The newly-released audio tape of Donald Trump and Lev Parnas is troubling for several reasons. It was purportedly recorded in April of 2018 at a dinner party at Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Talking to Trump about Ukraine, Parnas suggests there's a problem with the ambassador. He says she's telling folks they shouldn't bother talking to Trump about anything because he's going to get impeached.
You should wait, she reportedly said, and talk to the next guy.
After clearing up the point about who Parnas is referring to (Marie Yovanovich, the US ambassador to Ukraine), Trump can be heard ordering some flunky to get rid of the woman.
"Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it."
(Oddly, it takes a year to make it happen, but that's another, twisted story.)
The first question, of course, concerns the authenticity of the tape. Is that really Trump talking? I have to say, it sure sounds like him, both in voice and in his habit of repeating himself.
Asked about the tape, Vice President Mike Pence says it just shows the president making a decision. Implied by his comment is his acceptance that it is Trump on the tape, so maybe we can call that a kind of authentication.
But now we need to look deeper.
Yes, the tape reveals the President of the United States making a decision. But a decision based on what information?
Trump appears to order the firing of our ambassador to Ukraine because a guy he didn't know (and repeatedly claims he still doesn't know) made a comment at a dinner party.
Does that make sense?
I think a more reasonable response to Parnas might be: "Wow, really? She said that? Sounds like something my people ought to look into."
You know, kind of ease into the situation, maybe check it out, see if there's anything to it. Get the ambassador's input, and so forth. Then act, if action is warranted.
But Trump goes from zero to sixty in nothing flat, calling for the woman's ouster on the spot. How come?
Here's a weird idea: Is it possible he mistook Parnas for Vladimir Putin? I mean, I guess they sort of resemble one another.
And no question, if Putin had said those words to Trump, Yovanovich would have found herself headed for a yak ranch in Siberia within the hour.
Putin definitely has that man's ear in all matters.
(In the "perfect" phone call with Ukrainian president Zelensky, Trump said she'd be going through some things. But yak ranching?)
Or was Trump just goofing around to impress his dinner guests? Show them how decisive he can be. Give 'em a demonstration of his awesome presidential powers.
And meant not a word of it.
(Did the woman have to go just to back up his reckless words? Is that why it took a year, folks pushing back?)
Another possibility: Trump had already decided to ditch the ambassador, and used Parnas's words as an excuse.
If that's the case, the tape is not the origin story of the Yovanovich firing. Stuff was already in the works, for reasons unrelated to anything Parnas said.
The problem with that, this dinner party occurred a year before Joe Biden entered the presidential race against Trump.
That messes with the Democrats' impeachment story, which is that Yovanovich was dumped to make possible the quid pro quo with Zelensky, a "favor" that is all about getting dirt on Biden.
So was the Trump/Giuliani plot hatched before or after the dinner party?
The hand grenade in the room is Rudy Giuliani. Did his personal machinations in Ukraine predate Trump's reelection bid? Was this all about his attempt to make money in a country known for corruption?
Which brings up this: Was Trump involved in Giuliani's self-enrichment plan? The Donald certainly likes making money. And his one-time campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was already consulting for the previous government of Ukraine, and apparently making a mint at it, too.
Did Trump hope to get a piece of that oozing pie for himself?
Parnas says he no longer believes the rumor about the ambassador that he passed on to Trump. He says he's sorry for what happened to her. But what was his purpose in telling the president?
Was he just trying to sound important, to sound like an insider, to make himself out to be a wheeler-dealer, a man worthy of rubbing elbows with rich and powerful presidents?
I haven't heard the whole tape, but sources say Parnas was involved (or hoped to be involved) in a deal to sell liquid natural gas to Ukraine. Was that on his mind? Did he think Yovanovich would be an impediment to that deal?
His attorney says the rumor originated in Ukraine. It was not something Parnas made up. If true, his words were not part of something cooked up by Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani.
More questions rise out of the abyss:
Was Rudy also involved in the LNG deal? Was there an LNG deal? If so, how did it relate to Burisma Holdings, an energy company in Ukraine that produces five percent of the natural gas used in that country. (And also happened to have Joe Biden's son Hunter on the board [from April 2014 until his term expired in April 2019, according to Wikipedia.])
I fear we may have stumbled into quicksand here.
Motives that seemed to make sense are now morphing into something far more complicated. At the very least, folks start off with one plan and slip-slide into another, all the while moving in the same direction toward what looks like the same goal.
Getting Yovanovich out of Ukraine seemed to solve a multitude of problems for a crapload of people, related or unrelated, you pick 'em.
Several things remain clear, however: Donald Trump is a lying sleazeball who is a threat to our country. He needs to go.
He also appears to be a paranoid lunatic who can be set off by some rando's words at a dinner party, a fact that stands without a discussion of the rando's motives for saying those words.
And here's a bonus: We've got a brown-nosing vice president who seems not the least bit alarmed by that fact.
Saturday, January 25, 2020
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
EYES WIDE SHUT
As I write this, House managers are making the case for amendments to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell's rules for the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Some adjustments have already been made by McConnell, and more are wanted by minority leader Chuck Schumer.
However these arguments play out, and whether or not witnesses and documents make an appearance in this trial, Senators will be tasked with acquitting or convicting the president for his actions.
After which, the senators themselves will have to take the heat for their actions. Should they fail to perform a fair trial in this case, according to the laws and traditions of this nation, they could face serious consequences.
It may be that a majority of them are willing to throw off the burden of their oaths and ignore the facts behind the impeachment articles for the sake of protecting Donald Trump, the leader of their political party.
That action may or may not be rewarded with glory and repeated reelection to public office.
It's a delicate calculation, far more difficult than simply viewing all the evidence and making a reasonable decision. There is a lot of guesswork involved.
How will the voters see their performances?
Senators facing a difficult primary have to worry about folks in their own party, sure. But if they manage to stagger through that gauntlet, they'll have to face the entire electorate in their state: voters from other parties, as well as those not bound to any party.
Citizens who might do a better job of weighing the evidence in question: the senator's documented actions.
Those Republican senators who choose to right what they see as a Democratic hoax by perpetrating a hoax of their own may find a difference of opinion in their home states.
Those who choose to protect the leader of their party may ultimately find they've walked themselves off a cliff pursuing a reward not worth having.
You can't trust the "vindicated" president will stump for your reelection, nor can you trust voters to pay any attention to him if he does.
More evidence of presidential misconduct will surface in time, in the Ukraine case and in others. The man can't help himself.
If the Republican party closes ranks and defrauds the American people of a fair trial, its members may find as a result that their party is in serious disfavor with the voters.
If that happens, the Republican gamble that they can reconstitute their political party after allowing the president to chew it up and poop it out, may prove to be a poor choice.
Whatever random bits and pieces that survive the rigors of passing through that man's overworked colon are likely to be mismatched chunks of a very stinky jigsaw puzzle.
Also, by that time, all political credibility may have been forfeited. Should that be the outcome, backing the president no matter what will have turned out to be fatal.
How can Republican senators avoid this death sentence?
One good start would be to live up to the oath they took and preside over a fair trial. And if the evidence warrants, convict the president and remove him from office.
Truthfully, the senators in question might want to consider convicting the president even if there is some doubt the evidence warrants it.
Might just be the only way for the Republican Party to have a future it can live with.
[As I complete this post, the Senate has voted along party lines to table the amendment for White House documents. Not a good start, boys and girls.]
However these arguments play out, and whether or not witnesses and documents make an appearance in this trial, Senators will be tasked with acquitting or convicting the president for his actions.
After which, the senators themselves will have to take the heat for their actions. Should they fail to perform a fair trial in this case, according to the laws and traditions of this nation, they could face serious consequences.
It may be that a majority of them are willing to throw off the burden of their oaths and ignore the facts behind the impeachment articles for the sake of protecting Donald Trump, the leader of their political party.
That action may or may not be rewarded with glory and repeated reelection to public office.
It's a delicate calculation, far more difficult than simply viewing all the evidence and making a reasonable decision. There is a lot of guesswork involved.
How will the voters see their performances?
Senators facing a difficult primary have to worry about folks in their own party, sure. But if they manage to stagger through that gauntlet, they'll have to face the entire electorate in their state: voters from other parties, as well as those not bound to any party.
Citizens who might do a better job of weighing the evidence in question: the senator's documented actions.
Those Republican senators who choose to right what they see as a Democratic hoax by perpetrating a hoax of their own may find a difference of opinion in their home states.
Those who choose to protect the leader of their party may ultimately find they've walked themselves off a cliff pursuing a reward not worth having.
You can't trust the "vindicated" president will stump for your reelection, nor can you trust voters to pay any attention to him if he does.
More evidence of presidential misconduct will surface in time, in the Ukraine case and in others. The man can't help himself.
If the Republican party closes ranks and defrauds the American people of a fair trial, its members may find as a result that their party is in serious disfavor with the voters.
If that happens, the Republican gamble that they can reconstitute their political party after allowing the president to chew it up and poop it out, may prove to be a poor choice.
Whatever random bits and pieces that survive the rigors of passing through that man's overworked colon are likely to be mismatched chunks of a very stinky jigsaw puzzle.
Also, by that time, all political credibility may have been forfeited. Should that be the outcome, backing the president no matter what will have turned out to be fatal.
How can Republican senators avoid this death sentence?
One good start would be to live up to the oath they took and preside over a fair trial. And if the evidence warrants, convict the president and remove him from office.
Truthfully, the senators in question might want to consider convicting the president even if there is some doubt the evidence warrants it.
Might just be the only way for the Republican Party to have a future it can live with.
[As I complete this post, the Senate has voted along party lines to table the amendment for White House documents. Not a good start, boys and girls.]
Monday, January 13, 2020
CHASING THE TRUTH
It looks now like the impeachment charges will be headed to the Senate in a few days. The Republican leader there, Mitch McConnell, has so far not shown any tendency to give in to popular demand for witnesses and documents.
And I think it's pretty obvious why.
If they manage to keep witnesses out, Republicans will necessarily take a political hit for appearing to be unfair in the Senate trial of the president.
But if witnesses are allowed, and sworn testimony absolutely makes the case for convicting Trump—and the Republicans acquit him anyway—it's going to look a lot worse for those folks.
It's all about the optics.
Heading into a trial without witnesses, the Republicans can pound away on their agreed-upon story: The House Democrats perpetrated a fraud on America by rushing to impeach Trump on shoddy evidence. According to their scenario, those never-Trumper Dems are doing their best to overturn the 2016 election.
(They have a long way to go. Even if they manage to pry Trump out of the White House, the Democrats would still have to get rid of pesky Mike Pence. Which actually might not be that hard. The man may be up to his eyebrows in the Ukraine thing.)
If the Republicans can get people to buy their premise, a Senate trial without witnesses can be promoted as the antidote to an unjust partisan hoax.
The Dems messed up, see? But we fixed it. We're American heroes!
The Republicans might even get some traction with this notion. It already makes sense to voters goofy enough to support Donald Trump. Don't bug 'em with the facts!
McConnell is in a hurry to right this perceived wrong, which is why a trial without witnesses is just the ticket. Get everything over in a hurry. Hell, those guys might even vote to dismiss the charges without the bother of a trial.
He wasn't always of this mind. McConnell stumped for witnesses twenty years ago, back in the Bill Clinton trial. In that case, the rules were agreed upon by all 100 senators. But that vote came after the start of the trial. McConnell wants to run things the same way this time: no agreement on witnesses until after the trial starts.
He says it wouldn't be fair to change the procedure, a position that might be just a bit disingenuous.
He may or may not have the votes to keep witnesses out, so we're going to have to wait to see how things go. In the weeks that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi kept the charges from migrating to the Senate, a number of things have cropped up. New or un-redacted emails, and so forth. Stuff that bolsters the charges.
Trump's former national security advisor, John Bolton, now says he'd be willing to testify. For his part, Trump says he'd be willing to stop that from happening.
For the greater good of future presidents, of course.
As Trump will tell you, he could not possibly benefit from quashing anybody's testimony. The man has done nothing wrong.
Just ask him.
Okay, you don't have to ask him. These days, it's the first thing out of his mouth. Doesn't matter what you're talking about.
You: Nice weather we're having.
Trump: I've done nothing wrong. Read the transcript. That call was perfect. The whole thing's a hoax. There was no crime.
Hey, if he says it often enough, it has to be true. Right?
And I think it's pretty obvious why.
If they manage to keep witnesses out, Republicans will necessarily take a political hit for appearing to be unfair in the Senate trial of the president.
But if witnesses are allowed, and sworn testimony absolutely makes the case for convicting Trump—and the Republicans acquit him anyway—it's going to look a lot worse for those folks.
It's all about the optics.
Heading into a trial without witnesses, the Republicans can pound away on their agreed-upon story: The House Democrats perpetrated a fraud on America by rushing to impeach Trump on shoddy evidence. According to their scenario, those never-Trumper Dems are doing their best to overturn the 2016 election.
(They have a long way to go. Even if they manage to pry Trump out of the White House, the Democrats would still have to get rid of pesky Mike Pence. Which actually might not be that hard. The man may be up to his eyebrows in the Ukraine thing.)
If the Republicans can get people to buy their premise, a Senate trial without witnesses can be promoted as the antidote to an unjust partisan hoax.
The Dems messed up, see? But we fixed it. We're American heroes!
The Republicans might even get some traction with this notion. It already makes sense to voters goofy enough to support Donald Trump. Don't bug 'em with the facts!
McConnell is in a hurry to right this perceived wrong, which is why a trial without witnesses is just the ticket. Get everything over in a hurry. Hell, those guys might even vote to dismiss the charges without the bother of a trial.
He wasn't always of this mind. McConnell stumped for witnesses twenty years ago, back in the Bill Clinton trial. In that case, the rules were agreed upon by all 100 senators. But that vote came after the start of the trial. McConnell wants to run things the same way this time: no agreement on witnesses until after the trial starts.
He says it wouldn't be fair to change the procedure, a position that might be just a bit disingenuous.
He may or may not have the votes to keep witnesses out, so we're going to have to wait to see how things go. In the weeks that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi kept the charges from migrating to the Senate, a number of things have cropped up. New or un-redacted emails, and so forth. Stuff that bolsters the charges.
Trump's former national security advisor, John Bolton, now says he'd be willing to testify. For his part, Trump says he'd be willing to stop that from happening.
For the greater good of future presidents, of course.
As Trump will tell you, he could not possibly benefit from quashing anybody's testimony. The man has done nothing wrong.
Just ask him.
Okay, you don't have to ask him. These days, it's the first thing out of his mouth. Doesn't matter what you're talking about.
You: Nice weather we're having.
Trump: I've done nothing wrong. Read the transcript. That call was perfect. The whole thing's a hoax. There was no crime.
Hey, if he says it often enough, it has to be true. Right?
Friday, January 10, 2020
DON MAGOO
It's no secret Donald Trump has a weak spot for rich, powerful men, guys like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un. He appears to enjoy being seen in their company. I think he would like to be thought of in terms similar to those fellows: rich, powerful men, able to do anything they want, including (especially) having trouble-makers whacked.
In other words, mob bosses.
I think a case could be made Trump aspires to be just like them.
(From a Frontline documentary about Trump's upbringing: His dad referred to people as either winners or losers. Interestingly, the preferred term for winner was "killer.")
Well, Trump's got the money and right now he's got the power. He'll still have the money when he leaves office (sooner or later). But he'll suffer a serious ding on the power side of mob bossiness when he can no longer count on drone strikes to make his displeasure known.
Bummer, dude.
Anyway, until quite recently it could be said Trump was missing crucial points in the "whack a guy" category.
But no more. First Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, now Qasem Soleimani. Trump is out there, baby, living large and dropping the hammer on folks in the Middle East.
And he has his reasons. Bad guys are going down.
Bad, at least, from our perspective. The men Trump rubbed out had a strong following in what we would probably characterize as the Bizarro World. Hate to be the one to tell you, but killing Americans is considered a tip-top activity in some regions.
Now that his personal body count is on the rise, though, we get to see if Trump can start to relax. He's made his bones, okay? Isn't it time to let out some slack? It would give us all a chance to catch our breaths.
One scary thought: What if he develops a taste for wet work?
Trump's been lucky, so far. Iran's promised "harsh" revenge hasn't actually killed anybody.
That's our position, at least. The Iranians report many dead as a result of their missile strikes on our air bases. American bones were crushed, is how they put it. Might not be a good idea to push back on their version too hard.
Could inspire them to try again.
The situation has now been complicated by the downing of the Ukraine International passenger jet, presumably by hair-trigger missile defenses in the hours following Iran's retaliatory attack in Iraq.
Impossible, the Iranians say. Lies and more lies. American psyops in action. I guess we'll see. We may ultimately get a chorus of "look what you bastards made us do."
Meanwhile, it's not too late for others to offer their version of revenge attacks in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. Proxy forces abound. Will Soleimani's replacement keep them in check (presuming the Supreme Leader wants it that way)?
Can those dedicated hotheads be reigned in by anybody?
So far, Trump has bumbled about like Mr. Magoo, oblivious to the consequences of his actions and apparently unaware of the danger he just barely escapes.
But you can't live in a cartoon world forever.
In other words, mob bosses.
I think a case could be made Trump aspires to be just like them.
(From a Frontline documentary about Trump's upbringing: His dad referred to people as either winners or losers. Interestingly, the preferred term for winner was "killer.")
Well, Trump's got the money and right now he's got the power. He'll still have the money when he leaves office (sooner or later). But he'll suffer a serious ding on the power side of mob bossiness when he can no longer count on drone strikes to make his displeasure known.
Bummer, dude.
Anyway, until quite recently it could be said Trump was missing crucial points in the "whack a guy" category.
But no more. First Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, now Qasem Soleimani. Trump is out there, baby, living large and dropping the hammer on folks in the Middle East.
And he has his reasons. Bad guys are going down.
Bad, at least, from our perspective. The men Trump rubbed out had a strong following in what we would probably characterize as the Bizarro World. Hate to be the one to tell you, but killing Americans is considered a tip-top activity in some regions.
Now that his personal body count is on the rise, though, we get to see if Trump can start to relax. He's made his bones, okay? Isn't it time to let out some slack? It would give us all a chance to catch our breaths.
One scary thought: What if he develops a taste for wet work?
Trump's been lucky, so far. Iran's promised "harsh" revenge hasn't actually killed anybody.
That's our position, at least. The Iranians report many dead as a result of their missile strikes on our air bases. American bones were crushed, is how they put it. Might not be a good idea to push back on their version too hard.
Could inspire them to try again.
The situation has now been complicated by the downing of the Ukraine International passenger jet, presumably by hair-trigger missile defenses in the hours following Iran's retaliatory attack in Iraq.
Impossible, the Iranians say. Lies and more lies. American psyops in action. I guess we'll see. We may ultimately get a chorus of "look what you bastards made us do."
Meanwhile, it's not too late for others to offer their version of revenge attacks in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. Proxy forces abound. Will Soleimani's replacement keep them in check (presuming the Supreme Leader wants it that way)?
Can those dedicated hotheads be reigned in by anybody?
So far, Trump has bumbled about like Mr. Magoo, oblivious to the consequences of his actions and apparently unaware of the danger he just barely escapes.
But you can't live in a cartoon world forever.
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
WORMING OUR WAY INTO WAR
On May 3rd, 1944, operatives from German naval intelligence located American General Dwight Eisenhower in a hotel room in London. They shot their way inside, killing the general and seven members of his war planning staff, thus preventing the imminent invasion of Europe, a massive attack that would have led inexorably to the downfall of the Third Reich. Good work, dedicated Nazis! D-Day has been canceled!
Okay, that didn't happen.
But Donald Trump's hit on Iranian general Qasem Soleimani was meant to perform a similar function, based on the notion that killing that one man would prevent planned actions from going forward.
Now folks (mostly Democrats) want to hear from the intelligence community on the subject of this "imminent attack." How imminent was it? When was it supposed to kick off? Who or what was the target?
And so forth.
I say: Why bother?
This was not Jack the Ripper taunting a newspaper, saying he's going to eviscerate a couple more woman, soon as he gets his knives back from the Clean Shave Sharpening Service.
In that particular case, take out Jack, women will be saved.
(Until the next misogynist lunatic hits the scene.)
But unless General Soleimani was planning to strap on a suicide vest and work his way into a room full of key targets, a room only he could have gained entrance to, all the questions about the so-called imminent attack are moot.
The one thing we can be pretty sure of is that whatever attack the general was planning will not go forward in the way he envisioned. It will be much worse.
It will have to be.
We have harnessed the outraged sentiment of a newly united Iran to commit acts of revenge that will dwarf Soleimani's original plans. We have acted to insure their sacred national manhood is on the line.
The American intelligence community can only save Trump now by presenting incontrovertible evidence that Iran is perfectly hog-tied, incapable of retaliation in any way, no matter what their leaders might say in a fit of patriotic bluster.
More than that, we must see evidence that the Iranian government is fully prepared to reign in any and all local militias, as well as lone wolves all over the world, preventing anybody from avenging the death of the cult hero who inspired them to do God's work in opposing the Great Satan.
Anything less will not be good enough. And nobody in the Trump administration is even hinting such evidence is about to be vouchsafed to Congress.
Instead, Trump is relying on dire threats to keep Iran in line.
According to the Secretary of Defense, it's now up to Iran to de-escalate the situation. We hit their number two guy, and we're going to need them to just suck it up.
Trump has tweeted he has 52 targets locked and loaded, including cultural sites. Told he can't do that, he whined repeatedly about how the enemy is "allowed" to kill Americans and so forth, but he's expected to follow some stupid rules.
Hey, he got this country out of an international agreement to fight climate change. He trashed NAFTA. He pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal. He's banging away at Obamacare. He's good at stuff like that. Maybe he's thinking it's time to step away from the finger-wagging Geneva Convention.
On the TV show Criminal Minds, the profilers are always looking for the trigger that set the "un-sub" on the path to murder. For the Soleimani hit, it seems the trigger was Trump watching the attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad.
After excoriating Hillary Clinton for the mess in Benghazi, he was determined not to fall into the same trap. He would act to prevent such an outrage.
But what action to take? Ask the Pentagon for suggestions.
It's been reported the military folks were stunned that Trump landed with both feet on the option to assassinate Soleimani. It was the heaviest hit, the one previously offered to other presidents, but not taken.
Not taken because the risk of escalation was too great.
But Trump can't be bothered with hypothetical future stuff. He's the president who takes bold action, no matter what.
He saved American lives, no doubt about it. If only by creating a situation that calls for our citizens to leave Iraq, and by sending selected military units out of the country to Kuwait, where they can be safer from reprisals.
He absolutely saved a few particular American lives.
The question is, what other lives will be lost? Lives of American soldiers in the area, lives of Americans in other countries, lives in the US itself.
There is simply no telling how far this will go.
But we can be pretty sure of one thing: The situation will almost certainly escalate.
Could all this have been avoided? Maybe.
Instead of a drone aircraft strike, what about a drone automobile strike? With a dead guy wired to the steering wheel, a remotely piloted car could have t-boned Soleimani's vehicle in a fiery crash. And who's "driving"? A Shi'ite militia man with a grudge, maybe, his car full of dynamite designed to take out a wayward girlfriend. Could happen, right?
Make Soleimani's death look like a tragic accident. At least in this version we're not firmly on the path to war with Iran.
Or was war with Iran Trump's plan all along?
It's been pointed out Trump has a major tell. Whatever term he uses to damn one of his many enemies, the epithet best describes not his intended target but Trump himself.
In the run-up to Barack Obama's reelection, Trump went on the record stating Obama would secure his second term by invading Iran. "As sure as you're sitting there," Trump assured his audience, Obama was going to invade Iran to get himself another four years in the White House.
We now have to wonder: Who was Trump really talking about?
Okay, that didn't happen.
But Donald Trump's hit on Iranian general Qasem Soleimani was meant to perform a similar function, based on the notion that killing that one man would prevent planned actions from going forward.
Now folks (mostly Democrats) want to hear from the intelligence community on the subject of this "imminent attack." How imminent was it? When was it supposed to kick off? Who or what was the target?
And so forth.
I say: Why bother?
This was not Jack the Ripper taunting a newspaper, saying he's going to eviscerate a couple more woman, soon as he gets his knives back from the Clean Shave Sharpening Service.
In that particular case, take out Jack, women will be saved.
(Until the next misogynist lunatic hits the scene.)
But unless General Soleimani was planning to strap on a suicide vest and work his way into a room full of key targets, a room only he could have gained entrance to, all the questions about the so-called imminent attack are moot.
The one thing we can be pretty sure of is that whatever attack the general was planning will not go forward in the way he envisioned. It will be much worse.
It will have to be.
We have harnessed the outraged sentiment of a newly united Iran to commit acts of revenge that will dwarf Soleimani's original plans. We have acted to insure their sacred national manhood is on the line.
The American intelligence community can only save Trump now by presenting incontrovertible evidence that Iran is perfectly hog-tied, incapable of retaliation in any way, no matter what their leaders might say in a fit of patriotic bluster.
More than that, we must see evidence that the Iranian government is fully prepared to reign in any and all local militias, as well as lone wolves all over the world, preventing anybody from avenging the death of the cult hero who inspired them to do God's work in opposing the Great Satan.
Anything less will not be good enough. And nobody in the Trump administration is even hinting such evidence is about to be vouchsafed to Congress.
Instead, Trump is relying on dire threats to keep Iran in line.
According to the Secretary of Defense, it's now up to Iran to de-escalate the situation. We hit their number two guy, and we're going to need them to just suck it up.
Trump has tweeted he has 52 targets locked and loaded, including cultural sites. Told he can't do that, he whined repeatedly about how the enemy is "allowed" to kill Americans and so forth, but he's expected to follow some stupid rules.
Hey, he got this country out of an international agreement to fight climate change. He trashed NAFTA. He pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal. He's banging away at Obamacare. He's good at stuff like that. Maybe he's thinking it's time to step away from the finger-wagging Geneva Convention.
On the TV show Criminal Minds, the profilers are always looking for the trigger that set the "un-sub" on the path to murder. For the Soleimani hit, it seems the trigger was Trump watching the attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad.
After excoriating Hillary Clinton for the mess in Benghazi, he was determined not to fall into the same trap. He would act to prevent such an outrage.
But what action to take? Ask the Pentagon for suggestions.
It's been reported the military folks were stunned that Trump landed with both feet on the option to assassinate Soleimani. It was the heaviest hit, the one previously offered to other presidents, but not taken.
Not taken because the risk of escalation was too great.
But Trump can't be bothered with hypothetical future stuff. He's the president who takes bold action, no matter what.
He saved American lives, no doubt about it. If only by creating a situation that calls for our citizens to leave Iraq, and by sending selected military units out of the country to Kuwait, where they can be safer from reprisals.
He absolutely saved a few particular American lives.
The question is, what other lives will be lost? Lives of American soldiers in the area, lives of Americans in other countries, lives in the US itself.
There is simply no telling how far this will go.
But we can be pretty sure of one thing: The situation will almost certainly escalate.
Could all this have been avoided? Maybe.
Instead of a drone aircraft strike, what about a drone automobile strike? With a dead guy wired to the steering wheel, a remotely piloted car could have t-boned Soleimani's vehicle in a fiery crash. And who's "driving"? A Shi'ite militia man with a grudge, maybe, his car full of dynamite designed to take out a wayward girlfriend. Could happen, right?
Make Soleimani's death look like a tragic accident. At least in this version we're not firmly on the path to war with Iran.
Or was war with Iran Trump's plan all along?
It's been pointed out Trump has a major tell. Whatever term he uses to damn one of his many enemies, the epithet best describes not his intended target but Trump himself.
In the run-up to Barack Obama's reelection, Trump went on the record stating Obama would secure his second term by invading Iran. "As sure as you're sitting there," Trump assured his audience, Obama was going to invade Iran to get himself another four years in the White House.
We now have to wonder: Who was Trump really talking about?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)