WSJ Stumbles Into Huge Admission: Trump Needed Impeachment Support

21
427

The Wall Street Journal might have buried the biggest lede in history, and should be crying in embarrassment right now.

If I simply put it to you that a generic United States president, finding himself at the center of one of the worst corruption accusations in history, needed the support of his party, and thus orders an evil man on the other side of the world assassinated. It would send the nation reeling.

In a generic world, a generic president orders a generic bad guy killed to get a bump from a few senators in his party, we would go friggin’ nuts. It would be insane, a gut punch to the entire nation.

Yet with Trump, it is assumed as an expected political calculation. It gets a quote in the middle of a story about the whole scandal. There is no need to worry about “the base,” because Trump is their OJ and he can shoot someone on 5th Ave, or order a missile on someone’s head and will only gain in stature. There is really no need to worry about compliant Republicans in government, because they live every day under fear of the career ending tweet.

In another part of the world, it would be assumed that we’re talking about a rogue nation, perhaps a new democracy, struggling with powerful juntas. Or Putin and his polonium.

Nope. Just us.

Right, Wall Street Journal?

Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate. 

It is about impeachment. Our president killed a guy to help himself politically. (And damn it, no one is feeling sorry for “the guy,” Soleimani, he was an evil terrorist who had killed many people. It is just a principle, an extremely important one).

The administration just admitted it as an aside, to fill-in the bigger picture. They figure it will come out eventually, and it’s best to just get it out, act like it is obvious, “of course he did.” When they kill a guy, they make sure the body ends up on 5th Avenue because it’s all fine, they aren’t hiding it. They couldn’t afford to do it beyond closed doors, too dangerous.

What more is there to say?

No wonder Trump was walking around Mar a’ Lago talking up “something big” coming, with a wink and a sly smile. He fcking loves this shit.

Just to make a point about the seriousness of all this in the real world, there was nothing in that missile that made sure it would only explode if it hit Soleimani. We have had missiles that short circuit or whatever and veer off 300 yards, landing in the middle of a neighborhood, killing 3 families. When you order missiles around where people live, people get killed, sometimes the wrong ones become “damage.” It would all happen because someone needed some “impeachment help.”

We are the United States. For over 60 years, we had the ability to strong arm governments all over the world to “do the right thing,” because the United States couldn’t support anything less. No, we were not at all perfect, not at any point. But we were “good enough,” that it meant something.

All that good-will bought by giants like Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford, H.W. Bush, is gone, and not coming back this generation.

It would take a uniquely horrible president to do away with all of it over three short years. It happens under Trump’s spell, with the assistance of a deeply cynical and shameless Republican party.

They admit it.

****

Peace, y’all

Jason

jmiciak@yahoo.com and on Twitter @MiciakZoom

 

Liked it? Take a second to support Jason Miciak and PolitiZoom on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

21 Comments on "WSJ Stumbles Into Huge Admission: Trump Needed Impeachment Support"

avatar
newest oldest most voted
mae
Member

Always select the most self serving option for trump. The same story over and over again.

Denis Elliott
Member
You mentioned the elder Bush. I’ve said this before but this seems like a good time to say it again. The younger Bush (“W”/43) was the United State’s “WTF is wrong with you guys? Have you lost your freaking minds electing & then re-electing this guy? This was such a no-brainer it shouldn’t have even been close!” moment r.e. our leadership in the world. With the election & then re-election of Obama, plus the GOP nominating qualified candidates to run against him) plus Obama winning handily both times the world appeared to have decided Bush 43 was a temporary lapse… Read more »
Bareshark
Guest

Given the last three years, Deniis, you got a goddamn good reason to be so goddamn bitter. Our soft power and prestige is officially done…and the next logical step is us getting run out of Iraq.

Liz
Guest

I understand your bitterness, Denis. Please know that I, and millions of others, value your sacrifices. It still means something. Thank you for your service to us all.

mae
Member

You have a right to your feelings. If I had served, I would feel the same.

Bareshark
Guest

You know, I’m not sure I’m buying this, honestly. On the one hand, sure, it makes sense and it’s the kind of quid pro quo they’ve come to expect would work best in dealing with him. On the other hand, they’ve also seen him eff up again and again on the simplest stuff and this sounds like the sort of blame game Trump loves to play when things inevitably go bad.

Edward
Guest

Proof read or spell check please. Eisenhauer

Joseph
Guest

Spellcheck wouldn’t necessarily help. I just opened a Word document and entered “Eisenhauer” and it registered as okay. (Typing it just then here, it registers as wrong.)

And, just for the record, “proofread” is one word while “spell-check” should be hyphenated (oddly, a program that does such work is “spellchecker”). I suppose “spell check” is correct, if you’re a witch or wizard because you want to check that your spell is correct but when you’re talking about spelling, either hyphenate or use the phrase “check your spelling.”

p j evans
Member

Buried in the 29th paragraph of the story, on page A11. They couldn’t make it more clear whose side they’re on if they put it in 72-point type on the front page of each section.

underwriter505
Guest

All murderers value something they want or think they need over the life of someone else.I’m not sure why we find it more shocking when the murderer does it in person that we do when someone does it at long distance through agents, like this murder. Somehow it seems this should be more shocking.