NY Times Admits That Killing Soleimani Might Not Have Been a Terrible Idea

In an article from Peter Baker that we’re surprised passed the New York Times’ editorial desk, the paper came about as close as any leftist institution will dare come to admitting that, despite all the hype about international crimes and World War III, it could turn out that President Trump’s decision to kill Iranian Gen. Qaseem Soleimani was…maybe not the worst decision in the history of America after all.

From the Times:

The massive demonstrations and calls for retaliation in the region ultimately may not add up to more than “a little noise,” as Mr. Pompeo asserted. The Iraqi parliamentary vote to force American troops to leave was nonbinding and the caretaker government may not follow through if only to preserve a hedge against Iranian dominance. Even as Tehran vowed to move ahead with its nuclear program, it kept its options open by not expelling international inspectors.

And some experts on the region suggested that Mr. Trump’s very unpredictability was a deterrent in itself, arguing that the killing of General Suleimani may have been so brazen and shocking to Iranian leaders that they will be wary of provoking an American president evidently willing to escalate in ways his predecessors were not.

“Trump actually has a very strong hand vis-à-vis the clerical regime,” said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former C.I.A. specialist on Iran at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, an organization that has rallied opposition to Iran’s government. “Whether he chooses to play it, I don’t know. He’s not a strategist. But his tactical game hasn’t been bad. The hit on Suleimani was genius — totally flummoxed his opponent.”

Wow, when was the last time the New York Times quoted anyone saying that anything Trump did was even decent, much less “genius”? Like seriously, did Baker even run this by his editors?

Make no mistake, there was plenty of anti-Trump nonsense in the article, including a feature quote from hysterical Democrat Chris Murphy, who tweeted: “The moment we all feared is likely upon us. An unstable President in way over his head, panicking, with all his experienced advisers having quit, and only the sycophantic amateurs remaining. Assassinating foreign leaders, announcing plans to bomb civilians. A nightmare.”

But then again, publishing a quote that inane almost works against the leftist narrative. There’s hyperbole, and then there’s Murphy’s insanity. We’re sure that kind of idiocy plays well on Reddit’s r/politics and other left-wing hives, but anyone with a thimbleful of common sense can tell that it’s just unhinged partisanship – not serious criticism, by any means.

Fact is, after three years of service as commander-in-chief, President Trump has proven himself anything but impulsive and unstable. Indeed, he’s been a more sober and rational steward of our military than either of his two most recent predecessors. Surely even the propagandists at The New York Times can see that.

Comments are closed.