what is the impact and on whom after the action taken in Baghdad?
The Democratic primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire are a month away.
I think Joe Biden is the immediate winner of the instability. He brings the most experience and time on foreign affairs and it is logical to see the benefit to him.
Of course his opponents will open up on him if this begins to develop. Remember, he voted for the Iraq war. He was VP for eight years and the early withdrawal led to ISIS forming; and don’t forget former Secretary Gates’ statement (which he reaffirmed this past week) that Joe has been wrong on every major foreign policy issue for the last forty years.
But in the short term he should benefit.
Now yesterday Biden told the Des Moines Register this:
Iran, he said is now “in the driver’s seat” in the Middle East, pointing to an Iraqi Parliament vote to remove U.S. forces from the country.
Umm, I don’t think so Joe. We walk, they are done in months. Unless they want to be Iran East, then yes. Let’s see what they do when we threaten to leave.
He added this:
“U.S. military leaders will lose sway in the region and Iran will speed up its efforts to build a nuclear weapon.” He added that Iranian leaders will become more popular in their own country as its citizens rally behind them following the attack. “This is a crisis totally of Donald Trump’s making,” Biden said.
Umm, maybe not Joe. I think President Trump inherited Iraq as you did from GW Bush. He has been looking for a way out. He didn’t create General Soleimani. Remember your administration (and Bush before you) labeled him a terrorist. You can’t say he created this, he took the action others wouldn’t.
Are you sure the people rioting in the streets will like their government better now? The sanctions are not getting lifted. Their lives won’t improve.
Are you sure the world is going to allow Iran to build nuclear weapons?
I have a feeling if they start to do that among the 52 sites the President said he has on his list may contain those sites as numbers 1, 2 and 3.
A new CBS poll shows Bernie Sanders gaining ground in Iowa and NH.
The poll shows Sanders surging in Iowa and in a first-place tie with former Vice President Biden and Pete Buttigieg in Iowa. Each is at 23%.
Sen. Warren came in at 16% and Sen. Klobuchar at 7%.
It shows him with a slight edge in New Hampshire. Bernie had 27% and Biden 25% in the NH poll. Sen. Warren, who had led before, had dropped to 18%. Mayor Buttigieg was at 13% and Ms. Klobuchar again at 7%.
Here’s an example of the soft support VP Biden has:
The poll shows nearly half of his New Hampshire voters (47%) have definitely made up their minds, compared to just 15% of Biden backers.
Democrats are looking for their alternative and haven’t found it yet.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made clear yesterday that she isn’t thrilled to be sharing a political party with VP Biden.
New York magazine asked her what her role in Congress would be under a possible Biden administration. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez groaned,“Oh God.” she said, “In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party, but in America, we are.”
And therein lies the Democratic problem.
Remember Jeff Van Drew the former Democratic Congressman who voted no on impeachment and then changed parties? He has an opponent from the Dems this November. Her name is Amy Kennedy and yes she is a Kennedy. She is the wife of Patrick Kennedy, who represented Rhode Island in the House for 16 years and retired in 2011. In her announcement video, she says “too many of our leaders have lost their moral compass. Trump and Van Drew are symptoms of a bigger sickness infecting our country and our politics.”
By the way her cousin Joe Kennedy is running for the Senate, in a Democratic primary, against liberal incumbent Edward Markey. Why?
They are still trying to understand that, since Markey is as left as anyone. The most common thought is it’s just a generational thing since Markey is all of 73. Who wins? The polls say 50/50, because Kennedy’s are tough to beat in Massachusetts.
think about this
You hear of all the bad things that are going to happen because the President took out a killer terrorist. You know what no one ever talks about — what could have been. As an example:
Today we are energy independent, because we are doing so much to conserve and find new sources. Well without those new sources the immediate impact from the Baghdad action would have at gas$4.00 a gallon.
The rise in gas would impact spending and the economy overall. Think about that.. Being self sufficient helped us to go on as we were. Did everyone always support our finding new sources of supply? Of course not. Think about the conversations that would be going on now if the price had risen to $4 and above.
We also don’t know what would have happened if Soleimani had gone about his mission. After all, he wasn’t in Iraq for a vacation. He was coming following the embassy attack there and headed elsewhere. Who’s alive today because he isn’t? What future events did we prevent.
There are things that were impacted, but because they didn’t occur no one discusses them. Some only talk about how bad an action is and not what might have been.
Something to think about.
Have a great day.