PrintRise of the Democrat 'But' Warriors
This past week saw the rise of the Democrat "but" warriors. Every viable remaining presidential candidate, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, included an identical sentence construct in response to President Donald Trump's decision to erase the world's worst terrorist leader.
When "but" is employed in a sentence, particularly a political one, the wise course of action is to pay little heed to what came before it. The writer's true feelings are reflected in what follows, even if he is not quite bold enough not to include a caveat.
A few examples, focusing only on what came after that key word, illustrate this point:
Joe Biden: "... this action almost certainly will have the opposite effect (of deterring future attacks). President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox, and he owes the American people an explanation[.]"
Pete Buttigieg: "... there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we are prepared for the consequences[.]"
Elizabeth Warren: "... this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war," since apparently the best way to avoid war is to project weakness and never respond.
Most of the lesser lights employed similar strategies. Sanders is crazy enough that he didn't bother with the "but," instead aiming for the jugular, aligning himself with the Squad wing that reflects the energy in the extremist party.
Warren's awkward tightrope walk again planted her squarely on her face. She came under withering fire from leftists for having the audacity to use a "but," since apparently even acknowledging the obvious reality that Qassem Soleimani was a murderer was a bridge too far. Leftists have room for only one villain, and Soleimani is not he. So she came out with follow-up reactions in which she went full Bernie. Warren's attempt to appeal to both sides of the Democrat coin, even if those sides are getting increasingly difficult to tell apart, has utterly failed.
Unless I missed it, not a single Democrat offered unequivocal support for the action.
The zeitgeist at the moment among all Democrats is that this will result in a series of tit-for-tat escalations ending in war. Up to this point, there had been a noticeable lack of tat. Likely further emboldened by the impeachment nonsense, Iran felt free to do whatever it wanted, particularly after years of being bought off by the clowns who are protesting Trump's air strike the loudest.
This was simply unsustainable. The left may have a short attention span, but Iran has been ratcheting up the provocations for some time, from the attacks on oil tankers to the vicious attack on the Saudi oil refinery. The more recent attacks were specifically focused on the U.S., from the downing of a U.S. drone to the Kataeb Hezb'allah attack on a military installation that killed an American contractor while injuring four U.S. service members. The attempt to Benghazi the embassy was the final straw.
For all intents and purposes, Iran was already at war with the U.S. in Iraq, and Soleimani was leading it. Considering he had the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hand, the real question is why the U.S. or Israeli did not take him out earlier. If reports are to be believed, President Obama actually stopped an Israeli plan to take out this murderous monster by tipping off the Iranians back in 2015.
To leave U.S. troops in Iraq while allowing the primary leader who was organizing successful attacks against them to waltz freely around the country to plan more murderous mayhem would be beyond irresponsible. This is proof that none of these Democrats is fit to be commander-in-chief.
The strike ushers in the possibility of providing a needed return to deterrence, which was long overdue.
The decision calculus for Iran is not easy. For all of the regime leadership's apocalyptic language, regime survival is a top consideration to which a miscalculation would be deadly. Nobody knows for sure how the Iranians will respond, but even more importantly, the mullahs have no idea how the president who commands the world's most powerful military force would respond to any of their provocations.
Count me among those who suspect that Iran's response will be careful and calculated, in the same way a disciplined child might stick his tongue out behind his parents' backs but wouldn't dare act openly with the sting of the punishment still at the forefront of his mind. Iran may retaliate against non-U.S. targets in the same way that same disciplined kid might take out his frustration at his punishment on a younger sibling, a far less threatening target.
The other near universal Democrat criticism, that the president did not inform them before the attack, is laughable. Even Barack Obama's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary, Jeh Johnson, admitted that Soleimani was a lawful military objective and the president had all the authority he needed to take him out.
The Democrats' newfound appreciation for the War Powers Act is a cute fraud, since it was their paragon who violated it by attacking Libya. That attack, unlike this one, was not in response to anything resembling a real threat against America. In contrast, Soleimani was an active combatant, which is beyond debate.
Leaving aside that the operation was clearly legal, the Democrats are no longer to be trusted on national security. If you believe that informing the Schiffty Democrats would not have seriously risked the operation, I have a wonderful tract of feces-free oceanfront property in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district to sell you.
There used to at least be a pretense of bipartisan consensus that Americans support their president during wartime regardless of political party. Those days are long gone, washed away by the complete mental breakdown of the Resistance party. When America took out Osama bin Laden under the Obama administration, Republicans were not "but" warriors. They are always more loyal as the opposition party than the Democrat-media-academia triumvirate. But when a Republican is elected president, America reverts to a house divided.
Retired general David Petraeus said the strike was "more significant than the killing of Osama bin Laden" since Soleimani was a "combination of CIA director, JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command] commander, and special presidential envoy for the region" who had "killed well over 600 American soldiers and many more of our coalition and Iraqi partners just in Iraq, as well as in many other countries such as Syria."
Patriotic Americans rejoiced. But with a Republican president in office, Democrats are simply incapable of rejoicing at positive news for Americans.
The most important observation came from the president himself.
"We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war," he said.
Don't count on the "but" warriors to understand this, since they have eyes for only one enemy, and he is not an Iranian mass murderer bent on killing Americans. To paraphrase the man who has been on the wrong side of nearly every foreign policy decision of the last half-century, putting Democrats back in charge would be like tossing a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox.
Fletch Daniels can be found on Twitter at @fletchdaniels.
This past week saw the rise of the Democrat "but" warriors. Every viable remaining presidential candidate, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, included an identical sentence construct in response to President Donald Trump's decision to erase the world's worst terrorist leader.
When "but" is employed in a sentence, particularly a political one, the wise course of action is to pay little heed to what came before it. The writer's true feelings are reflected in what follows, even if he is not quite bold enough not to include a caveat.
A few examples, focusing only on what came after that key word, illustrate this point:
Joe Biden: "... this action almost certainly will have the opposite effect (of deterring future attacks). President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox, and he owes the American people an explanation[.]"
Pete Buttigieg: "... there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we are prepared for the consequences[.]"
Elizabeth Warren: "... this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war," since apparently the best way to avoid war is to project weakness and never respond.
Most of the lesser lights employed similar strategies. Sanders is crazy enough that he didn't bother with the "but," instead aiming for the jugular, aligning himself with the Squad wing that reflects the energy in the extremist party.
Warren's awkward tightrope walk again planted her squarely on her face. She came under withering fire from leftists for having the audacity to use a "but," since apparently even acknowledging the obvious reality that Qassem Soleimani was a murderer was a bridge too far. Leftists have room for only one villain, and Soleimani is not he. So she came out with follow-up reactions in which she went full Bernie. Warren's attempt to appeal to both sides of the Democrat coin, even if those sides are getting increasingly difficult to tell apart, has utterly failed.
Unless I missed it, not a single Democrat offered unequivocal support for the action.
The zeitgeist at the moment among all Democrats is that this will result in a series of tit-for-tat escalations ending in war. Up to this point, there had been a noticeable lack of tat. Likely further emboldened by the impeachment nonsense, Iran felt free to do whatever it wanted, particularly after years of being bought off by the clowns who are protesting Trump's air strike the loudest.
This was simply unsustainable. The left may have a short attention span, but Iran has been ratcheting up the provocations for some time, from the attacks on oil tankers to the vicious attack on the Saudi oil refinery. The more recent attacks were specifically focused on the U.S., from the downing of a U.S. drone to the Kataeb Hezb'allah attack on a military installation that killed an American contractor while injuring four U.S. service members. The attempt to Benghazi the embassy was the final straw.
For all intents and purposes, Iran was already at war with the U.S. in Iraq, and Soleimani was leading it. Considering he had the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hand, the real question is why the U.S. or Israeli did not take him out earlier. If reports are to be believed, President Obama actually stopped an Israeli plan to take out this murderous monster by tipping off the Iranians back in 2015.
To leave U.S. troops in Iraq while allowing the primary leader who was organizing successful attacks against them to waltz freely around the country to plan more murderous mayhem would be beyond irresponsible. This is proof that none of these Democrats is fit to be commander-in-chief.
The strike ushers in the possibility of providing a needed return to deterrence, which was long overdue.
The decision calculus for Iran is not easy. For all of the regime leadership's apocalyptic language, regime survival is a top consideration to which a miscalculation would be deadly. Nobody knows for sure how the Iranians will respond, but even more importantly, the mullahs have no idea how the president who commands the world's most powerful military force would respond to any of their provocations.
Count me among those who suspect that Iran's response will be careful and calculated, in the same way a disciplined child might stick his tongue out behind his parents' backs but wouldn't dare act openly with the sting of the punishment still at the forefront of his mind. Iran may retaliate against non-U.S. targets in the same way that same disciplined kid might take out his frustration at his punishment on a younger sibling, a far less threatening target.
The other near universal Democrat criticism, that the president did not inform them before the attack, is laughable. Even Barack Obama's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary, Jeh Johnson, admitted that Soleimani was a lawful military objective and the president had all the authority he needed to take him out.
The Democrats' newfound appreciation for the War Powers Act is a cute fraud, since it was their paragon who violated it by attacking Libya. That attack, unlike this one, was not in response to anything resembling a real threat against America. In contrast, Soleimani was an active combatant, which is beyond debate.
Leaving aside that the operation was clearly legal, the Democrats are no longer to be trusted on national security. If you believe that informing the Schiffty Democrats would not have seriously risked the operation, I have a wonderful tract of feces-free oceanfront property in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district to sell you.
There used to at least be a pretense of bipartisan consensus that Americans support their president during wartime regardless of political party. Those days are long gone, washed away by the complete mental breakdown of the Resistance party. When America took out Osama bin Laden under the Obama administration, Republicans were not "but" warriors. They are always more loyal as the opposition party than the Democrat-media-academia triumvirate. But when a Republican is elected president, America reverts to a house divided.
Retired general David Petraeus said the strike was "more significant than the killing of Osama bin Laden" since Soleimani was a "combination of CIA director, JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command] commander, and special presidential envoy for the region" who had "killed well over 600 American soldiers and many more of our coalition and Iraqi partners just in Iraq, as well as in many other countries such as Syria."
Patriotic Americans rejoiced. But with a Republican president in office, Democrats are simply incapable of rejoicing at positive news for Americans.
The most important observation came from the president himself.
"We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war," he said.
Don't count on the "but" warriors to understand this, since they have eyes for only one enemy, and he is not an Iranian mass murderer bent on killing Americans. To paraphrase the man who has been on the wrong side of nearly every foreign policy decision of the last half-century, putting Democrats back in charge would be like tossing a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox.
Fletch Daniels can be found on Twitter at @fletchdaniels.
FOLLOW US ON
