It is absolutely amazing to watch the knee-jerk reactions of leading Democrats to EVERYTHING that President Trump does. Regardless of issue, circumstance, or implications, they are flat-out against every action by the President to the point of apparent insanity in their public statements.

The latest example is their reaction to the drone strike that took out IRGC-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani and Kata’ib Hezbollah founder and leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis on Friday. These two were responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans, and yet the first responses by Democrats were not congratulatory but rather were critical of the Presidents’ actions while having no knowledge of the classified intelligence that led to the preemptive strike on those two terrorists. Not one word of even subdued praise that those two were blown to bits, but plenty of insane criticism of the President’s actions taken to protect and safeguard Americans from imminent terrorist attacks in Iraq and elsewhere in the region!

This article dissects comments made by the execrable Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who also happens to be a member of the “Gang of Eight,” on the ABC Sunday news programs “This Week with George Stephanopolous.” The Gang of Eight (Intelligence) are the eight members of Congress who are regularly briefed by the Executive Branch on intelligence matters. The eight include the Senate majority and minority leaders, the House speaker and minority leader, and the majority and ranking members of the Senate and House Permanent Select Committees on intelligence.

The Gang of Eight are not just recipients of briefings; they are charged with staying abreast of tactical and strategic threats to the United States around the world. That’s their job – and if they’re doing their job, they would be well aware of the changing threats especially in an active theater of war in which US military forces and supporting contractors are deployed/stationed. And that most definitely applies to the Middle East, especially Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. Note that all of those countries have active Iranian-backed Shi’a militia that have killed Americans over the past 18 years. The Gang of Eight would thus know about direct actions by these militia throughout 2019, as well as be aware of the increasing security threats resulting from attacks by Iranian-backed proxies over the past several months (e.g., on international shipping in the Arabian Gulf and the rocket/drone attacks on Saudi oil refinery facilities). I mean, if we have access to this open source table, they would surely know about these attacks, too, as well as much, much more:

It’s important to keep this in mind as we examine Schumer’s filibustering on Stephanopolous’s show. Here is some of the Q&A, with my analysis interlaced throughout. Virtually every sentence Schumer makes must be carefully dissected in order to know the truth. Let’s get started.

Stephanopolous: I do want to talk first about Iran. You heard Secretary Pompeo say America and the world is safer today. Do you agree? Schumer: No, I really worry that the actions the President took will get us into what he calls another endless war in the Middle East. He promised we wouldn’t have that, and I think we’re closer to that now because of his actions. Look, there are so many questions that are unanswered … that have to be answered, among them at the top of the list, what do we know that Iran has in the range of its retaliations, and how are we going to prepare for them?

Me: Schumer says that the world is “not safer” now that the two most effective terrorists in the Middle East are dead. That’s just plain insane! Refer to this article that details the deeds of Soleimani and al-Muhandis. He completely ignored the celebrations throughout the Middle East – including Iran! – when knew of their deaths became known. Schumer then makes the leap that President Trump is “getting us into another endless war.” Complete nonsense! That drone strike was a narrowly-focused preemptive strike on the two senior terrorists who planned the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad and were planning more wide-spread attacks on US facilities in Iraq and elsewhere. The Iranians have been committing “acts of war” throughout 2019 – attacking oil tankers in international waters being but one example. The drone attack that popped those two was righteous. Then Schumer has to ask the generic question, “what do we know about Iran’s ‘range of retaliations’?” As if he doesn’t already know that as a member of the Gang of Eight! We’ve been in a virtual hot war with Iranian proxies (militia and “special groups” for 18 years and understand full well their capabilities and options. US military planners have dozens of pre-planned response options prepared for anything the Iranians might choose to do in the way of retaliation/escalation. President Trump isn’t “starting a war.” He’s protecting and safeguarding US personnel in the region – his job as President and Commander-in-Chief.

Schumer continued: And let’s face it, this president has made a mess of foreign policy. North Korea – they’re much stronger than when he started. In Syria, he messed up. Every encounter he has with Putin he loses. And so, I am really worried, and that is why Congress must assert itself. I don’t believe the President has authority to go to war in Iraq without congressional authority.

Me: What incredible lies! Simply breath-taking! This is simply the old Democrat politic tactic of transference – in this instance transferring Barack Obama’s disastrous foreign policy to President Trump. Obama made a hash of Libya (Benghazi), Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood in charge), Syria (the ridiculous “red line”), Iraq (ISIS and the empowerment of Soleimani, for Heaven’s sake!!), Venezuela (failed state), Russia (doing nothing about Crimea or Ukraine incursions), and Iran (failed nuclear deal and Soleimani unchained). President Trump has spent the last three years cleaning up Obama’s disasters, building strong alliances in the Middle East, and reining in Iranian-sponsored terrorism throughout the region. What do you suppose Kim Jong-Un is thinking about after watching Soleimani getting taken out in a drone attack? That’s a restoration of US deterrence actions after 8 years of Obama’s soft power, as detailed here. He then claims without a single example that he loses every encounter with Putin. Hmmm. We are now the world’s number 1 producer of oil and gas, which is a direct threat to the Russian exports to Europe by depressing prices and providing alternatives to Russian oil and gas. And unlike Obama, President Trump gave lethal military aid to Ukraine. How is President Trump “losing,” Chuck? His last statement is a bald-faced lie, too: “the President doesn’t have the authority to go to war in Iraq.” President Trump has all the authority he needs to decisively safeguard and protect US personnel in Iraq based on EXISTING authorization from Congress, as well as inherent responsibility as US commander-in-chief. US forces already have rules of engagement in effect in Iraq, and for good reason.

Stephanopolous: Secretary Pompeo said they do. Schumer: Well, I don’t believe that, and I think Congress and I will do everything we can to assert our authority. We do not need this president either bumbling, or impulsively getting us into a major war. And the reason the Founding Fathers said Congress had to okay it is because that’s a check on a president who is doing so many wrong things. His foreign policy has been erratic and unsuccessful thus far. I worry it still is.

Me: Sorry, Chuck. You didn’t have a problem with continuing US involvement across the Middle East when Obama was president. President Trump is operating under the exact same authorizations you gladly gave Obama. That check-and-balance crap is for the rubes who don’t understand those authorizations. You also know full well that Congress failed to pass a congressional authorization for use of military force dealing with Iran last year, as noted below. So give it your best shot again, Chuck.

Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters in May that classified intelligence reports showed a “cause for concern” about Iran targeting U.S. personnel. In October, upon returning from a congressional trip to the Middle East, Thornberry predicted that the U.S. military would be “tested,” and mentioned Iran as a possible antagonist. Against this backdrop, Congress held the two votes designed to limit Trump’s ability to start a war with Iran. On June 28, the Senate voted, 50-40, to include an amendment sponsored by Kaine and New Mexico Democrat Tom Udall requiring congressional approval for entering a conflict with Iran to the annual defense policy bill. But the amendment failed to meet a required 60-vote threshold and was not adopted.

Returning to the Q&A:

Stephanopolous: You heard Secretary Pompeo say that what they’ve been doing is cleaning up the mess in Iran left by President Obama. You were originally against the Iranian nuclear agreement. Schumer: Yeah, but the bottom line is very simple here. Um, President Bush – hardly a dove – … President Obama had the opportunity to take out Soleimani. They didn’t. We don’t know the reasons it had to be done now. They don’t seem very clear. The document they sent us last night is very unsatisfying as to that – even though I can’t talk about it because the whole thing is classified.

Me: Notice how Chuck didn’t answer the question posed by Stephanopolous. Schumer was originally against Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran because he knew it was flawed from the beginning, but he topic-shifted to the drone attack that killed Soleimani and al-Muhandis. Regarding his comments on that classified document provided by the Trump Administration summarizing the reasons for the drone attack, his response is weak as hell. If there was no good rationale in that classified document, he would have said that, but he made a mealy-mouthed comment about it not being “very clear.” He’s hiding behind the classification issue to obfuscate and misdirect what was almost certainly a clear justification for the drone attack. In fact, Secretary Pompeo stated unequivocally that the strike was preemptive in nature and done to protect US personnel, as reported here. Occam’s razor says that that is exactly what that classified document which served as notification to congressional leaders after the fact actually stated. And Schumer knows that and lied about it.

Schumer continued: Whatever they’re doing is unusual here. There was no consultation. Every other president … the leaders were called ahead of time at least to let them know what they’re doing. And again, the Founding Fathers wanted Congress … they gave Congress the war-making authority because they wanted a check on the executive. This executive seems to have no check, and again, he’s been erratic and unsuccessful in almost every previous foreign policy endeavor. This one is the most dangerous of all. We need Congress to be a check on this president.

Me: This is more blather and bleating. How many leaks of classified information have there been to the legacy media by Democrats and their supporters in the federal bureaucracy over the past three years? Dozens, if not hundreds; everything from illegal unmaskings of American citizens to the transcripts of phone calls between President Trump and various heads of state. And we know that the Obama regime even warned Iran about a probably Israeli assassination attempt on Soleimani in 2015. The US legacy media is filled with sympathizers of the Iranian regime who would only be too happy to pass classified information to Tehran.

Stephanopolous: You mentioned no consultation. I showed Secretary Pompeo that tweet … that retweet from President Trump suggesting that you weren’t consulted for the same reason that the Iranians weren’t. Schumer: This is the kind of foolishness that the President engages in in a very serious situation.

Me: Foolishness? You knew the Iranian threat, you knew who was behind the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad, and you knew that Soleimani and al-Muhandis were together responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans (some of whom were almost certainly your own constituents!). And yet, rather than reserve judgment – or worse yet, ignore the information in that classified memorandum received from the Trump Administration – you have the shameless audacity to attack the President rather than praise his actions for saving the lives of US personnel in Iraq and elsewhere.

The President had a narrow window in which to make a decision to conduct that drone attack – reportedly 90 seconds. Some enterprising “journalist” needs to ask Chuck Schumer a direct question: would you rather have seen Soleimani and al-Muhandis walking around and planning terrorist actions against US personnel and our allies, or are you at least a tiny bit thankful that President Trump took decisive action to hold them personally account for the American lives lost for which they were personally responsible?

Thank God for President Trump. As for Chuck Schumer? A large dose of public shaming and derision is in order.

The end.

Stu Cvrk served 30 years in the US Navy in a variety of active and reserve capacities, with considerable operational experience in the Middle East and the Western Pacific. An oceanographer and systems analyst through education and experience, Stu is a graduate of the US Naval Academy where he received a classical liberal education which serves as the key foundation for his political commentary. He threads daily on Twitter on a wide range of political, military, foreign policy, government, economics, and world affairs topics. Read more by Stu Cvrk