By Jon Dougherty

(TNS) During his eight-year tenure, President Barack Obama launched thousands of drone strikes, killing thousands of bad guys in far away lands.

And not once did he get flak from a supine “mainstream media” and Democrat Party for doing what he was supposed to be doing — protecting the country.

In fact, just about the only terrorist Obama didn’t take out was Gen. Qassem Soleimani, but that was because he was too busy paying Iran off with billions of dollars and giving the al Quds Force leader and murderer of more than 600 American servicemen and women amnesty.

So, along comes President Donald Trump who, last June, authorized the targeting of Soleimani if he was responsible for one more American death — which happened last month. An attack on an American base in Iraq left a U.S. military contractor dead, thereby crossing Trump’s ‘red line.’

And Soleimani is no more.

Trump was doing what he’s supposed to do as well: Protect America and Americans from threats, and Soleimani was a threat. Had been for decades.

Yet, for some reason, the Garbage Party and their media enablers can’t seem to let go of it.

Soleimani was killed January 2, and yet the media and Democrats continue to pontificate about it, to opine, to question Trump administration officials about it, to grill them, to probe — as if something out of the ordinary occurred, something ill-fated, something illegal, something that Trump wasn’t supposed to do.

Per Washington Examiner national security correspondent Jaime McIntyre’s daily email newsletter on Tuesday:

Defense Secretary Mark Esper, in interviews on CBS and CNN yesterday, said he shared President Trump’s belief that Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani was likely to attack more U.S. embassies than just the one in Baghdad, even as Esper admitted he was unaware of any specific intelligence to back up the president’s claim.

Pressed for details by Laura Ingrahan during a Friday interview on Fox, Trump asserted that Solemani was plotting against multiple American diplomatic facilities. “I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies,” Trump said. “But Baghdad certainly would have been the lead. But I think it would have been four embassies, could have been military bases, could have been a lot of other things too. But it was imminent and then all of a sudden, he was gone.’

“What the president said was he believed that there probably and could have been attacks against additional embassies, Esper said on CBS, “The president didn’t say there was a tangible — he didn’t cite a specific piece of evidence.”

Asked by Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan if there was a “decisive piece of evidence” supporting the president’s claim, Esper said, “I didn’t see one with regard to four embassies.”

“What he said is he probably, he believed, could have been,” Esper explained, quickly adding, “I shared that view. I know other members of the national security team shared that view.”

Even the classified briefing is still being ‘disputed,’ with Democrats and their media enablers questioning the finer points of what was and was not briefed regarding the administration’s operation — as though Obama ensured Congress was provided every factoid possible regarding his thousands of drone strikes:

GANG OF 8 BRIEFED: Esper insisted the so-called Gang of Eight, a bipartisan group of congressional leaders, was briefed on specific intelligence about the imminent threat to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, even though Esper himself was not in the briefing.

“That information was shared with the Gang of Eight, all that exceptional intelligence shared with the Gang of Eight, not the broader membership of the Congress,” Esper said, quoting one brieffer who spoke to him afterward.

“What the briefer said to me coming out of that meeting was his assessment that most, if not all the members thought that the intelligence was persuasive,” he said, “and that the Gang of Eight did not think that it should be released to the broader members of Congress.”

‘FUDGING’ THE INTEL: That was immediately disputed by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat leading the impeachment effort against Trump, and who appeared on CBS right after Esper.

“And so when you hear the president out there on Fox, he is fudging the intelligence. And when you hear the secretary say, well, that wasn’t what the intelligence said, but that’s my personal belief, he is fudging,” said Schiff. …

Esper’s careful comments on the intelligence behind the Solemani strike is just the latest instance in which the defense secretary has been careful not to challenge Trump’s account, while staying true to what he knows to be the facts.

What difference does it make whether Soleimani was or was not ‘actively’ plotting embassy attacks? And if he was, who really cares whether or not the attacks were … ‘imminent?’

Soleimani was a scumbag terrorist and he was responsible for taking the lives of hundreds of Americans. Plus, the guy was always plotting something nefarious, something was always “imminent.” That was his job on behalf of the Iranian regime — export terrorism and target Americans in covert operations.

So why in blazes are the media and Democrats still talking about this?

It’s over. It’s done. A bad guy is in his grave where he belongs. Americans are safer. The president acted with responsibility and leadership. There is nothing left to talk about regarding this particular act of self-defense.

  • We need your help to grow, pure and simple. Share our stories, make sure to tell your friends about this site, and click the red bell in the right corner for push notifications. 



Would love your thoughts, please comment.x