Tucker Carlson Makes Some Good, and not-so-Good Points on Iran

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

Just to be clear, one of the main reasons why I supported Donald Trump for the presidency in 2016 was his promise to scale down the U.S. military presence in the Middle East and end our military intervention in the no fewer than 8 regional conflicts in which his predecessors in office had the U.S. involved.

The President has by and large kept that promise, slowly but surely scaling down our country’s involvement in hellholes like Syria and Afghanistan. At the same time, he has largely avoided the siren song from his neocon and Obama holdover advisers to involve the U.S. military directly in additional conflicts in the region.

As a result, I’m generally in agreement with Fox prime time host Tucker Carlson’s position on international affairs. Carlson is a down-the-line non-interventionist, and that’s generally a good thing. He also spends a lot of time hilariously mocking neocon, never-Trump nitwits like Max Boot and Bill Kristol, which is another definite badge of honor on his chest.

But last night, Carlson went a bit over the line, comparing the U.S. killing of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani to a situation in which Iran were to kill America’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calling it an “act of war.” Well, it was an act of war, given that Soleimani was a leader of warriors who was killed as he was actively planning more attacks on American lives. That’s why he was killed – because he has been at war with the United States and our people throughout his entire adult life.

But the analogy Carlson draws here is not apt, because it legitimizes Soleimani and his actions. Soleimani was a terrorist, not a legitimate military leader – if we cannot draw that distinction, then we should just give up the idea of civilization in general. That having been said, Carlson did make some fine points about the neverending war lobby that is constituted and led by nitwits like Boot and Kristol and John Bolton:

“‘Threats in the region,’” he said, mimicking Mike Pompeo’s statement of the reason why Soleimani was taken out. “If you don’t live in Washington, here’s the translation. That would be in hostile middle eastern countries, places where American troops would never be in the first place, were it not for the insistent demands of non-geniuses like Max Boot and John Bolton. But never mind. No one in Washington is in the mood for big-picture questions right now, questions, the obvious ones, like: Is Iran really the greatest threat we face? And: who’s actually benefiting from this? And: why are we continuing to ignore the decline of our own country in favor of jumping into another quagmire, from which there’s no obvious exit? By the way, if we’re still in Afghanistan 19 sad years later, what makes us think there’s a quick way out of Iran?”

He continued, “Before we enter into a single new war, there’s a criterion that ought to be met. Our leaders should explain to us how that conflict will make the United States richer and more secure,” Carlson contended. “There are an awful lot of bad people in this world. We can’t kill them all. It’s not our job. Instead, our government exists to defend and promote the interests of American citizens. Period. That’s why we have a government. So, how has the killing of Soleimani done that? Maybe. No one in Washington has explained how.”

Those are all excellent points that thinking Americans – and President Trump – should keep in mind. The people in Washington DC agitating for outright war with Iran today are the very same people who got us into all these interminable quagmires in that region in the first place. They should be shunned and ignored.

But Carlson does miss the crucial point that made the retaliation against Soleimani and Iran an imperative in this case: Soleimani had just organized and led an effort to storm the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Hundreds of American lives were jeopardized in the process. That is why Soleimani was in Baghdad in the first place.

As Carlson rightly says, we can’t kill all the bad people in the world. However, we can and must kill terrorist leaders like Soleimani when the opportunity presents itself, in order to prevent their taking more American lives in the future.

As I pointed out on Thursday, our diplomatic embassies are U.S. soil, and must be defended as we would defend our homeland. The failure by the Obama White House and Pentagon to do that in Benghazi got four Americans killed by a mob similar to what we saw in Baghdad this week.

Carlson is correct to warn against being drawn into a larger, general war with Iran. That is a war we could “win” in about a week, but would then end up spending trillions of U.S. dollars and untold numbers of U.S. lives in the years to come trying to rebuild that country and keep the illusional “peace,” as we have done over the last 18 years in Afghanistan and 17 years in Iraq.

But he is wrong to condemn the killing of Soleimani: That act was not only absolutely justified, but entirely necessary. God Bless President Trump for having the wisdom to authorize it.

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

13 thoughts on “Tucker Carlson Makes Some Good, and not-so-Good Points on Iran

  1. Jimmy MacAfee - January 4, 2020

    The attack on the embassy – our embassy – was an act of war. If we retaliated to an act of war with another act of war, so be it. Better that, than to do a pale imitation of Jimmah Cahtah. Barack al-Bumbler spent 8 years trying to make Cahtah look decisive and wise.

    I believe President Trump when he says he wants peace, because peace-at=any-price is no peace at all. Soleimani was what Frank Herbert often described as a “key log.” A key log in a log jam isn’t necessarily the biggest log in the river jamming the flow, but the one most crucial to impeding the flow. Soleimani was a key log.

    President Barack al-Bumbler failed to support the resistance against the Iranian regime, much to their despair, disgust and fear. Instead, Barack al-Bumbler supported the resistance against a duly elected President – our President. Now, the Iranian people know that President Trump isn’t going to rush in and remove the Insanians (the leadership) because he’s not an interventionist, but Trump is wildly popular in Iran. As he is in Hong Kong. Without the CIA’s help.

    Even Christine Amanpour https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/03/cnn-christiane-amanpour-bin-laden-nothing-burger/
    She called the removal of bin Laden as “nothingburger” compared to the removal of Soleimani from the land of the living. She demanded plans about what was to come next – seems that’s all the Dems can think of: “tell us the plans so we can thwart them.”

    The Insanian leadership has been calling our bluff for a very long time. Yes, they have sleepers; yes they have copies of our drones – (which John Brennan and Barack al-Bumbler generously and treasonously gave them.)
    Ras-Putin once said: “Small dogs must bark louder.” And the Insanian air force is about the same as the Afghani navy. They may have surprises in store, but they have people watching them for ANY further escalation. Even the usual false-flaggers had better sit this one out.

    So for now, we watch. And wait. And be ready.

    1. Jimmy MacAfee - January 4, 2020

      Meant to say that the Insanians have been bluffing for a very long time. They have capabilities, but every day the sanctions exist, the weaker they get.

  2. Steven Interest - January 4, 2020

    The facts are the issue, and Tucker didn’t use them nearly enough.
    1. The American embassy in Baghdad had been attacked.
    2. One of the attacker’s leaders was with Suleimani at the time of their death by missile in Baghdad, not the country of Suleimani.
    3. The embassy attackers had scrawled Suleimani’s name on the embassy.
    4. Iranian Suleimani has fought and killed US soldiers on the Iraqi battlefield for years now
    5. Suleimani is a soldier.
    6. Soldiers on battlefields are fair targets according laws of war.

    So, an enemy soldier who was part of an attack on US soldiers and civilians was killed on a battlefield.

    Necessary and justified

    1. Jimmy MacAfee - January 4, 2020

      Very astute and clear; nice job!

      Even Germany (Merkel) has given her approval of the strike. So much for the UN taking this as an actionable item. And then, if they do, there will be consequences for the UN itself if they should be so unwise as to rule against us.

  3. guidvce4 - January 4, 2020

    I generally agree with Tucker, and watch him when I can. However, he is wrong in this situation. By taking out Soleimani a major war was averted. In my humble opinion.
    That Tucker, and the leftists of all stripes, can’t figure out what President Donald J. Trump is up to is a good thing. That means the enemies of our nation are also in the dark. Keeps ’em looking over their shoulder each time they make a move. Never know what might fall out of the sky.
    I see this move by the POTUS as a shot across the bow of the bad guys in the world in general. Mess with the USA, this could be you next. That DJT is ignoring the neocons and the leftists, for the most part, is just dandy with me. By taking out the leadership of the obvious enemies gives pause for others to take some sort of action against the US.
    Bottom line. President Donald J. Trump is doing just fine with his middle east policy.
    In my humble opinion.
    Just sayin’.

    1. Jimmy MacAfee - January 4, 2020

      “A major war was averted.” Yeah, you got that right: the escalation was already increasing – exponentially.

  4. Gregg - January 4, 2020

    Embassies and consulates are a costly and obsolete dinosaur because of the instantaneous worldwide communication capability we now have. Since at least 1979, they have become unnecessary targets that only serve to get us involved in unnecessary military involvement. I can’t think of an embassy or a diplomat who has actually prevented a war/conflict, or solved a crisis.

    Judging by the recently exposed treasonous display of the Ukraine “diplomatic” corps at the impeachment committee hearings, the vast majority of them should be eliminated. It is apparent our state department is infested by a bunch of whistle-blowing hacks, many of whom are detrimental to conservative presidents and pose an existential threat to the US. In short, the diplomats (troublemakers) dating back to the League of Nations and the UN never, ever solve problems; at best, they just kick the can down the road for someone like Reagan or Trump to fix. Couple that sad reality with the fact that most Republican and EVERY Democratic president for the last 75 years is hamstrung by the “New World Order” model and we get this never ending crap that creates the illusion that something is getting done. The net effect of all this is: America always gets screwed and is systematically being reduced and bankrupted to impotence via death by a thousand papercuts. In military terms it is known as “Defeat in Detail”.

    FDR said: nothing in politics happens by accident, if it happens, it was planned. Anyone with any sense has to recognize that this is a concerted effort by globalists to ultimately defeat the US. I cannot think of any war, or “peacekeeping” action involving the US since 1945 (and even before) has ever benefited the US, and when has “diplomacy” solved anything. At best our “diplomacy”, NATO and the UN has been a band-aid fix to arterial bleeding.

    Diplomacy, as we have come to know it, is akin to pumping moderately unruly (and normal) adolescents full of Ritalin to suppress their natural urges, and it sort of works for awhile, but then eventually it explodes with dire consequences which ultimately have to be dealt with. The old adage: “a stitch in time saves nine has never been more true”.

    1. Jimmy MacAfee - January 4, 2020

      Major function of embassies – every country – is to give cover to people with eyes; military bases serve the same function to some extent. One of the things the Globalists (read: Nimrods) want is no borders, to make crossing borders less dangerous and challenging, and because many of them are lazy, indolent sloths. With facial recognition software, having lots of lazy eyes makes the need for them something of a moot point.

      Most of our ambassadors are political appointees; some are good, most are not. They’re more like hosts of a party, panderers and thinking themselves elite – when some are mere money launderers helping well-heeled criminals run off with the loot. Do we need them? In a sense, yes. Not as-described, though: not In the way they currently serve. No thanks. We do need eyes and ears everywhere, though. Just a fact. Can’t all be done with SIGNT.

    2. phineas gage - January 4, 2020

      Excellent post. Embassies are indeed a relic of a by-gone world, and merely a tool of the diplomat class.

  5. phineas gage - January 4, 2020

    I understand Tucker’s point. He is not wrong about the constant push for war; Eisenhower was the first to warn about it in his farewell speech, and we since seen it play out in Vietnam, Iraq, and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan.

    The reason why I don’t agree in this case is Trump. I trust the man to do what he said and not become involved in protracted foreign wars. However, he also has to act when necessary. Obviously Suleimani did not think he would, which was a fatal mistake.

    Modern technology has radically changed the nature of warfare; I think Trump intends to use such targeted strikes (which also require good and timely intelligence), while avoiding traditional boots-on-ground commitments in the Middle East. It is also obvious that his domestic energy policy permits this as well.

    I think another reason for the Suleimani strike was to further destabilize the mullah’s regime. Their intelligence most likely indicates that it is increasingly fragile and may not require much more to bring it down, which would be a momentous change for the Middle East. Finally, as I mentioned previously, the strike was also a message to other bad actors, such as those in North Korea and, to some extent, China and Russia.

    Tucker could end up being right. I just don’t believe that Trump will allow things to develop that way.

    1. Jimmy MacAfee - January 4, 2020

      I agree with nearly everything you’ve said here, but I’d go back to those wars funded by the Bankers – much farther back – who would routinely fund both sides. The Civil War was a good example of this; same with WWI and WWII. Has little to do with whether or not the war is just, but a lot of people make a lot of money encouraging and implementing war.

      Kennedy hated those progenitors of conflict, and they hated him too. So did Lincoln. And others who were terminated. A pattern is clear.

  6. ray162 - January 4, 2020

    Terrorist is a meaningless word. In war you kill the enemy any way you can. “Kill them all. Kill them all, the long the short and the tall. When they get tired of it they’ll give up.” General George S. Patton, Jr..

  7. Jimmy MacAfee - January 4, 2020

    As I’d written: the fake “treaty” with Iran came at a cost: American officials were bought and paid-for.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/flashback-democrat-senators-took-money-from-iran-lobby-before-vote-on-obamas-nuke-deal-iran-threatened-to-out-bribed-officials/

    “H.J.Ansari Zarif’s senior advisor: “If Europeans stop trading with Iran and don’t put pressure on US then we will reveal which western politicians and how much money they had received during nuclear negotiations to make #IranDeal happen.”’
    That would be interesting.#JCPOA

Comments are closed.

Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: