Opinion| Mark Sidney| As if it was not enough that America’s Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is, IMHO, handcuffing President Trump’s ability to defend the nation and emboldening Iran by promising to vote on a resolution which, in my estimation, only signals to Iran that the Democrats are on their side, and will do all they can to prevent the United States from defending itself, enter Adam Schiff.
First the Pelosi vowed:
‘This week, the House will introduce and vote on a War Powers Resolution to limit the President’s military actions regarding Iran. This resolution is similar to the resolution introduced by Senator Tim Kaine in the Senate. It reasserts Congress’s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken, the Administration’s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days.’
Now, enter Adam Schiff, the most admired man in … Iran.
Word is, that just like when Trump launched the strike that took out al-Baghdadi, and refused to tip off Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer et al , President Trump employed the same tactic for the raid that killed Soleimani.
The Commander in Chief did not tell little Adam Schiff, nor Pelosi, beforehand about the strike (likely because he did not want Iran to be tipped off, IMHO), and now it seems, with their feelings hurt, the Democrats are planning on taking out their revenge … on America’s safety, while at the same time, providing support, in essence, to the enemy.
The Gateway Pundit opined: ‘‘House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) called for Congressional hearings into Trump’s drone strike that killed top Iran commander and terrorist Qassem Soleimani.
The Democrat-led House has made it clear that they will meddle in every single foreign policy decision President Trump makes.
From Ukraine to Iran to North Korea, the legislative branch is now overreaching and claiming the President does not have the authority to call strikes against a hostile enemy.
“The president has put us on a path where we may be at war with Iran. That requires the Congress to fully engage,” Schiff told WaPo.’
…
Schiff echoed Speaker Pelosi and said there’s “absolutely no way” Trump should retaliate to a potential attack from Iran with “disproportionate” actions.
President Trump put Iran on notice over the weekend and stated that there are 52 targets that “will be hit very has and very hard” if Iran were to strike any American or American target.
Schiff also said the intelligence supporting the claim that Soleimani was planning an imminent attack was thin.’
STOP THE TAPE. Adam Schiff, the man who has made a career centered around lying about possessing evidence, that multiple investigations have concluded does not exist, is complaining about ‘thin‘ evidence? This is just too much.
Now, to be clear, I too want to see the evidence of what Iran was planning (as long as providing such proof does not compromise current operations) as I do not trust the war hawks in the State Dept and DS, who have seemingly wanted to go to war with Iran for years now, as far as I can throw them, BUT, hearing this from shifty Schiff is more than I can bare.
“I’m certainly not satisfied that the intelligence supports the conclusion that the killing of Soleimani was going to either prevent attacks on the United States or reduce the risk to American lives,” Schiff continued
I don’t think the intelligence was of the kind of character that would lead to a uniform recommendation that Soleimani should be killed,” … “I think that was an impulsive judgment made by the president.” Adam added.
Impulsive? AYFKM Adam? I suppose HRC and Barry did not defend the Libyan embassy in Benghazi, because doing so would have been ‘impulsive.’ Soleimani is responsible for countless deaths, many of which include Americans, but also his own citizens. He has been our adversary for years. There was nothing impulsive about killing a terror mastermind.
Oh, and this just in: Trump is the Commander and Chief of the armed forces of the United States of America, not Adam Schiff.
Trump does not need to run strikes of this nature by little Adam Schiff, nor Pelosi, or Chucky Schumer, who has been suspiciously quiet recently. Although the Congress has allowed previous Presidents to operate with impunity, turning the Middle East into a festering wound for decades now, the Constitution does give Congress, and only Congress the power to declare war in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. However, the law recognizes that strikes of this nature are within the power of the Executive.
Even Jeh Johnson, Obama’s DHS chief, admitted on Sunday on “Meet the Press”: “If you believe everything that our government is saying about General Soleimani, he was a lawful military objective, and the president, under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without an additional congressional authorization. Whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people, he was a lawful military objective.”
It is ‘funny’ that, after years of demanding Trump destroy Syria with our military might, that the Democrats are so concerned with restraint when it comes to Iran … the nation which has been leading the proxy armies behind the scenes in Iraq, and elsewhere, against our Troops, for years now.
All these events beg one question: Why did the Democrats so willingly go along with the destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations under previous Presidents, demand incursions into Syria under Trump’s reign, but now, when we go to target the power behind those fighting our troops and allies in the region, the Dems are suddenly outraged?
Is it because they were not invited to participate, that they did not know? Or could it be more sinister? Could it be that the Democrats and DS want to see Iran gain influence and power? Do they want Iran to take over the region? I do not pretend to know the answer to this question, perhaps you can share your thoughts with me.
