January 10, 2020

"Some of the president’s critics will concede that Mr. Suleimani was an evil man, but many complain his killing was unlawful. Wrong...."

"He was a United States-designated terrorist commander. As I have been briefed, he was plotting further attacks against Americans at the time of his death. The authority granted to the president under Article II of the Constitution provides ample legal basis for this strike. Furthermore, those who accept the constitutionality of the War Powers Act should recall that Congress’s 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force very much remain in effect and clearly cover the Suleimani operation. This will be a relief to the Obama administration, which ordered hundreds of drone strikes using such a legal rationale. American forces are in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government, and they have every right and authority to defend themselves. This legal act of self-defense was not only proportionate — it was targeted and brilliantly executed, causing essentially no collateral damage."

Writes Senator Tom Cotton in "The Case for Killing Qassim Suleimani/The strike was justified and legally sound" (NYT).

That phrase "targeted and brilliantly executed, causing essentially no collateral damage" made me think of the Iranians hitting the passenger plane, which seems to have been the exact opposite — completely mistargeted, idiotically executed, and causing nothing but collateral damage, extreme collateral damage.

150 comments:

Francisco D said...

This will be a relief to the Obama administration, which ordered hundreds of drone strikes using such a legal rationale.

Does anyone here wonder what the reaction would be if the Obama administration had successfully turned Suleimani into road kill?

Phidippus said...

The targeting of the Ukrainian airliner: "...completely mistargeted, idiotically executed, and causing nothing but collateral damage, extreme collateral damage."

A typical performance by Allah's minions.

Howard said...

IOW, Trump wins on both counts.

MikeR said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I (NSFW)

Howard said...

If Obama hit the fabulous exploding general, he would be making hi-5 gestures on each and every late night talk show including Colbert

gilbar said...

Canada's Trudeau says,
"we have intelligence from multiple sources that Iran shot down Ukraine jet,
but the shooting down of Ukraine jet may have been unintentional!"

He also agreed with a reporter; that ALL THIS WAS CAUSED, by The Arrogance, of Those DAMN Americans!

Lucid-Ideas said...

At first I thought the shoot-down was an accident. Reading various things (especially theaviationist.com) has led me to believe this may have been purposeful. Apparently Iran established that very day safe-travel corridors for civilian and non-military aircraft in and out of Tehran. The aircraft was on a take-off trajectory, ascending, within the corridor, and moving North and had filed a flight-plan twice with the authorities considering the environment. The aircraft was at 8000-10000AGL when it was hit, that's at least 60-70 seconds of flight-time and telemetry for a SAM operator to digest.

If they did this on purpose, it was doubtless so they could blame Trump. If it was accidentally, they're infants who ate to many paint-chips in Tehran's public housing growing up.

Sebastian said...

"many complain his killing was unlawful."

Many complain no matter what, trotting out law as needed.

To prog tools, law is just a tool.

Never mind that they get it wrong. Being right has nothing to do with it.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The hack-D press are using the word "crossfire" to explain why the Iranians shot down a passenger jet.

What crossfire?

Are passenger jets now loaded with weapons?

tim maguire said...

Funny how some people are willing to ignore hundreds of drone attacks against all sorts of people. Until one famous enough to make Trump look good gets it.

Then, suddenly, it's a war crime.

Chris said...

The way the democrats are starting to blame the shooting down of the jet on Trump, I would not be surprised if it was shot down on purpose. Iran is already saying that their chants of death to america really means death to donald trump. And on cue, the democrats are lining up behind Iran and the mullahs.

Beasts of England said...

’The hack-D press are using the word "crossfire" to explain why the Iranians shot down a passenger jet.’

Unilateral crossfire.

Chuck said...

When Cotton writes that “some” of the President’s critics will concede that Suleimani was an evil man, I take it that Cotton contends that many of the President’s critics contend that Suleimani was not an evil man.

What a stupid, false dichotomy. I know of no leading critic of the President’s (certainly none in American public life) who has contended that Suleimani was anything other than pure evil.

Cotton has a longer road than ever, back to credibility after his “I don’t remember... I don’t recall that word... I think the word was ‘shithouse’,” fiasco.

Qwinn said...

Yes, I remember Obama being taken to task for his thousands of drone strikes on every MSM network and newspaper, day in, day out. It was all but impossible to avoid!

Oh wait, that never happened. In fact there's probably already been more whining about Trump killing Soleimani in the MSM than there was for all the thousands of Obama drone strikes *put together*, even including the American kid.

AlbertAnonymous said...

This was NOT “collateral damage” and it wasn’t any “crossfire”. That’s political BS.

This passenger plane was intentionally shot down by the Iranian Regime. Why? So they could blame the US. They were lobbing rockets into Iraq, and they thought we’d retaliate with rockets of our own. Then they would say that a US rocket took out a passenger plane. But we never fired back and they lost that BS claim.

How do I know it was intentional and not an accident? Not one, but two, missiles were fired at the passenger plane. One MAY be an accident. Two is a conspiracy.

Any US politician pushing this collateral damage/crossfire theme should be voted out of office. F you.

narciso said...

the difference is he would have to confront the Iranians and the Russians, he didn't either as the enemy,

in failsafe, both the film and tv version, an accidental airstrike on Moscow, has to be mirrored by a nuking of new York city, that isn't what was intended,

it was not practical to capture awlaki in shabwa, because he has basta, pull in the Arabic sense,

Nonapod said...

The ultimate end point of the evolution of military technology and intelligence is the ability to narrowly target and remove a specific individual or enemy asset with virtually zero collateral damage. It's both impressive and terrifying. Imagine how history would have played out if certain key figures were taken out before the start of one of the great wars in such a way.

One of the biggest real criticisms of Obama that actually came from the Left was his use of drones that caused a ton of collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties. Trump was obviously well aware of this and wanted to be assurred that it was possible execute an operation that would reducing Suleimani to a fine red mist without liability. He was able ot do what Obama couldn't or wouldn't do.

Michael K said...

If they did this on purpose, it was doubtless so they could blame Trump. If it was accidentally, they're infants who ate to many paint-chips in Tehran's public housing growing up.

It could have been Chernobyl II. Incompetence in such a setting is not impossible. I doubt even the Iranians could anticipate the Democrats' jumping on the train to oblivion.

narciso said...

how else were you going to get suleimani, he has basta as well, probably all the way up to the prime minister, the window to target him without significant collateral damage was narrow, I suspected there were informants at the Baghdad airport, and the al Arabiya report bears it out,

mccullough said...

Chuck,

Cotton went to Harvard Law School. You didn’t.

Cotton also fought in the military. You didn’t.

You are a cowardly moron.

MartyH said...

Obama’s gutsy call is Trump’s war crime.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Angry Islamic supremacist terrorist man-babies with weapons.
Probably not a good idea to fund them.

John henry said...

Blogger Francisco D said...

Does anyone here wonder what the reaction would be if the Obama administration had successfully turned Suleimani into road kill?

The same as the reaction when he turned a 16 year old, not suspected of being a terrorist, born in Colorado American citizen into roadkill with a drone?

That is: Nothing

Or, in the immortal words of then press secretary Robert Gibbs to avoid this happening "you need a better father"

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

I don't care how good or bad the intelligence was about the general's future operations. It is possible that he had turned over a new leaf and resolved never to attack the US again. Pretty unlikely but possible.

He had a 30 year history of attacking the US. That is enough to assume that he would do it again. He was in Iraq in violation of UN sanctions, he was a military officer directing a military operation against the US, he was a perfectly legitimate target.

They should we should only speak good of the dead.

"He's dead. That's good" - Moms Mabley

John Henry

Tom said...

I don’t think I this killing was legally wrong - he was a legit, strategic target and the president had full legal authority to act. I think the fact that Congress has continued to authorize and fund the wars in the Middle East is morally wrong and an abdication of constitutional responsibilities.

Bob Boyd said...

The plane from Ukraine of all countries. How many other plane flew in and out of Tehran that night without getting shot down?
Who was on that plane?
Were they taken out at the request of someone in Russia or someone in the US?

William said...

The United States shot down a civilian aircraft by mistake. There's no doubt that it was a horrendous mistake, but there's no help for it but to apologize and make reparations. The mistake was made in the fog of war, but these efforts to escape culpability are calculated lies. Is it worse to make a horrendous mistake or tell an obvious lie. I wonder how many people in Iran secretly think that their mullahs are fraudulent.

Amadeus 48 said...

Crossfire?

Nonsense.

Howard at 9:02. That is the most inaccurate observation you have ever made. Obama would be lacerating himself in the Shia tradition in mourning for the loss of a military terrorist whose ghoulish fantasies were politically sympathetic to Obama’s own and whom Obama admired. Now that Obama is a private citizen, I am surprised he didn’t make it to the funeral.

Howard said...

I think it's best to assume gross incompetence before you believe some complicated Rube Goldberg conspiracy to get a specific reaction. It makes much more sense that since Iran, for the first time, was firing missiles onto US facilities. Add to the mix, Trump's unpredictability, their anti-aircraft people were probably on a super high alert and every one of those operators was probably told if they didn't shoot down an American invader when they saw them coming that they would be tortured and murdered.

Like I said before, Oops

John henry said...

Also I don't remember anyone complaining when Obama threatened to use a Predator Drone on the Jonas Brothers. I'm not a fan either, but I am not a 15 year old girl.

Still, a predator seems a bit harsh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4

John Henry

narciso said...

there is the tale of ali Salameh, the 'black prince' the European educated, Syrian trained head of black September, back before drones, you needed another way to dispatch them, 'wrath of god,' didn't nab him, there was an Israeli woman, 'Erika chambers' who planted the bomb, now he was a company asset, to the distress of the Israelis, but they found a way,

MartyH said...

Chuck-

No one but you remembers what Cotton said or holds it against him. You probably had to look it up. If not, you really do hold Republicans to an impossible standard.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"If it was accidentally, they're infants who ate to many paint-chips in Tehran's public housing growing up."

Not necessarily. "blue on blue" (which is essentially what this was) engagements or near-engagements are fairly common in warfare environments. You know that they were anticipating a US retaliation to the missile attack, so they were going to be pretty jumpy.

John henry said...

"We came, we saw, he died"

Cackling giggling and smiling. Both SoS Clippity Clop and the news babe.


https://youtu.be/6DXDU48RHLU

Death is just one big joke to them.

President Trump seems to take it seriously.

John Henry

narciso said...

a plane taking off from their own airport, their missile batteries and air traffic control aren't synched together really,

gilbar said...

AA said... Not one, but two, missiles were fired at the passenger plane. One MAY be an accident. Two is a conspiracy.

not to pick nits (but, do TOTALLY rebut your entire argument)...
It's pretty standard procedure to launch two at a time; even the americans did it this way, not long ago (fox 1! fox 1!). Missile are (or, at least used to be) SO UNRELIABLE, that you'd ALWAYS shoot two at a time.

I don't think Anyone thinks that a guy's hand accidentally hit a button.
It wasn't an accident, it was mistaken identity
(if it was; i'm NOT ruling out intentional murder, i'm just saying:
Never be hasty to ascribe to malice, what can easily be attributed to negligence )

jaydub said...

"That phrase "targeted and brilliantly executed, causing essentially no collateral damage" made me think of the Iranians hitting the passenger plane, which seems to have been the exact opposite — completely mistargeted, idiotically executed, and causing nothing but collateral damage, extreme collateral damage."

Iran has a military, and particularly a military leadership, that has been built on religious purity and zealotry and unquestioning loyalty to some ruthless clerics. Fortunately (for us), military competence and execution are not that important to the mullahs, except as regards the IRG's willingness and ability to bash the heads of the citizenry from time to time. Allahu Akbar for giving the world the blessing of an incompetent enemy and sending the mullahs to keep it that way.

narciso said...

so any answers to any of this questions, now Obama had expressly exempted suleimani as well as naccache, Carlos's associate in the 75 opec kidnapping attempt, he had gone semi legit into Iranian industries,

John henry said...

Blogger Michael K said...

It could have been Chernobyl II.

What do you mean, Mike? I feel like I'm missing something here.

Iran shootdown - 170 deaths

Chernobyl - 48 deaths

Seems like 3.5 times more people died on that plane than because of Chernobyl,

John Henry

rhhardin said...

Richard Epstein says that the Constitution supports Trump
https://www.hoover.org/research/libertarian-iran-war-powers-and-constitution

Hey Skipper said...

[Albert Anonymous:] This passenger plane was intentionally shot down by the Iranian Regime. Why? So they could blame the US. They were lobbing rockets into Iraq, and they thought we’d retaliate with rockets of our own. Then they would say that a US rocket took out a passenger plane. But we never fired back and they lost that BS claim.

How do I know it was intentional and not an accident? Not one, but two, missiles were fired at the passenger plane. One MAY be an accident. Two is a conspiracy.


I disagree, for several reasons.

First, given the proliferation of security cameras, it would be a near certainty that at least one would catch the missile hitting the airplane at that distance from the airport. Such a camera showed the missile's trajectory and impact — it could only have been a terminal defense SAM.

Second, the distance from Tehran to the nearest US forces is nearly four hundred miles. There is absolutely no plausible way a US SAM could operate against a target at that altitude at even a fifth the distance.

Third, because the probability of kill for any missile is less than one, it is typical air defense doctrine to fire multiple missiles at a target.

The most likely scenario is poor training providing the basis for a tragic mistake. The system was set to automatic, it did what it did, and the operators were suddenly filled with a steaming pile of "oh, fuck me."

Michael K said...

It could have been Chernobyl II.

What do you mean, Mike? I feel like I'm missing something here.


Incompetence by people who should have been well trained. Unless you think it was done ion purpose.

Bob Boyd said...

I think it's best to assume gross incompetence before you believe some complicated Rube Goldberg conspiracy to get a specific reaction.

Where's the fun in that? Personally, I think Wayne Newton is up to his nut sack in this thing.

Michael K said...

Iran has a military, and particularly a military leadership, that has been built on religious purity and zealotry and unquestioning loyalty to some ruthless clerics.

WWII Germany had the same problem. If Hitler had stayed out of the planning, they might have defeated the USSR.

Drago said...

LLR-lefty Chuck @9:17!!!

We should never fail to point out LLR-lefty Chuck's vicious hatred for ANY and ALL conservative republicans with distinguished military records who dare to criticize and call out LLR-lefty Chuck's beloved hack democrats for their now open support of Americas enemies.

LLR-lefty Chuck's desperate desire for American personnel deaths to "own" Trump led Chuck to jump on and propagate transparently false Iranian propaganda fed to Chuckie via Chuck's favorite Enemy Of The US network MSNBC-Tehran Division.

Chuck's clear disappointment when the lie was put to his lie regarding US deaths fed to him by the Mullahs was palpable.

LLR-lefty Chuck is a sick hack who clearly believes mass murdering islamic supremacist terrorist leader Soleimani was an "Elvis", "Martin Luther King", "poet philosopher", "Princess Diana", "Honored President", etc etc etc.

The now Open Alliance between the Dems/LLR's and Iran is really rather disgusting and I for one am proud of Cotton for calling out LLR-lefty Chuck and his dem teammates for their collusion with Iran.

narciso said...


https://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2020/01/09/Informants-in-Iraq-Syria-helped-US-kill-Iran-s-Soleimani-Sources.html

Bob Boyd said...

All of a sudden the CBS news clip on yesterday's post about the shootdown is autoplaying every time I open or refresh Althouse home page. I have to scroll down and pause it.
Is anyone else experiencing this or is just me? Hopefully this won't happen from now unto eternity.

narciso said...

plus he relied on a particularly slavophobic group of advisers, certainly white Russians some Ukrainians, kalmyks et al, held a strong animus against stalin,

John henry said...

Blogger exhelodrvr1 said...

You know that they were anticipating a US retaliation to the missile attack, so they were going to be pretty jumpy.

I don't think they know this at all. The missile attack was a face saving, negotiated ahead of time with the US Government. We don't know that for sure but it does look that way.

1) They notified us 2 hours beforehand that they were going to shoot some missiles toward, not at, US bases

2) Their missiles are not terrible, they can do some pretty sophisticated guidance as they showed on the attack in the Saudi refinery. Yet all the missiles landed on barren soil causing no deaths or injuries and only minimal damage.

I'm of the belief that Khameni and other Iranian leaders are happy that Sulemeni is gone and had no problem with use doing their dirty work. There is a report this morning at Gateway Pundit that the Revolutionary Guards gave Sulemeni up

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/breaking-report-iran-roundup-for-january-4th-thru-9th-general-soleimani-was-betrayed-by-fellow-irgc-members/

John Henry

Bob Boyd said...

Iran has a military, and particularly a military leadership, that has been built on religious purity and zealotry and unquestioning loyalty to some ruthless clerics.

WWII Germany had the same problem.


The Democratic Party has the same problem today.

tcrosse said...

I'm with Howard on this. It is not unknown for a person in the military, of whatever rank, to fuck up bigly.

Big Mike said...

Repeating what I posted on yesterday’s cafe thread:

Apparently the US declared a no-fly zone over Iran hours before the Ukrainian passenger jet. Did the Ukrainian pilot not receive the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM)? Was he directed to take off by the airline he worked for despite the NOTAM? Did the Iranians suppose that in light of the no-fly order the only planes in the sky just had to be American? Lots to sort out here.

I should add that if the plane really was destroyed by a Tor M1, as has been reported, then a relatively slow passenger jet was attacked using an expensive, highly capable, missile designed to attack very fast, very maneuverable aircraft equipped with electronic countermeasures. “Blunder” looks more appropriate all the time.

Lincolntf said...

Same thing here, Bob Boyd.

Qwinn said...

Bob Boyd: I'm getting the autoplay too, for the record. Only on my PC though, not my phone.

Iman said...

“What a stupid, false dichotomy. I know of no leading critic of the President’s (certainly none in American public life) who has contended that Suleimani was anything other than pure evil.”

Pay some attention to the Democrat Operative Media (NYT, WaPo, LAT, CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/MSNBC, etc.).

exhelodrvr1 said...

"I don't think they know this at all."

Guarantee that the Iranians didn't tell the troops in the trenches "Don't worry about retaliation. We warned the Americans in advance, so they won't be doing anything back to us." Can't completely rule out them doing it on purpose, but that is by far less likely than it being an accident.

Qwinn said...

"What a stupid, false dichotomy. I know of no leading critic of the President’s (certainly none in American public life) who has contended that Suleimani was anything other than pure evil."

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1215346363334123522

narciso said...

it would be easier, to find someone who didn't defend suleimani, it's a shorter list,


https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-reveals-attack-that-soleimani-was-planning-that-led-to-drone-strike

Francisco D said...

I think it's best to assume gross incompetence before you believe some complicated Rube Goldberg conspiracy to get a specific reaction.

I have to agree with Howard here. Incompetence is far more likely than some convoluted and complicated scheme to blame Trump or kill some Ukrainians. The problem with most conspiracy theories is that their success is predicated on perfect timing and alignment. How often does that really happen.

That said, here is a sorta conspiracy theory: The plan to kill Suleimani was in the making for a while. Trump pulled the trigger, but US military and intelligence officials brought the relevant assets into Iraq a few months ago.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
When Cotton writes that “some” of the President’s critics will concede that Suleimani was an evil man, I take it that Cotton contends that many of the President’s critics contend that Suleimani was not an evil man.

What a stupid, false dichotomy. I know of no leading critic of the President’s (certainly none in American public life) who has contended that Suleimani was anything other than pure evil.

Cotton has a longer road than ever, back to credibility after his “I don’t remember... I don’t recall that word... I think the word was ‘shithouse’,” fiasco.



You will never have credibility Chuck.

You are dishonest about everything. You never voted for Trump. I doubt you voted for Romney. You are so obviously just a hack mouthing every leftist talking point.

You are a bigger piece of shit than the leftists yammering paeans to Suleimani. You have directed more bile and hate at US service members than the obvious enemies of our country.

You are just a terrible little shitheel.

Howard said...

At Chernobyl it was the cause and nature of the a horiffic deaths suffered that made it rise to the level of a first-order factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I don't think the Iranian military leadership was 100% confident the Americans wouldn't launch an immediate and all out coordinated counter-attack even with the warning.

This then provides the smallest of purchases 4 blaming the shoot down on Trump do to his crazy unpredictability. What were those poor Republican guard generals to do while attacking American bases? Of course they were scared of the madman. Imagine how much more hair trigger if Hillary was president. Muammar Gaddafi could not be reached for comment

CWJ said...

Using the word "crossfire" in conjunction with the shootdown really nails down the conclusion that media messaging is editorially directed, not independently developed (As if we didn't already know). As others here have said, crossfire as a descriptor of the situation is literally nonsense. That one reporter might use the word is ignorant but plausible. That the term is repeatedly used from multiple sources indicates intentional direction.

As evidence, it's almost as damning as if one reported that the sun rose in the West, and the others followed suit.

Bob Boyd said...

They notified us 2 hours beforehand that they were going to shoot some missiles toward, not at, US bases

Sure, but that wasn't something the guys manning the anti-aircraft battery would know. That info was probably pretty closely held in Iran.

CWJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...

So the Iranians hit their own passenger plane. BFD..

Obama assassinated over 200 terrorist.. so why bitch at Trump?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Chucky I hesitate to feed the troll, but I wonder if you’re aware that Chris Matthews is a known critic of Trump, and that he just yesterday compared the late general Salami to Elvis and Princess Di, and that in the communications professions we call that a favorable or complimentary comparison, intended to flatter the subject and praise them. Being a professional user of words I of course have no idea what a lawyer like you would intend to convey using the same flattering language. You guys are too circumlocutory for plain speaking folk like me.

Howard said...

Achilles, he's a troll you shouldn't feed. Apparently I am fair game without triggering Althouses "M" response. So please, keep your posts focused on the many fine trolls pre-approved by the Professor herself.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

MartyH the issue with Cotton is that Chuck excommunicated him from the GOPe for the sin of NOT hearing Trump say “shithole countries” even though among the people at the meeting who claimed to HAVE heard it, that exact phrase wasn’t even the consensus. But Chuck remembers Tom’s betrayal cuz it’s seared into his tiny mind. For NOT hearing something that might not have even happened!

Unexpectedly!

bagoh20 said...

"Many complain no matter what, trotting out law as needed."

That pretty much covers this and most of the last three years.

I want to know what American would prefer Suleimani be alive now and into the future, or if they agree we needed to kill him, what better possible form they would prefer it had taken. Is the fact that the Iranians are incompetent fools now some kind of complete protection from any action by us?

If you have surgery to remove a tumor that has been making you sick and that your doctors tell you is terminal, you go in for surgery to get rid of it. You are, of course, under increased danger during that operation and for some time after, but that does not mean you should avoid the surgery. If there is danger that the surgery could cause complications, you consider that, but the tumor is fatal. Suleimani was a known fatal tumor for us and many others, and nobody anticipated this stupidity by them.

I had just such a situation once with terminal liver cancer, and I had friends that cautioned against transplant surgery, which does have serious risks of course, but I was given just 6 months to live, and I'd be dead now for 14 years if I listened to them. They suggested some new age bullshit with supplements. The Dems don't even have an alternative bullshit prescription here.

phantommut said...

The only collateral damage to the attack on Suleimani was to the collective sanity of the Democratic Party.

Seeing Red said...

And don’t forget the tweet? I think that Khameini was (in the bunker) overseeing the strike personally.

Seeing Red said...

Does anyone here wonder what the reaction would be if the Obama administration had successfully turned Suleimani into road kill?


Thrilled. He’s finally doing his job.

Browndog said...

Waiting for ultra-conservative Sen. Mike Lee to get off the fence and decide if removing a terrorist from the battlefield is "legal".

He did stick his neck out and admit Sulaimani was a bad guy, so there's that.

Qwinn said...

Chris Matthews also referred to Soleimani as a "beloved hero".

And here, Chuck, from a source you love:

Mourning Soleimani from Hollywood to the Campus

"Meanwhile, exaggerations of Soleimani’s greatness and the depth of his intellect are common. Time magazine compared him to Cardinal Richelieu and Machiavelli. Prompted by Fareed Zakaria’s claim that Soleimani was “regarded in Iran as a completely heroic figure, personally very brave,” Anderson Cooper compared him to Charles de Gaulle. Rosanna Arquette compared Trump to Hitler for killing the great Soleimani."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/left-mourns-qasem-soleimani/


I don't believe for a second that you weren't quite aware of all the Trump critics boosting and defending Soleimani, by the way. Commenters here have been pointing them out for a week, ferchrissakes.

bagoh20 said...

This whole episode showed the truth that the Iranians are incompetent, and we are very competent and measured. You could call it "stable genius", especially compared to the Dems' and the media's over-the-top reaction to it all. World War III! Are you kidding me? How is Iran going to wage global war against us and our allies? Israel could destroy them by itself.

The best thing about it is that it demonstrated how terrified the Iranian leadership actually is of us under Trump. He is completely inside their heads, braking furniture, while their own people are banging on the back door. They are not in a good position. They have never been so in need of a negotiation with us.

Curious George said...

"Chuck said...
When Cotton writes that “some” of the President’s critics will concede that Suleimani was an evil man, I take it that Cotton contends that many of the President’s critics contend that Suleimani was not an evil man.

What a stupid, false dichotomy. I know of no leading critic of the President’s (certainly none in American public life) who has contended that Suleimani was anything other than pure evil.

Cotton has a longer road than ever, back to credibility after his “I don’t remember... I don’t recall that word... I think the word was ‘shithouse’,” fiasco."

What a stupid argument.

Some Althouse commentors say you are an asshole. By your logic that would mean many think you are not an asshole. But everyone here knows you are an asshole. They just don't say it.

Michael K said...

I have to agree with Howard here. Incompetence is far more likely than some convoluted and complicated scheme to blame Trump or kill some Ukrainians. The problem with most conspiracy theories is that their success is predicated on perfect timing and alignment. How often does that really happen.

I also agree. How could anyone imagine that Democrats would side with Iran, a "Death to America" enemy over the duly elected US president?

Not even Iranians could imagine that.

Drago said...

BTW, not a single democrat anywhere at anytime for any reason has referred to Soleimani as "pure evil".

Not a single one.

Anywhere.

Period.

LLR-lefty Chuck is....wait for it.....wait for it......lying again to support the dems.

Which means this is a day which ends in "y".

Drago said...

Michael K: "Not even Iranians could imagine that."

Iranian state TV was running non-stop clips of one democrat after another attacking the US and Trump.

Something tells me that Iranian TV would not be doing that if Dems were running around calling Soleimani "pure evil", which is what LLR-lefty Chuck is now serially lying about.

pacwest said...

I hereby present Chuck with the Golden Shovel Award. Keep digging that hole. I'm sure there's a pony at the bottom.

Qwinn said...

"Iranian state TV was running non-stop clips of one democrat after another attacking the US and Trump."

But don't you dare call them enemies of the people, or God forbid, unpatriotic!

Chuck said...

...
...Iranian state TV was running non-stop clips of one democrat after another attacking the US and Trump.


Let’s have some hyperlinks, to “non-stop” attacks on the United States, by prominent Democrats.

Drago said...

LLR-lefty Chuck's two favorite networks, MSNBC and CNN, are now simply running unfiltered Iranian propaganda on the airwaves.

So here's what we have:

1) Dems pushing Iranian State propaganda lies.

2) Iranian State TV pushing non-stop democrat attacks against the US and Trump.

3) US hack lefty media running non-stop Iranian TV Propaganda.

4) Return to 1)

Thank God Tom Cotton is calling out this open alliance between LLR-lefty Chuck's FakeCons/dems and the islamic supremacists in Tehran.

William said...

It's not the crime but the cover-up. I think Iran might cause more distrust by lying about this mishap than by their incompetence. I think that was true in Chernobyl. In totalitarian states, it's hard to gauge public opinion, but surely there must be a lot of people in Iran who doubt the veracity and competence of their rulers. This latest series of events is playing out far worse for the mullahs than for Trump.....Much as the mullahs cannot admit that they shot down the plane, the Democrats cannot admit that this has been a victory for Trump.

Drago said...

LLR-lefty Chuck does not hesitate to come to the defense of his beloved Iranian State TV allies and thus, also his beloved democrat hack politicians.

There is literally no limit to how far LLR-lefty Chuck and his FakeCon ilk will go to push lies like "30 US Service members killed!".

What's most interesting is that LLR-lefty Chuck had no proof or evidence for this claim of "30 US servicemembers killed" but he couldn't wait to run with that lie.

Any harm to US servicemembers families who might have become unduly frightened over such a claim matter not to LLR-lefty Chuck who has shown zero reluctance in attacking conservative service members, african americans who support Trump and women and children.

There is clearly something amiss with this LLR boy.

Qwinn said...

Chuck said no one has said anything but horrible things about Soleimani.

Chuck completely ignores the link to National Review (which he loves) listing Trump critics saying nice things about Soleimani.

Chuck admits no error, despite copious evidence pointing out his lies.

Chuck then smugly demands links to video of Iranian State TV, as if that would be necessary to utterly disprove his already completely discredited earlier bullshit.

This is how Chuck operates, every single day.

rcocean said...

The Ukrainian plane had just taken off from Tehran Airport. It was obviously a mistake and they weren't "Targeting" anyone. IRC, Iran claims it wasn't a missile but something in the plane that caused the crash.

Of course, the immediate MSM reaction was to blame Trump. "Ukrainian plane caught in CROSSFIRE Between trump and Iran" - as if they died 50% because of Trump.

Michael K said...

Iranian state TV was running non-stop clips of one democrat after another attacking the US and Trump.

Oh yes, but that was after. The Iranians can't believe their luck. Maybe Kerry gave them a heads up, though.

Giovan Pietro Bellori said...

Useless liar “no one liked Soleimani in the last five minutes” Cuck just can’t understand why anyone would vote for Twump.
For sure he voted for Romney. He may even BE a Romney.

John henry said...

Howard,

Do you mean radiation deaths at chernobyl&t?

There were three. 3

One of the people present died of a heart attack.

A dozen or so scalded to death by steam.

The rest burned to death in the fire.

In other words, depending on which death count you use (low of 30-high of 50) less than 10 percent killed by radiation.

Longer term as many as 60 people may have died early because of radiation. Or maybe 0. If a man gets cancer at 65 when the normal age is 67, it is impossible to know whether an exposure 20-30 years previous had anything at all to to with it.

Chernobyl was a horrible event. Having worked with high pressure steam as well as being nuclear trained, I'm not sure that radiation is the worse of the two deaths. Dying by fire is pretty gruesome.

I don't see the deaths at Chernobyl as being any worse than death in a airplane crash.

Or death in the crash being any less painful/gruesome/horrible than the Chernobyl deaths.

John Henry

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

No one talking about the Russia-Iran-Obama administration circle of cooperation and love
and re-set button.

James Graham said...

Iran's biggest asset is one-hundred percent vulnerable to an air attack.

It's the enormous Abadan oil refinery.

A few bombers could render it inoperable (with a billion-plus repair cost) in a single raid.

I cannot judge whether or not destroying it would be a good idea but it would certainly do great economic harm to Iran.

Achilles said...

Reporter: “Madame Leader you’re saying that the president did not need authorization initially, and still does not need any authorization from Congress on Libya?”

What do you think Nancy Pelosi said in answer to this question?

Democrats are all just shitty people.

Qwinn said...

https://www.newsday.com/opinion/commentary/elizabeth-warren-massachusetts-2020-election-democrat-campaign-polls-1.40356921


The authenticity issue appeared again this week when Warren amended her views on the U.S. military strike that killed Iranian Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani, after blowback from progressives. Her first reaction was to declare Soleimani a “murderer responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans.”

Within 24 hours she was calling him a “senior government official,” who had been “assassinated,” and she repeatedly refused to concede that Soleimani is a terrorist. (He was declared the leader of a terrorist organization by both the Bush and Obama administrations.) Rather than celebrating his demise, Warren was suggesting that Soleimani only died because Trump is facing impeachment.

“Wow. We went from ‘murderer’ to ‘wag the dog’ in the space of a few days,” quipped CNN’s liberal commentator Chris Cillizza.

Why the shift? Because progressives like Sanders were denouncing the Trump administration’s action as illegitimate, and were uncomfortable with criticism of Soleimani that might support Trump’s case.


So even when they know that he was pure evil, and acknowledge it just long enough to give assholes like Chuck a hook to hang their lies on, they then backpedal within 24 hours and take it all back. Super Easy, Barely An Inconvenience!

Michael K said...

Iran is certainly being cooperative with investigators, with bulldozers.

Hmmm. I wonder why they are using bulldozers ? Couldn't be covering up anything, could they ?

I wonder if their Democrat allies aren giving them advice?

JAORE said...

Pure evil =/= no one is denying he was a bad guy.

Achilles said...

Howard said...
Achilles, he's a troll you shouldn't feed. Apparently I am fair game without triggering Althouses "M" response. So please, keep your posts focused on the many fine trolls pre-approved by the Professor herself.

You wish he was a troll. Chuck is doing god's work.

Chuck is just showing us who and what the democrats/GOPe really are.

Chuck is the opposition to Trump, the current Republican party and it's voters. People you claim are unthinking followers.

But we see you. We see what your side is doing. We remember what you did and what you supported.

Chuck and Inga embarrass Ann. Nobody wants to be associated with that. But if you vote for a democrat you are on the same side and Chuck and Inga.

Ray - SoCal said...

Video of the plane being hit:

Iran video appears to show missile striking Ukrainian plane - The Guardian News

My vote is for incompetence. The Iranian's probably had the missile set to automatically intercept, which makes sense since planes and missiles fly very fast, so there is a very small window of time to intercept them.

Drago said...

For Your Reading Amusement from CBS Boston:

POTUS: “Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets,” the president wrote Saturday on Twitter. “We have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!”

Babson College adjunct professor Asheen Phansey: “In retaliation, Ayatollah Khomenei should tweet a list of 52 sites of beloved American cultural heritage that he would bomb,” Phansey said in a Facebook post. “Um… Mall of America? …Kardashian residence?”

Kaboom! Fired!

“Babson College conducted a prompt and thorough investigation related to a post shared on a staff member’s personal Facebook page that does not represent the values and culture of the College. Based on the results of the investigation, the staff member is no longer a Babson College employee. As we have previously stated, Babson College condemns any type of threatening words and/or actions condoning violence and/or hate,” the college said in a statement.

Phansey apologized for the post, saying it was just a joke.

“I am sorry that my sloppy humor was read as a threat,” he said. “I am completely opposed to violence and would never advocate it by anyone.”"

It's just Johnson and this damn WAR!!!

Aren't lefties like LLR-lefty Chuck funny?

bagoh20 said...

It's Trump's fault, because if not for him the Middle east would be peaceful and safe with none of that terrorism stuff. Iran would behave if Trump would just let them.

Maybe if we shot down a passenger plane over Houston that would be Iran's fault. Seems logical.

Drago said...

bagoh20: "It's Trump's fault, because if not for him the Middle east would be peaceful and safe with none of that terrorism stuff. Iran would behave if Trump would just let them."

If you recall, that is PRECISELY the sort of thing LLR-lefty Chuck and his dem allies said in the run up to the Second Gulf war/Invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam.

Note: The 1st Gulf war was the "warm up"/"intramural"/"flag football" war in 1991.

Remember the LLR-lefty approved dems declared Iraq to be a (and this was literal) "kite-flying" happy place before we got there.

Rape rooms? What's that? (hint: something something Matt Lauer and NBC executives....)

Browndog said...

Same thing happened when Russia was invading western Ukraine after they seized Crimea.

They shot down a Ukrainian commercial airliner in Ukraine airspace, most likely because some knumbskull mistook it for military.

The Russian mercenaries that held that territory refused to allow anyone in to retrieve the bodies for the longest time. I think they finally allowed the Swedes in.

gerry said...

All Obama foreign policy seems to have been the exact opposite — completely mistargeted, idiotically executed, and causing nothing but collateral damage, extreme collateral damage.

The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign seems to have been the exact opposite — completely mistargeted, idiotically executed, and causing nothing but collateral damage, extreme collateral damage.

John Kerry's term as Secretary of State seems to have been the exact opposite — completely mistargeted, idiotically executed, and causing nothing but collateral damage, extreme collateral damage.

This is kind of fun.

Chuck said...

I’ve never watched Iranian tv. I simply asked for links that proved what is being alleged here; “non-stop attacks on the USA by Democrats.”

I’m not holding my breath.

Chuck said...


If you recall, that is PRECISELY the sort of thing LLR-lefty Chuck and his dem allies said in the run up to the Second Gulf war/Invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam.


I said no such thing, you insane, obsessive liar. I am a thousand times more supportive of both Bush 41 and Bush 43, than ex-Democrat Donald Trump has ever been.

Drago said...

LLR-lefty Chuck has a bad case of the Sadz over Pelosi's laughable and always inevitable collapse on the withholding of her Articles of Galactic Sham-wow-peachment and the brand spanking new additional primary and secondary sanctions leveled against the US democrat/LLR-allied Iranian regime.

On top of US economic numbers over the last several months, continued global-leading economic performance of the US economy, the Trump smackdown of LLR-lefty Chuck's Tehran pals, the democrat candidate commie clown car collapse, etc, its no wonder LLR-lefty Chuck remains in a highly agitated state.

walter said...

Trump made Phansey stupid!

Drago said...

LLR-lefty and #StrongDemAlly Chuck: "I said no such thing, you insane, obsessive liar. I am a thousand times more supportive of both Bush 41 and Bush 43, than ex-Democrat Donald Trump has ever been."

Ronald Reagan was an ex-democrat.

Donald Trump, ex-democrat, has given us the most conservative governance in the last 60 years, per Heritage Foundation.

Isn't it interesting that we have to select candidates who are OUTSIDE the LLR mold to get real conservative governance? (Ans: Yes, because those who have to keep reminding everyone they are LLR's....really.....aren't....)

I'll bet that wasn't the conclusion you were hoping for, was it dummy?

LOL

Drago said...

LLR-lefty Chuck: "I said no such thing, you insane, obsessive liar."

Oh my goodness!

Why, you aren't accusing me of smearing you, are you? I mean, that would be very very wrong, no?

And "obsessive" why? Simply because I point out the Grand Canyon-sized inconsistencies in your statements over time?

Are you suggesting I'm only doing this to drive a wedge between you and the other Althouse readers?

I should certainly hope not for anyone who would do such a thing should be banned forthwith and never be allowed to return.

Big Mike said...

When Cotton writes that “some” of the President’s critics will concede that Suleimani was an evil man, I take it that Cotton contends that many of the President’s critics contend that Suleimani was not an evil man.

Was it the New York Times or was it the Washington Post who referred to Soleimani as a “revered military leader”?

Big Mike said...

Does anyone here wonder what the reaction would be if the Obama administration had successfully turned Suleimani into road kill?

Valerie Jarrett would have had his balls fried for breakfast, and don’t think he didn’t know it!

CWJ said...

I used to play paper map and cardboard counters war games. SSI, one of the companies that developed and sold such games was developing a simulation of the Iran-Iraq war. I remember reading that they failed to produce a playable, but faithful, simulation because it proved impossible to reproduce the incompetence of both sides.

Drago said...

"China’s manufacturing exodus set to continue in 2020, despite prospect of trade war deal

China’s rising costs, tricky regulations and increasingly unstable geopolitical situation are forcing more manufacturers to move production elsewhere

First and second wave of leavers underway, with more to follow, despite the prospect of a minor US-China trade truce"


https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3045141/chinas-manufacturing-exodus-set-continue-2020-despite

That's Trump over China in just 3 years, with the entire US and western political/economic firmament arrayed against him to such an extent that they banned together in an attempt to frame him.

Imagine where we will be headed once Trump wins reelection.

You know, it's quite possible in Trump's second term we might actually get tired of winning....

Inga said...

“This then provides the smallest of purchases 4 blaming the shoot down on Trump do to his crazy unpredictability.”

Yes, he is partially responsible.

“What were those poor Republican guard generals to do while attacking American bases? Of course they were scared of the madman.”

Yes, apparently they were scared enough to react irresponsibly. Mistakes happen. Iran Air Flight 655 was one of those mistakes.


Rosalyn C. said...

I agree with Bob Boyd and would not rule out that the plane was shot down intentionally. Who was on board?

Meanwhile, bulldozers have been seen cleaning up crash site which was not secured. Scavangers have been picking up debris. Richard Grinell, US Ambassador to Germany, says, "No one knows how to clean up a site before the inspectors come better than the Iranians. #PS752"

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Iran would help itself by accepting responsibility and issuing an apology the way Reagan did.

“Some analysts blamed the captain of Vincennes, William C. Rogers III, for overly aggressive behavior in a tense and dangerous environment.[7][10] In the days immediately following the incident, US President Ronald Reagan issued a written diplomatic note to the Iranian government, expressing deep regret.[11]

In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident..."[12] As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.[13] The shootdown was the deadliest aviation disaster involving an Airbus A300.[14][15][16]”

Wiki

Drago said...

Admiral Inga: "Yes, apparently they were scared enough to react irresponsibly. Mistakes happen. Iran Air Flight 655 was one of those mistakes."

Inga has already completely exonerated her Iranian allies based on her amazing mind-reading abilities while simultaneously convicting Trump.

After all, this event occurred hundreds of miles to the north of where missiles were being fired by Iran southward into Iraq.

All one has to do is look at a map to see how absurd Inga's moronic talking point claims are.

But then again, when the dems are calling mass murdering islamic supremacist murderers "Elvis" and "Princess Diana" and "Revered Leader" and "Poet/Philosopher" that Trump looks pretty bad by comparison.

Drago said...

Admiral Inga: "Iran would help itself by accepting responsibility and issuing an apology the way Reagan did."

Why would Iran apologize for something an army of democrats/LLR's have already blamed Trump for?

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

was Soleimani exempted??-- pg 95, halfway down

Under Obama's original Iran deal, despite everything, Soleimani was removed from the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked
Persons List (SDN) He was untouchable until Trump

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388/iran-deal-text.pdf

Drago said...

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM: "was Soleimani exempted??-- pg 95, halfway down"

It's much much worse than that.

In the waning days of his Presidency, obama and his team rushed through transport to Iran of enough uranium to build an estimated 10 nuclear bombs.

Gee, nothing irregular happening there at all, is there?

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

nice little thread per brian cates:

I'm now watching the part where reporters are trying to pretend that since Pompeo can't nail down THE EXACT DATE Solemani & Iran would've launched this next attack on Americans in the region, that means the attack was not 'imminent'.

etc

exhelodrvr1 said...

"Yes, he is partially responsible."

Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Inga said...

“Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.”

Yes you should be ashamed and disgusted at yourself for being a Trump sycophant and cultist who is so deeply entrenched up Trumps anus that you can no longer be a rational thinker. If you don’t hold your president to any standards or principles, that’s on you.

Francisco D said...

@Inga,

Can you please just state an opinion rather than copying something that we can all look up? If it supports your opinion that's fine, but just cutting and pasting is something I failed my grad students for.

I happen to agree with your opinion this time.

Gk1 said...

Interestingly enough the Iranian's are now saying they will hand over the black box to western resources. They are allowing the Ukrainians to review the wreckage but have since moved the wreckage off site and bulldozed the wreckage site. Are they so confident we can't prove missile damage or radar signatures of missiles acquiring a target, firing and destroying a commercial jet liner? Are these the same people the Obama crowd was ambivalent in getting nukes? They don't sound competent enough to even handle bottle rockets much less nukes!

Inga said...

“If it supports your opinion that's fine...”

“Iran would help itself by accepting responsibility and issuing an apology the way Reagan did.”

This was my opinion, the rest was supporting my opinion. Don’t be as stupid as you accuse others of being.

Jim at said...

If Trump would've simply let Soleimani continue killing Americans, Iran would've never shot down that plane. - Inga

Achilles is correct. You people really are pieces of shit.

Inga said...

“If Trump would've simply let Soleimani continue killing Americans, Iran would've never shot down that plane. - Inga”

Except Inga never said that. Any more gems you want to pull out of your ass?

Drago said...

Admiral Inga: "Yes you should be ashamed and disgusted at yourself for being a Trump sycophant and cultist who is so deeply entrenched up Trumps anus that you can no longer be a rational thinker."

"...rational thinker..."

Inga thinks Carter Page is a russian spy.
Inga believes Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia.
Inga believes Brett Kavanaugh was the leader of a rape gang that raped hundreds of women in Maryland.


..."rational" thinking.....

Curious George said...

"Chuck said...
I am a thousand times more supportive of both Bush 41 and Bush 43, than ex-Democrat Donald Trump has ever been."

What are you, twelve?

Drago said...

Senate Dems Won’t Support Measure Praising U.S. Military for Soleimani Killing

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/senate-dems-wont-support-measure-praising-u-s-military-for-soleimani-killing/

"The resolution is structurally identical to the 2011 Senate resolution praising former president Barack Obama for the operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. At that time, all 100 Democratic and Republican members of the Senate joined to support that resolution."

The democrat party in 2020:
Pro-infanticide
Pro-MS13
Pro-Islamic Terrorists
Pro-Open Borders
Pro-Free Stuff for all illegal aliens

The ads write themselves.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Alas feeding the troll was unsatisfying for he gave up his Cotton bashing without comment. Shithole lawyer.

Drago said...

Remember, we are talking about the dems/LLR's full support for an Iranian regime that used children, and particularly children with learning and physical disabilities, to clear minefields.

I don't think this is going to play well in November.

And if you dems thought Trump's gloves were off last time, well, this time he will have had the benefit of 4 years in office where he has learned a whole lot more.........

Drago said...

Mike (MJB Wolf): "Alas feeding the troll was unsatisfying for he gave up his Cotton bashing without comment."

Sometimes those lefty talking points and narratives get stuck in his craw.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

"Love or hate him, Trump has used military force less than any other president since Jimmy Carter." -- today's Times.

"(which is why when he uses force, critics need to latch onto it and hysterically amplify it - because it's rare)." per gutfeld

Greg the class traitor said...

Francisco D said...
This will be a relief to the Obama administration, which ordered hundreds of drone strikes using such a legal rationale.

Does anyone here wonder what the reaction would be if the Obama administration had successfully turned Suleimani into road kill?


We know what would have happened, the exact same thing that happened when the Seals killed OBL:
GOP, not being traitors, would cheer.
Democrats, caring only about power, would cheer, or STFU

pacwest said...

Just an aside from the celebrations here. This is a minor victory in the longer war. There will be 'incidents' in the future that Trump will have to deal with. There is still the real possibility of miscalculation on both sides. And the much larger consideration of Iran getting nukes, or terrorist used radioactive materials is still out there. Iran has been forced to accelerate their timetable in developing these weapons by withdrawal from the JCPOA (and make no mistake, the JCPOA did nothing more than put the mullahs on an easily navigated and painless path towards nukes and ICBMs, although it may have delayed it by a couple of years), and that will have to dealt with sooner rather than later. Outside of the toppling of the regime from within, or a large scale air assault from without I don't know what options there are, unless you consider a nuclear armed Iran an option.

While the actions by Trump and response by Iran probably provided an uptick to his electability in 2020 it doesn't solve the larger threat, and that is the larger consideration in all of this.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

“Innocent civilians are now dead because they were caught in the middle of an unnecessary and unwanted military tit for tat,”

every time we go deer hunting, somehow deer get caught in the crossfire, and become the unfortunate victims of our beef w/ PETA

...but, hey-- these things happen,

‘These things happen’: Ex-diplomat says Iran shouldn’t face repercussions over downed plane

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/these-things-happen-ex-diplomat-says-iran-shouldnt-face-repercussions-over-downed-plane/

Greg the class traitor said...

Chuck said...
What a stupid, false dichotomy. I know of no leading critic of the President’s (certainly none in American public life) who has contended that Suleimani was anything other than pure evil.

What a stupid, false, statement. Read the headlines of the NYT and WaPo obits. They do not say "evil man killed by Trump". Warren started out with "Suleimani's evil, but ..." then had to backtrack on it because the Left dog-piled her

Chris Matthews: Soleimani killing on par with deaths of Elvis, Princess Diana

Lucid-Ideas said...
If they did this on purpose, it was doubtless so they could blame Trump. If it was accidentally, they're infants who ate to many paint-chips in Tehran's public housing growing up.

I'm currently leaning towards the later, because I just don't see how the Iranians could thing that intentionally doing it would benefit them

Howard said...

John Henry... Thanks. Interesting perspective, the psychological effects from Chernobyl was responsible in part for destabilizing Soviet politics.

Howard said...

pacwest: excellent summary. Cautious optimism and realistic pessimism.

Seeing Red said...

If there’s a deal on Israel, It just makes Iran more the outlier. Because those who sign on to the deal with Israel will give the appearance of moving into the modern world.

And that means even more money.

gerry said...

Inga said:
Yes you should be ashamed and disgusted at yourself for being a Trump sycophant and cultist who is so deeply entrenched up Trumps anus that you can no longer be a rational thinker. If you don’t hold your president to any standards or principles, that’s on you.

All of Inga's comments seem to have been the exact opposite — completely mistargeted, idiotically executed, and causing nothing but collateral damage, extreme collateral damage.

n.n said...

He wasn't "killed", he was planned. That is as a baby... terrorist, he was judged to be a burden, labeled nonviable, sentenced, then exonerated in order to mitigate a progressive condition. Perfectly ethical.

Tommy Duncan said...

Blogger Curious George said regarding Chuck...

"Some Althouse commentors say you are an asshole. By your logic that would mean many think you are not an asshole. But everyone here knows you are an asshole. They just don't say it."

Amen Brother George.

Qwinn said...

From Instapundit:

UNEXPECTEDLY: Senate Dems Won’t Support Measure Praising U.S. Military for Soleimani Killing. “The resolution is structurally identical to the 2011 Senate resolution praising former president Barack Obama for the operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. At that time, all 100 Democratic and Republican members of the Senate joined to support that resolution.”

Michael K said...

Why would Iran apologize for something an army of democrats/LLR's have already blamed Trump for?

The Democrats are really taking a chance here, Not all of their voters are as dim as Inga. Acting like Iran's defense attorney might alienate some of the more sane Democrats.

narciso said...

back in 1996, slo jo didn't take kindly to Iranians attacking us facilities, but that was nearly a quarter century ago,

Inga said...

“Not all of their voters are as dim as Inga.”

Not all Trumpists are senile coots, but they are Trumpists nevertheless...

Bruce Hayden said...

"He was a United States-designated terrorist commander. As I have been briefed, he was plotting further attacks against Americans at the time of his death. The authority granted to the president under Article II of the Constitution provides ample legal basis for this strike. Furthermore, those who accept the constitutionality of the War Powers Act should recall that Congress’s 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force very much remain in effect and clearly cover the Suleimani operation...”

As I have been saying, between the two AUMFs authorizing the use of mikitary force in Iraq, and the President’s Article II powers and responsibilities, it is hard for an honest lawyer to make a straight faced, honest case, that the droning of the Quds commander was not legal. Anywhere else in the world (except also Afghanistan) maybe, but probably not. But in Iraq? When we first invaded under GW Bush(43), our military had playing card decks with the pictures of the top 52 Iraqi war criminals. This guy would probably qualify as maybe a king in that deck. No one was whining about our military tracking those People down and capturing them, if possible, otherwise killing them, if not. Legally no different here. If those two AUMFs were good enough to legally justify killing thousands of enemies in Iraq, there is nothing that would all of a sudden make using deadly force in Iraq to kill our enemies anywhere close to illegal.