With the support of 42 other GOP senators, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas introduced a resolution yesterday afternoon to commend the president for ordering “successful operations” in Iranian terrorist Qassam Soleimani’s death and to honor the members of U.S. military and intelligence agencies who aided in the targeted killing of “a terrorist responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people across the Middle East, including 603 US service members.”
Cruz hoped partisan divisions would be sufficiently and temporarily suppressed for the sake of commending the administration for destroying the mastermind behind the world’s largest state sponsor of terror. However, not one Democratic senator could marshal the courage to co-sponsor the resolution with him.
Indeed, Cruz purposely analogized the resolution to the one introduced in 2011 honoring those who ordered and assisted in the killing of Osama bin Laden. Senate Resolution 159 was introduced by Sen. Harry Reid (D-CA) just three days after U.S. forces killed bin Laden under President Obama in May 2011. That resolution was sponsored by the entire Senate, serving as an emphatic symbol of the chamber’s capacity for bipartisan statements — at least when they praise Democrats.
Cruz’s resolution is deliberately modeled after the language used in Reid’s resolution. Indeed, a side-by-side comparison of S. Resolution 159 and Cruz’s Soleimani resolution indicates that the main method for penning Cruz’s resolution was substituting words, swapping the crimes of bin Laden for the crimes of Soleimani and subbing Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) for al-Qaeda.
Both resolutions emphasize the importance of “bringing terrorists to justice” through “defeating, disrupting, and dismantling” the respective organizations of bin Laden and Soleimani.” But most importantly, both offered unequivocal praise for the intelligence community, the U.S. Armed Forces, and the president.
Cruz’s resolution arrives at a critical time, when the Democrats seem overwhelmingly poisoned by partisanship — to the staggering point that they have struggled to even refer to Soleimani as a terrorist, despite his leadership role in a group formally designated a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) by the U.S. State Department. Nothing symbolizes this disturbing recalcitrance more than the fact that Cruz could not convince one Democrat to co-sponsor the Soleimani resolution with him. Compare this objectively pathetic response to the one Reid managed to muster, which resulted in the entire Senate sponsoring the resolution.
Commending those who killed a terrorist responsible for the loss of hundreds of American lives should not be a controversial endeavor, and Cruz’s choice to lift words directly from S. Resolution 159 represents a substantial attempt to keep this venture as non-partisan as possible. Regardless, congressional records reveal that 26 Democratic senators sponsored Reid’s resolution against bin Laden but opted not to sponsor Cruz’s resolution against Soleimani. Meanwhile, the entire Senate GOP sponsored Reid’s resolution and most of the current Senate GOP sponsored Cruz’s.
This disparity in voting records tells a story about the state of the modern Democratic Party and how partisan hackery has eroded its moral compass. Given the two resolutions employed the same language and were both directed at a purely evil contributor to myriad murders, it’s difficult to generate any rational conclusion as to why not one Democrat could gather the moral fortitude to sponsor the resolution.
Yet we know precisely why those 26 Democrats abstained from joining Cruz’s resolution. They hate Trump more than they find inherent moral value in destroying evil, and it’s becoming increasingly apparent that these are the actions of deeply unserious people.
@retire05:
Just a poor propagandist trying his best to do his job of disinformation.
Like Baghdad Bob…
@Deplorable Me, #47:
Are our own military commanders that plan and oversee clandestine military operations conducted by our own special forces in foreign nations on the other side of the world terrorists?
Soleimani needs to be a terrorist in order to rationalize Trump ordering his assassination. Soleimani was, in fact, the military commander of an internationally recognized foreign military organization belonging to a nation that we are not at war with—not the freewheeling leader of some stateless terrorist group.
@Greg: Soleimani was a terrorist before Trump even ran for President. Sorry, but I choose our soldiers over an Iranian terrorist. He needed to be killed and now he’s dead.
Per the Iranians, we’ve been at war with them since 1979 and they have certainly acted like it. A US embassy is US territory and Soleimani had his forces attack ours in Baghdad. He was also in Iraq planning more attacks in up to 4 more countries. Soleimani was head of the IRGC, recognized as a terror organization. He was (WAS) a terrorist.
By the way, the Iranian people are celebrating his death and now calling for Khomenei’s head. I guess another of your idols is losing support. Awww…. 2020 is getting off to a bad start for those who love oppression and terrorism, isn’t it?
@Greg:
You really need to stop. This isn’t even an argument.
Iran isn’t equal with the U.S. – Morally, ethically, economically, or even on the same plain of civilization. They have been waging a not-so-secret war with the US for over 40 years.
Obama named him a terrorist. So what’s your excuse for that?
Who the hell is paying you to propagate this lunacy?
@Nathan Blue: Some of his statements are so lame, he may be offering them for free.
@Deplorable Me: Is there a way to vet Greg to make sure he’s not working for terrorists, himself?
@Nathan Blue: Trump broke records on Twitter with likes 300,000
Saturday also in Farsi
To the brave, long-suffering people of Iran: I’ve stood with you since the beginning of my Presidency, and my Administration will continue to stand with you. We are following your protests closely, and are inspired by your courage.
Sunday
To the leaders of Iran – DO NOT KILL YOUR PROTESTERS. Thousands have already been killed or imprisoned by you, and… https://t.co/lFqN4vo6rR
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
10,000 arrested, 1500 killed, Still finding bodies. from the last protest triggered by high gas prices they say.
@Nathan Blue: It doesn’t matter if he is or not; his views are totally aligned with terrorists so he should be considered in league with them, or at least, your typical America-hater.
@kitt: It is ILLEGAL to go against the Ayatollah. These people are risking their LIVES to protest that oppressive regime. Do Democrats care? Are they impressed? Nope. Only hatred for this country gets their praise.
@Deplorable Me: They admire the Ayatoilets power it is their end game. Total and absolute control sends a tingle up their leg.
@kitt: We saw their lust for absolute police state power in how they operated the House impeachment hearings. Mostly, they adore anyone that will denounce our country.
You should swap out your MAGA hats for IWS caps.
(I doubt that it will ever come to you.)
@Greg: Whats going on with the earthquakes and PR? I hope your family is safe.
@Greg: You should swap out your allegiance to globalism with American Exceptionalism by considering Iran doesn’t even have the infrastructure to differentiate a missile from passenger air liner…and that quislings like you support a oppressive anti-democratic government more than it’s own people do.