Monday Reading

As always, please go to the links for the full articles/ op eds.

More fallout from impulsive clown Donald "Bone Spurs" Trump's decision to assassinate Iran's top military commander:

For the militants of the Islamic State, the American drone strike that killed the Iranian commander Qassim Suleimani was a two-for-one victory.

First, the killing of General Suleimani removed the leader of one of the Islamic State’s most effective opponents, responsible for building up the alliance of Iran-backed militias that did much of the ground fighting to drive the militants out of their strongholds in Syria and Iraq.

The assassination has also redirected the wrath of those militias and their many political allies inside Iraq squarely against the American presence there, raising doubts about the continued viability of the American-led campaign to eradicate what is left of the Islamic State and to prevent its revival in both Iraq and neighboring Syria.

Once again, we must give thanks to those "guardrails" in the Pentagon and elsewhere for keeping Bone Spurs from making catastrophic life and death decisions.  Meanwhile, the clown is doubling down on his war crime threat to destroy Iranian cultural sites should they retaliate for the Soleimani assassination.

Speaking of Bone Spurs, political science professor Matthew Dallek traces how the Republican Party has for decades nurtured  its base's "batty" ideas that made Bone Spurs "the logical consequence":

Perhaps the biggest change of the Trump era is the approach of Republican leaders. In the past, they indulged these theories but never really espoused them. Today, elective officeholders embrace them openly, in the face of explicit counterevidence from the government they purport to run. National security officials have repeatedly stressed in recent weeks that Ukraine did not meddle in the 2016 election and that those who repeat the claim are advancing pro-Russian propaganda. Yet most Republican members of Congress now seem to believe this theory, pointing to a thin report in Politico that documented no top-down, coordinated interference. Trump’s racism (calling Mexican immigrants “rapists”; telling four congresswomen of color who are all U.S. citizens to “go back” to their “crime infested” home countries) and anti-Semitism (he implies Jews are loyal primarily to Israel and motivated mostly by money) align well with old allegations that Jewish bankers and assorted globalists have enriched themselves while inflicting economic havoc on “the people,” as his closing 2016 television ad suggested. [snip]

Ultimately, Trump was the logical consequence of a posture followed for decades at the top echelons of the conservative movement: The batty screeds are silly, but since they help us, we won’t work zealously to purge them. Trump’s conspiracy-based capture of the GOP has less to do with him and his perspective than with a party that sought and often won the support of people who believe those notions.

History professor, Lawrence Wittner, confirms what we've seen with our own eyes about the devolution of the Republican Party:

Long before the advent of Donald Trump, the Republican Party had been shifting rightward, pulled in that direction by its incorporation of Southern racists and Christian evangelicals.  This political reorientation sped up after the election of Barack Obama sent white supremacists into a frenzy of rage and self-pity. [snip]

As president, Trump has not only displayed a remarkable contempt for truth, law, civil liberties, the poor, civil rights, and women’s rights, but catered to the wealthy, the corporations, white supremacists, and religious fanatics.  He has also proved adept at inciting hatreds among his rightwing followers through racist, xenophobic diatribes delivered at mass rallies and through propaganda messages. Meanwhile, he has forged close alliances with his authoritarian counterparts abroad.  Either out of fear or love, Republican officeholders cling ever more tenaciously to him as the nation’s Supreme Leader.  If the GOP is not yet a fascist party, it is well on its way to becoming one.

Meanwhile, those same weaselly enablers who've gone all- in on defending Bone Spurs' impeachable conduct are throwing everything against the wall to see if anything sticks:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham suggested Sunday that Republicans should try to change Senate rules governing impeachment if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to withhold the charges against President Trump — an unlikely 11th-hour bid to begin a trial within days without the actual documents.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was unequivocal in a Senate floor speech on Friday that “we can’t hold a trial without the articles; the Senate’s own rules don’t provide for that.” But Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of Trump, floated the idea of a unilateral GOP move, saying he would work with McConnell to allow the Senate to proceed without the two charges against Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The suggestion, while unlikely due to the high threshold of votes required for changing Senate impeachment rules, underscores the pressure some Trump allies feel as the president stews over the impeachment delay.

Moscow Mitch and Huckleberry Graham are squirming along with Bone Spurs.  It's a pleasing spectacle, as well as being a completely necessary one.  A significant majority of Americans want to see a real trial, with real witnesses and evidence.  Democrats are holding the strong hand and shouldn't fold.

Finally, we would highly recommend a visit to Infidel 753's link round- up for many, many more links to posts of interest.  Please go check it out!

Hitting A Hornet's Nest

With the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, who was purportedly planning an attack on Americans if you believe pathological liar Donald "Rump" Trump's story, a new and dangerous phase in the simmering, decades-long conflict with Iran has begun. As the Washington Post reports:

"Defenders of Friday’s action say the strike delivered a long-overdue response to Iran’s increasingly malign behavior in the region, which has included support for rocket and missile strikes by pro-Iranian militias targeting U.S. military bases, international shipping and oil installations in the Persian Gulf. 

But Iran experts say the killing of Soleimani — a legendary military leader revered by millions of Iranians and once widely regarded as a future political leader of the country’s more than 80 million people — was an escalation of historic magnitude, and one that almost certainly will elicit a commensurate response."

Iran can be expected to deploy its assets across the region -- and indeed the globe -- to retaliate how and when it choses. While there may be an immediate response, in the past Iran has taken its time to exact revenge, and it may come in the form of scattered attacks over time.

"Unlike other state sponsors of terrorism, Iran has aggressively supplied proxy groups with equipment and know-how, enabling them independently to carry out sophisticated attacks, including cyber warfare against banks and electrical grids, and precision-guided attacks using upgraded, Iranian-designed missiles and rockets. [snip] While a retaliatory strike on U.S. targets inside Iraq would be a more likely scenario ... an attack on U.S. soil cannot be ruled out, especially if Iran thinks it can avoid having the blame fall on itself." (our emphasis)

There's also concern about reckless and impulsive Trump's decision-making process -- such as it is or isn't -- in deciding to go after such an important Iranian leader. There are new reports that many of the  experts in the White House were excluded from the decision:

"Why Trump chose this moment to explore an operation against the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, after tolerating Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf for months, was a matter of debate within his own administration. Officials gave differing and incomplete accounts of the intelligence they said prompted Trump to act. Some said they were stunned by his decision, which could lead to war with one of America’s oldest adversaries in the Middle East." (our emphasis)

As one former intelligence official told the Post:

"It’s like hitting a hornets’ nest with a baseball bat,” said Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer in the Middle East and veteran of clandestine operations. “You don’t do it unless you’re ready to go to war with the hornets.”

BONUS:  Gen. Soleimani may be dead, but here in the U.S., General Confusion's in charge.

Trump: We committed an act of war to stop a war.

Pompeo: Americans are safer now, but evacuate Iraq immediately, you're not safe.

Pompeo: We're de-escalating.
Esper: We're sending more troops.

— Mieke Eoyang (@MiekeEoyang) January 3, 2020

BONUS II:  Surprise, surprise --

1. I’ve had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I’ve learned. According to them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is “razor thin”.

— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) January 4, 2020