[Screenshot from The View, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oougr4BK_W4]
Did hosts of The View blame the President of the United States for Iran shooting down a Ukrainian airliner?
On Monday, leading ladies Whoopi and Joy commented on the attack — which cost the lives of 176 innocents.
Sunny Hostin launched the segment with House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff by asking about intel Trump referenced as justification for the strikes against General Qasem Soleimani.
Take it away, Sunny:
“President Trump now says he believes that Soleimani was planning to attack four embassies, including the bombing the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.”
“Did you hear any intelligence to support that claim,” she asked.
A very rosy-cheeked Schiff: Nope.
Prepare for a shock: Adam doesn’t support the White House’s attack.
He believes Iran’s attempt at vengeance (which I covered here) could’ve been much worse for America:
“Look, I don’t think the evidence, the intelligence, justifies the targeted killing of a loathsome — and yes, blood thirsty — person nonetheless, but justified the targeting killing of Soleimani if it was going to increase the risk to Americans.”
It’s always a question: You have to weigh our aggression against their potential response to it.
“[T]he risk I think to our personnel has gone up, not down, and I don’t think it was justified by the intelligence — at least not the intelligence that I’ve seen.”
Of course, you also have to weigh the possible consequences of our inaction.
Whoopi chimed in:
“And that Ukrainian plane would still be alive — the folks on that plane.”
Here we go.
Joy affirmed:
“The people on that plane would still be alive today.”
On Saturday, the Iranian government ‘fessed up: They fired the missile that took down the plane.
That sparked outcry from the Iranian citizenry over their government’s previous lies about the incident.
But lately, it seems there are mobs in Iran that might be more likely to sport a MAGA hat than some on American TV (here and here).
As for the removal of Soleimani putting the U.S. in danger, again, I ask: At what point does inaction bring worse harm?
As for now, Iran’s “revenge” involved a strike on Al-Asad which wrought no casualties.
Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched.
We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.
— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 8, 2020
For a counterpoint, the girls at The View should have on Marco Rubio.
He’s got quite the different perspective:
“I believe that Iran was on the verge of scaling up the attacks that they were aiming against United States, probably through surrogates in many places — not just in Iraq, but in Syria as well –and the United States had to take action in order to prevent that from happening and to make very clear what would happen if they undertook further attacks.
…
“It is called self-defense. The United States has over 5,000 military personnel in Iraq and, of course, additional personnel in Syria who are under direct threat — not just from Iran but from their proxy groups. And Iran needs to understand if we are attacked — whether it’s directly by the Iranians, or through these proxy groups — we will respond.”
-ALEX
Relevant RedState links in this article: here, here and here.
See 3 more pieces from me:
Find all my RedState work here.
And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.
Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member