Typical left-wing hypocrisy.
I wonder if Ms. Stack realizes we’ve been at war for 19 years. More to the point: I wonder how she felt about the 500-plus drone strikes during Obama’s tenure.
Letter: Strike an act of war
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
We have been at war for 19 years?
Maybe so, but not actually at war with Iran. As a matter of fact, we have been allies in the fight against ISIS the Sunni terrorists backed by the same people who planned, financed and executed the attack on 9-11 – Saudi Arabia. The two men assassinated by Trump played a leading role in his much-touted success against ISIS and were openly traveling on a diplomatic mission to ease tensions when they were murdered.
If you think my views are “left-wing” you can blame it on the well-known leftist bias of reality. We “leftists” do no rely on “alternative facts” to support our opinions and preferences the way some people do.
Here is another taste of “left-wing” reality for you – In the history of relations between the United States and Iran it is the United States that has almost always been the bad guy starting with murdering their democratically elected Premier, installing and supporting the reign or terror of the Shah, sicking Saddam on them and providing him with WMDs, shooting down a civilian airliner, supporting Zionist murders in their countries, surrounding them on the land and sea, etc. Add to this list, breaking the nuclear agreement in spite of Iran’s rigorous compliance with it.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Reality? From what drug induced reality doth one speak? The 9/11 attacks were planned, financed and executed by al-Qaeda not Saudi Arabia. Just because many of the hijackers were Saudi citizens doesn’t make the country responsible for the actions of a decentralized terrorist organization comprised of numerous nationalities including a few Americans. DOJ, FBI and Congressional inquiries all found no evidence of such involvement contrary to left wing conspiracy theorists. The best the theorists could claim is maybe someone who just happened to be a Saudi government employee provided some money but that still is no link.
LikeLike
Sorry to bust your bubble, Bob, but Al Qaeda WAS a Saudi organization. The money that financed it was Saudi money. Its leader was the scion of a prominent Saudi family. Its operatives that struck on 9-11 were almost all Saudi nationals (15 out of 19). The “government” of Saudi Arabia and its small number of oligarchic families – including the bin Ladens – are closely intertwined.
Beyond that, it is well established that the lion’s share of money financing Sunni terrorists – such as ISIS – is coming from the coffers of those same Saudi families practicing their Wahhabist faith.
That the Saudi “government” is beyond barbaric is indisputable. If their frequent public beheading for thought crime – including children – were not enough evidence, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi is the cherry on top of this barbaric sundae.
LikeLike
So what you are saying is the FBI, DOJ, CIA and Congress have no clue but Paul can set them all straight. Now why didn’t they just consult you first and save a lot of time. Hint: Hate to bust your bubble…
LikeLike
I just provided some facts. Officially or unofficially 9-11 was a Saudi operation. Not Iraq. Not Iran.
LikeLike
No, we are not at war against Iran. We are not at war against Iraq, nor are we at war against Afghanistan. We have never declared war against Iran, and certainly, given that we’ve basically installed the current Iraqi and Afghan governments, we are not at war against those countries either.
Firstly, there’s no war when you have to say “war IN” and not “war AGAINST”. Second, there’s no such thing as a war on terror – it’s a false use of the word, just as the war on drugs/poverty/etc. are not wars either. This casual misuse of the word war distorts our understanding of it, cheapens the value of lives lost in all these actions, and leads to use of the military for purposes which aren’t consistent with long-term stability, and certainly not consistent with the constitution.
We have badly lost sight of von Clausewitz: “War is extension of diplomacy by other means”. Can you have diplomacy with terrorists? No, you cannot – therefore, you can’t have a war against them either. War is not the means by which anti-terrorism will be accomplished. The best example of this is Northern Ireland. The British government quite rightly NEVER said they were at war with the IRA. It would have only elevated the IRA’s stature to say so. Moreover, any time the British used its military in a war-like capacity in Northern Ireland, they got failure.
As to Iran – if Trump believed that Iran was involved in attacks on US forces abroad, or that its actions in support of Hezzbolah and other terrorist groups constituted an act of war, then he should have gone to Congress and asked for a declaration of war. Having not done so, then yes, his direct attack and assassination of Solemani was an unconstitutional act of war.
No doubt Obama was guilty of the same, as was Bush II before him, Bush I in Panama with Noriega, Reagan in Grenada, Nixon in Cambodia and Laos, on and on.
This utter nonsense of cheapening the constitution and misusing the word war to justify improper use of the military must end.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Good stuff. Thank you for your intellectual honesty.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No, they are not wars, but it is a pretty good imitation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Typical left-wing hypocrisy.”
Hyoicrisy, ignorance, derangement, or lies?
There is no constitutional or statutory requirement for the president to consult with Congress, as Ms. Stack claims, prior to ordering an assassination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Roberts
The casual way you talk about murder says a lot about the mind-set on the Alt-Right. Actually, the President does not have carte blanche to kill people. Even foreigners. Targeting and killing a high-ranking officer of a foreign government on a diplomatic mission is an act of war. If our Congress were not so craven they would reassert their Constitutional role and take responsibility for making such decisions. President Obama saw the danger of a runaway Presidency and tried to get Congress to act. They wouldn’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Killing Soleimani was not murder. To pretend it was is to live in a fantasy world where the U.S. military obeys unlawful orders unquestioningly.
LikeLike
Oh, it was murder alright. As for whoever launched the missile they may not have understood it to be murder, but it was. The fantasy world is the one where the targeted killing of a government official of a country we are NOT at war with is something other than murder. Next you will be telling me that torture of helpless captives is not torture.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your Freudian slip is showing, Dear.
Assassination is a crime. So, by all means, keep calling it that.
LikeLike
…prior to ordering an assassination.” Interesting choice of phrase. I thought it went against American ideals to assassinate anyone?
Talk about deranged and ignorant. Your comment reaches those levels – IMHO.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “I thought it went against American ideals to assassinate anyone?”
Why would you think that, especially since “American ideals” are not the issue at hand?
LikeLike
OK. How about statutory law? We have been guilty over the years of assassinating foreign leaders, but we didn’t brag about it an it wasn’t until many years later the truth came out about them. But if the policy of this President is to assassinate foreign leaders OFF of the battlefield, then we are losing sight of who we aspire to be as a country. American ideals is something that has gone completely out the window and while they may not be the issue at hand, they certainly are an important thing to consider going forward. If not, we become Russia West.
LikeLike
RE: “How about statutory law?”
Do you think the Pentagon would obey an assassination order without conducting a legal review? Barring that, do you think the military chain of command would obey any unlawful order?
LikeLike
In this administration it is hard to say. There is no push back or debate within the administration and that is not a good thing.
LikeLike
“There is no push back or debate within the administration.”
That is awfully presumptuous.
Publicly, a united front is important, but who knows what’s happening behind closed doors?
LikeLike
@JimRoberts
“There is no push back or debate within the administration.”
You call that “awfully presumptuous” but the record shows plenty of evidence that it is true. Trump has systematically eliminated officials who push back on his insane impulses. Comey – Gone. Mattis – Gone. Bolton -Gone. Tillerson – Gone. Kelley – Gone. And many, many more.
LikeLike