Is there nothing the man can’t do?:
You just knew that in an era of pathological Trump Derangement Syndrome, Democrats would blame Trump for Iran shooting down a Ukrainian airliner at Tehran airport on the night Iran fired ballistic missiles at bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops. Iran fired the missile, there were no U.S. planes in action over Tehran and we were not firing at them, but somehow Trump would be blamed.
Examples at the link.
…for a while today. It’s sunny and quite cold, although by no means as cold as it can get up here in January. But cold enough to wear earmuffs.
I had to go to the dentist, and then I did some errands. The bright sun was great to see, because although we usually have a lot of sun in winter – and reflecting off the snow it means that sunglasses are in order – this winter so far we’ve had more cloudy days than usual. So I was happy to be out.
But I’ll tell you something – I was really really happy to get back, too. The minute I walked into my place a wonderful cozy warmth enveloped me. And it struck me that one of the greatest inventions of mankind is one we don’t often think about until it breaks: central heating.
It’s an awful thing to see photos and read about so many lives snuffed out. And most of them appear to have been young.
The list at the link has a Canadian focus because it’s a Canadian paper, but that makes sense because so many of the victims were Canadians from Iran, quite a few of them families. Whatever the cause (and it could have been this), what a horrific and sorrowful event.
RIP.
Nicholas Sandmann has made CNN pay up for its abominable treatment of him:
CNN agreed on Tuesday to settle a lawsuit brought by Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann.
Sandmann sought $275 million from CNN over its coverage of the confrontation he and his classmates had with an elderly Native American man while visiting Washington, D.C., on a school trip in January of last year. The amount of the settlement was not made public during a hearing at the federal courthouse in Covington on Tuesday, according to a local Fox affiliate.
I’d be curious to learn how much CNN had to pay. I hope it’s enough to hurt.
And it’s not over yet for these lawsuits:
Sandmann and his family still have lawsuits pending against NBC Universal and the Washington Post over their coverage of the incident. The Sandmann family sought a combined $800 million in damages from CNN, the Post, and NBC Universal.
“This case will be tried not one minute earlier or later than when it is ready,” Sandmann’s attorney Lin Wood said of the remaining lawsuits.
The MSM made a mistake targeting a youngster and ordinary citizen with their lies. They can say almost anything they want about a public figure, but Sandmann wasn’t a public figure until they made him one.
Last night I did something I don’t often do – I watched a few minutes of television news coverage. In this case it involved what was going on in Iraq at the hands of the Iranians. I had planned on viewing for more than a few minutes, but I couldn’t stand it and turned it off pretty quickly
Why did it seem unwatchable to me? I saw a sort of restrained glee in the eyes of the reporter (sorry; haven’t a clue who it was), combined with portentous and heavy martial music at the break. The idea it conveyed was that something extremely major was going on. And yet the news itself was not that awful, as these things go. Some rocket attacks that didn’t seem to hurt any Americans nor to have killed anyone at all. By the time I was watching that broadcast it had already become fairly apparent that this was a semi-feint by Iran, fortunately, and that Trump’s already-announced talk for today was probably not going to feature news of another attack planned by the US. But you wouldn’t have suspected it by watching that portion of the news last night.
Today this is what happened:
President Trump declared Wednesday that Iran “appears to be standing down,” in the wake of missile strikes on American bases in Iraq that he said resulted in “no casualties.”
“The American people should be extremely grateful and happy,” Trump said, in an address to the nation from the White House the morning after the attacks. “No Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime.”…
At the same time, he said the U.S. continues to evaluate options. Trump said he would immediately impose economic sanctions “until Iran changes its behavior,” called on other world powers to break away from the Iran nuclear deal and called on NATO to become more involved in the Middle East.
The president’s statement, while stressing American military might and marking new sanctions, nevertheless represents a move toward de-escalation after days of fiery threats from both sides…
Exactly as hoped for and as expected. That doesn’t mean that things couldn’t heat up again, and quickly. But it does mean that the crisis is over for the moment, and that all the hype was misplaced.
The meme that Trump is a warmongering loose cannon with no restraint and no plan has been a popular one in the MSM ever since he became a candidate. Before we actually had experienced his behavior as president, it made some sense to see him that way. Hey, I was very concerned about it myself, and wrote as much in many posts on this blog.
But anyone who has observed Trump during the three years he’s actually been president should have given up that notion. His threats, tweets, and actions have turned out to almost always be well thought out, although they may sound spontaneous and impulsive (which is an art in and of itself, a carefully cultivated one).
But for many reasons, the MSM and most Trump opponents can’t give up the notion that he’s uninformed and even stupid, uncontrolled, and making it up as he goes along. Why haven’t they changed their minds on this? Some of it is ego and not wanting to admit to having been wrong. Some is wishful thinking; Trump is the opposition, and he must be demonized. But some is continuing belief that it really is the case, and some of that belief of theirs is based on a lack of understanding of Trump’s tactics and strategy. He’s not a “speak softly and carry a big stick” guy, he’s a “speak loudly and carry a big stick” guy, and I don’t think they understand how big sticks work.
It’s instructive to look at what Teddy Roosevelt was getting at with the doctrine:
As practiced by Roosevelt, big stick diplomacy had five components. First it was essential to possess serious military capability that would force the adversary to pay close attention…The other qualities were to act justly toward other nations, never to bluff, to strike only when prepared to strike hard, and the willingness to allow the adversary to save face in defeat.
Come to think of it, that description is quite similar to what Trump seems to do. He may do a lot more trash talking than TR, but his talk doesn’t seem to be a bluff. He’s prepared to actually do what he threatens, if necessary. He’s just not eager to go to those extremes; he’d much rather his opponents back down.
ADDENDUM:
Towards the end of Trump’s speech today he said this:
“Finally, to the people and leaders of Iran, we want you to have a future and a great future, one that you deserve,” Trump said. “One of prosperity at home and harmony with the nations of the world.
“The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it,” Trump added.
Nice touch.
And here’s the full text of the speech. It’s worth reading.
[UPDATE: Evidence accumulates that the plane was shot down, although it’s certainly still not known.]
As if things weren’t bad enough yesterday, there’s this:
…176 people including 63 Canadians died in a plane crash near Tehran, with Iran blaming an engine fire but refusing to hand over the recovered black boxes.
The Boeing 737 jet came down just minutes after take-off from Imam Khomeini International Airport early this morning, sparking fresh alarm in the Middle East hours after Iran launched missile strikes on US bases.
Three Britons and 63 Canadians were among the 168 passengers and nine crew on board the Ukrainian International Airlines flight to Kyiv. There were no survivors…
Iran has pointed the finger at ‘technical difficulties’ and says the pilot lost control after an engine caught fire in mid-air, but Tehran is refusing to say what will happen to the black boxes.
Video footage appeared to show the plane already burning before it fell out of the night sky, while pictures at the crash site showed the fuselage peppered with mysterious holes.
This is a dreadful tragedy. But even for those not inclined to conspiracy theories, the event cries out for some explanation other than “engine failure.” If this plane was purposely shot down, why? What possible goal would be served by murdering a bunch of Iranian civilians and Canadian-Iranians, some of them students? Does it have any connection with this recent tweet from Rouhani, referencing Lockerbie?
And if the plane was accidentally in the path of a missile, what does that say about Iranian capabilities?
And in addition, why were civilian flights going forward at all in that place, on that day? Why wasn’t the airport shut down to commercial traffic?
After all, this warning was in place prior to the crash of the Ukrainian plane:
U.S. carriers are banned from flying at altitudes below 26,000 feet over Iraq under FAA guidance issued in 2018 because of ongoing concerns about threats to U.S. civil aviation throughout Iraq.
They have been banned from flying in an area of Iranian airspace above the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman since Iran shot down a high-altitude U.S. drone last June. No major U.S. airlines fly over Iran at present.
An international aviation team has been activated to support “effective coordination and communication” between airlines and countries as tensions mount in the Middle East after a U.S. drone strike killed an Iranian military commander, global airlines body IATA said on Tuesday.
Airlines and the United Nations’ aviation agency have started to monitor strategic airspace over Iran and Iraq. With some commercial carriers still serving those countries and others flying over their airspace, the International Air Transport Association also issued a statement reminding countries of their obligation to communicate potential risks to civil aviation.
“It is critical that states live up to this obligation as tensions in the Middle East rise,” the group said, days after the killing of General Qassem Soleimani on Friday plunged the region into a new crisis.
The plane that crashed was a flight originating in Iran, not just flying over its territory. I suppose it’s possible that this was some sort of coincidentally timed freak accident. But it’s hard to believe that’s the case.
Here’s what was being reported tonight about the action in Iraq:
“I’m talking to a well placed source in the U.S. military, on the ground in Iraq, and that source tells me that these are multiple tactical ballistic, or cruise missiles that are being fired from Iran at multiple U.S. bases and U.S. targets inside Iraq,” Griffin said on Fox News. “They are under fire right now, I asked if they had any plans to evacuate, remember there are 5,000 American troops in Iraq and I was told ‘no, we are defending.’ So, expect an American response.”
“This is something we have been expecting all afternoon, there were situation room meetings as well meetings with top officials here at the Pentagon,” Griffin continued. “There was a lot of chatter, we were told intelligence suggesting that the Iranians would strike at U.S. bases in Iraq after the that mourning for Qassem Soleimani ended earlier today.”
So, how serious is it? Here’s what President Trump tweeted at 9:45 PM:
All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2020
Is that it? From what I originally heard it sounded like many more attacks, all over Iraq. At Legal Insurrection, Professor Jacobson cautions that there’s been a ton of fake news and even fake photos flying around the internet all evening.
Any bets on whether the MSM in this country will remind us that the current exchange of hostilities with Iran began with a rocket attack on Americans in Iraq, launched by Iran’s proxy in Iraq, Kataib Hezbollah? It was in response to that missile attack that Trump ordered the killing of Suleimani, who was (among other things) the Iranian coordinator of groups such as Hezbollah. So these new rocket attacks appear to be a series of actions from Iran much like the original provocation, only more of them (a few more or a lot more), and apparently launched from Iran rather than Iraq or Syria or Lebanon.
That last point is of interest. Why would Iran use missiles from Iran rather than from its proxy groups in other countries? It apparently wants the world to know that Iran is the bold actor here and that its threats aren’t empty. Does Iran think it will win this game of chicken? Is Iran trying (and this is my current theory) to turn US public opinion against Trump, who has damaged the mullahs’ regime so greatly in the economic sense, and are the Iranian leaders counting on our MSM and Democratic Party to help achieve that goal?
After all, if public opinion turns against Trump, the Democrats will be the beneficiaries as much as Iran will. The leaders of Iran must deeply long for the good old days when the Democrats were in charge of US foreign policy, and I assume they will do their best to make sure that in 2020 the Democrats regain control.
And that’s one of Iran’s problems these days.
From Victor Davis Hanson:
Snce World War II, the United States has been involved in a series of crises and wars in the Middle East on the premise of protecting U.S., Western, or global interests, or purportedly all three combined. Since antiquity, the Middle East has been the hub of three continents, and of three great religions, and the maritime intersection between East and West.
In modern times American strategic concerns in no particular order were usually the following:
1) Guaranteeing reliable oil supplies for the U.S. economy.
2) Ensuring that no hostile power—most notably the Soviet Union between 1946-1989 and local Arab or Iranian strongmen thereafter—gained control of the Middle East and used its wealth and oil power to disrupt the economies and security of the Western world, Europe in particular…
But two questions now arise in the 21st century: to what degree do strategic reasons remain for a strong U.S. ground presence in the Middle East and, in terms of cost-benefit analyses, how much material, human, and psychic U.S. investment is necessary to protect our interests to the extent they still matter in the region?
…our old strategic reasons do not necessarily still apply.
The United States does not need Middle East natural gas or oil. Europe does. China does even more.
Certainly, it may be in the larger economic interests of America to keep moderately priced oil flowing from the Middle East. But disruptions, cartels, and embargoes do not matter to the United States in the degree they did during the last half-century.
This reality is especially germane when the European Union, larger and nearly as rich as the United States, simply will not provide for its own security, despite its proximity to the region and its dependence upon it. China likewise freeloads on the U.S. Navy’s deterrent presence in waters off the Middle East.
These new realities do not necessarily mean we should vacate the region entirely, only that we should be far less likely to intervene when others have far more at stake.
Our current reduction in dependence on foreign oil has been the direct result of Trump and the right undoing policies that Obama and the left had put in place. The continuation of that lack of dependence – and our subsequent freedom from catering so powerfully to various oil-rich countries of the Middle East – requires that Republicans willing to continue the policies of Trump (and/or increase dependence on sources such as nuclear power) remain in control.
The title of this post comes from a passage I remember from Leon Uris’ Exodus. It was published in 1958, and I read it as a very young child (I was fond of the sweeping historical novels of Michener, as well). You can find an excerpt here
“Let me tell you something, man. I sat here at this desk during the war as one report after another of Arab sellouts came in. The Egyptian Chief of Staff selling secrets to the Germans; Cairo all decked out to welcome Rommel as their liberator; the Iraqis going to the Germans; the Syrians going to the Germans; the Mufti of Jerusalem a Nazi agent. I could go on for hours. You must look at Whitehall’s side of this, Bruce. We can’t risk losing our prestige and our hold on the entire Middle East over a few thousand Jews.” Sutherland sighed. “And this is our most tragic mistake of all, Sir Clarence. We are going to lose the Middle East despite it.” “You are all wound up, Bruce.” “There is a right and a wrong, you know.” General Sir Clarence Tevor-Browne smiled slightly and shook his head sadly. “I have learned very little in my years, Bruce, but one thing I have learned. Foreign policies of this, or any other, country are not based on right and wrong. Right and wrong? It is not for you and me to argue the right or the wrong of this question. The only kingdom that runs on righteousness is the kingdom of heaven. The kingdoms of the earth run on oil. The Arabs have oil.” Bruce Sutherland was silent. Then he nodded. “Only the kingdom of heaven runs on righteousness,”
The less dependent we are on foreign oil, the more we don’t have to cater to regimes that are detestable.
And what could be better than a jello fishbowl from Martha Stewart?
Here’s a photo:
Recipe at the link. Looks pretty easy.
Lieberman on Trump’s taking out Iran’s chief terrorist:
“This is very clear from the Constitution and common sense,” former Senator Joe Lieberman said on Fox News, “that if a president decides to take action like this he doesn’t have to tell the country, the world or have a vote in Congress, particularly the way modern warfare is when you think about it, he didn’t commit a lot of troops, he didn’t commit any American troops on the ground. Because of our extraordinary technological and intelligence capabilities, we dropped a drone on those vehicles. Five people were killed, including Soleimani.”
“There were,” he added, “no other injuries as a result.”
And of course, if President Obama had done it, the vast majority of Democrats would be agreeing with Joe Lieberman. But since it was Trump, Lieberman doesn’t have much company within his former party.
Actually, I’m not sure Lieberman has any company within the Democratic fold, although I can’t say I’ve done an exhaustive search. I thought perhaps Tulsi Gabbard, but no.
…that even the leftist-in-charge says they need reforming:
The Post reported Monday that de Blasio had convinced the state Office of Court Administration that revolving-door defendant Tiffany Harris — repeatedly arrested and released last month on misdemeanor assault and related offenses allegedly aimed at Jews — was too unstable to be on the streets unsupervised.
“We spoke with [OCA] after Ms. Harris’ assessment was left incomplete to determine next steps and discuss how to handle situations like this in the future,” said an administration press aide.
Rough translation: The lady threatened our political comfort zone and she isn’t the only one out there like that. So the mayor acted. And now he says he will act some more. Cuomo, too.
But even before the new laws were put in place, law enforcement was objecting to them and warning de Blasio et al that the consequences would be bad:
In April 2019, state lawmakers passed sweeping legislation restricting the use of cash bail and pretrial jailing. The laws were designed to stop the pattern of keeping poor people in jail before trial because they can’t afford bail.
While cash bail and jailing are still allowed under most violent felony cases, opponents have homed in on certain parts of the law that ban setting bail for second-degree burglary, robbery and major drug crimes outside of trafficking charges.
The laws also change rules around how prosecutors and accused criminals share evidence.
The lawmakers object to the reforms, saying they are unfair to crime victims; to law enforcement agencies and district attorneys that must turn over massive amounts of pre-trial materials in just 15 days; and to counties that must create at their expense an agency to monitor defendants released on the new no-bail provisions.
More on the details of the “reforms” can be found here [emphasis mine; also comments of mine are in brackets]:
For most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, cash bail is no longer permitted [note that misdemeanors of a violent nature such as misdemeanor assault and battery are included in the “no bail” requirement]. Judges must release individuals charged with those crimes with no cash bail, either on their own recognizance or with release conditions designed to ensure that the individual returns to court, such as pretrial supervision and text message reminders for court dates [oh, I’m sure text messages will do the trick].
For those charged with the most serious crimes — including almost all violent felonies and certain nonviolent felonies, such as sex offenses and witness tampering — very little has changed in New York. In those cases, judges will retain the option to set cash bail.
In addition, the law has not changed what judges are permitted to consider in setting bail. Unlike almost all other states, judges in New York are not permitted to detain people due to concerns that they will pose a danger to the community if released. This part of the legislation is consistent with longstanding law in New York, which has prohibited the consideration of dangerousness in setting bail since 1971 in order to ensure that those charged with crimes are afforded the presumption of innocence.[This is a fairly shocking fact.]
Despite the estimate that approximately 90 percent of arrests will result in release, the law did not provide funding for the implementation of bail reforms. This could prove problematic as many more people are expected to be under pretrial supervision, which will require training on the new rules as well as resources such as pretrial officers and technology to provide text reminders for court dates.
The article goes on to explain that comparisons with the New Jersey system are invalid because although New Jersey loosened its bail system it did so after a great deal of study and thought, and it gave judges a great deal of discretion to consider dangerousness:
The [NJ] state’s system is now based on an individualized evaluation of whether a defendant is a flight risk or presents a danger of committing a crime while on release. To determine which release conditions are appropriate for each individual, police and judges undertake a standardized public safety assessment, which seeks to provide an objective and uniform measure of those two factors in each case.
Back to the NY law which also contained this little item:
And as disturbing as the bail changes seem, worse is on the way: Revisions in discovery procedure mean that defendants now free on no-bail will be told where key witnesses against them live; it takes little imagination to see where that will lead: Look for witness shortages, one way or another.
I would say “unbelievable” – except these days, it’s only too believable.
How many people are aware that Trump’s threat to destroy 52 sites important to Iran was a response to a specific threat by Iran? Here’s what a prominent Iranian general had said just previously:
[Gen. Gholamali] Abuhamzeh, commander of the Revolutionary Guards in the southern province of Kerman, foreshadowed a possible attack on “vital American targets” located in the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation of Soleimani’s death.
“The Strait of Hormuz is a vital point for the West and a large number of American destroyers and warships cross there,” Abuhamzeh said according to a Reuters report, citing Tasnim news agency.
“Vital American targets in the region have been identified by Iran since long time ago … some 35 U.S. targets in the region, as well as Tel Aviv, are within our reach.”
Note the specific number, 35, plus the added threat to Israel.
Trump’s counter was therefore quite apropos and an “escalation” only in the numbers involved:
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020
….hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020
….targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020
But it was very easy to miss the back-and-forth nature of the trash-talking. NBC’s coverage here seems typical. The headline was “Trump threatens attacks on 52 sites if Iran retaliates for Soleimani killing Trump tweeted the targets ‘WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD’ if Iran retaliates for the killing of Qassem Soleimani.” If one reads just the headline – as so many people do – it appears that Trump’s threat just came out of the blue. It’s only way way down much later in the article that there’s a mention of the quote threat from Iran that set it off. But I doubt most people get that far.
When I first took notes for this post, I looked at this Times article which began this way:
Iran condemned Donald Trump on Sunday as a “terrorist in a suit” after the U.S. president threatened to hit 52 Iranian sites hard if Tehran attacks Americans or U.S. assets in retaliation for the killing of military commander Qassem Soleimani.
“Like ISIS, Like Hitler, Like Genghis! They all hate cultures. Trump is a terrorist in a suit. He will learn history very soon that NOBODY can defeat ‘the Great Iranian Nation & Culture’,” Information and Telecommunications Minister Mohammad Javad Azari-Jahromi tweeted.
Soleimani, Iran’s pre-eminent military commander, was killed on Friday in a U.S. drone strike…
Iranian propaganda led the way.
But now, looking at the same article again, I see that it starts somewhat differently and then goes this way (they keep updating it, apparently). My remarks and comments on the text are in brackets:
Iraq’s parliament called on Sunday for U.S. and other foreign troops to leave as a backlash grows against the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general, and President Donald Trump doubled down on threats to target Iranian cultural sites if Tehran retaliates. [No mention of the attack on the embassy. No mention of the Iraqi threats to which Trump was responding. Characterization of the Iraqi vote as a response to Trump rather than something the Iranian faction controlling the present Iraqi government has wanted and planned.]
Deepening a crisis that has heightened fears of a major Middle East conflagration, Iran said it was taking another step back from commitments under a 2015 nuclear deal with six major powers. [The Times and the MSM have been instrumental in heightening those fears of “a major Middle East conflagration.” It is a pretense that Iraq ever intended compliance with the Obama “deal.” The “six major powers” are invoked to give more gravitas to the idea that the deal was a great one, which is a fiction the Times helped initially convey and now tries to maintain.]
Iran’s most prominent general, Qassem Soleimani, [yeah, he was just a regular old “prominent general”] was killed on Friday in a U.S. drone strike on his convoy at Baghdad airport, an attack that carried U.S.-Iranian hostilities into uncharted waters. [U.S.-Iranian hostilities have been in these basic waters for a long time. Also, note that there is an equivalence here in the phrase “U.S.-Iranian hostilities,” with the US listed first as though Iran has not been the aggressor since 1979. All those “Death to America” chants are just a backlash, you see. Or maybe the Times hopes we don’t even recall those chants, or how long and how frequently they have been shrieked.]
An Iranian government minister denounced Trump as a “terrorist in a suit” after the U.S. president sent a series of Twitter posts on Saturday threatening to hit 52 Iranian sites…[I’d bet the Times agrees with the Iranian characterization]
Democratic critics of the Republican president have said Trump was reckless in authorizing the strike, and some said his comments about targeting cultural sites amounted to threats to commit war crimes. [Let’s add that to the other bogus impeachment charges.]…
It was Trump’s withdrawal of the United States from the deal in 2018 and reimposition of sanctions on Iran that touched off a new spiral of tensions after a brief thaw following the accord. [Yes, when the US is paying a country to pretend to agree to something, and allows that country to use the money to fund terrorism and buy influence around the world, then there’s every reason for that country to ease up on the attacks for a bit. Don’t bite too hard the hand that feeds you.]
On Sunday, Iran further distanced itself from the agreement, saying it would continue to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear watchdog but would respect no limits to its uranium enrichment work. [Like it was ever going to abide by the agreement in the first place.]
That meant “there will be no limitations in enrichment capacity, level of enrichment and research and development and … it will be based on Iran’s technical needs,” state TV said, quoting a government statement. It said the rollback of its nuclear commitments could be reversed if Washington lifted sanctions on Tehran. [The sanctions are really hurting them.]
As head of the Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force, Soleimani masterminded Iran’s clandestine and military operations abroad, creating an arc of Shi’ite power with the help of proxy militias confronting the regional might of the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia. [Soleimani was just trying to take over the governments of other Middle Eastern countries to counter that big bad troika, that axis of evil, the US, Israel, and the Saudis. Forget that this ambition by Iran has been going on long, long, before Trump.]
Hundreds of thousands of mourners, many chanting, beating their chests and wailing in grief, turned out across Iran to show their respects after his body was returned to a hero’s welcome. [No doubt they did this. Orchestrated mourning mixed with some sincere mourning from those who back the Iranian government’s terror and imperialist reach. So what?]
I could go on, but why bother?
And in fact, sometimes I wonder why I fisk the Times at all anymore. I think it’s because I know plenty of people who think it’s the paper of record, and I believe it still has tremendous influence. As propaganda, it’s rather brilliant and rather subtle in the sense that, if the reader doesn’t know the history and the counter-arguments, it is quite persuasive.