrow, as are the vast, vast majority of agents. There are just too many people involved — good, hardworking people, who would take no part in a charade designed to take the heat off the AG.

The article further points out that historically Iran has been willing to work with almost anyone if it involves working against American interests in the world. To quote the article directly:

Al Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist organization that is not overly fond of Shiite Muslims. The Taliban was Iran’s nemesis when it was running Afghanistan. Yet, the Iranians have colluded with al Qaeda and armed the Taliban for what they see as the greater good of making trouble for us.

Mr. McCarthy reminds us that the brazenness of the attack should not be a surprise–Iran has been attacking us for some time, and we have not responded strongly. Why not continue if there are no consequences? He points out that in our search for moderates in the Iranian government, we are willing to avoid responding to almost anything–including an attempt at a direct attack within America.

At some point America is going to have to decide whether or not we are worth defending. Either our way of life is worth preserving or it is not. How should we deal with those who are determined to put an end to the American way of life?

Enhanced by Zemanta