Iranian Attacks Are An Act Of War!
“This was a great move by Trump and exemplifies true leadership. Again, this goes back to Joint Operations_The Lily Pad Strategy. Intelligence generates actionable threat targets and takes action to destroy the target, anywhere, anytime. I know Trump understands this new warfighting strategy.”
“General Qassem Soleimani and his command of the Quds and IRGC forces as well as a multitude of Iran supported militias throughout the Middle East have been a consistent threat throughout the Middle East. As well, he and his command reached into South America, Yemen, Syria, Iraq. This command leadership has now been eliminated so the question is what will be Khomeini and the Ayatollah will do. Trump is prepared and will execute his Joint Strike Force Operations as necessary.”
Founding Member – Citizens Commission on National Security
As the father of Navy SEAL Ty Woods who was killed in Benghazi, Libya I would like to personally thank President Trump for his clear and decisive action to rescue the Americans under attack at our U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
If Donald Trump had been President on September 11, 2012 instead of Obama or Mrs. Clinton, my son Ty would be alive today.
By Frank Miles, Fox News.
President Trump ordered a game-changing U.S. military attack that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, among other military officials at Baghdad International Airport early Friday, the Pentagon confirmed.
Soleimani is the military mastermind whom Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had deemed equally as dangerous as Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In October, Baghdadi killed himself during a U.S. raid on a compound in northwest Syria, seven months after the so-called ISIS “caliphate” crumbled as the terrorist group lost its final swath of Syrian territory in March.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted after the attack “The US’ act of international terrorism, targeting & assassinating General Soleimani—THE most effective force fighting Daesh (ISIS), Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda et al—is extremely dangerous & a foolish escalation.”
He added that the U.S. “bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism.”
In April 2019, the State Department announced Iran was responsible for killing 608 U.S. troops during the Iraq War. Soleimani was the head of the Iranian and Iranian-backed forces carrying out those operations killing American troops. According to the State Department, 17 percent of all deaths of U.S. personnel in Iraq from 2003 to 2011 were orchestrated by Soleimani.
As recently as 2015, a travel ban and United Nations Security Council resolutions had barred Soleimani from leaving Iran.
Friday’s Baghdad strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, a source told Fox News.
In all, at least seven people were killed and at least three rockets were fired, officials told The Associated Press. An official with the Popular Mobilization Forces said its airport protocol officer, Mohammed Reda, also died.
Hours after the attack was announced, President Trump tweeted a simple image of the American flag.
Soleimani was the long-running leader of the elite intelligence wing called Quds Force – which itself has been a designated terror group since 2007, and is estimated to be 20,000 strong. Considered one of the most powerful men in Iran, he routinely was referred to as its “shadow commander” or “spymaster.”
Their deaths marked a potential turning point in the Middle East, and are expected to draw severe retaliation from Iran and the forces it’s backed in the Middle East against Israel and American interests.
An official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press that Muhandis had arrived to the airport in a convoy to receive Soleimani whose plane had arrived from either Lebanon or Syria. The airstrike occurred as soon as he descended from the plane to be greeted by Muhandis and his companions, killing them all.
A senior politician said Soleimani’s body was identified by the ring he wore.
Iraq’s Security Media Cell, which released information regarding Iraqi security, said the three rockets landed near the cargo hall.
Iraqi security also said two cars were on fire.
The two-day siege outside of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad came to an end Wednesday afternoon after dozens of pro-Iran militiamen and their supporters withdrew from the compound.
The crisis started early Tuesday, when, in an orchestrated assault, hundreds of protesters stormed the embassy compound, one of the most heavily fortified U.S. diplomatic missions in the world.
President Trump, who on Tuesday night vowed that the situation “will not be a Benghazi” — a pointed reference to the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya on the Obama administration’s watch, ordered deployment of about 750 U.S. soldiers to the Middle East.
The embassy attack, one of the worst in recent memory, followed deadly U.S. airstrikes on Sunday that killed 25 fighters of the Iran-backed group, the Kataeb Hezbollah. The U.S. military said the airstrikes were retaliation for last week’s killing of an American contractor in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base, which the U.S. blamed on the militia.
“Through the president’s direction, we were able to physically defeat the caliphate that remains physically defeated, if you will,” he added. “And now, our aim is to deter further Iranian bad behavior that has been going on now for over 40 years. It’s time that Iran started acting like a normal country.”
Fox News’ Lucas Tomlinson, John Roberts, Mike Arroyo and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
…“Stand beside her, and guide her, through the night with A light from above”…
The U.S. Navy Drone surveying the ocean. Looking for the NextWave. Wu Hu!
Hey Wray let’s make it easy fore U. CTO EE. It’s so much more than the Tsin Tsin Road.
SMILE! Find Judge Advocate. Find Affirmed.
“Everybody’s gone surf in’…Surf in’ USA…”
And the $240 million dollar bill which includes all the upgrades needs to go to…WHO knows…
“Poor Shep and Chris. They walked right into it. Such a thing. GO figure. &.”
– The Shark and Sparky the Clown
Trump Hits FOX News at PA Rally: “Something Very Strange Is Going On”
– Donald Trump, President of The United States of America
Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Wray…This is your Fools Brought In fore a reason…still Not Sure Dunno.
It is truly amazing when a significant piece of intel given to DHS, the FBI, and the Intel community, and after nothing was done, it winds up on a jihadi website and in perfect english. How could it be…WHO knows…Now back to that airplane hanger at Ft. Hood. U.O.
What is the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Intel Community, the Department of State, and Congress hiding?
SUA has proprietary intel concerning the greatest crimes ever committed against the American people.
New York (CNN)Fox News hosts Chris Wallace and Shep Smith challenged President Donald Trump’s comments about when and why he decided to call off a strike against Iran.
By Mark Cancian
Tensions continue to escalate in the Persian Gulf as the Iranians down one U.S. drone, shoot at another and, likely, sponsor attacks on tankers and a Saudi airport. Let’s take a look at the most recent incidents and what they might mean for the future. Will there be a war?
What happened? Early Thursday the Iranians used a surface to air missile to shoot down a U.S. drone just outside the Straits of Hormuz. The Iranians posted a video that purported to show the shootdown, and the United States acknowledged that it had lost a Broad Area Maritime Surveillance drone (BAMS-D). The Iranians claimed it was in their territorial airspace while the United States claimed it was in international airspace. Under international law, it’s a critical question, and, eventually, there will be an answer. The United States will likely salvage the wreckage, as it has with recent aircraft crashes, and the location will show where the drone actually was. However, that will take many weeks and likely be of historical interest, rather than helpful in resolving the current crisis.
What is this BAMS-D drone? This is a Navy prototype version of the Air Force RQ-4 Global Hawk. The Navy’s fully developed version is called the MQ-4C Triton and is just entering production. These are very large unmanned aircraft. The wingspan is 132 feet, comparable to a civilian airliner. (For comparison, a Boeing 757 has a wingspan of 124 feet.) The drone is designed for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), the Pentagon term meaning that it has sensors to find things on the earth surface. The Navy’s version focuses on the sea, whereas the Air Force version focuses on land. Here’s how DOD describes the Navy version: “The MQ-4C will provide the Navy with a persistent maritime ISR capability. Mission systems include inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar, Electro-optical/Infra-red Full Motion Video, maritime moving target detection, Electronic Support Measures, Automatic Identification System, a basic communications relay capability, and Link-16.” Because of their size, BAMS-D and Triton are land based.
BAMS-D is not stealthy, is unarmed, flies relatively slowly, and has essentially no defensive systems. Its only defense is to fly high, at 60,000 feet. Because of its vulnerability, it is not designed to operate in a contested area. Its great advantage is that it can fly for over 32 hours continuously, far longer than any human crew could endure.
So, what was it doing there? Although the Pentagon has not stated what the mission was, one presumes that it was watching for more tanker attacks. Four ships were attacked in May and two more last week. If the U.S. could catch whoever was doing the attacks, presumedly Iran, then it might be able to thwart future attacks and have the evidence needed to convince domestic and international audiences of Iran’s culpability.
Does this thing really cost $240 million? Yes…and no. Because DOD weapons are custom-built, they don’t have price tags like equipment does in the civilian world. Systems have many possible costs depending on what is included and what the number is used for. Thus, different commentators have cited different costs for this aircraft, for example, $120 million or $180 million.
Since BAMS-D is a version of the Air Force RQ-4, we can use the RQ-4’s official acquisition report, called the Selected Acquisition Report, to calculate a cost for BAMS-D. This report shows an average procurement cost over the whole program of $122 million in FY 2015 dollars or about $130 million in FY 2019 dollars. That excludes the research and development costs, which are mostly sunk at the beginning of the program. If those were included, the cost per aircraft would increase to about $240 million (FY 2019 dollars). To make things even more complicated, there is something called the “flyaway cost,” which is the cost of a system coming out of the factory without some of the support elements in the “procurement” cost. The “flyaway cost” of a new MQ-4C replacement for the lost BAMS-D is a bargain, at $102 million (FY 2019 dollars).
No matter which cost you pick, however, this was an expensive system. It is a very large aircraft with many sophisticated sensors on it.
What were these other attacks? Apparently, Iranians also shot at another drone last week, an MQ-9 Reaper (replacement for the legendary MQ-1 Predator), but missed. That it missed is likely because Reapers are much smaller than the MQ-4C and thus harder to hit. They are also much less expensive, costing about $30 million. The Reaper drone, like the MQ-4C that was shot down, was likely looking for perpetrators of the tanker attacks and was probably the source of the video about Iranians removing mines from the attacked tankers.
Also last week a group of Iranian back Yemeni rebels attacked a Saudi airport with cruise missiles, one of a series of such attacks. The bottom line is that these drone and tanker attacks are not isolated incidents but part of the campaign by Iran to put pressure on its major enemies, the United States and Saudi Arabia, and, indirectly, on the Europeans, Japanese and others to get relief from U.S. sanctions.
What’s going to happen next? The Iranians are signaling that they will not accept the U.S. imposed sanctions passively. They are striking back as they always have: asymmetrically and in the “gray zone.” Asymmetrically means they are not meeting U.S. strength head-on and the gray zone means they are maneuvering in the space between war and peace. Likely, the Iranians will continue to initiate “incidents.” By maintaining some deniability and not injuring human beings, the Iranians have been very clever in keeping these incidents below the level where the United States would respond with force.
At some point, the Iranians may cross these lines either by injuring an American or by being caught red-handed in conducting an attack. Then, the United States would almost certainly respond with force. This happened in the 1980s when the United States caught the Iranians laying sea mines in the Persian Gulf and retaliated by sinking half of the Iranian Navy.
The U.S. has the capability in theater now to conduct a retaliatory strike, likely against the air defense battery that shot down the drone. According to the New York Times, an attack on Iranian radar and missile batteries was prepared for Thursday, but the operation was cancelled. Strikes could also be directed against Iranian naval capabilities that might have carried out the tanker attacks. The U.S. does not have enough assets in theater to conduct an extended air-naval campaign, even with the additional thousand troops being sent. It certainly does not have the capability to conduct any ground campaign against Iran.
More likely, however, is something non-kinetic. The president is reluctant to get into a shooting war, having campaigned against such involvements. Instead, the United States might take some covert action like the cyber-attack that was allegedly recently conducted against Russia. It might start escorting ships and aircraft through the Straits of Hormuz. The NATO allies and Japan might be willing to support such an action.
Unfortunately, the situation is not stable. Most likely, there will be additional incidents within a week with each carrying the risk of escalation. Last August, I wrote a piece looking at indicators of a possible conflict (Is The US Going To War With Iran? Five Indicators To Watch For). Three have occurred (“increased naval activity,” “Iranian complaints about reconnaissance flights,” and “increased security at regional U.S. bases”).
Now back to MAR-A-LAG-O. All along the watchtower. It’s not the Hawaiian but it will do.
Editor’s Note – When it comes to National Security we really should be listening to those that are experienced military advisors, not political advisors pretending to be National Security advisors.
The president soothes anti-Western grievances at great cost
While France remains in a state of shock over the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, they are also most likely confused and disappointed over President Obama’s declaration that there will be no fundamental change to his current policy and strategy to “now contain and defeat ISIS.”
During his Nov. 12 remarks in Antalya, Turkey, Mr. Obama appeared to be petulant and arrogant when responding to legitimate reporter’s questions, perhaps a “crack” in the carefully constructed veneer that has concealed his true character and now has been exposed.
However, on Nov. 17, The New York Times editorial board quickly came to the rescue by declaring that Mr. Obama “hit the right tone” in his remarks.
But his remarks should leave no doubt that he has a far-reaching strategy. That strategy is embedded in his declaration to fundamentally transform America. Actually, the way we are restricting our operations in the Middle East today has its roots in America’s transformation.
Those who say the administration is incompetent — are wrong. With the complicity of our congressional leadership and the mainstream media, the administration has executed their strategy brilliantly.
No matter how many times “progressives” try to rationalize or accommodate perceived Muslim grievances, the fact remains that Islam has been involved in a struggle for world domination for over 1,400 years.
What the world witnessed in Paris, and certainly here in America on Sept. 11, 2001, was a continuing clash of civilizations between Islam and the Judeo-Christian values of the West.
As the noted historian Samuel P. Huntington implied, Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western values and cultures.
Once the Islamic threat has been exposed and understood, then any thinking American should be able to grasp Mr. Obama’s strategy. It is anti-American; anti-Western; but pro-Islamic; pro-Iranian; and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.
This raises the question: Why would an American president with his country’s Judeo-Christian heritage, who professes to be a Christian, embrace Islam? Or for that matter, why would an American president embrace Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, which has been at war with the United States for over 35 years? They have caused the loss of thousands of American civilians and military lives.
Also, why would an American president embrace the Muslim Brotherhood, whose creed is to destroy America from within by our own miserable hands, and replace our Constitution with seventh century Shariah law? They have been able to penetrate all our national security and intelligence agencies. Consequently, they have had a major impact on our foreign and domestic policies as well as the way our military is restricted on fighting our wars.
It is not possible to list all of President Obama’s executive orders and policies that have imposed undue restraints on our military forces and first responders, but illustrative of those are the following:
When President Obama gave his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University, co-hosted by Al-Azhar University, the center of Sunni doctrine for over 1,000 years, he stated, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” that said it all.
Again, when he spoke at the U.N. on Sept. 25, 2012, after the Benghazi tragedy and stated that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” — case closed. Andy McCarthy, author and National Review columnist, made a compelling case for Mr. Obama’s impeachment in his book, “Faithless Execution.”
Clearly, the president has exposed where he stands when the issue is Islam versus our Judeo-Christian heritage. Certainly, the case is there to be made for his removal from office for his illegal, unconstitutional and treasonous acts.
James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
Editor’s Note – It’s a bizarre thing existing in a Netherworld where you neither support nor despise Republican frontrunner Donald Trump.
The benefits of this new media world of ours, this awe-inspiring world of social media and instant online publishing, far outweigh the negatives.
One obvious negative is that our politics are becoming a bit more shrill, sometimes to the point where if you haven’t yet taken a side, one will be assigned to you.
By Sundance – The Last Refuge
A few days ago I took the time to read your expressed concerns about the support you see for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion. Toward that end I have also noted additional media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.
While we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.
The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.
I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.
On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am.
The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies.
It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber.
I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.
Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation.
Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.
Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred. Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”.
Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.
Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years. The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed.
Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.
Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1. It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.
From your own writing:
[…] If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent. (link)
With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto? Simply, NO.
Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.
If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people. Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option. While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.
Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?
We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue. We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.
Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people. This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.
We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so. Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?
Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind.
Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage. A profound difference.
Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?
Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable. Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent.
Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable empirical realities. I digress.
Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski? A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?
Did Reince Preibus, or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?
Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?
Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?
Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads? Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel. The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.
Perhaps you forget. We do not.
Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.
You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test?
Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.
Principle? You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration. Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?
Remember Virginia 2012, 2013? When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”. Remember that? We do.
What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign. To teach us a lesson? Well it worked, we learned that lesson.
Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.
You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals.
Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?
That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)
What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say. The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.
But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.
The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.
The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.
This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners) with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs.
Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.
Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?
As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes? All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”.
Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers? This is a conservative position now? A need to “tax the poor”? Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.
This is a winning strategy? This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.
Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:
• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP
• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP
• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP
• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP
• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)
And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us? SERIOUSLY?
Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:
“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”
Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.
The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!
That’s a strategy?
That’s the GOP strategy? Essentially: Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?
THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY?
Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.
And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year. Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?
….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?