Appeasement At All Costs?

After President Trump authorized the killing of the Iranian Quds Force General, Qasem Soleimani, the Dems and the mainstream media (MSM) could not think of a positive thing to say. Then again, in the last 3 years I am not sure I have seen a single positive article from the MSM, nor a positive word from the Democrats, about Trump. Let's start with the so-called premier paper in the country - the New York Times. Here was their 1/8/20 online headline: "Trump's Iran strategy: A Cease-Fire Wrapped in a Strategic Muddle." A strategic muddle? I think they mean the undoing of the Obama (and European) policy of appeasement. The appeasement policy of the Iran deal, providing a time frame for Iran to get nuclear weapons, and giving the leading state sponsor of terrorism $150,000,000,000. Please do not tell me it was Iran's money. That money was frozen for a reason, and by releasing that money Iran had a greater capability for weapons development and the spreading of more terrorism.

But, maybe the New York Times and others in the MSM and Democratic Party don't know about the Americans Soleimani killed in Iraq. Nor the death and destruction caused by Iran and Soleimani in Syria and Yemen. Nor the attack on the Saudi oil facilities. Nor the continued funding of Hezbollah and Hamas. And just maybe the attack on our embassy in Baghdad and the killing of an American was sufficient to convince this president that a man who is acknowledged to be the leading terrorist in the world deserved his fate. Strategy? Iran now knows, for perhaps the first time, that there are consequences to their actions.

Given our completely fractured political environment, it should surprise no one that the Dems could not see their way to support Trump. Nancy Pelosi felt that the killing of Soleimani was "disproportionate." Elizabeth Warren thought that Trump "escalated" things. And Joe Biden called the killing of Soleimani a "debacle," putting "the United States and Iran on a collision course." Of course, the Left always thinks Trump is going to cause the end of the world. Ilhan Omar opined that the economic sanctions Trump has put on Iran constitute "economic warfare;" which is rather ironic given her support for the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel. Not surprisingly, Democrat Omar thinks Israel is worse than Iran.

The USA Today was also typical of the MSM. In their 1/10/20 editorial, the paper advocates "an agreement to ease economic sanctions in return for Iran dismantling its nuclear program." In other words, appeasement. When has appeasement of a bad actor state ever been successful? In their 1/9/20 online headline, the USA Today told us: "Exclusive: Americans say Soleimani's killing made US less safe, Trump 'reckless' on Iran." Except, if you did not read down to the third paragraph, you would not know that 42% supported the killing versus 33% who were opposed (and 25% who did not know). I wonder if anyone at the paper pushed for an alternative headline, such as: "More people support Trump and the killing of Soleimani than are opposed." But why give Trump credit for anything?

After the Iranians shot down the Ukranian plane, many on the Left could not help but to blame Trump. Said one letter to the editor in the New York Times: "...we all know where the buck stops. It stops at the desk of Donald J. Trump, who is ultimately responsible for the deaths of 63 Canadians and the others aboard." There were 3 letters to the editor about the shooting down of the airplane, and all 3 blamed Trump. The killing of those people was a tragedy, and if done intentionally was murder. But Trump's fault? Why not Obama's? He ordered far more drone strike killings than Trump - hundreds, if not thousands. And what about the lives saved by the killing of Soleimani?

A former president explained: "...if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." No, that was not Ronald Reagan's "peace through strength." That was George Washington in his 1793 State of the Union report. But, given the reaction of the Democrats, Kimberly Strassel, of the Wall Street Journal, made this observation: "voters are getting a Democratic primary field that is the weakest on foreign policy in decades." And, given the open borders policy of many of them, I would say the weakest overall at protecting America and Americans.