All errors should be reported to

Friday, January 03, 2020

What liberals mean by World War 3

Zoe Drewett of the Metro wrote, "The phrase ‘World War 3’ began trending after the killing of the Iranian leader’s second in command in a US airstrike. Iranian general Qasem Soleimani was killed in a bombing ordered by President Donald Trump overnight at Baghdad Airport.

"After news of his death broke, the country’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei sparked fears of war after he promised ‘harsh vengeance’. Many of those tweeting about the airstrike used memes to bring light to the situation, joking about fears it could spark ‘World War 3’ – a phrase now trending on Twitter."

The talking heads on cable TV said killing the head of Iran's terrorism operation will trigger World War 3.

The Intercept's Mehdi Hasan said, "this is a column that allows me to express my ongoing astonishment that Donald Trump is president of the United States; my ongoing bewilderment with a world in which an unhinged, know-nothing former reality TV star and property developer, with zero background in foreign affairs or national security, may have just kicked off World War III. (From his golf course, no less.)"

Nancy Pelosi said, "American leaders’ highest priority is to protect American lives and interests. But we cannot put the lives of American service members, diplomats and others further at risk by engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions. Tonight’s airstrike risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence."

Joe Biden said, “The Administration’s statement says that its goal is to deter a future attack by Iran, but this action almost certainly will have the opposite effect. President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox, and he owes the American people an explanation of the strategy and plan to keep safe our troops and embassy personnel, our people and our interests, both here at home and abroad, and our partners through the region and beyond.”

Democrat leaders also are upset that they did not receive notice in advance of the drone attack on the terrorist leader.

But as Carla Herreria and Akbar Shahid Ahmed of HuffPost wrote, "Just three months ago, the president similarly failed to notify high-ranking Democrats in the 'gang' of his intention to assassinate Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi."

So what do they mean by all this criticism of President Donald John Trump for reacting to Iran attacking our embassy in Iraq?

Several things.

The first is that he retaliated, unlike Obama and Hillary in Benghazi, who made excuses for the attack by blaming a video.

Democrats wanted to turn this into President Trump's Benghazi. They wasted no time mocking him as weak.
By retaliating, President Trump has shown he is a commander-in-chief and not Iran's female dog.

Second, by demanding advance notice, Democrats mean President Trump did not ask their permission. As commander-in-chief he does not need their approval.

Third, by saying this will lead to World War 3, they mean Iraq was justified in attacking our embassy in Baghdad.

Oh sure, they their preface their criticism by saying Qasem Soleimani was bad. They come not to praise him but to bury him, and all that.

But in not saying the embassy attack could trigger World War 3 -- by not holding Iran responsible and accountable for its actions -- Democrats have granted approval of the attack on our embassy.

My take is that Iran now has to make a decision between ending it here or escalating the confrontation into a war that will turn it into Iraq 2003. And the Saudis, not America, may want to do the damage.

Those on the right understand what happened.

Jake Novak of CNBC wrote, "The killing of Soleimani doesn’t have the emotional power of the takedown of Osama bin Laden, and he wasn’t even as well-known to Americans as ISIS founder Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. But in many ways, taking him out means much more in terms of saving current lives. Remember that bin Laden and al Baghdadi were mostly out of business and in hiding at the time of their deaths. Solemani was busier than ever, directing mayhem all over the Middle East and beyond."

The ability to kill one without killing innocents is a godsend.

A few people on the left get what is happening.

Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the leftist Council on Foreign Relations wrote, "The mullahs have a next move after the death of Qassem Soleimani, but don’t expect World War III."

Andrew Exum of the Atlantic wrote, "Iran Loses Its Indispensable Man. The killing of Qassem Soleimani robs the regime of the central figure for its ambitions in the Middle East."

The question becomes how do you wage war without your main man?

I do not believe Iran wants to risk a war. Iran needs the sanctions lifted. President Trump is the only man on Earth who can do that.

Small wonder Democrats want to undermine him.