The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Asterisk

I have on a number of occasions assessed the laughable tactics of the Democrats as they sink ever deeper into Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Their Keystone Cops antics subject them to ridicule by thoughtful political observers (e.g., It's been said that Nancy Pelosi delayed the release of the Articles of Impeachment until her gold autographed pens arrived), but it's the Dems' viciousness, hypocrisy, and dishonesty that may very well do them in.

Victor Davis Hansen writes:
Democrats may also be hoisted by their own petard in the ongoing impeachment psychodrama. They more or less rigged the House impeachment proceeding, by using their majority to depart from past practice. They monopolized the witness lists, selectively leaked, and rushed to indict Trump on the theory that every day the president was not impeached was another day the country was endangered.

Then when bipartisan support never appeared, when there was no special counsel’s damning report, when there was no public majority support, and when there was not the appearance of constitutional indictments for treason, bribery, and specific high crimes and misdemeanors, the impeachment writs simply sat, ossifying as if the House prosecutors suddenly wished to be sober, judicious, and reflective, when in truth they were finagling ways to fortify their anemic writs before what they feared would be a disastrous and embarrassing Senate acquittal.
Over the next few days, you'll hear a Democrat narrative that uses the words "cover-up" and "fairness" over and over again. You'll hear the Dems' trained hamsters in the media break "bombshells" that will be later proven to be nothingburgers. You'll hear and unending demand for "witnesses and documents," but only certain witnesses and documents.

VDH continues:
Democrats insisted that the Senate trial have witnesses and that Republican senators conduct the proceeding in a nonpartisan fashion antithetical to the partisan manner in which they had rammed through impeachment in the House. In other words, Democrats demanded that Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) not replay the roles of Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

Yet the obvious expectation in such a free-for-all impeachment and trial circus was always that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden would be the most preeminent witnesses called, given Trump’s logical defense that the younger Biden was utterly corrupt, was known to be corrupt but found useful by Ukrainians, and thus naturally such a high-profile case justified presidential suspicions of Ukrainian requests for aid—with the corollary that the elder Biden, the font for Hunter’s ability to leverage money for access, would not be able to testify honestly about the degree to which he knew of his son’s skullduggery.

Joe Biden, despite his senior moments and his lifelong reckless speech, may be for now the Democrats' only hope to carry the Midwest swing states that sent Donald Trump to the White House. Thus, the Democrats in the very fashion they have conducted themselves throughout this impeachment farce, may be insidiously destroying the candidate with the best chance of regaining the White House—even while likely enhancing Donald Trump’s polls.

That the Democrats realized such risks and ignored them, either suggests the Left wants to finish off the Biden candidacy, or their obsessions with destroying Trump outweighs any practical considerations of replacing the president with one of their own.
I think both factors can be true at the same time. Biden is not a rabid leftist and is therefore anathema to the angry left base of the new Democratic party. At the same time, even savvy political operators are so driven by TDS that they're unconsciously willing to burn their own house down, just so (to quote many progressives), "Trump has an asterisk following his name."

UPDATE:
------------------

Bill O'Reilly adds a comment on the media from which he sprang:
... the primary reason the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat members knew the national press would give them cover and blatant support. The media portrayed Adam Schiff and other anti-Trump zealots as heroes. This despite strong evidence the Ukraine whistle-blower secretly coordinated with Schiff, a blatantly political and deceptive act.

From the very beginning, there was no balanced coverage of the impeachment story, no attempt to put forth both sides or to provide perspective. Mr. Trump was portrayed as guilty of “high crimes” in the Times and Post, as well as on television, in Hollywood, and in the publishing industry. Any high profile person who had the temerity to disagree was mocked or worse.

The cold truth is that the men who preside over The New York Times and The Washington Post, and they are all men, believe THEY should be running the United States, not Donald Trump who is a vulgarian in their eyes. These men well know the Democratic Party will blindly follow their editorial lead as will TV news executives at CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS.

Thus, the so called “free press” in America has become an industry that now seeks power over Americans. The far left vision these operations usually champion cannot be realized at the ballot box, the bosses know that. So it must be imposed by destroying progressive opposition, which the media does with enthusiasm. Just ask Brett Kavanaugh.
The hysteria that surrounded the Dem's (and their media hamsters') despicable behavior during the Kavanaugh hearings is just under the surface today. It will likely emerge and when it does, the ugly viciousness we saw during Kavanaugh's 'lynching' will again infect us all. Shameful ... simply shameful.

Monday, January 20, 2020

Be Damned

The impeachment "trial" of Donald Trump begins tomorrow. This travesty is the culmination of three years of Democrat hatred of a man who defeated them in 2016, and who continues to accomplish things that actually benefit the American people. Even more frightening to the Dems, Trump continues to accomplish things that resonate with the constituencies (e.g., African Americans, Latinos, the middle class and even the working poor) that the Dems always count on for votes. #Walkaway and #Blexit are real and very worrisome for the Democrat elites.

Matthew Continetti discusses the hyperpartisan politics surrounding the impeachment:
... The rushed [House] inquiry and polarized vote on two vague and weak articles betrayed the political motivations behind the enterprise. Impeachment shields Pelosi from leftwing recriminations in the event that Trump is reelected and Democrats retain the House. And the investigations, hearings, and trial guarantee a steady stream of bad press for Trump and hostile questions that make some Republicans squirm.

Pelosi is more than happy for additional evidence to be disclosed and for the Senate to call witnesses, even after the House has impeached and when the resolution of the trial is foreordained. It's not justice she's after. It's victory in November. Expect leaks of damaging information before key procedural votes just as happened during the Kavanaugh confirmation fight. When Trump is acquitted or the charges against him dismissed, Democrats will pronounce the verdict illegitimate and accuse Republican senators of involvement in a cover-up. No charge is too outlandish. Pelosi and impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries have advanced the ridiculous conspiracy that McConnell has "Russian connections" of his own. "It's a win-win," Chuck Schumer told the New York Times.

There's a cautionary lesson for Democrats in the Kavanaugh episode. As the allegations against Kavanaugh grew more absurd, and the D.C. climate more inhospitable, Republicans found themselves more unified. The senators that Democrats hope will side with them on procedural motions might demur. Susan Collins, for example, isn't anybody's pawn. "I don't think Chuck Schumer is very interested in my opinion," she said in a blistering comment to the Times. "I don't think he's really very interested in doing anything but trying to defeat me by telling lies to the people of Maine. And you can quote me on that."

After the House Intelligence Committee dropped a trove of documents from Lev Parnas, the former Giuliani associate under indictment for campaign finance violations, the day before senators were sworn in as jurors, Collins said, "I wonder why the House did not put that into the record and it's only now being revealed." Good question!

House Republicans voted in unison against impeachment not because they fear President Trump but because the Democratic case was weak.
"Weak" doesn't even begin to cover it, but that doesn't matter when the Dems and their trained hamsters in the media go to work. More leaks, more lies, and more histrionics are guaranteed. The Dems will hyperventilate with every countermove made by Mitch McConnell and his colleagues.

The Democrats have demonstrated that they will never, ever be satisfied with any result that doesn't lead to Donald Trump's removal from office before the election. Given that harsh reality, the GOP should recognize that they'll be damned if they do and damned if they don't. Better then for the GOP to do what they want and let the predictable and ridiculous Dem and media tantrum be damned.

Friday, January 17, 2020

A Post Truth World

The technology community is expressing concern over "deep fakes," videos and even biometric data that is generated using advanced artificial intelligence techniques. James Rundle of the WSJ Pro Artificial Intelligence Daily Brief writes:
The use of AI to synthesize and manipulate increasingly realistic images poses a growing threat to national security, an FBI official warns. In fact, such video and imagery will soon be indistinguishable from reality ...

Deepfake technology is getting so good, it soon may pose a true threat to national security, FBI official warns. The FBI is worried that AI presents challenges to national security, particularly in the form of fraudulent videos created to mimic public figures. “As the AI continues to improve and evolve, we’re going to get to a point where there’s no discernible difference between an AI-generated video and an actual video,” said Chris Piehota, executive assistant director of the FBI’s science and technology division. He spoke at a WSJ Pro Cybersecurity Symposium in San Diego last week.

Really??? Deepfakes use AI to overlay a person’s likeness onto existing images or video, James Rundle reports for WSJ Pro. The technology can show people saying or doing something they never said or did. It also can be used to create realistic images of people who don't exist.

Artificial fingerprints. The FBI has conducted laboratory tests using deepfakes and other techniques to generate artificial personas, which have such high degrees of verisimilitude to real people that they can even pass some measures of biometric authentication, Mr. Piehota said.

Undermining elections. Such AI-enhanced threats can undermine public confidence in democratic institutions even if they are proven false, says Suzanne Spaulding, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Deepfakes for sale. The Washington Post reported that marketing and design companies have begun selling images of artificially generated people that can be used for promotional materials or used to create fake social-media profiles.

Rundle quotes Suzanne Spaulding, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. who states:
“It really hastens our move towards a post-truth world, in which the American public becomes like the Russian population, which has really given up on the idea of truth, and kind of shrugs its shoulders. People will tune out, and that is deadly for democracy."
Heh ... a post truth world ... That got me to thinking about the current state of American politics and the main stream media hamsters who supposedly report it.

Based on events of the past few years, truth no long matters. In fact, the media, who once helped the public sort out truth from lies, is now among the most prolific perpetrators of untruths. The hamsters promulgated the Russia collusion hoax; they continue to 'report' the "fine people" hoax; they called a high school student a "racist" when he was nothing of the sort; they uncritically reported that a respected judge was a member of a rape gang in his teens; they made countless "errors" that always seemed to benefit the Democrat narrative, and now, they push an impeachment narrative for "crimes" that are at worst, a minor exercise in bad political judgement, and more likely, trumped-up accusations that would NEVER be levied against a Democrat president.

Yeah, deep fakes generated by artificial intelligence apps are a threat, but the deep fake news that is disseminated daily by an unprofessional, biased media and their Democrat masters represents an even greater threat to democracy.

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Wrong

Nancy Pelosi could hardly suppress a smile as she participated in the "somber" signing of articles of impeachment. The articles were then turned over to the seven Democrat "managers" who in a ridiculous procession, walked them over to the senate. Obviously instructed to be stone-faced (remember--somber) the dems had succeeeded in achieving their political goal on three years—to impeach a duly elected President of the United States. It doesn't matter that the grounds are baseless or that their entire crusade is built on hyper-partisan hatred of the man—they succeeded, and their base is now mollified.

It also doesn't matter that this whole affair is an embarrassment to our country and a perversion of the true seriousness of a real, justified impeachment. The Dems are wrong in this, but for the past 3+ years, they have been WRONG about almost everything.

To begin, they were absolutely certain that their candidate in 2016, Hillary Clinton, would obliterate the neanderthal Donald Trump. They were wrong.

And then ...
  • They were convinced that the Russians were responsible for Clinton's loss. Pollsters, election data, the voters, and common sense proved them wrong.
  • They were convinced that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election. A special counsel proved them wrong.
  • They asserted that Trump obstructed justice in a bogus investigation of his wrongdoing. The investigation was never impeded. They were wrong.
  • They swore that Trump called neo-Nazis "fine people." Existing video and a transcript of his remarks proved them wrong (and dishonest for promulgating a bald-faced lie).
  • They contended that Trump's support for moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem would cause war in the Middle East. They were wrong.
  • They told us that withdrawing from the infamous "Iran Deal" (JCPOA) would somehow be worse than staying in an unenforceable and weak arrangement and that additional Trump-imposed sanctions were counterproductive. The sanctions have lead to significant popular unrest inside Iran that just might lead to regime change. They were wrong.
  • They argued that Trump's trade confrontation with China would result in economic war that we would lose. This week Trump is signing the first part of a trade deal that benefits the United States. They were wrong.
  • They tell us that only "the rich" are benefiting from Trump's economic policies as we experience the best economy in 50 years. The U.S. Department of Commerce (among others) indicates that the greatest wage and employment benefits accrue to the middle and lower class workers. Again, the Dems are wrong.
  • They told us that only "the rich" got tax reductions. IRS data indicates that isn't true. They were wrong.
  • They tell us that Trump's immigration policies would not stem the tide of illegal immigration. In fact, illegal entries into the United States at at a multi-year low. They were wrong.
  • They told us that the killing of General Qassem Soleimani was somehow unjustified and would lead to a major war. They were wrong.
  • They refused to express outright, unequivocal support for the Iranian resistance movement. That's morally reprehensible and politically suicidal. They are wrong.
And now, they tell us that Trump should be impeached over a phone call that led to no tangible action, no meaningful, long term withholding of foreign aid, and absolutely no investigation of a member of their party who had questionably corrupt dealings with the Ukraine while he was VP of the United States. They further tell us that the witnesses they failed to question must now be called by the judge and jury for impeachment because ... fairness when their House proceedings were anything but fair. Yet again, they are wrong.

For the past 3 years, the Democrats have been wrong consistently in things large and small. Someone please tell me why we should believe anything they say or assert about impeachment now?

More importantly, why should any voter believe that anything their candidates propose (if elected president) is anything but WRONG?

UPDATE:
----------------

This analysis by the editors of the Wall Street Journal is right on target:
The fundamental question is whether Mr. Trump committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” These should be defined as either exercising powers a President does not have, or violating some statute or constitutional prohibition. The former could be spending money not appropriated by Congress or quartering troops in the Capitol. The latter could be, say, lying under oath or using the IRS to punish political opponents.

In our view the facts of the Ukraine imbroglio don’t qualify as impeachable on either grounds. Mr. Trump exhibited poor judgment in unleashing Rudy Giuliani to ask Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. He did the same in undermining his own Ukraine policy by delaying the delivery of military aid.

But both efforts were resisted by his advisers and Members of Congress. The aid ultimately flowed and there was no Ukraine investigation. Mr. Trump broke no law, and other Presidents have tried to use foreign policy to serve domestic political ends. Voters may conclude these are grounds for denying Mr. Trump re-election. But if they are enough to short-circuit a presidential term, then many more Presidents will be impeached.

The second article—obstruction of Congress—is even weaker. Democrats want to oust Mr. Trump simply for defending his powers as President to have confidential discussions with his top advisers. Bill Clinton made similar privilege claims but lost in court. The House could have gone to court against Mr. Trump to see how its claims played out. But Democrats wanted to rush to meet their own arbitrary political calendar, and now they want the Senate to do what the House wouldn’t.
Yeah ... what the dems really want is to somehow allow the Senate and "impeachment" remove Donald Trump from office—something they fear that the voters won't do.








Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Paying a Price

Imagine for just a moment if the GOP members in Congress voted to block a resolution supporting the Democratic protesters in Hong Kong and warning/comdemning China for acts against dissenters and religious minorities within their country. The Dems and their trained hamsters in the media would go wild, suggesting that the GOP supported the Chinese regime and that it was all Donald Trump's fault.

This week, the media was silent when the Democrats in the House voted against a resolution condemning the mad mullahs of Iran for the shoot-down of a Ukrainian airline, the murder of hundred of protesters over the past few months, and the suppression of dissent that is on-going. Henry Rodgers comments:
Democrats in the House of Representatives blocked a vote Tuesday to support the protesters in Iran who are demonstrating against the regime.

Consideration and a vote on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s resolution was blocked because Democrats advanced the previous question, by a vote of 226-191. The resolution would have condemned the Government of Iran for killing 1,500 Iranian citizens who were protesting their government, as well as condemned the Government of Iran for shooting down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, killing 176 people.

In addition, the resolution; “(3) condemns the Government of Iran for repeatedly lying to its people and to the world about its responsibility for the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752; (4) calls on the Government of Iran to— (A) refrain from the use of violence; and (B) protect the rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly; and (5) supports the protestors in Iran, their demands for accountability, and their desire for the Government of Iran to respect freedom and human rights.”
It's all anti-Trump politics, of course, but it's still despicable. Trump, by all objective accounts, did NOT lead us into a war with Iran, despite what the Dems breathlessly predicted. The Iranian response was timid, at best, despite the wailings of armageddon by the Dems' trained hamsters. And after serial unanswered provocations, the Mullahs have been sent a stern message that was long, long overdue. Furthermore, the conditions precipitated by severe economic sanctions might just lead to regime change (one can hope). That's all bad news for the Democrats, so I suppose the last thing they need to do is show support for that eventuality.

Trump Derangement Syndrome has forced the Dems to defend some very bad people over the past 3 years—recall the MS-13 kerfuffle; their outright refusal to condemn documented Antifa violence; the muted condemnation (if any) of Venezuelan socialist leadership; the not-so-subtle suggestion that General Qassem Soleimani was unjustifiably killed, and now, incredibly, implicit support for the dictatorial mad mullahs of Iran.

It's quite remarkable how hatred of Trump can warp the Dem's judgement and decision making. They'll pay a price for this ... they just don't know it yet.

Monday, January 13, 2020

A White Swan Event

Late last week, if you were to believe the Democrat's trained hamsters in the main stream media, the country of Iran was in mourning over General Qassem Soleimani, who was a revered and beloved leader. Liz Warren called him a "senior government official," as if the guy worked for Iran's Treasury Department instead of coordinating Iran's worldwide terror network. This, of course, perfectly fit their narrative that Donald Trump is a warmonger who assassinated Soleimani without justification.

Now we find that all of that was fake news. Sure, there were Islamists who mourned Soleimani's death, but recent events in Iran indicate that the general was far from loved. Protests are mounting after the mad mullah's first lied (what else is new?) about their downing of a Ukrainian airliner, then admitted to the shoot-down. Not to be deterred by reality, a number of leftist Democrats and their media shills decided that the airliner tragedy was Trump's fault, even though Iran had been acting provocatively and aggressively for months, and Trump refused to be provoked (until an American was killed and our embassy was attacked). When the airline-shoot-down-was-Trump's-fault tack encountered a combination of derision and push-back they decided that "Trump lied" when he stated that four embassies were Iran's next target. Anything to reduce the positive impact of Trump's aggressive actions.

While Donald Trump and many GOP politicians have expressed support for the Iranian protest movement, it's interesting to note that as of yesterday, not one of the Democratic candidates for president have tweeted or stated support for the masses of Iranian protesters, who unlike the #Resistance in the USA, actually do put their lives on the line by going into the streets. It's almost as if the Dems are somehow supportive of the Mullah's efforts to maintain high tension with the U.S., hoping that Trump will miscalculate, and we'll be dragged into a broader shooting war. Cynical, yes, but with the exception of his bombastic and sometimes obnoxious style along with the collusion and impeachment hoaxes, Trump hasn't given the Dems much to work with in 2020.

Roger Kimball writes:
Iran had indeed shot down the commercial airliner, but inadvertently. It was a mistake. The trigger-happy chap who sent the Russian Tor M1 surface-to-air missile hurtling toward the aircraft apparently mistook it for an American cruise missile.

Fun facts: a Tomahawk cruise missile, with booster, is a bit over 20-feet-long, with a wingspan of less than nine feet. A Boeing 737-800 is a few inches shy of 130 feet long with a wingspan of nearly 113 feet. Students of interpreting radar cross-sections will find that interesting.

Frances Townsend, a former Homeland Security adviser to President George W. Bush, expressed a thought that will have occurred to many observers. “A country that cannot competently operate its air defense system aspires to possess #nuclear weapons! Really?! Just contemplate that for a moment.”
But the Dems insist that the Obama approach—you know, the one that gave Iran $150 billion and accepted a promise that the Mullahs wouldn't build nukes for 10 years is the best one—lead from behind, baby! Those would be the same Mullahs who lie about everything—including the shoot down of the Ukrainian aircraft. That would be the same Iran who technical incompetence mistook a large airliner for a cruise missile. What would they do with nuclear weapons? Ooops ... we didn't mean to launch on Tel Aviv, it was a "mistake."

The trained hamsters in the media refuse to consider an alternative to all-out war with Iran. Trump's aggressive stance with the Mullahs and the growing unrest that it has precipitated within the country, might, just might, lead to a different outcome. Ross Clark comments:
It is easy to construct a scenario in which tit-for-tat actions by the Americans and Iranians lead to all-out war, close off the Gulf, send oil prices soaring, crash the global economy — and, if you are really going to go for it, end in nuclear conflagration. But what about the alternative outcome: that conflict between Iran and the West precipitates a counter-revolution against the mullahs and leads to an end of the 40-year Iranian theocracy?

The overthrow of the Iranian regime is the black swan event — or maybe it ought to be called a white swan event — which no-one is talking about, which is odd given that there have been plenty of indications over the past couple of years that ordinary Iranians are finally growing fed up with their regime.

In May 2018, Iranian truckers began a nationwide strike over wages. The following month, market traders in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar staged a mass protest against the sinking Iranian currency, the rial. The protests quickly spread to over 200 cities.

Last spring, Iran’s teachers staged a sit-in, culminating in a mass protest against inflation outside the Parliament building in Tehran on May 1, with some protesters adopting the yellow vests of French fuel protesters.

The trigger for these protests, as so often in the collapse of dictatorships, is economic. Donald Trump might not think that existing western sanctions are sufficient, but the truth is that they have hurt the Iranian economy. People who might not be politicized or motivated to protest against a regime purely on the basis of individual freedom, the right to free speech and so on, do nevertheless tend to rise up in anger when their living standards are attacked.
What? Until yesterday, you didn't get many details about unrest in Iran? That's because the trained hamsters in the media (not to mention the Dems) desperately need to promote their WWIII narrative, hoping that American voters with flock to their failed appeasement agenda. As I recall, the Dems labeled Ronald Reagan a "warmonger" when he took a tough stance with the Soviet Union back in the 1980s. It's just possible that the result we saw with the USSR and Reagan then just might be the same result we see with Trump and Iran now.

UPDATE:
-----------------

Relatively few Americans are old enough to remember the Shah of Iran, a dictator no doubt, but secular, a friend to American, a man who tried to modernize his country, and a leader who resisted the crushing weight of radical Islam. Even fewer remember that when the Shah was deposed and hardcore Islamists took over, they were applauded as heroes by the Western Left. Yet again, the left was wrong, picking the side that ultimately abused its own people.

I can still recall that I warned those who applauded the Shah's departure that the Ayatollah Komeni was a bad guy. I was right. One dictatorship was replaced by another, but the new one was comprised of religious fanatics who were anti-American and even more repressive than the Shah. The Shah is accused of killing thousands. Ayotollah Komeni and his crew are responsible for the deaths on more than a million.

Komeni's successors are equally bad, and Donald Trump is the first American president refused to engage in the shadow war of the past four decades and instead, do something about Iran. The sanctions his administration have imposed are crippling. David Goldman writes:
Iranians face desperate conditions, if not actual hunger, due to the effect of economic sanctions. Add to this the long-term effects of mismanagement of the country’s scarce water resources. Afshin Shahi wrote recently in the Journal of Asian Affairs: “Approximately 97% of the country is experiencing drought conditions. Due to gross water mismanagement and its damaging impact on the country, Iran faces the worst situation in the water resources of any industrialized nation. Tens of thousands of villages have been deserted and most of the major urban centers have passed their limits to absorb new rural migrants. Some officials predict that in less than 25 years, 50 million Iranians would be displaced from their current homes because of the pressing ecological conditions.”

Few countries have endured this level of deprivation outside of full war mobilization, and few have seen such a drastic decline in the number of births. The only modern comparison is Venezuela. Governments with a monopoly of economic resources and the willingness to kill significant numbers of their own citizens can stay in power for quite some time, but there seems no question that Iran’s regime is fragile and prone to destabilization.
The sanctions are harsh, but if they ultimately result in regime change, they will have been worth it. Let's hope that fragility becomes more and more brittle and the mad mullahs' regime ultimately cracks.


Friday, January 10, 2020

Flower Children

3, 2, 1, .... Like clockwork, the hard-left progressive wing of the Democratic party (i.e., a significant majority of the party base) has decided that only an imminent threat justifies the killing of a long-time terror mastermind who is responsible for hundreds of American military deaths. And even when they're told that a threat did exist, they waffle, because ... Trump.

After telling us that Trump's action would lead us to WWIII, and then becoming near-hysterical about Iran's retaliation, and then suggesting that Iran's mistaken shoot-down of a Ukrainian passenger plane was ... get ready for it ... "Trump's fault." That if only Trump had not responded to Iran's hijacking of oil tankers in international waters, or the attack on Saudi-Arabia's oil field, and dozens of other Iran-backed and Soleimani-planned terror attacks over the past few months ... oh wait, Trump didn't respond, showing considerable restraint until the Mullahs ordered a proxy Islamist group to attack Americans (killing one) and the US embassy.

But the Left has apparently decided that Iran can act with impunity regardless of who they kill or what they do.

Kim Strassel comments:
The targeted killing of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani led the progressive movement to go full flower child...

Voters now know that a President Bernie Sanders would not take action against Iran or other rogue regimes, no matter how many red lines they cross. Mr. Sanders will take no step that might bring us anywhere closer to “another disastrous war” or cost “more dollars and more deaths.” A President Elizabeth Warren would similarly offer a pass to leaders of U.S.-designated terrorist groups, at least if they have an official title. The Trump strike, she said, amounted to the “assassination” of “a government official, a high-ranking military official.”

The House Progressive Caucus in a Thursday press conference laid out additional aspects of the left’s foreign-policy worldview. Member after member took to the podium to demand legislation that would hem all presidents in from further acts of deterrence. Rep. Ilhan Omar explained that progressives don’t oppose only military force; they also oppose “crippling sanctions,” which “starve the innocent people of Iran.”
Hmmm. I know who the Mullahs will be rooting for in November of 2020. Let's hope they don't get their wish.