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.
The Democrats are Traitors to America if Obama had done this these same dirty democrats would have been demanding Obama have his image carved on a Mountain and all places renamed for Obama
There you have it; the difference between those who are loyal to this country and those who aren’t. Republicans can support and celebrate a great success regardless of who or what party is in power while Democrats can only support a US victory under a restricted and narrow set of circumstances, all of which have to favor their party. I don’t look forward to any of these people who put their party well ahead of dedication to their nation to ever have power over the nation. That is a recipe for disaster… as we saw just three years ago.d
We killed one Big Man
But
Iraq is now kicking our asses out of their country
I think Iran got the better of that one
@Harry:
Do you know what a “non-binding” resolution is?
@retire05: I don’t think he knows what, “why don’t you try it” means, either.
@Harry:
Yep. A disunited Iranian populace has now united in outrage over Soleimani and rallied ’round the flag, while an Iraqi populace that was wary of those under Iranian influence has now joined with them to call for all U.S. troops to leave. Meanwhile, the threat level for U.S. personnel has been raised across the entire Middle East and North Africa.
This was not exactly a win/win for the U.S.A. Credit or blame is properly reserved in this case for those who made the call, not those who efficiently followed the order. The two things go hand-in-hand. Trump can pin the medal on himself.
@Greg:
Wow!!! So now, in addition to being a Constitutional scholar and a legal expert, you are also an expert in the Middle East?
You never fail to amaze, Comrade Greggie.
@Greg: See how you suck up the propaganda? The government closed shops it wasnt a choice to attend the funeral you dolt this guy was a butcher of his own people just protesting the price of gas gets you murdered there. The government and their terrorists arent loved they are feared.
@kitt, #8:
Sorry to pop your propaganda bubble, but attendance at Soleimani’s funeral was not required by the Iranian government. He actually was a widely respected Iranian public figure. Turning him into a martyr didn’t lessen his popularity. That we have trouble comprehending this doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
@Greg: Bullshit propaganda, be there or beheaded thats how that regime works. He was the boot of the mullahs on the necks of the Irani people. Now the poor bastid that blew the airliner out of the sky will be “brought to justice” cause they were caught lying. Because they didnt ground commercial aircraft until they found out the USA was not going to let them pull us into another war.
Now the Democrats cant join a resolution saying thanks that guy was responsible for untold thousands of deaths we are grateful he is poof. not a single one.
Beyond shameful.
If You Still Support Donald Trump Today, I Instantly Know 8 Things About You
@kitt: See? Everyone loved kind, charitable, sweet, innocent Soleimani, especially Democrats, and mean old Trump killed him.
Iran even finally admitted they shot down the Ukrainian airliner. I guess they figured, why not, Democrats are already blaming Trump, we’ll go ahead and admit what everyone already knows and blame Trump, too. Like minds think alike.
@Greg: You show you don’t know anything about anyone. Anyone that consistently sides against their own country doesn’t understand ME, that is for damn sure.
@Greg: No, a united Iranian populace is outraged by the taking down of a Ukrainian airliner:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/11/middleeast/iran-shot-down-ukrainian-plane/index.html
@Greg:
The above statement is the epitome of bigotry, and not to tolerated.
Your kind kept slaves and killed Jews, too.
@Nathan Blue: Democrats think they have such insight, yet they voted for an incompetent community organizer, the most renown criminal that ever ran for President and have an array of lying socialist bigots they are excited about having for candidates. If there was ever anyone whose judgement should be disregarded, it is Democrats.
@Spurwing Plover:
true. America is waking up to the fact that this piece of human excrement is a radicalized muslin terrorist
Sunday, January 12, 2020 — Pentagon chief says no specific evidence Iran was plotting to attack four U.S. embassies
That from Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who would presumable be immediately informed of any intelligence suggesting an imminent attack on U.S. interests—because that’s the entire point of having a Secretary of Defense.
The only source of the imminent threat claim appears to have been Trump himself. There’s no indication that there was any specific intelligence backing up that claim. Consequently, Trump had no legal basis for ordering a foreign military commander assassinated without informing Congress. There was no immediate and pressing national security need that outweighed constitutional requirements.
@Greg: So, what part said there was NO attack imminent? One can only imagine how much Democrats would be whining and crying if a disaster like Benghazi happened on Trump’s watch. Soleimani deserved to die for his past alone; killing his future was a bonus.
But, of course, I’m arguing with someone DESPERATE for a tragedy to exploit.
@Greg: Yes, and there was no intelligence behind blowing Achmed to hell, Trump just took a dislike to an Uber driver at the Bagdad airport.
Maybe Iran will believe it was just a terrible accident?
@Deplorable Me, #18:
The threat of an imminent attack cannot be assumed based on no evidence to the contrary in order to rationalize an act of war. Because that would be insane. See how that defense for killing a person stands up in court some time.
@Greg: Attacks were planned. The when was not known. Soleimani’s job was to plan and implement the attacks. Defending killing a known terrorist is easy; it’s convincing those on the side of America’s enemies that’s difficult.
@Greg: I would remind Senator Lee there were “reliable sources” at the briefing too.
Talk to us more about assumptions and how they stand up in court.
Such as who? This entire administration is demonstrably full of it. Half the country doesn’t believe a word they say about anything.
@Deplorable Me: Did Barry need proof that Osama Bin Hiding was an imminent threat, or the Cleric and his kid? Is taking out civilians better or more effective than military threats?
@Greg: Democrats lie constantly and then the liberal media supports their lies. It’s not the administration that is losing credibility (they prove the left lies on a regular basis) but the lying left.
@kitt: Obama had bin Laden’s ADDRESS and couldn’t decide what to do for 16 hours. Biden didn’t even want to take him out. It’s no wonder they hate what Trump did; he makes them look like cowardly idiots.
@kitt, #24:
Osama bin Laden was known to have been behind a terrorist attacks on the American homeland that killed 2,977 innocent civilians. There wasn’t only evidence against bin Laden. He openly took credit.
@Deplorable Me: Greg would love to know the targets and when, so the MSM could blab it all over and the nut jobs in the ME could hit them as revenge.
Only nut jobs like Greg even care, Trump is smart enough to release a transcript but not American targets for Gregs pals.
@kitt:
I guess Comrade Greggie forgot this report from NBC in 2011:
“Two men, including a member of Iran’s special foreign actions unit known as the Quds Force, were charged in New York federal court with conspiring to kill the Saudi diplomat, Adel Al-Jubeir. Justice Department officials say the men tried to hire a purported member of a Mexican drug cartel to carry out the assassination with a bomb attack while Al-Jubeir dined at his favorite restaurant. ”
The article goes on to say:
“Arbabsiar, Shakuri, Shahlai and two others — Qasem Soleimani, a Quds commander who allegedly oversaw the plot, and Hamed Abdollahi, a senior Quds officer who helped coordinate — were sanctioned Tuesday by the Treasury Department for their alleged involvement. The department described all except Arbabsiar as Quds officers.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44861178/ns/us_news-security/t/us-ties-iran-plot-kill-saudi-ambassador/#.XhuCBndFw5t
By Comrade Greggie’s own OBL standards, Soleimani needed to be taken out.
@Greg: So it was a big secret that the General was responsible for roadside bombs and the attack on the base and countless other proxy activities? Obama designated him a terrorist then took him off the list when he funded Irans proxy wars.
Greg you are a tool. What was spray painted on the Embassy in Bagdad, while they tried to break in and kill our people there?
Bengahzi waited 13 hours for help that never came, in 13 minutes wheels were off the ground to assist Bagdad. They didnt have to kill a single one tipping over utility carts and setting fires. The raging retards disbanded all by themselves.
In 2011, the Obama administration sanctioned Soleimani for an alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. in Washington, D.C.
Taken from an article April 2019
“The goal remains simple,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last week in announcing the new sanctions, “to deprive the outlaw regime of the funds it has used to destabilize the Middle East for four decades, and incentivize Iran to behave like a normal country”.
Same thing said after the failed WW3 lure.
Even you admitted the tactics of Achmed.
The relevant word is “General”. We staged a military invasion of Iraq followed by an eight-year military occupation, civil war, and prolonged armed resistance. Many Iraq factions didn’t want us there. Iran didn’t want us there either, as they thought they were probably next on our list. We didn’t give them much reason to think otherwise. The insurgents relied upon IEDs. We used artillery, air strikes, cluster bombs, missiles. We dropped around 13,000 cluster bombs on Iraq between 2003 and 2006, which works out to around two million separate explosive devices. The place was littered with U.S. unexploded ordnance, in addition to old munitions left from the Hussein regime.
Soleimani was an enemy general. Had we not invaded Iraq and continued to threaten Iran, he wouldn’t have been a problem for us. He could have remained an enemy of ISIS.
@retire05: Its going to take awhile to scrub the previous administrations policy stench from the world we better give Don 4 MORE YEARS.
@retire05: Trump should be impeached with no evidence and no crimes but he demands a smoking gun to kill a proven terrorist. Thus is the liberal concept of justice.
@Greg:
I hadn’t realized Trump supporters were such champions of the United Nations.
@Greg:
And you’re saying what? Because a terrorist holds a military rank it is hands off? Is that what your saying, Comrade Greggie?
And what about killing a holy man? Do you have trouble with killing a holy man that has been declared a terrorist? Because I damn sure don’t remember you railing on Obama for not only killing Anwar al-Awlaki with a drone, but also killing his 16 year old son, both in Yemen, a nation we are not at war with.
Obama said to a VFW hall ‘‘I’ve shown I will not hesitate to use force to protect our nation, including from the threat of terrorism. ‘Anwar al-Awlaki, a leader of the Al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen — gone,’’
Both of those killings were of American citizens, and a violation of our laws. Where were you when that was going on? Licking Obama’s shoes?
Take your double standards and shove them where the sun doesn’t shine, Comrade.
@Greg: I didn’t realize you were so oblivious to the extent of the effort Bush went through to justify his invasion of Iraq. It was totally and 100% legal. So, how is an Iranian “general” promoting, instigating, financing and organizing terrorism against US troops in Iraq in any way equivalent to our presence in Iraq? I am not, however, surprised by the lengths you will go to defend a brutal terrorist that not only killed his own people, but US military.
@retire05: To Greg, the “law” resides with the Democrat party. They can violate whatever laws they like.
The dems and their sheep are absolutely pathetic. Who needs Iran and the rest of the American hating terrorists when you have them? It has gotten to the point where all we have in common is that we occupy the same parcel of land and share the same history and they’re trying their best to rewrite that.
@Deplorable Me: FFS what is the mandated period of time Democrats have for mourning a murderer?
I remember Former President Barack Obama ordered the flags to be lowered for an extended period of time to honor the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Perhaps Greg can kick out his CD of Candle in the wind.
This one made him cry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcJac6OykfM
@kitt: I think the only reason Democrats have not demanded the flag be flown at half mast for Soleimani is that they hate our flag.
@retire05, #35:
What I’m saying is we don’t want our own special forces Rear Admirals and Generals to be targeted for assassination by adversarial foreign governments because the nincompoop in the White House couldn’t figure out why previous Republican and Democratic administrations judiciously refrained from setting such a precedent. Trump himself is no doubt safe because our adversaries realize he does more damage to us left in place.
@Greg: So, you base your entire argument on the belief that terrorists would pass on the opportunity to kill one of our top generals or admirals because… what? Courtesy? Fairness? Mercy? Cmon, Greg… at least TRY.
@retire05: Yes Iran always follows the rules we dont kill their generals they dont kill ours they just place 80 million dollar bounties on Presidents.
If Greg wasnt such a tool Id say he was getting paid to post the opinions of the Mullahs.
@Greg:
You mean you don’t want another American president taking out a high ranking military officer from an enemy nation like FDR took out Admiral Yamamoto? Is that what you mean, you idiot?
@kitt:
All roads (posts from Comrade Greggie) indicates that he is being paid by some anti-American entity. No one shows such butt-stupid opinions without being compensated by someone.
@Deplorable Me:
Soleimani was not a terrorist. Soleimani was a general and the commander of one of the Iranian military’s recognized uniformed special forces organizations. A state of war does not exist between Iran and the United States. The government of Iran has not targeted any of our military commanders for assassination either in the United States, or while they’ve been visiting foreign countries.
Were the situation reversed, you would instantly consider the action utterly outrageous and begin howling that it was against international law—as it would be. You would be demanding payback, and condemning anyone who argued against it. You wouldn’t give a rat’s rear end how many people might have to die to even up the score. You’d say any of their losses were justly deserved, and any of our own were their fault. As would Trump, who is totally predictable in such matters.
@Greg:
https://www.hudson.org/research/11436-obama-strikes-a-deal-with-qassem-suleimani
Never mind that Obama once listed Soleimani as a terrorist but then, to pull off the worst piece of diplomatic idiocy as was the JPCOA., he decided he would praise the very man responsible for many attacks against American interests for decades.
You’re an idiot and a traitor (providing you are even an American citizen, which I now doubt).
@Greg:
Indeed it would be, as not one of our generals or admirals (or privates through colonels, for that matter) have ordered or engaged in terrorist activities, nor have they been responsible for murdering protesters. I see where you are coming from, though; you believe people who commit or command terrorist activities are not terrorists. I really don’t know how to argue with that… stupidity.
Soleimani commanded forces that killed US soldiers and I DID want payback. All Americans did. And, thanks to Trump, we got it.
I am a loyal American that loves and supports America. That sets me apart from you and your Democrats.
@Deplorable Me: American embassies and their consulates abroad are
and typically placed in the capital city of the hosting country. The host country cannot enter without permission, according to the State Department. Consulates are smaller branches of the embassy and have the same special privileges as well.
What Achmeds troops did was an act of war, on his orders. He may have got away with Bengahzi but the Pentagon and Trump were not waiting for strike 3.
@kitt: Democrats could not care less about the US being attacked or citizens being killed as long as it doesn’t interrupt the inward flow of money or outward flow of lies. It’s the same policy they have towards illegal immigration.
@Greg:
And yet globalist non-Americans like you don’t understand those two things are the same.