That didn’t take long.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pentagon-declares-us-killed-qassim-soleimani-on-trumps-orders

Only one of the about 20 posts I’ve read tonight.

You’d think that they wouldn’t do things re Trump’s Impeachment that would shine the light on Biden, his son Hunter, and on their shady and spectacularly lucrative dealings in the Ukraine and China, and the subject of “quid-pro-quos,” but they couldn’t resist.

Benghazi is an unfinished case that certainly should be revisited, and be subjected to an honest and thorough investigation but, with so much other shady crap having come after, its hard not to focus on today’s shady piece of crap, at the expense of delving into those of yesterday.

P.S.–I’m hoping that–short of war–there are still more things that the U.S. can do to Iran to make them “feel the pain” for their inspiring/directing the attack against our Embassy.

Wonder if any of the experts can figure out why….

Anyway, nothing quite like starting the new year on a humorous note:
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/02/a-new-years-resolution-for-the-left-and-never-trump-apologize-to-devin-nunes/
H/T: Powerline blog

As the latest reporting spinning wildly out of Baghdad demonstrates (not that it needs demonstrating at this stage of the game), for the MSM, BS has become the standard.

(Ergo, the BSM?)

As a result, anything—and everything—is TRUTH (as long as it aligns with “The Narrative”). Anything—and everything—is possible.

It helps, of course, if you spew this crap non-step—if you just cram it down their throats (as one very observant National Socialist in charge of “information” was fond of saying…).

…
We can’t predict how the current crisis in Iraq will go, because the American president isn’t like his immediate predecessors – or indeed, like most of our post-World War I presidents (and yes, I mean World War I). Trump doesn’t rub bromides on political crises like a topical ointment. He doesn’t like using military operations as policy tokens; he prefers to use military operations for their most straightforward purpose: changing situations on the ground, in order to decisively affect the will of the opponent.

We saw that with the response to the rocket attack on Kirkuk, in which an American contractor was killed. On Sunday, Trump could have attacked the headquarters and weapons stores of the Iran-backed militias in response. <b But instead he attacked Iran’s highest-value assets in the Syria-Iraq theater: the proxy forces that occupy the border crossing points at Al Qaim, Iraq, and Al Bukamal, Syria. These are the key-terrain guardians of Iran’s tenuously-held land bridge across Mesopotamia.
Iran’s whole vision of regional dominance and apocalyptic fulfillment depends on the land bridge. This time, the U.S. strikes were not devastating. But they went for the jugular – on a stretched tether for Iran, they achieved a meaningful effect – and demonstrated that they could be devastating, in a way that striking only the PMF logistics inside Iraq would not have been. The PMF base locations can always be added to any campaign to disrupt the land bridge, since the PMFs’ power in Iraq is a key component of holding the land bridge. But the point this time was to show that it’s Iran’s whole endgame that’s at risk. America won’t be suckered into fighting on Iran’s schedule; we’re already executing a longer-visioned strategy, which starts with unbearable pressure on the regime in the economic and political realms, and is currently relying on containment in the military realm. Crush the regime itself, and the land bridge will revert to some real estate fled by ghosts.
The U.S. strikes were a true “reprisal” against the attack in Kirkuk, and not just a retaliation. A reprisal seizes back the initiative, on the terms of the party executing the reprisal. Done well, a reprisal is extremely informative for the attacker – which is why Iran is now testing the Trump administration for its level of will and intent at the embassy in Baghdad. The world is not actually betting against Trump, however much Ben Rhodes may be.

Dyer also posts one of Neo’s favorite poems, and two others for the New Year:
The Second Coming

William Butler Yeats, 1919

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7f12af3304ca38dc124c1e94797ea2fd11f78589006c5fed77f4c5755590918d.png

The contrast between similar incidents is too stark to ignore or propagandize away. A lot of complicated topics remain obscure to the public at large. Americans in mortal danger in an embassy, however, is not complicated. In one case, they ended up dead because of Obama and Clinton. In the other case, Trump nipped things in the bud before it could go south.

I’m beginning to think there is a chance we will see Obama et. al. get the comeuppance they so richly deserve.

One, they know all about what happened in Benghazi but were lying to deceive the public back then to deflect blame from their precious Obama and his gloriously creased pants. Thus, their sudden use of “Benghazi” as an attack-slur against the demon Trump now is an admission that the event was in fact a scandal and the critics of Barry’s response were right. Aesop Fan has already made note of this possibility.

Two, they don’t know anything at all about what actually happened or why non-leftists consider “Benghazi” the name of a shameful scandal. But they assume it was simply because an embassy was attacked, somehow. Thus, now this is Trump’s Benghazi, because it is. Don’t ask them to explain any details about actual events, because they have no idea what you could be talking about.

But since I’m talking about leftists, I figure both are true. The left is a shameless collection of liars and an appallingly ignorant set of fools.

I’m not a fan.