John Daniel Davidson continues his RINO-based anti-war agenda
Federalist editor John Daniel Davidson is continuing his efforts to undermine the war against Iranian tyranny, and while his approach may be subtle, the opposition to punishing totalitarian barbarians in his "op-ed" is there:
The American-Israeli war against Iran is now in its fifth week and shows no signs of ending anytime soon. Despite the heavy aerial and naval bombardment of Iran, the regime in Tehran is still intact, Iran retains control over the Strait of Hormuz, and the Iranian military is still capable of launching attacks against U.S. positions in the region.I think it can be said Iran's control over the straits of Hormuz is a bit exaggerated, since much of their naval fleet's been demolished, but Davidson apparently doesn't want anybody to know that. Obviously, there's still military monsters in Iran who're willing to cause chaos, but what's being told about Hormuz still seems pretty forced.
This list is different from the three-part mission Secretary of War Pete Hegseth laid out in the opening days of the war. On March 2, Hegseth said Operation Epic Fury’s three objectives were to destroy Iran’s offensive missile capabilities, cripple its navy, and prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.Somehow, it sounds like Davidson's unconcerned about even mere chemicals remaining in Iran's clutches, nor does he consider any possible pause could be to prepare additional military officials for battling Iran's jihadists. And then, Davidson continues to push propaganda in disfavor of war to defeat an evil entity:
Moreover, Rubio’s list makes no mention of other war aims that have been floated by President Trump, such as taking control of Iran’s nuclear materials (which was arguably the casus belli), regime change, or opening the Strait of Hormuz. Regarding the strait, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday night that Trump has told aides that he’s willing to end the war even if the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed, “likely extending Tehran’s firm grip on the waterway and leaving a complex operation to reopen it for a later date.” The reason for Trump’s sudden willingness to compromise, we’re told, is that a mission to reopen the strait would extend the conflict beyond Trump’s four- to six-week timeline.
Trump does seem aware that time is not on his side. Domestically, the war is unpopular. A consistent and sizable majority now disapproves of military strikes on Iran, and amid rising gas prices and general anxiety about the economy, Trump’s favorability rating has reached a record low for his second term. The unpopularity of the war will likely increase as time goes by, as will Trump’s disapproval rating.As expected, Mr. Davidson's obscuring previous research on Breitbart, in example, telling that a sizable majority of the USA public supports the war. Also, if this article tells something, Davidson's choice of polling material is as much from leftist Reuters as it is from Ipsos, so it's not hard to guess Davidson's relying too much upon leftist polling in the long run. What good does that do? This bias check page also indicates Ipsos is left-leaning. If Davidson's not willing to offer an analysis of what sites like Breitbart provide, then he's definitely not in favor of defeating Iran's jihadist tyrants at all. Besides, to win a war, you can't always rely on time limits in which to get the job done. I also notice Davidson fails to say whether he believes realists who care should call for stopping Islamic indoctrination. One more clue to why his whole "op-ed" is a joke.
Escalation in the form of the deployment of U.S. ground forces would deepen the war’s unpopularity. One recent Ipsos poll found 55 percent of Americans would not support the deployment of any ground troops to Iran, and only 7 percent would support a large-scale invasion of the country. Yet such an escalation seems to be in the works. The Pentagon is in the process of sending thousands of American soldiers and Marines to the Middle East in preparation for potentially weeks of ground operations in Iran, according to recent reporting from the Washington Post.
The White House therefore appears, at times anyway, to be operating under the assumption that the only way to deescalate the conflict at this point is to escalate, hoping to find a point at which the pain inflicted on the Iranians is sufficient to compel them to accept a negotiated settlement and acquiesce to U.S. demands.Sorry, but we shouldn't have to wait until Iran's tyrannical overlords once again try to pursue nuclear materials in order to attack them. And we also can't ignore the Religion of Peace's influence in this whole horror story. What needs to be done is preemptively strike against evil weapons being stored in secrecy, which is exactly how Iran's Islamic overlords will resume manufacturization if they're given the chance. And if Trump feels a ground operation is required to confiscate and destroy any chemical weapons in Iran that could still one day be used for causing mass deaths, then that's why the USA military must perform a ground operation if that's what it takes to take control of whatever obscene weapons Iran's dictators still possess.
That might work, but even if it does it will take time, and Trump and the GOP will pay a heavy political price domestically for it, both in the midterms and in 2028. It also might plunge the U.S. into a Vietnam-like quagmire, unable to win decisively or to extricate itself from the war. [...]
The stark truth is that the president has no good options, and the best course of action at this point might be to leverage the apparent malleability of declared U.S. war aims to assert that they have in fact been achieved, while reserving the right to attack again if Tehran pursues a nuclear weapon or continues to target U.S. bases or allies in the region.
Garbage like this is exactly why I've become hugely disillusioned and disappointed with the Federalist, as I've realized they're not really the "patriots" they must claim to be. Unless perhaps they replace him as editor, and find some writers who make a sad but necessary point that freedom isn't free, and that there's times where it's inevitable that sacrifices must be made, with the most important part being whether a call for improvement in education, religious or otherwise, can be made if you want to reduce the risks that're bound to occur in the future if the Religion of Peace is allowed to continue dominating anywhere. And Davidson's not doing anything like that. A real shame and disgrace he is.
Labels: anti-americanism, anti-semitism, dhimmitude, iran, islam, jihad, military, misogyny, Moonbattery, racism, RINOs, sexual violence, terrorism, United States, war on terror, White House







