1-7-20

 

 

False Flag Trojan Horse: U.S. Threatens Iran With Cyber First Strike

TruNews

Hypocritical Dems trash Trump but are fine with Obama’s 2,800 strikes Congress didn’t approve

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democratic leaders are decrying President Donald Trump’s use of force against Iranian Quds force commander Qassem Soleimani without congressional authorization but allowed former President Barack Obama free rein to carry out military operations.

Obama oversaw military actions in both Syria and Libya for months without seeking the approval of Congress.

The Washington Times reported in April 2015 that U.S. strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq surpassed 2,800 by that point in the conflict.

“The U.S. military has been conducting strikes in Iraq for 10 months, and began striking directly at targets in Syria last September as part of Mr. Obama’s announced campaign to degrade the capabilities of the Islamic State,” according to The Times.

By mid-April 2015, the U.S. had carried out 1,458 strikes in Iraq and 1,343 in Syria.

Obama pointed to his powers as commander in chief, as well as the September 2001 “Authorization for Use of Military Force” resolution passed by Congress, which recognizes, “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.”

The Obama administration also relied on the 2002 AUMF resolution calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq.

The Times reported that Obama continued his military campaign in Iraq and Syria, even after a new authorization for the use of force against the Islamic State was introduced, but had not been passed by Congress.

While ISIS was certainly a purveyor of terrorism, some of which was directed at the U.S., such was not the case when Obama decided to commit the American military to assist in the toppling of Libyan leader Colonel Moammar Gadhafi in 2011.

The Washington Post reported in June 2011, nearly three months into the air campaign, that the Obama administration had yet to seek congressional approval.

The president did not comply with the 1973 War Powers Resolution, otherwise known as the War Powers Act, by either obtaining congressional authorization for the military action or pulling U.S. forces out of the conflict within 60 days of committing them.

Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state during the operation, said in October 2011 regarding Gaddafi’s overthrow, “We came, we saw, he died,” mimicking Roman Emperor Julius Caesar’s famous line, “veni, vidi, vici.”

That was then; this is now.

Suddenly with one voice Democrats are concerned that Trump overstepped his authority as commander in chief by green-lighting the killing of Soleimani in Baghdad, just days after our embassy was attacked and Americans were killed and injured by Iranian backed forces.

In a letter to her Democratic colleagues on Sunday, Pelosi wrote that this week that the House will introduce a war powers resolution “mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken, the Administration’s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer charged on Friday that Trump has no authority for a war with Iran.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin and Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia have introduced a war powers resolution seeking to block further acts by Trump directed at Iran.

“The resolution requires that any hostilities with Iran must be explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force, but does not prevent the United States from defending itself from imminent attack,” Durbin and Kaine said in a joint news release on Friday.

The Associated Press reported that Trump met “the 48-hour deadline required by the War Powers Act to notify Congress” via a Saturday communication, following Friday’s deadly drone strike on Soleimani, but neither Pelosi nor Schumer was satisfied.

Pelosi responded to Trump’s notification in a news release on Saturday, saying, “This classified War Powers Act notification delivered to Congress raises more questions than it answers.”

“This document prompts serious and urgent questions about the timing, manner and justification of the Administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran,” she continued. “The highly unusual decision to classify this document in its entirety compounds our many concerns, and suggests that the Congress and the American people are being left in the dark about our national security.”

In a Sunday letter to Trump, Schumer called for the immediate declassification of the notice president sent to Congress regarding the Soleimani strike.

All the messaging appears aimed at trying to cast doubt in the minds of the American public that Trump made the right decision to kill the man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and thousands of others.

After all, if Trump is a good commander in chief, protecting Americans, why in the world would the Democrats be pushing forward a purely partisan impeachment, in which they do not allege he engaged in any sort of criminal conduct?

As I have previously argued, one result of Trump’s decisive response to last week’s attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad has been to once again highlight what competent leadership looks like, particularly when compared to the actions of the Obama administration.

Unlike at the Benghazi, Libya, consulate attack in 2012, the call for U.S. military help was answered in a timely fashion. The result was no dead Americans. Further, the Trump administration was clear about who was responsible for the attack — Iran — and what the consequences would be if the aggression persisted.

The tragic result of the Obama administration’s incompetence in Benghazi was the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

Everything that Pelosi, Schumer and their cohort say and do should be viewed through the lens of their one and only objective: to remove Trump from office, whether by impeachment or in November’s election.

Trump made the right call to take out Soleimani, and the Democrats likely know it’s true, but their hypocrisy in the pursuit of political gain knows no bounds.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

---

Obama DHS secretary horrifies Dems by agreeing with Trump on Iran

There’s this searching moment after almost any politicized victory in America where the other side tries to discover the best line to blunt the force of that victory. In terms of the death of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem #Soleimani, head of a terrorist organization, one of the lines the Democrats seem to be settling into is that President Donald Trump required authorization to kill Soleimani under U.S. law.

“The administration did not consult [with Congress] in this case, and I fear that very serious questions have not been answered and may not be fully considered,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Friday from the Senate floor, according to The New York Times. “Among those questions, what was the legal basis for conducting this operation? And how far does that legal basis extend?

“It is my view that the president does not have the authority for a war with Iran. If he plans a large increase in troops and potential hostility over a longer time, the administration will require congressional approval and the approval of the American people,” he added.

House Speaker Nancy #Pelosi implied as much when she said in a statement shortly after the attack that the administration “has conducted tonight’s strikes in Iraq targeting high-level Iranian military officials and killing Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran. Further, this action was taken without the consultation of the Congress.”

Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, meanwhile, gave the administration the benefit of admitting the head of the Quds Force ”was an enemy of the United States” but raised questions as to whether this was an assassination and compatible with U.S. law.

Chris Murphy✔@ChrisMurphyCT

Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. That’s not a question.

The question is this – as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?

136K

6:49 PM – Jan 2, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

One need not question how Murphy would answer that question. One also need not question where these “reports” are coming from: Democrat leadership and the media.

At the moment, this argument seems to be running roughly equal with questioning the Trump administration’s claim that Soleimani was planning an attack against U.S. diplomats and military personnel, and the contention that the attack on Soleimani makes us less safe.

At least in terms of the first count, Obama-era DHS head Jeh Johnson, who was once general counsel of the Defense Department, doesn’t think the Democrats have much of a case.

Johnson was on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday where Chuck Todd asked him, somewhat pointedly, a question about how the Trump administration was referring to the dead general.

Todd’s insinuation was that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo referred to Soleimani as a “terrorist” because the “legal distinction” makes it so that he can be taken out without congressional authorization.

Johnson said there wasn’t a distinction.

“If you believe everything our government is saying about Gen. Soleimani, he was a lawful military objective,” he responded.

“The president, under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without additional congressional authorization,” Johnson said. “Whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people, he was a lawful military objective.”

Zach Parkinson✔@AZachParkinson

This morning, Obama DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson debunked Democrats’ claim that Congress needed to approve Soleimani strike

Johnson: Soleimani was a “lawful military objective” & the President had “ample domestic legal authority to take him out”

14.7K

10:13 AM – Jan 5, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

No matter what your impression is of the administration’s contention that Soleimani and those in his orbit were plotting an immediate attack against the interests of the United States, there was little doubt that he had a hand in plotting these actions, both in the recent and not-too-recent past. Soleimani’s trail of innocent bodies has been well-documented, if mostly elided over, in the wake of his death.

Is this really what the #Democrats want to argue against? That Soleimani posed a unique danger to the United States and that the danger had amplified in recent weeks and months?

The attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad was carried out by an Iranian-backed militia as retribution for an airstrike against another Iranian-backed militia that had killed an American citizen. Soleimani’s role in the insurgency in Iraq killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers.

Soleimani wasn’t picking up his stakes in the country and dusting off his hands, content with his handiwork. Reuters reported in the wake of the strike that Soleimani had “instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran” at a meeting in October, held in the shadow of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

This doesn’t invalidate the fact that Soleimani was still a terrorist. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in which Soleimani was a commander, had been designated as a terror group by the United States and other countries well before he was killed, and not without good reason. That said, the designation of the IRGC as a terror group or Soleimani as a terrorist isn’t particularly important, per se, in terms of the president’s legal authority to dispatch him.

It won’t do Jeh Johnson any favors to publicly point this out, nor is it the first time he has made the mistake of saying obvious things Democrats shouldn’t say. He previously noted that “we simply have to enforce the law” on enforcing immigration law and that decriminalizing illegal border crossings, as several Democratic presidential candidates had proposed doing, was “tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders.”

He survived those incidents of accidental truth-telling. We’ll see how many more he can withstand.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

---

#obama #iraq #iran #war #shtf #prepare #sleepercells #prophecy #falseflag #trojanhorse #technology #cyberattack