Trump wins again

    Donald's set piece on the prior administration's  "foolish " no nuke agreement with Iran per se  -and its' associated role "providing the funding for Missile attack" could seem as evidence that he has finally lost all contact with reality and needs to be taken away for a long  rest.

    On the contrary, it was a great success.

    In the hours since  it's been the main topic, as he intended. As opposed the dangerous (for him) topics of the murder itself  and the need for Congress to revoke the extraordinarily improper Authorization to Use Force Resolution.



    Always ready to bend the knee

     An opposing view from WaPo (via HuffPost for those w/o a subscription)

    The Washington Post editorial board on Wednesday warned of the dangers of declaring President Donald Trump triumphant in Iran after the pause of the escalation in tensions between the two nations.

    In a new editorial, the newspaper’s board described Trump acolytes’ boast that the president had “eliminated the architect of Iran’s foreign adventurism” (top Gen. Qassem Soleimani) while “avoiding a more damaging response” as “premature and shortsighted.”

    “Iran’s strikes on U.S. interests and allies will almost certainly continue in the coming months,” the board wrote. “Unless the Trump administration quickly steps up its diplomatic game, what Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called his ultimate aim — the removal of the United States from the Middle East — could soon be realized in Iraq and Syria.”

    The editorial noted Trump still faced the thorny issues of Iran’s nuclear program and the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. Trump announced new sanctions on Iran as he addressed the nation on Wednesday.

    Twitter posts from Simon Rosenberg suggesting that Putin's plan to get the US out of Iraq is working. It was devised by Russian and Iran. Trump played into their hands.

    the reason for the "winning"? Mullahs can't shoot straight?

    The Iranians play chess, always. This says "We don't do assassination, we're better than them":

    Missile strike on U.S. targets ‘did not intend to kill,’ says Iranian commander

    “We intended to hit the enemy’s military machinery,” not to cause casualties, the head of the Revolutionary Guard’s Aerospace Force said, in the latest sign that Iran was seeking to avoid further escalation. Rocket attacks in Iraq late Wednesday, however, suggested the risk remained.

    I noticed yesterday that someone with influence must have told Muqtada al-Sadr to stand down, I found it suspicious:

    Shiite Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr advises pro-Iranian armed groups not to start a military action, “the crisis is over” he said in a statement.

    — Mustafa Salim (@Mustafa_salimb) January 8, 2020

    Meanwhile, things are not all unified MAGA in the GOP, while the mullahs may have shot down a plane by mistake, the GOP looks a disunified mess in messaging about Iran (no doubt the chaos continues Bolton's despair and is the reason he has signaled he is willing to talk about the White House to Senators)

    The Fix


    The Trump team’s increasingly jumbled case for striking Qasem Soleimani

    After a briefing that divided Republicans, Vice President Pence tried a new tactic Thursday. It only muddied the waters further.

    Analysis: The ghosts of 1979 still haunt U.S. policy toward Iran and shadow Trump’s response to missile strikes

    starting to look to me a little like a mini-Cuban missile crisis on all sides, where nobody's a winner, everybody stands down, best laid plans of mice and men, let's all get a little humility here?

    Edit to add: throw into this messy mix that many Fox News talking heads were not beating war drums.

    Has Dem presidential candidates' stated foreign policy on Iran so far:

    Argument that he's a big loser:

    Hair splitting I agree. My theory is that he'd be further behind  if he hadn't trotted out the ever-popular  anti Obama attack to provide his faithful with a blind alley to chase down.

    Not just amusing myself with a  contrary view,  I actually think there's some actual validity. But only some!

    FWIW, Thurs. night he was desperately appropriating the "deplorables" thing:

    Donald Trump refers to 42 million American voters as “vicious, horrible people.”

    — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) January 10, 2020

    Heckuva way to get more votes!

    Interesting that there's always a Trump tweet that makes Trump a loser by his own standards:


    Julian Borger thinks (and he has a good record on things about power in foreign policy) that:

    The winningest president evah sells The Troops for big bucks. Artful dealing. #MAGA.


    And if these mercenaries maliciiusly kill someone like a contractor out in the field, do they get to target one of our leaders?

    And why haven't we struck Saudi Arabia?

    Trying to understand the new rules.

    Unconfirmed (read thread):

    ya I saw that. And thought: back b.t. (before Trump) I woulda thought:ridiculous conspiracizing. But now, it would just be another thing on the other side of the looking glass we are all stuck in.

    It just never ends. Check it out:


    I think "spot on":

    Latest Comments